I move—

The object of this Bill is to amend Section 9 of Act No. 42 of 1922, dealing with the appropriation to reserve funds. The existing section in Paragraph (1) requires the setting aside of a sum annually to a reserve fund for replacements and betterment in connection with the various undertakings of the Electricity Supply Commission. “Paragraph (2) defines the amount set aside as being confined to an amount not exceeding 3 per cent. of the moneys raised by loan in any one year, or 15 per cent. in all.” As a result of experience it has been found that that definition has not been clear. There have been no fewer than four legal interpretations as to exactly what powers the Commission has in making appropriations to these funds. It might, for instance, be regarded that they had to make an appropriation to the reserve funds not exceeding 3 per cent. of the loan they raised in any particular year, and they must do it every year under Sub-Section (1). But in fact loans have not been raised every year so that on that interpretation it will be impossible for them to make an appropriation every year. The intention might be taken as compelling them to make an appropriation in accordance with the capital expenditure in any one year, and it has been held by another legal opinion that the terms “in any one year” might refer to any particular year in which the Commission has been in existence, so that irrespective of any subsequent borrowings it would be competent for them to set aside not more than 3 per cent. of the biggest year in which they may have borrowed money, and I think it was obviously not the intention of Parliament that they should have quite as wide a discretion. It is quite clear, I think, that it was intended that the appropriation to reserve funds should bear some relation to the borrowings and to the capital expenditure. We are dealing here with a pretty big concern. The Electricity Supply Commission is handling at the present moment some £22,000,000 of public money, and the reserve fund already amounts to £1,750,000, and I think the House will agree that it is necessary to define more precisely the limits within which appropriations to the reserve funds should be made. This being a non-profit-making undertaking, the costs to the consumer of electric current are based upon the revenue and expenditure. Therefore the amount of revenue which is appropriated to reserve funds does have a bearing on the cost of current to the consumer, and it is of importance both to the consumer and to the stability of the undertaking as a whole that the reserve fund should be administered on an effective basis. There is also a further ambiguity in this section, where it refers to the reserve fund not being allowed to exceed the maximum of 15 per cent. in all. It is not clear from that whether the interest which is earned by this reserve fund, which every year amounts to a considerable sum, should be calculated in computing the 15 per cent. maximum which is allowed under the law; and several sections of the reserve fund are going to reach their maximum of 15 per cent. during this current year, and it is therefore necessary to make it clear whether or not the interest earned can continue to be credited to them. In building up this reserve fund there are two main points to be borne in mind. First of all, it is essential that adequate provision should be made for replacements and betterment in the various undertakings of the Commission, without loading the cost of current to the consumer; that is to say, the building up of the fund must be done on a steady basis, and secondly it must be done in such a way as to avoid fluctuation in the tariffs of current to the consumers. If on the one hand this interest is not allowed to be credited to the fund, if the fund has already reached 15 per cent., it will have to be credited to the revenue of the undertaking, and that will mean that a considerable surplus will accrue in some years to some of these undertakings, and that would mean that the surplus would have to be applied to a reduction in tariffs. That is all very well; the policy of the Commission is to reduce tariffs wherever possible, but only where it is reasonably certain that that reduction can be maintained, and if we credit the interest to the ordinary revenue, the moment replacements become necessary, the reserve fund is dipped into to a large extent, and falls below the 15 per cent., and the reserve fund has to be built up all over again. It means that the costs will have to be increased again to the consumer and alterations of tariffs from year to year up and down are obviously undesirable both from the point of view of the undertaking and from the point of view of the consumer. The changes in tariff of the Electricity Supply Commission have so far always been in a downward direction, and that is one of the reasons for the general satisfaction with the service given. On the other hand, if we allow this interest to be credited to the reserve fund, even if the reserve fund has already reached 15 per cent., it is considered that in future the interest so credited will be sufficient to cover the normal reserve fund expenditure and would leave the main reserve fund untouched against major contingencies, and therefore it has been decided so to provide that interest of this nature will be allowed to be credited to the reserve fund even though that fund may have reached the maximum of the 15 per cent. I think that is especially desirable now when major replacements are impossible, and we have to look forward to the time when as a result of the difficulty of obtaining fresh machinery and major spare parts, major replacements will be necessary, and when that time comes it is highly desirable that this reserve fund should be able to bear that, still bearing in mind the desirability of keeping the tariff to the consumer as stable as possible. So the object of the Bill is first of all to define the methods and limits of appropriation of revenue to the reserve fund, and secondly to exempt the accruals of interest from the provision of the 15 per cent. maximum. Since I introduced this Bill in the first place, I have given it further careful consideration in consultation with the authorities of the Electricity Supply Commission and I have come to the conclusion that the amendment as drafted is not entirely satisfactory. The Bill, as it is before the House now, covers really the policy the Commission has pursued in the past, but it did not appear to me entirely to meet the case, and I shall therefore move an amendment in the next stage, defining rather differently the terms on which they may make their appropriation. I think I can better explain how that is to be done if hon. members have the amendment before them, and if the House will accept the Bill in principle as it stands, I will immediately put the amendment on the Order Paper.

I am pleased that the first action of the hon. Minister of Commerce and Industries, as such, is to assist one of our most important industries; and I think we on this side, and also the whole House, will be prepared to support him in it. I would like to add that I regard the Electricity Supply Commission as one of the beacons in our industrial life, a beacon also for our industrial future. Here is an undertaking which really aims at serving the public and I think that in the future we will find that it is necessary to go further and further in this direction in the development of our industries. Because, after all, it appears that the future of South Africa is in the lap of this kind of industry, based on this foundation of service. Therefore I think that we ought to support the Minister in his effort to further this undertaking.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 17th April.

I move—

Just a few words of explanation: I do not think very much is required. Under the Children’s Act, as at present existing, minor mothers having illegitimate children may give their consent to the adoption of those illegitimate children by other people, and hitherto we have regarded that as the legal position, that the adoption under the present Children’s Act—there are two of them; I mean Acts, not children—were legal merely upon the consent of the minor mother. Unfortunately, just recently there has been a full bench Supreme Court decision, which held that all these adoptions are illegal by reason of the fact that the parents of the minor mother of the child have not given their consent. We have always supposed that it was sufficient under the wording of the Act for the mother of the child to give her consent to the adoption. But now the Supreme Court has held that such adoptions are illegal, that the minor mother should have had the support of her parents or guardian. The object of this Bill is to regularise these adoptions. This Bill will apply retrospectively and validate those adoptions already entered into, and lay down the procedure for the future. It might appear to some hon. members that it is not necessary to do this. After all, it may be said that an adoption is a practical thing and that it does not matter whether it is legal or not. That is not so, of course. When a person adopts a child, they actually take him into the family. He becomes one of the family, and in the matter of succession the adopted child would rate equally with other children as members of the family, and for that reason alone it would be necessary to validate the adoptions that have taken place. On the other hand, from the moral aspect, it is equally desirable or almost obligatory that we should regularise adoptions, in order to give the child its proper place in the home. I do not think any further explanation is necessary.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

The Right Hon. the Prime Minister referred to this Bill as a small measure. In actual fact, Sir, it is a measure of major importance to this country. It is a measure dealing with a major issue of national policy, yet I venture to suspect without any grave fear of being proved wrong, that not half the members of this House have read the documents upon which this proposed legislation is presumably based. I am going to take the liberty, therefore, of reviewing again the main features of the Bill, and of stating once more the grounds of my objection to this measure. The Bill falls into two parts; the first part proposes to regularise the position in the Transvaal. It proposes first of all to regularise the occupation of certain buildings by Asiatics in the proclaimed areas of the Witwatersrand, and, secondly, to peg the position as it now exists in the matter of occupation and trading rights in the rest of the Transvaal Province. The second part of the Bill relates to Natal, and particularly to Durban. That section of the Bill proposes to apply to Durban, with the possibility of extension to the rest of Natal, the same sort of pegging principle as has already been applied to the Transvaal. In fact, the pegging principle goes further than that which was necessary in the Transvaal; it is a pegging principle which will now restrict the rights, which have hitherto remained to the Indian people in Natal, of acquisition and occupation of sites in that Province. The hon. Minister of Finance has indicated his ability to swallow the major part of the Bill, but he has told us that the smaller part of the Bill sticks in his throat; he cannot swallow that. Well, Sir, both parts of this Bill have the same flavour to me. I find them equally unpalatable, and I propose to reject them both. The grounds of my objection are that I think the measure is unjustified on the information that has been presented to us, and I think that it is unwise. Sir, in the matter of lack of justification, I have already pointed out to the House my opinion of the situation so far as the Transvaal is concerned. Four years ago it was decided by this House—only a very small minority opposing it—to accept the principle of pegging the position in the Transvaal pending an investigation of the whole situation by an impartial and judicial Commission. That Commission has since reported, and, Sir, its findings are that there is no possible or reasonable justification for interfering with such rights as did remain to the Asiatics in the Transvaal before this Act was originally passed against them. On that they are most explicit. They have declared—

They say that the extent of penetration since 1927 does not appear to be alarming or even surprising, and after their survey of the whole position, they have reported that in the circumstances which apply—the circumstances of the natural growth of the Indians—the occupation of 246 Indian trading sites and 93 residential sites in the predominantly European areas of the Transvaal since the 1st January, 1927, “does not disclose a situation which can by any stretch of the imagination be described as critical. It works out at less than 18 trading sites and 7 residential sites per year.” It has been argued in this House, not very convincingly, I must say, that the position in the Transvaal as between Asiatics and Europeans is a happy and peaceful one; because forsooth the Asiatic population has been pegged down by the 1939 legislation, and cannot move. It has been argued that the Europeans are happy about it and presumably also the Asiatics. Sir, the Asiatics are definitely not happy about it. There is no question about that; and no evidence in proof of that contention has been presented to this House that the good relations which today exist in the Transvaal as between Europeans and Asiatics are dependent on this legislation. The only proof we have is that in normal circumstances there is no undue or critical extension of Asiatic rights in the Transvaal. Nor can there be. No one can argue that the thing that is supposed to have happened in Durban could have happened in the Transvaal. I am satisfied that there can be no sudden expansion of Asiatic activity in the Transvaal. The situation does not allow of anything of that kind. I repeat that the licensing laws are such that it is impossible for the Indian community to extend at any serious rate in the Transvaal—and that in spite of the circumstance that the Licensing Boards are not called upon to declare the grounds on which they refuse to issue licences. I state that as my emphatic opinion, and I have considerable experience of natives trying to obtain licences from Licensing Boards. I know what happens to natives; therefore I know what does and will continue to happen to Indians. People of non-European origin have and always will have the greatest difficulty in getting an extension of their trading rights in this country. For these reasons I feel that the Minister has done less than justice to himself and to this cause by continuing the legislation of 1939. Frankly, I can see no reason why he has done it. I cannot see that the Government can gain in any way by this legislation. I can only see the possibility of their losing by it. Nobody in the Transvaal is interested in this thing except one or two bankrupt politicians. That is borne out by the evidence led before the Broome Commission. In dealing with the evidence led before them, they declared that there was a remarkable lack of interest in the sittings of the Commission on the part of the European population in both Provinces. The Government has stood not to lose one single vote on this thing if they had not legislated in this way, and I still hope that the hon. Minister will change his mind about, this Bill. I also feel that that section of his department which has been dealing with the position in the Gold Law Areas should have dealt with that position long ago, as they can by proclamation in the Gazette, and that there should be no necessity for legislation in that regard either. I now come to the position in Natal. This is an issue on which an appeal of racial prejudice has been raised, and raised with remarkable force so far as Natal is concerned. An agitation has been going on for years, encouraged and fomented—to use the phrase of the hon. Minister of Mines again—by an aggressive and unpatriotic minority. I refer to the followers of the Minister of Mines in Natal, and I thank him for this phrase that describes them much more accurately and succinctly than any phrase I could have invented myself. That agitation, which has been fanned by this aggressive and unpatriotic minority, resulted in 1940 in the appointment of the First Broome Commission to consider what was actually happening in Natal, and to present the facts to the Government as a basis of action. I do not need to remind the hon. Minister what that Commission reported, but I do want to remind the House what it reported. It reported that in Natal generally, outside Durban, the position did not appear to be serious.

That isn’t true.

I am referring to the findings of a supposedly responsible Commission, and I cannot be held responsible for a lack of capacity on the part of my hon. friends to understand facts. The Commission reported that the progress of Indian extension—I prefer to use that word in preference to this term penetration—showed nothing phenomenal at all. It reported that if, before 1927 certain areas had become predominantly Indian, the increase since that time was a mere trickle. I want to remind the House that this agitation about the Indian position in Natal must be seen against this fact, that the Indian population of Natal is increasing less slowly than the European population of Natal. That I also expect my hon. friends on these (Dominion) benches to challenge. I can imagine that the report of the Department of Census and Statistics would not interest them, but it is nevertheless a fact. The Commission found that, in Natal generally, the extension, of acquisition or occupation of property by the Indian population was not serious, that it was in fact a mere trickle. They then turned their attention to Durban, which they accepted as an area apart, calling for special consideration, in so far as Durban contains a very large proportion of the whole Indian population of Natal. So far as Durban itself is concerned, the Commission again made a differentiation between what it calls the old borough and the borough as a whole. The old borough consists of 13 square miles in the middle of Durban. The borough as a whole consists of 67 square miles. The added areas were included in the borough in 1932. In regard to those areas, they declared that the situation is not acute. In regard to the old borough, they had certain more specific information to present, which suggested that there had been a fairly considerable extension of Indian ownership and occupation. They make clear, however—at least to me, and I have read the report with some care, and I happen to know Durban; my family lived there for ten years and it was my home during that time—they make clear that the old borough is the centre of business and of the working class population, as it is. The old borough, in fact, is the area in which one would expect to find the bulk of the unprivileged community of Durban, and the unprivileged community of Durban is largely Asiatic. And here I beg to join issue again with the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, whose absence from this debate I sincerely regret, when, amid the vocal support of the Dominion Party, he declared to this House that Durban is a European city and will remain a European city. I would remind the House that Durban is not a European city; Durban is a South African city, and like all South African cities its wealth and prosperity has been built up on the combined effort of a number of racial groups. Durban is a South African city, and a great deal of the wealth and prosperity and comfort of Durban has been built on the labour and the service of the Indian community, which was brought to this country to serve the people of Natal. The bulk of that Indian population was settled in the old borough of Durban, and I contend—and I am perfectly certain that the three members of this Commission, being pressed on the matter, would accept as they have impliedly accepted,—that the natural line of expansion is outward into the old borough. Therefore the Commission found what anybody with any sociological or historical knowledge would have expected them to find that there had been a considerable extension of the Indian population into those very areas of the old borough which lie contiguous to the Indian areas, and to a lesser degree in the more remote areas of the old borough. In any case, apart altogether from the normal sociological development in a town like Durban—increasingly rapidly as the result of the rapid industrialisation of recent years—at the present time Durban already has the power—and is using that power—to place racial servitudes on great areas of the town. Those servitudes now cover practically the new areas of the town. Today Durban can do what Cape Town cannot do. It can impose occupational servitude on flats, and it can impose an occupational and ownership servitude on all the land that it alienates. And it has used those powers extensively. The old borough was, of course, alienated before those powers came into operation; that is perfectly true; but the people of the old borough have got the power in their own hands, they have the power which is vested in all property owners in this country; they have the common law right to put servitudes on their property, and if therefore they had wanted to prevent the extension of the Asiatic population, they could have done so by the application of this servitude power. To return now to this question of the extension of the Indian population. The First Broome Commission found that there had been an extension, but implied that the extension was not so serious, and that it was not so understandable as to create a problem, and that therefore there was no immediate necessity for legislation. They have not said so in so many words since they were not called upon to deal with the question of possible legislation. It is, however, an implication of their report. Now following upon the publication of the report of this Commission, certain things took place in Durban which were again used by aggressive and unpatriotic minority in Natal to fan the demand for discriminating legislation. There are groups in this country which will never rest so long as there is a chance of pushing further down the non-European on whose backs they have themselves risen. After the report of the First Broome Commission there was admittedly an acceleration of the process of purchase of sites in the old borough by the Indian population. There was an acceleration of the purchase of sites in the old borough by the Indian population. An attempt to curb that movement, an attempt to control that movement by mutual agreement, by co-operation between the Indian community and the Municipal Council, broke down. The responsibility for that break-down has not yet been adequately explained in this House.

[Inaudible].

