I move—

The decision of the Union Government to introduce legislation extending the period of the Asiatics (Transvaal Land and Trading) Act of 1939, and restricting the right of Europeans and Asiatics to acquire and occupy certain properties in Natal, has been taken only after the most careful and exhaustive examination of all the facts, and the consideration of ways and means of dealing with the problem which has arisen in a manner otherwise than by legislation. The Government is satisfied, however, that a situation has arisen in Durban, Natal, which, in the interest of the European as well as the Indian community residing there, requires legislative action along the lines proposed in this Bill. I do not propose this morning to review the long and complicated history of legislation in the Transvaal concerning Asiatic land tenure and occupation, going back, as it does, to the early days of Law No. 3 of 1885 and culminating in the 1935 Interim Act which was extended by Parliament in 1941, and the translation into reality of certain of the Feetham Resolutions in 1942, resolutions which, as hon. members will recollect, released defined areas on the Proclaimed land in the Witwatersrand from the restrictive provisions of the Transvaal Gold Law of 1908. Nor do I intend to remind the House of the events in Natal following upon the report of the Lange Commission in March, 1921, and the abortive Class Areas Bill of 1924 and the Areas Reservations Bill of 1925. These are matters which have passed into our history and are well known to those who have made a close study of the Indian problem in South Africa. I wish this morning to deal with the facts as they face the Government at the present time and those facts are that in Durban a situation has arisen which has compelled the Government to resort to legislative action. For many years past the cry has come from Natal that in Durban, and elsewhere, predominantly European areas have gradually and systematically been invaded by members of the Asiatic community. Shortly after the present Government assumed office in September, 1939, I was, in my capacity as Minister of the Interior, confronted with these complaints. We, the Government, had come into power at the beginning of the war when all our energies were harnessed to the task of prosecuting the war, and the maintenance of internal security. And it was quite obvious that while the Government could not ignore these complaints, giving rise, as they inevitably were doing, to friction between the two racial groups in Natal, it had no desire whatever to embark on a solution of this problem along the lines of legislation. It quickly became apparent that this problem of infiltration — of Indian penetration into predominantly European areas—could not be ignored. The Department of the Interior through the Commissioner for Immigration, and I personally, made contact with the representatives of the Indian community in Durban and with representatives of the Durban City Council, with a view to dealing with the situation. We had a number of full and frank discussions in regard to this problem. I think that I may fairly say that it was admitted by the representatives of the Indians, the Natal Indian Association, with which the Government was dealing at that time, that this infiltration was undesirable at the very least on the ground that it did lead in fact to friction between the two racial groups. That has been admitted by representatives of the Natal Indian Association and others with whom the Government has had to deal. They have faced up to that position in a fair and equitable manner and, as I shall have occasion to state later, the responsible representatives of that Association have, I think, made an honest, genuine and statesmanlike effort to assist the Government in dealing with this matter along non-statutory lines. The result of those discussions in 1940 in Durban was the setting up of a Committee, a Joint Committee of representatives of the Natal Indian Association, and the City Council of Durban. I think I can best put the objectives of that Committee before the House by quoting from its terms of reference. The Committee which became subsequently known as the Lawrence Committee, had as its terms of reference the following—

The whole object of this Lawrence Committee was an attempt, along non-statutory lines, to deal with this vexed question of penetration into European areas. It was one of the primary objectives of the setting up of that Committee that, by joint consultation between representatives of the Indian community and the Durban City Council, the real and genuine housing needs and other civic needs of the Indian community would be brought home to the Durban City Council and would receive fuller treatment than they had done in the past. The object of the Committee was not merely to stop this infiltration by members of the Indian community. It was definitely intended as an attempt by a round table conference, by consultations and discussions, to meet the needs of the Indian community in regard to housing and other civic amenities in Durban. That Committee was established in March, 1940. In December, 1941, the Durban Borough Council withdrew its members from the Committee. They alleged that the Committee had been a failure, and they contended that the reason for that failure was that the Lawrence Committee had no statutory powers, no sanctions. I shall come back to that at a later stage. In May, 1940, the Government decided to appoint what has become known as the First Broome Commission to enquire into and report whether Indians had, and, if so, to what extent, since the 1st January, 1927, commenced occupation of or acquired sites for trading or for residential purposes in predominantly European areas in the Provinces of Natal and the Transvaal (excluding land proclaimed under the Precious and Base Metals Act, 1908, as amended, of the Transvaal), and the reasons for such occupation or acquisition. The Government decided on the appointment of the Commission in order to obtain an authoritative statement of the facts in regard to the position both in the Transvaal and Natal. It was a very definite hope and wish of the Government that, during the period of that enquiry, the Lawrence Committee would be able to hold the position and that the experience of the Lawrence Committee might enable a final decision to be arrived at along non-statutory lines. The Lawrence Committee functioned until the end of 1941 and during twelve months of its life the Broome Commission was sitting. The Broome Commission reported in the latter part of 1941 and its report was published in 1942. That report disclosed a serious position in Durban. It found that 512 cases of penetration had taken place in predominantly European areas in a period of thirteen years. It found that the sites acquired and occupied by Indians numbered 150, while those acquired but not occupied numbered 362, making a total of 512. The Broome Commission found that the main reason for the acquisition of sites—that is acquired but not occupied sites—was the desire to invest money by the wealthier members of the Indian population. “The desire to invest accounts for most of the acquisitions without the occupation,” said the Report. Now that Report was in the hands of the Government in the latter part of 1941, but despite that report, efforts were made by the Government to revive the Lawrence Committee, and to make further attempts to deal with this matter along non-statutory lines. I personally, accompanied by the Commissioner for Immigration, interviewed the representatives of the Indian community and of the Durban City Council in May, 1942. It was urged that, further efforts, that every possible effort, should be made to revive the Committee. At that stage the Durban City Council alleged that infiltration by Indians in predominantly European areas had taken place at an increased pace in recent months. It was alleged that the position had become very much more serious since the matter was enquired into, by the First. Broome Commission, in October, 1940. And the Government was urged at that time to revive the Lawrence Committee and to give it statutory powers to deal with these matters—in other words, it was asked to revive the Committee and to re-constitute it in the shape of a Licensing Board. We had very full discussions at that time and at the end of these discussions an agreed statement was issued, a statement agreed to by the Durban City Council and by the members of the Natal Indian Association. In that statement it was said that the City Council of Durban had alleged that there had been a serious acceleration of purchases in European areas by members of the Indian community, and that in view of what had taken place they urged the Government seriously to consider giving statutory powers to the Committee to deal with this matter. It was said that, in coming to a conclusion on this matter, the Government would be guided by two factors, namely, the measure of co-operation which might take place in future between the Durban City Council and the members of the Indian community, and whether or not penetration by members of the Indian community into predominantly European areas took place in the interim. At this stage, of course, it is quite clear from the subsequent Broome Report, which is in the hands of hon. members, that the fears of the Durban City Council were justified. The actual figures were not known to the Government at the time, but it is clear that in May these fears were justified. But even at that stage further attempts were made to deal with the matter along non-statutory lines. These most recent attempts were abortive. The Durban City Council refused to allow its representatives to sit on the Lawrence Committee and the Lawrence Committee was dead. Thereupon a further conference was held in Pretoria in December, 1942, at which the case for Durban was put forward not only by the representatives of the Durban City Council but by representatives of the Executive of the Provincial Council of Natal. Most serious allegations were made as to the increased pace of acquisitions in Durban by Indians in predominantly European areas. The result was that the Government decided that it must now arrive at a decision on this crisp issue before the position developed any further. These allegations were very serious. The case made by the Durban City Council was that, since evidence had been tendered before the first Broome Commission in October, 1940, infiltration had taken place at an alarmingly increased rate. It was a simple and crisp issue. The Government decided to put it to the test by appointing Mr. Justice Broome as a single Commissioner to enquire and report. Mr. Justice Broome has reported, and his Report clearly shows that acquisitions by Indians from Europeans in the Municipal area of Durban have taken place at an alarmingly increased pace since October 1940. The figures show that in the two months of October and November, 1940, the number of sites acquired was twelve at a purchase price £10,370. In 1941 seventy-seven sites were acquired, in 1942 one hundred and ninety-five sites, and in January and February of this year forty-two making a total of 326 sites purchased at a total cost of £601,385. Mr. Justice Broome in his Report sets out for comparative purposes the sites acquired by Indians in the years going back to 1927, the starting point of the enquiry of the first Broome Commission, and then he makes this comment in Paragraph 19 of the second report:

These, then, are the facts with which the Government is confronted at the present time. These facts have undoubtedly given rise to a state of affairs in which the strongest feelings on the part of the European population of Durban have been aroused, and the Union Government is convinced that, unless it takes action on the lines now contemplated, racial feelings in Durban and elsewhere in Natal will be fanned to a pitch which would make it quite impossible for the merits of the claim of the Indian community, to receive adequate housing and other civic amenities, to be considered in a calm and dispassionate atmosphere. There is no doubt whatever that the Durban Indian community has very strong and justifiable claims for the provision of improved civic amenities. I have no doubt of that whatever. I shall touch on that aspect of the matter at a later stage, but before doing so, and before dealing with the provisions of the Bill. I should inform the House that very full and very complete representations have been made to the Government through me by representatives of the Natal Indian Association and the Natal Indian Congress. The representatives of these two bodies have put their case in the fullest and completest terms. They have done so in a fair and equitable manner, a manner which does credit to both these bodies—they have acted in a representative capacity, and they have put forward their representations calmly and moderately, and they have dealt with the matter on its merits. I am indeed indebted to them for the manner in which they have made their representations to the Government. Now, one of the reasons which is advanced by the Indian representatives against this legislation is that, since 1922, the Indian community has never been given an opportunity of acquiring land from the Durban City Council from its unalienated lands. In a memorandum submitted by them they certainly made out a prima facie case in that regard. They say that the Durban City Council has not provided them with the opportunity of purchasing property from its unalienated lands, but they go on to contend that, if the Durban Corporation has provided proper housing facilities in decent surroundings, this penetration would not have taken place. It is on that point that I join issue with the representatives of the Indian community. I have already informed the House that the original Broome report found, with reference to the 512 cases of penetration, that 362 of the sites had been acquired but not occupied; and in the second Broome report it was said by Mr. Justice Broome that the majority of the 362 sites are at present in European occupation. In other words, of approximately 800 properties which have been purchased by Indians in predominantly European areas, less than 30 per cent. are occupied by Indians. If the claim is that the need for better housing facilities is the cause of this penetration, then these figures show that that claim is not correct. The reason undoubtedly is that the Indians who have purchased are doing so and have done so as a means of investment of their surplus money. If their actual need was housing, one would have expected those houses to have been occupied. It is clear that the main cause of penetration in Durban has been speculation, not house-hunger. I shall return to the question of housing later because I do not think that the above contention should be allowed to cloud the issue that there very definitely is a need for better housing and for improved civic amenities for Indians in Durban at the present time. Then it is claimed by the Natal Indian Association that from September, 1940, to the 4th July, 1941, only three acquisitions in what the Report refers to as Block Al took place. That is, that only three acquisitions took place during the time the Lawrence Committee was functioning. It is also contended that in 1940 only 59 cases of penetration took place. When one looks at the figures one finds that is correct. In 1940 59 cases took place, but in 1941 77 cases took place, and I think that argument in itself, that contention in itself, is a vindication of the claim of the Durban City Council that the Lawrence Committee has failed. If during a time when there is machinery to deal with the matter on non-statutory lines, in one year there are 59 cases of penetration and in another year 77 cases—in fact a greater number than in any previous period covered by the Report—surely that is an indication that the attempt to deal with the matter along voluntary lines has failed. Then, finally, it was contended that this legislation is a violation of the Cape Town Agreement. It was said to me by the Indian representatives that it was implicit in the Cape Town Agreement of 1927 that no segregation legislation should take place. Well, Sir, this is not segregation legislation. This is an interim and temporary measure providing for a standstill of three years—it is a measure aimed not only at the Indian community of Durban, but against the European community too. Let me say at once that if the acquisition in predominantly European areas of property by Indians is undesirable, and it is admitted by the Indians that it is undesirable, then it is not merely the Indians who purchase such property who are to blame, but the European sellers as well. And do not let us forget further that if there is any moral blame in this matter, that blame is not to be attributed solely to the Indians but that blame also rests on those members of the European community who have enabled that state of affairs to take place. I say that this is not segregation legislation—this is an interim measure to provide for a standstill to enable the Government to deal with the matter on a much wider basis than it has hitherto been dealt with. But if it is suggested that the Cape Town Agreement excluded the possibility of legislation, then I would remind the House and the representatives of the Indian community that that is not so. The Cape Town Agreement of 1927 did not exclude the possibility of some form of legislation being necessary at some time in the future. The Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was Minister of the Interior at the time of the completion of the Cape Town Agreement, and in making a statement in respect of that Cape Town Agreement in Parliament on the 21st February, 1927, he said this—

That was the statement made by the hon. member for Piquetberg in this House at the time when he was Minister of the Interior. I say, therefore, that this Bill is not in conflict with the provisions of the Cape Town Agreement which did contemplate legislation and that in any event, it is not legislation of a segregation character. Now I have stated the position which has arisen in Natal—it is a position which has compelled the Government to act. The provisions of this Bill are aimed not only at the Indians, bat at the members of the European community as well. The Bill prohibits acquisitions by Europeans from Indians and by Indians from Europeans, as from the fixed date, namely 22nd March, 1943. That was the date on which a statement was made by me in the Senate warning both the Europeans and the Indians of Natal that, if as a result of the report of the Broome Commission, the Government was compelled to take action, that action would be retrospective to March 23rd.

Are you trying to prevent European penetration?

The Government is trying to deal with the matter of preventing undesirable acquisitions of properties which involve transactions between two persons, members of two different communities, and, if it deals with that matter, it has to deal with these two aspects. The provisions of the Bill also regulate the position in regard to occupation. Properties occupied by Indians on the fixed date may remain occupied by Indians, properties occupied by Europeans may continue to be so occupied.

By Europeans only?

Yes. These provisions of the Bill will, if the Bill becomes operative, be applicable only to the Municipal area of Durban. There is, however, provision that these provisions may be extended to other areas, but only after due enquiry by a commission to be appointed for that purpose.

Why not apply it to the whole of Natal?

There is undoubtedly anxiety in other parts of Natal in regard to this matter, but the provisions of the Bill specifically state that no extension of the restrictive provisions may be made without the report of a Commission which will go into the matter. Then there is also provision that a given area which has been placed under the restrictive clause may be de-proclaimed. Durban which will, on the passing of this Bill, become a proclaimed area, may, at any time in the future, before the lapse of the Bill, be de-proclaimed. Provision is made for the issue of permits. The main feature of the Bill is to provide for a standstill, but discretion is vested in the Minister to grant permits. There is a three years’ limitation provided in the Bill and provision is made for review by Parliament after full consideration and enquiry. That three years’ limitation and the provision for de-proclamation have been made for very good reasons. I have stated that allegations have been made that the Indian community of Durban has not been provided with adequate housing and other civic amenities. A strong prima facie case has been made out in regard to that allegation. It is not possible, however, on the facts before the Government, and without more enquiry, to take a decision on that. But it is the intention of the Union Government upon the passing of this legislation immediately to proceed with the appointment of a Commission, …

Another one?

To be presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court, to enquire into and report on matters affecting the Indian Community of the Province of Natal, with special reference to Housing arid Health needs, Civic Amenities, and the provision of adequate residential, educational, religious and recreational facilities; and to make recommendations generally as to what steps are necessary further to implement the Cape Town Agreement of 1927 within the said Province. It has been suggested to the Government by the Natal Indian Association that the Government should hold some form of enquiry, but should not legislate in the meantime to provide for a standstill. The Indians of Durban, it is said, will accept the fixed date of the 22nd March, 1943, on a voluntary basis, and an assurance will be given that no penetration will take place in the interim. Well, Sir, I fully accept the goodwill and the good intentions of the representatives of the Indian community who have made that suggestion, but I think that the House will agree that the fate of the Lawrence Committee has shown that, while many Indians were prepared scrupulously to preserve the “gentleman’s agreement” and refrained from purchasing properties in predominantly European areas, there were others who bought up deliberately as much property in those areas as they could. There is no doubt that the Natal Indian Association members of the Lawrence Committee did attempt to use their influence in a considerable degree to restrain as far as they could further infiltration into European areas, and they are not to blame that this experiment of a non-statutory solution has, for the time being at any rate, failed. It is those Indians, presumably of the wealthier class, whose precipitate and premeditated action has made this “pegging” legislation necessary. This legislation, as I say, is designed to give a respite, a breathing space, during which the wider aspects of the problem can be more fully examined and impartially analysed. It is quite clear that the present position in Durban cannot be allowed to continue. It is quite clear that in the interests of both sections of the community this infiltration must stop. But there must be more adequate facilities, greater space for the Indian community, greater housing facilities. These needs must be recognised by the European population. I may perhaps read what appeared in the Natal Press recently, and I commend it to the House:

