I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I am prepared to accept this amendment. I think it will remove any of the problem hard cases arising. It may, however, necessitate consequential amendments in subsequent clauses. As I have not yet had the opportunity of studying the position I think it safest to move the adjournment of the debate. I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 20th April.

Parliament has on various occasions during the past few years altered the electoral procedure, and on some occasions it has brought about almost surprising changes. We in South Africa have become accustomed to regarding our electoral procedure almost as part of the Act of Union, and to proceed with the greatest caution when alterations are brought about. Our electoral procedure in the Union is regarded as one of the institutions of national government, because it is so closely allied to the establishment of national government, and because of that fact any alteration in the electoral procedure must be carefully examined before such an alteration is made. But that was the position during the years preceding the war; and every time we introduced an amendment to the electoral procedure, it was examined through a magnifying glass by this House. I want to add that with a few exceptions, very few alterations have been brought about in the electoral procedure since the Act of 1918 was passed. Small amendments have been brought about, but the principle of that Act has not been altered to any great extent. That cannot be said of the various procedural enactments which have been adopted since the outbreak of the war. It seems to me that since September, 1939 we have acted in an almost reckless manner in so far as the principles of our electoral procedure are concerned. I am thinking, for example, of the legislation which was passed in this House in 1941, and in which, for the first time in the history of the Union, a principle was accepted which was not accepted even during the last world war, that of 1914-1918, and that is the principle that persons outside the Union, at the time of an election, can take part in that election. In 1915, during the war of 1914-’18 an election took place in South Africa, and at that time South African troops were also outside South Africa, but we never thought of passing legislation to enable them to vote. Then, in the second place, an unusual and almost surprising principle was accepted, a principle which became known as one which was in vogue in Italy and in Germany, namely that an elector votes not for individuals, but for parties. This alteration was proposed by the Minister of the Interior with such keenness, that one feared in those days that he was becoming pro-Fascist or pro-Nazi. One could see that he had been converted to that principle in the Fascist system, namely that an elector does not vote for an individual but for a party. In 1941 we accepted the surprising and far-reaching principle that a large section of the voters outside the Union would vote for Parties and not for individuals. A Bill has now been introduced which goes a step further in the direction of amending our electoral law principles, and I want to say at the outset that we should like to observe the old practice, namely that the greatest care must be exercised in tampering with our electoral procedure, and for that reason we are greatly disappointed to find that the Minister is now introducing a Bill in which provision is made empowering him to make a large number of alterations by way of regulation, and which further empowers him to alter the legislation of the Union by way of regulation. Whether the Government has become accustomed during the war to do everything by way of regulation, I do not know, but we as an Opposition are here to put on the brakes and to tell the Government, when it proposes to alter the existing legislation of the country by way of legislation, that the time has come to call a halt. We have before us this Bill which is introducing a new principle which has never been introduced in the Union before, namely that Union citizens outside the Union, as from 1941, can vote at a general election, not at a by-election, for the Party and this Bill is now extending that principle to people inside the Union as well. For the first time in our history people in the Union too will be able to vote, not for individuals, but for parties. When the Minister introduced this Bill a few days ago, this Fascist principle was introduced for the first time—it is called a Fascist principle because it was first introduced in Italy and later also in Germany—when the Minister introduced this Bill, he introduced this new principle for South Africa with the greatest frankness and enthusiasm. I do not want to go into questions as to whether it is of advantage to the country to accept such a principle. All I want to say now is that in a sound electoral system we cannot allow one section of the electors to vote in one way and another section to vote in a different way. I think that is an unsound state of affairs. If the country does not want us to vote for individuals any longer, but for parties, I think that we should introduce the entire principle. It is unsoud and unpractical, and it may give rise to corruption and impersonation, if we adopt the procedure that one section can vote in one way and another section in another way. The second principle which is affected by this Bill is the principle of mass voting. Up to the present the principle has been accepted in our legislation that a person can vote by post, but only when he applies for a ballot paper and in that way intimates his desire to vote by post. Now the principle of mass voting is introduced, in other words, the chief electoral officer is authorised in this Bill to provide ballot papers to all persons engaged on war services in the Union, men and women, sons and daughters, whose names appear on the voters’ lists. That is a new principle. He must furnish those people with ballot papers, whether they want to vote or not. We might almost say that he is flooding the country with ballot papers. We might apply the old Netherlands expression to that, namely that he is flooding the country with ballot papers and everyone can do as he pleases. The voter gets the ballot papers whether he has asked for it or not. The next principle which is being altered is one to which I want to refer only in passing and to which I have already referred at the outset, namely the principle that the law may be altered by way of regulation. I want to mention one point in this connection. The Minister’s Department was friendly enough to give me a copy of the draft regulations which his Department has in mind, and I have received the permission of the Department to refer to those regulations in my speech. It is proposed in the regulations, and this is generally known, that it is expected of the parties to deposit £50 in respect of every constituency in which the party wants to take part in the election. That is an amendment to the legislation, namely the original Act of 1918, which is really the Electoral Act of our country. Section 36 of that Act provides that when a person stands for Parliament or for the Provincial Council, he must deposit £50 upon his nomination or alternatively he must provide sureties with whom the presiding officer is satisfied. Normally the presiding officer is satisfied with two sureties. This £50 is refunded to the candidate when he is elected or when he receives one-fifth of the votes which the successful candidate receives. That is the law. In this Bill the Minister now gets the right — or he thinks he will — to amend this provision. In the draft regulations which were given to me, it is laid down by way of regulation that every party will have to deposit £50 per constituency in respect of every constituency where it wants to nominate candidates. This is not done, however, on the day of the nomination but it must be done within three days after the promulgation of the proclamation concerning the election. Within those three days the parties concerned must give notice to the Minister that they want to nominate candidates. Apart from the fact that this provision seems to be very stupid, it is an amendment to the existing Act by way of regulation, which I, and I think everyone in this House, must oppose.

What objection is there to the parties doing this?

Let me leave that matter for a moment. My objection is that we are here altering an existing Act by way of regulation. If the Minister wants to amend the existing Act, he must introduce legislation in this House. If he wants to introduce regulations to amend the existing procedure, he must incorporate those regulations in the Bill in the form of an annexure. But in this case we are dealing not with something which was inserted in the body of the Act itself and not in the annexure. This is incorporated in the Act of 1918, and it is laid down in the body of that Act that a candidate must deposit £50 or furnish sureties, namely in Section 36 (1) of that Act. Now the Minister is introducing a far-reaching amendment to that section, and he wants to do it by way of regulation. If the Minister persists in this proposal, we shall have to go into the merits of the case. At the moment I content myself by saying that it is a far-reaching procedure to want to amend an Act of the country in this manner. Which party knows within three days after the promulgation of the proclamation precisely in which constituency it is going to nominate candidates? Our political feelings and atmosphere in South Africa changes so rapidly that it is almost unthinkable to expect the party to notify the Minister within three days after promulgation of the proclamation in which constituencies it proposes to nominate candidates. Apart from the fact that we do not like to divulge our intentions to the Minister, it may be that at that stage we do not know whether or not we are going to nominate a candidate in Salt River, for example. We know that it sometimes happens that on the day of the nomination a candidate is forcibly dragged into the nomination court at the eleventh hour.

That is a matter which can be discussed. We can lay down that the party must give notice of its intention to take part in the election.

But, according to this regulation, the Minister expects the party to give notice, within three days after the proclamation is issued, stating in which constituencies it intends nominating candidates.

The party ought to know whether or not it is going to take part in the election.

But how will it know in which places candidates are going to be nominated?

But surely you know that the party is going to participate in the election.

But reference is made here to the constituency.

There I agree with you, and we can discuss the matter.

Then I need not enlarge on that point at the moment. If the Minister wants to bring about such a radical amendment, namely that additional money must be deposited by the party nominating candidates—in the case of the candidate, his deposit is refunded in the circumstances I have already mentioned—but if the party fails to nominate candidates, will it then forfeit its £50? In this Bill a principle is being altered, and I say that it is far-reaching to amend that principle by way of regulation. I think that it is necessary for us pertinently to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister is amending an existing Act by way of regulation. There are other hon. members on this side who will go into this question at greater length. I am only outlining the broad outlines. Then I want to come back to another matter. I have outlined the broad principle that it is unsound for the country to bring about a state of affairs under which one section of the voters can vote in one way and another section can vote in a different way. I want to mention one or two examples to show how this will operate in practice. If this Bill is accepted, something like 30 or 40 per cent. of the voters will vote in one way and the other 60 or 70 per cent. will vote in a different way. This Bill does not only relate to soldiers, but to all men and women who are concerned in the war, who perform any type of war service. Take this case, for example. One section will get ballot papers showing the names of the candidates. Another section of the voters engaged on war service, will receive ballot papers which do not show the names of the candidates. A person may be engaged in general war services in the Union. A voting paper is sent to him by post, and that contains only the names of the candidates. His brother who has fought in the North returns to the Union. He left the North just too early to receive a voting paper containing the names of the parties. He arrives here the day before the election, and he is allowed to vote by post. According to this Bill he will then get a ballot paper containing only the names of the parties. When two people are engaged in war services, the one in the Union and the other in the North, but both of them vote in the Union on the day of the election, the one person will vote for a party and the other for an individual.

Do you not want the last-named person to vote?

We do not want to take away the votes of the soldiers, but we must conform to the ordinary law. When a man is outside the Union, he receives a ballot paper which differs from the one which is given to the man in the Union. Take two ladies, for example. One of them is in the Essential Services Corps in the Union. She receives a ballot paper without applying for it. She has to vote per post and a ballot paper is sent to her without application on her part. Her sister may be working in the Department of Defence. She is also engaged on war service, but falls outside the definition of the Act. She has to make application if she wants to vote per post. I mention these two cases in order to show how absurd the position is. The last point which I want to make is that an injustice is being committed as far as the internees are concerned. A measure is introduced here in connection with people who are engaged in war services, people who are concerned in the war. The Minister want to make provision to enable people who take part in the war to vote. The internees who are in the camps are Union citizens, and they retain their vote, just as the soldiers do. They are Union citizens who were interned, and they retain their vote; but the Minister is not making provision for a ballot box in the camp. I want to ask the Minister whether that is fair. Both groups are affected by the war. Both have been placed in this position as a result of the war. The one happens to be a soldier in a bushveld camp, and he is allowed to vote by post, but an interned Union citizen is not given that right. It is equivalent to putting him in gaol. He is put into the camp as a result of the war, but you treat him as though he is in gaol. Practically not one of these Union citizens appeared before the court and was duly sentenced. A number of them appeared before the courts and were acquitted, and they were then rounded up by the Minister and interned. Today they cannot vote. Do not let us create the impression in the country that the Government is trying to catch votes. I think the Government’s calculations are wrong. There are many people engaged in war services who are not very much taken up with the Government. But the Government must not deprive this small number of people, a hundred or more, of the opportunity to vote. It will create the impression that the Government is out to gain an advantage by doing this. I hope that we shall get an opportunity to move that these people be given the right to vote. I therefore move the following amendment—

1. (a) to make provision that the regulations contemplated by the Bill be inserted as a Schedule to the Bill;
2. (b) to make provision for enabling Union Nationals who are entitled to vote and are detained, in internment camps in the Union as a result of the war, to vote; and
3. (c) to report not later than Wednesday, 21st April next;

I second, and I want to repeat that we seriously object to the steps which are being taken by the Government to introduce a new system of voting in the Union, quite unnecessarily. When the Minister alleged that it was necessary to give the soldiers in the North an opportunity to vote in a different manner, there was some measure of justification for such a proposal. There are circumstances in the North which make it more difficult for these people to vote. There are the long distances and other difficulties, as a result of which they cannot vote in the usual manner, but why must the Minister now introduce a measure which provides that people who are in the Union, and who belong to a certain group, are to vote differently? It is strange and inexplicable. These people can easily be reached. The Department of Defence knows where they are; their relations know where they are and in which camp they are staying, and these people could easily vote by post in the usual manner. We seriously object to that provision. But, in view of the Minister’s statement with reference to internees, we also object seriously to the Bill. In that respect he is adopting an extremely unreasonable attitude, which is tantamount to a violation of the rights of individuals, because he deprives them of the one right which the citizen of the country has, namely, to vote freely and without interference. The fact that the Minister intimated that internees would not be allowed to vote makes it all the more impossible for us to support this measure. I want to deal for a moment with the question of the internees. The Minister and his colleagues are supposed to be fighting for democracy. Here we are dealing with the right of citizens to vote at an election. The Minister wants to destroy those rights. Is the Minister only paying lip service when he talks of democracy? Under this provision he can deprive thousands of people of their vote just before the election. I think that in taking this action the Minister is violating the Electoral Act. Our Electoral Act contains certain provisions which render it unlawful for certain persons to be registered, but it also lays down that it is unlawful to prevent people from voting; it makes it an offence to prevent people from voting. I should like to quote a few sections in this connection from the Electoral Act, No. 12 of 1918. Section 62 reads—

But another important section in this connection is Section 82—

1. (1) Any person who directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or restraint or inflicts of threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against, or does or threatens to do anything to the disadvantage of any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, is guilty of the offence of undue influence.
2. (2) Any person who, by abduction, duress or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise by any voter or thereby compels, induces or prevails upon any voter either to give or to refrain from giving his vote at any election, is guilty of the offence of undue influence.

My contention is that the Minister makes himself guilty of a contravention of the Act if he prevents people from voting who are qualified to vote under the Act. These persons have the right to go to the ballot box, but the Minister is preventing them by force. The Minister is violating his own Act here. Then there is also this section, namely Section 95—

In other words, there are provisions in the Act, in various places, that no one may obstruct a voter, who has the right to vote, or compel him to stay away. One makes onself guilty of an offence if one prevents anyone from voting. As the law stands, these internees have the right to vote, but now the Minister is going to violate the Electoral Act and deprive them of the right to go to the ballot box and record their vote. If ever there has been a violation of the letter of the law, but more particularly the spirit of the law, then it is this legislation. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he realises what this power may mean in the hands of an unscrupulous Minister. What prevents the Minister, a day or a week before the election, from arresting and interning 100, 200 or 500 people in a doubtful constituency? That may be done under the emergency regulations. He puts them into the camp, and then they cannot vote. The Minister takes this right upon himself.

Do you think the Minister will do it? Would you do it?

The Minister is setting a good example. An unscrupulous Minister can do it, and that is why the Act was passed to prevent it. I have no assurance and the country has no assurance, that the Minister or any other Minister who occupies this portfolio during the war, will not intern a number of people in any constituency solely with a view to preventing them from voting. How do we know that a few hundred people in the Salt River constituency will not be interned just before the election, perhaps a few hundred Communists?

You are against the Communists, at any rate?

Whether a man is a Communist or a soldier, he must have the right to vote. We do not want to deprive anyone of that right.

But you say that the Communists constitute an unlawful organisation.

Can the hon. member still not understand what I am saying? I am talking about the right to vote. If subversive activities take place, then intercept them; but if a man has the right to vote one must not prevent him from doing so. That is the law. If the people want another government in power, they can only achieve it by means of the vote, and for that reason they must have the right and the opportunity to vote. This measure of the Minister’s is a violation of the spirit of the franchise. Why cannot the Minister, if necessary, allow the internees to vote by post, under the supervision of the camp commandant, or whoever it may be? Why must they be deprived of this right only because they are interned? In any event there is a danger that this Minister or one of his successors may deprive people of the vote by interning them shortly before an election. Now I come to another point, namely that portion of our amendment which asks that the regulations should be incorporated in this Bill. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) referred to the Act of 1926, which created postal voting. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) who was Minister of the Interior at that time, did not ask for a blank cheque to frame regulations. The second schedule contains all the particulars, pages and pages in regard to postal voting. When this House had to decide about the principle of postal voting hon. members could say: “My attitude towards this Bill will be determined by the guarantees provided against malpractices.” They had the Bill together with the regulations before them, and they could judge whether the regulations were adequate to prevent malpractices. The hon. member for Piquetberg set a good example. Why cannot the present Minister of the Interior come forward with regulations? Surely his officials had months at their disposal to frame the regulations. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the dangers which exist. Last year he also introduced a Bill, and later he altered certain provisions. I drew his attention to one provision in the Bill, for example, which might have created the greatest confusion in the country. He laid down that no ballot box votes would be counted until such time as all the ballot boxes from the North had arrived here. I then pointed out that a certain ballot box might get lost as a result of enemy action, that it might get lost at sea, and that in that event one would never be able to count the votes in South Africa. In that case one would never again be able to have a Parliament to write out a new election. We pointed out the impossible position which might be created, and he then altered the Bill. This goes to show how dangerous it is to leave it to the Minister to frame regulations. We are now asked to give power to the Governor General, in practice therefore to the Minister, to frame regulations in regard to practically anything. Just let me mention a few of these things—

The Governor General may therefore say that every soldier shall vote in the presence of his officier, who will then look to see how he voted. Such a regulation may be made by the Governor General. Further—

He can therefore frame regulations which will simply give the right to the officer to say: “I regard this vote as invalid, and this vote as valid, and the vote of any person who votes for the Re-United Nationalist Party is invalid.” It may be framed in that way. Then we get the following in connection with which the Governor General may make regulations—

He can make any regulation in regard to the maintenance of secrecy. He may, for example, lay down that every soldier shall say for whom he votes and that the person in command shall publish in the newspapers the names of everyone who voted for the Communists. I just want to point out how dangerous the whole thing is. Further—

And then there is the following—

He will have the power to make regulations to the effect that no person, unless he belongs to the Government Party, may say a single word to any soldier a month before the election. Furthermore, he may make regulations in connection with—

And then finally, we have regulations which can be made in this connection—

We already have one peculiar provision, namely, that a party must also deposit £50. What is going to prevent the Minister from saying that every party which stands must deposit at least £1,000? I really cannot see why these powers should be given. We would like the Minister to tell us what the regulations are going to be, and that they will be framed and incorporated in this Bill. That is surely a reasonable request. They have already been drawn up. If the Minister accepts this amendment, we can postpone the Bill for a day or two, and then the Select Committee can meet and the officials can bring forward the regulations, and we can then examine them in the Select Committee. Then they can come to this House. The Minister does say that he is going to consult the parties, but he will then have all the powers in his hands, and he could simply refuse to accept our proposals. It is tantamount to first hanging a person and then wanting to consult him as to whether he would prefer to be hanged or shot. I do think that the Minister should adopt a different attitude. He leaves an opening to say in the future: “You have done these things; in future we are going to do the same;” and if there is one thing which we should keep pure and above reproach, it is our electoral system. Here we are asked to give a blank cheque to the Minister to do practically anything he pleases. By way of regulation you are going to emasculate totally the Electoral Act which has stood for years. The regulations may go so far that the Electoral Act is rendered practically worthless. We cannot give a blank cheque to the Minister and his officials in connection with such an important measure. I want to repeat this question: If the hon. member for Piquetberg, together with his officials could introduce a Bill at that time in regard to postal voting, which incorporated all the necessary regulations, why cannot the present Minister do so? Why cannot the members of this House be given an opportunity of knowing precisely what the position is? What is the use of saying that there will be consultation after the Session? Give every member in the House an opportunity to judge for himself. We may have objections to one or other of the regulations. The Minister knows from previous experience that when we come together and start talking we find a hundred and one difficulties. We ought not to legislate in the dark. Who knows what impossible regulations may be made? As I have already said, we have this provision in the Electoral Act, that every candidate must deposit £50. Now the Minister comes along—and I want to know with what right—and says that another body, the party, must deposit a further £50 before the candidate can stand. If, in accordance with the Electoral Act, I take steps to see that £50 are deposited on my behalf, does the Minister think that it is reasonable to require another body to deposit a further £50 on my behalf? And what is the position if it is refused; what is the position if the party fails to deposit the money? Will the Minister then deprive me of my right to stand? What right has he to do that? If a person deposits £50 and his party fails to deposit £50, is his nomination then valid or not? He has complied with the Electoral Act. Take an independent who wants to stand. There is no party behind him. I really cannot appreciate the fairness of such a step or the reasons for it. For these reasons we seriously object to this Bill.

