I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. SPEAKER, the Fishing Industry Development Bill [A.B. 47—’44] submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time; second reading on 19th April.

I want to deal with one or two other matters before I get on to the questions raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) raised the question of a census so far as the natives were concerned. There is no question that that is very desirable. When the last census was taken it was found impossible to take a census of the natives, because that census was compulsory in order to prepare for the delimitation. But the hon. member can rest assured that the matter will receive every consideration and that I share her view that this census of the natives, Indians and others is very desirable. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) raised the question of the State Library in Cape Town and quoted certain statistics to show how the libraries in other countries receive much greater Government support than the one in Cape Town. That is a matter for consideration. The buildings belong to the Government and we carry our own insurance. I am glad to know that the library is insured to the extent it is and I hope that nothing will happen before we have a building to house that library worthy of the contents of the library. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) raised a very important question, and if I may be permitted to do so, I would like to congratulate him on the manner in which he brought a most important question under discussion, and that is the question of our film industry in South Africa. He quoted a large number of figures which show that he did a good deal of research work in connection with the matter, and I know that hon. members must have been surprised to find that nearly £2,500,000 was spent annually by the public of South Africa in going to the films, and of that amount over £500,000 was received by the Provincial Administrations and by the Union Government in the shape of taxes. As hon. members know, very little has been done, practically nothing in connection with films so far as South African culture is concerned and particularly with regard to films dealing with Afrikaans. My predecessor appointed a Committee to go into this question and to make a report. They have prepared a very interesting and a very exhaustive report on this very important matter and have made certain recommendations. It is impossible for me to say what decision will be taken in the matter but they have brought out, as the result of their enquiries, the importance of something being done to see that matters peculiar to South Africa—South African nature and South African culture—find a place in the films exhibited throughout South Africa. As hon. members know, the film industry is a very big industry. The companies that are in operation have 400 or 500 theatres spread throughout the country, and the principal recommendation of this committee is that we should work in co-operation with the existing film companies. The Government has two film units of its own, one in connection with the Education Department and the other in connection with a film unit of the Defence Force. The film unit of the Defence Force is competent, able and capable of producing films equal to any films that can be produced in South Africa. What the future of that organisation is going to be, rests with the future.

Are they Government subsidised?

They are run by the Government. This is a Defence Force unit. They are to be complimented on the magnificence of the films they have produced up to the present. The Education Department has also got a film unit, but they produce the 16 m.m. films and they are producing films of historical and national interest. But the difficulty is to get these films on to the large chain of cinematographic organisations throughout South Africa. In Canada, in Australia, Government action has been taken and in England they had to take action in order to provide for a certain percentage of local films going on circuit. All I can say at the present moment—and I ask the hon. member to be satisfied with this answer—is that I personally am going to give this matter my serious consideration, because I agree with him that it is desirable, that it is necessary that some time should be given to films of a South African character and films in the Afrikaans language. I have no hesitation in saying that 80 per cent. of the younger generation at any rate, will be just as familiar with a film in Afrikaans as with a film in English. The cost of making films can run into thousands. The hon. member has quoted a certain figure in that direction, and I think that the quotation that he made from Prof. Harley is absolutely apropos, and I agree and support all the sentiments expressed therein. I am sorry I cannot go any further on that question today. Let me now come to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He confined his remarks to the question of immigration, and particularly on the question of the Jews. He asked certain questions in this House and he dealt with the replies. The question that he asked was—

My reply was 1,825 including in this figure Jewish Union residents who returned to the Union during the year. But, Mr. Chairman, he did not give the reply to the second question about permits for permanent residents. In the whole of 1943 only ten permits were granted.

How many of these people with temporary permits have been sent out again?

I have not that information at the moment, but I can get that information. These people who have come under temporary permit are people who have come here for business, pleasure or health reasons.

And for good.

No, they are all checked up and controlled, they are mostly from the Belgian Congo and other places up there.

They are obtaining trading licences.

There may be some who come from other places and who cannot get back again, but they are all under control. The only people here permanently are the ten I have referred to.

What about the figure for 1939-1942?

This 1,800?

Yes, permanents.

About 400 a year during that period. As hon. members know, the control of immigration is vested in the Immigration Selection Board consisting of head officials of the department, and they are administering the immigration laws of this country; they are out of the control of the Minister of the Interior, and the decisions they take are absolutely final. The hon. member in his attack on this particular question referred principally to the Jewish question, and he wanted a definite statement from me on behalf of the Government, that no further Jews would come into this country. I am not prepared to give that undertaking, I am not prepared to discriminate in connection with this particular matter, and I regret that the hon. member should make this annual attack on this particular question. I am not going into the possibility of huge Jewish immigration because I believe, like the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) that these people, when the are released and relieved of the oppression that they have suffered for years under Hitler, will only be too pleased to go back to the homes where they existed before.

Have they shown any tendency to go back in the past?

The other question, and the hon. member is entitled to a reply, was about the Government’s policy with regard to immigration. He pointed out that possibly the mass of demobilisation and conditions in Europe would create a great deal of emigration. I have already dealt with the point that he raised in regard to the Jewish question. When this matter was debated in the House on a motion by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) I had not very much time, but I stated distinctly what the Government’s attitude is in connection with this matter. We are determined to see that all those who have joined the armed forces are back in employment before there is any idea of wholesale immigration, and further that those people who have been engaged in producing arms and ammunition and the requisites of war, have also to be provided for. I went further and said I wanted to see that there was no unemployment in South Africa, and that stands today. When I say that I say at the same time that it is up to us to do all we possibly can to encourage desirable immigrants to come to South Africa. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in his opening remarks in connection with this debate agreed with that. We have a population of just over 2,000,000 in South Africa.

Two millions?

Europeans I am speaking of; and we have a European population in Natal of 200,000. The position would be easier if the European population in South Africa were double that. Certainly if we had a population of half a million in Natal we would not have had the exhibition we had in this House yesterday. The hon. member referred to the points raised by my colleague the Minister of Lands in another place with regard to the request for people to come here to get land. He made the position quite clear; he is looking after all land that is available for our returned soldiers first and foremost, and if immigrants come here and want to go farming he is willing to help them all he can under Section 11. The hon. member referred to the statement that appeared in the Press yesterday about the meeting of the Dominion Prime Ministers to be held in London, and the points raised there with regard to this question of immigration. All I can say with regard to that is that our Prime Minister will be there, he knows the interests of South Africa, he knows what is required, and you can rest assured that we can leave this very important matter in his hands.

I would like a more definite assurance than that.

The hon. member also referred to this question of changing names. I was pleased to hear his remarks when he admitted that there had been a great improvement on the previous list. I hope it will continue to improve and the next time he asks for a list of such names he will be amply satisfied with the position. Extraordinary as it may seem I share to a considerable extent the view expressed by the hon. member; the change should not be done for the purpose of changing nationality, and you will find that that is being carried out to a very considerable extent. There are always exceptions, but if you examine the position you will find that on the whole that policy has been carried out. Now may I turn my attention to my friends, the member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) and the member for South Coast (Mr. Neate), on this very very important question, in fact the burning question in the Province of Natal, the Indian question. The hon. member for Musgrave has taken serious exception to a speech that I made in Pietermaritzburg to the combined municipal executives. I asked them to meet me in order to discuss this very important question, of the Indians and Europeans in Natal. It was necessary that the public in Natal and the rest of South Africa, but primarily the public in Natal, should have a true and proper picture of the position of the Indians and the Europeans in Natal. I spared neither; I chastised both. This Indian question has been allowed to drift for more years than one likes to count, and an effort is being made now to meet the position and to settle it with mutual respect on the part of both sections, and with the idea of meeting the prejudices of both sections. Unfortunately the attitude of the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for South Coast has prevented a settlement of this important question. In that speech which I addressed to the combined executives I said it was my personal wish to face up to the question of Indian representation, and I said I was in favour of communal representation. I knew when I made that speech that the Indians would not be in favour of it. However, I gave expression to my personal view and did it deliberately in order to bring this Indian question to the fore in the hope of affecting a settlement. I have met the Maritzburg Corporation and the Durban Corporation on this question, and the combined executives of the municipalities, and my suggestion was that they should all meet in congress. At that meeting complaints were levelled against me because I had not applied the Pegging Act to nine other towns in the Province of Natal, and I told them that if they could produce evidence that the Indians were encouraging penetration since the passing of the Pegging Act I would appoint a commission of enquiry. The mayor of Glencoe related certain incidents that had taken place, and I arranged that those should be investigated. Those were investigated, and it was found that certain sales had taken place, but those sales had been cancelled by the Indians. As the result of co-operation and collaboration between the Town Council of Glencoe and the Indian community, the Indian question in Glencoe has been definitely settled. The same thing applies in the constituency of the hon. member for South Coast at Port Shepstone. There the mayor and town council and the Provincial Administration were brought into the picture, and the Indian question as far as Port Shepstone is concerned, is settled.

Have you made that legal?

I made it quite clear in the speech I delivered at Maritzburg that these agreements which I want in the first place to be voluntary, a matter of negotiation between the Indian community and the European, should have legal sanction, that the only hope of security was to see that they had legal sanction, and that is the position. Now we come to the city of Maritzburg. They have had negotiations there where sales have taken place by Europeans to Indians in the areas regarded as European areas. The Indian Congress, let me pay tribute to them, have gone out of their way to have these sales cancelled. But, Mr. Chairman, in one or two instances private members of the Natal Indian community have taken money out of their own pockets in order to cancel these sales, because the sellers refused to cancel them on account of the high prices they had got from the Indians compared with the price they could get from the Europeans.

You mean that Europeans refused to cancel the sales?

Yes. Now, that is the progress that has been made today. The Municipality of Durban is considering the matter. I do not want to make any charges against any particular municipality, because I want their help to deal with this very difficult and very delicate problem, a problem which should have been settled long ago. I believe the Municipality of Durban is meeting to discuss and decide the question of a site for an Indian school. The hon. members for Durban know the agitation that was started because the Indians had applied and had got permission to build an Indian school on the Bluff.

Protests were raised, the combined ward associations also protested. I was to lay the foundation stone, and I met the Indian leaders and told them that I wanted to meet these protestors, because I am anxious to work in co-operation with all the people. As the result of discussions I had with the Indian Congress they agreed to exchange the site which was about 80 acres, for six acres below the Botanical Gardens. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me say this, that two or three years ago the six acres I am referring to were sold by the City Council of Durban to this very educational authorit yupon which to build this college. All sales by the local Administration have to receive the sanction and approval of the Administrator. But the City Council changed its mind, and the Administrator’s approval was not forthcoming and the money was refunded. Now I know Durban, I know the Botanical Gardens, I know this particular site. Alongside it is an Indian college, there is a mission hospital there and an Indian girls’ high school; and yet that particular site was refused. While this controversy was taking place I naturally went to look at the site. The Botanical Gardens is close to this particular site, which is a lovely and beautiful playground for the Indians who live in the vicinity. I met the combined ward associations and before we discussed the question of site I put it to them whether they had any objection to Indians obtaining that site for a high school, and they unanimously agreed that it was most desirable and most necessary. We did not discuss the Bluff site; I took good care that that was not discussed, but I asked them whether they could agree to the appointment of a Facts Finding Committee to try and see if the thing could be settled. I asked for six representatives of the Indian educational authority, six from the ward associations, and I requested that six councillors should join them. They met, discussed the sites, and now today I believe they are dealing with the matter in the City Council.

What is the report?

They were willing to give up the Bluff site, but the six city councillors departed from that committee. Mr. Chairman, we have got to have help and co-operation in this matter; the Indians have to have a school, and they have to live somewhere; they have advanced much further from the attitude that they originally took up. Even the hon. member for Musgrave is agreed as to that. He said that twenty years ago when we passed legislation giving powers to the municipalities to set aside areas for particular classes, the Indians would not co-operate. Had they taken up that attitude today I would not be doing all I possibly can to try and effect a settlement today. Today they do accept the position that occupational separation is desirable, and they are anxious that this matter should be settled in that direction. When this power was given to Durban to set aside areas for separate classes, the mayor of Durban at that time, Mr. Flemming Johnson, undertook that if those powers were granted they would provide similar facilities for the Indians. Glenwood and Morningside are two of the finest suburbs of town planning anywhere in South Africa; they are a credit to Durban and a credit to the people living there; no one can deny that. But the City Council have done nothing as far as the Indians are concerned. The hon. member for Musgrave refers to a site, and I know that area, and in your wildest dreams you cannot compare it with the two I have mentioned. Now the Indians have asked, and I have asked the Citv Council of Durban, to do at Riverside what they have done at Morningside and Glenwood. If they will do that, and I hope they will— I believe they will because I want to say this that the bulk of the city councillors are just as anxious as I am that this question should be definitely settled—if they will do that some progress should be made. There are two issues here, two sections of the Indian community. Ninety-nine per cent. of them are not affected in the matter of these encroachments, but the other one per cent. are the people who have caused the trouble. If Riverside had been laid out there would have been no trouble, if Riverside had been laid out as Morningside and Glenwood have been laid out.

They refused Morningside.

They did nothing of the kind. Mr. Chairman, it just shows you how these hon. members are not fully informed. At that meeting at the City Hall the Municipality of Durban wanted to take Riverside holus-bolus as their own property, cut it up and then re-sell it. But that is not the proposition I made to the City Council. You are going to take from people who have been living there fifty to sixty years that ground and expropriate it. I happen to have lived myself all my life alongside that particular area, and I know that most of that land was purchased forty or fifty years ago. I said at that meeting to which exception has been taken, particularly by the hon. member for South Coast, that the people of Natal are not responsible for the Indians coming in. The hon. member nods his head, and that is perfectly correct. He quoted the speech that the Right Hon. Harry Escombe made in Natal in connection with this Indian question, when Durban was roused and the people went down West Street singing: “We will hang old Gandhi.” That was in 1897. As the result of agitation two members were returned to Parliament, Col. Sparks and Col.

Taylor; they were the leaders of this particular agitation in 1897 or 1898 when the Natal Colony passed legislation restricting the Indian immigrant. They, however, never tackled the question of allowing Indians to continue coming in under indentures. It was only when Union came about that Gen. Botha put his foot down and said this must stop, and it was stopped for good. It is ridiculous for hon. members to say Natal is not responsible for these people coming in. The Indians did not come here in 1897; they came in 1860.

On a point of explanation, Sir, may I say this, that the people of Natal as far as they had any voice in the Government of the country—

That is not a point of personal explanation.

I intend to deal with the very point the hon. member is referring to. He is labouring under a delusion as he has been all through in connection with this matter. The point he wanted to tell you, Mr. Chairman, is this, that the people of Natal wanted these Indians on their plantations. The Government of India would not agree to the conditions which the Government of Natal wanted to impose, but the Indians still came into Natal under indenture, and if Gen. Botha had not put his foot down it would have gone on for some time.

You can see now how much better it would have been if Natal had remained a republic.

After that jocular remark ….

It is not jocular; it is very serious.

After a jocular remark such as that I am not a bit surprised that some of the die-hards in Natal will be praying for a republic, but unfortunately for my hon. friends opposite they would hesitate to have a republic to be controlled by them. The Indians were brought here originally in 1860 and they were brought here because Natal could get no labour for its plantations, and they carried on bringing these Indians in. The Indians were actually granted land by the Natal Government.

Why not give us the facts? They were brought in by the sugar planters, and you know it.

The sugar planters were all aliens, I suppose?

I admit that no one has been more consistent on this question than the hon. member for Musgrave; he has been like the proverbial ostrich, he has put his head in the sand and seen nothing. The gravamen of my charge is that the people who are complaining about the Indians are the people who brought them in, who sold land to them at an enhanced price, at prices higher than a European would buy at, and the building societies, the trust companies who financed them in order to enable them to acquire property. Mr. Chairman, I want help and co-operation now in this very difficult question, and some hon. members are not helpful. There is a small and noisy section who will not help, a very very small and noisy section. It is a very serious question as far as the province of Natal is concerned, and it requires all our effort. When the Pegging Act was passed my predecessor gave an undertaking that a commission would be appointed to enquire into the amenities and facilities for education as far as Indians are concerned. That commission has been appointed and has had one meeting. Representations were made to me by the combined municipalities who said they were vitally concerned and should have a representative on the committee; they asked for two members. At first I refused, but on reconsideration I agreed to appoint a man, and I appointed Councillor Barns, who agreed. He is vice-president of the Combined Municipal Executive, and vice-chairman of the Natal Municipal Executive, and also a member of the City Council, where most of our trouble is going to be.

You could not have had a better man.

I am glad the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) agrees that we have appointed a good man. We want no controversy in this very important matter, but help and assistance. The Pegging Act has been in force for one year. It was definitely stated that its duration would be for three years.

Who said that?

I have had a great deal of responsibility thrust upon me in regard to the administration of this Act and let me tell hon. members that a great many transactions have taken place. And I have had no complaints about what has gone on.

You had better watch out, they are buying here now.

They have allowed ordinary business to take place and the Indians realise that we intend to have a settlement in connection with this matter.

I hope it will be a fair settlement.

Before I sit down I want to refer to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) who paid me a compliment, and I want to return it.

A sort of mutual admiration society.

I think every member of this House was pleased to notice the courageous attitude he adopted in regard to this matter. Whether one agrees with him or not the hon. member did not hesitate to say what he thought—he had the courage of his convictions.’ Now, I want to make this last appeal on this matter —I want to appeal for help and co-operation, and I want to ask hon. members and the public generally not to take up a niggardly attitude. I am looking forward to the report of this Commission and I hope the recommendations will be such that we shall be able to settle a difficult and awkward question in Natal. I want to say that Mr. Barns was Chairman of the Post-War Planning Committee, and that Committee has brought out a very big programme, and in that programme they have made provision for nearly £2,000,000 to be spent on behalf of the Indians.

You always tell us that the City Council are doing nothing.

I want to be fair and tell the House what the City Council contemplates, and I am hoping that they will put these plans before this Commission, and that as a result of the evidence given this matter will be nearer a solution. It is a very difficult task—it is a task I did not seek, but I am determined to see what I can do, and to do my utmost to bring about a solution of a very difficult and ticklish question. That is all I can say at the moment.

In 1942 there was a sum of C2,000 voted as financial assistance to free rural libraries. That was regarded as the preliminary step—it was a beginning, and it was quite a good beginning. There were certain provisions in connection with that vote of £2,000. The provinces had to provide for an organiser, and it was stated that when the provinces had made such provision they could apply to the Department for assistance for the payment of the organiser. In 1942—early in 1943—the Cape Province had actually appointed such an organiser and he was actually working. The Transvaal Province on the other hand only went in for a scheme of providing an organiser for the free library service late in 1943. Now, when application was made to the Department it was found that of the £2,000—£1,600 had already been allocated to the Transvaal—that was in 1942-’43. I admit that even that is not a very large sum. In 1943-’44 provision was again made. I do not know what has become of that provision this year—I cannot find any vote under which provision is made, but I take it that it is lumped with some other library service.