If hon. members will only be quiet, and make their own speeches, I shall be extremely grateful. The reason for the break-down of that agreement has not yet been adequately explained in this House. The Indian community obviously did their best to co-operate. They were also obviously handicapped by the fact that, while there was an understanding that the non-European groups should not go into the areas supposedly reserved for Europeans, no attempt was made to put down alongside that position what facilities the Europeans were prepared to allow to those people for their abnormal extension. The hon. Minister himself said to this House in his second reading speech that there was a prima facie case for the contention that the Municipality had not made adequate provision for housing and civic amenities for the Indian population. I, too, have read the statement which the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) quoted in this House, a statement emanating from the City Treasurer of Durban. I interpret it a little differently. I read it perhaps a little more carefully than the hon. member did, and I noticed two things which the hon. member had not apparently noticed, one was that of £2,000,000 ear-marked for Indian housing, most of it they are going to spend—going to spend; that is, it is well in the future. The hon. member for Illovo said that the Durban Municipality is spending or had spent—I am not sure of the exact words—£2,000,000 on Asiatic housing. Altogether they have spent about £103,000; the rest is part of an eight-year plan. [Time limit extended.] I thank the House. There are very few of us to deal with the Asiatic side of this case and I am glad of this opportunity to say what I have to say on it. The second point which the hon. member for Illovo overlooked was that the report itself shows that while the Durban Municipal Council claimed, with some justification, that it has provided some economic houses for the purchase by the Indian population, and some sub-economic houses, it has in effect made no provision whatever for the middle class population, who are really the group whose rights and immediate interests are at issue in this Bill. It has made no provision for the ordinary middle class Indian whose desire, and legitimate desire, it is to live a normal civilised life, maintaining a Western standard of living. This memorandum says that the Council had had it in mind to put aside certain sections of Springfield area which, it said, had some of the finest marine and inland views that could be wished for, but the awkward part was that, just when it was making up its mind about this, the Military came and said they wanted the site for a hospital and so it went to the military hospital. Then they had an idea that they would put aside some fine sites in the Riverside area. Now anyone who has followed the agitation in Durban over the Riverside area will know that any intention which the Durban Municipal Council had about releasing these sites became a little bit involved as a result of the view expressed that that particular part would make a very fine area for European occupation. Anyhow, those sites have not been released and the result is that there is nothing available for the Indians except the older areas of the town, which I submit offer the only line of expansion to these people. Now, what has happened in that area? It is a fact that the Indian community have bought a considerable number of sites in the A1 area. And here I want to enter a protest about the way in which this matter has been dealt with by a so-called Judicial Commission. We seem to have developed a great fancy for Judicial Commissions lately. Well, I have always felt a little bit doubtful about the capacity of learned lawyers to determine matters affecting the living conditions of the ordinary mortal.

You must not embarrass your colleagues.

No, I shall try not to, but I cannot help my general feeling. But I wish to say that so far as this particular Commission is concerned, my doubts about Judicial Commissions have been seriously aggravated by the character of this report—by the fact that a Judicial Commission publishes a map like this and leaves it all by itself. Anyone in this House who looked at this map would get the impression that what is apparently reflected here has been happening in the whole of Durban.

Why not?

In view of the way people read Blue Books here I repeat the publication of this map would give that impression—that is, it must have a propagandist effect, as it undoubtedly has had. People see this map and they get the impression: “The Dominion Party is not so bad after all. It has a ‘good case’.” This matter is extremely serious.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to reflect on the Commissioner by describing this map as propaganda?

The hon. member is not referring to the Commissioner as a Judge but as a Commissioner and she is entitled to criticise him in that capacity.

I feel that I am entitled to place before the House my feelings of the way in which the Report of the Commission has been presented. I cannot understand any judicial mind presenting the position in Durban in the way it has been presented in this Report. It matters little when a Report is presented in this way that the Commissioner writes—

And then adds—

What is the judicial mind which presents to the public in an enquiry like this, the very worst situation giving the impression that the position in the rest of Durban is just as bad? I submit that it is a grave error of balance. I contend that other maps should have been added to the report to place this one in perspective. Here we are presented with what happened in one area which was predominantly European in 1927. But we are not shown what has happened in the other areas. We are not shown the background of this situation. No attempt is made to show what the position is throughout the old Borough even. I am not blaming the Commissioner for having pinned his enquiry on to the old Borough but I do say that I wish it had been possible for him to make it clearer to the legislators that the old Borough is only a small part of Durban. Did the Minister, when he appointed the Commission, understand that Mr. Justice Broome was only going to consider some thirteen square miles of Durban and that the rest was not going to be considered, and that we should get the full light thrown on one spot only. Now, I want to turn to this point. What is happening in the old part of the Borough? The Indians have in fact bought up and are still buying a considerable number of sites there. The Europeans who have sold these sites have done very well—two sets of Europeans have done very well out of these transactions,—the one set is the estate agents who have put through the deals among whom there are some highly respected names; the other set is the people who have sold the sites. These Europeans have sold sites to people who are prepared to pay for them—who are prepared to pay what the owners cannot get from other members of the European population. The European population is moving away from these older areas and the people living in those areas are not getting from other Europeans the money which they can get for these sites from the Indians—they are getting more from another section of the community, and out of the profits they make from the sale of their property they are going to take a step upwards on the social ladder. That is the sort of thing that happens in ordinary life; and behind all this agitation, I am certain there is a good deal of anxiety among numbers of people who are not very well off, who are afraid today of losing a good market for property which they would never get rid of at the prices which they are now getting. That is the position as I see it, and I feel that the agitation which is being beaten up and has been beaten up on this issue is dangerous and anti-social. It is against the whole interest of Durban, both commercially and racially. It is certainly creating unhappy relations between the Europeans and the Indians; and in that connection, I was very much surprised to hear the Minister of Mines talking about the feeling of the Europeans without making any suggestion that he would use his influence to moderate these feelings. I feel that the situation, if allowed to develop, will be against the interests of Europeans and Indians alike, and that is why I am opposed to this Bill. The whole situation is an administrative one and it should have been dealt with administratively. Instead of that we are now getting from the Government what we have had in the past—we are getting the application of the Government to the Indian community of the same sort of action that was applied to the native community in 1933, when the right to acquire and occupy land was cut off with a promise that alternative rights would be given in the near future. We know how long it took to give them anything in the nature of alternative rights. The easiest type of legislation to get through a South African Parliament is legislation which takes away rights from the non-European. The most difficult legislation to get passed is legislation which gives any sort of quid pro quo. We know that rights were taken away from the natives in 1913, and it was only in 1936, twenty-three years later, that the essential corollary was provided whereby the natives were provided with something in the nature of alternative rights. The Act of 1936 was the natural corollary to the Act of 1913. And that is the sort of thing we are going to get here. We are going to cut off the present rights of the Indians before we have laid down an alternative for them, and that is, I think, a very dangerous way and very wrong way of tackling this sort of problem. Now I come to my last point. I regard this legislation as profoundly unwise when I say that I have not in mind the effects of the Indian population as such. The Indian population is a small and helpless minority which cannot do us any harm. I am not thinking of the Indian community of South Africa when I say this legislation is unwise and dangerous. I am, however, thinking of the background of the Indian population, the international aspect of this situation, and, with that in mind, I say that it is profoundly unwise to take this step. I should think it is profoundly unwise at any time when the nations of the East are waking up to consciousness, to self-consciousness, and are extremely sensitive about the attitude of the Western nations towards them. I would always regard anything derogatory to the dignity of the non-European people as dangerous, particularly bearing in mind the position of South Africa, situated as it is between East and West. Perhaps we are not so dependent today on the goodwill of our neighbours as was the case in 1940 and 1941. We think we are going to win the war without any further serious fights—I think we shall; but we should not be quite so sure about that. But even then there is still the future to think of. I think this legislation is profoundly unwise from our own point of view. It is time we began to learn to govern instead of legislating, and I say this with twenty years’ experience of what we have tried to do with our native population. There we have piled up laws and regulations. Every time we have found ourselves in a difficulty we have rushed to the arm of the law until all our relations with the native population are hedged around with restrictions of one sort or another, and we have solved nothing by legislation and regulation; we have only created new problems. We must learn this lesson. We must accommodate ourselves to one another, here in South Africa, using administrative ability instead of the legislative machine. Unless we can do this we are definitely not going to be able to maintain our prestige in this country. We have to fight for our survival in this country—we are only a handful of Europeans; and we are not going to win by simply piling up heaps of legislation. We have to learn to govern. I feel that this particular situation is one of our major challenges—we have to come to an understanding and to a position of accommodation with our Indian population in Durban. I feel that the situation is a dangerous one because I am convinced that this way of dealing with the racial problem is not the one which will be supported by our young men who are offering their lives in the defence of the principles of democracy.

I don’t think you know them.

I know that the young men who have volunteered in this war are devoting a good deal of time to thinking out the future of South Africa in a new perspective and the Minister would be surprised at the number of letters I get from people I do not know at all, who tell me that they are hopeful that the new world will be built on the lines of reasonable accommodation instead of on the repressive principle of taking away rights from political minorities. We in South Africa are not particularly sensitive to the outside world except when it criticises us, but I wonder what sort of a show South Africa will make at a Peace Conference if we have this sort of record of curtailing the property rights of a minority in the middle of a war without any counter offer when we are supposed to be defending the rights of all people to live without want, without fear and without oppression. I fancy that we shall look a little out of place when it comes to a discussion on what the world is going to be, when we offer advice on how to build a peaceful world, in the face of what we are doing now. In those circumstances I hope the Minister will himself consider these matters in the light I am presenting them and that he will put the matter to the Government for reconsideration, in the hope that they will not go on with this measure. I feel that what the Government should do is to withdraw this Bill, that they should proceed to try and deal with this matter in the way I have suggested. I feel that the Transvaal situation is perfectly clear and should be decided on the basis of the information which we already have. So far as Natal is concerned I feel that instead of our saying to the Durban Municipality: “We shall now peg the position for you, and enquire into it, and in the meantime you will work out your proposals as to what you are prepared to give to the Indian community if they will agree not to live in European areas”, what we should say is: “We shall not give you the legislation which you want. We shall first put you on your trial; we shall ask you to present your plans completed and endorsed, and when you have done so and you have told us what you are prepared to give, then we shall consider whether there is any necessity for this legislation. That is the statesmanlike way of dealing with it.” And I think that, while we may be willing to consider what the Indian community themselves think about their living in separate areas, that there can be no question of justice in taking away the rights of the Indian community to acquire property. The Indian community is a commercial community—and a small handful at that. They cannot live by taking in each other’s washing. There can be no progress for them unless they are able to acquire immovable property like anyone else. I say that knowing that my friends are making a lot of capital by saying that the Indian community could find good investments in war bonds. I wonder what the great captains of industry would say if they were told that the only avenue open to them for investment was in war bonds or as the Durban Corporation says, in utility housing schemes for the poor. They would laugh in your face, and you would not be surprised. The Indian community must retain the right to acquire immovable property, and particularly in this generation when every section of the community suffers periodically from spasms of fright at the possibility of an economic collapse. That is the reason for the purchase of property by the Indian community. I have seen the same thing among the European population. I have seen them rushing to buy property in case of a collapse of the money market so that they may have something tangible to fall back on; and I say we are not justified in placing any section of the community in a position of inferiority to another in a case of this kind. But I contend that, in all circumstances, we must defend the right of the Indian population to buy land, whatever restriction may be imposed in respect of their rights to occupy it. In conclusion I have put up what appeal I can for the Indian population. We who are opposed to this Bill have done our best with the time at our disposal and I must say that the House has been very generous to me. But we are only ordinary harassed members of this House with a great deal of work on our hands, and we do not claim to be able to speak adequately for the Indian population. I would beg therefore that the Minister, before the conclusion of this debate, will concede that the petition which I have presented and which I shall have no other opportunity further to press upon the House, namely the petition that the Indian community be received at the bar of the House in defence of their rights, shall be granted. I think that is the least we can do, the least we can concede to a voteless group whose interests are not represented in this House, and who have the right to claim that in a democratic society they shall not be condemned unheard.

I regret very much that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are not present because I propose to direct my remarks not so much to the subject matter of the Bill before the House, as to the constitutional practice, the constitutional procedure which is involved in this measure by reason of the action of the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance is busy in the Senate at the moment.

Yes, I accept that, and I only want to say that I am sorry he is not in a position to be here because I shall have to make certain remarks which I would have liked to have done in his presence. There has been a growing tendency on the part of this Government to disregard the principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet. It has shown itself in various ways in the last number of years. We had an example not long ago when the then Minister of Native Affairs made a certain statement as to what the Government would do in the event of their suffering a defeat at the coming elections. We had the position that he was repudiated some time afterwards by the Prime Minister, but the Minister of Native Affairs remained a Minister in the Cabinet in spite of that political blunder. We had an example some time later when we had the Minister of Finance on one side making certain remarks about the policy of the Government in regard to natives, remarks in direct conflict with the policy on native affairs expounded in this House and in Another Place by the present Minister of Native Affairs. I am referring now to the question, to the policy of segregation. Now, this tendency has been manifesting itself more and more latterly. But all these things may still be justified, because it may be said that these are questions in regard to which there is no actual legislation before the House. But this growing tendency has now come to a head in a matter in which we have a specific piece of legislation before the House, legislation in respect of which we had to hear the day before yesterday the Minister of Finance saying that he declined to be associated with it. Whatever excuse there may be for the Government in regard to these other matters—that excuse falls away when we come to a specific measure such as we have now before the House. This is a matter which requires to be put before the House and before the country because the position with which we are faced constitutes a very serious disregard of one of the cardinal principles of Parliamentary government. Now the matter on which this has taken place is a very important and very urgent measure. That is agreed. It has been accentuated by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Mines and the Minister of the Interior. They all agree that the measure before the House is one of the utmost importance and of the utmost urgency. But the Minister of Finance has also come forward, and he has been at great pains to make it clear to the House, to convince the House, not of the unimportance of the measure, but of its importance, of its far-reaching effects and of the difference between him and his colleagues on the principles, not on the incidentals contained in this measure …

Is not that true democracy?

When I hear the hon. member interjecting, I am always at some pains to know whether an interjection like that comes as a result of arrested development, or as the result of premature senility. I come to the point, and I want to state to the House the principle of constitutional procedure which has been accepted, where Parliamentary government obtains. That is set out very clearly in a statement made by Lord Salisbury in 1878. He has put it in this way—

That is the way in which it was enunciated by Lord Salisbury, and it has been reiterated by writers on constitutional procedure in a number of cases which I can put before the House. Among the older writers there is Todd on Parliamentary government. He has also put it very clearly—

Now here, as I say, the Minister of Finance has made it very clear that this is a matter which is not a matter for compromise. Therefore the principle applies in a case like this. There is another authority whom I would like to quote to the House, and that is Prof. Berriedale Keith in his work on the British Cabinet System. He says this—

The point is that this is a coalition in war time.

Now this shows the principle which has found a firm footing as far as constitutional conventions are concerned in the Cabinet system which we profess to follow here.

Yes, but what about the coalition in war time?

I shall deal with that later, and I shall also quote to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) authorities on the unprincipled nature of a coalition. And I submit that the fact that it might be necessary to form a coalition, if it is an unprincipled thing, should not be used as an excuse to justify what is wrong.

Will you deal with the aspect that he tendered his resignation?

Yes, I shall deal with that, because that is one of the most important questions here, because, if anything, it shows the lip service which is rendered to a principle but when it comes to carrying it out the principle is lost sight of. Hon. members will notice from what I have quoted that the only remedy which is granted to a Minister who dissociates himself from his colleagues is not to tender his resignation but to resign. Anyway, that is the position laid down, and nowhere is it said that you can excuse an act by tendering your resignation and then agreeing to carry on. One of the most recent writers on Cabinet procedure has put the position this way—I am referring to Prof. Jennings now—

I am quoting from one of the most recent books, published in 1936. Now, there is an exception, or rather it is not an exception, there are certain types of questions which do not fall within the ambit of this principle. They are what is frequently called “open questions”. Insofar as “open questions” are concerned, perhaps I cannot do better than say this, that these matters which are left as “open questions” are largely matters of such importance that they require legislation. They are matters, usually arising out of private members’ motions and so on. I can give hon. members an example of that, viz. the Prayer Book controversy. Other cognate matters of that type may be left open, but major matters of policy, matters requiring urgent and immediate legislation should never be left as matters which are “open questions”. I am referring again to Prof. Jennings. He talks about Lord John Russell having declared that it might be convenient for a Government to have many “open questions”, but that it was not to their “honour and glory”, and then he goes on—

When he talks of the Government he talks of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. Here we have a matter where the Government is not prepared to go before the country with a common policy, and my submission is that a Government like that is a Government which should not be a Government a moment longer. Unless they are prepared to take the royal road, namely to see to it that the Minister who is not prepared to accept responsibility, unless his colleagues see to it that he leaves the Cabinet, that Government should not be the Government for a moment longer. That is as far as “open questions” are concerned. This general principle of collective responsibility has always been observed. Throughout the history of the Cabinet system in Britain I can find only one case in which that principle was departed from when we had a Coalition Government—and the Coalition Government is what the hon. member for Gardens has asked me about.

I said a Coalition Government in war time.