I fully appreciate that if we rely upon the normal system of postal voting, the effect would be that to a very large extent the soldier serving in the Union would be disfranchised.

Why?

I will tell my hon. friend if he will give me a moment; I recognise this as an honest attempt to restore the balance and allow the soldier to excercise his proper influence on the dicision the country makes. But I do just want to put two considerations to the Minister. The first is this, that the regulations concerning voting will need not merely to be very clearly expressed, but conveyed to the mass of the army in a very special manner. I have had a little experience in this connection, and I would remind the Minister that soldiers do not make a concerted rush to read every word of the latest pronouncements from an orderly room; quite the reverse. If a little notice was put up in the average camp that there would be free drinks in the canteen in the afternoon at 3.30, I think every man would become aware of the fact by 3.15. But with regard even to such a pleasant experience as a Sunday service due notice of which appeared in Orders, that full knowledge does not appear to be obtained. A very large number of personnel in fact are not present and would hardly believe it, I think the Minister himself can hardly accept my statement, even the Colonel himself is not present. I take that to mean that the present methods of propaganda in the Army are defective in getting information to the men and in this instance the men are greatly prejudiced against this scheme in the belief that secret voting here is being tampered with. I am sure the Minister will give me his guidance and the soldiers too. I take it it will work something like this: There are the two envelopes provided for the soldier and his name and address and place of birth are written on the outside one. The inside one will be closed with his vote. Then the whole lot will be sent. The electoral officer will check everything to see that this man exists and is entitled to vote, but the man’s vote in the envelope will go straight into the ballot box; so that secrecy is maintained. If that is made quite clear to the soldiers it will be alright, but if it is not, from the number of letters I have had on this matter, I am prepared to assert that a great number of soldiers will not vote at all. I take it they cannot be compelled to do so. But unless the position is made clear in all the camps, I am sure hundreds and thousands will not vote at all. There is only one other point which worries me a little, and that is paragraph 5 of Section 5 which says:

Now for a variety of causes there are apt to be delays in the Army and I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he consider as an amendment that the soldiers shall vote say ten days prior to the polling day, and that it be required of Commanding Officers or the Second in Command, as the case may be, that they post these votes within 24 hours. That would leave 8 or 9 days to get the vote where it should be. If it is left and the Army has the option, if it is still in time, provided you just manage to get them there just before 8 p.m. on polling day, then I feel that thousands of votes will be lost.

I just want to put the case of this side very clearly. We are in favour of giving to every citizen of the country whose names appear on the Voters’ Roll, an opportunity to vote. We are not in favour of preventing any soldier or any citizen in this country from voting, because history has taught us that it is a mistake to deprive people of their vote. Take the position in 1902 when it was proposed to deprive the rebels of the Cape of their vote. Men like Mr. Merriman and Mr. Sauer pleaded that those people should not be deprived of their vote, and their vote was restored. They were sentenced by the courts of law of this country, but they got back their vote. I wonder what democrats like Mr. Merriman and Mr. Sauer, men who assisted in drafting our Act of Union, would have said if they had been here today and had had to witness this sad spectacle.

They would have been disappointed at the attitude of the Opposition.

The Minister, by way of regulation, now wants to deprive people in this country of their vote. It is a crying shame, and this is supposed to be a Government which is fighting for democracy, for the freedom of the citizen, for the freedom of nations and for the freedom of the world, and here they are engaged in depriving people of their vote. I am convinced that many members opposite if they are going to vote for this Bill have not the slightest inkling what they are voting for. What is to become of democracy in our country, if a Minister is to have the right to amend the laws of the country simply by promulgating regulations, and if he is able to deprive any person of his vote to attain his object? Is that democracy? This is an impossible state of affairs, and if the Government resorts to measures of this kind it must not say that it is fighting for democracy. In that case it is no longer this Parliament which is the governing body; but we then have government by dictatorship. It is far-reaching to think that any Minister should have the right to amend the law by way of regulation at the eleventh hour. Take the position of independent candidates. Will the soldiers know how to vote when it comes to independent candidates; what is the Government going to put on the ballot paper; are they going to describe one candidate as a Bolshevist and another as a Communist, or what are they going to do?

That is the candidate’s own trouble.

We have a democratic country and we must accord every Party its rights. That hon. member’s Party may be rich enough to deposit trousands of pounds in respect of the candidates they nominate. I want to make an appeal to the Minister not to abandon our existing law in this manner. When we start tampering with our electoral laws, we are tampering with the constitutional position of our country. It means that we are interfering with the principles of national government and that we are practically embarking on a dictatorship. Hitlerism and all the other “isms” are being introduced here, and we do not want that in our country. We want to keep our electoral system in South Africa pure and above politics. We want to give every citizen the right to vote in the simplest and the best manner. We want to ensure that his vote is recorded in secret, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he thinks it is possible under this system, when the men have to vote in front of their officers, to ensure that they vote in secret? I should like the Minister to reply to this. The Minister must remember that there are many Nationalists in the army. I think that a greater number of soldiers will vote for the Nationalist Party than for the Government. I can tell the Minister; I know what they have been saying to me. Only the other day I had nine officers with me. They have returned from the North where three of them were wounded. Five of them are going to support the Nationalist Party. They told me that they were fighting to defeat Germany, but they felt that the policy of this Government was foreign to South Africa and that the policy of the Nationalist Party was the correct one. I asked them why they made that statement and their reply was that we put South Africa first. We put South Africa first and last. The Minister must not pretend that he wants to look after the interests of South Africa. He must not take power unto himself to promulgate regulations which can amend the law. I wonder whether the Minister realises how ridiculous the regulations were which he issued; he could only have expected that he would have to withdraw them. No, let us send this Bill to a Select Committee, and let us then submit a Bill which will keep our electoral laws in South Africa pure.

I cannot but protest against this unreasonable, and I would almost say scandalous, legislation which has been put before us. We begin to ask ourselves what steps will still be taken by the Government in order to strengthen their diminishing following, so that it will not disappear completely. We know that some time ago a Bill was introduced so to amend the legislation of the country that persons who were in military service outside the Union, wherever they may be in the world, are given the right to vote when an election takes place in the Union. But that was not enough for the Government. A second Bill was introduced, a Bill whereby the coloured vote was extended in a surprising way. May I just say that the Minister of the Interior may by this time be regretting that legislation, as he may yet come to regret this legislation. The coloured vote has been extended, and the Minister may still find that it proves to be a boomerang. The Minister was not even satisfied with that, and now he is using two further methods. The first is this provision in connection with the internees. As we have already said, innocent people are interned in many cases. The Minister knows as well as I do that there are many people in the world who would be prepared to have others interned simply because they belong to another party in a constituency, and now the Minister is encouraging those people to have such persons interend so that they will not be able to vote. Not only scores but hundreds may be intered with the specific object of depriving them of their vote. This presents a beautiful opportunity to the Government party to get rid of Opposition votes. That may happen on a large scale. We know that last week the Minister of Justice had 10,000 natives arrested in Johannesburg, and the same type of power may be used tomorrow to intern a number of Europeans so that they cannot vote. The second method is this. As far as I can understand this Bill, the soldiers in the army may be placed in this position, that they have to vote without any secrecy being maintained. The arrangement of the whole matter is left in the hands of the officers, and when the officers know that certain people are against the Government, they may deprive them of the opportunity to vote. I want to draw attention to Clause 5 of this Bill. In Sub-Clause (5) the following is laid down—

We notice, therefore, that it need not even be the responsible officer. A subordinate officer may take care of the matter. What I should like to see is that the word “secretly” is inserted before the words “to record his vote”. That will then compel the officer, when the soldier records his vote, to ensure that secrecy is maintained. In this Bill it is left altogether open, and we dare not do that. We know that even the Cabinet decided that people who are still of military age, must not be accepted today if they can join the army. There is really discrimination against people who do not want to support the war. Under the provisions of this Bill there can be no doubt that people who are against the Government, will be placed in an unfavourable position if they vote against the Government. A few days ago I had the privilege of meeting an officer with a fairly high rank. I then said to him that he had always been a Nationalist and I asked him what his present position was. He clearly told me that he had definitely given his senior officers to understand that he was a Nationalist and that he could be nothing but a Nationalist. This man would today have occupied a much higher rank if he had held the opposite view. For that reason it appears to me that we should specially insert a provision in this clause to the effect that every voter will be able to record his vote secretly. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that this word which I have suggested will be inserted. The officers afford the men an opportunity of voting, but there is nothing in the Bill which compels them to afford the men an opportunity of voting secretly. We know what the result of that is going to be. People come to us every day—members on the other side call them “skunks”—and tell us, in connection with the blue oath, that because they refuse to take that oath their chances of promotion are nil. If those methods are adopted in connection with promotion, there is no reason why they will not be adopted in this respect as well. If people do not vote in the interests of the Government, all sorts of measures will be used against them, and efforts will also be made to intimidate them. I hope the Minister will see to it that this clause in the Bill is amended. But in the same clause we find this provision—

In other words, the names of all the coloured people on the list are also sent here, and now I should like to know from the Minister whether he can give us the assurance that those lists of names which are sent here will contain only the names of persons who are entitled to vote. A few months ago, when the House of Parliament opened, I made a serious charge against the Defence Department, namely that a coloured person, who had left the service of a farmer and who still owed money to him, had been taken on in the army. He joined the army, and this farmer did not have the slighest chance of getting him back. In terms of the law, the farmer could have got this man back, because he had deserted. The Department of Defence took two months to go into the matter and about fourteen days ago we received a reply from them to the effect that they were very sorry but that they could not trace this person, and that he had apparently enlisted under another name. We understand that something like 60,000 coloured persons enlisted; can the Minister give us any assurance that possibly thousands of them did not enlist under different names? A coloured person may join up under the name of Jan Baadjies. Now the military authorities send a list of the names of coloured people who are in the service; they do not know who those coloured people are, as is proved by the fact that they could not trace this other person because he had presumably enlisted under a different name. Jan Baadjies may be the name of a coloured person who has died, or of a coloured person who is in that constituency or elsewhere. This type of thing may give rise to two votes being recorded by a coloured person, they are clever enough to do it. We will therefore have people who will be able to vote twice. We on this side moved an amendment to the effect that the Minister must first frame his regulations and insert them in the Act. I really cannot see why the Minister is following such an undemocratic procedure. Personally I regard it as a disgrace to attempt to pass legislation in that form. We have not had an opportunity of examining these regulations. We need only take those few points to which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) referred in connection with the regulations. They are undoubtedly of a far-reaching nature. The Minister may do anything to make it impossible for us to win a seat, where normally we would have had the very best of chances to achieve a victory. The Minister is taking power unto himself to frame regulations which are quite unfavourable to us and which may deprive us of all our chances in the constituency. Does the Minister, since he personally is not acquainted with all the difficulties really think that he is acting honestly in all respects in taking such a power unto himself? I want to go further and tell him that he may frame these regulations with the most honest of intentions, and yet those regulations may cause very great difficulties, because he is not aware of all the difficulties which may arise. If these regulations were necessary to frame the Minister should have added them to the Bill in the form of an annexure. That is the least to which we are entitled. Surely, it is not the intention of the Minister to withhold the regulations so that he can frame them to the disadvantage of the Opposition. For that reason we say that the regulations ought to be framed and submitted to this House together with the Bill so that we can judge whether they are practical or unpractical, and so that we can clearly see what the Minister’s intention is. In that respect I want to support the amendment most strongly, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to submit these regulations to us so that we can examine them. I now come to Clause 11 on page 7 in connection with independent candidates. This clause lays down—

The Chief Electoral Officer has all the power in his hands. He may consider it advisable to insert something which will distinguish the various independent candidates, or he need not do so. It is left to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer as to whether he will do it or not. Will the Minister not consider the advisability of inserting the word “shall” instead of “may”? Make it compulsory for him to do it, because otherwise he may say that it is not necessary. We want the Act to provide that he “shall” do so. He must be compelled to do so. I hope the Minister will realise that the insertion of that word will be of tremendous value. I make bold to say that the Minister is going to cause hopeless confusion with this Bill. Just look at the powers which are given to the Minister. The Minister himself realises that this will cause hopeless confusion, and that is why he is providing in this Bill that mistakes which are made in pursuance of this Bill will not render an election invalid. Even if a mistake is made which leads to a totally different result, it will not render the election invalid if that mistake was made under this Bill. Mistakes may be made under this Bill, but those people who made the mistakes will not be held responsible for them, because the election will not be declared invalid. If the Minister does not accept my suggestion to make it compulsory to indicate the difference between the independent candidates, he may place people in this difficulty that they will not Vote for the person whom they would have liked to support. The Minister realises the difficulties which may flow from this Bill, the irregularities, which may take place, and for that reason he says in anticipation that those who make mistakes will not be held responsible. The election cannot be declared invalid as a result of those mistakes. There cannot be the slightest doubt that under this Bill numerous mistakes will be made. I hope the Minister will realise this danger. It is an accepted legal principle that it is better to acquit 99 guilty people than to hang one innocent person. I think the Minister should take into consideration the fact that we cannot allow a person, contrary to the wishes of the electors, to become a member of this Assembly or of the Provincial Council. That, however, is not the attitude which the Minister is adopting, and therefore he says that even when a mistake is made, the election cannot be declared invalid. I cannot see how the Minister can see his way clear to make an Act which may get a person into this House although it is not the desire of the electors in the country that he should be here. This Bill is going to lead to many mistakes. I want to come back to the independent candidates. A few days ago I saw a person from the North. I asked him what the feelings of the soldiers were, generally speaking, in regard to elections and such things. He gave me the assurance that generally speaking these people do not discuss elections. He says that they are much more interested in who the Mayor of Somerset East or Salt River is, or such local events. They are not interested in the election. There is no doubt that these people have altogether forgotten what the political position in the Union is. Independent candidates are now going to be nominated. What is the position going to be? I noticed a few days ago that as many as three independent Labour candidates were being nominated in the Transvaal. On our left we have the New Order. It is possible that independent candidates from their ranks may seek election. There is dissatisfaction within the ranks of the Government Party, and there we may have independent candidates. I understand that Mr. Dorfman may be one, and that the Minister has got such a fright that he wants to run away to East London.

You have been badly informed, as usual.

I want to give the Minister the assurance that the greatest confusion may arise in the case of independent candidates. We have had this experience in the past. There have been cases where two or three independent candidates have stood in one constituency. What provision has the Minister made to enable people in the North, who are not acquainted with the political position and the change which has taken place, to distinguish between the independent candidates? How will they know, for example, that Mr. Dorfmann is the man who delivered vegetables cheaply, and that they should therefore vote for him? I must say in all honesty that I cannot see how a person in the North, who is not acquainted with the position in the Union, will be able to record his vote as he pleases, unless he votes for the Government candidate. I hope that the Minister will make better provision in this respect. This may cause great confusion. People may be afraid to vote for an independent because they may fear that he is a Communist. Perhaps it is the intention of the Government to obtain votes in this way which otherwise they would not have got. The Minister will in the future be very ashamed of this legislation, this baby of his which was born in 1943. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept our amendment. We only want fairness. As the Electoral Act stands today, every citizen has the right to record his vote according to his convictions, in accordance with what he considers to be in the interests of the country, but the Government is now creating machinery whereby thousands of people who would otherwise have voted, are now placed in this difficulty that they do not know where they stand. During elections meetings are held, and the Minister will admit that these meetings are held with a view to persuading people to vote differently to what they have intended. When I was still a young politician, the Minister got on to a soap box and tried to catch the voters with his eloquence, and I presume that in this way he got people to vote for him. Today the Government has a slight chance of getting a majority, but the Minister knows as well as I do that the other side of the House, the Party to which the Minister belongs, cannot get a majority under any circumstances, enabling them to stand on their own legs. The Minister knows in his heart that the Opposition Parties, taken together, will defeat the Government Party by far. Is this Bill perhaps an attempt to keep the Government in power a little while longer? We make an appeal to the Minister to submit these regulations to us. That is only fair. In the second place we feel very strongly on the question of the internees. You may have people who sacrificed 20, 30 or 40 years, the best part of their lives, in building up this country. Today they are in the internment camp. Only a few days ago I noticed that five people in the Johannesburg Goal have again embarked on a hunger strike, because, according to the Press report, no charge has yet been presented to them, and they do not know why they are being detained. There are numerous people who are locked up without even knowing why. Is it fair to deprive these people of their vote in the manner in which the Minister is doing it, while a foreigner who has only been in this country for a short while and who may be hostile towards South Africa, and who puts another country before South Africa, is given the right to vote? The Minister also pretends to be an Afrikaner. In that case he must realise the injustice which is being done towards the old established population who sacrificed everything to develop this country who are now being deprived of the franchise, while foreigners who have done nothing for South Africa are given the right to vote. I make a serious appeal to the Minister to accept our amendment.