It is on the Treasury Vote.

Is that the rural library service?

Yes.

Well, that is on the Treasury Vote and it has always been there.

But has not the Minister of the Interior dealt with it? I thought it was the Department of the Interior which allocated the money. All the correspondence we have had has been with the Department of the Interior, and that was why I took it that the Minister of the Interior had control of the money.

The Department of the Interior assist in the administration.

Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Minister to see to it that the Cape Province immediately has some provision made. The Cape Province appointed a man some time ago—this man has been working for the last two years. They got £200, and the province which has only had an organiser for a few months has had £1,600, and the excuse given was this, that the Treasury, as a result of special representations agreed not to insist on the qualifications laid down. Seeing that this Province had gone to the trouble and had been enthusiastic enough to provide the organiser, I trust that the Minister will see to it that the Cape Province will immediately get the share that is necessary for carrying on this service.

While one is quite pleased to hear the remarks of the Minister in this House, I am sorry he does not go and address a meeting in the Durban City Hall and there make the same remarks as he made here.

Why should he?

What right has the Minister to say that the people of Natal—the people concerned with this question—are only a small minority, and a noisy section at that?

And are they not?

He tells us that we don’t know what we are talking about. He says this is the most burning question in Natal. Well, we agree, and what does the Minister propose as a solution? We are trying to find a solution, but as soon as one suggests a solution one is dubbed as a racialist, as a man who has no feeling for human beings and all that is bad.

Worse than that!

My colleague for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) agrees with us in 90 per cent. of what we have advocated on these benches—and so does every hon. member in this House, if he would only say what is in his mind. When a man like the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) who sees the dangers and who realises the apathy displayed by the Government for the last 25 years in regard to this most serious problem puts the position before the House, he is called a racialist. Yet what do we find? This problem has been passed on from Government to Government. It is passed by the Government to the Provincial Council and to the City Council. Can one wonder at the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Musgrave? Let me tell the House that there is no more serious problem than the Indian problem in Natal. We are swamped by the Indians in Natal. We have large numbers of Indians there; we know what their birthrate is—and the figures show that there are two Indians to one European in Natal. What are we to do about it? What is the solution? Is the Government going to say that this is a Natal matter and that Durban must find a solution?

What do you want?

Are we going to have Ministers putting the blame on the City Council of Durban and doing nothing themselves? This is a national matter and it can be solved by the Government, but not by the Municipality. The Minister knows very well that the Municipality cannot solve it, nor can the Provincial Council solve it. It has to be solved on a national basis. Why should Natal be burdened with a problem of such magnitude which the rest of the Union is allowed to escape?

Because Natal caused the problem.

There are only two solutions to this problem. We cannot allow Natal to be swamped. In Natal we are up against it every day. From early morning till late at night we see it, and although we don’t want to foster racial hatred, we know what is happening. We want to keep this question out of the political arena. You have parties which in the past were represented in this House, which lived on the Indians politically, and when the Minister says that we are responsible for race hatred he knows that that is not so. He knows that we are doing our utmost to achieve a solution of this question. I have said before that there are only two solutions. The one is for the Union to recognise that this is a Union matter, and if members are so keen to do what is right for the Indians, why don’t they see that a Bill is introduced to open the boundaries and let the Indians go to the other provinces?

So that you can get rid of your trouble?

Our problem will be solved if that is done.

And the rest of South Africa will be saddled with it.

Is there any member who is prepared to suggest that?

No.

If not, you cannot blame us in Natal for making a serious effort to get rid of this difficulty. Why does not the Minister get up and say that this is a Cabinet responsibility, that it is the responsibility of the Union Government, and that this tinkering about, giving them a few sites here and a little licence there, is not going to get us anywhere? That is no solution of the problem. It is only putting off the evil day. The Minister is afraid to face up to the situation. The trouble lies in his own Cabinet, in his own party. We cannot keep on shelving this question and engendering this racial hatred, making it a political matter, and then have anyone who tries to tackle it called a racialist. Everyone of us feels sorry for the Indians—we appreciate their difficulties. It is a positive disgrace for this Government to allow the Indians to live in the squalor and filth in which they live today. And any Minister who is a Minister at all would have removed the evil ages ago from Durban and would not have allowed it to continue in Natal where human beings are living under conditions in which a man would not allow his dog to live. For the Minister to say: “Give them a few sites here, give them a little bit of Morningside there,” that’s no suggestion, that is no solution, nor is it the solution to give them a school in the Botanical Gardens or any where else. That is merely tinkering with the position. All of us must pull our weight and help Natal to get rid of this difficult problem. I ask hon. members not to criticise members from Natal who are honestly endeavouring to do something. Now, the other solution to my mind lies in a voluntary immigration policy. I am not prepared to force anyone to leave South Africa. But let people go willingly and be properly provided for. There is nothing wrong with that. I believe if we faced up to that policy, if we faced up to the financial aspect, we would get thousands to go back to India—and gladly go back to India. But you cannot expect people to leave this country with a paltry £30 and a free pass. In the interest of South Africa this matter must be tackled. It may cost a few millions but it will be worth it. Many Indians feel that they are not welcome in South Africa.

And are they?

And what are we doing —they feel that they are not welcome—they feel that this is not their home, and thousands would be only too willing to go back to their mother country—if we made it worth their while.

Yes, if we made it worth their while.

If we said to the Indians: “We shall arrange for you to go back to India and pension you for life, we shall make it worth your while,” many of them would go.

Others would go as well under these conditions.

It must be a voluntary scheme. If we could persuade 100,000 of our Indian population to go back to India, so to speak on the retired list, the India Government and the British Government would contribute towards the housing of these people on their return to India. This would probably cost a matter of £50,000,000.

Is that all?

Would it not be worth while spending that money for the sake of posterity? [Time limit.]

I have listened to the Minister’s statement on this difficult question of Indian penetration with very great interest. I also realise the difficulties of the Government, and if possible I wish to be helpful in making a contribution towards solving this question. Now, it appears to some of us who live in other parts of Natal that this Indian problem is being treated as if it were merely a Durban problem. We feel that as far as our interests are concerned in the rural area we are not being helped to solve the problem. Durban has put up a case—it has proved Indian penetration in Durban to an enormous extent, but that case was built up on what had happened before the pegging became the law. There are other parts of Natal which have put up cases to show that Indian penetration has taken place there too. But as far as I can hear the Pegging Act has not been applied to any other part of the Province, because the Government takes up the attitude that to prove a case of penetration it must be penetration that has taken place since the Act was passed. In other parts of Natal we claim we should be put on the same footing as Durban and that our case should be established on the same basis as Durban’s case was. It is not fair to us that we should be called upon to prove penetration since the Pegging Act was introduced, whereas Durban proved its case on what happened before that. Our cases were even worse in many instances than Durban before the Pegging Act.

Only a few months.

Now the Government has appointed the second Broome Commission to deal with the problem in Durban. I want to know what the terms of reference of that Commission are, and if we in other parts of Natal will have any right to make representations to that Commission or not. Because if we are not allowed to make representations to that Commission we cannot see how we are going to make any representations at all with regard to our case. The Minister has explained to us that the problem is being tackled in other parts of Natal by conferences and agreements. I was glad to hear from him that if agreements can be arrived at satisfactory to both sides, the Government would eventually introduce legislation. I hope that will come to pass, but those agreements are purely gentlemen’s agreements and they cannot be binding on both sections of the people. Now, the unfortunate part of penetration, of Indian penetration, is that it is due in a large measure to the Europeans themselves and not to the Indians. The Minister this morning made a statement, that financial houses and investors are today advancing money to Indians, I believe on the basis of 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the value of the land to enable Indians to buy property from Europeans. If that is the case it is an impossible position—it is all wrong that European financial houses should encourage Indian penetration by advancing Indians 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the purchase price at today’s enhanced values, enabling Indians to purchase property in European areas. And the Minister has also told us that where a purchase has taken place and the Indian tries to cancel that, the European refuses to agree to cancel. I know that that is the case even in my part of the country. The position has become so serious that in one area of my constituency a farmers’ association have tried to help themselves where a case of this sort has happened in their midst. They have gone to the expense and the trouble of having an anti-Asiatic clause inserted in the title deeds of their property, as the only means by which they can safeguard the property for Europeans in the future.

That is very serious.

The position is most serious.

Is that farm property?

Yes; the position is most serious and the previous Minister of the Interior, perhaps not willingly, misled us when he made a statement at the time the Pegging Act was under discusison, when he said that the Pegging Act would be applied to Durban because they had made out a case, and that if we in our areas put up a case for the Pegging Act it would be applied there too, and an enquiry would be held. Now we are told that we are not going to be treated on the same footing as Durban, that our case will have to be proved in respect of cases which have occurred after the passing of the Pegging Act. Whatever happened before must be ignored. We feel that that is a grave injustice.

You were given a dummy to suck.

We want to be put on the same footing as Durban and we don’t want to have the disadvantages which we at present suffer from. Now, in all this debate on the Indian penetration question we have heard nothing but the case of the Indian. The whole discussion has taken this shape— that the Indian is being unfairly treated and that his wants are not catered for. Our friends on the native benches have gone out of their way to show how unfairly the Indians have been treated….

Never mind about them.

And that nothing can settle the Indian difficulty except to give them the same rights as European citizens have. Well, I should like the Minister to consider the urgency of the European side of the question.

He does not think the European has any side.·

Of course he has.

The native members don’t think so.

The European side is the future of the European in this country, and I should like hon. members on the native benches to know how we view this matter. We don’t want to be unfair to the Indians, but we know that the Indians do not want segregation and won’t agree to it.

What about the point I made of European penetration into Indian areas?

The Europeans view the matter so seriously that we are seriously thinking of asking the -Government to segregate the Europeans in their own areas, and if they will do that perhaps we shall be able to save white civilisation in Natal. I hope the Minister will consider some of the points which I am putting to him. If he can safeguard the European areas where the Europeans predominate then we shall say to him that the other parts of Natal can be left open. [Time limit.]

I want to express my sympathy with the Minister of the Interior in his hour of stress. We always had the impression that in Natal there was such a steady flood of imperialism that there would be no quibbling there. I don’t want to divert attention from the issue but I do want to relieve the pressure somewhat by raising another aspect of this debate. When the Customs Bill was under discussion I drew attention to the translation, to which I objected. I again want to bring that question to the Minister’s notice—that is to say, the translation of Bills which come before this House. Before doing so, however, I want to correct an impression which may have been created when I was discussing that particular Bill. Originally a translation of the Bill appeared in the Government Gazette and after that a considerably improved translation was placed before this House. The remarks I made about the translation of the Bill concerned that which appeared in the Government Gazette. I have been told that the officials concerned paid a great deal of attention to the translation and I readily admit that there was a tremendous improvement in the wording of the measure before this House, compared with the Bill which originally appeared in the Government Gazette. But I want to bring this question as a whole to the notice of this House and of the Minister. Those of us who like to study Bills carefully find that we have so much trouble with the Afrikaans text that we are often compelled to read not only the Afrikaans text but the English text as well. I take it the translator does not delieberately go out of his way to find difficult and stilted language which does not fit in with the spoken language. I feel we must object because most Bills brought to this House have in the first instance been drafted in English so that we always get translations.

Bills are drafted and translated by the legal advisers who come under the Department of Justice.

But I am speaking about the Translation Bureau which comes under the Department of the Interior.

They don’t translate Bills.

I raised this question on a previous occasion, Mr. Chairman, when you advised me that I should leave this matter over until we got to the “Interior” vote.

The position is that every Department prepares a translation and that translation goes to the legal advisers. The translation submitted to the House is the translation as it comes from the legal advisers.

Then who is responsible?

The legal advisers.

In any case we feel that it is an injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking people, that the Bills are drafted in English and that we always have to put up with translations. You feel that if you get translations you do not set a natural language, and we say that we are entitled to have at least half of our Bills drafted in Afrikaans. Why should we always put up with translations and why must we do our job twice over and read our Bills first in Afrikaans and then in English as well? It is a waste of time and very often you cannot understand the Afrikaans text. I want to object to our legislation being drafted almost exclusively in English, and, furthermore, if our legislation is drafted in one language, it should be put into the other language so that the language is natural and gives a correct interpretation of the measure as originally drafted. Of course, I can only speak of the Afrikaans translations because I have not seen a single Bill which has been translated from Afrikaans into English. The Bills are only drafted in English. That is what we protest against. I shall be glad to know on whose instructions Bills are drafted. First of all I take it that they are drafted on the instructions of the Department con cerned, but does the Department give instructions in which language the Bill is to be drafted? Does anyone give instructions about the language in which the Bills have to be drafted? If instructions are given for Bills to be drafted in English, I shall have something to say about it on a later occasion. For the time being I shall leave it at that. I hope we shall in future, be spared the trouble of having to study Bills under such conditions, and of having to devote twice the amount of time necessary to study them. Now, I come to another aspect. We find that many statistical data and returns are not being published today or are not published in full. A whole lot of information which we used to get is not supplied today. Is it the Government’s policy to discontinue the compilation of statistics? If so, it is most deplorable. No business can get ahead without statistics, nor can the State carry on properly without statistics. Has the policy on the subject of the compilation of statistics been changed, or are they simply not published today? I have a few statistics in mind. It may be said perhaps that the shortage of paper is responsible. I don’t want to ignore that, but I cannot believe that there is no paper when I see how much paper there is for other purposes. There must be other reasons why the statistics are no longer published. Recently I tried to find out some of the reasons. In the past the information was always available; today it is no longer available. To help the Minister in his reply, I want to say that one of the things I am referring to is the monthly statistics. They used to be published in a fairly bulky brochure and contained a lot of information. Today we only get two or three pages. The other one is the Year Book. I understand that that is not published today either. In the third place I have in mind “Trade and Shipping” which also was very important. Surely the Minister won’t tell us war conditions make the suppression of the information necessary? I shall be glad to have an assurance from the Minister that the information is still being collected and that he will see to it that there is an improvement in the publication of all the statistics.

I would like now to reply to the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) in regard to the translation of Bills. The procedure is this. If a department wants a certain Bill brought before Parliament there is no instruction as to whether it is in English or in Afrikaans. Many of the heads of our departments are Afrikaans-speaking. When the Bill is prepared it goes to the law advisers, and they have to deal with it from the point of view of their knowledge of parliamentary procedure and of what is required. Speaking from memory, I think all our law advisers are Afrikaans-speaking. I will promise the hon. member to bring his remarks to the people concerned. With regard to his other point, it is due to the fact of the shortage of paper. Hon. members know that many of the reports that are published are not used to the extent that they should be. I am informed that statistics are being kept and are available to members if desired.

I want to say a few words about the Indian question, and I should like the Minister to give us a clear statement on the subject. As the Minister knows, when the Pegging Bill was discussed here last year, this side of the House insisted on segregation. Although the Minister knew what the attitude of this side of the House was he went out of his way and made a statement in Natal, some time ago, in which he suggested that Asiatics should be given the franchise for elections to health boards and municipal councils, and that this franchise should gradually be extended for provincial councils and finally also for Parliament. I do not know whether the Minister in making that statement was acting on the advice of his Cabinet.

I made it clear that it was a personal statement.

But if a responsible Minister makes such a statement, it renders the position in this country very serious. We already have difficult problems to contend with in regard to coloured people and natives, and now the Minister of the Interior comes along and makes a statement like that and says that he was only expressing his own personal opinion. In doing so he is very unfair to the people of South Africa who already have those other difficult problems to contend with. There are 8,000,000 natives in this country, as against 2,000,000 whites, and we are faced with these great non-European problems and now the Minister goes along and makes a statement in Natal which had led to a third problem in South Africa. Let me tell the Minister that the white population of this country definitely wants white civilisation to be maintained in South Africa. We are not going to allow a black or a yellow problem in South Africa, and if the Minister makes such a statement it is his duty to tell us at the same time what the attitude of his colleagues is. Does he differ from his colleagues? Is the Cabinet pulling in different directions? Have we no longer got joint Cabinet responsibility in South Africa? I think we are entitled to know whether the Cabinet talks through different mouths and whether Cabinet responsibility still exists. The non-European problems are serious problems. Yet the Minister, without consulting his Cabinet—he says he made this statement on his own responsibility—made such a declaration. Most unfair. He knows what the views of the white population are. We have been struggling for hundreds of years to maintain white civilisation, and now the Minister wants to force new and serious problems on us.

Does he still say so?

I do not know whether the Minister has changed his attitude, but I feel that if a Minister can make such a statement, the position is very grave. Does not the Minister realise that when he gives the franchise to one section the other coloured sections will also demand the franchise? Does he not know what the effect is going to be on other sections of the population? We are going to have an agitation among the natives of this country, who will also demand the franchise. Surely the Minister knows the difficulties we have had in the years gone by when he himself was a member of the Fusion Government. He knows what the difficulties were when attempts were made to solve native problems. We tried to solve the difficuly by means of legislation which was introduced to enable the white population to maintain its civilisation. The Minister knows all the difficulties we had to contend with, but although he knows all about those difficulties he goes out of his way at a time like the present, when the Communists are going about among the native population, to suggest to the town councils that they should agree to give the Indians the franchise. But that is not all. He goes further and he says that the franchise should be extended to the Provincial Councils, and eventually to the Union Parliament. All I can do is protest against such a statement, and I hope the Minister will get up and say that he has changed his views. If he still takes up that attitude, it must be perfectly clear to all of us that we have a Cabinet which is not pulling in one direction. I hope therefore that the Minister will make a clear statement on the subject this afternoon.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I want to raise a question with the Minister in regard to cost of living figures. The official figures published each month are based on family groups selected in 1936. They pre-suppose that the same group is using the same quantity of food and the same items of food that they did in that year. Very severe criticism has been made about the index figure of increases, which do not appear to agree with the actual increases that have taken place. Take, for example, the Bulletin for March of this year, which shows that the increase is 35.7 per cent. over the basic year. If we take individual items of food we find that the actual increase in many instances is double the figure shown. I want to refer to one or two items which show how erroneous these figures are when regard is had to the true position that exists today. I do not query the accuracy of the statistics, as they are computed on the same basis as in pre-ware days, but I consider the computation of cost of living groups should be revised. I notice that in statistics taken out by the Labour Party it is stated that since 1938 the food increase has been 51 per cent., and there appears to be no doubt that if you take individual items you will find that the bulk of them are far in excess of the general average figure shown in the monthly Bulletin. Let me put one specific instance, eggs, which affect the cost of living to a greater extent than almost any other. I notice that last month when the cost went up by about 6d. a dozen—that is the controlled price—it actually affects the cost of living index by fifteen points. Last year the Minister of Finance gave statistics which showed how the cost of living had been reduced by sixteen points, and the figures he gave then were possibly quite accurate. But the explanation was this, that during two months there had been a decrease in the price of green vegetables which affected the cost of living to the extent of fourteen points out of the sixteen points mentioned. It is quite wrong to say that the cost of living index is affected to the extent of fifteen points by the increase in the cost of eggs, when eggs have gone up to 4s. 6d. a dozen and the bulk of the population do not buy eggs in the same quantity as they did when eggs were 2s. or 1s. 6d. a dozen. Obviously, therefore, the cost of living per family has not gone up to the extent reflected by the increase in the cost of a particular item. Take vegetables. There the cost has gone up since 1938 by 73 per cent. We know perfectly well, if we take potatoes that when they are 25s. a bag the bulk of the people are not buying the same quantity as when the price is 10s. or 12s. a bag. Let me take bread. The cost of bread in 1943 was 1 per cent. less in the general index figure than in 1938. Bread is used by everybody. Another item, mealie meal, which is used I suppose by approximately 75 per cent. of the population, the weighted average increases over 1938 is given as 17.4 per cent., but the actual influence on the total of the foodgroup in the index figure is only 0.1 per cent., and we know that mealie meal in its retail cost to consumers has gone up by 33 per cent. Requirements of people change from time to time. And if they cannot get one food which is expensive they will turn to another food which is cheaper, and therefore to say that the cost of living has gone up by 25 per cent. or 37 per cent. does not truly reflect the position. I would suggest to the Minister that he should ask the statistical department to go into the question as to whether they should not revise their basis, check up again on the basis on which these figures were originally taken, and see whether it is not possible to arrive at some figures which will more accurately reflect the increase in the cost of living. In Great Britain a similar position arose but they have specially stressed the point that although these figures show the relative figures over the pre-war years they do not show the relative figures in the cost of living because of the change in the habits of the people. It is true to say that the cost of clothing has gone up 50 per cent. but that does not mean that the cost of living has gone up 50 per cent. If previously people bought 3 or 4 suits per year they only buy one suit now—obviously the cost of living of the individual has not gone up to that extent.