Perhaps it will be the shortest if I quote from Jennings the facts in regard to that attempted departure.

There was no war at the time.

I shall read the principles on which it was sought, in 1932, to justify a departure from the principle of collective responsibility, and the reasons given then are precisely the reasons advanced today by this Government—

How very reminiscent of what we have here on the eve of a General Election!—

I commend this to hon. members’ attention—

Gilbertian is the right word—

And this I commend particularly to the hon. member for Gardens—

I refer to this particularly. It cannot be argued that this has been left an “open question”. There has been a definite Cabinet decision on it, and the party Whips will no doubt be going about when the vote is taken. And then Prof. Jennings tries to deal with the arguments which may be put up in favour of this departure. He says this—

I do not know that the word “able Ministers” really applies in this particular case—

Now, that is the argument which may be raised by people who try to justify this violation of Parliamentary government. Now Jennings has dealt with this argument as follows—

The sequel is interesting. Those four dissentient Ministers remained in the Cabinet for eight months after which they resigned, and it is rather interesting to notice that leading authorities on this matter say that this departure from constitutional practice resulted in effect in a strengthening of the original principle. I say that it is very fortunate that that should have been the case, otherwise it might well have been that this 1932 precedent could have been invoked by the Government in justification of their present action. I just want to say a few words on the criticism of the effect of this attempted violation—I say attempted because in actual fact eight months later the dissentient Ministers left the Cabinet. It is rather interesting to quote what Prof. Berriedale Keith had to say about it—

So this attempt happily ended in failure. Now let me quote from Dicey and see what he says—

The effect of it really was to reinforce the principle and embed it still more firmly in our system of Parliamentary government. So I say that in effect the result of this attempted departure was merely to reinforce the principle which has been the principle for all these years that we have had Cabinet governments. Now of this principle there is now, in the case before the House, a very clear violation, a violation of what has been claimed to be one of the most essential principles of Parliamentary responsibility. I say that we have had here a clear violation of that principle, and it has placed the Government in a most anomalous position. We have the Government here on the one side claiming to be the protagonist of the system of Parliamentary government, but we have had an increasing tendency on the part of this Government which claims, which professes to be, the protagonist of Parliamentary government, we have had a tendency throughout of Parliament being treated with increasing contempt. In war time one has to give the Government power to deal with matters by regulation, but one would have thought that if regulations were necessary when Parliament was in Session there would have been a sufficient sense of responsibility on the part of the Government not to use regulations when they can deal with matters by passing legislation in the usual way. We have had examples of important regulations passed by this Government at the time when the House was in Session. They could have followed the ordinary legislative procedure, and matters could have been threshed out across the floor of the House. One realises that national emergency may demand that the power to legislate by regulation should be given to the Government.

What has all this to do with the Bill?

But that power should only be exercised in circumstances when it is impossible to get the necessary decision from the House, that is when the House is not in Session. Now, we have the further position that this violation of one of these corner-stones of Parliamentary government is being committed openly and flagrantly. The Minister of Finance levelled the charge against his own colleagues that they accepted the Broome Report when it suited their purpose and brushed it aside when it didn’t. But that charge is applicable to the whole Government. They accept the principle of Parliamentary government when it suits their purpose, and they brush it aside when it doesn’t. Nothing is more calculated to undermine Parliamentary government than this growing tendency on the part of the Government. Actions of this kind are designed to make democracy, as practised in this country, by this Government, a hissing and a by-word to all thinking people of this country, and the sooner the Government realises the implications of this policy into which its war zeal has forced it and realises that the time has arrived when a halt should be called, when it should return to saner methods of Parliamentary government—I say that the sooner it realises that, the better it will be for the future of Parliamentary government in South Africa. I now come to the position of the Minister of Finance. He concluded his speech to the House with the remark that he declined to be associated with the policy embodied in the Bill before the House. There is only one royal road, only one road one can follow if one wishes to signify one’s refusal to accept the views of one’s colleagues. That road is not merely to tender one’s resignation, but to resign. The Minister has said here—I think he said it in regard to his colleagues—that it is very pleasant to have it both ways. I think this is very applicable to the Minister himself. It is also most pleasant for the Minister of Finance to have it both ways. He wants to remain in the Cabinet and at the same time have the freedom of disagreeing with his colleagues on what is a cardinal point of policy. That is an attempt to have it both ways, and I say that the fact that he has tendered his resignation and that that resignation has been refused by the Prime Minister, is no excuse for either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, or for the Cabinet as a whole. They cannot shirk their responsibilities by a specious device like that, and as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, he cannot divest himself of the responsibility for the violation of this principle of collective responsibility. It is true the Prime Minister chooses his Ministers, but no Minister loses his liberty of action by accepting the Prime Minister’s invitation. As long as he remains in the Cabinet his liberty of action is to a certain extent circumscribed, but he never loses his complete liberty of action. No one can say to the Minister that he is obliged, once he has accepted the invitation of the Prime Minister, that he is bound to remain in that Cabinet. I say therefore that the fact that his resignation has been tendered does not affect the principle that has been violated in one single respect. By acquiescing in this violation, by making possible this violation by his decision to remain in the Cabinet, the Minister of Finance becomes particeps criminis to the violation of the principle that is taking place here, and I can conceive of no possible argument or authority which he can invoke today to justify his action or which the Cabinet can invoke to justify their action. Perhaps I go too far when I say that. There might be one authority which the Minister of Finance and the Government may well rely on, and that is the authority referred to by Lord Atkin in the recent case of Liversidge vs. Anderson in the House of Lords. Dealing with the construction to be put on certain words he said this—and I want to parody that in regard to the arguments that have been put forward to justify this violation—he said—

And it is only on an authority of this nature that there can be any justification for the action of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister or of the Hon. Minister of Finance or of the Cabinet.

I think that the House, and even the other side of the House, is grateful to the hon. member who has just sat down, for the excellent review which he has given of the embarrassment, the difficult position in which the Minister of Finance finds himself, as well as the Prime Minister, in connection with the attitude that is being adopted by the Minister of Finance as regards this legislation. I feel that the Government cannot allow the exposition of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) to remain unanswered. If they do not reply to it—whether they can give a decisive reply is another matter—then they will lay themselves open in the country to be regarded just as ridiculous as the hon. member has presented their attitude here. It is a great pity that the Minister of Finance himself is not here, because I think that if he had heard the speech which the hon. member has made, he would not remain in the Cabinet any longer. The reason why I have really stood up is because the Minister of Finance in his speech during the second reading, made the allegation that I on a previous occasion, I think three weeks ago, said in this House that according to the Broome Commission no Indian penetration had occurred in the Transvaal, but only in Natal, I have turned up my speech and I want to say immediately that the Minister has been quite misinformed if he was not here when I spoke, or otherwise he did not properly hear what I said. Actually on 25th March I said—

Then I referred further to the fact that some years ago a circular letter was sent by me to the various municipalities in the Transvaal in which I asked them what the position in their towns was. I asked the town clerks to give me the number of Indian licences which existed in 1920 and which existed when I wrote the letters. Then I said further—

In view of what I have quoted here, it is quite clear that the Minister gave a wrong interpretation to my words when he stated that I said that according to the Broome Commission there was no penetration in the Transvaal. I would like to associate myself with what the Minister of Mines has said. It is not often that I can agree with the Minister of Mines, but I can give the Minister the assurance that what he has said in connection with the attitude of the local Indians is correct. Let me say immediately that it is only a small group of them who regard themselves as the leaders of the Indian community, but their attitude is that they continually, as the Minister of Mines has said, appeal to the Government of India when something goes wrong, or let me rather say what they regard as not being in their interest As the Minister of Mines has said, it is quite unsuitable and wrong for them to appeal continually to the Government of India. The Indians here have certainly not improved and strengthened their own case here. On the contrary, they have lost a lot of sympathy by it which they still had in this country and if they continue in this way, they will lose more sympathy. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, it is not all the Indians that are responsible for this, but only a small number of Indians. There are a small number of Indians who usually start an agitation as soon as steps are taken to introduce legislation or other measures are taken to improve the position which the European population regards as dangerous, or to stop penetration where penetration occurs. I think the time has come when the Indians should be warned that they cannot continue in this way. They must also point out to their compatriots in the country that they cannot continue as they have in the past. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has said. She has made a very good speech from her point of view, but I want to ask her why she does not suggest a solution. She spoke for almost an hour, but did not suggest any solution to solve the problem. It is all very well saying that we must adapt ourselves to the circumstances, but it is not a solution to the problem. If the position is allowed to develop as it has already developed in Durban, where is it going to end? Why does the hon. member not suggest a solution. It is no use coming here and talking about the injustice that is being done to the Indian community. It is no use unless she is able to suggest an effective solution. Unless she is prepared to do so it is no use coming here and saying that the Government is acting unfairly.

She is merely inciting.

Exactly. The hon. member will admit that if the situation is left to develop as it has developed m Durban in the past years, then it must lead to an outburst. I have said on a previous occasion—let people say that it is the result of an agitation, inciting by the Dominion Party—that the position cannot be left as it is. No matter who has brought the matter to the forefront, there is no doubt that if conditions are left to develop as in Durban, then it must lead to an outburst and blood will perhaps flow. Then the hon. member for Cape Eastern will be one of the first to accuse the Government on having neglected its duty. It is not right for responsible members to adopt that attitude and not to suggest a solution. She says that the report of the Broome Commission does not justify any action. Let me say immediately that I, as regards the Transvaal, feel that the Report is of no value. I admit it. I do not want to say that the Broome Commission says that no penetration has occurred. There was in fact some penetration, but rightly they say it was not of such a nature that it made legislation necessary. It is true that they say this, but the report is of little value because the terms of reference were so limited that the Commission could not conduct a proper enquiry.

Do you believe that there has been penetration in the Transvaal?

Yes, and the Broome Commission also says so, but they say that is not of such a nature that it should be regarded seriously. Let me first deal with this aspect and assume that this is the case. If this is the case then it is due simply to the steps that have already been taken in the past to impose limits, and I think that the hon. member will agree that if in the past steps had not been taken, then the situation would have been very much worse than it is today. I want to emphasise that the terms of reference of the Broome Commission were too limited. When the Minister of the Interior’s predecessor announced the appointment of the Commission in this House, I protested and said: “You are limiting the terms of reference of the Commission so that a proper enquiry cannot be instituted.” It also appears from the report that many witnesses complained before the Commission that they could not give proper evidence. A pamphlet was issued by the Secretary of the Transvaal Indian Congress, Nana, and he alleges that the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. Rood) and I appeared before the Commission and gave no proof whatever of any penetration that had taken place. He is quite correct, but what actually happened was this: We, as he also admits, protested before the Commission that we were so restricted that we could not give proper evidence. That is the statement which we made. I want to repeat again that the report of the Broome Commission, as such, is of little value because the terms of reference were so limited that they could not institute a proper enquiry. Now the Minister comes and again announces a Commission. There seems to be some doubt about what the Minister said. I would like to ask him: The Commission which he has now announced, will it conduct an enquiry in connection with Natal only, or is the Commission also intended to conduct an enquiry in connection with the position in the Transvaal, so that a solution can be found after three years? Is that the position? According to newspaper reports it appears that the Commission applies only to Natal, but as I understood the Minister, the investigation will not be limited to Natal, but will cover the whole country, and I think that the Minister said that the problem would be investigated in all its aspects. We have had two Commissions, the Murray Commission and the Broome Commission, and I just want to repeat what I said when they were appointed, i.e., that I fear that the Commission that is being appointed will also not find a solution if the Commission is constituted as the Minister has indicated. The Minister has indicated that an entirely new principle is being introduced, i.e., that Indians will also be appointed to the Commission. I therefore repeat what I have said in connection with the other Commissions, that no solution will be found. Will it really be a solution to which such a Commission comprised of Europeans as well as Indians will submit? It is hopeless to expect it. The only way to get a solution is for the Government now for once to take its courage in both hands and decide to take action. The Prime Minister regrets that legislation has become necessary. We do not regret it. What we do regret is that these conditions were allowed to develop until legislation has become essential. I want to repeat what I have said on a previous occasion—that it is not only this Government that is responsible for the situation, but all previous Governments, simply because they loitered over this matter and allowed it to develop until today a solution is practically no longer possible. If an effective solution is to be found, then I can foresee that there is still going to be a lot of difficulty. I attribute it to the fact that consecutive Governments have allowed the matter to develop to the stage it has now reached. Now the Minister will again appoint a Commission and another three years will go by. I predict that the Commission will report, but it will not suggest a solution, and no legislation will be adopted which will solve the problem permanently. There is only one way to solve this problem, and that is that the Government must take its courage in its hands and decide to take definite and effective action. If this is not done, then we cannot expect that there will be a solution, and unfortunately we cannot expect this Government to take effective action. If it were not that public opinion was so strong as it is now, then the Government would also not have taken the action which it is taking today in this Bill. I am surprised that it has come so far. I want to tell the Government, however, that the people expect something to be done sooner or later. If there was not to be an election pending, then the Government would also not have taken action, but the people expect that action will be taken in order to arrive at a solution of the problem once and for all. The public will no longer tolerate this matter being postponed. The general feeling is that some solution or other must be found.

The stage is set for the final killing and delay may irritate its protagonists, nevertheless I should like to express my feeling in relation to this Bill. It has been asked outside the House why we, who represent the native people, are interesting ourselves in this Indian matter. There are several answers to that question. First of all as members of this House we have a duty to interest ourselves in everything which may affect the welfare of the Union or its peoples and the second answer is that there are 230,000 Asiatics in this country who own a considerable amount of property and who contribute very largely in taxes to the general revenue of the country, but who in our peculiar form of Democratic Government have no representation of any kind either on the Municipal Council of Durban or in this House. When a criminal is brought before the court charged with a certain class of crime it is a feature of our legal system that Counsel is appointed in order that the point of view of the criminal may be brought before the Court: I feel therefore that it is right that we who sit on these benches and who, after all is said and done, are able to take a detached view of this matter, should express ourselves without any question of doubt. So far as we are concerned, we are not facing a General Election. We have no interest in Europeans or Asiatics and therefore we are able to approach this matter in a more dispassionate manner and from a more detached point of view. I can never under any circumstances vote for a Bill which proposes to take away from any citizen of this country the right to acquire property or freely to invest his money.

Anywhere?

Yes, anywhere. I recognise, and have always recognised, that one must take into account the differences in colour and that therefore in the interest of peace we are bound to recognise the desires of one section to live in separate areas from another section. But at the same time I say that we cannot carry this so far as to deprive persons of the right to invest their savings in any way they wish. Had this Bill aimed solely at the prevention of residential mixing there might have been something to be said for it, but when it goes further and proposes to take away the rights of acquisition and investment one feels that the object of those who through their agitation have brought this Bill into being is not so much to prevent the inter-mixing of the people of Durban, but to give expression to their resentment at the fact that the Asiatic people of this country have been able to achieve their desire of obtaining investments of this kind. I must say that I listened with a feeling of very great disappointment to the Minister of Mines. I failed to recognise in the hon. member one so closely associated with those three Musketeers who put such a staunch fight for the preservation of the Native Franchise in this House, and I felt that not only had this new sense of responsibility as a member of the Cabinet imposed on him new obligations but it also brought about a change of heart, and it has led so far as he is concerned to an abandonment of principles. It was a sad thing for me to have to listen to that speech of the hon. member. He referred to the fact that the Imperial Conference had decided that every country had the right to decide what the composition of its people should be. I have never disputed that. But the fact that the Minister referred to that aspect of the matter indicated to me not that he was so much concerned about the acquisition of property but with the presence of these people in Natal. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that in the Native Territories we have no Asiatics and that they cannot come there and I quite agree with that statement. But we know the reasons for that situation; the difference between that situation and the situation in Natal is this that the position in the Reserve is in accordance with the terms of annexation whereas the position in Natal is one created by the people of Natal themselves. Every historical document clearly indicates not only that these Asiatic people were invited to this country by the people of Natal, but that, they were invited and they were given inducements to stay in this country after they had completed their work — apparently to save the expense of repatriating them.

But they brought their wives and families here.