We must make provision not on compulsory but on voluntary lines—the solution lies in the provision of adequate housing and other facilities to which members of each community will be attracted by a natural process. There, I think, lies the solution of this question. And by taking this breathing space we are trying to create the necessary atmosphere for bringing about the state of affairs which we think is essential in this country. During this interim period when the Judicial Commission will be sitting the Durban City Council will be placed on its trial. The Government cannot prejudge the issue. It cannot on the existing facts say whether the charges made against the Durban City Council are true—whether they are wholly or partly true or not true at all. But the Durban City Council must understand that it will be on its trial. It may be able to meet the charges against it, but the Government has within its power under this Bill, through this de-proclamation clause, the right to remove the protection which it is giving to Durban, and it should be clearly understood by the City Council of Durban that in this matter one has to deal equitably and fairly with both sections of the community. The provisions of this interim legislation will pave the way for this enquiry. The Union Government is convinced that, by allaying strong feeling throughout the Province of Natal through the maintenance of the status quo, it will enable a situation to be created in which the merits of the Indian case in Durban, and elsewhere in Natal, can be fully investigated, and that the way will be paved for the provision of facilities for the Indian community which it does not possess at the present time. It is the intention of the Union Government to invite representatives of the Indian community to serve upon the Commission which is to be appointed. I am fully conscious of the anxiety felt by the Indians of Natal in regard to this legislation. I have tried to keep in touch with them and have, through the Department of the Interior, through the Commissioner for Immigration, I think been able to exercise patience and tolerance in regard to the developments that have taken place. But a stage has been reached where further patience and further tolerance would not merely be weakness, but folly on the part of the Government. If the Government were to fail to act at this stage, it would be shirking its duty, not only to the European community, but to the Indian community as well. I come then to the position in the Transvaal. The provisions of this Bill dealing with the Transvaal can be divided into two sections. There is, first of all, the clause which has been inserted in order to renew the protective provisions of the 1939 Act. There are still certain Indians occupying stands on Proclaimed areas in the Witwatersrand illegally, but they have been afforded a measure of protection by successive acts, culminating in the 1941 extension of the 1939 Act. Those are Indians who are occupying individual stands recommended for exemption by the Feetham Commission. In 1941 Resolutions were approved by Parliament freeing certain areas on proclaimed land from the restrictive provisions of the Gold Law. As the House will recollect the Feetham Commission recommended, in addition, that certain individual stands should also be exempted. Enquiries are still being made in regard to those individual stands. As hon. members will remember, the Feetham Commission itself took a somewhat lengthy period in its Herculean task of going into the question. It sat for some years. It was only in 1941 that it was possible to secure the passing of the Resolutions dealing with those areas. I understand a stage has now been reached where within a few months we shall be able finally to deal with the cases of the individual stands. I think that I am correctly interpreting the position in the Transvaal when I say that at the present time a cordial relationship exists between the European and the Indian communities in the Transvaal. And, in the opinion of the Union Government, this very cordial relationship at the present time is primarily attributable to the fact that the control of the 1939 Act has been exercised over licences and occupation, and that, in consequence, conditions have not arisen which might have led to friction between the two racial groups. In these circumstances the Union Government considers that in the interests of the Transvaal Indian community itself, it would be most inopportune at the present time to remove the control which has existed, and to subject the Indian community of the Transvaal to an anti-Asiatic campaign which otherwise would probably ensue. In these circumstances this Bill renews the control provisions of the 1939 Act for a further period of three years. This will enable the position in Natal and in the Transvaal to be dealt with together by Parliament in a general review of the situation in 1946. Again strong representations have been made by the representatives of the Indian community. The Transvaal Indian Congress has seen me by way of deputation. Its case has been argued by its secretary, Mr. Nana, in a very full and a very brilliant manner. No one could have stated the case better than it was stated on their behalf of the secretary of that Congress. There are undoubtedly arguments in favour of the contention that the control provisions might be removed, but I think it is fair to say that the measure of control which has been exercised in the course of the last three and a half years has been sympathetic. It has been done in a manner which has not led to the detriment of the Indian community, and I am convinced and satisfied that the result of that control has brought about these better feelings between the two races. I am equally convinced that if these control provisions were to be removed, there would immediately ensue a campaign which would react to the detriment, of the Indian community, and I would ask those members of the Indian community, who have so eloquently and fairly urged the Government to drop the control provision at this stage, to remember that the object to be aimed at is the upliftment of the Indian community in the Transvaal. I would urge upon them to take the long view. This legislation is further extended for a three year period in order to enable Parliament to review the whole question in Natal and in the Transvaal as one in 1946. I would urge them to view it in that light. I would urge them not to look upon this as a slight, as an effort to try to offend their susceptibilities, to curtail their rights in regard to trade. If is was the purpose of the Government to curtail their trading rights, then would we have granted all these licences which have been granted in the last three and a half years? In the last three and a half years 1,329 permits have been granted by the Government enabling Asiatics to apply for trading licences. If this legislation had been administered in a restrictive fashion, that would not have been done. The fact that these permits were issued is proof that the Department of the Interior and the Government have appreciated the needs of the Indian community in regard to trade and trading facilities. During that period some 618 permits have been refused. It is, of course, correct that of that number some are in regard to areas on Proclaimed land where Indians have no right of occupation; therefore it would have been illegal in any event to grant a permit. But the vast majority do not refer to stands upon Proclaimed land. It might, of course, be contended that without the provisions of the 1939 Interim Act the licensing boards of the Transvaal might have dealt with the position. They might have dealt with the position, but if they had dealt with the position in regard to penetration and had refused licences on the ground that the grant would have led to penetration, then they would have been acting illegally. However that may be, the one fact that does emerge is that during these three and a half years we have had this hearty and cordial relationship between the two races, the Indian and coloured communities in the Transvaal, and, in the opinion of the Union Government, it would be unwise at the present time, by dropping the control measures, to do something which might effect that cordial relationship, and lead once again to a state of friction between the members of the two communities. For those reasons I would ask the House to accept these two provisions in regard to the Transvaal. I repeat that I realise how deeply the members of the Indian community feel in regard to this matter. They have made the most eloquent and full representations. They have been supported in those representations by very full and consistent and cogent representations by the High Commissioner for the Indian Government in South Africa. But I would urge them to take the long view, to realise that this position which has arisen, if not dealt with now, can only lead ultimately to their detriment. It is in that spirit that I commend this Bill to the House.

It was my intention to take the opportunity provided by the second reading debate on this Bill to make a statement as to my position in regard to it. It has been suggested that I should take this early opportunity, and I comply with that suggestion. There are certain provisions in this Bill of which I do not approve, and for which I cannot accept responsibility. Rather than do so, I have tendered my resignation as a member of the Government to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.

He has not accepted it.

The Right Hon. the Prime Minister has, however, asked me not to press my resignation, urging the importance in the present emergency of a united front being maintained in the furtherance of the war effort. On that ground I have agreed to remain in the Cabinet, it being understood that I do not accept responsibility for those proposals in the Bill to which I object, and that I retain a free hand in regard thereto.

What about the collective responsibility of the Cabinet?

I know that the question of constitutional propriety will be raised. That is, however, a question which affects the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in the first instance. It is for him to decide who are to be his Ministers, and in making that decision to take account of differences of view which may prevail.

What about collective responsibility?

In this case the position is that this Government was formed to prosecute the war. The difference of view which may arise within the Government is in respect of a purely domestic question, a question of domestic policy, quite unconnected with the present war. In such circumstances, if the Right Hon. the Prime Minister takes the responsibility for asking me to remain in the Cabinet, I do not regard it as constitutionally improper that I should do so. Now I wish to proceed to state my attitude to the Bill. I can sum it up quite briefly. I do not object to those parts of the Bill which deal with Natal; with the exception of Clause 2 I do object to the parts of the Bill which deal with the Transvaal. It is for this clause that I refuse to accept responsibility. The parts of the Bill dealing with Natal, taken at their face value, appear to me to be based on the facts as established. For the clauses dealing with the Transvaal no support can be claimed from the facts, and no support has been claimed by the hon. Minister who introduces this Bill.

Why did you not object two years ago?

In 1940 as the hon. Minister of the Interior has stated, the Government set up the first Broome Commission to consider what has come to be known as the question of Indian penetration in relation to both the Transvaal and Natal. The report of that Commission, as hon. members know, appeared in 1941. It indicated that in Natal, outside Durban, the position was not serious, and that in Durban while the position was rather more serious it was not acute. It indicated also that in the majority of cases of penetration in Durban, what did happen was an acquisition of ownership without occupation, and to ownership without occupation the same amount of objection obviously cannot apply. The hon. the Minister of the Interior and the Government then decided—and rightly decided—that to deal with this matter by way of legislation would be most inappropriate and inadvisable. That was the decision come to on the first report of the Broome Commission, that to deal with this matter by way of legislation would be most inappropriate and inadvisable. In that same report, the First Broome Commission also dealt with the question of the causes of penetration. It put forward as the main reason for penetration by acquisition—and in Natal, according to the report there is little penetration otherwise than by acquisition—it put forward as the main reason for such penetration the desire to secure good investments. But it put forward as the chief secondary reason the lack of housing and civic amenities in the predominantly Indian areas. It was clear that in the situation which had developed up to that time the local authorities were in considerable part to blame. That was the position as disclosed by the report of the First Broome Commission, which appeared in 1941, on the basis of which it was declared that the attempt to deal with the matter by way of legislation would be most inappropriate and inadvisable. In due course the situation developed in Durban in such a way that it was deemed necessary to appoint a Second Broome Commission. The report of that Commission, as the Minister of the Interior rightly said, indicated a considerable aggravation of the position in Durban. It only dealt with Durban, and I am satisfied on the facts that the position has been developing in Durban in such a way as to create a danger of serious inter-racial friction, and that action should be taken, that speedy action should be taken to stop that further development, pending a full consideration of all the various issues involved in this matter. Legislation to peg the situation in Durban therefore appeared to me to be called for. I felt that I could not refuse to support the proposal to introduce such legislation, provided it was submitted in an acceptable form, and provided further that all the facts and not merely some of the facts, were taken account of in putting forward the Government’s proposal. I proceed, therefore, to enumerate the points in the Government’s decision in regard to Natal, which make it possible for me to support the Natal part of this Bill. In the first place, while we were pressed from outside to apply pegging to the whole of Natal, this Bill only applies pegging to Durban. It is only in respect of Durban that we have evidence. In relation to the rest, of Natal, the position in the matter of evidence is still as it was when the First Broome Report was published, on the basis of which the Minister of the Interior declared that legislation would be inappropriate and inadvisable. It is true that under this Bill the Government will be empowered by proclamation to extend pegging to other areas, but only after facts have been established, not on loose statements. In the second place, in this Bill the pegging is not for an indefinite period. It is for a term of years, for a period of three years, and thereafter it can only be extended with the consent of Parliament. In the third place, the pegging in this Bill is, at least in form, non-discriminatory. Exactly the same restrictions are applied in this Bill to Europeans as are applied to Asiatics. In practice, no doubt, it could not quite work out that way. Nevertheless, I repeat, the proposals of this Bill as far as Natal is concerned, are not discriminatory. Finally, it has been agreed, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior has intimated, that a thorough enquiry will be made at once as to the lack of housing and civic amenities as a cause of penetration. It has been accepted that if, as a result of such an enquiry, the local authority in whose area pegging has been introduced, is in default in that matter and continues to be in default and is not prepared to remedy that default, then that area will be withdrawn from the scope of this legislation. The hon. the Minister of the Interior has said, and I endorse his words, that in this Bill the Durban City Council will be placed on trial, and that will also apply in relation to any other local authority which desires to have pegging introduced as far as it is concerned. Taken as a whole, then, the decision of the Government, as far as Natal is concerned, takes account of facts. I regard it as a fair and reasonable proposal in all the circumstances, and though from some points of view I regret it, I think it is necessary and I am prepared to support it. But now I come to the Transvaal proposals. I do not, of course, object to Clause 2 of the Bill, which extends the period of protection until the Feetham recommendations in regard to individual sites are finally cleared up. That is necessary. But I do object, and I object very strongly, to the remaining clauses of the Bill in relation to the Transvaal. Let me, first of all, make this point clear—I do not think the hon. Minister of the Interior has made it quite clear—the problem of the Transvaal is entirely different from that of Natal. The Natal problem, as it has developed, as we are dealing with it in this Bill, is primarily a problem of the purchase of property by Indians. But in the Transvaal, outside the Feetham areas, with which this Bill does not really deal, no Asiatic can purchase property. The situation is therefore entirely different, and that must be appreciated by the House at the outset. The Transvaal penetration problem is therefore almost exclusively one of trading, and to a very much smaller extent, of occupation without trading—to a negligible extent I might say. As far as trading is concerned, the position in the Transvaal is governed by the fact that in the Transvaal there is a General Dealer’s Control Ordinance, empowering the local authority to refuse a certificate for a trading licence, without giving any reason. It has been said that its decision might be upset if it has refused such a certificate on the ground that its grant will constitute penetration, but the local authority is not called upon to give its reasons. I repeat, under that Ordinance, the local authority in the Transvaal, including the Rural Licensing Board, can refuse to give a certificate without giving any reason for its refusal, and without such a certificate no licence can be obtained. In 1939, in response to one of those periodic waves of anti-Asiatic prejudice, which from time to time dishonours South Africa, and which Governments usually find it difficult to resist, there was enacted an Asiatic Land and Trading Amendment Act. It dealt primarily with the Transvaal other than proclaimed areas. It laid down, in the first place, that no Asiatic could obtain a certificate, without which he cannot get a licence to trade, unless he had first got a permit from the Minister. It laid down further that no Asiatic might, without a permit, occupy land or premises not occupied by Asiatics on the 30th April, ±939. I ask the House to note that while the Natal proposals in this Bill are of a non-discriminatory nature, applying equally to Europeans and Asiatics, the provisions of the 1939 Law in relation to the Transvaal, which we are asked to extend, are definitely of a discriminatory nature. They apply only to Asiatics. Those proposals in the legislation of 1939, I, together with certain other members of this House, opposed.

Not at the second reading.

We did so for the reason amongst others, that there was no evidence of the existence of a situation which required such discriminatory legislation. We pointed out that the Transvaal Asiatic Land Laws Commission of 1939 had found that there had not been any increase in the number of Asiatic trading licences, disproportionate to the growth of the population. Hon. members will remember that our protests were brushed aside; the finding of the Murray Commission was brushed aside, and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and I were brushed aside out of the party caucus. Shortly afterwards, in September, 1939, a change of Government came about, and also a change of occupancy in the Portfolio of the Interior. Two things followed. In the first place, a much milder policy of administration of the Minister’s powers in regard to the issue of permits was initiated than the House was led to believe would be the case when the 1939 Bill was under discussion. In the second place, the Broome Commission was appointed to find facts in relation to the Transvaal as well as in relation to Natal. That Commission had not yet reported in 1941 when the 1939 legislation, enacted as it had been for a period of two years only, was due to lapse. It was therefore decided to continue that 1939 legislation for a further period. It was, however, clearly understood that the position would be reviewed when the Commission had reported. It was understood that it would be reviewed in the light of the facts as disclosed by that Commission. The Transvaal Indian Congress was led to believe that that was so. It was on that basis that I myself, in 1941, supported the extension of the Bill, the original enactment of which I had opposed. The matter was still then sub judice, and I was prepared to see it continue for a further period. Then came the Broome Report. It is not too much to say that the Broome Report, the findings of the First Broome Commission in regard to the Transvaal, completely vindicated the attitude which the opponents of the Bill had taken up in 1939. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) has declared in the course of this Session that the Broome Commission’s report, was of such a nature that the Government was left without ground for action, that it disclosed penetration, but not in the Transvaal. The Broome Commission not only confirmed the findings of the Murray Commission, which I have already quoted, in regard to trading, but it summed up the general position as follows: “Outside Johannesburg the total number of cases of penetration is not at all impressive. The situation cannot by any stretch of imagination be described as critical, and the extent of the penetration does not appear to be either alarming or surprising.” I fail to see how, in the light of those findings of the Broome Commission, it is possible in a spirit of fair-mindedness, to justify the further continuance of this discriminatory legislation, which was unjustifiably enacted in 1939. I can therefore sum up the situation quite briefly. The proposals in this Bill as far as Natal is concerned are based on the findings of the Broome Commission. I support those proposals. The proposals in this Bill, as far as the Transvaal is concerned, derive no support from the findings of the Broome Commission. I oppose those proposals, and I have been asked to say that that is also the attitude which is taken up in this matter certainly by two members of this party who were associated with me in 1939, namely, the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Perhaps in view of what has happened in relation to the Transvaal it may be said that I am over-naïve in my simplicity in assuming that the same is not going to happen in the case of Natal. No doubt it will be said that the Transvaal legislation was introduced as temporary legislation, and is now coming to be more and more permanent., and that on the same basis, having attained to the position to which we intend to attain in this Bill in respect of Natal, there will be no going back on it. But in view of the way in which the Natal part of this Bill has been approached by the Government, I would like to be allowed to continue to be naïve enough to think that in the case of Natal history will not repeat itself. I shall accept the emphatic and categoric statement made today by the Minister of the Interior on behalf of the Government, that this is indeed conceived as purely temporary legislation.

What about the breathing space?

Now, what is indefensible to me about this Bill is that the findings of the Judicial Commission are accepted when they suit one’s own point of view, and are brushed aside when they do not suit one’s own point of view. Of course, we as a European community, are in a position of ascendancy in South Africa. There is nothing really to stop us from having it both ways, it is easy and pleasant always to have it both ways, but that is a course of action which one’s reason cannot commend, nor one’s sense of justice approve. It has been made pretty clear along what lines the attempt will be made to defend the action proposed in this Bill in regard to the Transvaal. It will be said, it has in fact been suggested, that in the last four years the interim legislation has held the situation in the Transvaal, that it accounts for the cordial relationship prevailing today and that but for that legislation much the same would have happened there as has happened in Durban. That is entirely untenable. For one thing the Broome Commission which covers the period from 1927 onwards shows that the position was held in the Transvaal quite comfortably without this interim legislation from 1927 to 1939. For another thing, there is the fact that the same thing which has happened in Durban could not have happened in the Transvaal, because an Asiatic cannot buy land in the Transvaal outside the Feetham areas. The problem in the Transvaal is a trading problem, it is only to a small extent a problem of occupation without trading. It is not at all a problem of acquisition. It will be said, it has been suggested, that but for the interim legislation more licences to trade would have been granted, to the extent of something like the number of permits refused by the Minister. That also, is untenable. Many of these applications which he refused were in respect of proclaimed land on which trading could not take place anyhow, and I have no hesitation in saying that in the case of most areas the local authority would have refused to give a certificate under the General Dealers’ Control Ordinance. May I point out that as a matter of procedure the Minister has in all cases before dealing with an application for a permit, consulted the local authority. Surely the implication is obvious. The remainder which might have got trading licences would have represented an entirely negligible addition to that large number of cases when a permit was granted. The Minister has quoted the large number of cases in respect of which he actually granted such permits. No, that line of argument is misleading—that cock won’t fight. The only solid fact is the finding of the Broome Commission in confirmation of the finding of the Murray Commission, and that provides no justification for the provisions of this Bill. But there is another justification which will be advanced and which has also been suggested. The implication is that after all this legislation is really in the best interest of the Indians. It is to protect them against possible anti-Asiatic agitation. That kind of statement rather reminds me of the sanctimonious headmaster who, after giving a sound thrashing to one of his boys, said: “My boy, it is for your own good, it hurts me more than it hurts you.” The Indian community will not be deceived by that kind of statement. I think they may be pardoned for doubting that in the consideration of this matter then interests have been regarded as paramount. They know why the Act was passed four years ago and they have a pretty shrewd idea why it is re-enacted now. I feel that the putting forward of an argument of that kind is only another instance of what I might call the pitfall of trusteeship. We like putting ourselves forward as trustees for the non-European people of this land, especially of those who are voteless, but all too often we are influenced in the administration of the trust imposed upon us by the consideration of our own European interests first, and not the interests of the ward. I believe that every time facts are brushed aside and a surrender is made to racial and colour prejudice, impairing the human rights of a part of our people in the interest of another part of our people, every time that happens we are sapping the moral foundation of leadership which the European people in South Africa enjoy today. Regretfully I have to say that in this case I can only regard this proposal for the unjustified prolongation of an unjustified piece of discriminatory legislation as such a surrender and with that surrender I must decline to be associated.