I want to welcome heartily a Bill that gives our soldiers the opportunity of exercising their franchise.

They have that right.

They are now being placed in a better position to exercise their franchise. The by-elections have proved that only about 20 per cent. of them can exercise their franchise.

That is what the Opposition wants.

Yes, and instead of that they want the internees to vote. I cannot follow the argument of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). He concedes that the soldiers in the North should be enabled to vote, but he wants to place all sorts of obstacles in the way of the soldiers in the country when exercising their franchise.

Where do you get that from?

He wants the soldiers to vote in the ordinary way through the post, and then he knows before his conscience that 80 per cent. of them will not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because troops move about, they are here today and elsewhere tomorrow.

A man who is outside his constituency is also here today and in another place tomorrow.

The soldiers may receive an order at any time to depart from one place to another. One always knows where a civic person is. No, the argument of hon. members on the other side against this measure do not hold water. I do not want to go further into this, but I want to ask the Minister what provision he is going to make so as to enable soldiers who may depart for overseas between the time of the issue of the ballot papers and the date of their departure, to vote. They may have departed overseas by boat before the ballot papers have reached them. What provision is being made for them? As regards the ballot papers themselves, I see that there will be great confusion if the name of the party is omitted from the pallot paper. Soldiers do not attend political meetings and candidates are not permitted in the camps, while newspapers are also scarce, and if soldiers receive only the names, they may not know who is who. At the last Election we had two Bekkers in the same constituency standing for two different parties, and also two candidates with the name of Swart, and two with the name of Brits. How on earth will the soldier know who the candidate for the one party is and who the candidate for the other party is.

If they see the name Conradie they will know that they are all Nationalists, excepting the solitary one who is still a SAP.

It is fortunate for the family that there is still one who is right. I would also like to appeal to the Minister to consult the parties about the regulations before we depart.

With reference to this Bill, a deliberate misunderstanding was created, as the result of the discussion we had last year on a similar measure, that the Nationalist Party wants to disfranchise some people. Nobody on this side of the House wants to deprive the soldier of his vote, but our objection in the past has been that persons became soldiers and got on to the voters’ rolls while we did not get the opportunity to object against persons who ought not be placed on the rolls. There are many of them in the service today who were condemned for crimes without the option of a fine. They have been placed on the voters’ roll. There are many of them who get their names on the voters’ rolls in this way in conflict with the provisions of the Electoral Act. We protested against that. We do not object to people who possess the necessary qualifications being put on the voters’ roll. I have previously mentioned the example of a coloured person who came to Worcester from Cape Town under an assumed name. In this way he joined the army, having come out of prison two days or eight days before. He was placed on the voters’ roll under an assumed name, even though he had no right to be there in terms of the law. As regards the object of the Bill to give soldiers the opportunity of voting, we agree that they should have the opportunity of exercising their franchise. But why all the regulations that are not incorporated in this Bill? I think that there are sufficient opportunities for soldiers to vote. Postal voting worked well in the past. Why cannot those people vote by post as in the past? Why should regulations be drafted to enable them to vote in a different manner than the manner under which they can vote under the existing Electoral Law? So far as the soldiers are concerned the Electoral Law of the country is being simply set aside and a new law is being made that will apply only to them, and provision is made for regulations that are not there for this House to see. We do not know what is to become of it all. It is now said here that the party must deposit another £50, apart from the £50 which the candidate must deposit. Perhaps the Minister may even still put it at £100 or £200. Why? Of what use can such a provision be? I think it is one of the silliest proposals yet made. I also endorse what other speakers have said, that all enfranchised people must have the opportunity of exercising their franchise, but that it is very unwise to create the opportunity for people who have not the necessary qualifications in terms of the Electoral Laws of the country to vote. We do not know what regulations the Minister is going to draft. We cannot discuss these regulations here in the House, and point out where, according to our opinion, they are wrong. The Minister is going to make regulations arbitrarily for the whole population. Is that fair? Can he assume such dictatorial powers? It is the greatest injustice that can be done, and this step will count against the Minister so long as his name remains known in this country.

That will not be very long.

In the political sense he will probably not be known for long, but we yet hope that he will live long, for he is still young and we do not want to see him off the carpet so soon. But this legislation does not redound to his honour. It creates the opportunity for irregularity and intrigue in the future. So long as this law stands on the Statute Book there will be difficulties. It is proposed here that officers will be instructed to determine the identity of electors. How the officer is to establish the identity of Klaas Windvoël who was Jan Bantjies, and who simply says that he is a particular person from the constituency of Caledon, I cannot understand. It is impossible for an officer to do this. And what about control over the casting of votes? Who will be permitted into the military camps to see that everything is done correctly.

Not the Nationalist Party.

No, they will not have the right. Then I also feel that the name of a candidate should be added to the ballot papers on which the names of the parties are mentioned. Otherwise great confusion will arise. One has the Verenigde Nasionale Party and the Herenigde Nasionale Party. The coloured voters will not know what this means.

You are now putting the Minister wise.

No, I am just afraid that they may put someone there to tell them how they must vote. Let the name of the candidate also appear. That at least gives a little more indication.

And if they cannot read?

Yes, there are many who cannot read, quite possibly there are many of them. I say that this measure is going to create an injustice not only towards the electors but towards the parties and the candidates. This legislation should not be here at all. There should only be a law that says that soldiers with the necessary qualifications can vote in terms of the Electoral Acts of 1918 and 1926. Then there will be no difficulty. The Electoral Acts are on the Statutes, and we know where we are. I also want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) as regards internees. There are a group of people in the camps and a large proportion of them do not know to this day what the charges against them are.

That is not true.

The Minister said the other day that there are such internees.

They have all been told.

If a man gets into the camp he does not hear for six months what the charge against him is. I have just had another case of a person who has come out. He does not know of what he was accused, and he was set free. He could go home. Many of the people are innocent, and yet they cannot vote. After all they are not criminals. There are people who have just come out of prison and have joined the army, and there are foreigners from overseas who have also joined up, and they will be able to vote as soon as they join up. They may vote simply because they don uniform. I doubt if many of them will ever go to the North. They will travel about here and sit in the offices and be messengers for the military offices. We see that there are many such messengers. But those Union nationals who are in the camps must be prevented from voting. I think it is very unfair. In any case the regulations should be put before the House as part of the legislation. It should not all be left to the Minister. The Minister’s action leaves a very bade taste, and I again appeal to him to accept the amendment. Only one clause is necessary, to say that the soldiers shall have the right to vote in terms of the Electoral Laws of the country.

The hon. member who has just sat down loses sight of the fact that the Electoral Act of 1926 made provision for postal voting in normal times. The hon. member loses sight of the fact that this election will take place during the war when a large proportion of the soldiers will not only be scattered about the length and breadth of the Union, but also in other parts of Africa. The hon. member forgets this completely.

This Bill is only for soldiers inside the Union.

Then confine yourself only to the Union. The fact of the matter is that if provision is not made in this Bill many of those people will not be able to vote.

Why not?

Take any soldier. He is at a certain address today and applies for a ballot paper. Then he is suddenly transferred. His address then is Moorreesburg. He stands under the instruction of other people, and quite suddenly, before polling day arrives, he is transferred to quite another constituency, perhaps a thousand miles from the place at which he was stationed when he applied.

And if the ballot paper arrives there?

Then the officer in command knows precisely where he is. The Commanding Officer will have to ensure that he will be able to get into touch with the men under his command during the election so that he can say where the ballot papers must be sent.

But you are now nullifying your own argument.

The hon. member does not want to understand that we are not living in normal times. The Commanding Officer will know where he has sent the man.

Precisely.

If the man is however stationed in Moorreesburg, and the Commanding Officer is no longer there, then the ballot paper goes to a private person under the postal voting system. That is the difference.

The military authority receives the post.

Hon. members refuse to see the point. Perhaps only three men are stationed there. There is no officer in charge, and the ballot paper goes to a private address. Hon. members do not want to recognise the practical side of the matter, but pretend that we have to contend with normal circumstances. The Commanding Officer will know, when an election takes place, where the men are and will be able to get in touch with them.

What can the man do if the officer does not receive or forward the ballot paper?

You must ask the Minister that. It can all be arranged very well, and the Commanding Officer will have to ensure that his men receive their ballot papers.

And what about secrecy?

You have the same secrecy that you had before under the system of voting by post. Secrecy can be practically maintained, just as before.

He can make it secret and he can also refuse to do so.

Does the hon. member mean that he can do this arbitrarily?

You have not yet seen the regulations, and how can you say now whether the voting will be secret or not.

It will not be in the least measure less secret than in the case of postal votes.

But the regulations about secrecy have not yet been issued.

Then why do hon. members come forward with objections to this Bill?

We want the regulations before us now; you do not understand the amendment.

No, the argument of members on the other side was that there would be no secrecy. Where do they get that from? They want to create the impression here that the officers will tell the men how and where to vote. What right have they to allege this?

Why do you not help us in our request to the Minister to submit the regulations to us?

That is another matter. I can tell the hon. member that the voting will not be less secret than in the case of postal voting.

How do you know that?

How do you know that the reverse will be the case? No, those hon. members have been raising all sorts of imaginary objections from the commencement of the discussion. Take the allegation of the hon. member on the other side to the effect that the Minister will draft his regulations in such a way that the candidate will have to deposit £1,000. They know that no such thing will happen, but they base their objections on such allegations.

Prove to us that the Minister will not make such a provision.

Then take the most ridiculous line—prove that the Minister will not make a provision that every voter must pay £1,000 before he can vote for a member of Parliament.

Perhaps this proves that they think that such ridiculous provisions are possible.

It shows that those hon. members feel that they are perhaps capable of doing such things. There is no person in the Union who will persist in raising such imaginary protests.

What about the additional £50 that has already been determined.

If there is to be a voting for parties then such a provision is fairly necessary.

Why?

If ballot papers are to be allotted to every constituency, and if there is no such provision, we may discover afterwards that the ballot papers contain the names of independents who do not even exist, and how do we fare then? If it is not done, irresponsible persons will proceed to nominate half a dozen candidates.

Each candidate must deposit £50.

That is perfectly correct.

And now the Minister says that over and above this another £50 must be deposited.

A party may perhaps say that it is going to put up candidates in all the 150 constituencies, and then the Government must bear all the costs caused thereby. I did not interrupt members on the other side, and now they are putting four or five questions to me simultaneously. No, I just want to put the Minister of the Interior this question. He will find out that this system of his is going to work well. One thing is necessary, and that is time for preparation so that every officer shall know what is expected of him, and will not have the excuse that he did not know that an election would take place at that time. He must be put in the position of knowing for certain where everyone of his men is. That is very essential. I want to warn the Minister that if he does not make timely arrangements he will discover that a mass of votes will be hopelessly too late, and the officers will simply say that the matter was impracticable to them in the time which they had at their disposal, to give each of the men the ballot paper betimes to ensure that it would be returned in time and posted in time to its destination. I hope hon. members will cease these petty objections of theirs. These are not objections that they actually have, but that they are simply putting forward to obstruct the legislation. The Minister has tried to remain as close as possible to the Electoral Act of 1926, but it has been our experience at various by-elections that it is impossible to get soldiers to vote by post. Hon. members on the other side must not tell me that they are in favour of soldiers voting, and then at the same time campaign against legislation of this nature which enables the soldiers to exercise their franchise. If they do this, then they are busy pressing their tongues deeper into their cheeks. One hon. member on the other side alleged that numbers of soldiers will be placed on the Voters’ Roll who have no right to be there.

I say so.

It is alleged that they may have committed criminal offences, and that in consequence they ought not to have the franchise.

It is so; we have experience of it.

You are not acquainted with the Cape Province and with the coloured voters.

But if those persons are on the Voters’ Rolls then hon. members have the right to object to them if they are not entitled to appear on the Voters’ Rolls.

If someone is on the Voters’ Roll then nothing can be done to prevent him from voting.

But surely every party has the right to object before the Revision Court against a person who has not the right to be on the Voters’ List. No, members on the other side can only try to shout down an argument. They have had the opportunity and the right to object to persons who should not be on the Voters’ List.

We have asked the Minister to give us the opportunity, and you have refused to support us.

No, the hon. member must not try to make us believe that. He has the right today in the Revision Court of every constituency to go through the lists to see if there are people who should not be on the lists. If his argument is that there are voters on the lists who should not be there because they had committed crimes, then he can object to them.

You know that you are talking nonsense now. In May one can object to a few, but one cannot object to 90 per cent.

Why not?

Because you voted with the Minister to make it impossible.

No, those hon. members have had the opportunity all the time to raise objections, also at the eleventh or even at the twelfth hour. They can ensure at the Revision Courts that names that should no be put on the lists do not appear there. No, they did not want to object, and now they are raising this imaginary objection as an argument for voting against this Bill.

This is a solemn moment. We are standing before the open grave of so-called democracy, and the Minister of the Interior is acting as the undertaker for democracy. He is submitting to us here a Bill which empowers him to give the franchise to numbers of people, and which at the same time empowers him to deprive other people of their franchise; and where he has already deprived hundreds and thousands of the franchise in anticipation, we can imagine what will happen in future. These now are the people who are speaking about fighting against dictatorships and that sort of thing, but who come here with legislation that obviously places machinery in the hands of the Government to ensure for it a majority at any subsequent election. These are the people who are actually making themselves guilty of killing democracy. Democracy lies there in a coffin of steel after the Government has finished with it, and twelve Ministers are assembled around it as pall-bearers. They are not acting as though they are attending a funeral, but as if it is a carnival. The Minister must realise that by this sort of action he is busy creating a mental condition in the country which, after the war is over and so-called peace returns again, will mean that the population will assume that there is no peace in another sense; that there is no peace in the respect of which certain things may not be done. They have dug the grave of democracy and put the corpse in it, and there it will remain. When the people then become tired of that Government which has assumed these powers, then the people must find other methods. This Bill simply places thousands of people in the power of the Government. Nevertheless we find that it is this Government which throws it at the head of other countries that they cram people into camps so that they may not vote or that simply puts them before the choice that they must vote “yes” or “no”, for or against the Government. They are the people who are accusing the dictatorship countries, and yet we find that this Government is now pursuing the same road. Not only that, but we have no assurance according to this Bill that the voting will be secret. Take the voting of the soldiers. I was longer in the army than the hon. member who spoke over there just now, and I know what goes on. They must not tell me, if it is not stipulated definitely that it will be a military crime if an officer does not ensure that the voting is secret, that there will be secrecy; if it is not made a military offence, then the officer can do as he likes. He will simply let the people stand in a row and make them vote one after another. I know the way it will happen. If there is no military regulation laid down for the officer, then he will not obey it, and he need not obey it. If we are fortunate enough that all the officers will be like those of whom the hon. member behind me spoke, then we know what they will do. It must be laid down in the law that the voting shall be secret, and then we must go still further, then we must have a controlling power over the officers and there must be a military instruction that the voting shall be secret. This thing opens the way for reprehensible irregularities, as we can well imagine. This dare not come to pass, unless the Minister of the Interior adopts the standpoint that he must ensure victory for his side at any price. The country outside will realise that this action of the Minister is the end of the free vote and of the so-called democracy that still exists, and if the Minister wants that to happen then he must proceed with this Bill. But it seems as though the Minister goes out from the standpoint that care must be taken for the Government to remain in power, no matter how. The Minister knows very well that one only has to intern 50 people of a certain kind in some constituencies, for the Government to gain those constituencies. He knows from the work of the agents how many it is necessary to intern in particular constituencies. How do we know now what is going to happen? We have had examples here of what will be done in the regulations. These are draft regulations, and those draft regulations show that an impossible state of affairs may result. According to those preliminary regulations, when the proclamation is issued in Pretoria regarding an election then within three days all the constituencies in which party candidates will be put up must be notified. The Minister simply does away with the nomination court and he says that he must know within three days after the issue of the proclamation where the Nationalist Party or any other party is going to put up candidates. Is there any sound reason why the Minister must know where a party intends putting up candidates? No, there is no reason. The Minister now says it is necessary because the soldiers will not know who the candidates are. Therefore he wants to put the names of the parties on the ballot papers, and not the names of the candidates.

He only wants to add the names of the leaders.

Well, if he does that, then according to my information we ought to welcome it on this side. There is no sound reason why the names of the candidates should not appear on the ballot papers.

But this Bill in fact provides that the names of the candidates shall appear on the ballot papers.

No, only the names of the parties appear on the ballot papers.

You must read the Bill.