These Indians are in Natal at the invitation of the Natal people. I have a quotation here which I should like to read—it is from a statement by Sir Liege Hullett in Natal in 1908, when he said this—

And that, is the town which we are told is essentially and only a European town. I quite realise the position in which the people of Natal now find themselves, but it is impossible to acquit them of the blame for that position. They cannot have their bread buttered on both sides, and they cannot eat their cake and have it. And that is what the people of Natal are seeking. Now, this legislation before the House promises to give the Indians something in the future. We have had experience of that type of legislation. It is a fact that it took twenty-three years to implement the 1913 Act. We entered into a solemn pact in 1936 and we are still waiting for the implementation of the promises then made. It is within my knowledge, and it must be within the knowledge of more than one Minister of the Crown, that there are great difficulties in regard to the carrying out of the promises made in 1936. I doubt if any Minister associated with native affairs would dare get up in this House and tell us of the agitation which is going on behind the scenes, in order to prevent the carrying out of these solemn promises made in 1936, and I have no doubt that what has happened in regard to the native people will happen again in regard to the Asiatics. We refer to this as a temporary measure to be reconsidered in three years’ time. If I put the question to any member of the Dominion Party as to what their attitude will be about these provisions being repealed in three years’ time, will they be able to say with their hands on their hearts that they agree with that? They have no intention of giving up anything they are taking in this Bill. I have no doubt of the Minister’s intentions. I have no doubt that he and the Prime Minister have the fullest intention of carrying out what is laid down in this Bill and what they have told us they propose to do, but are they able to control the people on whom they depend for their Government? Can anyone say that there is any certainty that in three years’ time, no matter what the facts may be, this Bill will not become a permanent part of the legislation of this country? All the experience of the past shows that we cannot rely upon that. Our past experience in this country shows very clearly that we shall try to keep the Indians down in the way we have tried to do before. Hon. members say it is a matter of self-preservation. Well, self-preservation is a peculiar thing, and it may be found that in three years’ time hon. members who now talk of repealing this Bill will find it necessary to take even more powers to preserve themselves. I have referred to the position of the legislation of 1936 as indicative of the difficulty which the Government has in carrying out, even with the best intentions, promises that have been made in the past. I want to support the plea put forward by my colleague here in her very convincing speech this morning. I say it is wrong to put this Act on the Statute Book merely on the basis of a promise which may or may not be fulfilled in the future. I say it is wrong to put this on the Statute Book before you have examined the intentions of the people on whose behalf you have brought it forward. I have nothing to show me, nothing to convince me, that the Durban City Council have seriously taken to heart what has been said to them and what they have been told to do in regard to this question of housing. I have read the resolutions made by the City Council of Durban in relation to the Lawrence Committee, and I must say I have never read, and never heard of, a more contemptuous statement made by a public body in reply to an appeal by a responsible Minister of the Crown. It certainly does not promise well for the future.

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

I am reminded that earlier in the debate the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) was concerned as to how the Minister of the Interior would decide on the paternity of this Bill. There seemed to be some doubt in her mind whether it would be legitimate even if it were legal. Well, I think the Minister of Mines left us no doubt that this Bill is the progeny of an association between the Imperial Lioness, as represented by him and the bold, bad wolf of Nationalism. One thing emerged clearly from the speech of the Minister of Mines and it was this—his unqualified acceptance of the Hertzogian interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, and his acceptance of the Republican attitude in relation to that particular Statute. I want to take this point a little further. It is very remarkable to have a condition of affairs such as we have today when the Government decides to bring before a dying Parliament legislation to control certain sections of the population—to control certain sections of the population which are virtually unrepresented. I want to impress on the House the dangers of the course that is being followed now. It has been said by those who know that the relationship between the European and the native population has deteriorated in recent years, and in my opinion that is correct. I take that deterioration to have started from the 1913 and 1936 Acts. There can be no doubt that whereas formerly the native people regarded us as their protectors they have lately come to regard us, rightly or wrongly, as defaulting trustees. That has not been without its effect on other sections of the people. We have this position, that the Minister of the Interior today is trying to set up certain bodies in relation to the coloured people, and in trying to do so he is meeting with very serious opposition. Today the coloured people “fear him even when he brings them gifts”, and that is the natural reaction of these people, in view of events since the legislation was enacted in 1936. And I say that that also accounts for the natural reaction of the Indian people to this Bill because they feel that what happend in 1936 will happen again in 1943.

What do the natives of Natal think of the Indians?

I am not concerned with that. I know human beings exploit human beings, and I know that where they can the Indian will exploit the natives—it is for us to see that they do not. But that is not the point. It is a question of principle. I ask: “Where are we going in this country?” How do great nations grow up and develop? How did the American Republic grow to the great position it occupies not through legislation of this kind.

Oh, yes, it did.

It did not.

And I say it did.

The answer is definitely no. And I have the feeling that we cannot build up South Africa on legislative barriers designed to deprive the other sections of the people of their rights. I am not a negrophilist.

Oh, no!

I am not an unnecessary lover of Asiatics—I know little about them, but I see in Bills of this nature a very grave danger: you have to build up this country on a population composed of Europeans, Africans, coloured people and Asiatics—you have to build on the foundation of them all. You cannot have in your country people with no stake, people with nothing to lose; if you allow that kind of condition to develop you allow a condition of grave danger to develop. I look on this question not only from the point of view of our own children, but from the point of view of our children’s children.

That is why you should support this Bill.

And I ask what is going to be the position of South Africa in twenty or twenty-five years time, if our present policy of legislative barriers is continued. We are building up pools of race hatred, dams of race hatred, and one day these dams will break, and I say: “God help South Africa and our children.” When I listen to the debate and look at the terms of this Bill I am reminded of the Zimbabwe Ruins. There you have evidence of an apparently advanced civilisation which attempted to defend their position by erecting huge ramparts and strong walls. We are trying to do the same thing through legislating by this House of Parliament. I say if we continue to build up the future of South Africa on that basis we shall suffer the same fate as did the inhabitants of Zimbabwe Ruins. The hon. member for Cape Eastern referred to the dangerous side of this question from the international point of view. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister is fully aware of that situation, but I feel that, realising that it is necessary for him under present conditions to retain the reins of power, he has been forced into a situation which has been created.

That’s absurd.

I didn’t say who created it. But I must say that when I heard the Minister of Mines speak with contempt about people who tried to make capital out of this situation I wondered who was really responsible for this; who had created this situation and why it had been done. What was the particular hurry for this particular piece of legislation? Certainly the Broome Commission report does not disclose it. Reference is made to the fact that these Asiatic people have acquired property. If you examine the records of real estate transactions for the past few years in the Union you will see that the transactions approximate £59,000,000 which shows that other people than the Indians, are realising the necessity of investing their money in property. I feel that the Government has been engineered into this position from which it finds it very difficult to extricate itself, and I feel that if the situation were not as I have described it, the Prime Minister, great Statesman that he is, would have hesitated to bring into this House anything which may have such serious repercussions as this Bill may have. Let me tell hon. members that you cannot lightly incur the hostility of 350,000,000 people. You are creating in South Africa a kind of Indian Sudetenland for which we may be sorry in days to come. I feel that the underlying purpose of this agitation is to reduce the Asiatic people to the oil rag stage, and it might be apt for me to repeat a quotation which recently appeared in a “Cape Argus” Leader—a few words which have a tremendous application. These are the words—

These words should be engraved on every Bill which is introduced into this House which tends to oppress people of any particular race, so that we may be warned against legislation of this kind. I know that nothing I may say will have any effect on the final fate of this Bill, but I have the satisfaction of knowing that those opinions are on record. And so I am going to appeal to the Minister, knowing that this Bill will become law, to make concessions on two points. My first appeal is in relation to Section 10 where he makes this Bill effective as from 31st March, 1943, I know that the Minister issued a warning on that date, and said that legislation would be retrospective. We have not got to the stage yet when the ipse dixit of a Minister constitute legislation—we have not got to the stage yet that simply because a Minister makes a statement on a certain date, legislation to be introduced at some future time will be retrospective to that date. I think it is a bad principle and I see no reason why we should lay down the precedent that from that particular date the provisions of this Bill shall apply. I think the principle which we are trying to lay down here is thoroughly unsound. Another point I want to raise is also in relation to Section 10. The Minister has told us that it is his intention to have a full enquiry into the action of particular municipalities in regard to this whole matter. May I suggest to the Minister to consider the insertion in Clause 10 of these words—

If that is done then it might be made clear to the Municipalities of Natal that Parliament insists on proper provision being made for Asiatic housing and other amenities. I am sorry to have detained the House at some length, but I feel that this is a matter of considerable importance, and I trust that the Minister will hestitate a long time before having this Bill placed on the Statute Book.

I am surprised at the intervention in this debate of the hon. member who has just spoken. I was under the impression that that hon. member, living as he does among the natives, knowing the needs of the natives, realising that he speaks here in this House as a representative of the natives, would have had more sense than to have intervened in this debate, and to have pleaded the cause of the wealthy Indians of Natal. But I shall return to that later.

Who says that they are rich?

I am not surprised that the Government saw fit to postpone the continuation of this debate for a day in view of the unfortunate and painful impression which Wednesday morning’s debate undoubtedly left on the minds of members on both sides of the House. I am sure the debate has a similar effect, on the public in the gallery. Evidently the Government thought it well to postpone the debate so as to allow those impressions to wear off. But I am afraid that the impression made by Wednesday morning’s debate was of such a nature that it will take more than one day’s postponement to wear off.

That is what you rely on.

It is not often that one has the opportunity of witnessing, or shall I say of occupying, a ring-side seat when an act of political hara-kiri is being committed. That is a privilege which we had on Wednesday morning. Because the attitude taken up by the Minister of Finance is tantamount to an act of political hara-kiri. I took the opportunity this morning of looking up in the dictionary how hara-kiri is defined, and it is as follows:

To judge by the expressions on the faces of hon. members on the other side of the House while the Minister of Finance was speaking it was profoundly clear that the vast majority of them considered him worthy of political death. There is no doubt whatever that the Minister of Finance has in fact committed political hara-kiri; or perhaps I should use another term. We are often reminded by hon. members on the other side that we are engaged in a war, and we are at war with Japan.

Yes, we don’t like Japan.

So I think I had better not use a Japanese term. This being what I might term an Indian occasion, it might be more appropriate to use a metaphor more closely associated with India. I believe it is a custom among certain Indian tribes for the widow to commit an act of self-immolation. She throws herself on the burning pyre of her deceased husband. It may be said that the Minister of Finance has by his action committed an act of political self-immolation on the pyre of racial equality and Victorian liberalism.

But he is not a widow.

Where will he find a wife?

Whether he is a widow or a bachelor, the fact remains that he has committed an act of political immolation. He has committed political suicide in so far as it concerns the future occupancy of Groote Schuur or Libertas. The Minister of Finance has openly disagreed on two previous occasions. After each disagreement he managed to stage a come-back, but I doubt whether he will manage to stage another come-back after what happened on Wednesday morning. I do not think there will be too many tears shed over the political suicide of the Minister of Finance; in fact he admitted in his speech to the House that there were only two members on whose support he could count, namely the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). It seems that the funeral obsequies will have to take place in a synagogue! What happened on Wednesday morning, can also be regarded in another light, and that is the light in which it should be more appropriately regarded viz., that of a comic opera, in the best traditions of Gilbert and Sullivan. Let us turn to the chief actors in this operetta. First there was the Minister of the Interior. He struggled desperately to put before the House the viewpoint of the Government in regard to this Bill. And from time to time he cast pathetic looks at the audience of Indians in the gallery. His attitude was correctly expressed by the Minister of Finance as being similar to that of the father who said to his erring son: “This hurts me more than it hurts you”. And while trying to put forward the Government’s view he had to soft-soap the Indian community in order to put the matter in the best possible light. One could almost hear his sigh of relief when his task was at last ended, and he could sit down. And then we come to the chief actor in this comic opera, the Minister of Finance; he gave us what I may term a tight rope exhibition, trying to balance political expediency with an attitude of high moral rectitude. We who have listened to the Minister of Finance in the past have become accustomed to that attitude of high moral rectitude which he so loves to adopt—and how he sported it on Wednesday! He was trying to balance political expediency with high moral rectitude. He took up this high moral attitude, but at the same time he was prepared to square his conscience with the argument that the Bill did not apply to the whole of Natal. But as was correctly stated by the Minister of Mines, the principle remains the same, whether applied to Durban or whether you apply it to the rest of Natal. The Minister of Finance who has become an adept—we have noticed that before—in the splitting of hairs, also tried to split this particular hair by trying to distinguish between the position in Durban and the rest of Natal. And then he proceeded to tell the Prime Minister, his chief, in resounding terms exactly where he got off. He told the Prime Minister that he placed on his shoulders the responsibility of retaining him in the Cabinet. While telling the Prime Minister where to get off, he at the same time was prepared to retain his Cabinet job. He said that he considered this Bill as a matter of very great importance, of such great importance that he was obliged to submit his resignation to the Government, knowing well it would not be accepted! But in order to justify his retention of his Cabinet seat, he then proceeded to tell the House that he did not consider it necessary to go out of the Cabinet in view of the fact that this was merely a matter of domestic importance! On the one hand it was an important matter, on account of which he was compelled to tender his resignation, but at the same time merely a matter of domestic importance not sufficiently serious to force him to relinquish his seat in the Cabinet! Mr. Speaker, is not this a Cabinet formed for the purpose of attending to the domestic affairs of this country, and is not the question of relationship between European and non-European one of the burning domestic questions in this country? And yet the hon. Minister of Finance turns round, shrugs his shoulders, and says it is purely a matter of domestic interest, and in those circumstances he thought himself justified in retaining his seat in the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, that statement by the hon. Minister of Finance in which he gave his reasons for tendering his resignation, coupled with the reply given by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, raises the whole question of Cabinet responsibility. I had intended saying a few words about that, but after the able exposition given by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) it is not necessary for me to say anything more, except that the whole principle of Cabinet responsibility which we have always believed in in this country, namely, that the Cabinet as a whole assumes responsibility for the policy of the Government, was thrown overboard on Wednesday. That was clearly explained this morning by the hon. member for Fauresmith, who quoted authorities in support. Now we come to the other actor in this comic opera, and that was the Prime Minister. I do not think we, on this side of the House, who are accustomed to watching the features and the expression of the Prime Minister, have ever seen him in such a state of, shall I say, despair; there was a most unhappy expression on his face right through the debate, particularly while the hon. Minister of Finance was speaking.

He was looking at the Opposition.

What I said applies not only to the Prime Minister but to other members on the Government side of the House. I have never seen hon. members over there in such an unhappy state as when the Minister of Finance was making his statement.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) looked the most unhappy of the lot. Their expressions rather reminded me of the advertisement of the gentleman who has omitted to take lime juice with his drinks the previous night, and has the morning after the night before look on his face. I can quite conceive that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was mentally consigning his troublesome colleague to perdition. But, Sir, what could he do? The Prime Minister, when he intervened in the debate, emphasised the fact of his having no choice in regard to the introduction of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, he also had no choice in regard to this matter of the Minister of Finance. Why? Because if the Minister of Finance insisted upon resigning, the Prime Minister was in the very unfortunate position of not having a single member either in his Cabinet or on his side of the House who could take the place of the hon. Minister of Finance.

He could call on the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth).

Mr. Speaker, what a commentary on the scarcity of brains and talent in this much-vaunted United Party, this party which a few years ago, we were told, had a Cabinet of all the talents. And now the Prime Minister is obliged to swallow the Minister of Finance, hook, line and sinker, because he has nobody to put in his place. There is of course the late lamented member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who has now been translated to another sphere; but the hon. member for Kensington could not have been appointed, even if Barkis had been willing, because the hon. member is tarred with the same brush as the hon. Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister found himself in the very unenviable position of having to retain a colleague who flatly told him he did not agree with his policy, and who put upon his shoulders the responsibility of keeping him in the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister had to keep him there because he had nobody else.

We have no difficulty with High Commissioners.

Now, Sir, we come to the last member in this comic opera, a silent member.

[Inaudible].

No, Sir, the Minister of the Interior is thinking of another little comic opera in which he took part at the time when he wore a coolie cap. The other actor in this opera was a silent actor, and that was the hon. Minister of Justice. There was no hon. member who was more interested in the debate on Wednesday morning than the hon. Minister of Justice, and while so deeply interested, he was trying so hard to look unconcerned. Mr. Speaker, never has the hon. Minister sucked so vigorously at his peppermint as on Wednesday morning in his attempt to look unconcerned.

Did you give it to him?

He has a liberal supply in his desk. The hon. Minister of Justice was trying to restrain that sort of smile which we have in the past associated with a certain tiger who took the lady of Riga for a ride. He had great difficulty in suppressing that smile. If there was one man who was interested in that debate on Wednesday morning it was the Minister of Justice. Let us change the metaphor. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance are both competitors in what we might call the Groote Schuur stakes. And now the hon. Minister of Finance has been scratched, he is not even an “also ran”, leaving the hon. Minister of Justice the only runner, unless some other contender appears upon the scene. I am not going to deal with the provisions of this Bill; the attitude of this side of the House has been very clearly and exhaustively stated by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) in his very able statement this morning, when he set out the point of view in regard to Cabinet responsibility. I wish to confine my remarks to the attitude of the hon. members representing the natives in this House. As I have said, I was very much surprised at the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) associating himself with the other two members, because he at least has lived amongst the natives, he knows the natives, and he ought to know what their interests demand.

I know you.