But you have surrendered.

I listened naturally with great interest to the speech of the Minister of the Interior, and I want to say at the outset that although I do not agree with a great deal of what he has said, the terms in which he said it were such as not in my opinion to prejudice race relations in this country, although what he is proposing is calculated to prejudice race relations in this country. I want to emphasise one particular argument which was used by the Minister of the Interior, and I hope he will enlarge on that when he replies to this debate. He suggested that this legislation was necessary not only because of the serious situation which had arisen in Durban—I take it what he meant by that was that the relationship between the European and Indian section of the community was bad—but he went on to justify the extension of the Transvaal provisions of the Bill on the ground that the relationship between the European and Indian communities of the Transvaal was good. The Minister of the Interior, will no doubt agree with me that the Asiatic communities at all events, both in the Transvaal and in Natal, object to this legislation. Yet in the case of Natal they are told that legislation of this kind is necessary because the relationship between them and the European community is bad, and in the case of the Transvaal they are told that the extension of this kind of legislation is necessary because the relationship between them and the European community is good. What the Indian people in South Africa will make of that I don’t know. I have always made my view clear as to discriminatory legislation. It is because of the view which I hold on that matter that I originally came forward as a candidate to represent the native people—also a political minority, though not a numerical minority in this country. I do not agree with the Minister of Finance, for reasons which I shall give at a later stage, that the provisions of this Bill insofar as Natal is concerned, are not discriminatory. They are definitely discriminatory except perhaps in form. The fact that they are temporary does not make and difference. The provisions of this Bill are discriminatory even if only temporarily so, and I have always objected to discriminatory legislation against any race in the Union on grounds which I have made clear repeatedly in this House. By racial discriminatory legislation I mean legislation which, whatever the intention may be, has the effect of preventing the individual belonging to a particular race from doing what work he is most fitted for, from investing his money in the way he thinks best, and from generally bettering his position, or taking up employment of any kind. That is my objection as I have made clear in this House for many years. We on these benches do not contend that we want the races to live mixed up together — we do not want them to be forced to do so. What we do say is this, that given this fundamental liberty of bettering their position all races should be allowed to live in whatever parts of the country they want—we do not want them to be forced to live in particular parts. The question which arises is this: whether the politically weaker group should be forced to live apart by limiting its economic opportunities or whether it should be induced to live apart by being given the opportunity for doing so by being provided with better opportunities if they live apart. And that is the issue which is always raised by legislation of this kind. When the Bill of 1939 dealing with the Transvaal was introduced, the Minister of the Interior of that day, Mr. Stuttaford, put forward certain arguments and I opposed the Bill on the ground that it was segregatory legislation, and although it was explained as being “pegging” legislation, it in effect prejudged the issue of what the final policy should be—it prejudged the issue in favour of a segregation policy—and I expressed the fear that if that type of legislation was accepted by this House the pressure would come for it to be extended to other parts of the Union. I should like to quote what I said on that occasion: This is what I said—

And that is what we are faced with today. But now I want to deal first with the position in the Transvaal, and here I agree to a large extent with what the Minister of Finance has said. The legislation which this Bill seeks to extend was defended by Mr. Stuttaford when he was Minister of the Interior, as being purely interim legislation for two years. He answered our contention that it was a breach of the Cape Town Agreement by saying that it was merely temporary legislation. I used the argument then that once this segregatory step was taken, whatever the good intentions of Mr. Stuttaford might be, the political situation of this country being what it was, it would be very difficult for any conceivable Government to retrace its steps from that segregatory position. That was the argument which I used in the House four years ago. Two years ago that Act came before this House for extension for another two years, and on that occasion, too, those of us who sit on these benches opposed this measure, but our fears were to some extent allayed by the following statement by the Minister of the Interior when he made these remarks:

Well, now, I am bound to point out that in 1941 the Minister said he was waiting for the Broome Commission’s Report, and he hoped to frame his policy in the light of the findings of that Report for the following year, but in the event of his not being able to do so, he would extend the Act for another year. Now, the Broome Commission has reported and it has entirely acquitted the Transvaal Indian community of unduly extending their trading activities in the Transvaal, and yet provision is made here for the extension of the Act for another three years. I want to point out that this problem in the Transvaal is purely an economic problem. Fundamentally this whole problem is an economic problem. It is not a matter of the two races living cheek by jowl together. The Broome Commission found that no serious complaints were made in the Transvaal about Indians living in European areas. The complaint was that Indians were extending their trading activities, that they were getting—as their European competitors regarded it—an undue number of trading licences. The Broome Commission considered that in the Transvaal the Indian position did not require special measures to be taken. Now, with regard to the Natal position. I have always understood the complaints in Natal from the European side to be that they did not want Indians to come and live next door to them—that their doing so lowered the value of property—that the Indians maintained a different standard of living from theirs, and so on; that point of view I can perfectly well understand. As a matter of fact it is the finding of the Broome Commission that that attitude is shared by the Indians themselves. The Indians themselves have no particular desire to live next door to the Europeans. The first Broome Report concludes by saying this —

Those were the last words of the Broome Report. So that it is common cause between the Indian community and the European community in Natal. The Broome Report then gives the reasons for what penetration there has been. Of the six reasons three flow from the Cape Town Agreement, and they all relate to the desire of the Indian community to improve their economic condition. So therefore this Natal position on the basis of the Broome report resolves itself into this—whether it should be dealt with on the basis of removing these causes for “penetration”, or whether it should be dealt with by legislation which has the effect of confining the Indian community to the areas in which they now are. I have given my reasons for my objection to the solution along the lines of the second alternative, and it is the second alternative which this Bill adopts. Now, the Minister of Finance said that in his view this Bill in relation to Natal was not discriminatory—in form, at any rate, it was not. Well, it may not be in form but it is bound to be in fact. In 1927 the Indian community occupied 204 acres of land in the whole of the Old Borough of Durban; 204 out of 8,200 acres. It is estimated that even with the amount of penetration that has gone on, they do not occupy more than 359 acres today, and they are approximately one-third of the total population. To confine that proportion to those restricted areas by legislation, unless special permission is given for any individual to buy outside those areas, is definitely discriminatory, and that is the line which this Bill follows. The Minister of Finance emphasised that it was temporary in its operation. My answer can only be the same as my answer was to the temporary “pegging” legislation in the Transvaal. Political conditions being as they are, and pressure of vested interests being what it is, it is difficult for any Government to retrace its steps. The alternative policy can only be a policy of removing the causes as set out by the Broome Commission—the institution of thoroughly planned housing schemes for the working classes—the Minister himself recognised the necessity for that in his speech in introducing this Bill and so far as the middle class Indian is concerned the allocation to him of sites now in Municipal ownership, where he can develop decent amenities of life. It is a strong contention of the Indian community that in the old Borough of Durban the City Council has never alternated such sites to Indians whereas whole new suburbs have grown up for the European middle classes. The Minister of the Interior started on the right lines when he persuaded the Municipality of Durban to form the Lawrence Committee. He initiated the right policy. I do not say it is his fault that the Lawrence Committee has ceased to function. What I am sorry about is that he has not felt able to persevere in that policy. The Minister, in his opening speech, dealt with the contention of the Indian Organisations that if the Lawrence Committee had continued to be supported by the City Council of Durban it would have been able to cope with the position, and he referred to the fact, as he said, that when the Lawrence Committee was still functioning there were large numbers of penetration transfers and also, he said, there were a much larger number in 1941. So far as 1940 is concerned, there certainly were not a particularly large number. I don’t think it was in the beginning of that year that the Committee was instituted, although it was early in the year. In 1941, the Minister pointed to the large number of transfers. There it is definitely the contention of the Natal Indians’ Association—and I have not heard it answered yet—that it was in the middle of 1941 that the Council withdrew its support from the Lawrence Committee and that it was subsequent to that that these large numbers of penetration transfers took place. That is a contention which I would be obliged if the hon. Minister would deal with in his reply, because if that contention is correct, that it was subsequent to the breakdown of the Lawrence Committee that the number of transfers increased, then it would seem that the Indian Association’s case is correct. That is an important point, and I shall be glad if the hon. Minister will deal with it in his reply. Secondly, the contention is put forward by the Indian members of the Committee that they did do their utmost to prevent members of the Indian community from purchasing land where it might give offence, but the European members did little to dissuade Europeans from selling. In other words, they have made out a case which requires an answer, to the effect that the policy would still have succeeded if the Durban City Council had been prepared to continue its support of it, and that is borne out to some extent by the Broome Commission itself. The Lawrence Committee gave evidence before the first Broome Commission, and in their memorandum, for which presumably the City Councillors on the Committee must also take the responsibility, they said that the cases were steadily decreasing; it was only afterwards when the City Council withdrew its support, that the situation became what it is now. So the situation in Durban seems to be this: The Minister inaugurated a policy that was acceptable to the Natal Indian Association and to the Durban City Council. It would appear that in the early stages that policy was working well. The Durban City Council withdrew their support from the Committee and demanded legislation. It is to them that the Minister makes this concession. Yet they were the ones who did not give this alternative policy a fair chance. That, prima facie—to use the hon. Minister’s phrase—does not appear to me to be in accordance with justice. I cannot judge of the extent to which European public opinion is against these transfers, because I am not a resident of Durban. But it seems to me the most extraordinary thing that the most obvious action should not have been taken, namely, for Europeans to put clauses in their title deeds against Indian occupation. It seems to me extraordinary that there are a number of Europeans who are prepared to sell property to Indians if European public opinion is so much against them. The names of these Europeans have been published by the Natal Indian Association in a memorandum.

They are renegades.

My hon. friend says they are renegades. I have gone through the names, and it seems to me there are respectable firms amongst them.

They are members of the Dominion Party.

Even assuming that legislation would solve the problem—I have given my reasons for submitting that it is not the right way—I still say that on the evidence which is before it, the Government is not justified in resorting to the extreme resort of legislation. I have made that statement and I want an opportunity to substantiate it. The portions to which the Bill refers can be divided into three, the old Borough of Durban, the rest of the municipal area in Durban and the country districts and other towns in Natal. I know that with regard to the country districts and towns, excluding Durban, it does not apply immediately, but there is the power to apply it by way of proclamation. Let me first take the old Borough. As I have suggested, I have always understood that the genuine objection to Indian penetration is mixed occupation That objection is shared by the Indian on his side. Yet the second Broome Report contains no evidence whatever that anything like a large number of cases of penetration are cases where the Indians occupy property next door to Europeans. In fact, the finding is this, that it may safely be stated that the majority of sites are at present in European occupation. We are legislating now without knowing the extent of occupational penetration. We have no evidence of that, and what evidence we have shows that it is only in the minority of cases that it is taking place, and moreover if it is penetration of that type that is objected to, why are the provisions of the Bill not limited; why is Section 5 there which not only prevents a purchase and a long lease for investment purposes but even prevents the Indian from buying a share in a company which happens to have its registered office in Durban. That seems to me to go very much further than the evidence which the Hon. the Minister of Finance regarded as being necessary to justify legislation of this kind. That evidence that I have been dealing with refers only to the old Borough of Durban, one-fifth of the total municipal area. Why then does this Bill apply to the whole municipal area? What evidence is there that outside the old Borough there has been any penetration at all? The answer to that is that there is not a tittle of evidence that there is any penetration. I want to read what the Broome Report says in that connection. So far as the Second Broome Report is concerned, its terms of reference did not include an enquiry into the position in the old Borough. They say—

In other words, there never can be any question of penetration in the Added Areas. In the next paragraph of the report they deal with so-called “penetration” there and they say—

Well, that is four-fifths of the municipal area of Durban, and not only is there no evidence to justify the introduction of legislation to deal with the position there, but the evidence is all the other way. With regard to the rest of Natal, there the Government is taking power by way of proclamation to extend the legislation. In other words, it can be done without coming to this House, and although I have no doubt that the present Minister will not use that power in an unreasonable way, one does not know what the views may be of subsequent Ministers. It seems to me that it is not fair to take power to proclaim these areas under the Act. Mr. Justice Broome referring to so-called penetration in Natal, excluding Durban, said that it was a “mere trickle”. In these circumstances I cannot see why the rural areas of Natal and the towns of Natal, excluding Durban, should be referred to in this Bill at all. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Minister of Finance, accepting his own test as to whether legislation is necessary or not, that a case has been made out with reference to the Province of Natal, or even with regard to Durban itself. The hon. Minister said himself that this was temporary legislation. He further stated that the Cape Town Agreement did not exclude legislation. I have difficulty in following his argument with regard to temporary legislation or with regard to segregation. Mr. Justice Broome reported that of the six reasons that he gave for penetration in Natal, three of them arose out of the Cape Town Agreement. If, therefore, you just pass legislation without, in the same Bill, making alternative provision, then surely it must, in terms of the Broome Reports be a breach of the “uplift clause” in the Cape Town Agreement. Mr. Justice Broome reported that this “penetration” is caused by the rising standard of living of the Indian. No alternative facilities have been provided by the City Council of Durban. That is, in effect, what Mr. Justice Broome reported, and surely it must be a breach of the Agreement to say to the Indians now: “Our Commissioner tells us that because of the rising standard of living you have penetrated into predominantly European areas; our Commissioner tells us that you could not have done anything else, but now we are going to prevent that penetration by legislation.” Whether the legislation is permanent or temporary surely makes no difference if that progress is arrested, and therefore irrespective of theory as to segregation or the temporary nature of this legislation, on the facts as found by the Broome Commission, I cannot see how it can be otherwise than a breach of the Cape Town Agreement. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government of India shares his view that this legislation is not a breach of the Cape Town Agreement? I must oppose this legislation. This is a legislation which is socially and economically discriminatory against a voteless minority in this country, and I feel that this Bill is contrary to an Agreement to which this country is a party. For those reasons I cannot support this legislation.

The first thing that impresses one in considering the Bill which is now before the House is, I think, this, that it is no new question but a question which is deeply rooted in the history of the Union of South Africa, in the history of the old republics and colonies before Union, and the first point which, I think, one should consider is how the relationship between the proposals in this Bill fit in with and are correlated to the previous history with which we are all so well acquainted. And the other question to which I wish to refer is one which has been provoked, I think, by a message which I read in this morning’s paper and which has been sent by the past Agent’s General for India to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in which he is urged to suspend these measures on account of the reactions they might have on Empire relations. As the party, which I have the honour to lead, has taken a very definite standpoint on both these matters, I think it is right that I should intervene at once any say what my attitude is in regard to this Bill. First of all, with regard to the position of the Bill in connection with what has passed in South Africa before. We have been faced in South Africa with some problems which although they may have arisen in other countries at different times, faced us in South Africa in a peculiarly acute form, and we are sometimes called upon to take action, which, although not unrelated to the action taken in other countries, is at any rate calculated to require constructive statesmanship and to give a lead on some of the most difficult problems with which other countries as well as South Africa are faced. I think we shall be on sure and safe ground in starting from this premise that the people of South Africa—and in saying that I am not speaking only of the white races in South Africa—that the people of South Africa have resolved in no uncertain way that amalgamation is not in the interests of any one of them; that we have to find a satisfactory relationship between the people who are living in the same country, but that we are not prepared to amalgamate, or even live in very close juxtaposition to each other. The speech which has been made by the hon. Minister of Finance and the speech which has been made by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) both referred to this fact: How are we to proceed on these lines? How are we to proceed in a fair and just way, and at the same time prevent that inter-mixture which we know leads quite inevitably to the most bitter and exasperated feelings? How is it to be done? I think the statesmen of all parties during the past have shown by their actions that they desire to move on lines of common consent, it it were possible. If it were possible to do what? If it were possible to prevent that intermixture, without the impact which is going to cause those very exasperated feelings. I do not know that one can give a very precise definition of that standpoint. It is, I think, a standpoint which will be commonly accepted, and I do not know that I can give an exact definition of it but I think the House will appreciate it, and I believe that the country appreciates that it is the standpoint that we want to live in peace, in happiness and in harmony and that we want to give the greatest freedom that is compatabale with that. The question has arisen and was discussed at a Premiers’ conference. I attach very considerable importance, as hon. members may not be surprised to know, to the conferences which take place from time to time between the different countries of the Commonwealth or the Empire, whichever word you prefer to use. The question of the position of the Indians in the Union is one of old standing. In 1920 or 1922 there was a conference of Prime Ministers, and the position of British Indians was directly raised there. I want to quote from Dawson on the development of Dominion status—

When that resolution was taken and that attitude on behalf of South Africa was defined, I venture to say that the then Prime Minister, who is the Prime Minister of the present day, spoke for South Africa as a whole. He certainly spoke for the Dominion Party in recognising the peculiar position of South Africa in reference to this particular question. The action which has been taken since then has been based on the recognition of the peculiar position—I would call it the most acute position—which prevails in the Union and the comparatively less acute form in which it exists in other parts of the world. But here we have, in Natal in particular, a presentation of this juxtaposition, of this inter-penetration in its most acute form. The line which has been laid down, as I understand it, is that interpenetration is undesirable, and that we will move from it as far as we possibly can by common agreement. With that I think no one will quarrel. We want to exert the influence of public opinion, of private opinion, of private influence, to prevent a condition arising under which this exasperation takes place. I venture to say that the history of this question, which was more particularly explained by my colleague, the hon. Minister of the Interior, this morning, shows that we have exhausted this principle to the utmost possible extent. I say that looking back on each step which has been taken, I find again and again that there has been, notwithstanding exasperated feelings, a definite expression of opinion indicating a desire for an accommodation. The difference in the position as between the Transvaal and Natal has been emphasised more than once this morning. The difference is that in the Transvaal we are not now face to face with an acute condition. In Natal we are. I can only say with regret that it is due to the fact that by law the position in the Transvaal only has been placed on such a basis that it cannot lead to conditions of exasperation. I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that it is due to the legislation which prevails and has for a long time prevailed in the Transvaal that that difference between the comparatively happy and the comparatively unhappy position of these two Provinces is due and attributable. Can one have any doubt at all that the position in Natal has been aggravated very gravely, very deliberately during the immediate past? I do not think that any dispassionate study of the reports we have can lead anyone to a conclusion other than this, that the position with reference to inter-penertation has been intensified and that it is being done as a matter of deliberate policy and as a matter of deliberate action. When I say that it is being done as a matter of deliberate policy, I want to guard myself against this: I do not say that against the whole Indian community at all. I entirely agree with the evidence at our disposal which shows that the deliberate action is the action of a few, and this is the brightest spot that I find in the whole of this position. I think it is probably a minority who have been buying up these properties for their own purposes regardless of the result of that upon the Cape Town Agreement, regardless of the result upon the common understanding that we would do nothing to provoke an exasperating position. But it has been done, and I say that the only action which the Government can take, which any individual, in my appreciation of the position can take, is to say that this course shall not be allowed to proceed. If it is allowed to proceed. I think very dire consequences will follow, and I say that we are bound to proceed by way of legislation when we find that stability by common agreement has failed to eventuate, as it has failed up to the present. I can only say that in Natal the position in the biggest city is being very gravely threatened, and I do not think anyone can face the position of its population being radically changed and altered with complacency or inaction. I do not believe that any community in any city in the world would sit by and allow that to be done. I do not believe there is a single city in Great Britain—Glasgow, Cardiff, or any of the other big cities—which, threatened with a penetration of a similar character and of similar dimensions, would fail to take drastic action. And I think that is mutual. I think I may apply that to India. I do not think that if similar action were to take place in Benares by Europeans that the Indians would take it lying down quietly. This unhappy position has been thrust on us by a very unpatriotic minority. I hope that in this case it is only an unpatriotic minority that is to blame. I accept, the position that a great deal of the money that has been invested in Durban and elsewhere in Natal has come from the Transvaal, from people who are not so much concerned with observing the Cape Town Agreement., but who are concerned with getting gain for themselves, and perhaps advancing the position of the group to which they belong. A most regrettable feature of all this is that advantage is being taken of the fact that there is a war on, that we are engaged in a desperate fight for ultimate victory. Advantage is being taken of this to make it difficult for the Government to take legislative action. I cannot characterise in terms too strong the detestation I feel for any group that will profiteer on the war position to advance its own interests.