I want to say a few words about a subject which has been raised in this debate. That is the question of Jew baiting, and I want to point out that the persecution of the Jews is the chief plank of Nazism and of Hitlerism. And anyone indulging in Jew baiting becomes a champion of Nazism and Hitlerism. Anyone doing that sort of thing takes sides with Hitler. If the reports which we get about the persecution of the Jews are true, this House can do no less than express its deepest regret at the unprecedented persecution which is going on in Europe today and in various parts of the world. No one can make me believe that a man can be a Christian and at the same time identify himself with anyone indulging in this persecution of the Jews or in the persecution of anyone for that matter. I want to contribute my share to this debate by saying that I shall oppose any persecution of this kind to the best of my ability, and if this House wants to be consistent it should admit at once that this terrible world conflagration which is going on today started with the persecution of the Jews. That was the beginning of it. That was the first plank in the platform of the diabolical policy pursued by Nazism, and those of us who know a little about the history of the world and who know biblical history will remember that no nation in the world has ever been prosperous and well-to-do and has come forth triumphantly if it has waged war against the Jews. On the contrary, all nations which have adopted the oppression of the Jews as a plank in their platform or as a slogan have gone under. History is again repeating itself. This anti-Jewish propaganda is a story which has been preached in South Africa ad nauseam, and we here in South Africa who under very difficult conditions have taken up the battle against Nazism should be one of the first to say that we as a nation are not going to associate ourselves with this persecution. I appeal to all members to let this be the end of Jewish persecution so far as we are concerned.

We on this side of the House stand for the maintenance of white civilisation in South Africa. Yet we find that one province which is part of the Union, viz., Natal, is in such a position that its white civilisation is being menaced. We are disappointed at the Minister of the Interior having made this statement in connection with the franchise being granted to Indians in respect of local government. He said he had spoken on his own behalf and not on behalf of the Cabinet. We say that he is rousing expectations in the minds of the Indians which will eventually result in their claiming greater rights in this country. If the Minister tells the Indians in his personal capacity that they should have the franchise for local government and should take part in local government, it will, of course, not stop at that. They will demand the right to be represented on other Government bodies. As citizens of the country they will also claim privileges in regard to provincial councils and Parliament. We can no longer ignore the position. We should have the courage of our convictions and tackle this matter, and where we have a part of South Africa with an established white civilisation—whatever the historical background of the Indian problem may be—the fact remains that it has become a danger to white civilisation in Natal and we have to deal with this problem. We who come from other parts of the country see what is going on in Natal; we see the way the Indian population is beginning to predominate there. We say that Natal is part of South Africa, and if we give the Indians certain rights there and do not peg them down, they will demand similar rights in other provinces. It is alarming to see the way the Indians in the Transvaal are already dominating commerce in certain parts. There are indications already that the Indians who have a lower standard of civilisation, and whose living requirements are fewer than those of the European, are driving the Europeans out of trade. We cannot tolerate it. Whatever we may say, white civilisation has been established here and we must maintain this white civilisation for the future. It alarms us that the Indians in the Cape Province are already getting a hold on trade, and whatever hon. members over there may say —they are concerned about all sections except the Europeans—I am thinking of the native representatives, and the representatives of the Labour Party—if we allow the Indians to continue in the way they are doing, white civilisation will be faced with extermination in this country. Our forefathers secured this heritage for us. We want to preserve it for the generations to come. That being so we must necessarily take up the attitude that the Indian must be pegged down in Natal and also in the Cape and the Transvaal. The Indian has a great country behind him. So far as the coloured people are concerned they have no other country but South Africa. The Indians have India, a powerful country, at the back of them. Let them go and live out their lives there. It does not become the Minister to say that Natal allowed the Indians to come in in 1860 that our forefathers made the mistake and that the Indians are now to be given certain rights.

It was not our forefathers who made that mistake.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) is perfectly correct. We shall have to tackle this matter. It is no use adopting a weak-kneed attitude, as the Minister of the Interior has disclosed here. It is that kind of feeling of “let things take their course” which is so dangerous to this country. In the Cape Province it has resulted in our being faced with one of our greatest problems—a coloured population which is exploited for political purposes. We have given the native population separate representation, and the result is that when native affairs are discussed here we can look at these matters in an objective manner. We can deal with these matters, not only in the interests of white civilisation but also in the interest of the natives themselves. We on this side of the House stand for separateness. We shall have to carry it right throughout the Union, and the Minister of the Interior will also have to do so. The time will come when he will no longer be able to say that this or that is his personal opinion. He will have to ask what is the opinion of the Minister of Finance; what is the opinion of the Minister of Labour, and what guidance and lead he will have to give the country. The Government has no policy in regard to this matter. The time has arrived for us to tackle this question in the spirit of South Africa so that we may maintain white civilisation here. But what do we get every time? In order to keep people quiet we get the kind of statement which we got from the Minister of the Interior when he expressed his personal opinion. I object to this, because the Minister is rousing expectations among the Indian population; he is making them think that greater things are in store for them. We on this side are not going to give the Indians any greater rights. We realise that the Indian is a danger. He has commercial instincts and he is a menacing danger to the white trader, both to the Jew and the Christian. He is digging himself in, and this is the time, before it is too late, to cut his wings and definitely lay it down that the Indian in Natal is to be pegged down. Give them education, improve their living conditions, but we cannot allow them to become a menace to Natal. If they are a menace to Natal they will eventually become a menace to the whole of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down, I suppose, feels that he has given us a very inspiring speech.

That is more than you are going to do.

I wondered, listening to his tone, whether it was not 10 per cent. inspiration and 90 per cent. perspiration. I want to try and see whether we cannot lead the debate in this House on a somewhat different course. We are getting rather tired now of this racialistic religious atmosphere which has developed in this House and I wonder whether we cannot now lead it along a different line. Possibly we can devote our criticism to something else.

Lead, kindly light.

I wish the hon. member would practice what he preaches. It would possibly do him a lot of good. Now I should like to ask the Minister some questions about the Bureau of Information. I am a bit perturbed about what is going to happen to our Bureau of Information after the war.

Hear, hear!

You mean in the hereafter.

The hon. member says hear, hear—he also seems to be a bit perturbed and actually agrees with me. It is common knowledge to all members of this House and the American and British Bureaux of Information have declared that they are going to close down after this war.

This one should close down right away.

The Minister has never yet given us a statement as to what is going to happen to our Bureau of Information.

What is happening to it now?

The hon. member may ask that just now, I want to ask a few questions in the meantime. Actually, if this Bureau of Information is not going to be closed and is going to function after the war, I feel a little perturbed about it because it wields such colossal powers. It has been very necessary during the war.

What for?

We have had the experience lately of the Walker Award, and of other functionings of bureaucracy. This Walker Award has perturbed us all and I wonder whether if the Bureau is to function after the war some of our heads of departments would not be able to use it for some subtle kinds of propaganda, or whether this Bureau of Information may only be used to give the general public the information which they—the heads of departments—want them to receive. I feel that that is a very serious position if this particular Bureau is going to carry on and be used in that way. I want to know from the Minister also what the position is going to be, in regard to another matter. I understand there was an enquiry into the Bureau. I don’t know exactly what the reasons were, but I heard there was an enquiry into the financial side, or was it the policy side? I feel that members of Parliament are entitled to know why this enquiry was instituted and for what reason. I don’t know whether this enquiry has been completed. I asked a question in this House a little while ago. My question was this: “Whether public relation officers were recently appointed at Nairobi and Leopoldville, and on whose recommendations they were appointed?” The answer to the first part of the question was “yes” and to the other part the reply was “on the recommendation of the Director of Information.” Now, that is rather serious. Is this Director of Information now able to appoint representatives in adjacent states of Africa? Where is it leading to?

You seem very worried about it.

I am very worried about it, otherwise I would not be on my feet. I was reading a little book the other day named “Targets,” and under the heading of “Warfare,” I found the following little poem —it is in the nature of a skit which is relavent to my speech and our Bureau of Information—

For the information of members the B.U.P. is the British United Press and the M.O.I. is the Ministry of Information. Now I felt, when I read that, that things are really getting out of hand, so far as public service is concerned, and I want to know what is going to happen to our Bureau of Information and whether they will continue after the wár?

Sack the lot.

Will the Minister give us some assurance in the same way as Great Britain and America have done? [Time limit.]

This debate should have made it perfectly clear to the Minister that there is a serious feeling of consternation on this side of the House, and even among his supporters about his personal expression in regard to the Indian problem, viz. : where he held out to the Indians in South Africa the prospect of their being represented in our legislative bodies. I do not think that since the establishment of Union has a Minister ever made a statement like this. No Minister have ever dared to say that the Indian population should be represented in our legislative bodies. What was wrong with the Minister to make a statement like that? He made a statement which has caused a conflict in this country which he will yet live to rue. Now, in this connection I want to refer to something in connection with the Commissioner for Indian Affairs who is stationed in this country. In every country in the world it is the custom for the diplomatic representative of another country not to express himself on local affairs, on Parliament, or on legislation of the country where he is received as a guest. Here we have the very interesting instance of a representative of India not having adhered to that custom. We find that Sir Shafat Ahmed Khan, speaking at the Indian Congress, criticised the so-called Pegging Act. Last year he expressed himself very strongly about this Act and said this among other things—

What right has the Commissioner for Indian Affairs to come here and criticise legislation passed by this House and to express his opinion as to what we should do or should not do? It is not his business. What right has he to poke his nose into our affairs? He was originally appointed to assist the Minister of the Interior to look after the interests of the Indians, especially with a view to their return to India, and now he takes unto himself the right to criticise our legislation. And then he went on to express himself as follows—

In other words, this official of a foreign country who enjoys the hospitality of our country, who is here to serve as a link between the two governments, stirs up Union citizens beloning to his race in this country to agitate for Municipal and Parliamentary franchise on a joint voters’ roll with the Europeans. I do not believe it would be tolerated in any country in the world. If our High Commissioner in London were to make a public speech to stir up English citizens to put certain demands to their own Government—what would become of him? Objections would immediately be lodged by the British Government with our Government, and our Government would recall him. Now I want to ask the Minister responsible for this vote whether he has taken any steps to object to these remarks of Sir Shafat Ahmed Khan or has he simply sat still? All we know at the moment is that he emulated Sir Shafat when he expressed his personal opinion that the Indians should get representation on our legislative bodies.

He has become a convert of Sir Shafat’s.

Yes, that is so. It is a very serious matter. When we are dealing with such a difficult problem in regard to which so many feelings can be stirred up, it becomes a very serious matter for a representative of India to stir up Union citizens in this country against their own government and to incite them to make certain demands of the Government. Can the Government of the country approve of an action of that kind? The House has the right to ask the Minister whether he has taken any steps in connection with this matter. Apparently he agrees with the views expressed by the Commissioner. I am not so much concerned about the Commissioner’s views, but what I am concerned with is that he has behaved improperly and discourteously by criticising the legislation in our country, and by stirring up the people belonging to his race to make these demands of the Government. It is an unheard of thing, and there can be no doubt that he has exceeded his functions as an official of another Government. Not only has he exceeded his functions, but he has exceeded the bounds of courtesy. When he made his speech to the Indian Congress he knew the inflammable nature of the subject he was dealing with. He simply set a match to the powder to stir up the people of his own race, who are our citizens, and incite them to do these things. I feel that we as a House of Parliament should seriously object to the attitude adopted by a foreign representative. He has no right to do such a thing, and we demand that the Government and the Minister concerned tell us what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this kind of thing. The Minister should immediately have lodged his protest with the Government of India and should have asked the Government of India to recall this person because of his interference with the internal policy of the country and with our legislation. It simply cannot be tolerated. I hope the Minister will regard this matter seriously and tell us what he has done in connection with it. Now I want to touch on another question, on which I also want some information from the Minister. This concerns the question of our Archives. We understand that it was decided some time ago to retain the services of the Chief Archivist although he had reached the age of retirement. We should like to know from the Minister what is the reason for this decision? The Minister must not give us the usual explanation that his services were considered necessary. This man has reached the age of retirement. He is also doing certain military work. There are a large number of young men under him who have the experience and the qualifications, and who are quite competent to succeed the Chief Archivist. There can be no justification whatever for the retention of the services of the Chief Archivist. Our Public Service Act provides that an official must retire when he reaches the age of retirement unless the Government can show very good reasons why he should be retained. If no good reasons can be adduced then he must retire. In this House we have never objected to the extension of an official’s term of office if we have really felt that that official is practically indispensable, or if the circumstances have been such that it is necessary to keep him on. This is a case where it is definitely not necessary and where there are extremely competent men, men more competent than the Chief Archivist, to do the work. Why must the Government harm these young men by holding back their promotion and thus affect their pensions eventually, when it is not in the interest of the service of the State either? I don’t want to say anything against the Chief Archivist or his ability; he has served the State well and he has been paid for it. According to the law he should now retire, and there are younger and more competent men who can do the work. Why must he be kept on? I want to know from the Minister whether he is being kept on for one year only, or for the duration of the war, and why this step has been taken? In our opinion it is unnecessary to retain him in view of the fact that there are other and more competent men.

When I was interrupted by the time limit, Sir, I was endeavouring to put before the House a concrete proposal for dealing with the Indian problem in Natal. I mentioned that it will be costly, but I think in the interests of South Africa, including the Indian community, the cost of the scheme which I suggest should be borne by posterity.

How much will it cost?

Probably about £50,000,000, to enable 100,000 Indians to be made comfortable in the matter of land in India. The Indians have a home to go to, and it is not as if that were not the case. I want to emphasise, Mr. Chairman, that this must be a purely voluntary scheme. I am not prepared to advocate in this House treatment for any human beings that I would not like myself.

You would not like to be sent back to your country of origin.

If the people in South Africa who object to my presence here are prepared to compensate me, I am quite prepared to return to the land of my birth next week. It is possible to arrange for a large section of the Indian community to return to their mother land. [Interruptions.] If interruptions like this go on this debate will take much longer than it ought. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that anyone taking any part in this debate will realise that we are discussing the fate of a quarter of a million human beings, and it is not a matter to treat lightly. The Government ought to have taken steps many years ago, in which case we should not have been faced with the position in which we find ourselves now. I say that it is not too late even now to make a start and bring about something which the Indian people will be prepared to accept. I said that if you can persuade 100,000 Indian people to leave South Africa and give them £500 each to return to India or some other country it will be equivalent to a pension at the age at which they are at the present time. I believe the Indian Government would share in a scheme of this kind, and I believe the British Government will help in this scheme, because they are sick and tired of hearing of the so-called grievances of the Indian people in South Africa. I make that suggestion believing that it is the solution, believing that we can raise the money by way of loan and that it will be cheap in the long run for the country. I am perfectly certain a large section of the Indian community will be prepared to welcome it. Let us say we are prepared, let it be a generous scheme that they will be prepared to participate in. If we are going to adopt a method of driving these people out and all that sort of business, that will get us nowhere. I hope that when we do deal with this matter we shall respect the feelings of the Indian community and endeavour to bring about some solution. We have only got to thank the hon. the Minister for the present trouble. We were hoping that after the Pegging Bill the matter would have been allowed to rest for the time being, but what happened? The Minister goes to Maritz burg and raises this Indian question, and it is the Minister who has stirred up this trouble in Natal again. We were all quite satisfied with the Pegging Bill, and if there is any disturbance throughout the country the Minister is to blame for bringing this before the public again, because it was quite unnecessary. What does he suggest? He suggests that the Durban City Council should give the Indian the franchise, let them have a communal franchise. Well, why does not the Minister get busy with his Cabinet and introduce a Bill to give the Indians the Parliamentary franchise instead of instructing the municipalities and the provinces? Why does he not propose it here and say the Indians should have the vote in the Parliamentary franchise?

Who said that?

The position would be that we would probably have three or four Indian representatives in this House. I do say that it is not right of the Minister to suggest to a town where you have an equal number of Indians with the Europeans to give the Indians the franchise when he is not prepared to give it to them in the House. If the Minister did introduce a Bill here of that nature I am perfectly certain he would get some support and then there would be some justification for suggesting it to the municipalities. Now with regard to the technical college on the Bluff site, I would ask why did that not go through? Why did the Minister have to withdraw his offer to lay the foundation stone on that site? I think it would be interesting to know and I don’t mind telling the House. We have an individual on the Council, Councillor Smith, a great champion of the Indian cause in South Africa, and immediately it was suggested that the Indians should have a technical college on a site in close proximity to his own land, he said : “Oh no, don’t bring the Indians here.” He was the chief man instrumental in getting the Bluff site postponed and endeavouring to get them a site in Durban.

Who was it?

I am referring to Councillor Smith, whose property overlooked the site the Indians wanted for their technical college, and he was the chief man instrumental in working up the agitation against the Bluff site. There was another site suggested on the fringe of Durban, just a few miles from the City Hall. I say this, there is not site in Durban that you can give to the Indians that does not encroach on the European area. This matter has been shelved so long that Durban has no land, the town is land hungry, and we have definitely to go outside to house the people. If we have to do that we shall expect the Government to give us cheap transport. I say again that this is a national matter that no municipality is capable of coping with.