Since those hon. members were elected, and particularly during the first two Sessions, their speeches were followed with a considerable amount of interest also by this side of the House, because, after all, the representation of natives was the outcome of a policy initiated and put into practice by a former Leader of the Nationalist Party, Gen. Hertzog, and we were therefore very much interested to see how the experiment, was going to work. We listened to their speeches with keen interest, and if I may mention a particular name, I would say we listened with particular interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), who gained a certain reputation as an able debater, and as one who always stated her case very clearly. But, Mr. Speaker, there is not the least doubt that during the past two Sessions or more there has been a falling-off of interest on the part of members on this side of the House, and I think that also applies to a considerable number on the other side; and that falling-off of interest is due, in a very large measure, to the fact that we have good reason to wonder whether, after all, those members are really so much concerned about the natives whom they are supposed to represent, whether as a matter of fact those members and particularly, I think, the hon. member for Cape Eastern, are not allowing themselves to be used by other interests who are anxious to exploit the natives in South Africa for political purposes.

What are those interests? We shall be very interested to hear.

By so doing those members have succeeded not only to a very large extent in destroying their own reputation, but also, and this is an important fact, of impairing their usefulness as representatives of the native population in South Africa. That has appeared very clearly in this debate, when all these members, and particularly the member for Cape Eastern, have taken up a hostile attitude in regard to this Indian Bill and where the hon. member for Cape Eastern has gone so far as to put that preposterous motion on the Order Paper, to allow Indians to appear before the Bar of this House, a motion which the Government has very properly relegated to the bottom of the Order Paper, where it belongs. One wonders whether their concern is for the ordinary Indian. No, Sir, the reason for this Bill was admitted yesterday by the Prime Minister to be because of the penetration into European areas, not by the ordinary common or garden kind of Indian, but by the wealthy Indian. The Prime Minister stated that very clearly. The Broome Report speaks of this, and the Minister of the Interior took up the same line. So we have the position that those hon. members, particularly the member for Cape Eastern, are not appearing in this House on behalf of the ordinary so-called oppressed Indians. If she is so anxious about the oppressed Indians, why does not the hon. member for Cape Eastern go to India and become a second Mrs. Slade? The oppressed Indians are in India, not in South Africa; and the people for whom the hon. member for Cape Eastern and her colleagues have been pleading are not oppressed Indians but the rich and wealthy Indians who, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, are at present “making snug”. He used the same term which was used by Mr. Duncan Baxter some years ago with such disastrous results to himself. The Prime Minister said these Indians were now making snug, and instead of putting their money into war bonds were buying property in European areas; and these are the people for whom the native representatives are so concerned. They are the self-appointed representatives of the wealthy Indians in Natal. I cannot help feeling—I hope those hon. members will not take it amiss if I say that they are allowing themselves to be used as tools by the wealthier class of Indians to the detriment of the natives whom they are supposed to represent in this House. There is another aspect of this matter which I want to mention. I have already said that these hon. members are sitting here today as the result of the policy introduced by the late Gen. Hertzog. The essence of that policy was segregation, more particularly political segregation and territorial segregation, but the ultimate aim was also economic segregation and, of course, social segregation. I say those members are sitting here as members of this House as the result of that policy of segregation, and they should carry out that policy in the spirit as well as in the letter. But what do they do? They come here to plead for the wealthy Indians, and take up an attitude which is entirely contrary to that policy of segregation; and what is more, they defend Indian penetration into European areas, which is nothing less than a breaking down of the lines of social demarcation. In passing, may I refer to something the Minister said here on Wednesday, when he took up the extraordinary attitude of blaming the European in Natal for the position which has arisen. I was surprised to hear the Minister taking up that attitude; he said that the Europeans were as much to blame as anybody for what has taken place. The same argument was used by a local newspaper, viz., that there was no obligation upon Europeans to sell their property to Indians. Surely the Minister ought to know that once the process starts it is a continuing process. I would put a question to the Minister. If the Minister were living in a certain street and Indians purchased properties on each side of him, would he continue to live there? Would his wife and his family be willing to live there? Of course he would not! He would be the very first to sell out to some other Indian, and get away from that quarter. What right has the Minister to come here and blame the Europeans of Natal for the situation?

On your argument the original seller is wrong, and then there is no penetration subsequently, because no European will live there.

If there is any blame, it lies with the original seller. After that, it is a continuing process. The same thing has taken pace in America. In Chicago, I have seen what was once a fashionable area, entirely occupied by negroes. The same process is taking place in Natal. The hon. Minister of the Interior is not fair to the Europeans of Natal when he says they are equally responsible for what has taken place. Once a process starts it is a continuing process, and any white man with an atom of self-respect will object to keep on living in an area which is becoming predominantly Indian. I say, sir, that in South Africa there is general agreement on this question of social segregation. There may be some difference of opinion on the question of economic segregation, but we are agreed on the necessity of social segregation. But the hon. member for Cape Eastern and her colleagues who after all have white skins, who are Europeans, and after all wish to continue to be Europeans, are today advocates of a policy which is tantamount to advocating a breaking down of the social lines of demarcation; they are supporting the wealthier Indians of Natal who wish to go and live in European areas. I want to raise another matter. Those members are sitting in this House as representatives of the natives; they have been elected to guard the interests of the native population, more particularly of the Cape Province; and yet, Sir, they are today espousing a cause which is contrary to the interest of the natives. I have not lived in Natal, but I have discussed the matter with people who do live there, and they assure me that the Indian is not the friend of the native; they tell me the Indian is the man who exploits the native.

Quite true.

And those members over there who are supposed to have at heart the interest of the native, come here as the self-appointed protectors of the wealthy trading Indian class in Natal. I do not know whether the natives of the Cape Province know what is happening here, but I do say this, that if the natives of the Cape Province were to know what attitude is being taken up by their representatives, and that they are actually supporting the Indian exploiters of the natives, then not one of them would return to this House. The natives of the Transkei and other parts of the Cape would send representatives who really have their interests at heart. Those hon. members seem to take up the attitude that they are supposed to be the representatives of all sections of the coloured races in South Africa. If it had not been for the fact that the Chinese were sent back in 1906, and if there were still Chinese in South Africa they would be appearing in this House as the representatives of the Chinese. That is their attitude. It was the Nationalist Party under the leadership of Gen. Hertzog who introduced this policy of segregation; it was Gen. Hertzog who conceived this idea of having separate native representation in this House. But I say ths, that in view of what has been happening during the past two years—this is not the first time it has happened—where you have these representatives posing as the self-appointed representatives of all coloured races in South Africa—then, Sir, they cannot blame us if on this side of the House there is a growing feeling that the time has arrived when a radical change should be made in regard to this matter of representation of the natives. I am not able to speak for the party, but I interpret the feeling of members of the party, both inside and outside the House, when I say there is a growing feeling that this native representation should either be ended or if it is not abolished, it should be limited to such an extent that hon. members will sit there as representatives only of the natives, and not of Indians, Chinese and Cape coloureds. They should be here as representatives of the natives and nothing more. If that happens—and it will come to pass when this party is in power—then those members will have themselves to blame because of their attitude and actions in regard to this Indian question.

Is no member on this side of the House entitled to express an opinion about any other colour?

There is a great difference between a mere expression of opinion on the question of colour and the belligerent attitude which those members have taken up here as the self-appointed representatives of the Indians. I am surprised at the hon. Minister of Native Affairs, because if he knows anything about the position in Natal as it has been described by some hon. members, then he knows that the Indian is not the friend of the native. Natal falls within his jurisdiction as Minister, and he should be the very last to defend the attitude of those hon. members in regard to this Indian question.

I am merely contending for the right of hon. members to express an opinion. They knock me about more than anybody else.

In certain matters those hon. members have been going far beyond the scope of their representation in Parliament, and in my view, which I think is the view held by other members on this side, the time has arrived when, if they remain as members of this House, their actions and attitude should be strictly circumscribed. I know that what I have said meets with the approval of many members also on the Government side.

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to say a great deal in reply to the debate which has taken place today and last Wednesday. I think that, with one or two small exceptions, the debate throughout has been maintained on a very high level indeed, and I do not propose to be led astray into some of the highways and byways in which one or two hon. members have attempted to lead us. May I at the outset refer very briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) this morning, and to his description of the fascinating “royal road” to constitutional government, which he has invited me and members on this side of the House to tread. In passing I may say it is interesting to note that for the time being he has diverged from the Republican path to which he is normally restricted. At all events, I listened with interest to his argument, and I am sure we all did, but he will forgive me if I tell him that I do not propose to answer his argument. That is a matter for the Prime Minister. It is my duty to deal primarily with the merits of the Bill itself. Perhaps, however, I may be permitted to remind the hon. member that there was a time in 1930 when the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, introduced a matter of fundamental importance. He introduced a Bill fundamentally changing the franchise system of this country, namely the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, and in the course of that debate not only did the then Minister of Lands, the late Mr. Grobler, but the then Minister of Agriculture, Gen. Kemp, speak and vote against the Bill, and the hon. member the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister of the Interior, did not consider it a matter of constitutional propriety to go out of the Cabinet. I would like to deal with one or two of the questions which have been put to me in the course of the debate. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) asked me this morning whether the Commission which the Government propose to appoint will have jurisdiction in respect of the Transvaal and Natal. No, sir, the intention of the Government in appointing this Commission is to appoint a judicial body which will enquire into social welfare and civic amenities in respect of the Indian population of Natal. In the course of the debate I think it has become quite clear that the bone of contention as between the Indian population in Natal,—more particularly in Durban—and the European population, has been this question of the provision of civic and housing amenities, and the Government is anxious to have this matter threshed out and enquired into by an impartial tribunal to be presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court. I quite agree with the hon. member for Brits that, so far as the Transvaal position is concerned, it cannot be allowed to be left as it is. And here I come to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). He has twitted me. He has said that I have argued that because the position in Natal, in Durban, is such as to cause friction between the European and Indian communities, it is necessary to impose a measure of control; and he says I also argued that because of the present time there is a cordial relationship between the Indian and European communities in the Transvaal, there should also be a measure of control. But these two contentions are not mutually inconsistent. I firmly and honestly believe that the present satisfactory state in the Province of Transvaal is due to the fact that we have had control for the past three and a half years, and that the control has been administered in a sympathetic manner and in the interests of both sections of the community. I am also equally confident that if at this stage control were to be withdrawn, then the problem of finding an ultimate solution would be a very difficult one indeed. It is only in an atmosphere of calmness and dispassionate enquiry that one can approach this problem. I would ask the hon. members for Cape Eastern and Cape Western, who have pressed this point, to remember that when my predecessor, Mr. Stuttaford, introduced the interim legislation in 1939, he at that stage said he hoped to be able to come forward within a year with legislation. The legislation he was contemplating at that time was legislation along the lines of segregation, and the House was asked to peg the position in the Transvaal pending the consideration of that legislation. I ask the hon. members sitting there on the cross benches whether they would like the Government to put into operation that segregation legislation? Is that what they want me to do? Do they want me to take off control and put into operation that scheme?

Yes, we want that. Why don’t you carry out the promise of your predecessor?

My hon. friend must no talk too much about promises made by predecessors, because I may have to talk about some promises that have been made by his leader. Undoubtedly there are very deep and very grave problems still to be dealt with in regard to the Indian population in the Transvaal. There is the question of the ownership of land. Parliament has already, by Resolution of both Houses, exempted certain areas of the Witwatersrand from the restrictive provisions of the Gold Law. It is already contended by the Indian community that those areas which are exempted are not sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of the Indian population. I think that is correct, and I think we have to go further than we have already gone, not merely in the proclaimed areas but also in the rural areas. Then there is the question of housing and of licences. Of course the Indian population of the Transvaal is entitled to an increase of licences, but we have to try to develop a system under which the needs of legitimate expansion can be met without, at the same time resulting in encroachment upon predominantly European areas. And that is why in regard to the Transvaal I cannot agree with the contentions which have been based upon one of the statements of the Murray Commission. That Commission stated that in the country towns visited by the Commission, the evidence given did not disclose any increase in the number of Asiatic trading licences disproportionate to the total needs of the population. That is probably quite correct. You may have an increase in trading licences, which is not disproportionate to the total needs of the population. But the increase of those licences may have taken place in predominantly European areas, and that is the difficulty. In the course of the last three and a half years I have issued some 2,000 permits for new licences, but they have been issued on this basis, that the grant of those licences will not involve penetration into predominantly European areas. The Murray Commission might say in regard to this that 2,000 new licences have been granted, and that that is not disproportionate to the needs of the Indian population. But that by itself means nothing. They may not be disproportionate to the needs, but, if control had not been exercised, they might have caused friction between the two racial groups, because they might have taken place in predominantly European areas.

The areas may have become unattractive to European traders.

That may be, but I refer to the First Broome Commission in order to show that one cannot take the report of a Commission like this and put it into a watertight compartment. The Broome Commission refers to the point raised by the hon. member for Brits, and may I quote from the relative portion of the Report which relates to the town of Brits? It shows that the urban population of Brits in 1936 was 917, and the Asiatic population 105. The figures for 1921 are not available because apparently the town of Brits was only laid out in 1923, but the Commission says—

According to this Report, no penetration has taken place in the town of Brits within the terms of reference of the Commission. The Commission points out that Brits was laid out only in 1923, and by the time the Commission got there the main street had become no longer predominantly European. If it is common cause not only between the members of this House but between the members of the European and Indian communities, that this infiltration is undesirable, then we must realise that it starts by a slow process, it is the slow dripping which causes the trouble. The Lange Commission of 1920 said there was no great seriousness in regard to this trouble in the rural areas of the Transvaal. The Broome Commission comes along at a later stage and says no penetration has taken place. In actual fact, the main street in the town of Brits has in the interim been turned from a predominantly European area into an Indian area. Well, we have been able to impose this measure of control, and, if the Act is sympathetically administered, we can, without doing injustice to the Indian trader, ensure that causes of friction do not prevail. I again urge that it is as much in the interests of the Indian community as in the interests of the European community itself that we should not allow the present satisfactory and cordial relationship between the two races to be changed, and an atmosphere created which will make it virtually impossible to find means of dealing with these other vitally important matters, such as the release of additional land, the provision of housing, and so on. I do not wish to say anything more in regard to the position in the Transvaal. The hon. member for Cape Western, supported by the member for Cape Eastern and his other colleague, has urged that, while this is called interim legislation, it has inevitably the stamp of permanency. This legislation is an interim measure, a standstill in order to enable the proper atmosphere to be created to deal with the very serious situation that is arising in Durban and elsewhere. Apart from the hon. members representing natives, there has been no adverse criticism of the principles of the Bill. There has, however, been a suggestion from certain members that the provisions in regard to Natal do not go far enough. It is said that instead of confining the restrictive provisions to Durban only, they should be applicable to the whole of Natal. Well, Sir, we have provision for extension, and I think it would be unwise at this stage and before, further enquiry, to extend these restrictive provisions to other places. We have machinery to enable that to be done. It is not intended to charge the Housing and Civic. Amenities Commission with the task of enquiring whether other areas should be proclaimed. This judicial Commission will have the task of dealing with social welfare and civic amenities. For the further penetration enquiry we want a quick procedure; we do not need to have a Commission with four or five members. We shall appoint an ad hoc Commission, which can do its work in a week or a fortnight. If circumstances arise which justify an enquiry into any particular area, that enquiry can take place within a week or a fortnight, and it is the intention of the Government to proceed along those lines and not appoint a Commission which will sit for a long time and have to deal with other matters as well. It is essential that we should divorce the enquiry into social and civic amenities from an ad hoc enquiry into particular areas, and it is proposed to act along the lines I have indicated. There is one other matter I would like to mention, and that is the reference which my hon. friend the member for Illovo made to the Natal Indian Association. I have had a letter from that Association, and I have been asked by that Association to correct certain impressions which the hon. member gave the House in the course of the debate. I think it is only fair that I should say what has been communicated to me by the Association. It was stated that that Association represented only 5 per cent. of the Indian population, and I think it is fair for me to say that in the course of the negotiations which the Union, Government had with the Natal Indians, the Association was always ready and willing to co-operate on the Lawrence Committee, in efforts to stop this infiltration into predominantly European areas The Natal Indian Association has for a long while been recognised as the official mouthpiece of the Indian community of Natal.

Quite improperly recognised.

That may be, but I merely give these facts because I think in fairness and justice I should do so, and there is no doubt that the Natal Indian Association has attempted to assist the Government in its war effort through recruiting for the original Indian Corps and subsequently the Indian and Malay Corps. Now, Sir, before I sit down I want to deal very briefly with the intervention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition has told us that in the past he appealed for the assistance of all parties in dealing with this matter. I think I am not doing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an injustice if I say that, in the course of his intervention in this debate, he brought the debate down to the level of a party political squabble. The hon. member at the outset referred in ponderous terms to the Dominion Party; he sought to make some party capital out of the fact that there had been an agitation amongst certain sections. He sought to twit the Government with being led by the nose, or more correctly by the tail, by the Dominion Party. He made very strong efforts to draw a red herring—perhaps I might more appropriately say a red, white and blue herring—across the trail to cause dissention amongst the different portions of the Coalition.