That also applies in regard to seats.

The duty of the Government when faced with such a position is clear. To lie down to it is to make yourself simply a target for attack for demands and for ever-increasing sacrifices. The provisions of this Bill, while they are adequate, are to my mind the minimum with which we can face the position with equanimity. I accept the provisions of the Bill, though I do not disguise to myself that the question of the extension of the provisions which now affect only Durban, to some other places, will have to engage the immediate attention of the Government. The facts should be fully examined. I really have not been able to follow and appreciate the distinction which has been drawn by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, between the legislation as regards the Transvaal and the legislation applying to Natal. I think I should face up to this and state in plain terms how it appeals to me. If I may say so, I think the attitude of the Minister of Finance is this, that he has swallowed the Natal camel and jibbed at the Transvaal gnat. I do not say that there is not a line that may not be drawn between them, but to my mind it is a line that is hardly visible. The clauses which excite most opposition are the clauses which deal with Natal, and in the message sent by the Agents General for India—here I rely again on the Press reports—they do not take exception to the provisions of this Bill which deal with the Transvaal. As far as I have been able to see in the newspaper cuttings, they do not take any serious exception to the position in the Transvaal. But the position of the Minister of Finance is quite different. May I say that his attitude is almost peculiar to himself. I like to feel that he is with us all in accepting as a basic proposition that we must prevent penetration when it is proved, and that we should proceed on the lines we propose to deal with it in Natal. I want to make one other observation in regard to the arguments used by my hon. friend and it is this. In dealing with the legislation proposed in this Bill as regards the Transvaal, he says that he regards it as unnecessary. He thinks that the protection afforded by existing law without the extension of the temporary legislation are quite sufficient to preserve the status quo in the Transvaal. Well, if they are sufficient to observe the status quo, why make a very great difficulty over legislation which is only re-enforcing the position? I find difficulty in following the reasoning of my hon. friend, although we all admire the candour and sincerity with which he speaks. I was surprised to hear him say this: He said that the position with regard to licensing law was sufficient or that it went a very long way indeed to preserve the status quo in the Transvaal. The fact of the matter is that the licensing authorities are not justified in taking into consideration the race to which an applicant for a licence belongs. That matter has actually come before the Supreme Court, and the judges have laid it down that if the licensing authorities do take such a factor into consideration, they are acting illegally, and yet he has used it as an argument this morning, that it is open to the licensing authorities to preserve the status quo because they may refuse a licence without giving any reasons. I can only take that as something almost amounting to an invitation to licensing authorities to take the race element ino consideration, nowithstanding that the law courts have decided that that should not be done. I cannot see how my hon. friend can really present such an argument to the House. But knowing him as I do, I know that he regards it as a contribution he is entitled to make. I want to say something now with regard to the attitude which has been taken up by the former Agents General for India. They have sent a cable to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in which they have appealed to him not to proceed with the Bill on the ground that it might have the effect of upsetting the views of such Indians as still believe that India should remain a component part of the British Empire. That is an appeal which, if it was well-founded, would naturally be of primary concern to me and my colleagues of the Dominion Party because we do attach the very greatest importance to the different component parts of the Empire acting together, if therefore it could be shown that the contents of this Bill were contrary to the philosophy underlying that attitude, it would be a serious objection which I would have to consider. I propose to face up to that and to put my views to the House. First of all, let me say that I have the highest regard for the personalities involved. Mr. Sustry and the other gentlemen who have held this high office are known to many of us and our contacts have often resulted in personal friendships which we greatly value. Anything they say will always be treated by me, at any rate, with respect. What however is the validity of this appeal? First of all, I say that it seems to be based on a complete misapprehension of the manner in which the component members of the British Empire came together and continue to remain together. I quoted just now from a report of a Prime Ministers’ Conference that it was accepted by all that each community of the British Empire should exercise control of the composition of its own population by means of restriction on immigration from any of the other communities—anything else would be quite intolerable—and it seems to me to follow that if one finds that the composition of its own population is being affected in a way thought to be deleterious, that individual community must be free to take appropriate action. If not, who is to take it? The contrary proposition would amount to this, that when you find that the composition of your own community is being deleteriously and adversely affected by something going on in its midst, no one has the right to take any action. That is a reductio ad absurdum of any political system. I say, therefore, that the Agents General for India are in error if they claim a right to interfere with the fundamental composition of our community in South Africa. We are the people to form our opinion upon that, and it is inherent in the relationship which has been recognised as existing between one Dominion in the British Empire and another that we should continue to do so. Where then can these very distinguished gentlemen get the authority for a contrary doctrine? I cannot find in the proceedings of any of these conferences authority for the proposition that proceeding on the lines of this Bill is contrary to constitutional doctrine or exceeds the duty of a Dominion to take proper action in the interest of its own particular community.

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

I would not have any words of mine understood or misunderstood to mean that any representations which might come and which have come from the Government of India, or from any distinguished statesman there, are or can be resented as interference. I welcome, and I feel sure any Government of South Africa will welcome any constructive proposals towards meeting the difficulties with which we are faced, but in all the history of this difficulty I am not aware of really constructive suggestions having emanated from India or anywhere else. We have had conference after conference; we have had meeting after meeting. There have been full opportunities for putting forward constructive suggestions. I would be only too willing to welcome them if they were forthcoming. So far from resenting anything of that kind, my own view is that it would be to the advantage of us all, that it would be to the advantage of every country in the British Empire if we were to have something more regular in the way of consultation, than we have at the present time. Our consultations at the present time are rather of a spasmodic character. If there had been a regular method of doing it and if there had been regular meetings for the disposal of such business, I think there would have been a better chance of wiping this problem off the controversial list. Since this House rose, I have had a telegram addressed to me by the Secretary of the Natal Indian Congress, a portion of which I think I should read to the House, because it apparently forms the basis on which a part of the Indian case rests—

That means the Bill under discussion—

May I first of all say that the Cape Town Agreement which is here referred to rested upon the implied condition that nothing would be done to violate the status quo. There was no express agreement to that effect, but the understanding on the part of all those who took part in it was that nothing would be done by either side to disturb the status quo. The Union Government has maintained that position and up to the present has avoided taking legislative action. Has the status quo been changed or does it remain the same? No one can possibly doubt, after reading the two Broome Commission reports, taken together, that the status quo has been profoundly altered, and therefore the basis of the Cape Town Agreement has been sapped. Sapped by whom? Certainly not by the Union Government, but by the members of the Indian community—not all the members of the Indian community but by some members of the Indian community—who went out of their way to make these purchases and to disregard the consequences. It is all very well to make these appeals to democratic institutions. I notice that the rich people usually appeal to democratic institutions in order to cover their tracks and to attain their ends. This sort of appeal leaves me completely cold. The only suggestion that comes from the secretaries of the Natal Indian Congress is that we should have a round-table conference between the two Governments. I say that I despair of looking for any fruits from any such gathering. We have had conference after conference and meeting after meeting. I do not know what particular virtue there is in a round-table conference. We have had rather to much of the round-about movement in this matter. It is time we got down to facing the facts plainly, and I think that in putting forward this measure to the House, explained in the very measured and comprehensive terms which the hon. Minister of the Interior used this morning, the Government has shown its desire as far as possible to avoid action which might exasperate feelings, and to take advantage of every symptom of goodwill, to dissipate any idea that the legitimate needs of the Indian community of South Africa are going to be neglected. In this pegging measure we have fixed a time which will allow full consultation with India, from the four provinces of South Africa or anywhere else, and I believe that in now providing for a measure of immediate stabilisation we are doing the best service that we can to South Africa and all its inhabitants.

My party supports the Government on this issue, and to be consistent you will perhaps remember that recently during debates I pointed out to the hon. Minister of the Interior that apparently all the political parties in this House were agreed that nothing should be done in this matter, and I wish to congratulate the Government in coming forward with this measure even at this eleventh hour. Although this measure does not provide a solution to the problem as we know it, it is at least a stand-still. The Government has at least taken steps to prevent the position from becoming worse. A great deal has been said in South Africa about this very important question and I think it is the first time in the history of South Africa that there is at least political agreement on this very important issue.

No, there is not.

I hope my hon. friends on the other side are also going to be consistent, because recently in similar debates they urged the Government to come forward with legislation of this description, and I hope that this time they are going to be consistent—perhaps it will break a record in their political history—but I have no doubt that in this case they will be consistent, and if they do not support this measure, I shall be very disappointed.

You apparently believe in half-baked measures.

It will be quite easy for members on the other side to find points on which they can quarrel with this Bill. It will be easy for the Opposition to say that this is a half-baked measure, but then we can point to all previous legislation on the Indian question and say that it is half-baked.

That is no excuse.

I say that if the Government ever took a wise step, I think it is taking a wise step in coming forward with this measure, and that is why we cannot help supporting the Government on this issue. I often heard the Minister of Finance say that this is a matter for mutual co-operation, and I agree with him. It is a matter for mutual co-operation, but I think the hon. Minister of Finance will also agree that all previous Governments, and also the present Government, have been very tolerant on this issue insofar as the Indian community is concerned. If it is a question for mutual co-operation, the cooperation must come from both sides, and I say today that after forty years the onus now rests on the Indian community to show in practice that they are prepared to co-operate with this Government in order to solve this urgent problem. So far I am not aware of any indication on their part to go out of their way to solve this problem, whether it be under this Government or under previous Governments. No, sir, I am afraid that in all these representations that have been made to the Government through memoranda and deputations, they have all been exclusively made through Asiatic eyes and never through the eyes or from the point of view of the European population of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me, just to clinch certain arguments made this morning, to say that the position in Natal, in my opinion, is no worse than it is in the Transvaal. There I entirely differ from a certain report quoted here this morning. The Minister of Finance, when he quoted from the report this morning, quoted the chairman of the Commission as stating that Indian penetration as far as the Transvaal is concerned, outside the proclaimed lands, is far from being critical. I think those were his words. To illustrate this point, if anybody tells you that night is coming because the sun is going down you do not realise it if you only watch the sun. What I mean by this is that this Indian penetration is so systematic, so continuous and so gradual that it is very difficult for a man if his knowledge is confined to four walls, to notice it. You require to see the localities in the Transvaal where the Indians have already penetrated, in the Reef areas as well as the platteland, and it is only then that you realise what is taking place. Anyone visiting these localities ten years ago and visiting them again at the present time, must realise what has taken place. It is only by making that comparison that one can realise what has taken place. In other words, if you remind yourself where the sun was at, 9 o’clock this morning and look at your watch when it is half past two, it is only then that you realise how definitely the sun has gone forward. If you look at Indian penetration at a particular moment, it will probably not be so obvious, but if you do it over a period of years you will find that that penetration is very definite, and there is every reason for the European population to be alarmed. If you will allow me I would like to quote a case in my own constituency which places the matter beyond reasonable doubt. I can here speak as an authority as far as my own constituency is concerned, backed by the evidence give to me by the Municipality of Krugersdorp. This takes us back to 1903. The statement of the Council is as follows, and I want every member to follow this—

I don’t want to read too much to the House, but I just want to point out a few remarks made by the Town Council—

Mr. Speaker, they proceeded by saying—

Now I am asking every member of this House on whose shoulders rests the onus to show co-operation? Time after time the point has been raised by the Indian community that they do not know where to go to live properly and show the Europeans that they can live up to a decent standard. I quote the Krugersdorp case to prove that in my constituency every facility has been given to the Indian community. Is it not time for us in view of certain propaganda that exists in South Africa, and certain other propaganda that is going on in India, is it not time for the small European population of the Union to stand together in spite of political parties, in spite of the fact that we have been divided on other issues, to stand together and tell the Indians we will be fair, yes, but we will also be fair to the European population in this country. In view of the vast native population, in view of the increased number of Indians in South Africa, and in view of half a century of persistent and determined penetration into European areas, I say it is time for us to stand together. We must not allow this matter to continue in spite of what I may term the unreasonable attitude of the Indian community in refusing to co-operate. I think it is quite time for this country to tell the Indians: “All right, if you are prepared to co-operate with us we will co-operate with you, but we are not going to allow you to dictate to us what we shall do in South Africa. We are prepared to treat you fairly, we are prepared to show the world, and we are not afraid of our action, because we know we are going to give you fair treatment, and you as an Indian community should not come along and try to dictate to the Government what it shall do.” I just want to quote further from this statement of the Municipality. The Council proceeds by saying—

This is why I have been in the past against the Feetham Commission’s Report, because the majority of the report, so far as my constituency is concerned, was a direct invitation to the Indian community, and that report is unfair to the localities on the Reef. In Krugersdorp they have persistently refused this generous offer from the Council of Krugersdorp, and they have wanted to dictate to the Government as well as to the Council. They have said: “There is where we want to live, right in the heart and centre of Krugersdorp, and nowhere else, and if you are not prepared to give us where we want to be, then we are not prepared to submit to your wishes.” I think the time has come when the Indian community should realise that this Government, as well as previous governments has been very tolerant towards them, and the onus is now on their shoulders to say whether they want co-operation, or whether they believe in another method supported by a very strong background in their own country. I wish at this moment to express appreciation of the speech made here today by the Minister of Mines, the Leader of the Dominion Party. I think that he has expressed the right thing at the right time. Mr. Speaker, this memorandum points out that the Feetham Commission’s report was practically an invitation to the Indian community to disregard all the facilities that are being provided for Indians in Krugersdorp. May I just point out that the Minister of the Interior of the time visited Krugersdorp in 1938, and the Asiatic community urged upon him at that time that notwithstanding the establishment of this township, all the stands recommended for residential purposes should be exempt. That is the attitude they have taken up, and it has placed the Krugersdorp municipality and the Government in such a position that they have to proceed by legislation. If there is such a thing as a gentlemen’s agreement, why this agitation now? The whole point is that the Indian community are also divided. As the Minister of Mines’ report pointed out, a small number of rich people belonging to the Indian community want to speculate, and they would buy anywhere. They are not buying for the purpose of having a suitable residential area, but are buying for the sake of speculation, and therefore I am pleased to support the Minister when he emphasised the fact that the Government are definitely going to provide residential areas for those who do not buy for speculation, but who really need sites for residential purposes. The Council emphasised its willingness to provide a township and to take every reasonable step to make it attractive to the Asiatic community. The area set apart is one of great value, and is capable of valueable development. The memorandum says—

The memorandum goes on to say—

The Council did not object to the areas which were set aside in 1941.

Quite right, sir, but they here definitely urge this point that if the Indians were determined to say they were not going to use what was provided, then the Council said it was regrettable. Now who started this discontent, who started the argument? Was is not the Indian community? Of course they will always tell you that they are innocent in every way, but they never at any time suggested that they would accept the township set aside for them, and surely the country is not going to tolerate that? I realise more than anybody else the difficulties of the Government of the day, and in these circumstances I admire the Government for taking this step. I hope that during the three years information will be brought home to the Government to prove to them that the time is more than ripe for the Government to pass legislation to prevent this penetration for ever. If we do not do that I am afraid this question will become more and more dangerous, more and more troublesome for any future government. As far as I am concerned I do not require any more information, I have quite enough to know exactly what is necessary. If the Government does not yet know that, I hope this three years is going to provide them with that information. On behalf of my Party, I say we support this Bill.

In participating in this debate I should like to give an exposition of the point of view of this side of the House in regard to this Bill and the problems affected by the Bill. This is expected from us as the Opposition party. I want to say at the outset that I was not in a hurry to take part in the debate, because the morning which has already passed in the discussion of this subject, was a most interesting morning, and I felt inclined rather to remain silent for the time being and view the spectacle over there. We are apparently witnessing a family quarrel which has been patched up in some way or other, but in such a way that nobody is apparently satisfied. The family is still together and still sits around the same table, but after this embroilment the perfect peace which reigned before has disappeared. Most of them are as silent as can be, and they will remain silent and feel very small, and that in spite of the fact that the Minister of the Interior who introduced this Bill, tried to satisfy everybody. He tried to satisfy those in Natal, who are dissatisfied because the Bill does not go far enough, and also others who hold the same opinion, and the Indian community as well, with a lump of sugar, viz.: that the Government will not leave the matter here, but that the Government is going to do something; it is going to appoint a commission, and that commission will investigate in Natal what the requirements of the Indians are in regard to housing, etc., and it will have to submit a report on a possible improvement of the position. That lump of sugar has nothing at all to do with the whole question. Every one of us would like to see that the conditions of all classes in regard to housing, etc., be improved, and if the Government is able to do something in that direction, it will only be doing its duty. It does not affect this question. One need only read the Broome and Feetham reports to notice clearly that the cause for the penetration about which complaints are made and which is so serious in Durban, is an entirely different one. It is not the need for better housing on the part of the Indians, but the need for investing their money. It is clearly stated that the Indians are well-to-do but that owing to the war they cannot invest more money in commercial undertakings, and that they therefore invest their money in a good proposition by buying up houses and other properties in European areas. That lump of sugar does not affect the actual problem. Before going further I should like to express my congratulations to the Minister of Mines and his Party, and also in general to the Natal members in this House, for having managed, as far as Natal is concerned, to make a new start, however insignificant that start may be; as far as Natal is concerned, a new start is being made and a new principle is being applied. I congratulate the Dominion Party on having exercised such a pressure on the Government, that the Government against its wish and notwithstanding the inevitable result, viz.: a family quarrel, agreed not only to do what it did two or four years ago, viz.: to stabilise the position in Transvaal, but also to do the same thing in Natal, and that the Government became aware of Natal and the danger threatening there, and that Natal was included in regard to this measure which is intended to peg the position. I heartily congratulate the Dominion Party on that achievement. The Dominion Party as far as we know it, generally interprets much better the feelings of the people of South Africa in regard to this question of race and colour than any other section on those benches on the other side. On this point the Dominion Party interprets the feelings of South Africa much better than the Labour Party does. I wish them luck, for though they have sometimes been called the tail of the dog, this time it was the tail that wagged the dog. I wish them luck for also having influenced the Labour Party in that direction, judging from the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg.)