I think I should intervene here to deal with the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) in connection with the wild accusations that he has been levelling here. I would remind the hon. member that over 80 per cent. of the Indians in Natal were born in Natal, and now he talks glibly about sending them back to India.

Why did you make them citizens of South Africa?

I am not going into that question; the position is, these Indians are in Natal, and we have to do what we can to make things easier for them and for us. He talks glibly of finding £50,000,000 to send these Indians away. Under the agreement that was made by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) when he was Minister of the Interior, provision was made for repatriating Indians.

At £30 a time.

That scheme was not a success. If it had been £100 or £500 it would not have been a success. South Africa is a much better place for these people who were born here, with all their interests here, than India. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) have referred to the statement that I made in Natal and complained bitterly that I spoke in a personal capacity about the Indians and the municipal franchise.

When do you speak in a personal and when in an official capacity? How do you distinguish between the two?

I am now Minister of the Interior, and one question I inherited was this Indian question. It should have been dealt with by the municipalities in Natal and the Provincial Administration, as it is purely a provincial matter. But these authorities appealed to the then Minister—I was present—to ask us to see what we could do to deal with the matter, and my predecessor appointed Mr. Justice Broome to make an enquiry with regard to the alleged encroachment. He issued a report and the result was the Pegging Act. The hon. member for Durban (Central) thinks that this Act was for all time, but it was definitely suggested as a breathing space in order that the whole question might be dealt with.

What is the policy of the Government?

In connection with what?

The Indian question.

We agreed to appoint a commission to enquire into the position as between the European and the Indian.

As to giving them votes?

This question of votes is a matter upon which I take responsibility for saying what I did. I would like to remind this House that up to 1896 the Indians in Natal had the vote, and it was taken away from them.

The question now is what is the Government’s policy.

I am not going to state the Government’s policy in connection with that.

You spoke as a Cabinet Minister.

Up till 1922 the Indians had a municipal franchise in Natal.

How many? A mere handful.

It does not matter how many, but they had a municipal franchise. The hon. member says: “a handful,” but they were sufficiently strong to return two councillors to the Durban City Council, and as a result of that balance of power that the Indians had, I was very much responsible, I have to confess, for the taking away of the franchise.

We ought to know after your statement, what the policy of the Government is. We are entitled to know.

Is it the policy of the Government to restore the franchise?

When the franchise was taken away the mistake we made was that we did not give them the franchise on a communal basis.

We do not want to know the mistake that was made in 1922; we want to know what mistake is going to be made now.

I am not in a position to say what the position is going to be. I made it quite clear in the statement I made that the people who would confer the municipal franchise on the Indians in Natal would be the Provincial Council.

Are you going to use your influence with the Government to give them the vote?

I am going to wait for the commission’s report.

On the question of the franchise?

On the question of civic rights.

Have you represented your views to the Cabinet?

I hope the Cabinet is sufficiently interested in what I said to read it.

They don’t read.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised the question of the position of the Indian High Commissioner and certain statements that he had made in connection with this very question of the franchise. I may inform the hon. member that what the High Commissioner said had no influence on what I said. The hon. member will know that this Indian question was dealt with when the hon. member for Piketberg was Minister of the Interior. They had a round table conference, and at that conference they agreed to certain things. They agreed that the Indian High Commissioner should come to this country in order to watch the interests of Indians.

Not to criticise the Government.

I want to say quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that I did not criticise or complain to the High Commissioner about the remarks he made to the Congress.

Why not?

I have no control over him personally.

You can report him to his Government.

I cannot even do that; it is a matter that comes under the control of the Minister of External Affairs. The other point the hon. member raised was the question of Dr. Botha. This question is coming up again in August. I was not responsible for the extension of his term of office, and have not had an opportunity of investigating the position, but I shall certainly do so. It is generally contrary to the policy of the Government to extend the term of office of civil servants after the retiring age of 60. But in some cases it becomes absolutely essential in order to carry on. I agree that people at 60 should retire to make room for promotion in the civil service. It is very difficult to give promotion if people at the top hold up the movement. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) raised the question of the Bureau of Information and the appointment of people at Leopoldville and Nairobi. Well, these people were appointed in connection with the war and war propaganda. I hope that the war will soon be over, and there will be no necessity for these people to occupy these positions. As to the future of the bureau, a committee consisting of Mr. De Wet and Mr. James Dunn, a former general manager of Reuters in South Africa, has been investigating the functions of the bureau for the purpose of seeing in what way the positions can be curtailed or improved, and I am awaiting their report. Let me disabuse the hon. member and any other hon. member who may be labouring under the delusion that the bureau is going to be a bureaucratic institution in order to keep information from the Press or from anybody. Nothing of the sort. Their object is to help in that direction. Every Press representative has freedom of access to heads of departments and to Ministers, and there is no curtailment of that policy.

Do they cook the news?

There is no question of cooking news, the bureau helps as much as they possibly can.

They censor the news.

No, they do not interfere with the functions of the Press.

The Press has asked for its suppression.

I do not know that we can always consider what the Press wants in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has raised this question of the statistics relating to costs of living, and I was very interested in the remarks he made. I do not profess to be an expert or to be able to settle the position to his satisfaction, but he has raised the point, and I can give him the assurance that the department concerned will read the views he has expressed. We are indebted to him for having dealt with the matter from that point of view.

: There are just one or two points I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. The first is the necessity of registration of births, especially here in the Cape Province. It has come to my notice, and I think the Minister should know about it, that no precautionary measures whatsoever are taken when a birth is registered to make sure that the person whose birth is registered actually is of the race or class to which he belongs according to the registration. Let me come at once to the point which I want to make. For instance, there is a white father and a coloured mother. The child is registered as white. There is no control. No steps are taken to determine whether the registration is correct or not. I therefore say that steps should be taken to make sure that if such a child is born, that child shall not be registered as white. I have been assured by the principal of a big institution in Cape Town, whose institution is only available to Europeans, that there are any number of cases where one can see that the people are coloured but they come along with a birth certificate showing they have been registered as whites. This is an important matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to suggest what can be done. The Minister may for instance appoint a sergeant of police who could convince himself that the facts as stated in the registration form are correct. Further, the Minister might for instance make it necessary for a Commissioner of Oaths or a Justice of the Peace to certify that the facts contained in the declaration are correct. If we do not take some such steps we may find that many of the coloured children who are born today will be registered as whites, and then they will get all the rights and privileges of white people in this country. I also want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) about rural libraries. This old amount of £2,000 appearing on these estimates is too small altogether.

That comes under the Minister of Finance.

†*Mr. NAUDÊ: Yes, but it is administered by the Department of the Interior, and that is why we can discuss it here. Now I want to say in that connection that I have received a card in regard to the fostering of free libraries. At the top of the card I find this—

And then it is stated that Senator Clarkson, Minister of the Interior, will be the main speaker. I am glad to notice that the Minister realises the importance of this matter and I hope he will not leave it at a speech, but that he will see to it that better provision is made, especially on the platteland. An amount of £10,000 is provided here for the two big libraries in Cape Town and Pretoria. For the rural areas, however, no provision at all is made. The £2,000 which was originally provided for rural libraries surety was only a start to set the organisation going. Surety it was not intended that that was to be the end of it? This is the third year already that only £2,000 is voted. As the Minister is going to be the principal speaker at this meeting I hope he will admit that he has so far not done his duty and that he will promise to do his duty in future.

But the Cape members say that the Transvaal is getting so much.

: I do not agree that that is so. It is a scandal that the whole of the Transvaal only gets £1,600, but what is one to say about the Cape which only gets £200? That does not justify the Minister’s attitude. I also want to say a few words about the very serious statement made by the Minister on the Indian problem. The Minister says that he only expressed his personal opinion, but we are entitled to know what the Government policy on the matter is. The Minister said that he was waiting for the commission’s report, but he made that statement before that commission was appointed. Why is he anticipating the commission? He made that statement before he even knew what the commission was going to report. I therefore want to know what the Government’s policy is in regard to the Indian question? A few serious things happened recently. The position is that in Natal an Indian can still buy land in any district. He can buy a farm in any district at any price. There is nothing to prevent him from doing so.

Disgraceful.

: The kaffir who is a native of this country is not allowed to buy there. I naturally agree with that. The native cannot buy there, but the Indian can buy just as much land as he wants to. The new policy in all four provinces of the Union now is that an Indian can go into any bar, he can go into the same bar as a white man, and he can go into any bottle store, and buy liquor. That shows the policy which the Minister is following so far as the country is concerned. It is getting nearer and nearer to complete equality, and we should lodge our serious protest against an Indian being allowed to go into any bar or bottle store where a white man can go in the Cape and in the Transvaal and buy liquor. Things are bad enough, but now the Minister wants to give them the franchise. True, the suggestion is only to give them the franchise in regard to local government bodies, but it will not stop at that. Once you recognise the principle, and the principle is recognised here by the Minister, it will extend afterwards to the Provincial Councils and to the Union Parliament. We had hoped when a Natal man was appointed as Minister of the Interior—a man who should be familiar with the Indian problem in Natal, who should be familiar with the menace of the Indian in Natal—that we would have got something better from him, but now we see that he is a greater menace to his own country than any of his predecessors.

The greatest potential danger to the white population in South Africa, in my opinion, is the coloured question, whether it be natives, Indians or coloureds. That is the greatest potential danger of white civilisation in South Africa and the sooner we realise that fact and act on it the better. From a biological point of view South Africa is doomed. It is doomed because the fertility of the native is such that his natural increase is at present so much above the natural increase of the European in South Africa that with his 8,000,000 againt our 2,000,000 in years to come we will be so completely outnumbered that we will be absolutely doomed, and the whole of Africa and South Africa will be covered with a heterogeneous coloured race unless we wake up to the fact that we have to have a large virile white South Africa.

Quite right.

We can retard that by keeping the native in social and economic subjection, but that is not the way to do it either because sooner or later he has to come into his rights. It may be in 50 years’ time or it may be in 100 years’ time, but sooner or later he has to come into his rights. We can retard that process by subjecting him to social and economic subjection but in my opinion that is not the right procedure. In my opinion the right procedure is to go in for a process of immigration of the right type in South Africa. We will have to increase our white population in South Africa. After having provided for our own people in this country, our first problem is to increase the population, to make the white population not 2,000,0000 but 15,000,000. What the effect will be politically we cannot consider today. We have our immigration quotas. We need not be so afraid of introducing the Jewish element because they can only come in on their quota. We have the Immigration Selection Board and they will only allow the right number to come in.

What quota law are you speaking of?

We Europeans in South Africa instead of being at each other’s throats should realise what the potential danger is.

Under which law is there a quota?

I am referreing to the quota laws of every country.

There is no quota law in this country.

Your Government has dispensed with that.

The Government has done away with that. We are glad to hear you supporting the idea of a quota system.

I am not supporting the quota system as advocated by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He wants a quota system to lay down the number of Jews who can enter the various professions; so many must be allowed to enter the medical profession; so many must be allowed to become dentists; so many must be allowed to enter trade. That is what the hon. member wants. But I am not afraid of the Jew because I do not consider myself inferior to the Jew; I can compete with him. The hon. member is suffering from an inferiority complex; that is why he wants a quota introduced against another race: I do not want legislation to protect me; I am competent to deal with the Jew because be is an equal citizen. We have the same opportunities of advancement as the Jew. Does the hon. member admit that he is inferior to the Jew?

A moment ago you pleaded for immigration because you are afraid of the native.

The native, yes.

But not of the Jew?

Cannot hon. members realise that we are going to be swamped sooner or later by the numbers of natives unless we resort to immigration?

You say there are 8,000,000 natives?

There are 6½ million.

At the present rate of increase, bearing in mind the fertility of the native they are going to swamp us completely. With our birth control and cutting down families, we are going to be completely swamped. One need only go to history to confirm that. What became of the first white population in Africa? The Mohamedans swamped them completely.

They were swamped before the Mohamedans came.

Your history is wrong.

There may be a few places in Africa where the white population will persist, but the Cape Peninsula is certainly not going to be one of those places. That is the problem that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of the Interior. I want to ask him, if possible, to encourage immigration.

What sort of immigration?

I say immigration of the right type.

What is the right type.

The Nordic type, the type from which we are descended.

What about the Jews?

So you are excluding the Jews.

I am not going to exclude them. I am not going to discriminate against the Jew. But I say that the Nordic type and Anglo-Saxon type is the type of immigrant we want.

We have just listened to a very queer speech. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) is terrified of the natives, but he is quite capable of standing his own ground against the Jews. He advocates the policy of immigration, and he says he does not want to discriminate against the Jews. The next moment he says that we want only the Nordic type of immigrant, so evidently he considers the Jew to be of Nordic descent. Then he says that we need not be afraid of Jewish competition because we have the Quota Act. It is then pointed out to him that we have not got a Quota Act. The hon. member cannot have it both ways; he must make up his mind. But I want to come back to the Minister. The Minister went to Natal and he addressed a meeting.

Two meetings.

Well, two meetings, but one at a time, and he made a very serious statement there with regard to the policy towards the Indians in South Africa. In that statement he said that he thought that the time had arrived when the Indians should be given a voice in local affairs, and also that that should develop to provincial franchise; and of course through provincial franchise the logical conclusion is that it will develop into national franchise. You cannot get away from that. If you give the Indian provincial franchise, it must sooner or later become national franchise. That is a very serious statement indeed. It reveals a complete change of policy. The tendency in the immediate past has been to limit the franchise of non-Europeans in South Africa. We have already limited it with regard to the native franchise. Where at one time native franchise in the Cape Province was general, it now has become limited to representatives, representing themselves and themselves alone, and the general tendency with regard to the coloured franchise is also to limit it, and I think it will probably happen in the future that it will be limited to their representation in Parliament. But now the Minister of the Interior comes along and he goes in a direction directly opposed to the policy which has been adopted by all Governments in South Africa—by the Nationalist Government more actively perhaps than by the Government over there; and that is that you shall not have an extension of non-European franchise in South Africa. But the present Minister of the Interior seems to be in favour of enfranchising the Indians in Natal; he seems to be in favour of starting them in local bodies, moving them from local bodies to provincial bodies, and the logical step from there is that they will have the franchise in national bodies. As soon as the Minister finds things getting a little difficult, he says he is expressing his own personal opinion. But he cannot divorce his personal opinion from the opinion of the Minister of the Interior. He cannot one moment be Senator Clarkson and the next moment the Minister of the Interior. It is one and the same person. He may not believe it. He has ceased to be Senator Clarkson; he is the Minister of the Interior; and when he gets up at a meeting like that and speaks as Minister of the Interior, he cannot subsequently repudiate himself. His colleagues may repudiate him; I hope they will do so. He made this statement and now he is trying to repudiate himself. He wants to hide behind Senator Clarkson; the Minister of the Interior wants to hide behind Mr. Clarkson. We want to know what the attitude of the rest of the Government is in regard to this statement. Do they support the Minister of the Interior? Is that the policy of the Government? The Minister of the Interior made this serious statement, not at a bibulous function but at a serious meeting of people who primarily have to do with the question which he was discussing. He goes all the way from Pretoria to make that statement. No doubt he wrote the statement out. That would have been the wisest thing to do. He reads a statement to them, that this is the opinion of the Minister who has to do with these particular affairs, and that his policy is that they should be enfranchised. We want to know what the rest of the Government is going to do about it; do they support him? That is what our friends from Natal have been trying to find out for two days. What is the attitude of the rest of the Government. If it were some unimportant matter it could be passed over, but it is an important matter. It is the policy which the Minister advocates, and that policy is directly opposed to the policy of the country, and what we want to know, if there has been a volte face on the part of the Government, is whether they support him or do they repudiate him? They cannot keep on sitting on the fence. The country demands an answer; the people want to know what the position is. As pointed out by the hon. member who sits next to me, these sort of stories which the Minister has been telling have had a very deleterious effect right throughout South Africa. A little while ago there was a case in Port Elizabeth where the proprietor of the Palmerston Hotel, one of the leading hotels in Port Elizabeth, was sued because he would not take a Chinaman in as a lodger. Certain people had applied for rooms at the hotel, and when they arrived at the hotel it appeared that one of them was a Chinaman. The hotel proprietor said that he was very sorry but he could not cater for him. A case was then made against the proprietor of the hotel and damages awarded against him. This sort of thing is going to lead to a serious state of affairs. It does not matter what the Minister thinks about the rights and the Wrongs of this case; but if the proprietors of the Palmerston Hotel and the Mount Nelson Hotel are forced to give lodging to nonEuropeans, they may just as well close down their hotels. There may be some people who will be prepared to stay at those hotels. A liberalist like the Minister of Finance may stay there and the Minister of the Interior may stay there, but the majority of people will not go there if they have to lodge and sit in these hotels next to non-Europeans. The Minister may think it is a silly notion, but that is how the people feel, and if you are going to force hotel owners to cater for non-Europeans then many of these hotels may just as well shut up. I may like to know what the position is. Is the Minister of the Interior in favour of it that reputable hotels, high class hotels must be forced to give lodgings to non-Europeans? Is he going to force those hotels to give lodging to nonEuropeans?

Is that a dangerous principle?

You can go and stay in an Asiatic bazaar.

I would like the Minister to answer that question because it is very important indeed. There is another matter I would like to raise. We introduced a Flag Act in South Africa, and the Flag Act lays down that the Union flag should hang on all public buildings, and in the Flag Act it said that the Union Jack should hang on certain specified buildings, but furthermore it gave the right to the Governor-General-in-Council to make regulations that the Union Jack may also hang on other buildings not specified in the Act; and the Governor-General-in-Council made certain regulations shortly after the Flag Act was passed in regard to the hanging of the Union Jack on buildings not specified in the Act. Those buildings were certain buildings in Natal— to satisfy the imperialistic tendencies of my hon. friends on my left—and certain buildings in the Eastern Province. But it was definitely laid down by Proclamation on which buildings the Union Jack should hang. Now suddenly we find Union Jacks hanging all over the place, hanging on buildings which were not authorised by the Act or by a decision of the Cabinet, and the only way on which the Union Jack can hang on those buildings on which they did not hang before is by a decision of the Cabinet. One of these buildings is Marks Buildings just opposite the road. That is not one of the buildings mentioned in the Act; it is not one of the buildings decided on by the Cabinet; and I would like to know from the Minister on whose authority the Union Jack hangs there. Does the flag hang there on his authority as Minister of the Interior, or does it hang there on the authority or the decision of the Cabinet? That is a question which I think the Minister should answer.