The Minister is sometimes childish, but he is surely no longer a child. He knows well that on the ballot papers which go to the North the names of the candidates will not appear, and also as regards those who come here from the North the names of the candidates will in some cases not appear on the ballot papers. If we have to judge by the regulations of the Minister then his object is to make a farce of this election—to make it impossible. We want it laid down in those regulations that voting must be secret, and we want to ensure further that so far as the officers are concerned there shall be a military instruction that the officer will appear before a court martial if he does not act according to the prescriptions which make the voting secret.

Will you then be satisfied?

Naturally.

Won’t you have other objections?

How can I say whether I shall have other objections before I know how the Minister is going to use the power that he assumes under this Bill? He simply assumes powers under this Bill, and we have no indication of what he is going to do. If we must judge by the preliminary regulations, then we cannot be satisfied. For that reason I said here that the Minister and his Government have long since been busy killing democracy in this country. If they go on in this way then in the end only one way will remain of putting the matter right—those who assume this power will have to contend with such chaos that they will have to assume greater powers to put matters right. The blame will then rest upon this Government which began this sort of thing, and which confined democracy to its grave in this manner. There are particular points in this Bill that are quite impossible. There is one provision that when the presiding officer in Pretoria has the number of votes for a constituency then he telegraphs it to the presiding officer in that constituency, and it is added to the votes cast in the constituency. Nobody goes through the list to see whether those people have voted previously or not. If Jan Baadjies had voted in the North, and Jan Baadjies had also voted in the constituency, how is it going to be established whether there has been duplicate voting in the same name or not? If this clause should remain as it is then numerous instances of duplicate voting may take place, and we dare not allow such a thing at an election. Where the Minister submits this sort of legislation to us, the least he can do is to ensure that thousands of people in our country will not be disfranchised; he has the power to send people to the internment camps en masse, and we know that this is now happening again. We hope that the regulations will be published, that is if the Minister still entertains the hope that the corpse of democracy is not completely dead. But the Minister is now busy laying beautiful flowers on the grave of democracy. These are colourful flowers. They are now burying democracy, and then they dance around the grave as if the corpse is not as dead as it really is. No, I hope the Minister will realise that he is doing an impossible thing here to arrogate unto himself powers that may virtually make the whole election a farce, and that will empower the Government to sweep away enough people in every constituency to ensure for the Government a victory in those constituencies.

The hon. member who has just sat down reminded me of a story I heard from a doctor friend of mine. Somebody walked down Adderley Street, and when he was asked where he was going, he said that he was going to an undertaker because his wife was sick. When his friend asked him why he did not rather go to a doctor, he replied: “No, I am not going to any middleman.”

We thought that it was going to be a feeble joke.

The hon. member perpetually spoke of undertakers, and said that the Minister of the Interior is the head undertaker of the Government. Well, a man who sees evil in another is probably not so innocent himself. If the hon. member has a suspicion that the Minister will do something or other, then he himself is perhaps not so free from suspicion. Two points are very clear in this Bill. This side of the House stand by the promise we made to the soldiers that we shall protect them. We shall ensure that every one of them will be enabled to vote. The effect of the Opposition’s attitude this morning is that the soldiers will not be able to vote, but that the internees will be enabled to vote. That is what it comes down to. If their pleas were to succeed, then the internees will be able to vote and the soldiers not.

Even you have never made a sillier allegation in this House.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) can always employ such beautiful language in this House! We know from experience what happened at the by-elections, that 80 per cent. of the soldiers could not vote under the law which was passed here last time. Is it not the duty of the Government, which made the promise to the soldiers that it would protect them, to amend the law in such a way that the soldiers can vote? Hon. members on the other side themselves participated in by-elections, and they know that the postal vote did not help much to enable the soldiers to vote. They know that we got very few of the postal votes in time. But they do not want those votes to come in. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) spoke here about the officers, and how the officers will intrigue on a big scale when the men have to vote. Is it not scandalous to make such an allegation against the officers?

I said it must be prevented.

Yes, the hon. member also said that it must be prevented. He said that they must be placed under a military instruction, and he told us that he knows from experience what is happening in the army. I say that he cast a blot on our officers by alleging here that they will intrigue on a great scale in connection with the voting.

I said that we should prohibit it in the law.

The hon. member subsequently made reference about preventing it by law. He said that he knew what would happen, and he included all the officers when he said that he knew what would happen. We were also told by previous speakers that the Minister would certainly not be honoured in the country for introducing this Bill. But he will be honoured by the people who are affected by this Bill, and they are the soldiers who have to exercise their franchise. Those are the people after whose interests we look. If members on the other side do not want to look after their interests, then they must not now set afoot a campaign when we want to do it. But the trouble is that they also say that they want to care for the soldiers, but when it comes to the test, then the soldiers are let down by them in this manner. We see how it has been going on here perpetually. Nothing was bad enough to sling against the soldiers, but when our friends opposite see a chance of obtaining the votes of the soldiers then they do their best to pretend that they intercede on behalf of the soldiers. It was said that the Minister is busy here looking after his own party, but at the same time the Opposition tells us that a large part of the army vote for their party. Where are we on or off with them? No, let us be honest in this matter. If we want justice done and if we want democratic rights to be given the soldiers, then we must place those soldiers in a position to exercise their franchise, and then we must amend the law which, according to our experience, did not permit them in the past to do this. It was our experience at the by-elections that the last law did not permit this, and therefore it is now our duty to amend this law. To say as did the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that this Bill will do away with democracy, seems very strange to me. For it is precisely a Bill that is intended to give a large section of the population an opportunity of exercising their franchise. Then I come to the hon. member who said that he had a suspicion that the Minister would intern a large number of people so that certain constituencies may be gained by the Government.

That is a dummy.

It is worse than a dummy. When I speak of elections, then I speak of elections at which there is a fair measure of honesty. That is the position with us. I do not know what the position in the Cape Province is. When we speak of elections, then I hope that we can have the assurance that there is a fair measure of honesty in the country as a whole, and where the hon. member makes that accusation against the Minister he knows that his accusation is totally unfounded.

Then why are there provisions in the Electoral Act about dishonesty?

I did not say that there should not be such provisions, but when it is said that the Minister will go out of his way to intern people in order to win a seat, then I say that it is an unfounded, an unmerited allegation.

He will do anything.

That is probably the condition of the hon. member’s mind. Where I come from it is not so bad. Although the Bill is perhaps not yet completely effective, it is certainly in the interests of the soldiers.

The previous speaker must hire out his services as agent to an insurance company to tell these stories to persons whose premiums will cease when they die. The position is simply that the best of people, under the pressure of an election, may do things which they would not normally do. We who have taken part in politics for years know what the position is. We who have objected in the past to coloured persons being placed on Voters’ Rolls, know what the position is. The biennial registration is now being suspended, and we have only the ordinary by-registration. We will not have an opportunity of objecting to people who are already on the list and who should not be there. Hon. members on the other side know very well that this legislation will be to their advantage. That is why they are so anxious to pass it, it aims only at party advantage and nothing else. At first they accepted a Bill which provided that people who were in the North could vote for parties. Why did they not make provision at that time for soldiers in this country? Because they knew well enough that the soldiers in this country know as well as other people, who the candidates of the different parties are. One need only ask people outside to learn that they regard this as something which savours of cheating. Soldiers who are on leave and who were S.A.P.’s but are no longer S.A.P.’s, tell us that they are afraid that they will be compelled to vote and that their vote will not be recorded secretly. That is the feeling amongst the soldiers. The people outside have only one opinion and that is that this is cheating. These people can vote by post. At the by-election at Riversdale they got all the soldier votes which they could get.

Eighty per cent. could not vote.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. During an election there are always people who are absent from the district. Business men are away, bank clerks are somewhere else, and the postal votes may not reach them. They also travel about a great deal. The people who control the military post will see to it that the soldiers receive their ballot papers. It is much easier than in the case of a bank clerk for example. This measure is not just. It will lead to dishonesty. Take, for example, the officer who will have to do this work now. I take it that there are honest people and dishonest people amongst officers. As human beings they too will rave about their political opinion and do things which they would not do in the normal course of events. I realise that a highly placed officer, if he is in charge of it, may be reasonable and fair, but this work will be entrusted to a subordinate officer, and I say that the soldiers are afraid today that, uder the amended legislation, pressure will be brought to bear on them. I have never been a soldier but I know what they say. They are afraid that pressure will be brought to bear on them. I have seen that type of thing in my time, and I want to tell the Minister in connection with his measure that the chickens will come home to roost. I remember very well how more than 20 years ago, after the previous war, the same type of thing took place. Coloured people who were not qualified were placed on the lists. I never object to a person who is qualified. He must have the right to vote, to whichever party he may belong. But there may be a great deal of abuse, especially in the case of soldiers, and the Minister is not there to see to the votes of the soldiers only, but to the interests of the whole community. He cannot take steps to benefit his own party, to the disadvantage of the community. Twenty years ago coloured people were also placed on the rolls. In my district 390 were put on, and we decided to object to everyone, because it is not always possible to find out whether a coloured person can write his name and address. Do you know that of the 390, we got no less than 300 off the rolls. The Minister will still regret this step. The day will arrive when the coloured people will vote against him, just as they are against the Afrikaner. The Minister already sees what is happening. There are the Communists, and he is already beginning to realise what is going to happen. I am in favour of giving to the man who has the right to vote an opportunity to do so. But the soldiers are afraid that pressure will be brought to bear on them. They may not know, even if the voting is not altogether secret, how to record a blank vote. If the Minister tampers with the electoral laws of the country, and the community gets the impression that dishonest things are taking place and that the only object is to get the soldiers to vote for the Government, the Minister will still reap the bitter fruits of this measure. I am afraid that that impression has already been created outside. The Minister is bent on benefiting his party, instead of keeping the Electoral Act pure. That is the first requirement in a democratic state. When you start tampering with that, then you immediately open the door to all sorts of intrigue. I am afraid that this measure will do more harm than good. I want to refer to one point particularly, and that is Clause 10. This is a particularly far-reaching clause. It reads—

The Minister is afraid therefore that irregularities will take place. He knows that the soldiers will not comply with the regulations. That is why he is inserting this provision. It is of a far-reaching nature. Even if one can prove that the person who took the vote is not qualified, one can do nothing. If one shows that pressure was brought to bear on the person concerned and that wrong influences were exerted, one cannot have the election cancelled by the court. The Minister knows very well what the result will be if one entrusts officers with such duties. Serious mistakes may be made and irregularities perpetrated, and the Minister is already providing that in such cases an election cannot be declared invalid. I just want to repeat that if the Minister wants to derive party advantage in this manner, the chickens will come home to roost. In the future he will regret this type of thing. I want to make an appeal to him to abandon this, or, at any rate, to refer the matter to a Select Committee where we can calmly discuss and rectify these matters. We must remove that fear in the minds of the soldiers, the fear that they will be forced to vote for the Government candidate. There must be clear regulations. It must not be left to the arbitrary decision of the officers. I am convinced that this Bill will not be to the advantage of the soldiers or of the country, but that it is only a measure by means of which the Minister will be able to manipulate votes. Regulations will be framed, and we shall have no control over them. The Minister says that he will consult us, but one does not know that he will not amend those regulations at a later date. Why cannot the regulations be inserted in the Bill? The Minister must not hold this against me, but, if he can make and amend regulations without having to account to Parliament, I cannot but detect in this measure an effort to manipulate matters more easily.

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

When business was suspended I had practically come to the end of my speech. I just want to assure the hon. Minister that no one in this House is more desirous than I that every person who is entitled to vote, shall be enabled to do so, and at the same time I feel that when a person is not entitled to be put on the Voters’ Roll, then it is my duty to do everything in my power to see to it that people who are not entitled to vote will not do so. I feel that there is some danger under this Bill that irregularities may take place, and I feel that it may be done with a view to party advantage, and for that reason I make a serious appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) so that this Bill can be placed before a Select Committee, which may be able to come forward with a Bill which will attain the Minister’s object but which will ensure that there will be no opening for irregularities. It seems to me that the Minister does not want to accept this. I just want to warn him: As the coloured people are now turning against him at Salt River, so the country will turn against him when they know what is happening.

I should like to ascertain from the hon. Minister what he means by the words “Commanding Officer” and “unit” which appears in Section 5. I want to ask him whom he regards as a Commanding Officer. What does he regard as a “unit”. Take a telegraphist, for example, who is alone on a hill. There may be one, two or three persons. They are probably removed from their unit. Who is going to be the Commanding Officer in that case? I should like to know what the Minister means by “unit” and “Commanding Officer”. Must the Commanding Officer have a certain rank and, if so, what rank must he have? What is the lowest rank he can have? I know that irregularities frequently take place during an election because at such times people become abnormal. Here we have two factors which cause abnormality, that is to say, the war and the election. We can therefore expect greater abnormalities during this forthcoming election. You will find people who will want to benefit their party. I feel that temptation is being put in the way of the Military Officer or the Commanding Officer. They were trained as military men. As the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) said, the men are under the control of their officers and they will be inclined to want to dance to his tune. We must make the regulations watertight so that the Commanding Officer will not be able to exert improper influence over his men. I feel that there is some danger that the Commanding Officer will exert his influence, and perhaps influence those people to vote for the candidates whom he supports. We make laws in this House and we must try to make them as watertight as possible. We make certain electoral laws in this House. We have had, for example, the Delimitation Commission, a commission which consisted of judges, and even they are influenced by parties. Take my constituency, for example. How was that divided? Here we have judges on this commission, and just see how they cut up my constituency. If a commission such as this can do that type of thing, what must we expect in the army? I therefore fully agree with this amendment. Let us send this Bill to a Select Committee. I feel that we should grant the soldiers the rights to which they are entitled. There is a possibility that the Commanding Officers may resort to threats. We must protect those troops. They are the people who are fighting for democracy, but as the Bill stands at the present time indirect pressure will be brought to bear on them. Many of them have wives and children at home and they may be afraid to vote as they please. If the voting does not take place in secret, I feel that we may commit an injustice towards those soldiers. They are fighting for freedom and democracy, and here they may be forced by the Commanding Officier to vote as he dictates. I know that the majority of those Commanding Officers are not sympathetic towards our cause.

They are red

There may be a number of English officers who are sympathetic towards us, but because of the very fact that the Commanding Officer is English, the soldier may vote “red”, instead of voting for South Africa. I hope that the Minister will see that justice is done towards those soldiers who are fighting for democracy. Give us the opportunity to have this Bill examined by a Select Committee. Allow us as the official Opposition to examine this Bill and to bring it back to the Minister next week. We can then bring back something which is perfect and which will ensure that right and justice is done towards the soldiers who are fighting for right and justice.

I have listened attentively to all the pleas that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. I am surprised that the Opposition should now be so concerned about the vote of the soldier.

We have always been.

Not always; it is only now that the election is near. After I have listened this morning to the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) I can only express my surprise. He pretended that all the soldiers will vote for the Nationalist Party.

It is precisely for that reason that we want secret voting.

What lurks behind the thing?

We stand for democracy.

I know the great majority of the officers. They are honest men, and they have never exercised compulsion on their men to make them change their views. I am very sorry to hear that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) said here that the officers would put those men at Uriah’s point. No, the officers are honest people. They have the greatest respect for a brave man if he does his duty, no matter who he is. It has been said here that we cannot trust the officers, but I say that they have never tried to exercise that sort of compulsion on their men.

You are distorting what this side said.

The soldiers are given the opportunity here to vote. As was said here this morning we know that it will be very difficult to enable the men to vote by post. But the procedure that will be followed how will give them a better opportunity to vote. I repeat that we can have the greatest respect for these officers who have done their duty, who have saved their country, and have sacrificed their lives for their men. An officer loves his men. I know that the hon. member for Ventersdorp, when he was in the army, cared very well for his troops.

Yes, and he did not work for a double salary.

Members on the other side also get double salaries in some cases. I am not speaking now about double salaries. I do not get it now. When I got it, I honestly deserved it because I helped to save my country. I do not want to keep myself busy with petty little things like that hon. member, but with this Bill. By means of the action of the officer the men will now have the privilege of exercising their franchise. We want every soldier to be in a position to exercise his vote, and it does not matter for what party he wants to vote. I am convinced that no officer will compel those people to vote as he wants them to vote. I have the greatest respect for the fairness of the officers. They did not hold back men from commissions where the men deserved commissions. Where a person deserves a commission, they do not ask to which party he belongs. They look to the merits and the ability of the person, and on the strength of that he is promoted. Now we have to listen to all sorts of stories that commissions will be withheld from soldiers, or that they will be placed at Uriah’s point for differing with the views of the officers. It is an insult to these officers, who are doing their duty towards the country. I am myself an officer, and I have never paid any attention to the party to which a soldier belongs. We concern ourselves solely with the ability of a man as a fighter, and we appreciate that. If a man shows that he is able, then he may be a Nationalist or a Labourite, but he will receive his due. I have had quite a lot to do with recommendations for the promotion of officers. We sent them to the courses, and the recommendations had to go through me. I have never asked to what party a man belongs. That question never weighed with us. Our only object is to do the best for the country. Our object in the army is to maintain our rights and to fight for our cause, to ensure in that way that the war shall be brought to a successful conclusion.

I cannot understand what objections hon. members on the other side can have when we on this side plead that the voting of the soldiers shall be secret. It seems as if they are becoming aware of the fact that they are losing the confidence of those people, and where we on this side plead that there should be absolute secrecy in voting. I cannot see why, if hon. members on the other side mean to be honest with the soldiers, they should have any objection against that. If those hon. members are actually imbued with the idea of allowing those people justice, without any fear, then they will not ascribe all sorts of wrong motives to us but they will help us to ensure under this Bill that the voting of the soldiers shall be secret. If this Election had not been such a serious matter, if it had not been of such importance, one would have felt amused about the actions of the Government at this time. According to our Constitution the term of office of the Eighth Parliament expires on 21st July. But the Minister is still not prepared to say definitely whether there is going to be an Election. No, they wait. And if things become difficult for them, a back door is held open for them. If Mr. Dorfman perhaps becomes troublesome in the constituency of the Minister and he cannot get back to East London, then he can use his influence with the Prime Minister to postpone the Election.