I have said the same things for the last six years.

I congratulate them on having got the Minister of Finance so far that he violated his particular sense of justice by swallowing this Bill as far as Natal is concerned. The Dominion Party has sometimes been called the tail of the dog, the tail that wagged the dog. A few days ago the Minister of Justice one night said that the Dominion Party is dead. All I can say is that if the tail that wags the dog is dead, the dog must be much more dead than the tail. One of these days we shall have an election and I hope that we shall then see a first rate dog funeral. I want to say at once that the Bill as presented is a necessary measure. I want to say that we on this side wholeheartedly support legislation of this nature. We admit that the position, especially in Natal, has become so serious and has assumed such proportions according to the report of the Broome Commission, that we can definitely say that if measures ar not taken now, courageous and effective measures, then the Province of Natal which is one of the most beautiful as far as natural scenery is concerned and perhaps not only the most beautiful but also one of the richest provinces of the country, will be lost to the European race. There is not the slightest doubt that this process has been going on in Natal for a long time already, and that it has accelerated; a process which would mean the loss of Natal for the European race. I shall therefore do nothing in my criticism of the Bill and in what I am going to propose, to hinder the passage of the legislation proposed here. I only want to say that I think the legislation should be passed in an improved form. What I intend moving will have this effect; not only will it mean the passing of the legislation in an improved form, but by means of my amendment I also want to make sure today that the Government will not call a halt at this temporary measure which has on a previous occasion been described by the previous Minister of Interior as only the beginning of the solution of this problem and of the colour problem in this country in general. The amendment I wish to move, reads as follows—

That is the amendment I wish to move. I propose an improved Bill, a better Bill than the one we have before us at present and the improvement I suggest is not so vague that it will take the Select Committee weeks to go into it. The improvement I suggest is a very specific one. The improvement is only that the same measures which it is proposed in the Bill to be taken in regard to the Transvaal, will also be taken in regard to and applied to the province of Natal. It need not take the Select Committee which is to go into this matter and which only has to remould the legislation, more than one day to do so. I therefore hope that if this amendment be accepted, the Select Committee will be able to submit such improved Bill to the House on Monday next, and we shall still be able to pass it easily before the end of the session. Whilst speaking on improvements in the Bill before us, I hope you will allow me to mention a few objections in regard to the Bill. The first objection I have is that there is a discrimination in the Bill between the city of Durban and the rest of Natal. One may well ask why this is being done. What justification is there for it? If there is a penetration of Indians in the urban area of Durban, is there not also a serious penetration in the rest of Natal? There is hardly any difference worth mentioning both as regards penetration or the extent of penetration on the part of the Indians, between the happenings in Durban and those in the rest of Natal. It is the same all over. What is the effect of this Bill? It protects Durban but leaves the rest of Natal, at least for the time being, unprotected. What will be the result of the protection of Durban whilst the rest of Natal remains unprotected against Indian penetration? The report of Mr. Justice Broome indicates that the Indians have invested their money in European residential areas in Durban. Why did they invest their money? They have money for investment, superfluous money and they invest it in immovable property. When Durban is protected the immediate result will be that the money which they want to invest and which they otherwise would have invested in Durban, will in future be invested in the remaining parts of Natal; in other words, the protection of Durban makes the position in the rest of Natal more acute than it has ever been before. We find here in the report of Mr. Justice Broome that the Indians have lately been buying properties in European areas “at an accelerated rate”. What is the reason? They realised that legislation would be introduced, they assumed that legislation would be passed to stop further penetration and they then stormed, as the report says, they made a rush for the open door as soon as they could. If you protect Durban and close the door there but leave the door open as far as the rest of Natal is concerned, you will find that the Indians will make a dash for the open door of the rest of Natal, and this will make the position in the rest of Natal infinitely more acute than it is already at present. I therefore wish to propose that no distinction be made in this Bill between Durban and the other parts of Natal. Treat Natal as an entity. This is one problem and it is one problem which has to be solved in its entirety in one and the same province. Another objection I have against the Bill is the unjustified discrimination made between the province of Natal and the province of Transvaal. The danger in regard to Indian penetration into European areas is the same in both provinces. What is the distinction drawn in the Bill in this regard as far as the two provinces are concerned? First of all the Transvaal is treated as an entity; no proclamation of the Witwatersrand only or of Johannesburg or Pretoria or the large towns only is made, but it refers to the penetration of Indians throughout the Transvaal which is to be stopped, in the large towns as well as in the rural areas. In Natal, however, a different procedure is to be followed, and without justification. Durban is to be protected, whilst the danger to the remainder of Natal is to be enhanced. The second distinction between the Transvaal and Natal made in the Bill is that the pegging to prevent further penetration in Natal is one-sided only. In the Transvaal the danger is considered to be coming from the Indians, and penetration of Indians into European areas is to be stopped, but there is no restriction on Europeans to possess or occupy properties where Indians are now living in the Transvaal, or as one might call it, to penetrate into Indian areas or to occupy properties belonging to Indians. There is no pegging as far as the rights of the Europeans are concerned.

The Europeans in the Transvaal have never yet penetrated into the Indian areas.

Exactly. Did they penetrate into Indian areas in Natal?

I am talking of the Transvaal.

That is precisely my question. There is a pegging of the position of Indians in the Transvaal but no pegging of the position of Europeans against the Indians as far as ownership and occupation are concerned, but in regard to Natal we are going to adopt a different policy and the pegging is to take place for both sections: Indians are not allowed to penetrate and the Europeans are also not allowed to penetrate. The European will henceforth not be allowed to buy or occupy property belonging to Indians and vice versa. That is the difference and it is a totally unjustified difference. What I am asking to-day is that we should pass a different Bill which in that respect treats the Transvaal and Natal in the same manner, for they are facing the same danger, i.e. the danger may be considered of equal nature, and especially because the danger to Natal is more acute than to the Transvaal. We therefore should not treat Natal with less consideration than the Transvaal, but we should treat them both in the same manner. There is a further difference I should like to mention, namely that in the Transvaal the pegging is to be for a period of three years. Why is a different method to be applied to Natal? There the pegging is also for three years as far as the law is concerned, but a proviso is added that the Government can do away with the pegged position at any time before the three years have elapsed. What is the reason for it? I listened to the speech of the Minister in connection with this matter and I do not think he satisfied me or anybody else in this House. I asked the question: This stipulation in the Bill that the Government can by proclamation abolish the pegging in Natal at any time before the three years have elapsed; has that been inserted because the Government wants to leave a possibility for further negotiations with the Government of India, or is it only eye-wash for the Indians and the coloured population in the country in general that the Government at present, whilst the storm is raging, wants to allay the storm by telling the Indians: “The Government reserves the right to do away with the pegging at any time without legislation by Parliament”? The question is what it all means, and what has made me still more suspicious in regard to the matter is that the Minister of Finance, who spoke this morning and who presumably took part in all the discussions of the Cabinet in regard to this matter, came here and emphasised that the Bill is only a temporary measure as far as Natal is concerned and that the Government can at any time suspend the pegging, because, the Minister says, the door has been left open to revert to the position as it used to be. That is how one of the Ministers in the Cabinet views this provision in the Bill. Why should a distinction be made, as far as this point is concerned, between the Transvaal and Natal? There is also a minor objection I have in connection with the matter and I just want to mention it, namely that power is granted here to the Minister to issue permits in spite of the provisions of the law. I do not like this power of issuing permits without the Minister having to account for it to anybody. I do not like such powers being placed into the hands of a Minister. I have been Minister of the Interior for nine years and I also had the opportunity to have a peep behind the scenes and I want to say at once that where such powers for making exceptions are granted to a Minister, however honest he may be himself, a system of money-making and corruption is bound to grow up around this provision for making exceptions in regard to the matter.

But in 1932 you put in the Act concerning the Transvaal the same exception as far as occupation is concerned.

Which Act?

The principal Act of 1932.

That is an old provision which has been in existence for years.

Oh no, it was you who took the power to make exceptions.

I do not quite follow what the Minister is referring to. I therefore cannot reply to it. It does not matter in any case. I maintain that in regard to such powers of making exceptions, unless you stipulate it definitely and you have a strong Minister, a system of bribery and corruption will grow up. It is nothing exceptional that a person of whom one did not expect it, a person occupying a position where such things are not allowed or should not happen, comes to the Minister and tries to influence the Minister to use his powers to make an exception in some case or other, and the person making such representations is paid for it and sometimes paid well for it. If he manages to persuade the Minister, there may still be other persons who also receive some payment. No, it is very easy for a system of bribery and corruption to grow up under such provisions for making exceptions. I wanted to mention that here. In regard to the future I should like to put two questions to the Minister; what sound reasons can the Government advance for the postponement of a further and more efficient solution of the Indian problem, and not only of the Indian problem, but also of the problem of separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans? This is the third time the Government comes to this House to ask for a postponement; the first one was in 1939, the second two years later, and now again in 1943. When postponement was asked for on a previous occasion—it was only a temporary measure for two years—it was said that the postponement was needed in order to find a more permanent solution in the meantime. Now the postponement is asked for three years. What sound reasons can the Government advance for this postponement? What guarantee do we have that it will put forward a more efficient solution of the colour problem and more in particular of the Asiatic problem, instead of postponing the matter from time to time? An excuse was put forward when the postponement was asked for for the first time. The then Minister of the Interior gave the following excuse in 1939: Look here, in terms of the Cape Town Agreement we still want to discuss the matter with the Government of India. The Government of India asked for such discussions to take place. We think that this can easily be done within one year but it may also take longer and for that reason, although we do no think that two years will be needed for it, we want to be on the safe side and make the period of postponement two years. To that excuse we replied that our Government need not negotiate with the Government of India about legislation which is introduced here, that the Government of India can obtain all necessary information because it has a representative here in South Africa who continually keeps up-to-date with the events and who has free access to the Government and can have interviews with the Government and who is therefore in a position to report to the Government of India, which he does in any case. We therefore contended that the postponement of one or two years for negotiating with the Government of India was not necessary.

You are responsible for the system.

In connection with the presence of the Agent-General of India in our country I want to say this: The appointment of the Agent-General or the recognition of the Agent-General here in South Africa took place for a reason which is entirely different from what his presence in South Africa really means at present. As things have developed now, his presence means interference and unjustified interference on the part of another country in the business of South Africa. I will tell you what happened. I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior took the trouble of going through the correspondence which took place between me and the Government of India before the Cape Town Agreement. It was laid on the Table and published in the newspapers and if he wants to be honest, as he was this morning in connection with another point of the Cape Town Agreement, he will have to admit that my attitude in that correspondence has constantly been that a solution of the Indian problem is a matter for South Africa and for South Africa only and when the Government of India interfered in the matter, I told them that we could have no discussion with them or negotiate in regard to the matter, as this would mean an interference with our own domestic affairs.

I read it, but then you let the legislation drop.

Will you bear with me for a moment, then I shall reply to that point. The Minister often understands matters incorrectly because he is too hasty and does not listen to what is being said. I then told the Indian Government that there was only one way of discussing the matter with them and that was that such discussions had to result in something which would be purely and solely in the interests of South Africa. If it is in the good interests of South Africa, we can have discussions with any government in the world. I told the Indian Government that unless it was prepared to negotiate in such a way that South Africa would benefit by it, I would not be prepared to enter into negotiations. The reply of the Government of India to that was: All right, we understand your point of view and we on our side will make proposals which will be in the interest of South Africa and which in your opinion will mean an alleviation of the position as far as the Indian problem in South Africa is concerned. In that way the discussions between our Government and that of India came about, and in this manner we agreed that as many Indians as possible would be repatriated to India. The Government of India on their side created their own machinery for this purpose, and when Indians were sent to India under the repatriation scheme, openings in India were created for them or it was tried to find openings for them. They undertook to see that repatriated Indians would as far as possible be absorbed by the population there. After they gave that undertaking and only then, did I declare myself prepared to discuss the matter with them and the result was that with the aid of the Government of India we repatriated perhaps more Indians from South Africa than there are Indians in the whole of the province of Transvaal. The Government of India sent its Agent-General first of all to assist in an easy and smooth working of the Agreement in regard to that point. We made the experiment with the Cape Town Agreement for a period of five years. It was limited to five years and apart from that, as the Minister of the Interior pointed out this morning, we reserved the right, agreement or no agreement, to pass legislation at any time, if we wanted to do so, in order to solve the Indian problem. What, however, is the position today? The position today is that the Government of India and the Indians in this country make representations that we should not limit their rights or their penetration, because, with the exception of a small percentage which was born in India, they were all born here in South Africa. By far the larger majority, of them are born here in South Africa, they no longer belong to India but they belong to South Africa, they are not foreigners in South Africa but they are foreigners in India. That is their point of view. “Treat them as South Africans.” If that is so, that is the point of view adopted by the Government of India and the Indians in this country, then I ask — seeing that they are no longer foreigners in South Africa but are so in India—what right has the Government of India to interfere in the treatment of the Asiatics in our country? If persons came here from England to settle in South Africa and if they thought that they were unjustly treated by our legislation here and would time and again appeal to England, we in South Africa would not stand for it. We tolerate no interference, not even from England, nor from America, just as little as we would tolerate any interference on the part of Germany or any other country. [Extention of time.] That is the attitude I adopt and have always adopted in regard to the position of the Agent-General of India here in South Africa. That appeal on the part of the Indians here in South Africa, that interference by the Agent-General of India in our domestic affairs should in my opinion be stopped once and for all. A second question I want to put concerning my amendment is: what is the policy of the Government in regard to the future? The position is serious and is becoming more serious in regard to the colour problem in South Africa, and to come here to this House with a measure pegging the position as it is at present, simply means that the problem remains unsolved and that the tension between race and race remains at fever heat. It cannot remain like that. I want to point out that a glaring anomaly exists in regard to the position of and the protection given to Europeans and the protection given to non-Europeans as far as this legislation and other legislation in this country are concerned. There we find a glaring anomaly. Everybody travelling along the road from Durban to the north, will notice near Eshowe and Stanger on the way to Zululand how the coastal part of Natal there teems with Indians, and a large section of them are not even able to speak one of the official languages. One might just as well be in India itself. The Europeans are a small minority everywhere, and it completely looks as if one is in some part of India. Then you go over the Tugela bridge and through Zululand and Swaziland, where you do not see a single Indian. The natives have been protected against Indian penetration and although the Indians were British subjects and the natives were also British subjects, the natives were protected by the British Government. The Europeans can enter there under certain restrictions. The European can obtain a permit to carry on trade in Zululand and Swaziland and he owns land there to a large extent. The native has been protected. In Zululand he has been protected in the same manner. But in Natal where we have a European population, the European population which is the standard-bearer of civilisation in the country, we find that the white population of Natal are unprotected. The European tries year after year to obtain that protection, but no protection is given to him. The Europeans come to this House time and again to ask for protection, but the solution of the problem is postponed every time. I furthermore want to point out that the solution of this problem should be easy. This side of the House and the other side of the House came to a decision in regard to this problem and from the discussion of today it has become clear that the two sides of the House are in agreement as far as this problem is concerned. I have been a Minister of the Interior for nine years and had to deal with the Indian problem. I asked for the co-operation of all parties in this House in regard to this matter. In every step I took I received the co-operation of all parties in this House. What is more, the measures proposed by me in my capacity of Minister of the Interior were sent to Select Committees and there no difference of opinion arose in regard to the points of view of the respective parties. I therefore maintain that as far as this question is concerned, we actually are in agreement. I maintain that as far as the general colour question is concerned there is virtually no difference of opinion between this side and the other side. In 1925 and again in 1926 I introduced a Bill which I still consider today to form the solution of this problem in our country. That was the “ Areas Reservation Bill”. In view of later developments, hon. members going to the trouble of calling at the office of the Clerk of the Papers to have a look at that Bill, will not do so in vain. In that Areas Conservation Bill I incorporated, not only the contents of but the actual wording of the “ Class Areas Bill ” which had been introduced by the present Prime Minister in the year 1924. The provisions of the Class Areas Bill amounted to a division of sections of the large towns between European and non-European so that they would not mix. The Prime Minister will remember that we on both sides of this House were in full agreement about that matter. I incorporated the Class Areas Bill of the Prime Minister in its entirety in the Areas Reservation Bill. I did so because I thought that the mover of the Class Areas Bill had not gone far enough. The latter Bill made provision for the situation in the larger towns but did not apply to the platteland, and especially in regard to Natal the problem is acute, not only in the towns, but also in the rural areas where the Indians are buying up land on a large scale. I therefore made that proposal. As far as the remainder of the Natal province excluding Durban, is concerned, the coastal belt was to be regarded as a European area, and it was to be prohibited in future for an Indian to buy land there from a European. A European would be able to buy from an Indian, but no Indian was to be allowed to buy land from a European. That would therefore in the course of time have remedied and restored the position. As far as the coastal towns were concerned, we would therefore at least stabilise the position, but the effect would moreover be that as no Indian would be able to buy land from a European, but a European could buy from an Indian, a process would be started which, however slow it might be, would eventually deliver the coastal belt into the hands of the European and thus save Natal for the white race. That was my proposal at the time. I do not want to assert that as far as the last part of my proposal in connection with the Areas Reservation Bill is concerned we were in agreement or unanimity. But as far as this question is concerned which is now before us, we did not differ in opinion.

But at your request the Government of India then came along and an agreement was entered into.