It would seem obvious to those of the meanest intelligence that the Government in relation to the Indian question or what is referred to as the Indian question, has changed its policy somewhat of late, and it is quite clear to me that the attitude of the Government has changed by reason of the fact that it has come under the pressure of world public opinion, and world public opinion is entitled to interfere and to take cognisance of what transpires in any one country, and when there is a tendency to infringe on the rights of a national minority, then world public opinion does sit up and take notice. I am convinced in my own mind that it is as the result of world opinion which followed subsequent to the introduction of the Pegging Act, that this change in the attitude of the Government took place and is taking place. The attitude of the Government is in the process of changing and perhaps the hon. Minister is not able to say at this stage what the policy of the Government is, because it is a policy which is being shaped in consultation and in collaboration with the Indian community of Natal, in order to find some satisfactory mutual basis which will allow of peace and racial harmony between the Indians and the European population of South Africa. Unfortunately South Africa does suffer from racial problems. At a meeting held in the City Hall during this week the Prime Minister said that all the problems that other countries are faced with seem to be in a concentrated form in South Africa; and he probably had in mind the racial problems which exist in South Africa. He went on to say that unfortunately racial antagonism is engendered and developed by the existence of the political parties which we have in South Africa. We are subjected in Durban to a political party which is known to the whole of South Africa as being a racialistic English Jingo political organisation; and nevertheless and in spite of that general recognition throughout the whole of South Africa, the members of the Dominion Party consistently protest against any suggestion that they are racialistic. They are met on the other hand by the members of the Nationalist Party who are equally racialistic. They are the two counter parts. The Dominion Party seeks to engender a feeling amongst the English-speaking people which will capture that idea which exists in the racialistic mind of some of the English-speaking people that the Afrikaners are Japies; and the Nationalist Party oh the other hand seeks to capture that idea which is given expression to in the term “verdomde Rooinek.” Both the members of the Nationalist Party and the members of the Dominion Party are racialists. They combine together to express their hatred of the Jews, and because the Jews seek some sort of psychological escape from this attack which is made on them by English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people they combine together with both in order to express their hatred of the coloured people; and the coloured people for the same reason join together with these three groups to express their hatred of the coolies; and the Indian joins in the happy hunt and in the end that hatred is expressed against the African people of this country. The clear thing is this, that any nation which seeks to keep four-fifths of its population in subjection must itself remain in subjection; and it is time that the people of South Africa realise the necessity of overcoming the racial barriers which do exist and that they should seek to achieve some basis of racial harmony. Such a thing is possible. It is possible if we forget racialism and if we seek to achieve these things on the basis of economic factors. The important repercussion in South Africa to the introduction of the Pegging Act, the Pegging Act which was probably welcomed by all shades of opinion in South Africa, had this effect, that it has resulted in bringing about a mutual understanding between the Indian community and the European community in so far as the Indian community has now, for the first time, publicly and clearly signified its acceptance of the principle that the members of the two races should not be compelled to live side by side, when the living side by side of such people causes racial friction and racial disharmony. That is an important development and it is along those lines that the Indian problem in South Africa can be suitably solved, but it cannot be solved by suggestions such as those made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) who says that the Government should provide £50,000,000 and send the Indians over to India. It is quite true, as the Minister of the Interior says, that if you offered them £500 each they still would not want to go back to India. This is the land of their birth: this is where they want to stay. I would like to ask the hon. member for Durban (Central), when he speaks of the Indian question and when he speaks against penetration into European areas, to recognise that the Indian community is divided into two classes, just as every other section is divided into two classes. It is not the Indian workers who work in conditions of squalor and poverty who are penetrating into the European areas; it is only the Indian capitalist classes who are penetrating into the European areas, and it is the European capitalist classes, who the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) so ably represents, who advanced the money to those Indians to purchase property in the European areas. One of the greatest living statesmen —I shall not mention his name—once made this statement—that the greatest capital asset any nation possesses is its human labour power, and it is the human labour power of the Indian population in Natal whom the people who are represented by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) have exploited and utilised and driven them into conditions of squalor and conditions of poverty. The whole of the Natal industry has been based upon the existence of the sugar industry which brought the Indians to this country and it is the sugar industry which makes them live in conditions of squalor. The figures which have to be provided by the Durban City Council to rehouse the Indian community is not £2,000,000 as stated by the Hon. Minister of the Interior. The amount they have to provide over a period of ten years is £8,000,000. That amount will be advanced to a section of the Indians who do not want to penetrate into the European areas. Those are the people who live in Clairmont or Jacobs, Sydenham and Riverside etc. and they will have to be suitably provided for. Hon. members of the Opposi tion questioned the right of the High Commissioner of India to speak at Indian conferences and to criticise the Government of South Africa. The High Commissioner of India was brought here in consequence of the acts of the Nationalist Party when they were in power; he was brought here for the purpose of representing the Indian community in South Africa and to look after their interests. How can one possibly look after the interests of the Indian community if at the same time he is to be restrained from addressing the Indian community at Indian conferences on subjects affecting that Indian community? The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) has said quite openly in the lobby …. [Time limit.]

I just want to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The hon. member for Humansdorp we know, although he is a Nationalist, is a great reader, and really he is a liberal thinking man—he comes from a liberal family. I know what his father did for this country, and I don’t think his father would have agreed with the speech the hon. member just made. Still, his father cannot be responsible for that. He has attacked the Minister of the Interior because of Asiatics being allowed to go into our hotels and stay there. Well, who is responsible for that— is it this side or that side of the House? The hon. member for Humansdorp, if he knows anything about the politics of this country— and I think he does—will know that his leader is responsible for that and no one else.

You know that that is not so.

The hon. member for Piketberg when he was Minister of the Interior brought about the Japanese Gentlemen’s Agreement.

What’s that to do with it?

Under that agreement a Japanese visiting here was allowed to live in any hotel. The Japanese were not Allies of ours. But we know—I have seen them myself—that they live in the Carlton Hotel, the Queen’s Hotel, and in any other hotel, and just let me remind hon. members of this. I remember when I was acting Chairman of the Select Committee which was sitting upstairs to deal with the Liquor Act, we did not include the Japanese among those people who were to be allowed to have liquor. Dr. Hjalmar Reitz, Chairman of the Committee, was away at the time, and a message came from the Minister—the Leader of the hon. member who has just said that I was wrong —that we must include the Japanese among the people who were to have liquor. And if anyone is responsible for the position it is the Nationalist Party because they laid down the principle that the Japanese should be allowed · to have liquor.

They are not Indians.

It was only natural that when the war came and the Chinese were our Allies, that they should be included, and the natural consequence was that the Indians were also included. Does the hon. member still say that I am wrong? So if the blame is put on the present Minister of the Interior I say it is not fair, and if there is anything wrong—and I don’t say that there is anything wrong, the blame must be laid at the door of the Nationalist Party. They made a gentlemen’s agreement with the Japanese and following out of that agreement Chinese officers or anyone like that were given the right to go into our hotels. What’s wrong with that? So, when hon. members come here and blame the present Minister of the Interior they are putting the blame on the wrong horse. It’s no use the hon. member saying to the Minister: “You are responsible.” These are facts, and they are facts you cannot get away from. Now, I want to congratulate the Minister of the Interior on the bold step he has taken in regard to the Indians in Natal. At last we have found a Minister who is prepared to try and solve this very thorny problem in Natal.

Is it a solution which he is offering?

Yes; and if the Nationalist Party were in power they would put it aside, as they have done with so many other problems. The United Party is prepared to grasp the nettle.

And they will sting themselves if they do.

And what do we find here? But before I go any further I want to congratulate the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) on his very clear speech which came like a breath of fresh air. Compare that with the speech—or should I say the speeches of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I congratulate the hon. member on that speech and I want to say that he will be a great member of this House if he keeps on like that. Now, what is the position today? The members of the Nationalist Party of course are anti-everything. They want to segregate everyone. They want to segregate, black, white, coloured, everyone—they want to segregate English and Afrikaans—if they had their way they would even segregate the United Party.

Hear, hear!

Oh, yes, my friend, I know. And they want the country for themselves; and that, Mr. Chairman, is the reason why they are such a small party today. And what is happening now? Miracle of miracles! They are joining hands with the most ardent Imperialists. The Dominion Party are the biggest jingoes we have ever seen or ever had, and they are joining hands with the Nationalist Party. Well, well! As a matter of fact I have always said that the two parties which would come together are the Nationalist Party and the Dominion Party— and here they are joining hands, attacking the United Party—the Liberal Party, and the fairest party this country has ever had.

Is that why you belong to them?

Yes, that is why I belong to them. Of course, we know what mv hon. friend’s party wants. They want everyone to be put into a kraal. They want to upset this liberal attitude taken up by the Minister. But have we ever seen such a strange lot of bedfellows in our lives. Look at them! There you have the Union Jack flag waggers and the republicans! The republicans and the Sinners joining hands together! Wonderful! What a spectacle! I have been in this House for many years—I have been connected with Parliament for nearly fifty years but I have never seen such a sight before. Republicans and Sinners closing their ranks, fighting alongside each other against the great liberal party of this country. But it won’t work, my friends. I don’t know how it is done. Perhaps the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) will tell me how it is done. Yes, I know, they are hand in glove. The Liberal Party on the one side and the others combined against them.

And you are one of the intriguers?

And now why should the Minister of the Interior not have the right to say what other Ministers have said—why should he not say things which Gen. Hertzog has always said. He told us: “I am not talking as a Cabinet Minister now, I am speaking on my own behalf.” That is the Parliamentary practice. Why do hon. members laugh? The Minister has the right to say: “I am speaking on my own behalf.” It has been done ever since we have had a responsible Government. But that clever Whip of the Nats, who reads such a lot, the hon. member for Humansdorp, wants to make political capital and he says: “What does the Government say?” Well, well! I am not speaking for the Government, I am only a humble musket bearer. The Government will come forward with its policy in due course, because whatever you may say the United Party Government has a policy, but you must wait and see. A Commission has been appointed. [Laughter.] Yes, a Commission is a great thing. There is nothing like a Commission. Whenever anyone gets into a hole we appoint a commission. And we have done so again, but I am certain the Government will act on the report of the Commission. But I hope the Minister will succeed in satisfying the Indian—you will find the Indian lamb lying down beside the lion. I don’t know who is the lion and who is the lamb—perhaps the lamb may be inside the lion. But I congratulate the Minister on having followed in the footsteps of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

He has not followed very carefully.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) does not understand the position. He is a mealie farmer and a wool farmer—so perhaps he is a bit woolly. [Time limit.]

We on this side of the House are not here to look after the interests of only one group of the population, but we look after every section. If one section, however, is strengthened by immigration, we ask ourselves whether the reinforcement of that section is to the benefit of the country, or only to their own benefit. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) told us about the good deeds of the Jewish community in South Africa. We do not deny that they have done some good things but when they are reinforced by immigration, we must ask ourselves for a moment what they have contributed to the development of South Africa. Let us cast our minds back to the past and ask ourselves—where were the Jews in the days when we were laying the foundation of our nation; in the days when South Africa was a waste land, when our ancestors crossed the Orange River, in the days of Vegkop, in the days of Bloukrans, in the days of Noodspruit? Where were they in those days? They were not here. And then we established our republics in the Transvaal and the Free State. They were not here in any numbers in those days. After that things developed. Diamond fields were discovered and gold fields were discovered, and the Jews appeared on the scene! South Africa made their acquaintance. We have no objection to men coming to South Africa to help in the building up of South Africa, and that is why I ask what contribution the Jews have made to the upbuilding of South Africa. When the Free State and the Transvaal fought for their independence, that section vanished as rapidly as the commando worm is now vanishing. But the war was hardly over when they suddenly re-appeared. I ask what constructive work they have ever done in the Transvaal and in the Free State. I notice the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) looking at me. I suppose he wants to mention a few names. I know the names he wants to mention and I almost know what he wants to say. But I want to ask this: Where were they in the days when we were building? Where were they—what help did they give us when we got into difficulties? That much for the past. We now have this position in the country, that constructive work still has to be done and what are the branches of our community in which this construction is going on? It is in the Public Service, in the Post Office, in the Railways, and in branches like that, and I ask this question: How many of those people do you find in those services? How many of them are magistrates? How many are postmasters? How many are station masters? How many are conductors and Railway workers? No, you do not find them there. There may be a few of them. I want to point out that the people of South Africa are beginning to ask what is wrong with the country. Why is that section absent from those branches where constructive work has to be done? We have this incontrovertible fact, that a young fellow who starts in the Post Office as a postman and continues in the service until he becomes a postmatser, is doing constructive work in South Africa. But there is another factor. We are aware of the fact that the Carnegie Report says that 450,000 of the white population of South Africa are living below the bread line. How many Jews are there among those 450,000? How many of them do you meet in our slums? How many of them do we find working with pick and shovel on the roads? How many do we find in our municipal undertakings? No, you do not find them there, and the fact that you do not find them doing that type of work creates a feeling of suspicion in our minds, and we ask ourselves why this phenomenon? Where are they to be found? In the commercial world. In the days of the Republic, when I was a young fellow, our big shops were in the hands of our English-speaking friends, and the hotels and chemist shops too were in their hands. Now I want to ask my English friends this: Is it not true that trade has got into the hands of this other section, and that the English firms have been pushed out? I am thinking of a place like Harrismith which I know well. There used to be five big business firms there. Today everything is dominated by Jews. Ask the children of these English people who used to run their businesses there; they cannot tell us what has happened, why their parents have allowed things to slip out of their hands. Is it to the benefit of South Africa to have one section of the population dominating most of our trade and most of our businesses. We believe in every section getting its proportionate share. We want to live and let live. But when we get this phenomenon we ask ourselves: What constructional work has this section ever done, or has it only worked for its own benefit to get that part of our national activities into its power? We want to see that that one section which has succeeded in getting our trade into its hands is not going to be strengthened by immigration. It would not be to the benefit of this country and it would not be to the benefit of these people themselves. See that this suspicion is removed; help us to build in all branches of the country’s services, and you will find this suspicion disappear, and we shall then have a condition of affairs in South Africa which will not lead to misunderstanding. But as long as we go on like this and have one section dominating business and trade, hon. members must not take it amiss if we are suspicious. I want to associate myself with those who have protested against the statement of the Minister of the Interior on the question of the franchise for Asiatics in Natal. The danger we see is that the colour line may be interfered with. We don’t want to surrender the colour line in South Africa. We don’t want to surrender South Africa to the non-Europeans. We want to preserve the white race in South Africa, but at the same time we do not want to evade our responsibilities as Trustees of the nonEuropeans. We want to do our duty to them. We know they are here and they have to live here; we don’t want to evade our responsibilities but at the same time we do not want the white race to starve in South Africa. That we protest against most emphatically. We protest against the possibility of their overshadowing our interests by means of the franchise we protest against their dominating us in our mother country because once we allow the Asiatic to have the franchise in the Municipalities he will want the franchise for the provincial councils and once he gets the franchise for the provincial councils, what is going to prevent him from getting the franchise for the Union Parliament as well? [Time limit.]

I want to say a few words about this Indian problem and in doing so I feel that I have to measure my remarks with a sense of responsibility, and I want to say that I associate myself very largely with what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has said. I want to say that we have at last got a Minister of the Interior who is trying to solve what is a very difficult problem indeed. I admit it is a difficult problem, and if we do not tackle it on sound lines we shall not get anywhere. We have had wild statements from the Dominion Party trying to nail the blame for the introduction of Indians into Natal on all sorts of people. They have blamed the poor old sugar planters, going back to 1860. Let me say that as far as the existing sugar planters are concerned, none of them lived in 1860, but had it not been for the assistance of the Indians and the energy of the sugar planters, probably the wealthy people in Musgrave Road would not have existed. The sugar industry has been the backbone of Natal and from that point of view we have a responsibility to those Indians because no matter who introduced them we have them here now and they are constituting this problem, and I hope that Natal with the aid of the Government will do everything possible to try and solve that problem. But the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) of opening the boundaries of the Union to allow the Indians to infiltrate right throughout the Union is to my mind no solution at all. He accused the Minister of the Interior and challenged him to go to Durban and make the speech which he made here today, in the City Hall. I issue a challenge to the hon. member for Durban (Central) to go to Zululand and make the suggestion that the Zululand Border should be thrown open for the infiltration of Indians. Why—the hon. member would not come out alive. I tell him candidly. That is no solution. And if the Indian problem is a problem, for heaven’s sake don’t inflict it on the rest of South Africa. Let us solve it in Natal, and do it in the best way possible. The other suggestion of extraditing these people, will not work either. Not even if you give them £1,000 each. And if you extradite them compulsorily, well, that would be the most inhuman thing ever perpetrated for the simple reason that they are born in this country, they know nothing of things outside this country and if they are prepared to conform to the rules and regulations of this country and become citizens of this country, then it is our business to solve this problem in the best way we possibly can, and in the fairest way, too. Now where does the trouble come from? It comes from penetration, and what do we mean by penetration? In the urban areas we mean penetration into the residential parts of the town and in the rural districts we mean penetration into the agricultural areas. And it is a very difficult problem. In Natal we have the European, we have the Bantu and we have the Asiatic. Now, Natal is a very small province. The ratio of the Bantu to the European is greater than it is in any other province. It is 6 to 1. So our difficulty is further accentuated by the presence of the Asiatic. And when the question of penetration means the ownership of land— when penetration involves the ownership of land—the Government has to take into consideration—particularly in a small province like Natal—that the land is limited, and some form of segregation has to take place —some form of segregation of rural land has to take place, just the same as urban segregation has to take place. And once you solve your problem on these lines you will get some modicum of arrangement under which we shall be able to live amicably in the future. And I say it is possible. Now, I want to say that the position of penetration as the result of the Pegging Act is becoming very serious. It is like a creeping paralysis. The process is going on all the time. Let me give an instance. An Indian pays say £12,000 for a farm which under European standards ordinarily would not be worth more than £7,000. I am now talking of what is going on in the rural disttricts. Now, an Indian gets that farm and he cuts it up into lots of 10 or 20 acres, and he sells out these lots at say £20 or £30 per acre, and although in the first place he pays £5,000 more than the European would have paid he turns that over into a profit of from £5,000 to £10,000 No European civilisation can keep pace with that. We in the sugar industry realise the position. In 1936 the non-European producers numbered 1,735. In 1943 there were 2,602; an increase of 867. Most of that increase are Asiatics. So, as I have said, it is a case of creeping paralysis. And unless we freeze the land as far as Europeans and non-Europeans are concerned we are going to be faced with very serious trouble. We must realise that the penetration is slow but sure. The question of freezing sugar quotas has been raised so as to prevent the transfer of land from Europeans to non-Europeans and vice versa. Well, if that had been done it would have overcome the difficulty. Unfortunately, although the Government were advised to take a step along those lines it could not do so, because it would have probably been difficult in regard to our international arrangements. I would appeal to the Minister and to the Government to take a serious view of the encroachment that is taking place in our rural areas. In Durban we know what the position is, and in the rural areas the Indians are today doing their utmost to get hold of land in the way I have described, and unless something is done most serious consequences may result.