He wants to have a chance to Dunkirk.

One cannot understand why the Government at this stage should still be jumping about in connection with the Election. According to the Constitution the Election must take place this year. But the Government continues to leave a door open to evade the Constitution. We should have had a biennial registration at the beginning of this year, but the Minister did not allow the biennial registration to take place.

But we amended the law to do so.

Yes, you did that, and you did it deliberately to save your own face. The Minister knows that we were not perpetually on our guard in connection with the old Voters’ Roll, because we always expected that there would be a biennial registration, when we could revise the list, and why should we have to go out of our way to do it from time to time at the supplementary registration?

But according to the law the Election would have been held on the old Voters’ Roll.

If we had our biennial registration in January 1943, then we could have voted on that Voters’ Roll.

No, it would have taken place in April, and then it would have been too late for a General Election during this year.

In 1938 we had a general registration in January, just before the Election. The Election was in May, and we then used that Voters’ Roll.

That was in 1937 and not in 1938; the hon. member must study his facts.

I am not prepared to accept what the Minister says there.

Ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and he will tell you.

There should have been a biennial registration. If the Minister of the Interior was so sure that this registration would take place in April and that it would not be ready for an Election, Why did he come forward with the excuse and introduce a law so as not to have the registration?

This discussion is out of order.

The Minister is now not satisfied with that, and he comes with special legislation before this House. He comes here with new legislation providing that the electors can exercise their vote according to parties. It is absolutely something new. Now I put this question to him: If he wants to do this, why is he not prepared to add the name of the candidate? You know that about the person of the candidate hinges a whole lot of votes, and I want to know what objection the Minister of the Interior has against adding the names of the candidates. If he indicates to what party the candidate belongs, then he can insert the name of the candidate above the name of the party to which the candidate belongs.

If he can add the name of the leader, then he can also add the name of the candidate.

In this thing provision is made for regulations that empower the Minister to prescribe how it shall have to be done. Now is it fair that one party, no matter whether it is the party in power or another party, should give the Minister of the Interior free rein to make regulations as it suits him? Is that what we conceive to be the democracy for which the Government stands and for which they told us they were fighting? I think that where the Minister asks for power in the law to draft regulations, regulations under which he wants to make it easier for the soldiers to exercise their votes, then those regulations must be adopted by this House as part of the law, and they must not be made by the Minister by way of regulations later. I just want to add that I have very serious objections to internees not being permitted to exercise their franchise. Those people are no criminals. Nothing whatever has been proved against them, and it is unfair of the Minister to do those people, whom he has already deprived of their freedom, the injustice of depriving them also of their votes. In this respect the Minister should bring about a change. I can hardly realise that the Minister could issue a regulation such as is mentioned here—and I want to protest strongly against it—that a party must deposit £50, within three days after the Election has been announced, in respect of every candidate that the party proposes to put up. I cannot understand how the Labour Party can extend their support to such a proposal.

We shall come to your party to borrow money.

Well, that makes me feel that the Labour Party now knows where it can get money, something that it did not know before and that it could not do before. But now that that party sits behind the Government and keeps the Government in power for Imperialist purposes, now the Minister can easily say that the Labour Party can get money to borrow. It is a very serious reflection on the Labour Party of today. I had hoped that we would receive support from the Labour Party in connection with this matter. Then I would like to know from the Minister—it is a subsidiary little point—what the position is in connection of the announcement of the results. The votes cast will be counted the day after the election. Will the Electoral Officers make an announcement, then, regarding the votes cast? Or must this be kept a secret until fourteen days later, and that while everybody in that office knows how the voting went; or will the Electoral Officer at least announce the number of votes cast? I would like to know what the procedure will be when the votes are counted. Will the Electoral Officer make a statement subsequently, as is usual, or will it be expected of all those who attended the counting to keep the result a secret? I must say that it will lay a tremendous responsibility on persons who were present at the counting to withhold the information from the public. We all know how inquisitive the people are, to know for instance whether the Minister of the Interior had a majority or whether Mr. Dorfman has defeated him. I want to know what the Minister’s provision is going to be in this connection. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. What harm can be done by referring this matter to a Select Committee? An election is not something that affects the Government alone. If the Government must get a hiding, it must take its hiding decently, and it should not try to regulate matters in such a way that it has an advantage over the Official Opposition Let this matter go to a Select Committee, and let both sides have a reasonable chance of expressing their views, and let us improve this Bill so that there shall be justice to the people and to all parties. Why does the country hold an election? It is not necessarily to return the sitting Government to power, but to see whether the people still have confidence in the Government, or whether the people want a change.

I do not think that there are many people in the country who feel happy about the Bill with which we are now dealing. The hon. member for Frankfort (Maj.-Gen. Botha)—I am glad he is here now—said emphatically just now that he stood up particularly to assure the House of the honesty of the officers. We want to accept that. Then I ask in my turn, if the officers may let the voting proceed without people being present to represent the different parties—that is how we heard it from the Minister that there may not be people present from the different parties—then I want to ask this: Must we then accept that the voting officials and the Electoral Officers were dishonest in the past under the old Electoral Act, because people belonging to the various parties were then allowed to attend and to ensure that everything happened properly? According to the hon. member we consider the officers dishonest when we ask this. Were the Electoral Officers in the past then considered dishonest under the old Electoral Law because it was provided that people from the various parties could be present? I would ask the Minister this again. It is not quite clear to me whether the names of the candidates will be added. We can understand that where voting takes place outside the country or in the North, it may be difficult to add the names of the candidates. It is not difficult to give the names of the parties. But here in the Union the Minister is aware of the fact that there are thousands of people in the country who are not so concerned about the different parties, but who want to cast their vote for a specific candidate. They are not attached to one party or other, but they vote for the best man. Now the names of the candidates will not be submitted, and these people will not be able to choose the best man. I consider that those people are being put in a very inconvenient position. They cannot make a choice, and I hope the Minister will agree to allow an amendment at the Committee stage providing that the voting can take place in the ordinary way within the Union. But it is this Clause 10 that makes one anxious. It is a clause that provides that when a mistake is not an important mistake, and which, when it is rectified, cannot give a reverse result of the election, then it does not matter. If we are correct, there was a similar clause in the Act of 1941. This matter is not so simple. The various parties were particularly on their guard under the old Electoral Act, because if one single irregularity took place then the whole election could be declared illegal as the result of that single irregularity, and particularly the party which attained the victory would not like to have a second election. For that reason every party is on its guard. Under this clause an irregularity can now take place without necessitating a re-election. One can readily accept that there will be hundreds of people who will be prepared to make a little mistake on the assumption that their little mistake will not be discovered. There are perhaps a hundred such; 99 escape, but the one who is discovered, his mistake results, even if it cannot alter the result, in the election being declared null and void because the matter can be taken to court. Now the matter cannot be taken to court, and the parties will therefore not be on their guard to avoid mistakes. No, it is a decided temptation to the people to commit irregularities. It is an accepted fact that there are always black sheep in the world, and it will always be found that where opportunity is given to such people they will avail themselves of the opportunity of obtaining a majority which they would otherwise not have obtained. We want to ask the Minister: Come, let us follow in this Bill precisely the same procedure we followed as in the old Act. We probably need it more in respect of this Bill than in connection with the old Act, and by so doing we can give the public the assurance that no irregularities will take place.

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the main lines of objection against the Bill, I want to deal with one or two incidental matters which have been raised in the course of the debate. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo), who has just sat down, has made an appeal to me to follow the lines of the original Electoral Act. He says: “Let us follow the procedure laid down in that Act, and then everything will be in order.” He was at that moment busy attacking Section 10 of the Bill, which provides that no election shall be set aside by any court by reason of any mistake or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the court that the votes were recorded and dealt with in accordance with the principles laid down in this Act. He says that this is a definite invitation to persons to commit irregularities, it is anticipating that irregularities will take place on the part of military officers who will act in an official capacity for voting purposes, and he couples with this warning an appeal to me to follow the provisions of the original Act. Well, Sir, I turn to the provisions of the original Act and I find in the Act of 1918, confirmed as it was by the 1926 Electoral Act, we have Clause 61, which reads as follows—

The very same thing I have taken over from the previous Act! I say to my hon. friend who has raised this matter, that I am acting in accordance with the spirit of the Electoral Act. This provision is taken over holus bolus from the original Act, and if my hon. friend has such suspicions about what may happen; I think the time for his suspicions should have been a little earlier in the day than in 1943. Then the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) has been a little confused in regard to the procedure about holding the biennial registration. He has suggested that the Government, by postponing the biennial registration of 1943, is altering the basis upon which the General Election about to be hed this year will be held. In other words, he says that if we had a biennial registration in 1943 the General Election would be held on that new registration. We are postponing it, and therefore he says we will be fighting an election on an old register, and that is a bad thing, according to the hon. member. Then he specifically told the House that he remembered that in January, 1938, there was a new registration, and that the General Election of 1938 was held on it. That is incorrect, Sir.

He means the supplementary.

The hon. member must not make allegations based on the argument that the biennial registration is being postponed. He will remember that a special Bill was introduced this Session to postpone the biennial registration, and the hon. gentleman has suggested today that by that postponement we shall alter the basis on which the General Election will be held. That is not correct. In terms of the law a biennial registration should have been held this month, but owing to administrative and other difficulties, which were explained to the House at the time, the Government was compelled to postpone that registration. If that biennial registration had been held, the new roll would not, in terms of the existing law, have come into force until the 1st January, 1944. So the General Election could never, if it is to be held this year, have been held on the new biennial registration; and that completely disposes of the suggestion that the Government is attempting to juggle with the biennial registration in order to suit its convenience. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), who speaks for the official Opposition in this matter, has complained that since the outbreak of the war, serious changes have been made in the principles of our electoral law. He has said that first of all the Government has given the right to soldiers outside the Union to vote at a General or Provincial Council Election, and he has gone on to point out that the Government has established the principle of voting in certain circumstances for parties and not for individual candidates. And then he complains that now a further change is being proposed, and he condemns the proposal in this Bill now before the House on the ground that it is an unsound principle to allow part of the electorate to vote in one way and the remainder in another way. He calls the system to be established under the Bill the introduction of a “mass vote”. Well, Sir, I have found it most difficult to appreciate the attitude of the Opposition in regard to the merits of the Bill. But when the hon. member for Mooreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) makes reference to what the Government has done in the past, then it does become a little easier to understand the mental processes behind this suggestion that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. It is true that the Government has introduced new principles and it has attempted to provide for facilities for soldiers outside the Union, to vote, but the very nature of the practical difficulties in the way of the ordinary procedure being applicable have rendered it necessary to have this special procedure. But I think I am right in saying that the Government is correctly interpreting the feelings of the bulk of the population when it enables our soldiers outside the Union to vote. Of course we have had to change the law, but we have had to do that because we are at war, and we have many thousands of our men and women outside the country.

We were also at war in 1915.

We had a responsible Opposition then.

The hon. member will recollect that in 1918, before the first Great War was concluded, Parliament did pass an Act which embodied the principle of voting outside the Union. True, that system was based on a different system, the system of voting by proxy, but before the war had ended, Parliament enacted an Act by which soldiers could vote by proxy, so at any rate by precedent there is nothing new in that.

We don’t want any precedent.

Exactly, common fairplay demands of us to do that, and I think the House and the country do appreciate the real motives behind the Opposition’s attempt to send the Bill to a Select Committee. If the Bill goes to a Select Committee it is killed.

That’s nonsense.

If there is to be a General Election this year and we are to help our soldiers then this Bill must be on the Statute Book this year.

We give you the assurance that we shall bring it back in a few days.

I want to remind the House of the attitude of the hon. member for Moorreesburg when the 1941 Bill was before the House. The hon. member then also had a motion to send the Bill to a Select Committee and he said this—

That was the attitude of the Opposition in April, 1941, when, of course, the International situation was not quite as clear as it is now. Oh, no, those were the days when Ou Baas Adolf was in fairly close contact with the Nationalist Party! That was in the days before Ou Baas Adolf had let the Nationalist Party down. That was the days when our soldiers were referred to as “Hans Khaki’s”, as “Handlangers of Great Britain”, and so on.

No, not the soldiers, we never said that about them.

Oh, yes, you referred to them as Handlangers of John Bull. Now, when the scene has changed, when Rommel is hanging on in a last desperate grip to the tip of Tunisia, now my hon. friends come forward and pose as the friends of the soldiers. I put them to the test today. Let them vote for the second reading of this Bill and show that they have the courage of their convictions.

Why don’t you tell that to East London?

My hon. friend talks about East London; my hon. friend would have been happy if I had accepted the invitation to go to East London, but I am happier staying where I am.

Even if it is only for a short time.

And I intend to stand and sit for the constituency which I have represented for some years. I would also remind the House that on the occasion when the 1941 legislation came to a vote, the members of the Opposition not only voted for sending the Bill to a Select Committee, but, when that proposal was rejected on votes, they also voted against the principle of the Bill, and yet my hon. friend for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart)—had the effrontery to say today that the 1941 Act “had a measure of justification”, There was a measure of justification for the Bill enabling the soldiers outside the Union to vote. But in 1941 when the Bill was before the House there was no measure of justification for it—they voted against it! But now that the situation has changed, and it is necessary to curry favour with the members of the forces, now there is a measure of justification.

We said then that there was provision for proxy.

No, you voted against the principle of the Bill, but today the situation has changed and my hon. friends over there try to take up a different attitude. I say that if we really want to help our soldiers then this Bill is necessary. It is necessary to enable voting by the postal voting procedure of the Electoral Act to be altered in this way, because quite apart from administrative difficulties, it is obvious that, after a delimitation, after a fresh delimitation, the bulk of our soldiers will not know in what constituency they are registered, and it is quite correct what the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) said this morning, that if we did not alter the law in the way suggested in this Bill, probably 80 per cent. of our fighting forces in the country will be disfranchised—in effect they will be. On paper they will not. On paper they will have the right to record their votes. And that is what hon. members opposite say that they want. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) said this morning: “All we want to do is to allow the position of the previous law to prevail.” Well if you do, you knock out 80 per cent. of the votes on active service.

Why?

Because of the practical difficulties.

Didn’t you think of that last year?

One did consider the matter, but in 1941 one had not had the experience of the number of by-elections in which it was shown that it did not work. The Government did not want to alter the law unless it was necessary. It is now seeking to alter the law, because experience has shown that it is necessary to do so if we want to enable soldiers to vote. It seems to me that the only valid objection which hon. members opposite might make lay in the arguments of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, namely, that the Regulations should be incorporated in the Bill itself. I agree with my hon. friend that that as a general procedure is the one to be adopted. Both on precedent and in regard to propriety I think that would normally be the proper procedure, but hon. members will realise that here we are dealing with extraordinary circumstances in that we do not know exactly what is going to happen. In peace time we can foretell with a certain amount of exactness what will happen if the position is different, but the exigencies of war make it difficult to foretell how one is to proceed with a matter of this sort, and a measure of elasticity is essential. And so power has been taken in the Bill to promulgate regulations to enable the Secretary for Defence to make the necessary arrangements for soldiers to vote. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has referred to draft regulations which have been submitted to him, which I felt he should see. I myself have not had the opportunity of studying these draft regulations, because it has not been necessary for me to do so yet. But let me tell him that in regard to the question of deposits I agree with him. I do not think it necessary for political parties to make deposits in respect of every constituency which the party intends to fight. The information which is sought by that provision is necessary in order that ballot papers should be printed for despatch out of the Union. It is necessary that the Chief Electoral Officer should timeously know what political parties are to fight the election, but it is not necessary for the Chief Electoral Officer to know in what constituency they will put up candidates. That provision will not go into the regulation. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) and others have suggested that there is a fear that the secrecy of the ballot will not be maintained. The hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) said that there was a fear, that he had heard the fear expressed by certain members of the Forces, that secrecy would not be maintained. In order to make it quite clear that the Government intends that the secrecy of the ballot will be maintained, and that correct instructions will be given, I am prepared to have an amendment inserted in Section 5 making that quite clear beyond doubt. I shall propose an amendment at the Committee stage to make it clear that in conducting a ballot in military camps the secrecy of the ballot must be maintained, and it will be an instruction to officers of the Defence Department to see that secrecy prevails, and if the officials carrying out their military duties do not carry out their instructions they will be guilty of a military offence. I think that should meet the point of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. But the suggestion that there is going to be wholesale corruption and impersonation is an unworthy one. There will be no difficulty about the identification of the voters.

These are soldiers.

Yes.

They are not Nationalists necessarily.

So I do not think I need say any more than this, that I shall be glad to consult any member of the Opposition and any member of any of the other parties who wish to consult my department on matters about the regulations. We can have an informal discussion, and I shall be prepared to have such discussions and accept suggestions from them. But if I am to incorporate these provisions in the Bill itself, by means of a schedule, hon. members know as well as I do that we shall be here till next October.

Will they be so contentious?

No, but the hon. member knows that these things become contentious, and there is no danger of regulations being promulgated which will be unfair or in the interest of a particular party. These things are not secret. There is no sinister objective behind them. The hon. member knows that the officials are men of integrity who merely do their duty to see that the spirit of the law is observed, and if the hon. member for Moorreesburg would be good enough to consult me I think we shall be in a position to hammer out the regulations on a basis of agreement acceptable to all parties. We have been able to come to an agreement on other matters, matters in regard to petrol and so on, matters affecting elections, the running of elections, important matters and other matters. There is no reason why we should not be able to come to a similar agreement on this matter. I say again that the issue before the House is a simple one. We genuinely want to give an opportunity to these members of the Forces of the Union to vote who wish to vote. We do not force them to vote, but if they want to vote we want to make it easy for them to do so. If my hon. friends want to support the Government in that, I suggest they should vote for the second reading.