Allow me to explain the position to the Minister of the Interior. The Government of India told me that they would assist us in repatriating the Indians from our country. We from our side then said: All right, we shall see what we can do and we shall give you five years in which to show what you can do. The Cape Town Agreement was entered into for five years as an experiment. When that period had elapsed the repatriation scheme was fairly well exhausted. I then told the representatives of the Indian Government: I consider that the agreement worked well during the first five years. The stream of Indians leaving South Africa is now decreasing and the Cape Town Agreement is becoming of less and less value to South Africa. My proposal is that it be terminated. They then asked us to give them a further chance. The Government of India would encourage the repatriation with the consent of the Indians in South Africa, and projects were made in regard to a settlement scheme somewhere in South America. We then said: All right, let us see what can be done. After that I left the Cabinet.

what you say now is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is that notwithstanding all this, you are carrying on with the Cape Town Agreement. It was to have been an experiment. A commission was appointed by my successor to go into the matter and the result of it was nil. My point of view in the past and afterwards was that since the Cape Town Agreement had borne no results as far as the Indian Government was concerned, it should be terminated. It was an experiment and nothing else. But in spite of all this, you are continuing with the Cape Town Agreement and you allow yourself to be influenced by that Agreement. I am dealing here with the colour problem in general. I now want to point out that the non-activity of the Government today is the direct contrary of a promise which was made presumably with the consent of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. On the 23rd March, 1939, a solemn declaration was made here by our late Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog). It was made in connection with the general segregation of residential areas, and included the Indians throughout the country. He first mentioned the fact that the Government was making available money for the establishment of new residential areas, residential areas for Europeans only and residential areas for non-Europeans only. I want to point out that this was a written declaration made on behalf of the Cabinet, and the following solemn promises were made inter alia in this House—

1. (a) Empower public bodies when selling or letting land or buildings, to impose conditions limiting the ownership or occupation to either Europeans or non-Europeans.
2. (b) Empower township boards to require the imposition of such conditions by way of servitude when land is subdivided.

This is a definite promise made by the Government of the day, a Government of which the present Prime Minister was a member. This declaration is based on the statement of the then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stuttaford) who clearly said that the idea of the Government was to introduce legislation stipulating that where-ever the position in an area, any area, would be that three quarters of the occupants there would decide that that area should be a European area, a restriction would be put on all the properties of that area—also on the properties of those who did not vote in favour of it—that those properties could be sold only to Europeans, in order to ensure that this would become and remain a European area. That is the legislation which the Government promised at the time and promised solemnly to this House. This is years ago now and the Government comes with postponement after postponement and does not stir a finger to solve this great and urgent problem of South Africa. I want to finish by appealing to hon. members on the other side. You agree with us on this side as far as this question is concerned. When I was your Minister of the Interior, you co-operated to look for a solution in all the steps I took, and you took all those steps together with me. I am now asking you and especially the hon. members representing Natal, to remain faithful to that point of view. The population of Natal is English-speaking. The percentage there of people who are not English-speaking is very small. There is no other part of South Africa which feels so strongly about the colour question than the English-speaking people in Natal. In the days of Queen Victoria, yes even in that time, they refused to allow the Indians who had the franchise, to remain in possession of the right to vote, and they abolished it. They thereafter came along and passed ordinance upon ordinance to take away the vote of the Indians in respect of the municipal elections. The Government of which I was a member approved of those ordinances in spite of the fact that the present Prime Minister when he was Prime Minister before, refused and resented those ordinances. The franchise of the Indians in regard to municipalities which was the same as the franchise of the Europeans, was abolished. That is the point of view of the English-speaking population of Natal at present. Well, I am glad to see that you in Natal have remained faithful to those principles and I appeal to you to try at this stage together with us, to find a real solution. You want to win the war and brush everything else aside or make it subservient to that idea. What does it help us to win the war against those other nations in Europe and here in South Africa to lose the battle which is being waged in order to safeguard our white civilisation; what does it help you? It does not help you at all; it will be entirely futile. South Africa will then be twice lost. I therefore make an earnest appeal to all members of this House to consider and treat this matter according to their own inner conviction.

I second.

Under Standing Order No. 161 only two forms of amendment are admissible to the motion for the second reading of a Bill, viz.: (i) by omitting the word “now” and adding at the end of the motion the words “this day three months” or “this day six months” or (ii) by omitting all the words after “That” and substituting words which state some special reason against the second reading of the Bill. There is a third form of amendment, not mentioned in the Standing Order, which is admissible, viz., an amendment to the effect that the Order for the second reading be discharged and that the subject of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for enquiry and report. The first part of the amendment is therefore in order and will be allowed, but the second part can not be allowed.

I was rather encouraged when the hon. leader of the Opposition said at the commencement of his speech that his Party was wholeheartedly in favour of this Bill. I thought after that declaration that we would have plain sailing and that we would have our little Bill on the Statute Book very soon.

Very little it is.

But the hon. leader of the Opposition then proposed an amendment, that is the first part of the amendment which now stands, to discharge the order for the Second Reading and to refer this Bill to a Select Committee with a mandate to transform it completely. The hon. member is wrong in thinking that you could have this Bill back from that Select Committee within a couple of days, and he is still more wrong if he thinks that that Bill, so reformed as he suggests, can be put through this House, however long the Session may be. We shall probably be kept here deep into May if we have to accept the amendment of the hon. leader of the Opposition and deal with the Bill on that reformed basis which he suggests. I therefore feel myself unable to accept his amendment.

Would that cause another split in the Cabinet.

The Bill is a necessary Bill. The only reason why the Government is bringing it forward is because we are convinced of its necessity and of the necessity of its early passage in view of the situation that has arisen in Durban, and therefore we are most anxious to have it on the Statute Book as soon as possible, and no dilatory motion, even if it were acceptable in other respects, which means the postponement of this Bill for any length of time and the prolongation of the Session, will be acceptable to the Government. I therefore wish to say at once that the amendment of the hon. leader of the Opposition will not be accepted by the Government. I have referred to the necessity for the Government’s proceeding with this Bill. Let me say at once that we regret that we are compelled to take this action now. We are compelled to take this action and we regret it, and we had hoped that it might not be necessary for us at this stage and at this time to come forward with a measure of this kind. We had hoped that during the war, at any rate, we would not have to deal with a matter of this kind which is bound to raise very wide-spread differences of opinion and which is contentious not only in South Africa but in a neighbouring country with whom we are on the most friendly terms. We regret very much that we have been placed in this position. Still more do we regret it that we have to give an appearance, at any rate, of going against a country like India for whom we have the greatest respect, who are engaged with us in a common struggle today, whose armies are fighting the same battles with us, and that we have to take a step which seems to go against them, which they take as an offence against them, and that we appear to be at issue with the Government of India. All these reasons are very grave reasons for us not to have taken this action, but we have no choice. We have no choice in the situation which has been forced on us. Hon. members know on both sides of the House that we are oppressed with problems, the war and all the problems springing out of the war are such that any Government today would move heaven and earth to escape issues of this kind and legislation of this kind. But the House will understand that we have no choice. This issue has been forced on us, and it has been forced on us by the Indians themselves. I do not say that has been by the Indian community as a whole, but certainly by a minority among them who have paid no regard either to the interests of this country or to the interests of the Indians themselves. They have forced our hand, and we are today faced with this position that in Durban, which is a European city and which we are determined to maintain a European city, that European character we shall not allow to be invaded or spoilt in any way, we are faced in Durban today with large-scale penetration. At last, after a great deal of arguing to and fro, of recriminations and denials, it is now proved and admitted in the second Broome Report that there is this large-scale invasion of the European position. The figures are before us, and it appears from those figures which have been read by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, that during the last two or three years this penetration has been proceeding at an accelerated pace such as we have never known before. Well, sir, in these circumstances, I say we have no choice, action is forced on us, and that is why at this late stage now that this report is in our hands, we are obliged to take action. We had an earlier report, the first report of Mr. Justice Broome and his Commission, pointing to the same danger in Natal, but not in terms which alarmed us. There was a certain measure of penetration, but not in a way which we thought called for extreme action. But since that report was made at the end of 1939 the whole position has changed. I do not know whether that report tended to encourage certain elements in Natal to embark on this disastrous policy on which they have embarked of buying up on a huge scale properties in Durban, but the fact is that since that first report was made there has been a complete change of the situation, and in 1939, 1940 and 1941 and the early months of 1942 there has been this complete change in the situation which forces our hand, which compels us to take action, however loth we may be to take it. We would have been satisfied to let the position rest and give further thought and consideration to the whole subject if the position had remained as it was in the first Broome Report. But the situation disclosed now in this second report leaves us no choice whatever, and we must proceed, and we are proceeding. One regrets that this issue should have been raised by the Indians themselves. It is a most lamentable thing. I do not make the charge against the whole Indian population, the vast bulk of whom are innocent, hard-working people who had nothing to do with these schemes, but evidently there are a number of rich Indians, not only in Natal but in the Transvaal, and perhaps elsewhere, who think this is the time now to make trouble, this is the time to invest their wealth in properties in a place which the Government is bound to defend. They must have known that the challenge would be accepted, that no Government could sit still in a situation like this. In disregard of the larger issues and of the natural result of their action, they went on, and today this issue has been forced on us not by the European agitation at all. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) was wrong in thinking that this issue has been forced on the attention of the Government and of Parliament by the Dominion Party. It is forced on us by the facts. Anyone looking the facts in the face was bound to see that action had to be taken and it is a pity that this has been done by the Indians themselves, because we see what the result is. If this sort of conduct were to go on, if this were to continue, the worst sufferers undoubtedly would be the Indian population of this country. The European community, whatever their goodwill may be, however well disposed and sympathetic they may be, will in the end be forced to action, and that is why my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in the statement which he made this morning, the frank, honest and sincere statement which he made this morning, admitted that on the Second Broome Report, so far as Natal was concerned, we really had no other choice.

This only concerns Natal.

That shows what the effect has been of this step taken by certain Indians who, instead of putting their wealth into war loans, as they might easily have done, used their wealth to undermine the European position in a place which we are bound to defend. Sir, it is their responsibility, and they have made it necessary for us to take the action which we propose to take. At the same time I want to emphasise that this is a standstill measure. Great issues are at stake, the difficulties in front of us are very great, and the Government is fully conscious of those difficulties. We have the greatest respect for India and the people of India, we have the greatest respect for their war effort, and we are determined to preserve good feeling and friendliness towards India, especially in the circumstances of today. Therefore we are not out for laying down large scale and long-range policies. We think that the situation calls for very careful consideration, and we shall have to go over this whole ground most circumspectly. All that we propose here is to deal immediately with the situation with which we are faced at Durban, and to put on the statute book this standstill measure which will peg the position as it is today. We look upon this as an interim measure, a temporary measure, it is only for three years. There is no idea whatever of laying down any large scale policy, which we shall have to consider in due time, and after a very careful weighing of all the pros and cons. So far we are simply busy with a temporary measure, and that is why we have laid down this limitation of three years. During those three years we intend to have a proper enquiry, a judical enquiry into the whole situation. Undoubtedly the situation in Natal calls for very careful enquiry. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested the application of the Transvaal Law to Natal in the amendment which he has moved. Well, sir, I am afraid that will never do, I do not think that a measure like that you could get through this House, and I do not think it is necessary either. I think that it will be possible by exploring the whole situation carefully between the Europeans and Indians in this country, to evolve a measure which will make it possible for these two sections of our community to live together in peace and amity without going to such extreme measures as we took in the Transvaal at the time of the Anglo-Boer War.

That is not the intention of my amendment.

The Transvaal part of this Bill deals simply with licencing, and that is not the issue. In Natal the difficulty is not the licencing question. It is the question of ownership, and in the Transvaal, as the hon. member knows, Indians cannot be owners of land. That is the point I was referring to. A measure of that kind would, I should say be outrageous, and impossible of passing through this House, or of making the country accept. Now, sir, I think that we want time. There is no doubt about it that we are dealing with a question which has to be most carefully considered. Any policy which steamrollers the Indian community will have repercussions which will react most disastrously against the European people in South Africa. I do not think it is necessary, I do not think it is called for. I do not think a solution along those lines is necessary. I think a solution by consultation and perhaps largely by agreement between our two communities will solve most of the troubles that we are facing today. I have been concerned now for a lifetime with most of these difficulties that we have had between European and Indian communities in South Africa.

And created them.

No, they were there long before me. But I have been through practically every crisis of the difficulties we have had between us, and in every case a way has been found, not a permanent way, because the question is one which is in its nature almost insoluble; but on every occasion by give and take, by careful consideration of the possibilities before us, a careful picking of our way through the evils that face us, we have found a modus vivendi, and I am sure if we have this standstill measure, this pegging arrangement for three years, and a competent impartial body goes into the whole question carefully, we may have fresh light thrown on it, and it may be possible for us to evolve a modus vivendi which will be workable and see us through this phase.

That has been said for 40 years.

And for 40 years we have been overcoming these difficulties, on the whole, with a great deal of goodwill and a great deal or acceptance by both the European and Indian communities. Don’t let us lose our heads; if we go in for heroic measures and demand the impossible we shall simply fail, and failure will not only be great but it will disastrously affect the European people in this country. I think by careful consideration of the situation and trying to secure agreement as far as possible, we shall be able to overcome most of the difficulties, and at any rate provide a temporary modus vivendi. I do not want to go into the whole question which was argued by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior this morning as to the conduct of the Corporation of Durban. Evidently there is a great deal that is confused, and not well understood in the whole situation, and I do not want to go into that. The Indians have made the charge that the Corporation has been most unhelpful and has not put sites at their disposal, and has not helped them over the difficulties in which they are. Mr. Justice Broome has said in reply to that, that the Indians have never made application for those sites. This statement again the Indians have denied, and evidently it is very difficult for us in this House with the information at our disposal, to come to a settlement of this question, to understand the merits of it, and to come to a final judgment about it. I think it therefore necessary for us to remit this question to a proper judicial enquiry and to evolve a solution which might, if possible, be acceptable to both sides and to the country. The Government therefore propose to have an enquiry by a judicial body on which Indians themselves will be represented and which will go into the whole matter and see what is a possible way out. It is quite clear we must be fair to both sides, it is quite clear that if we want to have peace between these two sections of the community, we shall have to have fair play, otherwise we shall never have any understanding between them. Eighty per cent. of the Indians today are South African born, they are part of our people, and they have therefore to be treated by us with all fair human consideration. On may regret that some-times they appeal whenever they get into trouble with us to Indian public opinion and the Indian Government. One may regret that, because in South Africa today that behaviour does them no justice, and puts up the backs of the European community, which makes a solution more difficult. I suppose that in time they will learn to look to South Africa itself, to public opinion in South Africa and to the European community, for justice and fair play. But as yet they have this weakness that they appeal outside the Union, and in that way make the solution of this question much more difficult. But whatever mistakes they may make, we are bound to remember that they are our people, born here, they have no other country, and we must be fair and just to them, and see that both in regard to land holding, housing schemes, amenities and all the rights which civilised people are entitled to, are also afforded to them, and that they have a fair measure of all this for themselves too. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition seems to have indicated that the time for the Gape Town Agreement is past. I was very much astonished to find that opinion expressed by him. After all, he is the father of the Cape Town Agreement, the “unlift agreement”, as it was called, and I am surprised to hear that he is prepared now to jettison his own baby and to look upon the agreement as obsolete.

Your representatives at that conference agreed with me. Don’t be surprised now.

Surely the uplift clause, the policy of that agreement to give the Indian people in South Africa, our own fellow-citizens, a square deal, every opportunity for progress, for education and for living a better life, surely that policy stands, that can never be abrogated. Whatever may be the fate of the former agreement, the policy behind it is a policy which the Government and the people of this country are bound to carry out, and we shall carry out. And therefore, sir, I would say that if there are complaints by the Indians in regard to their treatment at Durban or elsewhere, let this be investigated, let the whole question in Natal be investigated, let us accord the Indians there fair treatment, a fair share of education, so that they will not have the feeling that they are aliens in this country, not outcasts and helots, but people to be treated by us in a fair way. Only in that way can you have a feeling of friendliness and of decent living amongst the elements of the people in this country. This Bill deals with Durban, and it deals with Durban only because it is the only centre where the situation has been carefully gone into, and we have the report of the judge in which all the facts are put before us. We know very little about the other places. No doubt charges are made, and counter-charges are made. But we have no careful enquiry which enlightens us as to that.

You are shutting your eyes to the situation in the rest of the country.

No, I think it is the hon. member who shuts his eyes to the situation. We want the full facts, and therefore we say let us deal with Durban and then appoint an enquiry which will not only cover Durban but the whole of Natal, and elsewhere. If that enquiry were to show the necessity for action elsewhere, let the Government act by proclamation. Don’t let us take action now without the facts, I have been dealing so far with the situation at Durban, but the Bill deals also with the Transvaal situation, and it is a curious circumstance that whereas in Natal the position has been getting progressively and rapidly worse, in the Transvaal where we have a control measure the position has improved. I do not remember a time for many years when there has been so little friction between the European and the Indian community, and when relations have on the whole been so wholesome and good as today. One naturally attributes it to the difference in the legal situation. In the Transvaal we passed a standstill provision which has been in operation for four years, and it has been possible for the Minister of the Interior to watch this question of penetration and put a stop to it wherever it showed itself. A number of applications have been refused, and I assume that the 600 odd applications which have been refused are applications which would have created a very serious position in the Transvaal. Through the control we have been able to prevent that, the relations in the Transvaal have been good, and I therefore come to the conclusion that the same system applied during this interim period of investigation in Natal might have a good effect. That is why we now propose this three years pegging period shall apply both in the Transvaal to licensing and in Natal to land-owning.

It is not in this Bill.

I am afraid the hon. member has not read the Bill.

Where is it in the Bill; what clause?

Clause 10.

The hon. member has not read the Bill. I think it will be possible for us, by passing this Bill, not only to peg the position as it is now but to have an opportunity for investigation, for consulting both sides, and the House will eventually have before it an impartial report by a body which has gone into the situation as a whole, and on that we shall be able to take action. I think, sir, that this is the only way in which we can deal with this situation which has arisen, and which is now forced on the attention of the country, and I therefore ask the House to let us have this on the statute book, without further pause, and before the end of this Session.

What about Cabinet responsibility?