I want to associate myself with other members on this side of the House in protesting most emphatically against the statement made by the Minister of the Interior regarding the Asiatics in Natal. The Minister is inclined to make startling statements. In November, 1942, he addressed a meeting in Durban where he made this statement. He was speaking about the native problem and the way it should be solved, and in that connection he stated that the time had passed for the native woman to be housed in a room in a backyard; he said that the time had arrived for her to be given a room inside the house. Imagine me having to give a native woman a room in my house, next to my daughters or my sons! Is the Minister prepared to grant these people social equality? That was why I got scared when this Minister was made Minister of the Interior. I was afraid we were going to get a Minister who stood for equality, and I said so on public platforms. This is a Sapa message and not an “own correspondent.”

It is not so.

This Sapa report was published in November, 1942. It was on the 16th November and it was not denied either by the Minister or by his party. If we have a Cabinet Minister in this country who is responsible for the maintenance of a decent livelihood for the people and he makes startling statements of this kind we can only come to one conclusion, and that is that he is preparing us for a policy of equality throughout South Africa. He is preparing us for the elimination of the colour bar. I emphatically want to protest against the statement made by the Minister of the Interior. It seems to me that the Minister is emulating the Prime Minister in making startling statements. He comes along from time to time with startling statements. I want to put a few other questions to him in regard to his Department. First of all I notice an increase of £39,000 here under the heading of Aid to indigent and aged Indians. The amount originally was £23,000 and now it is £62,000. Then there is an increase of £10,570 for publicity. What is that for? For “repatriation of South Africans” there is also an increase of £3,000. I would like to know why these increases are being asked for? Now, there is another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. It used to be the practice in the past, when the registration lists or supplementary lists had been framed, to give the leaders of the political parties a copy. This was suspended during the war. I want to ask the Minister again to allow a copy to be given to the leaders of the political parties when they make application in every district, also a copy of the supplementary lists which are framed during the year, and of the biennial registration lists. It would facilitate and improve the work considerably. We on this side of the House have today protested strongly against what we call the startling statement of the Minister, and we want to express the hope that the Minister in future will think before he speaks. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) where he said that the Minister could not separate his person of Senator Clarkson from his office as Minister of the Interior. Much greater importance is attached to a statement made by a Minister than to a statement by an ordinary member of a party.

I want to pause for a moment at the reply which the Minster has given to this debate. He referred to the Jewish arrivals who came into South Africa on temporary permits. May I draw the Minister’s attention to this, that it is a well-known fact, and we have raised this repeatedly when his predecessor was in office, that these people come on temporary permits which are renewed from time to time. In the days of his predecessor many of these people subsequently, after they had come in on temporary permits, were lost track of. One could not trace them. The position apparently has now arisen that these people do not apply for permanent permits; they come in on temporary permits. In actual fact they are a kind of immigrant in this country. We ask the Minister to go into the question of the issue of permits. I believe that things are happening under this system of temporary permits which are not justified. I do not know what the position is today, but I remember quite well that in the days of his predecessor people came into this country and it was impossible to trace them afterwards. That was admitted. In regard to Jewish immigration we now have a clear statement from the Minister. He said he was opposed to discrimination. We now know where the Minister stands in regard to this matter, we have had a clear statement from him. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the debate which we have had here today about the Indians in Natal. Part of the Dominion Party was at loggerheads with the Minister and with other members on his side of the House. The debate was very interesting because it disclosed the cracks which have already started in the Coalition Government, but apart from that the debate was an indication of what happens in this country if undesirable types of immigrants stream into the country. The Minister, who has today been listening to his own people discussing the immigrant problem in Natal, must realise what problems can be created by immigration which should never have been allowed in the first place. The Indian problem principally exists on account of the fact that the Indians have managed to get a hold in certain residential areas, and secondly, because the Indians have succeeded in getting hold of an execessive share of the trade in Natal. We find that practically the same condition of affairs is now being created in South Africa as a result of the wholesale admission of Jewish immigrants. We saw the Minister and members opposite casting reproaches at each other today and blaming each other in regard to the responsibility for the Indians coming into this country. In days to come we shall no doubt have some debates in South Africa as to who was responsible for the Jewish problem in this country, and the question will then be asked : “Why did you allow such large numbers to come into the country”? We unfortunately have the position today that the Minister shuts his eyes to the problems which actually exist. Let me tell the Minister, and also the Jewish members of this House, that I am astounded at the fact that they themselves do not realise that they are aggravating this problem by not putting down their foot and saying : “We have enough of Jews in the country”. The Minister and the Government can put down their foot and say they are going to put a stop to the immigration of Jews, but the Minister does not do so, and he is therefore creating another problem in this country. In regard to changes of names I want to say a few words. The Minister takes up the attitude that he himself is not in favour of unnecessary changing of names, but he also created the impression that the changes of names which had taken place were all justified. I had not intended touching on this question again, but in view of the Minster’s statement, where he tried to create the impression that the changes which had been allowed were justified, I must say a few words more about it. Let us take the instances mentioned in this list of people who have changed their names —this list comes from his own department. To my mind there are quite a number of cases which do not comply with the requirements of the Act. The Act provides that the Governor-General can allow a man to change his name “for good and sufficient reasons”. The Minister and his department, before allowing a change of name, must be satisfied that the reasons are good and sufficient. I referred to cases yesterday in which I admitted that there were good reasons for changing a name but if a man like Sussman changes his name to Sutton—what reason is there for his doing so? Are the reasons he gave good and sufficiet—

Heaven alone knows what that has to do with the matter—

He decided to get rid of his name. Is that the kind of reason contemplated by the Act? If that is good and sufficient reason, should not the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance also change their names, because their names were also originally German names? Those are the kind of changes of name which should not be allowed. Another instance which I mentioned yesterday was that of Schoplich which was changed to Shopley, and the reason given was—

The spelling was too complicated, and the pronunciation was too difficult.

If he wants to change his name because it is difficult to pronounce it, very well, but it is no reason for his changing his race. If the Minister would only lay down the principle that although a change of name may be allowed, a change of race will not be allowed. Why should a man like Kaplan change his name to Sutherland? There is no justification for it. I am glad to note that the Minister apparently agrees. With regard to the Minister’s reply about immigration—that reply was by no means satisfactory. He did not give a full reply to matters raised by this side of the House. I shall leave it at that. I also want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) but as the hon. member is not here at the moment I shall refrain from doing so for the time being.

In reply to some of the questions, particularly the one put by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig), he asked about the increase of £39,000 ’under sub-head (m) “Assistance to indigent and aged Indians.” This is due to an increased rate of pensions from 10s. to 25s. in urban areas and 20s. in rural areas, and to provide for the usual progressive increase in the number of pensioners. He also asked about the increase of £3,000 under sub-head (o), “Relief and repatriation of distressed South Africans.” That is due to an increase in the allowances, and to the fact that the expenditure has been under-estimated. There are different kinds of advances, one for relief and the other to cover expenses of repatriation to South Africa. Then an hon. member has raised the question of the Voters’ Roll. When these rolls are compiled only eight copies can be made, and one is provided for each political party. If they want additional rolls then they must copy them, or wait until the roll is printed. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) says he is not satisfied with the statement I made as regards immigration. I cannot enlarge on the subject. I have told him exactly what the position is. He has raised again the question of the change of names I told him that the policy should be that the reasons for the change should be good and sufficient. He has picked out some that I admit it is very difficult to justify, I say that frankly. But if he can only pick out two ….

There are half-a-dozen more.

Well, half-a-dozen out of 800. These things do get through, but I quite agree that the change should not be made for the purpose of hiding the nationality of the individual. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) raised the question of flags. The hon. member knows perfectly well that there are certain rules and regulations in connection with this, and I am going to enquire into the question raised by him.

I notice an amount here for publicity, “Information Bureau,” and there is an increase of nearly £11,000 on this vote. I understood that the Information Bureau was going to do less work and that it was gradually going to be cut out, but now we find that the amount is being increased by nearly £11,000. I should like to know the reason for that. What are the intentions in this connection? I want to say that I am not as nervous as hon. members opposite who spoke and who were very upset, but I should like to know what the position is and what the work is, and why the amount has increased to such an extent. I did not want to interfere in the dispute about the Jews yesterday, but I sat here and listened. I listened to the temerity of some of the Jewish members. I just want to tell them that they will not get any sympathy when they mix up Jewish persecution with Hitlerism and Fascism and all those things. I am sorry for any nation which is persecuted; I do not like to see it, but I want the Jews to remember that this is our country. Our ancestors cleaned up this country and made it fit for human habitation. We don’t want to persecute the Jews, but we do not want more and more of them to come into this country. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) said that they had not fostered or promoted Jewish immigration. The Jews who are here have civil rights and we do not object, but do not they themselves realise that it is dangerous when the Jewish population becomes larger than a country can bear? One has seen what has happened in other countries in the world. They themselves create a Jewish problem. If you talk to them and point it out to them the reasonable Jew admits it, but then he turns round and says: “What is to become of our poor people who have been persecuted, why cannot we have them here?” We say: “Because we do not want a Jewish problem here.” I just want to say that they should understand that this is our country, and we don’t want people coming here whom we don’t want. We do not want to aggravate the Jewish problem and that is why we do not want to admit any more of them. That does not only apply to this country only, it applies to all countries in the world. How many years has not England been worrying and troubling about Palestine? Only recently there were risings and trouble there and a police station was burnt down. We have quite enough problems here. We already have the Indian problem which hon. members from Natal got so heated about today; we have the native problem and the coloured problem and because we look upon South Africa as our country we do not want to create any further problems. The Leaders of the Communists are Jews, and the capitalists who are making trouble are Jews, and now they say : “How can a Jew be a capitalist and at the same time a communist?” It is not the same Jew. The capitalistic Jews are those who are rich and those who are poor are communists, but the great point is that the Jews try to dominate, and as long as I can prevent it and as long as any Afrikaner can prevent it, we are not going to allow the Government of this country getting into the hands of the Jews. The Jew who has civil rights here is entitled to live here, but the Jews remain a separate nation in this country, just like the coloured people, the natives and the Indian. We have a few hundred thousand poor whites here and we do not want any more. There is no country in the world which can afford to have more than a certain percentage of Jews. Some people say that the limit is 5 per cent., others say more. As soon as the percentage becomes larger, persecutions take place. So far as I am personally concerned I am not afraid of those people because I have grown up with them and I know them. I don’t think they are any more clever or better than we are, but they have a different outlook to ours. They have different business methods; we see it every day. Let hon. members over there come to my district. There is one Jewish trader there who up to date has caused eight farmers to be sold up in the last fifteen years. I am not anti-Jewish but we cannot have more Jews here. They realise themselves, and they know it just as well as we do, but then they say : “What is to become of our fellows in these other countries?” Surely they cannot expect us to take that burden on our shoulders, we cannot do it. We have quite enough racial problems of our own, and we cannot afford to have any more. I feel that so far as the Government is concerned they should tell us what they are going to do after the war if there is an influx. I think we are entitled to know from the Government what their attitude is. If they have no policy in regard to this matter let them tell us so. We do not believe they have a policy. The fact that the Minister can say nothing goes to prove that they have no policy and that for the sake of the Jewish vote and for the sake of the assistance they get from the Jews they are not in a position to take up any attitude. What scares us most of all is that the Prime Minister is looked upon by the Jews as the greatest Jew in the Union, and so far as the Minister of Finance, who is also a strong man, is concerned, we know what his point of view is. I believe he is the Chairman of a Jewish Association. We know what his position is. The people want them to be honest, and they want to know what the position is. If the Government is going to encourage them to come here there will be trouble, and I want the Jews in this country to realise it themselves. It is not that we hate the Jews, but the position simply is that we cannot take any more of them. And now we have this, that an hon. member like the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) can come and insult decent people and accuse them of lying and of committing acts of deception, and we have had the same sort of thing from the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg). He had the temerity to make charges of that kind. They talk about loyalty and say they are loyal Afrikaners. The hon. member for Umlazi did not even tell his party what he was going to say about the Indians. The other members of his party‧ got a shock. He did not even consult the party which put him into Parliament about what he was going to say. We realise the seriousness of the position; what I am saying here today is what the ordinary man in the street is saying—both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. I am not talking about the people who do not distinguish between white, black and coloured. They are abnormal. We want to try and keep our race pure in this country. We are not out to make trouble for the Jews; at least I am not. So far as I am concerned the Jew is as good as anyone else, but they remain a separate race in this country and it is no use trying to deny it. I know what the position is if a Jew marries a Christian girl and she does not become a Jewess. I know their religion. I don’t blame them. They are perfectly entitled to live according to their religion, but they must not expect that they, who remain a separate race, who stay together and who do not assimilate like other people who come into this country, are going to be allowed to enter here in large numbers. [Time limit]

I want to raise a point of administration with the Minister concerning the electoral office in his department. I refer to the registration of native voters under the Native Representation Act. I want to ask him to take into consideration allowing the supplementary registration of native voters to take place more frequently than is allowed under the regulations at present. African voters are registered quinquennially, but once a year applicants for registration are allowed to apply and a supplementary list is made up. I am informed that the position in regard to the general voters’ roll for European and coloured voters is that a supplementary list is compiled two or three times a year, and I want a more frequent supplementary registration of natives. And I want to put it to him that there is even more reason in the circumstances which apply to native applicants for registration in the Cape to allow more frequent supplementary registration than there is in the case of European or Coloured voters. The reasons why I say that are these: In the first place, the majority of native workers in the Cape are not people who live all the time in one place. Circumstances over which they have no control force them to move to and from urban areas where the largest number of voters are registered—they go to their homes in the countryside, and very often a man is away— a man who would normally be qualified as a voter—when the registration takes place. He cannot go and register just at any time because there are certain conditions he has to comply with. He has to have worked for at least a year, to have earned a certain standard of wages, or to have resided in or occupied a property of a certain value for a certain period, and it is therefore more difficult for him in those circumstances to be available for supplementary registration. In the second place to him registration as a voter is far more important than it is in the case of an ordinary European voter. His voter’s certificate exempts him from regulation by which he has to get a permit to seek work, and allows him to live in any place where he can get accommodation and not only in a native location. To a native voter in the Cape the possession of a certificate of registration is a very important matter indeed, and therefore—I do not want to overburden the Minister’s officials—if this can be done with the European and Coloured voters, it can be done for the native voters also. This is a perfectly simple request but it is a request for which there is a definite need— that is that there should be quarterly registration for native voters as well, and that this registration should not just take place once a year. I have made representations in the past to the Minister’s officials in regard to getting natives on to the roll by providing special facilities for them to register after working hours. These officials have always been very co-operative, but this is a matter governed by regulation, and I hope the Minister will amend these regulations so as to allow registration to take place quarterly and not only annually. Another matter which I want to raise is one which we on these benches have raised year after year—it is the question of the registration of vital statistics of natives—the registration of births and deaths. The Health Department in its reports has year after year indicated under what handicap it labours through the lack of registration of vital statistics among natives. The Social Security Committee also emphasised the handicap under which it laboured through the absence of reliable data as to vital statistics for the natives. If any social security scheme is given legal effect to in years to come I imagine that that handicap will be felt all the more. There will be difficulties about proving paternity, age, for old age pensions, and so on. All these difficulties can be removed if there is proper registration. The answer which we have always had to our representations in the past has been that it costs too much money. Well, the cost cannot be so enormous having regard to the vital necessity there is for this particular reform. Now, again, the Indian issue has been raised in this House, and I want to reply to certain remarks made this morning by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) who was pleading for the extension by Proclamation of the Pegging Act to the rest of Natal, and was complaining that whereas the local areas of Natal have to prove a case for the application of the Pegging Act since that Act came into force, in Durban the position prior to the passing of the Act is taken into consideration. Well, the position in regard to Durban is that there was a finding of penetration by the second Broome Commission previous to the passing of the Act, and the Minister of the Interior made a statement in relation to Durban as to the date from which penetration would be regarded as having taken place. With regard to the outside areas the Broome Commission reported quite clearly that the so-called penetration since 1927 was a “mere trickle.” These were the specific words of the Broome Commission. And a speech like that of the hon. member for Drakensberg is the sort of thing which embitters racial relations in this country. The hon. member for Drakensberg got up here and talked about a menace to the European community in Natal and said there had been all this penetration before the Act, and that should be taken into consideration by the Government in applying the Pegging Act outside the municipal area of Durban. The hon. member comes here and makes that statement when we have the considered finding of a Commission prior to the Pegging Act, to the effect that the amount of the penetration had been a mere trickle.

I would have thought that after the replies made to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) yesterday, he would have been almost ashamed to intervene again in this discussion and start repeating many of his statements, but perhaps it was too much to expect that of him when one has regard to the fact that although under our system of law the person who receives stolen goods is regarded as a worse offender than the thief, he has the courage to come to this House as a selfconfessed receiver of stolen goods and to deal with these matters not only knowing that they were stolen, but in addition to shelter behind the privileges of this House, to commit a gross contempt of court. Under those circumstances one is not surprised at anything he says.

Why cannot these publications see the light of day?

And then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren)

came along with an insulting statement. He said that they had suddenly become the friends of the Jewish community, and he said that they were taking up the attitude they did in the interest of the Jewish community.

No, we say it is in their interest but we do not say so because we want to curry favour with them. I don’t want any favours from you.

The hon. member can leave it to the Jewish community to judge what is in their interest, and they will judge much more rightly as to what is in the interest of South Africa than my hon. friend over there. They talk about “ons land”.

They should not have allowed you into the country.

Their conception of “Ons Land” is to have a ring fence in which they can have Afrikaners—the type of Afrikaners they have on their side—and the Afrikaans-speaking people on this side of the House would have no say at all. They would simply put a ring fence around themselves, knowing as they do, or as they should do if they know history—that they could not exist in those circumstances, in the light of the way things are developing in the world. But they have completely overlooked the history of South Africa. Why—from the very first day of the history of South Africa members of the Jewish community have been participating in the building up of this country.

That is not true.

In 1652 when the Cape was established as a trading centre, a trading station by the Dutch East India Company, the Dutch East India Company, among its prominent members had a large proportion of Jews who had fled from religious persecution in Spain, and who were received with open arms in Holland, and who contributed largely to the greatness of Holland, and they were to a large extent responsible with others for having this settlement started, and from that time until this day members of the Jewish community have been making contribution after contribution to the development of this country.

To the development of their own pockets.