What about the internees?

Yes, certain hon. members have raised the question of the internees being allowed to vote. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent internees from voting, that is to say no special provision has been made to prevent internees from voting. But I think the Government is correctly interpreting the feelings of the country in deciding that no administrative facilities should be given to enable internees to vote.

That’s nothing but sabotage.

Quite obviously they cannot go to the poll. They can only vote by post. The suggestion has been made that the Government could, by using the internment machinery, disenfranchise thousands of internees. That is an unworthy suggestion. The total number of internees—Union nationals by birth, and by naturalisation—is approximately 500.

The internees were not allowed to vote by post at Barberton.

They were not and they will not be allowed to vote by post at the next General Election.

You said just now that they would be allowed to vote by post.

The hon. member has misunderstood me; I said physically the internees are unable to vote in their constituencies because they are in internment camps, so the only way they could vote would be by post.

Are they prisoners?

And I say that the Government is not obliged to give them administrative facilities to vote by post.

It is nothing but sabotage It is a disgrace.

It is not proposed to give internees the opportunity to vote by post. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether they were prisoners. They are not, not in the ordinary sense of the word. They are not interned as a measure of punishment, they are detained in the interest of the security of the State.

They have never been tried.

No; as the hon. member says, some of them have never been tried. But I would ask this, although the analogy is not a complete one. I would give the analogy of awaiting-trial prisoners. They are not found guilty—they are awaiting trial. Awaiting-trial prisoners are not given the opportunity of voting by post.

Some of these people have been found not guilty and afterwards they have been interned.

Yes, there have been such cases, and if the hon. member knew the evidence on which they have been interned he as a good democrat would know that the action taken by the Government was the only possible one. If there are persons who have so abused the privileges they have by attempting to undermine the Constitution, or by committing acts subversive to the safety of the State, I say that they have temporarily forfeited the right to exercise their vote.

You are prostituting the law of the country.

Yes, I know the hon. member feels very strongly on that and he is entitled to his opinion. I can only express the view of the Government and say that it is not the intention of the Government to give administrative facilities to allow interests to vote by post.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—54:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon. V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—26:

Bekker, G.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe,

R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 20th April.

May I explain the amendment. The purport of the amendment is merely to make it quite clear that this Bill applies to Government warrant vouchers. We attempted to do that in this place by amendments which I moved to Sections 2 and 3, but on further examination it was found that the amendments which we moved here did not quite cover the case of the Government warrant vouchers, and so to make that issue beyond doubt, those clauses have had to be recast, and that was done in the Senate. It merely gives effect to what we intended here.

Agreed to.

Omission of Clause 3 and new Clause 3 put and agreed to.

I would like to move an amendment to Clause 1. The amendment is printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), namely—

This is an amendment necessitated by the fact that we want to move amendments later in connection with the whole position. It affects the whole principle of the matter, and it comes to this that this measure should not be confined only to Durban. It is really a consequential amendment that is moved here to what will be moved later, namely that this measure shall apply to the whole of Natal. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in supporting this measure said—and quite rightly—that there are a large group of Indians who are wealthy and who are throwing their money about to buy property instead, he said, of investing it in State stocks to help the Government to conduct the war. And he said that the Indians had only themselves to thank for this measure; they caused it by penetration and because they bought land in Durban on an unprecedented scale during the past two years. If that argument is applicable to Durban, then it also applies to the whole of Natal, because if there has not been such a penetration in the rest of Natal as in Durban then it is self-evident—and it is elementary—that as soon as this Act appears on the Statute Book the Indians will invest their money in Pietermaritzburg, Greytown, Pinetown and all the other places where they can possibly do so. Why must Pinetown, adjacent to Durban, be excluded? If we are opposed in principle to the Indians penetrating into European localities, if we are opposed to people who today make profits out of the war using those profits to purchase land and to penetrate into European residential areas, then we must bring that principle to its logical conclusion and say that they may not do so in Durban, Pinetown, Pietermaritzburg, Greytown or elsewhere in Natal. What will it help if the Minister comes later under this measure and appoints a commission of enquiry? Then the commission of enquiry will first have to determine whether there has been penetration for instance in Pinetown. If the commission finds that the half of Pinetown has been bought by Indians, then Pinetown must be pegged. That is silly. The question is: Do you or do you not want Indian penetration? If you want to stop it, then you must stop it betimes. Why do we make this law? Because the Indians have already penetrated too far into Durban. Must we now wait until they have penetrated too far in Pietermaritzburg, Greytown or Pinetown, and then peg them down? This is an illogical and dangerous attitude to adopt. Let us take the bull by the horns and say that the law shall be applicable to the whole of Natal. Let the pegging take place now. The Minister can say what he likes, and hon. members on the other side can say what they like, but it has happened here that they have used the wealth they possess to buy properties in Durban, and there can be no doubt that they will now use the same money to buy property outside Durban in Pinetown and in the other big towns of Natal, and then next year we shall find ourselves in the same difficulties. What will it help to institute an enquiry later? The Minister must stop the danger while it is there. I hope the Government will change its mind and decide to peg the position in the whole of Natal. Requests have been directed to the Government and requests have been directed to us, by the municipalities all over Natal that the whole of Natal must be included. By what right can the Minister come today and waive aside that request from the municipalities? He should give the other municipalities the same protection that he now wants to give Durban.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are more than justified in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member on behalf of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). It is quite true that in Natal today there is a great feeling that this Bill ought to be made applicable to the whole of Natal. They fear that the restrictions on the Indian community which are now being applied as far as Durban is concerned, are necessary in other parts of Natal which are having the same experience as Durban since the first Broome Commission’s report. This amendment will safeguard that position. This will also do away with the necessity for another commission being appointed. My party has been accused of being, as it were, the villain of the piece, and has been accused of being responsible for this legislation. Instead of Durban being put on its trial, as was stated by the hon. Minister the other day, and the City Council also, we say today that the Indian community will now be put on its trial, and if this penetration does continue in European areas, we shall be compelled to come back to the Government and ask that the provisions of this Bill shall cover the whole of Natal. We say that in all good faith, because we have not brought this trouble upon the Indian community in Durban. We have been pleading with them for many years to play the game, and have said that provision will be made for them, and we have asked them not to deliberately come into European areas where they know there are certain sections of the community that object to them. I want to say at once that the allegations that have been made against our City Council that we have made no attempt to make provision for the Indian community, are quite unjustified, and there is no atom of truth in them. Our City Council has attempted to solve the housing problem for the Indian community, who have retorted that it was segregation and they were not prepared to accept it. It is therefore not right to accuse our City Council of making no attempt to provide housing schemes for the Indian community. I would remind hon. members that the Indian community have for many years looked to the Labour Party in Durban for the support which they wanted. The Indians have looked to that particular party to stop any attempt at what might be termed segregation, and it is their own friends who are now criticising the City Council, because they have had a predominant power in the City Council. I am rather surprised at my hon. friend on my right (Mrs. Ballinger) supporting the Indian community in the attitude they have adopted. I have already said that the Indian community by this penetration in Durban have alienated what friendship they had amongst the Europeans. No one can accuse the hon. Minister of Finance of not being possessed of liberal views, and when we get the hon. Minister of Finance stating that this Bill is justified, one wonders at the hon. members representing the natives who probably do not know any more of Durban than they gained by a passing visit, should be supporting the Indian community in regard to this penetration. I think it is right to say that there are only three members out of 153 who are prepared to support that attitude.

Shame!

It is not a question of shame, the Indian community have brought this trouble upon themselves, and we hope that this legislation will be a warning to them to respect European areas. That is one of the reasons why I support the amendment, because I am hoping the application of this will not be necessary, because our Indian friends may realise that it is only matter of appointing a commission which can be brought into existence in a few days, and if the penetration is found to be taking place in other areas then by proclamation this restriction can be carried out. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to put the Indian community on trial. They have convicted themselves, they have alienated sympathy, and all the good wishes of the people of Durban, who have looked upon the Indian community almost with affection. But we cannot allow our people to be pushed right out of Durban, and by this Bill we are going to save the Indians from themselves. They have been warned, and everything has been done to make the Indian community realise the harm that they were doing themselves. It has been said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) supported by her colleagues, that this is not wanted in Durban, but the City Council, the Provincial Council and all the brains of Natal, and the members of Parliament are all unanimous, of course, that this legislation is absolutely necessary. My final words are that the Indian community need not fear anything in connection with this Bill.

I want to say a few words on this matter, and out of courtesy to the House I want to say it in English. I do so for the benefit of the members of the Rip van Winkle party. Whilst they were sitting over there it seemed to me as if the last speaker has only just now wakened up. We in this part of the Union have had this difficulty over the coloured races for a very much longer period than Durban, and the matter has gone very much further here than anything that has happened in Durban. Yet we have never got any support from them. In fact, we have never had any support from members on the opposite side at all. I want to say in support of the amendment that it is merely consequential, it is necessary in view of other amendments that will be moved later on. We feel sorry for Natal, because we have suffered very much longer than they have; the matter has become very much more serious in the Cape Province, especially in the Cape Peninsula, than it is in Natal. One of course wants to give these people their due and their just rights if they are South Africans, but one cannot understand why they wish to penetrate among Europeans. The excuse has been that proper housing has not been provided for them, but I understand that large sums of money, hundreds and thousands of pounds have been spent by Indians in buying properties in European areas, and the properties are not even occupied by these people, it is merely a matter of investment of their money.

Why should they not invest their money?

There is no objection to their investing their money, none whatever, but we are not living in a country like Great Britain, where they have only half a dozen Indians and coloured people. Here they are in the majority. We desire that this country should remain a European country, and that we should remain a European nation. But today we find that coloured people are marrying Europeans, and you know it as well as we do. What is taking place in the Cape Province? Hundreds of Europeans are marrying coloured people, and only this week a coloured man married a European woman; and the reason for that is that they are living together, sometimes in the same house, more often in the same locality. These people are playmates, and eventually they marry, and we will have a bastard race. We have felt that in the Cape for some time past. It is not that we desire to do these people any injustice, or to prevent them from getting their rights.

[Inaudible.]

I am not prepared to live with niggers as you are. There are so many investments that I do not think it is necessary for them to buy houses among the Europeans in European areas. I do not think there is any necessity for that at all. This is a serious question, and is having serious effects. One does not wish to say that any one party is better than another in connection with this matter, but the people’s eyes have been opened as far as Durban is concerned. It has taken them a long time to see the light. I know that when we have been struggling here with the same sort of question, we never got any sympathy from Natal, but notwithstanding that we are prepared to help them in getting this legislation passed. I think with my leader, that if these Indians call themselves South Africans, I do not see what the Indian Government has to do with the question. If they are Indians let them go to India.

They cannot go back to India.

Of course they cannot, because they are not Indians. The position is quite plain, some stop had to be put to this encroachment, in spite of what the native representatives say. They are entitled to their opinions. I am not grumbling at their expression of opinion as they can think what they like, but there is no doubt about it that this penetration is becoming a menace; these people are wealthy, they have money to invest, and they invest it where they can make themselves a nuisance. It is therefore time that the situation was pegged down, and an opportunity given to ascertain what the position is, what can be done, what areas can be given to them in which to invest their money, if they wish to invest their money in areas set aside for them. Even a negrophilist like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, even a man like him appreciates that that is the position.

[Inaudible.]

I know that property is not the only thing in which they can invest money, there are many other investments where they can get a very much bigger return, there are many investments looking for money; but they have invested their money purposely in order to be a nuisance. That is the feeling we have about the matter. What we feel is this, that if it is accepted that there has been penetration, that penetration has taken place to such an extent that it has become a serious menace. Thousands of pounds have been utilised in purchasing property, and we have come to a stage when the position has to be pegged down. Now what we think is this; why wait for further infiltration into other areas before you peg down the position? Why wait for the penetration to take place, because it is only going to cause trouble in the end. You will have to put these people out when you make provision in other areas, so why not do it at once? They can have no grumble, the principle is there, whether you apply it in Durban or the whole of Natal. In any case, they will look at it as having their rights taken away from them, and consequently whether it is done in Durban or in the whole of Natal, they think the wrong is there, it is an injustice in their eyes. We have heard such a lot about this goodwill, but nobody has ever obtained anything in this world, certainly not in South Africa, with just goodwill. I know what a human being is, and I know that the neighbour’s apples are sweeter than those in your own orchard. One has to remember that the fact that they are stopped in one place will simply induce them to go to another. We have heard so many of these stories of goodwill, and it does not help at all. It is no use telling the Indians how much you love them, because they think you hate them; that is the position, that is what they think, and you are not improving your position by telling them how much you love them.

The hon. member who has just sat down in one part of his speech said that this was a serious matter, and I agree with him fully. But I deprecate very much his undignified and insulting reference to a part of the permanent population of this country as “niggers.” I hope that is not typical of the attitude of his side of the House. I want now to come to the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) who spoke just now. He also expressed surprise at the native representatives objecting to what we regard as an injustice towards a section of the people of this country, and in doing so he expressed his solidarity with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), who made some similar remarks the other day. As long as I am a member of this House I have no intention of asking the permission of the hon. member for Beaufort West or the hon. member for Greyville, when I address the House. I quite understand that there are some members of this House, like the hon. member for Beaufort West, who find it absolutely incomprehensible that anybody can stand up in this House and defend the rights of people who have no votes. My view is that any hon. member of this House has a duty to the community as a whole, whether they have votes or not. Now the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) made a remark to the effect that the Durban City Council had been wrongly accused about not providing housing for the Indian people. I just want to comment on that remark, because it is in direct contradiction, not only to what the Indian people say themselves but to what the Durban City Council says. We see in the paper that Durban is going to spend £2,000,000 on Indian housing. Of course, whether that is going to be carried out is something we don’t know. But if that is necessary, then surely it shows that up to now Durban has done practically nothing for Indian housing, or if it has done anything it is very little. They have only spent £103,000 when they admit £2,000,000 to be necessary. I think that is sufficient answer to the hon. member for Greyville when he says that the Durban City Council have provided the necessary housing. I need hardly say that I hope the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). As the Minister knows I am opposed to legislation of this kind on principle. I have given my reasons for that. But this Bill has been justified both by the Minister of the Interior and by the Minister of Finance, as having been supported by evidence before the Broome Commission. I do not agree with that. With regard to the areas of Natal to which the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg relates we have positive evidence that for the years from 1927 onwards this so-called penetration was a mere trickle. These are the words of the Broome Commission.

Oh, rubbish.

If my hon. friend reads the Broome Commission Report he will see that what I say is correct. Now, may I make an appeal to the Minister in connection with this section? There has been a lot of discussion which appears to me not to have any relevance to this section. Now, there is the definition of “fixed date.” I know that the Minister put in the 22nd March because of a statement which he made that this Bill was to be made retrospective—he warned the Indians not to go on buying property, and he said that if they did legislation would be introduced. Now I want to submit to him in all fairness that up to the time this Bill becomes law, any purchase made is a purchase in accordance with the Law. The principle of retrospective legislation is a bad principle, and I submit to the Minister that the time has not come when the declaration of a Minister can be regarded as having the force of law. Any declaration is dependent on the acceptance of this House; that is a sound constitutional principle and for that reason I move—

I find myself in somewhat of a predicament in dealing with the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman).

Proposed by the hon. member for Winburg.

I must say that I greatly appreciate the hon. member’s motives in bringing forward this amendment to extend the operation of this Bill to the whole of Natal instead of to Durban alone, but on the other hand I am a supporter of the Government and I appreciate that the Government has difficulties in passing this measure through the House, and although I am in full agreement, not only with the amendment to Clause 1, but with all the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Winburg, and it would give me great pleasure to support these amendments. As I have said we have our responsibilities, as members of this House, and I am going to follow the lead of the Minister in this matter. If he can see his way to approve of this amendment so much the better. But if he cannot then I am afraid I shall have to accept his judgment and follow his lead. We have constantly been told that the Broome Commission said that the penetration in Natal since 1927 had been a “mere trickle”. We have been told that by hon. members representing the natives, in this House. Well, let me say that those hon. members who say that, only tell half the truth. Why they don’t tell the whole truth—I don’t understand.

That is an absolutely unjustifiable remark.

Well, I shall refer hon. members to paragraph 290 of the First Broome Report. It says this—

Hon. members who keep on quoting these remarks about a “mere trickle” forget these words—they forget to tell the House that the Broome Commission asserts chat penetration had already taken place before 1927. It is from then that the Broome Commission says that the penetration since 1927 had been a “mere trickle”. What was the use of the Broome Commission attempting to find penetration in areas where the Indians had already become predominant before 1927? There are a lot of other areas where the Indians could go and live, except among the Europeans, surely? And let me tell the hon. members this: when the Durban City Council tried to establish separate areas for the Indians the leaders of the Indian community would not allow the rank and file to go and live there. That was the difficulty which the City Council was faced with. And then, after the Broome Commission had found that penetration had already taken place, the report goes on to say this—

Quite so.

But it was before that date that the penetration had taken place. People who are standing up for the Indians keep on referring to the statement that there had only been a trickle, but they do not mention the first part of the Broome Commission Report, where it says that the flood had already taken place. That is the point I want to make. I am sorry I got somewhat excited about this, but I feel very strongly on this matter, and I say again that I greatly appreciate the endeavour which Opposition members have made to assist Natal in this serious matter. As I have said, I am a supporter of the Government, and I am going to be guided by the Minister, although I hope he will be able to embody in the Bill some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winburg.