I hear a groaning on the other side, but the Cabinet was so much in travail during the past week that one is not surprised to hear the aftermath of the groaning still today. But we looked forward with great expectations to what would be produced, and the product, at least to some members of the Cabinet, was not of a very attractive nature. We have had the spectacle here in a so-called democratic country with a democratic system of government, of one Minister differing radically from the rest of the Cabinet, that he placed his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister, but that the resignation was not accepted though the difference occurred on a fundamental question, and the Minister remained in the Cabinet. All the Prime Minister said was that a very real reason existed why this Bill should be accepted by the House soon. The Prime Minister also said that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition could not be accepted because it would spell delay with the result that this Bill could then not be accepted by Parliament this Session. But in connection with the position of the Minister of Finance, he did not mention a single word. The Prime Minister offered an excuse as to why this Bill must be passed now, and he loaded the blame onto the shoulders of the Indians, that they compelled him to introduce the Bill. Then he said that what was required now was a little time to gain breath so that there could again be consultation and another agreement could be concluded between the Indians and the Government. The Prime Minister admitted that the deliberation and co-operation of the past 20 years were valueless. If these had any value it would not have been necessary to introduce legislation of this nature. Why does the Prime Minister now again want time for discussions? This morning the Minister of Finance told the House why he could not support the Bill, and the Minister of Finance told the House that while he admitted the necessity for the introduction of legislation in respect of Natal, he differed fundamentally with the rest of the Cabinet as regards the prolongation of the legislation in the Transvaal. The Minister of Finance reminds me of a tight-rope walker in a circus. He walks nervously and creates the impression among the public, among the spectators, that he is undertaking a grave risk, but at the same time he knows that he has a net under him, and that when he falls he will land in the net without being hurt. The Minister of Finance—I am sorry he is not here—makes me think of a tightrope walker. He came with a great gesture and explained that his principles did not allow him to support this Bill. But the Minister of Finance knew full well, even though he made that gesture of placing his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister, that the resignation would not be accepted. The Minister of Finance has already experienced what it means to act on such high principles. On a previous occasion he also placed his resignation in the hands of a Prime Minister. Then it was accepted, and then he found that he actually had to leave the Cabinet. To his great disappointment he discovered that he did not create a commotion in the country. It was ignored, and very little attention was paid to it. He has ensured that no repetition of this will occur in this case. What is of importance is that the Minister in 1939 voted for the principle of the Act of 1939. Although he objected to the law later, he nevertheless voted for the principle of it. He did not vote for certain clauses, but he voted for the principle of the law at the Second Reading at that time. It is noteworthy that on that occasion he had 10 supporters in this House. Today he announces to us that he has only two supporters in the House. It appears, therefore, that the hon. Minister of Finance has made no headway, but that his stocks are rapidly slumping, and that he now has only two supporters in this House. What is remarkable is that the Minister of Finance indicated that he was completely an orphan—that not only his old supporters on the other side have left him, but that even the representatives of the Natives occupying the benches of the Native Representatives no longer support him. I would just say to the Minister of Finance that it would suit him much better to leave the Cabinet, and to take his place on those benches among the Native Representatives. Perhaps he will then be able to apply his principles more loyally than he is busy doing today. I say that it was announced with a great flourish of trumpets that radical legislation would be introduced into Parliament, legislation which, at least so far as Natal is concerned, would provide a reasonable solution of the matter. It was the expectation of the public, particularly in view of the critics in the Cabinet, that radical legislation would come before the House. To the disappointment of all this Bill, which almost wrecked the war effort of the Government, is nothing more than a damp squib. This Bill actually does nothing to solve that urgent problem. All it does is to give the Government the opportunity of soothing the Dominion Party to some extent until after the election, and then to take the opportunity of suspending the Bill thereafter without obtaining the approval of the House for the suspension. In 1939, when the Transvaal Act was adopted by Parliament, the then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stuttaford) said at the introduction of the Bill that it was an interim measure and that he had introduced it merely in view of the fact that it would provide an opportunity of finding a solution by way of consultation, and that legislation would be introduced during the two subsequent years. He also indicated to the House at the time what he envisaged by the introduction of legislation, and he said inter alia that when one specific race could not get on with another race and could not live with the other race, then that race should have the right to reside apart. He spoke on behalf of the Government, and he repeated that if people could not get on with one another then they must live apart from one another. That is what he put in prospect, and he said that his interim Bill would remain in operation for two years, and he expressed the hope that a solution would be found within two years. Four years have passed. Instead of a solution having been found, the position has weakened and deteriorated to such an extent that the Government has been compelled to intervene so far as Natal is concerned. Now we have a prolongation of that law for the Transvaal for another three years, and the Government will thus have seven years altogether to find a solution. In spite of what the Minister has said to the effect that the position has improved considerably in the Transvaal, the position has actually become worse. The statement of the Minister of the Interior shows that he either shuts his eyes to the actual position, or that he is not acquainted with conditions in the Transvaal. He admits that he has issued 1,329 trading permits under the Transvaal Act. Those are the permits which the Minister issued in the course of four years. To him it is an indication that the position is satisfactory. The Indians are again objecting, but their objection is not against the Transvaal Act, for they know that that Act is satisfactory to them, for they know that when they knock at the door of the Minister for a trading permit they have not the least difficulty in obtaining the permit from the Minister. But the position is not satisfactory. So long as the Minister abuses his powers under the Act, as he has done in the past, the Indian position in the Transvaal—yes, it is satisfactory to the Indians—will certainly not be satisfactory to the Europeans. Then we come to Natal. Every Minister who has stood up here has spoken about discussions and consultations that must take place and the solution that must be found on a voluntary basis. Such consultations have taken place time and again with the Indians. The Minister of the Interior said here that the Lawrence Committee was appointed in March, 1940, for the purpose of trying to obtain a voluntary solution of the question in Durban. That was in March, 1940. That Committee consisted of representatives of the Indian community and of Europeans, and the special object of the Committee was to circumvent Indian penetration in Durban by means of mutual cooperation. In December, 1941, the Durban Corporation was compelled to withdraw its representatives. That Committee had no effect and reached no objective. And the consultations and co-operations that had to be brought about by means of that Committee served no useful purpose. There was no solution, and the Committee did not succeed in preventing Indian penetration. The principle on which had to be acted so far as this matter is concerned, as Mr. Stuttaford said, was that when Europeans refused to live with non-Europeans, they should have the right to live apart. That has to take place on the basis of segregation. The Indians of course, take up the attitude that to say to Europeans that they must live on one side and to the Indians that they must live in some other place, casts a blot on the Indian community. I want to say here immediately that segregation had its origin with the Indians themselves. They have accepted and applied it for centuries in their own country. In India itself segregation is strictly applied, more strictly than in any other country. The one class in India is not prepared to live in the same house with their own compatriots. The one class, when they come into the shadow of the Untouchables, feel that they are contaminated. In India itself they accept the principle of segregation so far as their own compatriots are concerned, and I emphatically deny therefore, that any blot is cast upon the Indian community when segregation is applied to them in this country. This question of living together is a problem with which we in South Africa have had to contend for the past 40 years. It is a running sore that has not yet healed. The Government comes with one commission after another, and with laws that in practice have no significance, and in that manner they attempt to solve the problem. The unfortunate part is that instead of dealing with the question from the standpoint of the Europeans, one always finds misguided Europeans who give a lead to the Indians and who incite them and tell them what an injustice they Europeans are supposed to be doing them. Those misguided Europeans are called Liberals. They are so-called Liberals, but actually they are people who undermine the position of their own European race in any way.

That is now an appeal to colour prejudice.

The hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) says that I am making an appeal to colour prejudice. I want to say this to her, that whether it is colour prejudice or not, we have to look facts in the face: There is race prejudice in South Africa. It has been here since European civilisation was planted here and the greatest portion of the European community, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, will not shed that race prejudice. Those are the facts, and on the basis of those facts we must act in connection with such problems. Simply to close our eyes and to say that it is race prejudice, and that we should therefore take no steps to keep the Europeans apart from the non-Europeans, means that we overlook the actual race danger. We must deal with it. What now is the position in South Africa? This Bill with which the Government now comes to light, and which caused such a crisis in the Cabinet that the Government almost lost its Minister of Finance, is of such a nature that if one analyses the Bill, then it is nothing else than a sop to the Dominion Party.

There I agree with you entirely.

The Bill itself actually means nothing. Every Minister on the other side, one after another, said that it was not race discrimination which is incorporated in this Bill. The speech of the Minister of the Interior was not a speech delivered to this House, but a speech for the gallery. He wanted to tell the Indian community that no race discrimination was incorporated in this Bill. There was discrimination against the European as well as the Indian, and he added that the manner in which the Bill would be applied would be of such a nature that the Indian community would not be able to take any exception to it. I really cannot understand why there should have been such a revolt that the Minister of Finance even threatened to leave the Cabinet. There is no discrimination. We can understand that the Indian community should have come into revolt. The Indian community go out from the standpoint that any legislation which affects the Indians in the least is something against which they must protest strongly. Whether it is detrimental to them or not, it is the principle against which they must protest. That is why we are getting these hefty protests from the Indian community. The same has happened before, and this is another indication to us of how the Indians set to work. In the first place they come forward with protests against so-called injustice that is being committed against them. If that does not help, they come with threats, and if the threats do not help, then the Indians take up the attitude that they must try and evade that law in every possible way. Where we speak of threats, we think of the pathetic figure which the Minister of Mines cut when he spoke of the support which he gave this Bill, because it would not cause the disintegration of the British Empire. He said here that India was a member of the British Commonwealth, and that if harm were done to the British Commonwealth he would be one of the first to step into the breach for the British Commonwealth. It is a pity that he is not here now, for I have a cutting from a paper called “Indian Views.” I have here the issue of Friday, 2nd April. When an indication was given of this measure or rather when it was envisaged that a measure would be introduced to put a stop to Indian penetration, the Indian community immediately took the matter to heart and they started their protests and threats. In the leading article this Indian paper “Indian Views” says this—

And then the paper begins to threaten—

But you yourself said one day that South Africa’s future depended upon a Nazi victory, and you must not now pay attention to this silly effusion.

Of course, I do not pay any attention to the bunk that the Minister perpetually purveys. They say further—

That is the view of the Indian community as expressed in a leading article in one of their periodicals. I do not know if they want to apply it in particular to the Minister of the Interior, and whether it is against him that they want to direct this beautiful language which I have quoted. I say that if these threats do not help, then it is the usual custom of the Indian community, when legislation is adopted by this Parliament, to evade that legislation in every way. The members of the Indian community admit that no law has ever been placed on our Statute Book which they have not evaded. I have a letter that was written to the Minister of the Interior by a certain H. R. Desai, of 69 Troye Street, Johannesburg. In this letter he says this—

This is the confession of an Indian himself. This is the kind of community we have to contend with, and although this Bill contains nothing radical, we have this storm of protests on the part of the Indians. As soon as legislation of any kind affects the Indians we get these hefty protests, for their standpoint is that if something small can be done, then perhaps something bigger will be done later.

And it seems that the paper scarcity is no obstacle to all the propaganda they make.

Yes, that is so. I revert to the difference between the Europeans and the non-Europeans. The Europeans refuse to live together with the non-Europeans. That is the principle we adopt, that there must be demarcation. That principle is not incorporated in this Bill. Indeed, the Minister has gone out of his way to say that no race discrimination is envisaged. He went so far that I subsequently asked whether the danger of penetration was a danger of European penetration instead a danger of Indian penetration. We really came to the conclusion afterwards that the Bill was aimed against European penetration and not against. Indian penetration. When we speak of segregation, then we can come to no other conclusion than that this Bill in no way serves to solve the question of residential intermingling, but on the contrary it stabilises mixed habitation in Durban. It is emphatically said here that the property already bought by Indians may not be purchased back by Europeans. This is not allowed. We have received the report of Mr. Justice Broome, and in that report we find the map of the areas occupied by the Indians in Durban. The report gives a map of a part of Durban, and Indian penetration is indicated in red and green. The map is covered with red and green to indicate all the penetration. The whole area is covered with coloured blocks to show that the Indians have penetrated there. Now the Minister says that this Bill is going to stabilise the position; it is not going to try to get the Indians out of that European residential area. Yet it prohibits the Europeans from buying back those properties. The Minister makes the provision that this position will be stabilised in future. One of the most important provisions of this Bill is that where Indians have already acquired property no European will be permitted to buy back the property from the Indian. In other words, the Indian is allowed to retain the property. I say, therefore, that this Bill does nothing but stabilise mixed habitation. No effort is made to solve the problem, but all that is done is to say that so far as the existing areas are concerned the Indians will not be allowed to purchase property without a permit. I shall revert to this question of the permits later. The leader of the Opposition has indicated that this Bill has reference only to Durban and not to the rest of Natal, and the result of this is going to be that the Indians will now buy land outside Durban in the other municipal areas. That is self-evident. If we must accept what the Government said here, that the Indians are purchasing this land and these properties to find an investment for their money—the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) also said that they are purchasing the properties not so much for the purpose of occupying them but because they want to invest their money—then the logical conclusion of this stipulation which makes the Bill applicable only to Durban is that the Indians, now that they can no longer buy properties in Durban, will do so outside, and there will thus immediately be an increase in the purchase of land and property by Indians in other municipal areas of Natal. Now the Government tells us that there is no proof of penetration in other municipal areas of Natal. I would just refer the Minister to a very important and authoritative body in Natal, namely, the Natal Municipal Association. The representatives of all the important municipalities of Natal held a conference on 24th April, 1941, and at that conference they adopted the following resolution—

Not only in Durban, but in the whole Province of Natal. That is the statement of an authoritative body such as the Congress of the Natal Municipal Association, and it should be sufficient indication to the Minister that there is indeed Indian penetration in areas outside Durban. It can be accepted that Indian penetration takes place in the other municipal areas, and not only that it does take place there, but that now that restrictions are going to be placed on Durban that penetration will take place on a bigger scale in the other municipalities. But now the Minister will say that he assumes power in this Bill to proclaim the Bill on those areas if he finds out the penetration takes place in other areas. He can then make the Bill applicable not only to Durban but also to other municipalities. But what will happen then? The Minister will first appoint a Commission. The Commission must first conduct an investigation, and after the Commission has reported and has proved that Indian penetration does take place, the law will be proclaimed. Now what is the usual custom in connection with Commissions? They are appointed, and it takes six months, nine months, or a year before they report.

The second Broome Commission reported within a month.

That was in exceptional circumstances. In this case it was not even necessary to appoint a Commission. The Minister could simply have gone to the Deeds Office to determine whether there were purchases by Indians or not. But now we find that a Commission will have to be appointed for every area in Natal to investigate and to report, and if the Commission one day reports, then it is still doubtful if the Minister will proclaim such an area. We know what pressure is going to be brought to bear on the Government. We know what pressure the Minister of Finance will exercise. I want to revert to the question of mixed habitation. The Minister admits that his Bill does not put a stop to mixed habitation. He goes further and he stabilises it, because he says that one may let any property in a European area to an Indian so long as it is not for a longer period than ten years. If we are going to provide in the law that a property can be let to an Indian in a European area for ten years, then it simply means that any European residence can be let to an Indian and that mixed habitation will continue. The biggest danger in this Bill is the extraordinary wide powers that are given to the Minister of the Interior. He has the right to issue a permit to any Indian for the purchase of property. Notwithstanding the fact that a large part of the Durban Municipal Area has already been occupied by Indians, the Minister may still issue permits to Indians to acquire more property. The law provides that the Minister can, at his discretion, order the issue of permits for the occupation or the prolongation of permission for occupation in respect of any land or plot in the Municipal Area of Durban. Then the clause provides further—

In other words, it is left to the Minister’s discretion to say whether a permit must be extended to an Indian to acquire any property in this area. We have seen how the Minister has used his power under the Transvaal Act. According to his own confession here in this House he has issued 1,300 trading permits to Indians during the past four years. And now we must accept, particularly in view of the circumstances in which this Bill was adopted, that the Minister can be just as liberal in exercising this power. There are people in his own party who will bring pressure to bear upon him. The Indian community will bring pressure to bear upon him, and we cannot but assume that he will make the widest use of this discretion, vested in him by the law, to issue permits. We can expect this particularly when we think of the nature of the constituency which he represents and the threats that are already being made against him in connection with the matter. The hon. leader of the Opposition has already said that there is not the least justification for giving any Minister powers of this nature. It is dangerous to give the Minister such a wide discretion, particularly when we have to do with a Government of this kind; it is decidedly dangerous to give such powers to a Minister such as the Minister of the Interior. Provision ought to be made that the Minister should lay on the Table of the House during next Session a list of all the exemption permits which he has issued, so that the House can have the opportunity to judge on how he has used this power. Then there is a final important provision in the Bill so far as Natal is concerned, and that is that although the Bill now provides that Durban is a proclaimed area, the Government can, without consulting Parliament, decide to deproclaim that area again. The Government can do so immediately after the Session. It comes down to this, that if the Government finds immediately after the election that the pressure on it is very heavy then it will have the right to suspend the provisions of the law without coming to Parliament again. For what purpose, then, is this House being asked to adopt a Bill of this nature? The House is asked to lay down these provisions, and at the same time the House is asked to empower the Government to suspend those provisions at any time. It simply means that, although the law provides that the Asiatics in Durban may no longer purchase land in European areas, the Minister has the right to suspend those provisions immediately after the prorogation of Parliament or shortly before the election. We can visualise the sort of pressure that will be brought to bear upon the Government. The experience we have had of this Government during a period of four years gives us a good idea of how they will act if pressure of this nature is exercised. Self-evidently, if it is left to the Government to decide if the law should remain in operation or not, the Government will be subject to the greatest pressure, and if one has a Government such as this one then we know that they will probably surrender to pressure. It is clear that even though the Bill has been announced as a very important measure, even though four Ministers have had to stand up, the one to oppose the Bill and the others to justify it, and although the whole country is aware of the fact that there was almost a split in the Cabinet about the Bill, we can come to no other conclusion than that the Bill is principally only an illusion. If the provisions are applied there will be a small improvement. But actually there ought to be no objection from the members who represent the natives or from the Minister of Finance or from the Indian community against the provisions of the Bill. There are so many loopholes in the Bill and so much discretion and power are given the Minister that the Bill may be of no significance within a month. What is desired, and it is desired not only by this side of the House but also by hon. members on the other side, and by the overwhelming majority of our population, is that there should be a clear demarcation between European and non-European. Not that we begrudge the non-European a livelihood. We want every individual in the country to make a proper livelihood. We are a small European population of more or less two millions in this country, as against 8,000,000 non-Europeans. It is urgently necessary for the 2,000,000 Europeans to do all in their power to ensure that European civilisation shall continue and shall be maintained. In view of that, legislation of a more radical nature is imperative. In conclusion, I just want to say that I trust that amendments which this side of the House will move at the Committee stage to improve this insignificant little Bill somewhat, will be adopted. I hope the Government will show its honesty, that it will show that it is really serious in this matter by adopting the amendments that we shall move.

Perhaps this House will concede to me some vestige of justification for commenting upon the serious problem which is before the House this afternoon, since I was the first member of the Union Parliament who introduced a motion in this House, drawing attention to the seriousness of the problem and indicating what should have been done 20 years ago. There are one or two points which seem to me to need correction. There is, for example, the idea that the question of Indian penetration is a matter of yesterday. Some of the members of this House have been engaged in discussing whether the first report of Mr. Justice Broome showed penetration or whether it did not. It is shown by the report of the first commission ever appointed to consider the acquisition of land by Indians, that considerable penetration had taken place as far back as 1921, so I want to correct particularly in the Minister’s mind the impression that the country is going to be satisfied if this problem is treated as a problem of yesterday or of yesteryear. This is a problem of long standing, and a very obstinate one too, and it requires much more far-reaching treatment than is proposed in this Bill. I am supporting this Bill because for the moment it seems to be the only action the Government is prepared to take.