The hon. member over there would not have had the income in his pocket which he has today if it had not been for the fact that the Huguenots—refugees who fled from religious persecution from other parts of the world—started the wine industry here. If the hon. member’s ideas had held sway in those days they would not have been allowed to come to this country, because they would not have been allowed to land— only “ware” Afrikaners would have been allowed into this country and no one else. The Wool industry has been established by members of the Jewish community. The sugar industry owed its original existence to a member of the Jewish race. And the first industrialists of South Africa were members of the Jewish community. If hon. members will go to the Mendelsohn’s collection in this House they will see a photograph where the late President Kruger—for whom they have no respect today—was laying the foundation stone of the first industrial enterprise at Vereeniging—an industry established by the late Mr. Sammy Marks, and even in recent times we have the position that various industries of the greatest importance have been established by the initiative and energy of members of the Jewish community who would not have been allowed into this country if the views of hon. members opposite had prevailed. And even the Jewish refugees from Germany would, if hon. members opposite could have had their way, not have been allowed into this country—they would, have allowed Germany to have exterminated them. But these Jewish refugees from Germany have in the last few years been able to establish industries in this country which have been of the utmost value to the war effort, and which will be of the utmost value to the general industrial development of South Africa. Their contribution compares favourably with the contribution to the development of South Africa by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) who was merely an unsuccessful shopkeeper who became an unsuccessful Minister on gehalf of this country, for which he drew a salary— which he himself said was so much waste— but he continued to represent South Africa and to draw his salary until Gen. Hertzog kicked him out of his job.

That is not so.

And what is the position today? The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is nothing but a guinea pig director of a number of Afrikaans-controlled financial corporations, with interlocking directorates.

What have you against that?

The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) asked why there were no Jews in the Civil Service. I put the question, if the Civil Service and other occupations are closed to them, as they are, they have to go in for other concerns, and I say that these other concerns have been to the advantage and the benefit of the people of South Africa. And what are they doing? I don’t know if the hon. member for Beaufort West is a director of Finbro Bros., Ltd., or Guinsberg, Ltd., which have been bought out. I believe, by Reddingsdaad, but are continuing to run under a Jewish name so as to keep the custom of the Jewish community. When the hon. member talks about the Boer War, I prefer to accept what Gen. Hertzog said and what Mr. Havenga said about the attitude and service of the Jews, rather than what the hon. member for Frankfort says. They have continually borne testimony to the services of the Jewish people and I prefer to take their testimony. Then the hon. member went on to deal with another point. He talks about the change of names. Well, if the hon. member studies the position a little bit and the history of names he would not make these remarks. People have to advertise their change of name and there is no evidence to show that such a change of name takes place in order to hide anyone’s identity. The Afrikaans-speaking people are doing it, the English-speaking people do it, and the Greeks do it. And the Government Gazette is full of these instances where the people change their names. And I am sure if hon. members know their history they will be aware of the fact what the position was in regard to names in about the 15th or 16th century; before that people were known as the son of so-and-so. And then the principle of surnames was introduced. Take the name of Louw. I don’t know when the letter “u” crept in and the “e” was lost—it is the same name as Lowe in England. [Time limit]

I shall try as speedily as I can to deal with the question of the Indians, of the film industry, and of broadcasting, and I shall do my best to stick to principles and leave personalities alone. May I put it to the Committee that the problem of the Indian in Natal is quite definitely a national one and not a provincial one at all. There is nobody, or scarcely anyone, living in Durban today, or in the Midlands of Natal or the North, who had anything to do with the introduction of the Indian people, and they are no more responsible for the present difficulties than the residents of say Bloemfontein. This is manifestly a case where counsels should be shared and responsibilities shouldered by the Union as a whole. What we want is that the fullest consideration shall be given to this question from all points of view, bearing in mind the interests and the rights of everyone in all provinces and of all races. And I wish to suggest that we should try to assist each other in arranging matters without doing an injustice to any person or group. It is help, not hostility, that is wanted. If we take the statement of the hon. member for Durban, Central—I presume he has studied his facts—if we take his statement, that the Indian is increasing in Natal at double the rate of the European, then in the course of time, by natural increase, the Indian will achieve control. Now, would that be desirable, even from the point of view of the native people? It is very easy to over-simplify, and ignore logical consequences of action or inaction. One thing is certain. We have to be just to all the peoples in our country. We cannot deport the Indian. In a great many instances he was bom in this country, and so was his father and his grandfather. It is no use talking of doing things which are beyond our powers. We cannot send him back to India, because he did not come from there; but there are things which we can do. The fear in Natal can be expressed in two different ways— that is to say there is fear on the part of the population from the point of view of property, and there is a fear of the European being swamped numerically. Now, it has been very prevalent in Durban that wealthy Indians, with apparently no great sense of responsibility and duty to their own people, have bought properties in solely European areas with the consequence of a depreciation of the value of other properties in those areas. Now, that any home-owner should suffer dratic losses of hard-saved capital, through no fault of his own, it seems to me is absolutely wrong, and I suggest that that matter can probably quite fairly be dealt with by Act of Parliament, and ought so to be. No man, of whatever race, can rightly be allowed to use his wealth to the direct harm and loss of others. With regard to the other property aspect, it is necessary that the Corporation shall provide the poor hard-working Indians, of whom there are many, who indeed constitute the very large majority, with proper dwellings and sufficient of them. I agree with the Minister in his desire to find and set out adequate residential areas, and in that connection it will be necessary to provide them not only with houses but with the ordinary amenities of life, with gardens, with good roads and fast, cheap transport. If the Minister can work along those lines he will do away with a great deal of the present ill-will. If we meet these two cases I hope and I believe that half the difficulties with which we find ourselves faced today will disappear. With regard to the other question I do not see anything very wrong with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban, Central, of voluntary repatriation to India. If the Indians wished to go it would probably be an excellent thing for both countries, but I don’t think many wish to leave South Africa. But it would be exceedingly expensive, and the cost should not be borne just by the Province but by the State. I consider the real solution was touched upon by the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen), when he said we must go in for a proper system of European immigration. A little while ago we of the Labour Party were pleading from these benches for a special kind of immigration, that of receiving war-orphans from Europe, and I believe if we do adopt the suggestion which has been put forward by the hon. member and strengthen our Nordic population we shall be able to cope with the growing ratio of Indians as against Europeans. It is only fair to the Dominion Party members to say that they introduced the subject of immigration earlier in this session. Now, I did not have the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. member for Mooreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), but I read it with a good deal of interest, and like him I object to the impact on the Union, and especially upon young South Africa, of the almost overwhelming Hollywood film. American films appear to be our exclusive film diet. Well, I object to a lot of things in connection with the Hollywood films. We are told that they are educative in many respects. I don’t think so, at least not in quite the best way. Most of the pictures rely for their appeal upon sections, platoons, even battalions of young women — I believe the technical term for many of these performers is “cuties”. Doubtless they have their attractions, but do not necessarily provide the ideal object lesson for junior South Africans. I don’t always approve of the blond typist being taken to a high-stepping place known as a “joint” or a “dive” — and I do not think I am ridiculously narrow-minded. And I don’t relish the vulgar display of what they call “country houses”, which are obviously larger and more lavish than Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. Many of those pictures to my taste smack too much of the almighty dollar, and I don’t think that what we see on these fims fairly represents the position in the United States. In any case we would prefer to see representations of our own country. And then there is the question of the language. I am sure hon. members object as much as I do to the horrid little boy who, answering his parent or any other unfortunate adult, says “O-kay, Pop”. I don’t like him, and I see no sufficient reason why he should be inflicted upon me. This wretched infant’s influence has already spread too far. It is happily not general, but I have heard a junior officer, on being given an instruction by a senior officer, reply “Oky-doke”. What is the precise significance of “Oky-doke”? There may not be very much wrong with that, but I prefer the old navy way of speech, “Ay, ay, sir”. We have two excellent languages of our own, and we do not need to introduce a third. If we go on listening to the talk we hear from these films we run the danger of losing both our languages and getting very little in return. We have unrivalled scenery for photography in this country — not only in the Drakensburg and the Hex River Valley. Take, for example. the Union Buildings. What a film it would make and how nice to see some of our Ministers there having a cup of tea! [Time limit.]

I don’t know whether the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) realises that he has not done his own Jewish cause any good by adopting that very provocative attitude in his speech just now —not only by his very provocative attitude but also by the way in which he indulged in personalities. I have on several occasions spoken in this House on the Jewish question, but not on one single occasion have I ever, in this House or outside, made any personal references to the hon. member for Troyeville, the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), or to any other Jewish member of this House, I have discussed their policy, I have discussed their attitude in regard to the fostering of Jewish immigration and matters of that kind, but never have I so far lowered myself as the hon. member for Troyeville has done by those personalities in which he has indulged. Probably the hon. member for Troyeville consorts too much with the hon. member for “Mental” Hospital (Mr. Barlow) from whom he has learned to indulge in personalities, and from whom he has learned to make statements which are untrue. On several occasions I have had to get up on points of explanation to refer to untrue statements made by the hon. member over there. Today the hon. member for Troyeville has followed his example. If the hon. member has done anything by his provocative attitude, and the way he has indulged in personalities, he has shown this House and also people outside, the type of people we get into South Africa, and the way in which he has spoken has shown that he is not only the member for Troyeville but is the product of the Polish Ghetto.

Order! Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I would like to point out to you that ghetto is the name given to the Jewish quarters in certain Eastern European cities and I have never yet heard that the ghetto is regarded as a word which is inappropriate, but in deference to yourself, if you wish me to withdraw the word ghetto, I am quite prepared to withdraw it, and I will put it this way, that the hon. member by indulging in these personalities has shown from where he comes. I am not going to try and defend myself against these personalities I do not know whether he got his information from the hon. member for Hospital, but he said that I was the Director of a certain group of Afrikaner industries, with interlocking directorates, trading under Jewish names. I absolutely deny it.

No, they would not have you.

I am a director of only one South African institution and that is of S.A.N.T.A.M and S.A.N.L.A.M., and if the hon. member objects to that, he should state what his objections are. Why does the hon. member not reply to the arguments which have been put forward, but come here with these personalities which do not take the matter any further but only serve to show him up in his true colours.

Now you are squealing.

I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). I cannot let this occasion pass without referring to the very serious charges which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) made yesterday when he said that I had omitted certain words and sentences from certain documents I quoted, and that I had done so with the intention of misleading the House. He said that I read a line here and there, that I omitted certain sentences, which gave an entirely different colour to the document, and he said that I was in the habit of doing that. I asked the hon. member on two or three occasions yesterday afternoon to produce the necessary evidence. I take it that the hon. member has copies of the documents in his possession. I saw him refer to certain documents yesterday afternoon. I challenge the hon. member to prove that in reading from certain documents I in any way omitted any sentences or anything that was essential.

I read that out yesterday.

You never read them out.

He said that I had omitted certain words after a certain cable, and I say to the hon. member that I did not omit a single word. That cable ended on the words, “I rely on your discretion,” and I did not omit a single word. The hon. member referred to another cable and stated that there, too, I had left out certain words. I have gone through that carefully and I did not omit a single word.

I read out the cable to you which began with the words, “I rely on your discretion.”

The cable I quoted read as follows—

The hon. member said that I had misled the House when I quoted these words, “rely on your discretion.”

So you have.

I omitted nothing that was essential, and the only two cases which the hon. member could quote were those two cases, and I have proved that I did not omit anything that was material. But what is most significant is this, that with regard to the other documents which I quoted fully, the hon. member did not say a word. Why does the hon. member not explain them—those other documents which showed him up as being one of those who has been doing his utmost to encourage and foster Jewish immigration? I have proved my case. There is only one thing for the hon. member to do and that is to withdraw those charges. It is a most serious charge to say that I read certain documents here and that I deliberately omitted certain essential passages. Coming back now to the arguments in regard to Jewish immigration and abstaining from those personalities which we had from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge); we repeatedly get this argument, which we also had from the hon. member for Troyeville this afternoon, that certain Jews have been very distinguished and that they have rendered very valuable services. I have never for one moment denied that there have been distinguished Jews. I have never denied that in one of my speeches; but may I point out that that is entirely beside the point. We are not dealing with the merits or services of certain individuals. We are dealing with the Jewish race; we are dealing with the people as a whole, and the hon. member knows very well that one swallow does not make a Summer. What we are dealing with here is a racial problem which has been created in this country, and it is not a problem which has been created by hon. members on this side of the House, but by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) and the Jewish Board of Deputies; it is the same sort of problem that we have been discussing today in connection with the Indians in Natal. In that connection charges have been slung across the floor, such as, “Who brought those people here”, “You created the problem”, etc., etc., etc. The existing Indian problem was created by those who brought the Indians to South Africa, and so also in the future our successors will be able to say that the Jews who fostered immigration were responsible for the problem. The Jews are the people who have created this Jewish problem in South Africa. It is here, and it is no good being blind to that fact. There is a Jewish problem in South Africa. These hon. members of Troyeville and Cape Town (Castle) have not attempted to deal with that other very important aspect of the matter, and that is the preponderance of Jews not only in industry, not only in trade but particularly in the medical profession. In the medical profession the Jews are securing a preponderance in South Africa and surely educated men as they are, and being interested in their own race, as they should be, they should realise that a very serious state of affairs is arising in this country. Surely they must realise that we cannot have a repetition in South Africa of what happened in overseas countries. [Interruption.] I know that story about anti-Semetism. The hon. member cannot prove that in any single speech I have made I spoke against the Jew as an individual. [Time limit]

I see under this vote that there is an amount of £500 for expenses in connection with Parliamentary elections. I want to ask the hon. Minister, when general elections take place, to see that only Government employees are in charge of the polling stations. I have been asked to draw the Minister’s attention to this matter. I am not going to insinuate that irregularities are committed, but if those polling stations were staffed by Government officials a certain amount of irregularities may be prevented.

They do it to the best of their ability.

The point I want to make is this, that in the case of a general election it may not be possible to staff every polling station with Government officials, but it should be possible in the case of by-elections to do so. I have been asked to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice, and I think it would create general satisfaction if the suggestion I have made is carred out when a by-election takes place.

The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) and I have been condemned from Dan to Beersheba by the Press and by members of this House, from all sides, but on absolutely false premises, because there was nothing in the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) or my own speech which referred to the Indian as an Indian except on one occasion when I referred to the fact that the Indian would not be satisfied with European representation but would require direct Indian representation on these bodies, and I do not know that I can be blamed for that. May I refer to one or two points mentioned by the hon. Minister. He said that the Natal Government did nothing to stop the immigration of Indians into Natal. Let me tell the Minister that from 1891 onwards, there was a distinct feeling in Natal that this immigration should be stopped, and as soon as the people got responsible Government in 1893, active steps were taken to arrest this immigration of Indians into Natal. In 1897 there was a protest meeting at the Point in Durban, in 1897 there was an Act passed limiting immigration generally. Between 1897 and 1899 two deputations went to India for the purpose of discussing this question with the Indian Government. Therefore, when the Minister states that nothing was done, he is under a misapprehension; the Natal people did everything they could to arrest the immigration of Indians into Natal. May I ask the Minister what the successive Governments since Union have done to solve this Indian question in Natal? I only know of one or two instances where the Government took action. The one was the Round Table Conference in 1928 when the then Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), in conference with the agent general for India decided that this country would condone all the illegal entries up to that date—and so saddle this country with people who had no right to be here. And so an agreement was entered into, which was largely dishonoured by the Indian people. When the Pegging Act was being debated in this House, the then Minister of the Interior said that it seemed to him that the Government would have to appoint an ad hoc commission to go into the complaints from municipalities other than Durban. Subject to correction, I am of opinion that the present Minister of the Interior stated that he was not bound by anything that the then Minister of the Interior said in regard to that aspect of the question. Nine municipalities or local authorities in Natal, I understand, asked for an investigation alleging penetration, but the Minister appointed no commission until quite recently, and then he appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Broome. I understand that the Durban City Council intimated to the Government that they would not recognise the findings of such a commission unless there was a municipal representative on that commission. Am I right in saying that a member of the Durban City Council was in Cape Town during last week and that since his arrival a member of the City Council of Durban has been appointed to that Commission?

Quite right; I said that this morning.

The Minister said so this morning, but he did not give us the date, which was last week-end. The Minister told us this morning that he wanted the cooperation and the help of everyone in the solution of this problem. But I ask the Minister whether he has ever approached me or the members of my party or even the members of his own party and asked their assistance in solving this question, since the Pegging Act was passed. To my knowledge he has not done so, and judging by the speech of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) today, it is apparent that the members of his own party were not consulted.

We have met on three occasions this session. We do not have to come into the House to discuss this matter.

I asked the Minister a question in regard to the question of penetration of Indians on farms in Natal, and the answer I got was a very cold comfort. These people are compelled to sell their farms to Indians, because on account of the scarcity of tyres they cannot carry out their business.

They cannot sell to Europeans and they are almost bound to sell to an Indian. That is all I have to say on this matter at the moment, but I would like to ask that in the future before the Minister drops a bombshell—and this was a bombshell—he will approach everyone concerned before he takes any steps. I hope that he will approach everyone concerned when he contemplates a serious step of this nature, and if it is a matter of Government policy, communicate it to us and we will give him our opinion frankly and help him to come to the right conclusion.

I do not see the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in his seat, but if there is one thing which is absolutely reprehensible it is when a member gets up in this House and makes a personal attack on another member which is absolutely unfounded. The hon. member for Troyeville told us in this House what a hopeless failure the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) was. I want to read to the hon. member what the overseas correspondent of his own newspaper wrote in connection with the hon. member for Beaufort West. This is a message from London from the “Cape Time’s” own correspondent—

Who wrote that?

It comes from the “Cape Time’s” correspondent in London. We had a man there, a son of South Africa, who represented his country in a worthy manner, and now a foreigner like the hon. member for Troyeville besmirches the name of South Africa and says that he was kicked out of his position by the late Gen. Hertzog. That is not true. The hon. member for Beaufort West returned to the Union in order to take part in the general development of this country, and the hon. member was not a shopkeeper as the hon. member for Troyeville said. He was a big business man in Beaufort West. He had a large practice, and he took over his father’s business and placed it on a sound footing, so that today it is still one of the biggest businesses in Beaufort West. But there is another thing which I find reprehensible, and that is that the hon. member for Troyeville is continually making attacks on the Reddingsdaad. He is always out to humiliate Afrikaans businesses, and now he says that the hon. member for Beaufort West is a director of Finbros and another big organisation, and that these are Reddingsdaad business. I want to advise the hon. member for Troyeville to get this information from the Minister of Lands. The Minister of Lands will probably be able to tell him who the directors of Finbros are,

Is it you, Andrew?