We have a very strange state of affairs here today, that the Nationalists from the Republican province of the Free State should come and fight for the interests of the Europeans in Natal, and also that we should represent the views of the people of Natal better than their own members. And then we have the strange position that members of the Dominion Party support my amendment in principle and think it is an excellent amendment which should be accepted, but they have not got the courage to vote in favour of it. Let me give them a piece of advice. They are going to have a very stiff fight with the Labour Party in Natal. Why not steal a march on the Labour Party? I am afraid they are going to have a stiff fight in Natal, particularly so if they vote against this amendment. If they vote for the amendment what an excellent fight cannot they put up against the Labour candidates then. Let them show that they have the courage of their convictions while the Labour Party candidates string along at the tail of the Government. I say that we, although we come from the Free State, are representing the views of the people in Natal on this matter. Let me read a telegram sent to the Minister of the Interior and then I want to ask the Committee to say if I am not correct in stating that we represent the views of the people better than the Natal members do. This is a telegram which was sent to the Leader of the Opposition—

That is our whole case. That is the basis of this amendment. Will my hon. friends over there not come along and help Natal? When this plaintive cry comes to us from the Municipal Association, is not that the voice of Natal? Are these people speaking for Natal or not?

It sounds to me like the voice of the spider—a political one, of course.

In their desperation they have come to this party and sent their telegram to us. We have very little hope of winning any seats in Natal, but these people have come to us in their desperation. They see their own members forsaking them and they have to come to the Opposition. The Opposition so hated by them—they have to come to us for our assistance and we give them that assistance gladly.

And how they appreciate it!

We cannot gain any votes in Natal.

Why not try Greyville?

But we see that there is a danger, the same danger as has threatened Durban, we see that there is the same danger to the rest of Natal. As I said before, these Indians who as the Prime Minister said are spending their riches in buying land and encroaching upon European areas, instead of giving that money for war purposes, instead of buying war bonds, these same Indians now, when they are pegged in Durban, will run straight out to the outlying towns—Dundee, Pietermaritzburg, Newcastle, etc.—and buy land there, and the danger is there. The hon. member for Greyville said very hopefully: “We are putting the Indians on trial”. What a hope! What rubbish! What hope have you of putting the Indians on their trial? Have the Indians taken the slightest heed of what the Minister told them in the past? No, they will buy land as fast as they can. Natal people say that even now they are buying in anticipation of possible preventive measures. They won’t care a hoot for that trial. They will buy as much as they can and they will pay as much as they can. I hope the hon. members for the Dominion Party will not advocate in this way… .

They have already put up the white flag.

Our forebears in the Free State had the wisdom to lay down that no Indians were to enter the Free State, no Indians were to live there. So really Natal’s worries are not our worries—our only worry there is the worry which these Indians cause us as South Africans. That is why we worry about the problem in Natal. The Government will only take steps when it is too late—when the other towns have been encroached upon. And then the Minister will come along with his Commission and as soon as the Commission sits the Indians will rush and buy more land and then you will have pegging, but then it will be too late. We ask the Minister to do the pegging when it can still have some effect. I say again that in this amendment we represent the views of the majority of the residents of Natal and as such the Natal members should support us.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has just told the House that it is a curious phenomenon that the Nationalist Party should be fighting the cause of the Dominion Party in this matter.

No, the cause of the Europeans in Natal.

The Dominion Party only represents Natal, so it is the same thing. It is a distinction without a difference. The rest of the country does not want the Dominion Party; that has been perfectly clear for the past six years. So I don’t think that it is at all curious that the Nationalist Party should fight the cause of the Dominionites.

I did not say that at all. I said we were fighting the cause of the people of Natal.

I repeat it is a distinction without a difference. I am still prepared to make my point, that there is an obvious meeting ground between the Nationalists and the Dominionites. The country has always regarded these two Parties as the protagonists of retrogression. I don’t find anything curious in the situation. The thing I find curious is that the Government should have fallen into the same camp and should be m the position of playing the game of the Nationalists and of the Dominionites whom no one else in the country wants. I can’t see why this legislation has been brought in on the eve of an election when the Government has nothing to gain and everything to lose by it. The hon. member for Greyville has made a tilt at the Labour Party. Well, that is their own fight. The Government have no reason to make any concessions in Natal either to the Labour Party or to the Dominion Party—they will both support the Government.

So you admit that we are not doing it for votes?

No! I didn’t admit that. What I think is that your judgment has been lamentably bad in this matter, just as it has been lamentably bad, in a number of other matters. The Government seems to have the wind up—they seem to think that there is a danger of losing this election. As I say, I don’t see why the Government has done this, and I still think that every moment the Bill is being discussed on the floor of this House must make the Minister much more anxious.

What makes you so anxious?

Look at what has happened this afternoon? There is a shout for the Bill to be extended from Durban to the rest of Natal, and the attitude adopted by some hon. members shows the same lamentable lack of generosity which has been so palpable throughout. They say: “Why should the Indians buy property among us, why should they even breathe the air which we breathe?” There has not been one suggestion that the people in whose areas where these Indians live should be given any concessions. Hon. members refuse to do anything to meet the Indians, to give them any opportunities. The hon. member for Greyville said: “Let the Indians know that they are on their trial.” Well, the hon. member for Greyville has said a lot of things, but will he tell us and will the Minister of the Interior tell us what provision is going to be made for the Indians, where the Indians are to go to live? We who sit on these benches, who have seen this state of affairs developing, want to see the Europeans offer the Indians something before they begin to take away rights from them. And I hope for that reason that the Minister is not going to make any concessions to this demand, that the Bill shall apply to the rest of Natal; I hope the Minister will refuse to make any concessions whatsoever until such time as the Europeans have made provision for the Indians whom they have brought to this country.

Why are you pleading the cause of the Indians?

That is the very least we can ask. I also wish to support the counter amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that instead of extending the operation of the Bill the Minister will in fact delete this fixed date and let the provisions of the Bill operate in the usual manner. I wish to challenge the statement made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt). I know he has been agitated about the position as it has apparently been reflected in this House. He claims that we have not emphasised the fact that the Indians in the rest of Natal had already established themselves in certain areas. He says we have continually talked about the Broome Commission stating that the penetration into the rest of Natal had been a mere trickle, but have not added the rest of the Commission’s statement. But I myself referred to that fact that the Broome Commission had made it clear that there were extentions before 1927. The hon. member did not hear that, or perhaps he did not want to hear it. The hon. member for Cape Western specifically mentioned 1927 as the date from which the Broome Commission was making its investigations. I want to say again that if the Indians had not spread out since 1927, where are they to live? Of course, the answer is that they can go and live somewhere else. That is the sort of answer which one also gets about the Natives, “They can go home.” It is a sort of vague expression which gives the impression that non-Europeans can go and live peacefully among themselves. Well, we who know something about the Natives, know how small the areas open to them are, and we know how small the facilities for these people are. We know, as far as the Natives are concerned, that they at least, have some landed base, hopelessly inadequate, true, but the Indians have nothing; and they are a commercial people who must live in the towns. Their whole livelihood, their capacity to survive, depends on their ability to live in the towns. If hon. members take up the attitude that these people must go and live somewhere other than in the places where they want to go and live, what is to happen to them? Their whole existence depends on their living in the towns. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Western and I oppose the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg.

There evidently is a desire to sweep Natal with the new Broome Commission, instead some members have succeeded in making sweeping generalisations. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has been guilty of indulging in such generalisations. It is quite easy to accuse hon. members on the Dominion Party benches of having made common cause with the official Opposition, but for myself I should hate to be classed as having the same outlook as hon. members on the Nationalist benches simply because they have expressed certain views with which members on these benches can agree. The hon. member for Swellendam made what in my view is a reflection on the people of Durban when he suggested that the people of Durban were prompted in their attitude towards this problem by considerations of hatred. It was a damning indictment of his approach …

I never spoke about hatred.

Oh, yes. Perhaps the hon. member’s conscience is pricking him.

Apparently you don’t even understand English.

The hon. member said too that nothing had been achieved by goodwill. Let me tell him that my inner conviction is that nothing can be achieved but by goodwill. I supported the Bill because there are three aspects of it which entitle one to say that it is not an unjust measure. The first is the fact that it is an interim measure, secondly that it is reciprocal in its requirements, and thirdly that it is meeting a situation today in such a way as should help to put an end to racial conflict between two sections of the community and therefore in the interests of both sections of the community.

The hon. member must hot make a second reading speech, he must confine himself to the clause.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I put forward these submissions because it will enable the Committee to appreciate how I look at the amendement which we are considering. The amendment seeks to deal with the whole of Natal, and I cannot add to what has been said in that respect. But I want to make a particular plea on behalf of the Peri Durban area which I think can rightly be said to fall into quite a different category. This area which would inclue Malvern, Escombe and Northdene, is at present not covered by the provisions of the Bill, because the Bill only affects the municipal area of Durban, and these areas are outside the municipal area. The Hon. Minister will recall that when the Durban Borough Boundaries Commission reported, of which Commission the hon. Minister for Finance was Chairman, and which Commission sat to investigate the question of the incorporation of the added areas, it pointed out that the Peri Durban area in which the Malvern district fell, was served by the Durban Corporation with water, light, power and street lighting. It stated in its report that—

The European population of the Malvern area consists mainly of artisans and railway employees, whose community of interest with the adjacent municipal area of Durban, is well established. I would therefore urge upon the Minister that the provisions of the Bill be made to apply not to the municipal area of Durban but to the magisterial district of Durban, and failing that, that the area of jurisdiction of the Malvern Town Board should be added to the municipal area of Durban, for the purposes of the Bill.

We on this side of the House tried to enlighten the hon. members of Natal a little in English, but evidently it has not helped much, and even the hon. member for Cape Western (Mrs. Ballinger), who is the spokesman for the Asiatics in our country, put wrong words into our mouths. It is noteworthy that Durban itself should now be making requests in connection with the penetration by Asiatics. It does not date to 1927. Just look at Natal’s prettiest towns, Ladysmith, Dundee, Newcastle, Stanger, Greytown. Is there no penetration there? It dates back to long before that time. But now that it has extended to the conservative city of Duban, which is so conservative that some people there still think that Durban does not even belong to South Africa, now they come and they want measures to be adopted. You get penetration also in other areas of our country. You have penetration in Cape Town, for instance, where all the old landmarks, the old English names in commerce, have been substituted by other names. There you also have consideration of how it affects other members of the community to which we belong, to ensure in the first place that we protect ourselves? For that reason we are putting this amendment. There is penetration in all sorts of spheres, and it is not restricted to Durban. We who come from the Free State feel strongly about this matter, because, thank heaven, we escaped it. We escaped it in 1888 when the penetration first started in Natal. But we realise the danger, and for that reason we propose this amendment, and we trust the Minister will not be afraid to accept it.

There have been quite a number of statements made in the course of this afternoon’s debate, on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) that show want of knowledge on the part of those who make use of those statements, as to the early history of the Indian question in Natal. It has been suggested that this is an oppressive measure aimed at the mass of Indians who have become resident in Natal. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister has said very plainly, and it cannot be contradicted that this Bill has been rendered necessary by the actions of the wealthy Indians in Natal who rather than put their money into war loans, have invested it in the purchase of land. I have said, without fear of contradiction, that in most of these purchases they have largely made use of borrowed money; it has not been a question of investing their savings, but they have borrowed money for the purpose of penetrating into the European areas. One would imagine, sir, from the speech of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that the Dominion Party has a long record in this House of voting for oppressive measures. I beg to challenge the hon. lady to mention one single instance in which the Dominion Party has voted for oppressive measures in this House. To begin with, let me challenge the hon. member to produce the record of the party she represents in this House, and let her endeavour to prove that she and her colleagues have voted as often as the Dominion Party has voted against oppressive measures affecting the natives.

That was before we were in this House.

I am sorry accusation should have been made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) light-heartedly without a vestige of truth. I am sorry the hon. member is not present. It is usual for an hon. member who has made a speech so full of criticism of another party, to remain until there has been opportunity to reply.

The hon. member is here now.

Let me again repeat for the benefit of the hon. member, I challenge her to produce a record which proves that her party has voted more often against oppresive measures affecting the natives than ours. She has made it appear, sir, that we have a long record in this House which has equalled that of the Nationalist Party in voting for measures of an oppressive character towards oppressed people who are without defenders in Parliament. I say that until the natives had their own representatives in this House, there was no party that voted more often and more consistently for the rights of the natives, or fought better or with greater effort than the Dominion Party. In one night sitting alone we remained here the whole night long. We only numbered three members on that occasion, and we took part in 84 different divisions, all of which were on matters affecting the interests of natives, and we voted alone in those 84 divisions. But the hon. lady has ignored our consistent defence of the natives in making her charge that we have a long record of oppressiveness towards people who are unable to speak for themselves. And why was that accusation made? Because we are not foolish enough to vote for the wealthy pack of Indian profiteers who seem to have captured the support of the native representatives. The statement that it is the wealthy section of the Indian people who are responsible for the trouble was made by no less an authority than the Prime Minister. This was urged with equal emphasis by the present Administrator of Natal when he was the member for Zululand in this House. In referring to the Indian question, he referred to the Indian immigrants with whom there has been little occasion for difference or trouble. But he said—

These statements are ignored by the section who represent the natives today, and not content with ignoring these facts, they now criticise the people who have a longer record in relation to the interests of the native people than they have or will ever have. The members who sit with me have a long record of knowledge of native questions in this country, and a record which nobody need be ashamed of. I consider that the attack of the hon. member for Cape Eastern was entirely unprovoked, and unsupported by a single fact, and having said that I propose to ignore any further references of that kind. So far as this section of the Bill is concerned, I quite agree that the resolution passed by the Natal Municipal Association is founded upon a large number of Acts that have occurred, and are occurring from day to day, in which Indians are penetrating into urban areas and buying valuable properties. As recently as yesterday, sir, a well-known resident in the Port Shepstone district wrote to tell me that a property at one time owned by a former Governor of Natal, Sir John Bisset, has been acquired by Indians for £3,000. Now sir, are we to sit by with folded hands? Are we to agree to the doctrine that whatever these wealthy Indians do we are to accept as being jusifiable and are we to be attacked when we remonstrate against it. If we were so feeble in this House we should render ourselves ridiculous. We are speaking of facts that we know something about. We are asked, sir, by the native representatives, to take up an attitude which connotes the idea that we are to renounce any pride in our own race, we are to allow our own race to be elbowed out of townships which our forefathers were instrumental in establishing, and we are asked to agree to the inroads for which these wealthy Indians are responsible.

What astonishes me, when one listens to Dominion Party speeches such as the last speaker (Mr. Marwick), is that they plead ardently the cause of Natal, but declare at the same time that they are prepared to vote with the Government—even while they are hoping that the Government will accept the Opposition’s amendment. They are very careful not to harm the Government. Let me assure them that they are indirectly doing the Government greater harm than they really think. We perpetually hear about the danger of National-Socialism, yet they come here and condemn the party system in the strongest terms that they can employ, for they vote with the Government but declare themselves in favour of the amendment of the Opposition as being in the best interests of people and country. How they can reconcile the two I really do not know But the hon. member for Cape Western (Mrs. Ballinger) made the allegation here that this side is now hand-in-glove with the Dominion Party as regards principle. That is what her allegation boils down to, and I say that it is a deliberate distortion. It is true that this side of the House stands for the same thing as the Dominion Party in this case. We feel that it is in the absolute interest of the European population, particularly of Natal, that steps shall be taken in connection with the penetration by Indians. But the hon. member knows very well that beyond that we do not associate ourselves with the principles of the Dominion Party. The hon. member is trying to detract attention from the issues that are at stake, but I think she herself feels that she has failed hopelessly. The attitude of the other side of the House surprises me. As I said only a few weeks ago, we discussed this matter in the causus of the United Party in 1939, and the then Prime Minister made the promise that permanent legislation would be introduced in 1940 in connection with the Indian question. I challenge the Minister of the Interior, or any other member on the other side, to deny this. So far as I can remember the statement was greeted with approval. It was to be a permanent solution, not a temporary solution, not a temporary pegging. Now in 1943 the Government comes with another temporary measure, a temporary pegging, instead of implementing its promise. This is a great danger, and we must have permanent legislation. We also propose a temporary measure in our amendment, because we may not propose permanent legislation, but what we propose will be a great step in the direction of a solution of the question, namely that the temporary pegging shall not be confined to Durban but applied to the whole of Natal. There sit my hon. friends, my one-time colleagues, on the other side. Why are they departing from that promise?

You know as well as I do that we never discussed legislation.

But why did the hon. Minister not disapprove of the introduction of such legislation at that time? I think it is a ramshackle excuse for the Minister to say now that legislation was not discussed at that time. At that time extension of the pegging was also proposed, and we know what the upshot was for two prominent members on the other side of the House, while the rest agreed in the caucus with the promise that was made. Nobody got up on his hind-legs to say that it was not in the best interests of the country. The Minister approved of it silently, and so did every other member on the other side of the House. But today this cannot be done. I want to remind the Minister of his promise, and I want to tell him that gentle doctors cause festering wounds. Does he not know that? Here we have a question that must be permanently solved sooner or later, but this temporary pegging that will affect a part of Natal will perhaps make it essential for the Minister to come again with an amendment next year to extend the pagging to the rest of Natal. There is no doubt that this circumstance may create international difficulties. Why does he not accept the amendment of the Opposition at this stage, so that it shall not be necessary to come with another amendment next year to include the rest of Natal? Or is the Minister prepared to leave the rest of Natal to the mercy of gradual penetration by Indians, and then perhaps to appoint another Commission of Inquiry next year which will again sit two years—until the matter ultimately gets beyond control? I hope the Minister realises that we do not want to strike any political capital out of this matter, but that we are pleading for the true interests of the people, and for the true interests of the European population of Natal. Our children must live in this country, the Minister’s children and my children, and if matters are to continue developing as they are now what is the end going to be? We can quite expect that a person such as the hon. member for Cape Western will not have the interests of South Africa at heart as we have them at heart and as the English-speaking people who were pioneers in South Africa, and who cleaned the country and made sacrifices to get the country where it is today, have them at heart. Now the Indians come here and penetrate on a great scale, and we can understand that people who have come to this country only recently will plead that the country must be thrown open for the Indians to penerate throughout the country. If hon. members there will only take a little trouble to go into the whole colour question in South Africa, and into statistics, then they will be able to see how things have developed and what danger is threatening us.