You may as well say “at the moment”.

I agree that this is the only action that can be taken, and for the present I support the legislation. But I strongly resent, as do many others in this country, the suggestion that is being spread by very responsible people that the demand for legislation of this kind emanates from people imbued with racial and colour prejudice. That statement which may be looked upon as a very irresponsible statement, was made by a Minister of the Crown, and no doubt by this time it has been cabled to India. I ask the House seriously to consider the effect of such statements when made by responsible people in this country, and forming a very fruitful means of stirring up hate and resentment in India. I have been to India in the course of my Parliamentary duties, and I know how easily statements of that kind are magnified and exaggerated, and wrongly used in that country. Actually I contest the right of the Minister in question to make any such statement, and I should like to compare his statement with what was said by no less a distinguished man, who unfortunately is no longer with us, the late Mr. Graham MacKeurtan, twenty years ago. His attitude was certainly not due to the dragon of racialism, which the Minister dragged in a week ago; but Mr. MacKeurtan spoke of the problem as a father who was considering what the future of his family would be, and he spoke of it in those terms to this House: He introduced a motion dealing with the very subject, and that motion was framed by himself. There was nothing of racial prejudice about it.

What have I done?

I am referring to the Minister of Finance. I do not for a moment accuse the Minister of the Interior of having made an irresponsible statement about this matter. The late Mr. MacKeurtan moved in this House on the 9th May, 1922—

How dare the Minister of Finance now speak of this problem as though it were a problem of last week, and as though it were due to racial prejudice and racial hatred. We have surely suffered enough as a result of the kind of penetration that has taken place. When Mr. MacKeurtan spoke on this resolution he said—

He was no racialist; he was no segregationist; he went on to say—

The Minister of the Interior, when he spoke of the seriousness of the problem at present, was not exaggerating the matter at all. I handed to him documents which showed how desperately serious this problem had been made by the encroachment of the Indians, and there is no doubt that the position was one from which serious consequences might have followed at any time. The letter which I referred to then, and which I do not wish to go into any further, dealt with the position of the particular body of Indians who are concerned today with this matter insofar as the public is concerned, who are constantly posing as the spokesmen of the Indians as a whole in this country and who have no right to do so. The letter says—

This is written by a very responsible man who knows the Indians through and through and who employs hundreds of them. He goes on to say—

We are being told that we are injuring the war effort by legislating as the Minister proposed to do. I am confident that the Minister is well aware of the non-representative character of the people who are constantly clamouring that they represent the whole Indian community of South Africa. The Press abounds with letters from Indians which make it clear that the trading class represent very few people outside themselves. The Commission of 1921 recommended in regard to land owning—they had considered the question very carefully—that the Indians should be permitted to buy within an area of from 20 to 30 miles from the Coast line; that is to say, that they should not be permitted to go further inland, and that area was chosen because it was suitable for the Indian people, and it was an area in which they had for many years been employed. Those were the grounds, and that was the atmosphere in which the first report was made. There was no question of racialism about it. The men who composed that Commission were outstanding men of long experience in the country, men who had never been associated with any segregation movement but who on the contrary were men predisposed to regard the rights of every section of the community with equal care. Their names were: Mr. Justice Lange, Chairman; Gen. James S. Wylie, Mr. H. J. Hofmeyr, of Johannesburg; and Mr. W, Duncan Baxter. They were assisted in their deliberations by Sir Benjamin Robertson and Mr. afterwards Sir G. Corbett from India. They were the first to suggest the voluntary scheme of segregation that was made use of for some years and which resulted in repatriating a considerable number of Indians who wished to return to their own country. That disposes of the idea of the Minister of Finance that this movement had a background of racial hatred or that it was due to the demon of racial hatred and prejudice.

You mean dragon.

Yes, I am sorry, I misquoted. This question is a very serious one, and I regret to find this attitude on the part of the hon. Minister of Finance; his almost lighthearted tendering of his resignation really bordered on the ridiculous. While the Minister was speaking, it sounded to me that he was endeavouring to move us to sorrow at the possibility of losing him. He reminded me of the hero in the play “Iolanthe” who when he failed to bring a tear to the eyes of his audience by stating how he had nearly died was greeted with the chorus: “But rather let us pipe our eye because our Strephon did not die.” Whatever may have been the Minister’s interpretation, that was the impression which his speech created. It is wrong on a question of this kind to use a constitutional course which is only permitted in cases of grave emergency, to start a war of nerves upon us. None of us was moved to emotion in this matter. Everyone seemed to be keeping a stiff upper lip. There were no tears shed anywhere, but I consider his resignation was merely the climax to his going to a pack of schoolboys, making an alarmist statement there, so that it would be cabled to India and tendering his resignation as a finale to the whole ridiculous performance. I hope we shall not hear of this again. In regard to the Minister of the Interior I should like him to consider the question of the possibility of his action being forestalled in all places outside of Durban, because the present restriction on land purchase apparently does not apply to those areas. We may find that considerable property will have been taken up and bought outside Durban, to the disadvantage of the people in these areas, simply because the restriction does for the moment not extend to any place outside the Borough of Durban. I feel that this is a fault in the Bill which may be taken advantage of by the Indians. It is idle to suppose that none of the towns in Natal have suffered. People who know these towns—and I claim to be one of them—know that the town of Stanger today virtually belongs to the Indians. It is very difficult to find a single European who holds a trading licence in that town. Similarly Verulam has gone into the hands of the Indians. Let me go further North. Take Ladysmith for example. It will be very difficult for you to find licences held by Europeans as general dealers in that place. Almost every person trading in Ladysmith is an Indian. The same holds good in a place like Umzinto or in a place like Richmond, and in any town of any size the Indians seem to be monopolising the trade of the country and very largely buying out the Europeans in those towns. As Mr. MacKeurtan said in 1922: “The Asiatics are peacefully penetrating and eating the Europeans out.” That continues to be the position today. I hope the hon. Minister will take due regard to the flaw that exists in the Bill at the present time, and the possibility of Indians buying up considerable property before a Commission can sit or before any effective action can be taken against them. I think the Town Council of Durban has not been very fairly treated in the debate this afternoon, in regard to their alleged culpability in respect of their treatment of the Indian housing question. I do not for one moment admit that the Durban City Council has been to blame. I met a deputation from the Durban City Council, and they were able to show that in the Indian housing effort that was being made by the Council, an expenditure of £2,343,000 was involved. They spent £19,000 and they provided 50 detached three-roomed houses for the Indians. Their comment in regard to this venture was: “Despite the very reasonable rentals, the Council had very great difficulty in letting these houses.” In another case they spent £26,708 and they were willing to sell the houses to Indians. The prices ranged from £480 to £635, very much less than they paid for the houses in the areas to which they have recently penetrated. The monthly instalments ranged from £2 to £2 7s. 5d. per month. The initial deposit required was £5, and in regard to this scheme the City Council says: “Despite the very easy terms of purchase and the extensive publicity given to the scheme, it took nine months to dispose of all 50 houses.” There was a third scheme costing £24,000, and this was for letting at a sub-economic rental of 15s. per month. The comment of the City Council in this connection is: “Here again it was with the utmost difficulty that the Council let the houses, despite the cheap rental and the extensive publicity given to the scheme. It took over 10 months to let the complete number of 75 houses.” They added this comprehensive paragraph which I think merits the attention of this House. Having dealt with all their proposals they say: “Knowing the sensitive temperament of this class of inhabitant, the Council has been careful to avoid any action which might be interpreted as dictatorial or coercive.” The City Council of Durban has been actuated by considerations of that kind throughout their dealings with the Indians in regard to the housing problem, and in spite of this they say that they encountered the greatest possible reluctance on the part of the Indians to avail themselves of the housing that has been provided. Then it has been claimed on behalf of the Indians that they have merely sought an investment for their money. How is that possible? If you were to examine the lists of purchases, you would find that in almost every case very heavy bonds were passed in the case of every purchase. That means that this larger buying has been on borrowed money, and it is an open secret that quite a considerable amount of that money has been advanced by building societies that are not domiciled in Durban. In regard to the attitude of certain members of this House, only quite recently we were being severely attacked in this House by the Labour Party because we were pressing for attention to be paid to this matter now, before the end of the present Session. We heard from the Labour Party this afternoon of a very great change of heart, which we all welcome. But it is impossible to acquit them of very heavy responsibility in this matter. They have been on the City Council of Durban, the only section who have been working in favour of penetration in certain areas. It was admitted by Mr. Capell, who was at that time the leader of the Labour Party movement in the House, under oath in the Supreme Court, that he had transferred the property Ely Place to Kajee’s (Pty.), Ltd. There was a very evident sign of disapproval in this House this afternoon that Europeans were referred to as having been instrumental in promoting penetration. But what is to be said of a Town Councillor who himself was enagged in facilitating penetration of an undesirable kind? Let us hear no more, Sir, of help from the Labour Party in preventing undesirable penetration in Durban. The Labour Councillors, Sir, have been most closely associated with the Indians in Durban and have been their helpers in regard to most matters concerning the Town Council. As recently as two days ago a member of this House received official information from the Town Clerk of Durban of further efforts made by the Town Council in connection with Indian housing. This communication showed that 205 acres in Cato Manor had ben bought for the purpose of an Indian village. Immediately a boycott was threatened by the Indians. The Corporation of Durban offered twelve quarter-acre sites in 1933 at the upset price of £45 each, free survey, and free transfer. Twenty per cent. was to be in cash, and the balance within two years at 5 per cent. That was while Europeans were paying 6 per cent. Moreover, the Corporation offered loans from the housing fund for the erection of buildings. Four of the plots were sold at £45, three of them to the same Indian, and no building has yet in 1943 been erected. That, Sir, I think shows a passive resistance policy adopted in connection with land set apart by the Town Council for Indian occupation. The Council has made an industrious effort to meet the claims for housing the Indians, and they have been met with a great lack of co-operation from the Indians.

Mr. Speaker, mine is going to be one of the few, one of the very few voices raised in this House against this Bill; but I am going to raise it, and I am going to raise it hopefully. That may seem incredible optimism in view of what has taken place here today. Yet I think there are certain justifiable grounds for hope that the Minister and the Government may yet decide to change their minds about going on with this Bill. The first of these affects the Minister himself. In introducing his Bill, he was obviously not happy about it. It is clearly not the sort of measure that he would choose to father. It is a measure which runs counter to everything he has hitherto stood for and on which his own tradition is built. So I am hopeful that, in due course, and before it is too late, he will repudiate it. Then, in spite of the definite stand which the Prime Minister has taken in the Bill, I am hopeful that he too may reconsider the position and decide against going on with it. I listened with interest but not with conviction to what he had to say in support of the Bill and I felt that he, too, is not happy about it. More than that, I felt that he was not at all clear about the facts on which the measure had been based. I gathered the impression, while he was speaking, that some of the facts have been conveyed to him and that he had been persuaded to support this measure on the assumption that these facts constitute the whole story. I am hopeful that he may see also before it is too late that this is not the case and may reconsider the position accordingly. But the ultimate ground of my hope that this measure may yet be dropped derives from the character of the debate which has taken place here today. I feel that the reception of this Bill by the House must have made both the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister much more uneasy than they already were about the Bill and that it must have shown the Prime Minister the grave danger of taking even one short step along a road which should not be trodden by anybody who calls himself a democrat. This particular step has been the signal for loud congratulations to him but more to themselves by the minority parties in this House who could never hope to carry the majority of the electorate with them for their policy. These minorities are all congratulating themselves on getting the implementation of a policy for which they could never, on their own merits, have got sufficient backing from the public to give them the power to do this on their own. They are delighted at having got this Government to do for them what they could not do for themselves, put their policy on the Statute book.

The people want it.

The people do not want it, any more than they want the parties who support it. This Government is not in office to bring in this sort of measure; this Government was not supported in 1939 for this sort of legislation. The people who supported this Government in 1939 supported it to build a better world. They supported it to establish justice and peace between the peoples and races of the world; and I think the attitude which the minority parties have take up in the House in regard to this Bill, their profound satisfaction with it, must be a matter for grave thought and heart searching on the part of the Government. And it is already clear that these parties regard the measure now before the House as indeed only the first step on another branch of the road of racial discrimination in this country and that, having induced the Prime Minister to take this step, they will combine their forces to push him the whole way to the gaol they have set before themselves. I think the dangers of the situation cannot have been lost on the Prime Minister and I am hoping that he will face them squarely and turn back while there is time. Now I am going to deal with the Bill as I see it, on its merits such as they are. I am going to oppose the Bill, and I am going to oppose it on two grounds. The first of these is that it is unjustified and the second is that it is unwise. Sir, I am going to contend that the measure is unjustified on all the evidence that is before us; and that in spite of everything that has been said in this House today. The evidence, I maintain, does not justify this Bill. Let me deal first with that section of the Bill which applies to the Transvaal. Some four years ago, we legislated on the position of Asiatics in the Transvaal—that is we passed interim legislation with the under standing that, when the situation in that province had been fully investigated, we would then make a final decision as to the policy to be pursued there. That investigation has now been completed and it has been found that there is no necessity for any anxiety in regard to the position in that province. Yet here today we are being asked to extend the period of the restrictive legislation of 1939. The argument which was put forward in this House today is the curious one that we have had peace in the Transvaal for the last four years but I submit that this is a complete betrayal of the conditions under which the 1939 legislation was passed. The implication of this propostion is that what began as interim legislation is to become permanent legislation in spite of all evidence against the necessity for it. I hear somebody say we hope so. That is the sort of attitude we are up against in this country on any matter of colour. The Government passes restrictive legislation on the understanding that it is temporary, pending the results of certain enquiries, and when the enquiries are completed, the legislation remains in spite of all the weight of evidence against its necessity. It is this experience which makes us, who are opposed in general principle to discriminatory legislation, so particularly anxious about the present proposals in respect of Natal. I contend that the Government owes the country the fulfilment of the promise that was made when the Transvaal Act was introduced.

What was the promise? The promise originally was that the Minister would introduce segregation.

The promise was that when the situation had been investigated, a decision would be made as to the policy to be pursued. The Broome Commission has now shown clearly that any increase in Indian trading licences in the Transvaal in the last 15 years, has only been a natural increase, warranted by the increased population. In the circumstances we see no reason for the continuation of the pegging.

You can have an ordinary increase which does not involve penetration.

Yes, that is where the whole position is so confused. The question is, what is penetration. It has never been defined.

The question is one of acquiring property.

But in any case, Indians cannot acquire property in the Transvaal so they cannot penerate in that sense. And we know that the Licencing Boards will not allow any undue extension of the trading rights of Indians there. In such circumstances I ask again, what is penetration? Would ordinary extension of the activities of the Indians be regarded as penetration, regardless of their natural increases in numbers and an improvement in their standard of living?

No, we definitely say that they must have opportunities for expansion.

Well, that is common cause between the Minister and ourselves then. On those terms, it has been proved conclusively by the Broome Commission that there has been no undue extension of the activities of the Indian people of the Transvaal.

That is not the general feeling.

But we must have confidence both in our Commissions and in our people.

In the Indian people?

If the Government does not show confidence in the Indian people, where, as in the Transvaal, they have been shown to occupy only a reasonable place in the community, we are only going to exacerbate those feelings which are now developing among the Indians as a result of the way in which they are being treated. I think the Government has fallen down lamentably on this matter of the Transvaal position. It should have dropped the pegging legislation in respect of trading licences and occupational rights and it should finally have settled those matters outstanding from the Feetham Commission’s resolutions which constitute the rest of that section of this Bill which deals with the Transvaal. In this latter regard, we are wondering what is really happening in the Department of the Interior that it is not yet ready to complete the implementation of the Feetham Commission’s proposals. I have now set out the grounds of my opposition to the Transvaal side of this Bill. But I am equally opposed to the other side, the Natal side, and in this regard I am completely puzzled by the attitude of the Minister of Finance. I cannot understand his point of view—it leaves me in a maze. I am really surprised at the attitude he adopts in regard to the clauses applying to Natal. I say emphatically that I do not understand the conclusion he has arrived at. There have been, in my opinion, no grounds established for legislation of a discriminatory character of the kind proposed in this Bill; and I emphasise that, in spite of what the Minister of Finance has said, this is discriminatory legislation. It is the case that a series of facts have been produced which give weight to the agitation—if I may be allowed to use the terms used by the Minister of Mines—to an agitation by an aggressive and unpatriotic minority. The words are the words of the Minister of Mines, but I apply them in the contrary direction to his own. I say that the facts have been produced which have given some weight to an agitation of that kind. The first Broome Commission found that there was a certain amount of penetration in Natal, but not sufficient to cause alarm.

That was only in the rural areas, that was not in Durban.

In Durban, the report agreed, there had been a certain amount of penetration.

Over 500 cases.

Yes, but the Commission did not recommend any change in the law, it did not consider it serious enough for legislation to be introduced.

And we did not legislate.

That is so; and I am beginning to wonder why the Government did not legislate in 1941. Was there any difference between 1941 and 1943 ? Yes, the international situation in those days was very different from what it is today. I suggest that that affords one reason why the Government did not introduce legislation at that time.

I have done my best all the way to avoid legislation.

I know that, and I want to make it clear that in anything I say I am not casting any reflections on the Minister of the Interior. I know he has a most unenviable task. I know he has had less assistance in dealing with a difficult situation than one would have expected him to have had, and therefore I don’t blame him. In what I am saying, I am making a general appeal to the Government, an appeal to them to leave this alone and to give the Minister of the Interior another chance of dealing with it in a different way. I do not want the Minister to think that in my attitude there is any criticism of him personally. I am only sorry that it is he who has to handle this Bill. I have always found him more than reasonable in these matters, and it must be a very unhappy responsibility for him with his tradition and outlook to have to shepherd a Bill of this kind through the House.

Now don’t you feel much better.

What I have said is directed to the Government as a whole. Let us return to the Broome Commission. The first Broome Commission, while it did find that there had been a certain amount of penetration, did not find sufficient to justify legislation. It found that there had been a reasonable number of cases—that the expansion of the Indian population that had taken place could be regarded as reasonable. I must say, Sir, that I dislike the general use of this term “penetration”. Can anyone tell me how a community settled in the middle of Durban, a working and trading community growing in numbers, is going to be stopped from spreading out into areas which at one time were European? Where are they going to spread to? It seems idle to assume that areas which in 1927 were predominantly European areas should remain so without considering the whole question of population, without considering the question of increase and expansion. And that is where I think the whole of this argument has been set on the wrong lines. I still want to return to the Broome Commission. The Second Broome Commission did find that there had been considerable acquisition of sites by Indians in an area in Durban which they claimed to be one of their “C” areas—that is those areas farther removed from the Indian areas.

At 5.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 26th March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 15th April.