If the hon. member does that he will learn that the Minister of Lands is certainly not a friend of the Reddingsdaad. Why he must drag these names into it, goodness only knows. I just want to say this. The attitude which is adopted by the hon. member for Troyeville is one which will no longer be tolerated in this country. That is an attitude which is deprecated not only by this side of the House but by hon. members on that side of the House. When one speaks to hon. members on the other side one finds that they have the same views on the Jewish question that we on this side have. What happened recently when the Jews wanted to establish a social club in one of the suburbs of Cape Town, in Rondebosch? The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) is in the House at the moment. Many of his voters approached me in connection with this matter. They said that they could not gain admission to the social clubs of the Christians, as for example at Kelvin, and they therefore wanted to establish their own club near Kelvin. Who were the people who protested against it? It was the supporters of that side of the House. They even convened a meeting of the ratepayers of Rondebosch, and they said that they did not want a Jewish club in that neighbourhood, because South African capital would be invested in it. It is not only hon. members on this side of the House who have these views. There was a nomination fight in the Gardens at the time of the general election, and the hon. member who sits here today largely received the support of people who are against the Jews, and the same thing happened in Sea Point. That takes place in their own party, and then they come here and make these reproaches against us. The other day one of their supporters came to me and asked me to ask the Minister how many Jews there were in the army, where they were stationed, how many of them were in offices, how many of them were on the home front. I asked him why he did not ask one of the members on the other side to put that question. One notices that even the supporters of that side are perturbed. Why do they come along and misrepresent this matter? There is anxiety in the hearts of hon. members on the other side. The English business community, for example, is perturbed about the methods which are being employed in trade, methods which are foreign to them, and the result is that they cannot compete with the Jews. Then there in another matter. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) tried to make out the hon. member for Beaufort West as a liar, and he said that the hon. member in reading certain documents here had omitted certain sentences. Why did he not move the appointment of a commission of investigation consisting of members of this House, to determine whether the hon. member for Beaufort West had falsified anything? He will not do that, because then he would have to disclose the documents. The activities of these people must be kept secret, and they go so far as to obtain an Order of Court merely because these documents were stolen. Why cannot these documents see the light of day? The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) is the biggest agent for overseas Jews in this country. He has his contacts all over the country, and he does everything in his power to bring Jews into this country, and we on this side of the House will no longer tolerate that, and we therefore want a clear statement from the Minister. We want to know what he is going to do in connection with this matter. We hear today that there is anxiety all over the world in connection with this matter. There are countries which will no longer take the Jews. England does not want the Jews to go to Palestine because she is concerned about the Arabs. We have as great a percentage of Jews in this country today as Poland had before the war, and since the outbreak of the war there has been an influx of Jews. How is the Minister going to get them out of this country? What is his Immigration Board doing today? Can he tell us how many applications were made, to how many persons temporary leave was granted, and in how many cases that temporary leave was extended? The hon. Minister is doing in this case as he is doing in connection with the Indian question. He does not lift a finger and we cannot get anything out of him. We want to know what the policy of the Government is. The youth of South Africa is concerned about the influx of those people. What is the position in South Africa today? At the Withwaterrand University one already finds that there are three Jews against one Afrikaner in the medical faculty. Are we going to allow that? At the local university we find that half the students of the medical faculty are Jews. One-quarter consists of English-speaking students and one-quarter of Afrikaans-speaking students. Can we allow that? We cannot. The Minister’s own supporters who are at the front and who are fighting for the freedom of their country are concerned about the future. They do not know what will become of them when they return. Let me tell the hon. Minister what happened in Johannesburg. I was told this by one of his own supporters. The Christians were forced to go and fight while foreign Jews are today being employed in those industries. [Time liimt.]

I notice under Head S an amount of £45,000 in respect of a contribution to the expenses of the Voortrekker Monument. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he knows when that work will be completed, what amount has been spent on it up to the present, and for what purpose the monument will be used? These questions are asked on the platteland every day, and the people are anxious to know what the position is and what the ultimate cost will be.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a subject the importance of which I feel deserves a little more attention than it is likely to get at this late stage of the vote. I want to deal with the question of the financial relationship between the Government, the Provincial Councils and the Local Authorities. I want to ask the Minister if he will again consider more favourably than has been done in the past the request made by the United Municipal Executive for the appointment of a commission to investigate the financial relationships between these bodies. In order to refresh the mind of the Minister, I would recapitulate the history of this particular request. In 1937, when the United Executive submitted a memorandum to the Minister—

We have arranged all this; let me give you the information as it will save time. In regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless), towards the end of last year the Combined Executive saw the Prime Minister, and it was agreed that a round-table conference would take place between the provinces, the Union Government and the municipalities, and I gave the assurance that that meeting would take place not later than the first week in August. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has asked about the Voortrekker Monument, when it will be completed. We hope the monument will be completed in about twelve months’ time, and the question of control is at present engaging the attention of the Government. As you know, it was originally started on the pound for pound principle, but the position today is that the Government is providing most of the money.

What is the amount spent on it?

The amount spent so far is £177,000 and they expect it to be completed for £270,000, probably it will be nearer £300,000. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Baeden) asked for information with regard to Government employees at the general election. I would point out that we tried to use Government employees as much as possible, but in places like Victoria West where there are 53 polling stations, it is perfectly obvious we cannot supply them with full-time Government officials. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has asked for information about the £10,000 increase for films. That is principally for films for exhibition in the Belgian Congo, the French Congo, Rhodesia and East Africa. You know how the price of films has gone up, and that is the reason for this increased amount.

In the few minutes at my disposal, I want to confine myself to Jewish immigration. This is a problem not only as far as South Africa is concerned, but it is a world problem. A moment ago I read about Jewish immigration in a pro-Jewish daily paper. The figures are given as follows: In 1939 82,000 Jews were admitted to America; in 1940 only 70,000 were allowed, in 1941 only 51,000 and in 1942 only 28,000. Within three years the Jewish immigration in the United States declined by one-third. There is a strong agitation at the moment against the Under-Secretary of the Interior in America, Mr. Long, because the Jewish immigration to the United States has fallen to such an extent. I do think that the Jews in South Africa should agree that a Jewish population of 6 per cent. is more than enough, if it is not too high already. If they will realise that as a result of this Jewish immigration their own positions will be threatened in the future, they will cooperate to put a stop to it. In the United States there is a strong anti-Jewish agitation, and since we have a greater percentage of Jews than any country in the world, the Jews must be very careful. In the United States a strong agitation has come into being. In Boston, for example, no less than one-quarter of the whole population consists of Jews, and the control of businesses in the city of New York is 75 per cent. in the hands of Jews. There is a tremendous agitation in the United States, and I read here—

So the article goes on. There are 6,000,000 Jews in the United States. There is an agitation on the part of ex-soldiers of America, and on the part of millions of Americans who are opposed to the immigration of Jews into America. I only mention this is to show that the agitation is not confined to South Africa. England is very fortunate since only one-half per cent. of its population is Jewish, but there too there is an agitation. When we notice that the Jewish population in South Africa is 6 per cent. as against ½ per cent. in England, it is clear that we have more than enough, and we make an appeal to all sides of the House, and also to the representatives of the Jewish community in our country, that we must do our best to prevent the entrance of more Jews into this country. It darkens and threatens their own future. We are perturbed to see how the Jews in America and also in this country are getting hold of state positions, how they are getting hold of the state assets of the country. It has already been mentioned here that at some of our universities more than half the students are Jews. There is a tremendous increase in the number of Jewish attorneys and advocates. The entire trade of the country is in the hands of the Jews. Where is it going to lead? We feel that the time has arrived to call into being a quota system so that every section of the community can share the benefits.

Will you allow 5 per cent. of your members to be Jewish?

Take the nurses in the hospitals; there one finds that the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking girls occupy practically every post. In the hospitals only 3 per cent. are Jewish women.

.3 per cent.

So we could go on. In the police service the percentage of Jews is only 1 per cent. That service if for the protection of our country. In the railways we only find 5 per cent., but when it comes to money-making concerns, to trade, to hotels …

One hundred per cent.

No, not 100 per cent., but 80 per cent. of the hotels are in the hands of the Jews. One hundred per cent of our bioscopes are in their hands. The bazaars are 100 per cent. in their hands. Is that fair towards the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people? Are these two sections not entitled to live; Have we not got the right to demand a share of the benefits of this country? If a Jewish population of 6 per cent. already puts us in the shade, what will the position be if we allow them to increase to 10 per cent. or 15 per cent.? Then the position will be untenable. I say, therefore, that if we do not stop this immigration the position will become alarming and untenable.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) I cannot refrain from quoting a letter which he wrote to Mr. W. Erlichmann in 1927, in which he said this—

After that on September 5th, 1929, at a party congress, he asked for permission to introduce a motion at Ceres expressing sympathy with the families of the Jewish victims who fell at the hands of the Arabs in Palestine. The motion was not passed because a certain member said it might give offence to the Mohammedan people in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want most seriously to suggest that the setting up of a South African film industry is very desirable from many points of view. I was pointing this out when the clock stopped me before, and was suggested that our scenery is suited as well as any in the world for pictorial representation, and I would remind the Committee that South African photographers and technicians will be very grateful (at the conclusion of the war) for occupation which is at present going practically exclusively to the technicians and camera men of the United States of America. The hon. member for Moorrees burg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) demonstrated quite definitely the millions of pounds that are going out from South Africa in direct trade with the United States, whereas we are in a position to occupy our own workmen in the manufacture of lenses and projectors and other kinds of cinematograph equipment. The country has proved, Sir, that the artisans and the mechanics of South Africa are entirely capable of producing these things; they have been given many new jobs to do and they have done them all extremely well. A great deal of money is being sent out of the country which, if this film industry is set up, could be retained here. Further, I have a great faith in the dramatic ability of the average South Africa. I am justified in that because in years past at Christmas time and at Easter in my parish I organised plays suitable for the occasion. One readily found a local resident who could write a good script, found another one capable of painting the scenery, and had no difficulty in finding actors who could most ably interpret difficult parts. We found also that there was tremendous enthusiasm on the part of the general public to witness these displays. It is up to us; we are a young nation, and it is our duty to give encouragement in every possible way to dramatists, actors, singers, and to every soul in our nation who has the capacity for producing films, whether in the form of technical or expressional power. If I may hurry on to broadcasting, I would say that the South African Broadcasting Corporation could and should encourage culture to an enormous extent. Whereas the programmes are pretty well appallingly bad, we have in the Union the talent …

You will be able to say that on the postal vote, but not on this one.

You would rather have it then?

Yes.

Don’t stop. Let the Minister have it now.

If he has it now we may be quite sure he will recover from the shock by tomorrow. The reason for bad service is usually bad payment of the performer.

Order, order! I think it will be better if the hon. member raised this on the Posts and Telegraphs Vote.

I sympathise with the hon. members of Natal who are faced with this great Indian problem, and we on our side want to make our contribution to the solution of this problem. We agree with them that the Indian problem is not a Natal problem only, but a Union problem. We in the Free State are fortunately not faced with this problem. Our forefathers followed the wise policy of prevention rather than cure. We also adopt the attitude that we prefer to prevent difficulties as far as prosterity is concerned, and this problem must therefore be tackled, and the sooner the better. We appreciate the difficulties of the position. On the one hand we have a race with a low standard of living, and on the other hand a race with a high standard of living. The result is that the higher race with its higher standard of living cannot compete with the race which has a lower standard of living. If they have to live together, the race with the higher standard of living will not be able to compete, and we must prevent that state of affairs. For that reason we on this side are in favour of segregation. Hon. members on the other side of the House felt hurt because the remark was made that it was racialism. Well, we as Nationalists are accustomed to this accusation of racialism. When one deals in all seriousness with the native problem or the Jewish problem, one is always accused of being racialistic. That is one of the cheapest arguments which can be advanced. I hope that in the future, when these matters are dealt with the Dominion Party will not make this accusation of racialism, because that accusation is now being made against them. As has been stated, we must rather prevent difficulties than have to solve them at a later date. By far the greatest majority of the European population of this country is in favour of segregation. Unfortunately there is a section which is not in favour of it, and that section has its representatives in all circles. Apparently there are also Cabinet Ministers who are of this opinion, but by far the greater section of the population is in favour of segregation in every sphere, because they have known that in practice notwithstanding the fact that in some cases they oppose segregation in this House. In practice they are in favour of segregation, because not one of them would like to live next door to a non-European. Even the native representatives, in spite of their plea for equality, would refuse if a native asked for the hand of their daughter in marriage. That proves that they are in favour of segregation. But what worries us is that when we deal with this big problem, the Indian problem, we have Ministers in the Cabinet who adopt an attitude which gives cause for concern. We know that the Prime Minister stated in connection with his war policy that he was going to train the non-European in the modern technique of war, but even worse, there is a Minister in the Cabinet who resigned from the Cabinet only last year because the rights and the privileges of the Indians were curtailed. And our present Minister of the Interior said recently that he wanted to give the franchise to the Indians. In view of all these things the people of South Africa have every reason to feel worried and concerned. How can we expect such a Cabinet to solve this problem, when they make these statements publicly? But whatever party it may be, whether it be the United Party, the Labour Party, the Dominion Party or the Nationalist Party, the majority of the members feel deeply concerned about this problem, and we must all ask ourselves whether we can continue to tolerate such a Cabinet. The time has arrived to take action in this connection. It is clear that the Cabinet has no policy. The Minister of the Interior was repeatedly asked what his policy was and he could not reply. He could only advance the old excuse of a Cabinet without a policy, namely, that he would appoint a commission of investigation.

With regard to the letter which was read by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis), I want to admit that that letter was written. But it was written in 1927 when there was no Jewish problem in this country, when we had only 2½ per cent. Jews. This letter has often been read in the House. With regard to the congress, we were influenced by the persecution and the murder of Jews in Palestine. I felt it deeply at that time and I still feel it today. I do not want the Jews to be persecuted and murdered. We therefore want to prevent the persecution of Jews in our country, as they were persecuted in other countries, and we say that the Jews must assist so that there will not be an outburst in this country. The Jewish community in this country is not a danger in the social sphere, nor are they a danger in the religious sphere—not in the least. They are not a danger in the military sphere. But the Jewish community is 100 per cent. a danger in the economic sphere. The Jews deny that emphatically, but the figures prove it. That applies not only to this country but to every country in the world. We would like to give a few figures; 95 per cent. of the wholesale businesses are in the hands of Jews; 75 per cent. of the retail businesses; industries, 90 per cent.; speculation 60 per cent.; hotels and bars 90 per cent.; sharemarket 80 per cent.; flats and houses and leases 75 per cent.; mine development 80 per cent.; fisheries and meat trade 50 per cent.

Where do you get those figures?

But in the military sphere there is only ½ per cent.; in other words the Jewish participation in this war is only ½ per cent. Of course, the war is not a money-making business; that is why you have to fight. There the percentage is one-half. Take the fall of Tobruk; 25,000 Union troops were taken prisoner, but only 68 of them were Jews. In the medical profession our Jewish friends have 50 per cent. control; in the legal practice, 60 per cent.; the police, nil. There it concerns the protection and guarding of the country and the nation, and as I have already said, in that sphere their participation is nil. The figure in the nursing services is only 1 per cent.; the railway service 3 per cent.; education 3 per cent.; in connection with manual labour, where they have to make a living with their hands, the percentage is nil. Does that not constitute an economic threat?

Do you not realise that? Do they not know and do they not feel that in the face of hunger no nation will tolerate such a position, and what will the result be? It can only lead to an outburst later. We as Christians want to settle this matter in a Christian fashion. We would not like to follow the example of other countries; we do not want an outburst against the Jewish community, with all the bitterness and the results to which that led in other countries.

Where do you get those figures?

We can give the hon. member the assurance that we know what we are talking about. You can go into these figures. Instead of that hon. member helping and assisting us by talking to his Jewish friends, with whom he serves on the same company, and persuading them to be reasonable …

What company are you referring to?

… towards Christianity, towards the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, he encourages the Jewish people to carry on, and to carry on in such a reckless manner that a clash will be unavoidable in the future. We want to offer resistance to this 100 per cent. threat in the economic sphere. We are even prepared to enter into a compromise with our Jewish friends. They number 6 per cent. of the population, and if 6 per cent. of the country’s assets is not enough for them, let them tell us whether they are prepared to be satisfied with 12 per cent. and if that is not enough, will they be satisfied with 18 per cent. But in heaven’s name let them be prepared to be reasonable towards the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people in this country. We have to live side by side with the Jewish community in our country. Let them come to us and settle this matter on the basis of a proportion or a quota. That is the only possible settlement which there can be in this country to satisfy both sections. If we go bn at this rate and if our fellow-Christians encourage the Jewish community to get a greater hold on the soul and the life of our people, where will it end? In the economic sphere we shall find ourselves in an unsound, impossible and unfair position. We would like all sections in this country to live in peace. We do not want to drive out the Jewish community. They were born here; they are part of this country; we want them to be able to make a living here, but they must see to it that every section of the people has a means of livelihood and is able to make a living in this country. That is all we strive for. We have no ulterior motives, no ulterior motive of hatred and vengeance to exterminate the Jewish people and to persecute them. But we make a reasonable and fair appeal that we must settle this great problem with which we are faced in the economic sphere, in a friendly way, in the interests of both sections. We must settle it in such a way that both the Jewish community and we as Afrikaansspeaking and English-speaking people can be satisfied.

That is precisely what the English-speaking told the Afrikaansspeaking people twenty years ago.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) ought to be ashamed of himself. [Time limit.]

I did not want to intervene with other matters while the debate on the Indian question and the Jewish question was in progress and I am compelled, therefore, at this stage, to come back to the question of films. The reply which the Minister gave me was a friendly reply, but it was not adequate. The demand for films with a South African background and for South African films is so strong in this country that I feel I should bring another few matters to the Minister’s notice. Afrikaans was recognised nearly 20 years ago as an official language in South Africa, and I make bold to say that no other country of the world will tolerate this state of affairs that in the bioscopes and the films of that country the official language of the country is totally ignored. I am sorry that the Minister did not want to take this matter seriously. He has the report of the commission in front of him, and he has had it for a considerable time. He had an opportunity of consulting the interested parties, and I am sorry that he did not give us any encouragement by saying that, as far as the production of Afrikaans films is concerned, he will take active steps. He says that he has not yet had an opportunity of studying the report, and I do not want to insist on that at the moment. But has he not got anything in mind? I maintained here that the report did not go far enough. The report does not go far enough in assuring the Afrikaansspeaking section of the people that in the future it will get what it has not had in the past twenty years, namely, films in both official languages of the Union.

I agree with you.

If the Minister agrees with me, why did he not say something in connection with my friendly recommendation, namely, that he should appoint a commission to go into this matter during the recess, and that we must not wait until next session to appoint a select committee?

A commission can be appointed to go into this matter during the recess and to deal with it effectively. This is an excellent report, but it does not go far enough; it does not contain all the details we need. I have mentioned two gaps in the report.

I agree with you that the report does not contain all the information which we require. That is why I was so careful in making my statement. With regard to your point concerning Afrikaans in the films, I agree with you 100 per cent.

If the Minister agrees with me in connection with Afrikaans in our films, it is time that something is done in connection with this matter. We are not going to take an Afrikaans film like a rabbit out of a hat. This is a matter which demands serious attention and work. The Minister mentioned the names of certain undertakings which produce films. During the war they have sprung up like mushrooms, but there has been no control over them, and the Afrikaans companies which produced films did not get any sympathy, not to mention monetary support.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 12th April.