I never really appreciated until today what I was told when the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) entered this House, and that was that he is a very keen and very clever politician.

Thank you.

The hon. member stated that the Nationalist Party is representing Natal while we of the Dominion Party are letting them down. Of course, that is very clever, but I wonder if an Election were not brewing whether he would really take up that attitude. It would be a triumph for the Nationalist Party to see headlines in the newspapers: “Dominion Party rebel against Coalition Government.” This is the meaning of their advocacy of the amendment which has been proposed on behalf of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman).

If you won’t take my advice, I can’t help it. It is no secret that I, too, want the provisions of this Bill applied to the rest of Natal. I know of areas in Port Shepstone where penetration has been proceeding quite recently. Indians have acquired the estate of a late Governor of Natal. I placed in the hands of the Minister of the Interior only three days before he introduced this Bill a telegram from Port Shepstone intimating that the Indians there had acquired 250 acres in the midst of the Pietermaritzburg European Settlement, where penetration has been proceeding profusely before. As a matter of fact with the acquisition of these 250 acres the Indians now hold more or less 50 per cent. of that particular area, and I have no doubt that in the near future they will put forward their claims to be represented on the local board.

Then why let the Europeans down?

The people of Port Shepstone want this stopped. I am in favour of it being stopped, and the way to stop this would be by applying the provisions of this Bill to the rest of Natal; but there are other considerations. There is a war on, and this Government is doing its best to see the war through, and for that reason I am going to support any attitude which the Minister of the Interior adopts. He knows my views on the subject, and he knows all our views. Every member representing Natal is in favour of these provisions being applied to Natal but with his greater knowledge of the situation as affected by external conditions we have to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister of the Interior. I would even at this stage say that if the Minister could accept that amendment. I would like to see him do so. But as I say, there is a loyalty which we owe this Government, which is pledged to see the war through to a successful conclusion and we are not going to jeopardise this Government.

Hard lines on Natal.

Now I want to put this to the native representatives—what is the position of a man who is being slowly strangled—if he is not allowed to strike back? The people of Natal are slowly being strangled and the only way to save themselves is to urge upon the Government the necessity for immediate action being taken. I would like to repeat that all of us would wish to see the Minister accept this amendment, but in the peculiar circumstances prevailing I have to say that I shall follow the lead of the Minister of the Interior, and I am quite prepared to vindicate my action to the voters in my constituency.

I have purposely not intervened in the debate until now because I felt it was advisable to hear the views of members of the Committee on this important matter. I think, however, it is right that at this stage I should indicate the view which the Government takes in regard to the amendment by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). The effect of that amendment, if accepted, would be that the restrictive provisions of the Bill, now applicable to Durban only, would be extended to the whole of Natal. It is contended by the hon. member for Winburg that once these restrictive provisions are operating in Durban, the Indians will invade other areas such as Maritzburg. Dundee, Newcastle, Greytown, Pinetown, etc.

They have already done so.

It is suggested that there will be a rush away from Durban to other areas, and that penetration will take place in these other areas at a great pace. It is contended that penetration, infiltration, is taking place, or has taken place, in certain areas outside Durban. But the whole case of the Government in regard to Durban was based on an enquiry in relation to Durban. There has been no enquiry in relation to Durban. There has been no enquiry since the first Broome Commission into areas other than Durban.

Well, when will you enquire into them?

I explained on the second reading that the procedure will be the appointment of an ad hoc Commission in each case.

At what point?

Claims are already being made that Maritzburg should be included in the Bill. We have not evidence at present to enable us to take a decision in regard to Maritzburg, but it seems to me that it will be incumbent on the Government to appoint a Commissioner as soon as this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book to enquire into the position there, and the Commission may well have to enquire into other places too. The Government, however, cannot ask the Commissioner to undertake a series of enquiries unless there is some prima facie evidence that what has taken place in Durban is also taking place in other centres, and the onus will be on the local authorities who will presumably ask for such enquiries to supply facts and figures.

What extent of infiltration do you want?

My hon. friend must not ask me to go into unnecessary and irrelevant matters. The Government deals with this matter on broad lines. I am not going to reduce this to a matter of mathematics—it cannot be dealt with on the basis of a mathematical equation. The decision to be taken will be taken in the light of the circumstances of every particular case and not in conformity with any rigid rules laid down in advance. There is no doubt that these enquiries, when held, will not take a long time. The second Broome Commission took roughly a fortnight to complete its work. From the time of the appointment of the Commission to the reception of the Report some four weeks elapsed, but Mr. Justice Broome did not begin his work until a fortnight after he had been officially appointed. The fact of an enquiry being necessary does not involve a lengthy process.

Will you have more than one?

What I visualise is someone of the status of Mr. Justice Broome—it may well be Mr. Justice Broome. Whoever it is will be asked from time to time to make an ad hoc enquiry taking a short space of time, and on the result of that enquiry the Government will take its decision. But I do not think—I may be mistaken—but I do not think the fears of the hon. member for Winburg are likely to be realised. I don’t think that the Indian community is going to rush to these other areas and acquire property there in advance of any proclamation.

But what about the allegation that that is actually taking place now?

That allegation has been made and it will be enquired into. If the Municipal Association will give details as to where these penetrations have taken place, they will be enquired into. The suggestion is that between now and the time when a Commission is appointed Indians will in certain areas rush in and buy many properties. I consider that that is unlikely to happen.

It can happen. And then you will stop them after they have got the land.

It will not take long to enquire. It is a matter of a week or two, in order to receive the report and enable the Government to act. If anything on a large scale is going to take place, then it must take place in a short space of time, and if it does take place then it will give conclusive evidence that the Indian community or certain members of the Indian community are determined to he provocative. Now I do not believe that the Indian community is going to be provocative; I do not believe that they are going to prejudice their own case by embarking upon a line of action which makes it inevitable for the Government to act, and which makes the case against the Indian community an even stronger one than it is today. I do not think the members of the Indian community would be as foolish as that. I hope, if there are members of the Indian community who would seek to do that, that the responsible elements among them would deter them from such foolish action, action which can only react to the detriment of the Indian community. We have a Bill for the first time in the history of Natal which provides machinery for dealing with this matter, and I feel that that, as a sart, should satisfy the anxieties of those persons in Natal who fear that what is happening to Durban may also happen on a similar scale in other parts of the country. There is the provision for the application of the relevant section to other areas. And I want to say that I appreciate very much what has been said this afternoon by the members of the Dominion Party. I am very glad they are not going to be led away by the blandishments of the hon. member for Winburg who suggested that they should steal a march on the Labour Party. It is not a very chivalrous suggestion. The Labour Party and the Dominion Party are members of this Coalition. I am not concerned with the domestic affairs between the two parties, but I do not think it is a very chivalrous suggestion that the one party should steal a march on the other party by having it both ways. I have no fear of what will happen when this measure is placed on the Statute Book, but I do appreciate the attitude hon. members have taken up, and that they have not listened to the seductive voice of the hon. member for Winburg and other members of the Opposition. We have to keep our heads and not allow ourselves to be stampeded by loose talk. We must not allow ourselves to use language which may be harmful to other sections of the community. I deplore extravagant language, language which may hurt, whether it is applied to the Indians, coloured or native people. We can deal with this matter in a calm, cool and dispassionate manner, and it will be greatly to the credit of this Committee if we use language which is moderate and does not hurt the susceptibilities of any section. For the reasons I have given the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg, nor is the Government prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). The hon. member objects to the provision in the Bill being retrospective but he should remember that it is not a new principle in our legislation. The fact that the legislation is retrospective to the date of a Ministerial statement is not new. We had a similar provision in the Ribbon Development Act. There a statement was made by the Minister of the Interior that legislation would be introduced the next year, and at the same time the Minister warned the country that if owners of property erected structures within a certain distance from National roads, the proposed legislation might have the effect of compelling them to take down such structures, and that retrospective legislation was passed, and that legislation in effect would apply practically a hundred per cent. to Europeans. There could be no suggestion that it was legislation which might affect one particular racial group.

I don’t like it applied to anyone.

That is why it may have escaped the attention of the hon. member at the time. Well, there this principle was established and I can see nothing wrong in principle against the practice of legislating in a matter of this kind where there has been due and adequate warning to the community as a whole. Due and adequate warning was given on the 22nd March both to the Indian and the European community of Durban, and for these reasons I regret I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

We have just heard that the Minister is not prepared to accept any amendment. He will not accept anything at all.

Then why talk?

I know that he is afraid to go the whole hog, he has not got the courage of his convictions. He is just like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). I took down what the hon. member said—these were his words. “Everyone in Natal is in favour of including the whole of Natal in this Bill.” If I were the electors in his division I would not vote for him.

You wouldn’t anyhow.

He comes here with an excuse and he tells us that we have to trust the Minister.

Well, that you won’t do anyhow, will you?

He tells us that the Minister will do this and do that. The position is simply this, that anyone who knows anything about the Indian question in Natal—if he had the courage of his conviction, would extend the operation of this Bill to the whole of that country. Let me say this to the Minister—he is going to gain nothing by it, it’s not going to be of any advantage to him in not putting this Bill into effect for the whole of Natal. He is not going to gain the goodwill of the Indians. The Indian representatives look upon this as the thin end of the wedge. It is no use telling them that it is going to be a temporary measure. They know only too well that it is going to be a permanent measure—they know that the Government would be forced to make it a permanent measure. We know that this is a dying Parliament.

A dying Government.

And a dead Opposition.

People will say: “You might as well have gone the whole hog, because we all know that there is infiltration into the whole of Natal.” It may be more serious in Durban than elsewhere but none the less there is infiltration everywhere. We say prevention is better than cure, so why not step in now? Why wait until the patient is sick and then appoint a Commission? And what is the good of the Minister telling us that the Commission will only take a few weeks—it may only take a few weeks, but by the time the Commission is appointed the harm will have been done. The Broome Commission had to sit a second time. Probably they could have given their second report at the same time as they gave their first report. So what is the good of it all? Well, the Dominionites can do as they please, and hon. members opposite can do as they please, but whatever they do, they know in their heart of hearts that the whole of Natal should be included. Where is the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) today? I cannot understand him. How dare he ask the House to allow Indians to go where they like in Natal when he certainly would not allow them to come into the Transkei.

You have no Indians in the Transkei but you have them in Natal.

That’s only begging the question.

Would you be in favour of compulsory repatriation?

Of course I would be and I think the whole of Natal would be with the exception of these capitalistic sugar kings who want their labour. But let me say this. I am not against the Indians. I don’t want to do anybody any harm; I am quite prepared to give them a chance to live just as I am prepared to give every European a chance. There has never been any prosecution from this side of the House so far as the coloured people are concerned—we are always prepared to give them a fair deal, but let me tell hon. members what the trouble is with these Indians—if you give them the best parts they want something better. If you were to cut up Cape Town and set aside good parts for the Indians they would not be satisfied, they would still want to come into the European areas. And then hon. members talk about colour prejudice. It is on the part of the native representatives where we find all the colour prejudice. They come here with all kinds of idealistic views which are all very good for a debating society, or which they could put forward at Oxford or at Cambridge, where there are perhaps half a dozen coloured people and where the difficulties of the situation which we have in this country are not known. Let hon. members over there get up and say that they believe in intermarriage between whites and coloureds. Let them say that they don’t believe in separate residential areas for Europeans and coloureds. Let them tell us exactly what they want. If they want social equality let them say so. We know that they have an idealistic outlook, but we don’t think that will do these things which they seem to be so fond of talking about.

Will they go and live among the Indians.

Of course they would not. But we know the attitude of some of these people who talk like hon. members over there—they have nothing to leave behind them, but I have children, and I want to leave something to my children. Hon. members over there don’t think of these things, they only look at the question from one point of view. I must say this, that so far as I am concerned I want to treat these people fairly, but I don’t want them to encroach upon the areas of the white man. And I don’t think hon. members representing the natives here should come and dictate to this House in the way they do. Of course, we know that these hon. members are unbalanced, and we know that a lot of what they say here is ridiculous. When the hon. member for Transkei talks about the Indians in Natal I would like to know from him whether he would be in favour of Indians coming into the Transkei. Of course he would not. Anyhow I say that there has been infiltration and if that is so then why not go the whole hog. You are going to lose votes anyway. Why, if it is a temporary measure, stop at Durban, why not take in the whole of Natal? It seems unreasonable to me to wait and only deal with the position when you have infiltration; why not prevent the evil before it becomes too strong. Apparently the Government wants to have more trouble before it is prepared to take any steps. And what is going to happen then? Once these people have bought up land elsewhere, the Government will have to buy them out, they have bought their property at expensive rates, and the Government will have to pay them back at the same rates, whereas now, if steps are taken at once, the whole trouble can be dealt with in a very simple manner. Prevention is better than cure. The Minister knows as well as I do what the position is. He was born in South Africa, and he has grown up in this country, and I am surprised that he should take up the attitude he is doing. He talks about our going a certain distance—there is only one distance to go and that is the right distance. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) asked for certain parts outside Durban to be included—parts which should have been incorporated in Durban. Well, why if that is the feeling, should not the whole of Natal be taken straight away? Why wait until the evil has spread?

I am surprised at the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren)—no, I am not really surprised at the hon. member putting up the sort of argument we have just heard from him against us on these benches. He knows better; he is sufficiently intelligent to know better, but it does not suit him to say that he understands the position. He knows that the attitude which members on these benches take up is not just the attitude of cranks who in an irresponsible manner are demanding rights for non-Europeans. Our position is perfectly simple. We say we have here a non-European population as well as a European population. We have a small European population with a supposedly high standard of living, and we are as anxious as anyone to maintain that standard of living, but our experience has shown us that there has been a steady deterioration in the security of that standard of living of the European population in the last forty years. Our experience has shown us that there is no security for a great proportion of the European population apart altogether from their standard of living, and we know from our experience and from our general knowledge that there is going to be no security for a great portion of the European population unless we can increase the wealth of this country. It is only by raising the whole of our population that we shall be able to give to any section of our population what we claim is their right. That is why we are so concerned about the standard of the non-European population. We maintain that the real danger to the purity of the European population comes from the poverty of our non-Europeans. The poverty of one section of the people creates poverty for other sections and the possibilities of race-mixture comes where this common poverty exists. We know perfectly well that the only way you are likely to avoid such mixture in a country of this kind, is to establish a standard of living for every group that will give it self-respect and destroy any impulse to mix with other races and groups. The natural tendency of the non-European population in this country is to live apart. People are much happier when they live amongst their own people and we are prepared to accept that position so long as it is not a basis for legislative compulsory separation; but so long as you pursue the present policy of racial discrimination, you will get poverty and the sort of conditions which one sees on the outskirts of Cape Town today which are a direct challenge to the purity of any group. We have made it perfectly clear, particularly this Session, that we consider the policy of legislative compulsion wrong, because we know that behind it lies economic suppression, and that is why we are fighting this Bill. The Minister’s reply to the debate on the second reading has only added to my anxiety about the Bill. He suggests that it will be extended to areas of Natal other than Durban. There is no excuse for such an extension. Further the implication of the Bill is that it is intended to take away the property as well as the occupational rights from the Asiatic population, which can only mean pushing the Asiatic further down the economic scale. I want to impress upon the Minister and the House that we are not here fighting in the interests of a few rich Indians. That suggestion is completely false. Many of the ordinary type of Indians have invested a few hundred pounds in property as a means of saving for the future, and the number of rich Indians involved in these transactions is the merest fraction of the number who have actually bought property. With regard to this demand for an extension of the Bill to other areas, I ask the Minister to make it clear to the House that he will not accept any evidence of penetration, so-called, until the local authorities concerned have provided suitable residential areas for the Indian community. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has taken strong exception to my remarks regarding the Dominion Party and with some justification. I think it is only just that I should acknowledge, as I do with gratitude, that even the Minister of Mines fought the Native Representation Act and that members of the Dominion Party fought the Native Laws Amendment Act, which I also remember with gratitude. Members of the Party have, in the past, defended the liberal tradition of the Cape under fine Cape leadership. [Time limit.]

I would like to put a question to the Minister of the Interior. We accept the principle of national representation and of a democratic system of Government, and now I want to know from him if there is a single Natal member who did not ask that this legislation should be made applicable to the whole of Natal. No Natal member will dare to ask that this legislation shall not be made applicable to the whole of Natal. That is the feeling of all the Natal members; by what right can the Government then refuse to give heed to that request? The Government says that we are fighting for democracy and for the democratic system of government. We have heard that hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) explaining to us that Indian penetration is taking place throughout Natal. What justification is there for the Minister to refuse to make this legislation applicable to the rest of Natal? I would like to go further. The Minister said—and serious objection was taken to it—that this legislation will be made retrospective to the date when notice was given that such a measure would be introduced. Now I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to make a statement in connection with future purchases and to say that, if land is acquired in future outside Durban and legislation is adopted to prevent this, that legislation shall be made retrospective to the original date of the statement of the Minister. I shall tell the Minister why this is necessary. By this legislation we are going to prevent acquisitions in Durban, where the rich Indians live. These people will now go outside Durban to buy land, and if there is now a warning from the Minister that the legislation will be retrospective if land is bought outside Durban, then it is possible that they will not purchase that land. We have accepted the principle of making the legislation retrospective. It is not something that one wants to continue to do. We are sometimes strongly opposed to this, but there are cases when it is essential. In this case we feel that it is not unreasonable, and therefore we ask the Minister to give this House the assurance that he will issue such a warning by means of a notice to prevent the Indians from purchasing land outside Durban in future.

At 5.40 p.m. the Deputy-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 DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 20th April.