I move—

I second.

This is an important Bill, and I do not think that the Minister should set down the second reading for tomorrow. We should have an opportunity to examine the Bill.

The second reading will not actually take place tomorrow.

That is all right if it is just the intention to put it on the Order Paper.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, from the form in which my motion is cast it will be clear that I do not wish this motion to be construed as an attack on this Government in particular, but rather that this present Government should refuse to perpetuate and should put a stop to a system which successive governments of the Union have indulged in, to my way of thinking, to the detriment of the democratic rights and to the detriment of the sovereignty of Parliament. You will notice that I ask for a statement on post-war policy. I do this because this Government may be reluctant, and indeed may have good cause to be unwilling, to introduce at this juncture constitutional machinery to control the delegation of legislative powers. As was natural, as was indeed essential when war broke out, emergency regulations were called for. The urgency, the danger of the times—caused these to be passed hurriedly, and probably this House was very generous, perhaps over-generous, in the delegation of its legislative power, and perhaps it would not be going too far to say it has been correspondingly lax in controlling the use made of that power. Legislators were naturally anxious to arm the executive with every convenient weapon to beat the enemy. Although I know this process, though accentuated by war is not peculiar to it, although I know that reform in this direction was called for in Australia before the war and effected and was called for in England and effected during the war, I feel that in South Africa with our rather different political set-up, in our rather different political circumstances it may not be right for this Government to introduce machinery at this juncture and they may decide to defer consideration of the subject until after the war. But I do not propose, nor do I think it necessary, that this House should consider the emergency regulations in regard to my motion. I feel, however, with many others, that as the war seems to recede from our immediate shores, as victory comes closer, it is our public and our constitutional duty as members to plan some measure of postwar supervision and control of the powers delegated to the executive, the powers we have delegated to the Ministers of the Crown. I regard this motion as an all-party affair. I am sure we do not wish to take political sides in a matter which has to do with the sovereignty of Parliament itself. I am conscious of the fact that my motion is capable of emendation. Indeed, I expect amendments, but it is my hope they will be of such a nature as to keep this matter above petty party politics. I think we will be able to judge the sincerity with which members want this essential, this important constitutional reform by the manner in which they deal with the subject. I know it can be made the means of an attack on the present Government. Is it too much to ask those who sincerely want this important constitutional change to forego on this one occasion on obvious opportunity of a round-about attack on the Government? I have referred to the constitutional principles enshrined in the Act of Union, where we are at pains to distinguish between the legislature the executive and the judiciary. In actual fact we know, and actual practice has proved, there cannot be an absolute, watertight separation of these three functions. With our perhaps commendable habit of compromise we do, however, quite correctly, try to preserve the distinction whilst avoiding a too rigid insistence upon it. The Act of Union specifically lays down that the legislative power of the Union shall be vested in the Parliament of the Union. Parliament, however, often finds it convenient to delegate its legislative authority to subordinate executive authorities, and it also sees fit frequently to confer upon these subordinate authorities judicial or quasi-judicial powers. Delegation has taken a number of different forms, but I intend to deal here mainly with the delegation of powers to Ministers, and through them, to State Departments. Mr. Speaker, important constitutional issues are at stake, and I think that members should realise, as they probably do, what these are, and where they lead, and should be prepared to reformulate, if necessary, their ideas of some very fundamental principles of democratic government. When a Minister asks for, and gets from us, uncontrolled law-making and judicial power, Parliament should know that it is giving up some of its hard-fought-for supremacy and sovereignty, and that we are conniving at the surrender of some of the authority of the courts of law. Parliament itself has perhaps been open to critcism for the too ready manner and the unsystematic method in which it has, in the past, delegated its sovereign legislative power. Parliament must, as it always has in the past, fight against any attempt to overthrow or undermine its sovereignty. Great parliamentarians have suffered and died in this constitiutional fight. Kings have lost their crowns and their heads in their attempts to overthrow and to treat with contumely the governments of the people. I feel that this House will determine today that it cannot now surrender, even inadvertently, any of its traditional and essential rights of sovereignty, nor can it allow its sanction to be used for the avoidance of the correction of the courts of law. We must grant right away that the delegation of legislative power to the executive is constitutionally correct, that the custom of granting judicial powers to Ministers, to the executive, is an administrative necessity. It must then be admitted that this Parliament, this sovereign body of the land, has not only a right, but a duty, to devise methods of ensuring that this conferred legislative and judicial power is properly used and never abused, and that the sovereignty of Parliament and the sanctity of the courts of law are preserved and guarded. It becomes, I think, Mr. Speaker, the duty of members to consider whether the present Parliamentary and legislative safeguards, which we have, are adequate, and if they are not adequate as controlling machinery, to ask the Government to devise methods and to devise machinery which shall automatically control without clogging the wheels of legislation. If I might recapitulate at this stage, to make clear my arguments to the members on the Labour benches opposite, I should say this, that if Parliament delegates its legislative power to the executive, to a Minister, two functions become combined in one man, the function of a law-maker and that of an administrator. There, I think safeguards are advisable. Where, however, this Parliament goes further and grants to one person, to one Minister or to one head of a Department, in addition judicial or quasi-judicial powers, there we have three functions combined in one man—law-maker, administrator and judge—and protection against abuse becomes much more necessary. Where, however, we go further, as we are all too frequently apt to do, and give to this single person, this Minister, this head of a department, the right of making decisions which are not subject to any right of review, we do something which has all the ingredients of arbitrary and despotic bureaucracy, and protection against abuses becomes absolutely essential. Mr. Speaker, it will be urged, I know, and it can rightly be urged, that although the process of delegating legislative power has tendencies which are dangerous, and against which we should guard, it carries with it several distinct advantages. The practice, which is born of necessity, is inevitable. New and changing conceptions of the functions of Central Government, occasioned by the growing complexity of our ordinary social life have lessened, I think, not only the aptitude but the capacity of members of this House and of Parliament itself to legislate adequately. I am sure that all of us will admit that Parliament has by gradual process become almost permanently congested with the detailed business we have placed before us each day, and overburdened by the increasing technicalities of some of the work we have to tackle.