But you were quarrelling amongst yourselves.

The Leader of the Opposition must riot always look at things from the standpoint of a Herenigde Party caucus! In a debate of this sort there was no necessity to drag these matters in. The hon. member said—he implied by his amendment—that the Government had been lighthearted in dealing with this question. He said that the Government has come forward with postponement after postponement. He suggested that the Government allowed interference by the Government of India in this matter, and he stated, with a great show of bravado, that the Opposition would not tolerate any interference, whether it be from the United States, from India or from Germany. I must say I was almost glad to hear a reference of the last-named country. I should perhaps ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he has forgotten about “the voice that breathed o’er Zeesen”. I seem to remember those assurances over the ether from Hitler, which were listened to very eagerly by the Leader of the Opposition. In those days, Sir, it was not “interference from outside”. No, Sir, in the days when Stalingrad was about to fall—according to the hon. member—those assurances were not interferences but helpful advice from outside! But I would say that it ill becomes the Leader of the Opposition to talk about interference from outside. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was. Minister of the Interior, dealt with this very vital and grave Indian matter in a responsible manner. He realised that we had grown up; we were not children. This is a sovereign independent State, and when we deal with other States, we have to deal with them on a basis of responsibility, and one does not talk lightly of representations made by other States. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of the Interior he did not talk in this light-hearted and provocative way of representations made by other Governments. The Government of India has naturally made representations to this Government, but the difference between this Government and the Government in which the hon. member was Minister of the Interior in 1925-1926 is this, that in those days the Government of India made representations and the Leader of the Opposition bowed to those representations.

That is untrue.

At the present time the Government of India has properly made representations …

I refer you to my correspondence with the Government of India.

Let me remind the House of what happened in those days. I think it is right that I should do so before I sit down. The House will remember that in 1924 the then South African Party, through the Minister of the Interior, Sir Patrick Duncan, introduced the Class Areas Bill. That was followed by a motion which was introduced by the late Mr. MacKeurtan. A new Government came into power in 1924, and in 1925 the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) introduced a similar measure, namely the Areas Reservation and Immigration Bill, and this is what the hon. member said on that occasion—

Then the hon. member made this appeal to the House.

You do not even realise that today.

He never realises anything.

The hon. member said—

How I wish that the Leader of the Opposition had remembered those admirable sentences when he spoke to this House on Wednesday last. When the hon. member made that appeal in 1925 to the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, that appeal was observed. The matter was treated on a non-political basis, as I shall show. But the hon. member, with a sense of responsibility, then also realised that grown-up nations do not take lightly the representations that may be made by other Governments of the world, particularly when they are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. And it was the then Minister of the Interior, who at that time had been rhapsodising about the British Commonwealth and England being the Mother of our Freedom, who said:

I may just conclude by making two points quite clear. I wish to be very clearly understood on these two points. The first is that the introduction of this Bill will not or must not be taken as closing the door to any negotiations or communications which may pass at present, or in the future, between the Union Government and the Government of India in regard to the Indian question.

There was no question then about,: “We shall have no interference from others.” In those days the hon. member was responsible; he dealt with this matter as a responsible Minister. He was not then clutching around at straws on the eve of a general election for the purpose of catching odd votes.

In Natal!

The Government is fighting no seats in Natal, or very few. And then the hon. gentleman gave this undertaking to the House—

There the hon. gentleman gives the undertaking that the Bill when passed will be retrospective. Well, Sir, that was in 1925. In 1926 the Bill, in an amended form, was introduced by the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister of the Interior. It was referred to a Select Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Malan. And then I might quote this from the report of that Select Committee. It said—

Then the formula is given, and it goes on to say—

So it was then agreed that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the results of the Conference were available.

What does that prove? Nothing at all.

The hon. member is usually silent in the course of a debate. His anxiety to hear what it proves will be satisfied in a moment. A conference then took place, and it is interesting to note that immediately the agenda was placed before the conference, the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Boydell, said—

It will be seen that it was now over a year since the hon. the leader of the Opposition had introduced his Bill, and, when it came to the Conference, all reference to the question of penetration had been left out! It is interesting to remember this in regard to the hon. member’s remark on Wednesday in this House that: “The Government comes along with postponement after postponement.”. That is the hon. member’s charge against this Government. His charge is that, in the most difficult of circumstances during a war, this Government comes along with postponement after postponement. I am reminding the House of what happened 20 years ago in days of peace when the hon. member first postponed and then again postponed, and then these negotiations took place which resulted in the Bill being withdrawn.

I told you on Wednesday why it was postponed.

He did not listen.

The hon. member told me why it was postponed. If at that time the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the Opposition, had taken up the attitude which the leader of the Opposition did on Wednesday, where would he have got with his negotiations? He made an appeal for co-operation and that appeal was met. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the Opposition of that day to have said: “You are delaying; you come along with postponement after postponement. But instead of doing that, the Opposition co-operated. They co-operated and gave the hon. gentleman time for all the postponements he wanted in an attempt to get a solution of this problem. But although the question was raised on a number of occasions, the leader of the Opposition refused to allow this question of infiltration to be dealt with; and then, finally, he came back to the House in 1927 and then asked that the Bill should be dropped altogether. Then the experiment of repatriation was tried. I am not suggesting that the hon. the leader of the Opposition did not act in a proper manner in 1925, 1926, 1927. My personal view is that he did act in a responsible way at that time.

Why all this laboured criticism then?

I am trying to show to the House—the leader of the Opposition may not appreciate it—that when the hon. member for Piquetberg charges this Government with delay, and attempts to make political capital out of the Government’s dealing with this matter upon the present lines of legislation, then he is not living up to the standard which he tried to set in this House in 1925. He is not now dealing with this matter on a non-party basis, as his whole amendment shows. He had an opportunity to deal with this matter. If the hon. gentleman was right in those days, he is entirely wrong in his criticism of the Government at the present time. But if he says that we ought to go very much further than we are now doing, then my answer to the hon. gentleman is that the position we have to deal with today is the direct legacy of the hon. member’s failure to deal with it in 1925. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. Either he was a complete, lamentable failure in 1925, or else he has turned a complete somersault. I leave it to the House to judge. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has already told the House that the Government does not intend accepting the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. The Government is dealing with this difficult and delicate matter in a manner which it considers to be in the interests of both the Indian and the European community. It is not going to be deterred by the desperate efforts of the Opposition to make political capital out of it.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—30:

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Mrs. Ballinger, Messrs. Hemming and Molteno) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared it agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 17th April.

I move—

In 1941 Parliament passed the Active Service Voters Act, No. 37 of 1941, which made provision for voting by persons serving outside the Union with the Defence Forces of the Union at a General Parliamentary Election or at a General Election for Provincial Councils. That measure, hon. members will recollect, established the principle of voting for parties or groups and not for individual candidates. From the point of view of practicability it was the only way of ensuring that members of the forces outside the Union would be able to record their votes at a general election. It was quite obvious that the ordinary machinery of the postal vote could not be applicable to the circumstances of members of the forces serving outside the Union. There was the question of distance, the time factor, printing the ballot papers, and other matters which were gone into when the Bill was being discussed in this House. This measure which is now before the House is the corollary of the Act of 1941. In that Act no special provision was made for voting by members of the forces within the Union. It was assumed that at a general election, either Parliamentary or Provincial Council, members of the forces in the Union would vote, if they were not in their own constituencies on the day of polling, by the ordinary postal voting procedure. No special provision was made in regard to members of the forces. But experience at by-elections in the course of the last few years has shown that if we were not to make a change in the law, voting by soldiers in the Union would be almost impracticable, except in the case of those who were actually in their own constituencies, a very small number, and most of our forces would be disenfranchised. It is necessary for me to elaborate that. Hon. members know the difficulty in times of peace of tracing absent voters. The candidate seeks to find the voter at his home, and finds he has moved to Johannesburg or Port Elizabeth or somewhere else, and a great deal of organisation has to be set in train in order to trace that voter. When eventually he is discovered, an application for a ballot paper has to be sent to him. It is true that, by virtue of a Bill passed during this Session, the procedure for applying for a ballot paper has been simplified. But quite apart from that, the time factor involved in all this organisation is considerable. The voter in Port Elizabeth has to apply to the returning officer in his constituency, we will say in Jeppe, for a ballot paper. The application form goes back to the returning officer in Jeppe, the voting paper is sent, to the voter, and when he eventually fills in his ballot paper he has to do it before the competent official.

In the meantime he may have moved to another place.

[Inaudible.]

I am speaking of the ordinary voting by post procedure, which is peculiarly difficult at the present time when literally thousands of men and women have moved from their ordinary places of residence to other parts of the Union, on military service. They are moved from Voortrekkerhoogte to Sonderwater and Maritzburg, and they may move fairly rapidly. Experience has shown that even if a man can be traced to his unit, by the time the Justice of the Peace or the appropriate official has found him, a good deal of time has elapsed, and practically no time is left for the voting formalities, or it may be the man has already moved again and has to be followed up again. It has been found in by-elections that of soldiers in the Union under postal voting conditions, barely 20 per cent. are able to record their votes. At a General Election with tens of thousands of men and women on active service, the tracing of them will be well nigh impossible. Of course, if a voter living at Salt River is moved to Natal and knows that he has registered in Salt River, he may of his own volition obtain and fill in a ballot paper. But I ask hon. members how many of those on active service know exactly what constituency they are registered in, particularly after a fresh delimitation of constituencies? The number must be very small indeed of men and women on active service who would be able to tell with any degree of accuracy in which constituency they are registered. To meet this difficulty and in order to enable soldiers in the Union to take part in a General Election, it was originally proposed to apply in the Union as well as outside the Union, the system of voting for parties or groups and not for individuals. It was felt that that would be the way out of the difficulty, and steps were taken in order to give legislative effect to that. But upon further consideration, and as a result of certain lines of criticism and suggestions that those in the Union ought to have the opportunity of voting for candidates, it was decided to adopt the ordinary voting by post procedure to the circumstances of military routine. The result is this short and simple Bill, which I think in practice will prove to be more workable and convenient. Under the provisions of this Bill members of the forces will vote by post, but in order to save time that would elapse in the making of applications for ballot papers, upon the proclamation declaring a general election being issued by the Governor General, the commanding officers of all units will submit nominal rolls of those serving under them to the chief electoral officer in Pretoria. These rolls will be submitted from all camps, dépots, air stations and other places where soldiers are congregated. This will apply to military hospitals also. The Essential Service Protection Corps fall under the provisions of this Bill, but not organisations such as the C.P.S. or the N.V.R. In terms of the definition of “war service” it is clear that it is those who are on full time service, and that is also made clear in the provisions of Section 5. These nominal rolls will be submitted to the chief electoral officer in Pretoria, that officer will compare the names on the nominal rolls with the names on the index of registered voters in the Union. Where the names on the nominal roll corresponds with the names on the index of voters, he will at a certain stage proceed to send ballot papers in respect of these voters to the commanding officer of the unit concerned. The ballot papers in respect of each member of a unit will be sorted out and the necessary arrangements for voting by members of the unit will be made before the appropriate officer. In Section 5 one finds the crux of the Bill. Section 3 states that the Secretary for Defence shall cause arrangements to be made to enable persons entitled to do so to vote in terms of the Act. This is the clause that corresponds to the section in the Act of 1941 in terms of which the chief electoral officer has to make the necessary arrangements. The duty is now cast on the Secretary for Defence. Section 5 sets out the procedure in regard to the submission of the nominal rolls, the duty of the chief electoral officer, the returning of the ballot papers by the commanding officers, arid the final submission of the completed ballot papers to the chief electoral officer in Pretoria, not later than 8 p.m. on the day of the poll. That is roughly the procedure that will be carried out. The machinery for this procedure will be centralised in Pretoria. There will be no applications to individual returning officers, no delay in making applications, and no delay in the completion of the ballot papers, because voting will not take place in accordance with the arrangements made by the commanding officer, who will enable the troops under his command to receive their papers at any given time, and, vote forthwith.

When will the voting take place?

Not necessarily on election day. The voting may take place at any time after the receipt of the ballot paper, provided that the ballot papers are returned to the chief electoral officer by 8 o’clock on the night of the poll. In regard to voting outside the Union, there the voting may take place over a similar period, except that it has to close four days before the close of the poll, including the day of the poll. In Section 9 provision is made for the promulgation of regulations to deal with various matters in regard to voting, the appointment of persons to carry out these regulations, the method by which the identity of the voter shall be established, the maintenance of secrecy, and so on. While the procedure for voting by post has been simplified, there will be ample safeguards to maintain the secrecy of the ballot and to prevent unauthorised persons from voting. These do not appear in the Bill itself. In terms of regulations which it is proposed to publish, a party representative may be present when the nominal rolls are checked against the index of voters, they may be present at the issue of ballot papers and at the scrutiny of ballot papers after the close of the poll. There will be adequate safeguards to maintain the secrecy of the ballot.

How does this House know what the safeguards are?

In conformity with the usual practice in the matter of postal voting, in regulations which will be duly published and promulgated, safeguards will be provided to ensure that these things will be done. The hon. member will remember that on the occasion of the the passing of the 1941 Bill discussions took place regarding the draft regulations that were drawn up. They were never published because the general provincial elections due to take place in 1941 were postponed. It is now the intention to publish a set of regulations dealing both with the voting by members of the forces outside and within the Union.

Will the same procedure be followed; will you consult the different parties?

The regulations are in course of being drafted at the present time, and while I cannot guarantee that a conference will be held, I am perfectly prepared to consult informally the representatives of the parties with a view to their making such representations as they wish.

It is a very important matter.

I agree, and I hope the hon. member does not suggest that the tried and experienced officials who are dealing with this matter do not also realise that it is an important matter.

Our previous experience of this matter is that there are numerous loopholes, and we assisted you to close them up.

I am grateful for the assistance that was given me on the occasion of the conference at Pretoria in connection with the previous Bill, and the Department is taking into consideration the suggestions that were made in regard to those regulations, but I cannot guarantee that we shall have a conference in regard to this matter.

Why not?

Because I am not prepared to guarantee something unless I am able to carry it out.

You did it before, why not again?

These regulations may take some time to draft, although we have the benefit of the regulations which were drafted about a year ago. If the Department is able to submit to me these regulations within a reasonable time I am quite prepared to consider them with the party representatives, but the hon. member must realise that the General Election must take place before the 21st October of this year, and it is in the interest of parties and candidates who may be standing that the regulations should be published with the utmost expedition. I am anxious that they should be published as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill. If the circumstances allow of a conference being held …

Why if? It need not take more than a day or two.

The hon. member knows that not only Ministers but members are very heavily engaged with work at the present time, and I am not in a position to say that I shall be able to give up a day for a discussion of this kind at the present stage, and that is why I am not prepared to give an unqualified assurance that such a conference can be held. I shall consult the responsible officials of the Department, and in order to meet the convenience of hon. members, see if a conference cannot be held in the closing days of the session. If that cannot be done, I am quite prepared to invite members to come to Pretoria, but I would not be doing my duty if I allowed this matter to be delayed for another two or three months, because these regulations should be out with the utmost expedition as the election is due by the 21st October. I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me.

Of course, the sooner the better.

All political parties have an equal interest in this matter. I shall ask the officials if they have reached a stage at which it is possible to have these consultations. There is no secrecy about these regulations; the Department has nothing to hide.

I am glad to hear that; do not give that impression …

My hon. friend misjudges me. The only impression I do not wish to give is that I am promising something that I cannot carry out.

What about the soldier within his own constituency?

There is a provision in the Bill that if a soldier is in his own constituency at the date of the election, then he can obtain an ordinary ballot paper from the returning officer. There is also the provision in regard to a soldier who may have returned from the North just prior to the polling day, and who has not voted in the North and has not had the opportunity of having his name included in the nominal roll in the Union. It will be possible for him to obtain a soldier’s voting paper and not the ordinary ballot paper.

With the name of the candidate on?

No, with the name of the Party. The position is this, members of the forces outside the Union will be given a ballot paper on which will be the names of parties, not individuals.

And inside the Union?

Inside the Union members of the forces will either receive a ballot paper from the returning officer, if they are in their own constituencies, or from the chief electoral officer at Pretoria, through their commanding officer. On that ballot paper will be the names of individual candidates.

Inside the Union names will be on?

There is a third category. It is conceivable, I do not say it will happen, that certain members of the forces will arrive in the Union immediately prior to the poll. There may be no time for their names to be included in the nominal roll to be submitted to the chief electoral officer. In other words there may not be time to obtain a ballot paper with the names of the candidates on it. In such cases provision is made in the Bill that these persons may have issued to them a soldier’s ballot paper with the names of the parties on it, and not the names of individual candidates.

Must the parties make an extra deposit?

After the announcement of a general election, the secretary or some responsible official must telegraph to the chief electoral officer, stating that the particular party which he represents will be contesting seats at the election.

Must there be an extra deposit?

Yes, the extra deposit must be made which is forfeit if that particular party does not contest any seat. There is a provision in Section 11, making it quite clear that Independents are classed as political parties or groups for the purpose of the 1941 Act. Then there is also this provision, Sub-Section 2 of Clause 11—

Is not that ultra vires existing legislation?

I think it would be advisable for the hon. member, before the Committee stage, to consider this. It is not proposed to take the Committee stage today, and the hon. member will have the opportunity of going into these points. I shall be glad if he will take the opportunity of discussing this with the departmental officials. I am sure he will agree with me that it is not appropriate that I should be subjected to cross-examination here.

Your whole attitude to the Bill may be determined by these regulations, by the silly things you do or do not do.

The hon. gentleman has referred to the silly things I do. I have perhaps more confidence than he has in the very experienced officials who are responsible for drafting.

It is you; not the officials. It is you.

I want to emphasise that, so far as members of the Forces within the Union are concerned, the decision to depart from the proposal to vote for parties and not for individuals was taken because it was felt, as the result of opinions received, that soldiers preferred to vote for individuals. One has realised that all along, but until the suggestion in the present Bill was made in a practical way, the first proposal was put forward to meet the difficulties I referred to in the outset of my speech, namely, the difficulties of applying the ordinary voting by post procedure to the large number of soldiers congregated in camps. I think, however, this new procedure will meet the case. It is simple, it dispenses with a number of formalities, it saves a great deal of time, and I think it is one which will commend itself to the forces as a whole. I hope the House will support this Bill, this altered procedure as being more convenient, and the one most in the interests of the people concerned. There are one or two other small matters in the Bill, but I think it will be more appropriate to deal with them in the committee stage.

I move—

I second.

Agreed.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 17th April.

I just want to say this, that when on a previous occasion I got up and spoke on this vote, I tried to do so in as calm a way as possible. But it appears that the Minister of Lands does not listen to what an hon. member says; he does not listen to his arguments, and then comes and makes all kinds of accusations which are totally unfounded. He has said that I, in all the time that I have represented the Gordonia constituency, have never brought the interests of the settlers before this House. Well, if the hon. Minister says this, then it is proof that he has never yet listened to what I have said here in connection with the settlers in my constituency and land settlements in general. I want to refer him to my speech of last year, when I tried to present the matter in an impartial way and to put forward suggestions in connection with the settlements in my constituency and also in connection with land settlements in general. I will not quote what I said on that occasion, but I will refer the Minister to Hansard Volume 44, Columns 5737 and 5738. But what I deplore so much about the Minister of Lands is that just before we came to his vote he tabled this document which contains the Loan Estimates, and no hon. member has had the opportunity of examining that document before the debate on the vote began. When I spoke about the coloured settlement Mier, he said that it was typical of me that I do not know anything about my constituency. This is the first time any member has had a chance to study the Loan Estimates, and now the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Finance come here with this accusation. I want to tell them that if in future they expect us to meet them in expediting the business of the House, we will not be able to do so if they make such unfounded allegations against us. This is the first time that I have seen that there are two amounts in the Loan Estimates in connection with the settlement in my constituency and I hope the Minister of Lands will have the courage and apologise for the kind of allegations he has made. But there is another very important matter. I spoke in the House here about the economic upliftment of our people on the various settlements and made a point of asking the Minister to keep unscrupulous speculators and exploiters away from the settlements. Then the Minister’s reply was: What about Kakamas? What did that reply mean? That at Kakamas people are being exploited and that the Church which has a monopoly there, a merciful monopoly, is busy exploiting the people and treating them in an unscrupulous way. The Minister said that the shops at Kakamas were the first that dared to increase their prices. If it were not that as a result of the experience which we have already had in the past of this Minister, i.e. that he makes allegations which are devoid of all substance, then I would not have taken the action I did. I immediately got into touch with the shop manager and superintendent at Kakamas and their reply to the accusation of the Minister of Lands is—[Translation]

The report to which they refer is the report of the commission which the Minister himself appointed. This is the telegram which I have received from the manager. The Minister says that there are many other things he can tell, and then he came and said that Kakamas had been fined in this way. The Minister wanted to create the impression that the Church is busy making unheard of profits and exploiting the people. To this I have also reacted and I want to give the reply which reflects the facts—[Translation.]

I want to associate myself with the plea that has been made here in the interest of the people who today are not on active service, and who as a result of the Minister of Lands are not able to get any allotments before the war is over. We want to assume that the attitude of the Minister, in view of his outlook on the war, is quite correct, but there is this exception that today there are people who are really deserving and who ought to have allotments and it is unfair to them that they should wait until the war is over. It appears to us that it is only fair that people who will be considered after the war and who today for good reasons are not on active service, should be placed in a position today to be able to obtain allotments, which they, according to the attitude of the Minister, can obtain only after the war. Although I am not directly interested in the settlement of Kakamas I am nevertheless worried about the charges the Minister has made, and which he has already made before against the Church, against the N.G. Kerk in this particular case and the settlement at Kakamas. I think that it is always very dangerous to attack the Church, but with the history of South Africa before us, we must, I think, be doubly careful. One almost wants to say that it is godless in view of the rôle which the Church has played in the origin of the land settlement idea and the land settlement policy in South Africa. It is a glorious history for the Church. The Church was the pioneer on this sphere, and if I may just examine a little of the history, then we find that as early as 1894 the Synod of the N.G. Kerk thought of land settlement for the benefit of the needy poor and tackled the problem. A commission was appointed which brought out a report at the next Synod in 1897. It was as follows—

That was the instruction which the Synod of 1894 gave and the commission that was appointed made a report three years later, a favourable report. That was the beginning of lard settlement. They reported that land settlement should be tackled for those who otherwise cannot provide a living for their families and to save the poor from general decline. Immediately after the report was submitted in 1897 a start was made with land settlement. In the report of the commission that was appointed by the Minister himself, it is also reported that the Object of settlement was not eventually to send the settlers out and to pass them but to other settlements, because at that time land settlements had not yet been tackled by the government. In other words the commission that was appointed by the Minister himself, admits in its report that the Church was the pioneer in establishing land settlements in South Africa. I say that the N.G. Kerk has done pioneer work in this sphere, and when the Minister today reproaches the Church and makes charges against the Church… .

Godless.

It is godless to do so, because the Church has done a lot in this sphere and I want to go so far as to say that even if the Church does perhaps make a mistake then one would still out of respect for the fact that they were the pioneers, somewhat conceal the mistake simply because he should be inspired by a feeling of gratefulness to the Church. Instead of this the Minister of Lands has said that the only interest in which the Church today still has in Kakamas, is the shops and the Minister continually emphasises it.

I emphasise it here again.

The Minister has just heard the telegram which the hon. member for Gordonia has read out, in which the facts are given. It is admitted that an error has been made and that a fine was paid by the shop, in other words by the Church, but it was simply the result of a clerical error. But what is more, in its report, the commission mentions that the profit of the Church on the shops was 7½ per cent. for that year. Where does the Minister come in with his allegation that the Church is merely interested in Kakamas in so far as the shop is concerned, and what is more all the profit that is made, is spent a 100 per cent. in the interests of the settlers themselves and the interest of the development of the settlement.

That is untrue.

The Minister’s own commission finds that it is so. We have just heard the telegram and it has also been said by the chairman of the Labour Colony Commission, a responsible person, and a predikant of our church, and it is now described as an untruth by the Minister. The newspapers have also confirmed it in an interview which the newspapers had after the allegation of the Minister. It is confirmed on all sides that not one single penny of the profit that is made by the shops is used for anything other than promoting the interests of the settlers. I regret that the Minister persists in the allegation that the only interest of the Church is the profit. Even if the allegation is well-founded, then one would expect from the Minister and from every member of the Church that it would be kept somewhat as a secret out of gratefulness for what the Church has done, then one would expect the Minister to somewhat conceal the error. But what the Minister has said is not true at all and therefore the allegation of the Minister is all the more unworthy of him, certainly not worthy of the Government and it is simply godless.

I want to appeal to the Minister in connection with the policy he has laid down not to grant further allotments to people who today have a land hunger, and I want to appeal to the Minister to revise the policy and to be merciful towards that section of our people who are having a very difficult time. I am speaking here more especially of the poor section of our people who today lease land. Under the present circumstances these people cannot lease land. The position is that every well-off farmer today tries to evade tax in any way. He cannot buy ground because it does not help, but what he does is, he buys cattle and leases land and the rent of the land has risen so much that the poor people who lease land cannot under any circumstances afford to pay the terribly high rent. The Minister says that his policy is not to grant any more allotments, because after the war they want to provide land for returned soldiers. Now I want to ask the Minister to make available at least part of the allotment for the people who really require it. I hope that the Minister will agree to this.

I do not intend reacting here to the petty attack of the Minister of Lands on the Dutch Reformed Church and its work at Kakamas. I think an attack of this nature does the Church no harm, but it does harm to the person who makes an attack of this nature. I just want to say to the Minister that years after he will have sunk into well-deserved oblivion, Kakamas will still be there as a monument to the Church and its work, and there will also be a living monument in the sons and daughters who as a result of the work of the Church are occupying important positions in our community. There may be a difference about the policy that the Church pursues. I want to admit that there is scope to differ in opinion on the policy. It is a question of opinion. But if one has accusations of the kind that have been slung about by the Minister here, that the Church is making “colossal profits” out of Kakamas and that Kakamas has deteriorated, then one expects that there will be many good grounds for such charges, for otherwise such charges must never be made. The Minister nods approvingly. Now I want to pin down the Minister a little bit. Let us first take the charge that the work of the Church at Kakamas has deteriorated That is the Minister’s charge. As regards this charge, I want to refer him to the report of the Commission which he himself appointed in 1940. One of the terms of reference of that Commission was—

I presume that is what the Minister meant when he spoke about the work having deteriorated. I cannot imagine that even the Minister with his exaggerations could have meant anything by the word “deteriorate” except that there was a departure from the object for which the colony was established. This was one of the terms of reference of his own Commission on which his own officials served. And now it is peculiar that the report was not published by the Minister. He refused to publish it, and it was published by the Kakamas Commission at their own expense; it was printed and made available to the public. One can understand the reasons why the Minister would not make the report public. In paragraph 12 of their report, the Commission says that they came to the conclusion—rather let me read it—

That is the reply to the first charge. The second charge is that “colossal profits” were made by the colony’s shops. The Minister linked this accusation to an allegation that there was exploitation in other places. I cannot but make the deduction that the Minister intended to convey that there was exploitation by the Church of the people at Kakamas.

He spoke about systematic exploitation.

Yes, he used the word “systematic”. If my deduction is wrong, I shall be glad if the Minister will tell me so.

You can make any deduction you like. I did not say it.

The Minister now says I can make any deduction. So long as the Afrikaans language has its meaning, no other explanation can be given of this reckless manner in which Kakamas has been dragged by the hair by the Minister during this debate in which Kakamas was not even mentioned; he could have had no other object in the matter than the one I have indicated here. He says that there are colossal profits and profiteering, and that exploitation has taken place. Let us put it to the test. There are a good few shops in the Labour Colony, a garage, a mill, a cobbler’s shop and a few other businesses of this nature. Jointly they are called the Labour Colony shops. On this point of colossal profits I want to give the House and the Minister a few figures. In the first place I shall give the general figures concerning all the shops together. Over a period of fifteen years the average nett profit was 7.62 per cent. of the turnover. The average nett profit in the year 1940-’41 was 9.96 per cent., and the average nett profit in the year 1941-’42 was 8.71 per cent. We must now remember that this concerns not only grocery shops but also drapery shops, ironmongery, and general dealer’s business, and that was the nett profit. Now we come to the gross profit, and the gross profit determines the position in respect of the prices. In the year 1940-’41 the gross profit was 20.73 per cent., and in the year 1941-’42 it was 18.53 per cent. Then all the costs have still to be deducted, and I tell the Minister that he can ask any person who has a knowledge of business—perhaps I have to exclude the Minister on those grounds—whether that is an unreasonable gross profit.

How does it appear to you, who are a member of the Commission?

When I hear those interjections from the Minister I recall the injunction in Proverbs that we should not answer a person in his foolishness. These figures are perhaps very inconvenient to the Minister.

I am glad you are quoting them.

I take it that the Minister’s gross profits in his shops are no higher than 18.52 per cent. Will the Minister tell us what it was?

I have no shops.

But when you still had shops—was the Minister then satisfied with a gross profit of less than 18.53 per cent? There are people on his side who still have shops, and let the Minister ask them whether a gross profit of 18.53 per cent. in general business can yield “colossal profits”. Now I want to take the principal shop at Kakamas, which is also a general business. That shop has a turnover of £125,000 per year, and the gross profit of that shop was 12.47 per cent. on its turnover last year. [Time limit.]

It is remarkable that this Government, which is so fond of commissions, appointed a commission in connection with Kakamas, and that this commission reported that the policy which has been followed in connection with Kakamas was justified. But the Minister of Lands was ashamed of that report, as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said, and he did not publish it. He wanted to keep the country in the dark in regard to the findings of this commission, so that he could carry on with his attacks on Kakamas. It is clear that the settlers are at issue with the Church in regard to property rights, and whereas an effort has always been made by all sides to keep that difference of opinion outside politics, the Minister of Lands is now trying to drag it into the political sphere. He wants to exploit that difference of opinion for political purposes, but he will not succeed in doing so, because in the first instance we have the position that these people saw what treatment was meted out to those persons, who fall under the Minister’s policy and who reside on the plots of his department. These people saw that the people on those plots were not allowed to keep their children with them to assist them, whilst the community at Kakamas lives in peace, and they can carry on as they have always done. There are no politics, and there is no victimisation as there is under the Minister of Lands. The Minister says that he has done such a great deal for the coloured people in my constituency. I have explained here that only £500 was placed on the estimates in respect of Mier. Now that the election is at hand, the Minister comes forward with assistance to those people, and he holds himself out as the great Moses.

How much money has been voted during all these years?

Since I have been in Parliament, approximately £100 has been voted. I protested against those amounts. If the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) had been here, he would have heard that I always protested against the fact that this coloured settlement which was called into being by the Nationalist Party, was being neglected by this Government. I visited that part of my constituency and I compiled a lengthy memorandum, which must be amongst the papers of the Department of Lands, and in which I explained how those people should be assisted, that provision should be made for water, and I told the department that there was a suitable place for a dam. These people showed me where a dam could be constructed, and I asked the Minister to do something about it. At this stage, before we have had the loan estimates before us, he tells me that I do not know what is being done in my constituency. At the Select Committee we dealt with the question of the extension of the coloured settlement. Two farms, which do not belong to the Government but which belong to the Reinisch Mission Society, are now being proclaimed, and that is being done without any compensation. They are not receiving payment in respect of this land. Then there is the farm which we discussed a few days ago, namely, Struis Zyn Dam, which is State land. That was not bought but it was proclaimed. If ever there was a Minister who boasts and spreads stories and then does nothing, it is this Minister of Lands. He does nothing until he is driven to do it, and then he does it in a spirit of political gain and nothing else. The whole trouble is that the Minister now wants to use those parts for political gain. But he will not succeed in doing it. The position is that he dare not show his face there any longer. Every commission of investigation which makes recommendations finds that its recommendations are accepted by the Government, and that action is taken on the strength of those recommendations. But in this case the Minister of Lands did not do so. He did not even publish the report of this commission. Why not? He appointed people in whom he had confidence, but nevertheless he treated their report in this manner. No, there is something behind it. The country knows what it is. The people in those parts know what it is. He does not want to improve the position of those people. He cannot improve their postion, because their policy is more progressive than the policy which the Minister adopts in relation to his own settlements. I just want to say this to the Minister. When the Church is involved in trouble with the people who live there, it is a matter between the Church and those people, it is not his concern. Others will be able to give these people better advice than he can, and they will do so, so that any action which is taken will be based on goodwill, and the difficulties will be solved in that manner. But the Minister is not a friend of the Church. He have never been one. I wonder whether he has ever been in Church during the last year. I say that the Minister of Lands is tampering with the foundation stones which were laid by the Church. He will not be able to move those foundations. Before he gets there he will be pushed back, and I ask him, for the sake of good relations and goodwill between the Church and those people, not to interfere in matters concerning the settlers and the Church.

There are a few points to which I want to refer. Last year we objected to the principle of competition on the part of the Department of Lands with the farmers. Last year they asked for £61,160 for this purpose. This year they are asking £163,947. I should like to know why the Minister of Lands is now expanding in this manner to compete with the farmers? He is competing with the grain farmers, those farmers who generally speaking, have to work hardest to make a living. Now the Minister of Lands wants us to vote this money to enable his department to compete with those people. I think it is unreasonable and unfair. We know what happened this year; we know that the price of potatoes fell to 2s. 6d. per bag. It is true that those were inferior potatoes, but I can tell the Minister that in the Western Transvaal there are farmers who lost hundreds of pounds because they could not get a decent price for their potatoes. Nevertheless the Minister is now asking for more money to expand his farming activities and to compete with the farmers. That simply means that he is asking us to vote money to ruin our fellow farmers in that respect. I would suggest that the Minister should rather use this money, since we are so often exploited by traders, to erect shops where we can buy our implements cheaply. That will be much better. I know that the Government on the other side will never do it, because they are dependent on the traders. The Minister does not want to compete with them, but he is competing with the farmers.

And when he is not doing that, he is attacking the Church.

His attitude against the Church is something which touches a tender spot in me. The Minister is asking for an amount, which shows an increase of 165 per cent. I should like to know this from the Minister. I notice that this sum is required to buy seed, artificial manure and similar articles. The sale of artificial manure is limited. We know that the Minister of Agriculture told us that we may only be able to get 50 per cent. of our requirements.

And we cannot get phosphate at all.

Now I should like to know from the Minister how much of this money which we are asked to vote, is being spent on artificial manure and how much is being devoted to seed. I cannot obtain the manure which I require. I should like to know what orders the Minister of Lands has placed, and whether or not he can get everything which he has ordered. If he asked for 1,000 tons, did he get 1,000 tons, or how much did he get? If I want to expand my grain farming, I cannot get the necessary manure for that expansion under the policy of the Agricultural Department. I should like to know what the Minister of Lands has done to give him the right to obtain manure for the purpose of extending his farming operations. Where formerly I cultivated 500 morgen, and I now want to cultivate a further 200 morgen, I cannot get the manure for those 200 morgen. I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture how he succeeds in getting more than I get.

What does he want to do with it?

He wants it for the departmental farming in order to compete with us. I do not want to use the word “corruption” because you will call me to order.

The hon. member must rather not use that word.

No, I shall not use it. I shall not talk of corruption. But if the Department of Lands can get more manure than they obtained last year, and I cannot obtain more than I got last year, will you, Mr. Chairman, be able to tell me how I must describe it—what sort of cheating is that? I feel that I cannot protest too strongly in that respect. Take the question of potatoes which have to be imported. You know that we usually get seed potatoes from overseas, and the first year’s yield represents the best seed potatoes. We order seed potatoes, and we get only 20 per cent. of what we order. I should like to know from the Minister of Lands what quantity of potatoes he ordered, and whether that order was fully carried out. Then I should also like to know what type he got. Did he get Scotch Up-to-date or Irish Up-to-date?

“German blue.”

If I say that I got the Irish type, I suppose you will be satisfied.

We have been accustomed to getting the Scotch type. They are now getting the Scotch type, and we get the Irish type, which is unknown to us. Then I want to come to another point. Every one of us deplores the death of the Chairman of the Western Transvaal Board. He was a most capable person. There are four people on the Board. We know what previously happened in connection with the Central Board. Mr. Lodewyk Wentzel was kicked out. I do not know what he did. The Minister of Lands then appointed an outsider as chairman. He did not appoint one of the members of the Board who was acquainted with these matters. I do not want to say anything in regard to the person whom he appointed. I just want to say that if the Department of Lands appoints party associates in that way, men who probably posses no qualifications in so far as farming is concerned, then I fear for the future of land settlement. Do you know what also takes place? They buy land under Section 10, and do you know what they do then? The owner of the land is paid out fully. That happened in the Western Transvaal and I want the Minister to listen to this. The owner is paid out fully, and then the land is leased, and it is leased to the seller. [Time limit.]

I just want to come back to the “colossal profits” in the imagination of the Minister of Lands, and I want to throw out this challenge to him. Let him ask any man who has a knowledge of business in general, wheter a gross profit of 12.47 per cent. on the turnover represents an excessive profit.

Will you agree to an investigation of this matter by an impartial expert?

I agree, and I only hope that the Minister will then have the courage to publish the report of that expert.

You agree to that?

Yes, I fully agree to the appointment of an impartial person to investigate these so-called “colossal profits”. I just want to say that when the Minister himself had a shop, he did not work on a gross profit which was lower than 12.47 per cent. on the turnover, because if he had done so, he would very soon have found himself in the bankruptcy court. This shop at Kakamas can do it only because the expenditure is kept at such a low level. It is kept at a level of 10 per cent.

Do you base that on your experience in connection with butcheries?

I shall not give the Minister a reply on that. I have already quoted to him the admonition which is contained in the Book of Proverbs, namely, that we must not reply to a man like him in his folly. There is the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), and I want to ask them whether, if a general business makes a gross profit of less than 12½ per cent. on its turnover, it is a reasonable profit, or whether we must describe it as a “colossal profit”. Let the Minister ask people who know something about the matter, and then he will not make such unfounded statements here. The Minister relies on one thing only, and that is that there were two cases of price contraventions — it involved an amount of 5½d. I want to ask the Minister not to reply to this himself, but to ask people who know something about the matter, whether it can be regarded as “systematic exploitation” on the part of a business if in one or two cases it has contravened the price regulations. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) will agree with me that the price regulations are so difficult and complicated that even firms of high standing sometimes get into difficulties. It is unfair, therefore, to accuse them of a practice, and if that is done, it only goes to show a line of thought which is so prejudiced that it is not capable of straight-thinking. One case of this nature does not constitute a practice. I want to ask the Minister whether he can deny that the constitution lays down that any profits which are made out of Kakamas must be used for Kakamas itself. The Minister referred here to untruthfulness. Let him deny that. The Minister is silent now.

I shall reply to that.

Let the Minister reply now, so that I can deal with his reply. The Minister does not reply. Let us return for a moment to a calmer atmosphere. The Minister’s next accusation was that the Church’s only interest in Kakamas lay in the shop. I want to say that we sat for eight days at the last meeting of the Church Commission, and of those eight days one day was devoted to matters concerning the shop, and the rest of the time was devoted to other matters in connection with Kakamas. Does it look as though the shop constitutes the only interest of the Church? Does the Minister know that on the initiative of the Church, and with Church funds, a start was made with a modernly equipped hospital, and that the previous Administrator, when he paid a visit to Kakamas two years ago, spoke most highly of the work of the Church? Does he know that in 1941 335 patients and 55 maternity cases were treated at that hospital? Does that look as though the Church’s only interest lies in the shop? Let me put another point to him. The people at Kakamas have been entrusted to the care of the Church. There was some difficulty in connection with water, and the Church made provision for better water supplies. During the last financial year they constructed an additional pipe line at Perdeeiland. The Commission gave the pipes and and the cement free of charge. They also paid the foreman. The only thing which the occupiers of the plots did was the work. The expenditure which was incurred in one year amounted to £402. Does that seem as though the shop is the Church’s only interest in Kakamas?

Tell us how much the State gave?

I shall come in a moment to what the State did. In 1937 two schemes were submitted for the better irrigation of the land. Those schemes were to have cost £5,000 and £1,000 respectively. The Irrigation Commission was asked to report on the matter. They expressed themselves in favour of the scheme, but this Minister, who is accusing the Church today, refused to write off this amount from the loan. And do you know what the Church did, this Church which according to the Minister only takes an interest in the shop? When the Government failed to adopt the recommendation of the Irrigation Commission, the Church itself paid the £5,000 and the £1,000 respectively. This work has to go on. It is important work.

Did the State contribute £5,000 to that £5,000 and grant the loan?

The Minister cannot get away from the facts. The Church provided £5,000 and £1,000 after the Minister had refused.

I did refuse.

The Minister also admits that the Irrigation Commission was in favour of this matter and that they recommended this.

How much has the Government written off already?

I now come to another point. The Church ostensibly has no interest except in the shop! In 1941-’42 they developed land and spent £2,682 on the island at Rhenosterkop. Does that seem as though the Church was interested only in the shop? Does the Minister know that the Church erected a school building for 170 children? That building was erected at Rhenosterkop on the initiative and at the expense of the Church. [Time limit.]

One asks oneself why this malicious attack is made by the Minister on Kakamas. What has taken place in the interval between last year and this year which is causing the Minister to go out of his way to make harsh and unreasonable attacks on Kakamas? Does he not know that every year he receives a report from one of his commissions which investigates the conditions at Kakamas, a commission which has to report to him; and does he not know that they have done so every year, including this year, and that that commission has never passed any unfavourable remark in regard to the management at Kakamas. I refer to the Irrigation Commission. The Irrigation Commission reports to the Minister every year, and that report is usually submitted to the Select Committee on irrigation matters. This year they again reported and made no unfavourable comment on the administration of Kakamas. And these are people who are sent by the Minister to make investigations. They found nothing to report in regard to the administration; there was nothing wrong. Why then does the Minister go out of his way to make these accusations? Who was his informant? Here we have a statutory body which is empowered specifically to make investigations, and they report nothing of an unfavourable nature, but the Minister nevertheless makes these accusations. I want to know whether the Irrigation Commission is not discharging its duties. Why do they not report if there are things of this nature to be reported? I should like to know that from the Minister. They say that there is nothing wrong to report. Who gave this information to the Minister? Unless the Minister can advance sound reasons we must take it that he is motivated by malice towards the Church and its administration at Kakamas. The country in general, and especially the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, are very grateful to the Church for the great work it has done in Kakamas. It was the Church which, through its experiments at Kakamas, opened the eyes of the people of South Africa and of the Government to the possibilities of settlement. They made a start with settlement and made an outstanding success of it, and they taught the people of South Africa and the Government how to tackle the question of settlement. They made a great success of it. They did not only try to put people on the land, but they went out of their way to uplift them spiritually and intellectually and to educate these people to become useful citizens of the community; and today we can see the fruits of their work. Does the Minister not know that there are scores and hundreds of people who came from Kakamas and who are today professional people, teachers etc.? One finds them throughout the length and breadth of the country. And then the Minister makes such accusations against the Church, as though the Church is exploiting the people, as though the Church has no interest in Kakamas apart from the shop. The Minister says that Kakamas has degenerated.

Yes.

Does he not know—the high priest of the settlements—does he not know what the Church did? Compare the position which prevails at the Minister’s settlements with the conditions at Kakamas. Does he perhaps know of exploiters and parasites and unscrupulous traders at the Government settlements, people who exploit the settlers? It was to prevent that that the Church erected its own shop there.

But those exploiters are his supporters.

By erecting this shop, the Church succeeded in keeping away these unscrupulous parasites and exploiters, but apparently the Minister wants these people there. I hope that that is not the case. A few days ago the Minister said that he hoped to establish cooperative shops at the settlements in the future. In that respect I support him. Kakamas set the example, even though it is not on a co-operative basis there. The Minister can see what is being done there. We hope that the Minister will establish co-operative shops at his own settlements where necessary. The Church established this shop in order to keep away the exploiters, and succeeded in that. For that reason we find it reprehensible on the part of the Minister to make such malicious and unfair accusations against the Church. The profits which are made by the shop are used in the interests of the settlers. The Church does not use the profits which are made there for other Church funds, but only for Kakamas. These profits are used to assist the people at Kakamas, and not a penny of the profits which are made is used for other purposes. The Minister also knows that this shop does not only sell goods to these people, but the Church shop is also the centre for the sale of the products of the settlement, and for the greater part they render these services with regard to the sale of products, free of charge. Very little is taken by the shop in the form of commission on the sale of these products, and the profits which are made in that connection also go back to the occupiers of the plots in the form of services rendered to them by the Church.

Which services?

The Minister asks what services are provided to the plotholders. Is he such a stranger in Jerusalem? I must say that I think that the Minister acted improperly. If he went too far and spoke out of his turn, let him be honest and get up and admit it, and let him cease showing enmity towards the Church. If he is convinced that something took place or is still taking place in connection with the settlement at Kakamas which is not in the interests of the plot-holders, then it is his duty to have the matter investigated. He has a Commission which has to institute investigations every year. Why does he not make use of this Commission? Why does he make these unfair accusations? The Minister must produce proof, otherwise his accusations are tantamount to malice or male fides. The settlers at Kakamas also receive support from the State. If this is the attitude of the Minister towards these poor people, then we fear for the future. In that case he will do more harm than good. One would have thought that the Minister, with his knowledge of agriculture, could be of great assistance if he were sympathetic, but if he acts in this malicious manner we can only expect him to prejudice these people. I hope that the Minister will cease being malicious.

I should like to come to another charge by the Minister, and that is namely that Kakamas in 1939, increased its prices before any other business. What happened is this: I merely wish to submit the facts, and any unprejudiced person with knowledge of business principles, will deem it sufficient. What happened is that the Commission shops in 1939 added an extra 7½ per cent. For what purpose? To serve as a reserve fund for the stabilisation of prices with a view to probable post-war price fluctuations. I should like to ask the hon. member sitting to the right of the the Minister (Mr. Henderson) and who has a knowledge of business, whether it is not a sound principle to establish a reserve fund to be used after the war to safeguard the people more or less against high price increases? Is it not a sound policy? The Minister also knows it, yet he comes along with this charge. His own Commission says in its Report:

This 7½ per cent. was maintained for three months only, and they then discarded the 7½ per cent., but in the meantime the reserve fund for stabilisation after the war had been increased to £7,500. It is a reserve fund which will be applied in the interests of the allotment holders.

Why did they then abandon it when the prices actually increased?

They then adopted another system.

Did the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) do that in his business also?

Let the Minister just ask the hon. member whether it is not a sound business proposition. I have asked the hon. member and he stated that it is a very sound principle.

Did he do that in his own business?

If he did not do so, he nevertheless considers it a sound principle. But I am not here now to submit the case to the Minister, but to demonstrate to the House and the country how the Minister levelled charges without any grounds. I know that any unprejudiced person having knowledge of such matter, will immediately say that the Minister when speaking here again opened his mouth too widely. He spoke without his book and did not know what he was talking about. I think that is the charge he made, and I have tried to present the facts to the House, and I should like to tell the Minister that his attitude here, his attack on the Church, has reminded me of what I heard happened in the docks the other day. An important bull arrived and ran amuck. He poked around here and jumped about there, and most people ran away. When he looked around and saw no more people, he saw the big ship slowly moving through the water. He immediately charged the ship and fell in the water. When he came out he was docile. The Minister will have the same experience with his attacks on the Church. If he continues making these malicious attacks on the Church, he will also land in the water. The Church always is prepared to accept fair criticism when given in the right spirit, but to come along here and to drag in the Church and the Church’s activities in Parliament and in public, and to charge the Church maliciously, will have its repercussions, not on the Church, but on the person who has the temerity to do so.

Before the Minister made his unsavoury and unjust attack on the Church and its business activities it would have been better if he had referred to the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General to see what goes on in the Department of Defence. I think it is necessary to direct the Minister’s attention to that. I refer hon. members to the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, page 312. The Chairman (Mr. Blackwell) put the following question—

If ever there was a scandal in connection with trading, then we have a scandal here, and the Minister of Lands who has opened his mouth so wide should look at the scandalous things which occur in the Department of Defence under the Government of which he is a Minister. This question was then put to Dr. Holloway—

He replied—

Then he was asked: “What happened to the money?”. He replied—

Then the question was put to him—

The reply was—

I want to ask the Minister to direct his attention to that. He complains about it that the Church made a gross profit of 18 per cent. which is very little for any business.

We raise no objection against the Report of the Auditor-General. We find no fault with it.

Yes, but the Minister makes a terrible attack on Kakamas because they made 18 per cent. gross profit which is practically a loss, as any man who has business knowledge will admit. A department of his own Government utilises State money to equip business establishments, uses State money to pay the people who are working there, and while the capital equipment was £3,300 they made a profit of £2,900. There has never been another business like that in the country. The Select Committee regarded the matter as so serious that they spent two days in investigating it. Dr. Holloway expressed himself very strongly in regard to the matter and he says—

And then he goes on to say—

Kakamas has also got a monopoly, but what is the difference between the two? In the latter case the gross profit made is not 18 per cent., but the business which is conducted with the country’s money produces 90 per cent. profit. It is done with the money of the taxpayer. The Church at Kakamas does not uilise the money of the taxpayers, but uses money to assist the people there. I have no objection at all to canteens being established in the military camps. We would rather see that that is the case than that soldiers are exploited by shops outside the camps, but it is a scandalous state of affairs if such large profits are made at the expense of the taxpayers. What right has the Minister of Lands then to talk about the meagre profit at Kakamas.

When my time had expired, I was about to ask the Minister a question about the purchases of land in terms of Section 10. I know there are persons who sold their land to the Government some years ago and received thousands of pounds for the ground and then the same land was again leased to the sellers. However, there are numerous people who wish to lease land. Why cannot the land be let to them? Those people who sold their land to the Government surely could buy other land again?

At 5.55 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 26th March, 1943 and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 17th April.