And perhaps also sterilised.

Yes, perhaps also sterilised. I think times of national hazard make it essential to employ methods to speed up administration, and I think the House has adapted itself to these changing conditions by, quite rightly, delegating some of its functions to the executive. As an advantage which will probably be urged, and quite rightly urged again, we may say that delegation makes possible for this Parliament to put through a great mass of public business which otherwise it would be unable to tackle by means of the necessarily lengthy process of ordinary legislation. The State is no longer regarded, nor does it regard itself, merely as a judge, as a policeman, as a defender of society. It has become a public utility owner, a doctor, a lawyer, a schoolmaster, a marketer of goods for the people. In these circumstances the process of delegation adds much to the elasticity of law-making and essential speed to administration. It can be quickly adapted to changing conditions and ideas. It admits of experiments being made and amongst other things it enables this Parliament, this Government to function during recess. I mention these advantages which make it essential for Parliament to delegate some of its legislative authority, but I do not believe that it will serve any purpose for anyone to urge that for these reasons we should allow this process to go on unchecked. I would like here to read to the House some passages in the Third Report of the Social and Economic Planning Council. It says—

It goes further and says—

It goes further and remarks on a tendency—

This is a most significant passage, for here we have this House granting enabling powers, granting the right to subordinate executive authorities to make regulations which shall have the force of law, and we have the Social and Economic Planning Council saying that the tendency is to stretch the enabling powers to cover any contingencies not foreseen when the legislation was granted. The report goes further and it talks of the busyness and responsibility of Ministers which makes it difficult for them to supervise all acts. It says—

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that none of us in this House intend the public service to become important initiators of legislation. That is our function. That is a function which we will fight for jealously and it is a function which I am sure this House will battle to retain in its own hands. The report goes further—

Then it adds in italics something which is apropos of our motion today—

Mr. Speaker, it is today that we are asking for a thorough examination of this situation, and asking that arrangements be made for the supervision of the functions of subordinate executive authorities. I am sure that once we have realised where this unchecked tendency leads we will all be strong to oppose it. I do not think that this House will ever countenance the continuation or the perpetuation of a system which will logically lead to a state of affairs where the legislative would merely deal with general principles and would leave all details of law-making to uncontrolled executive authority—that is Ministers or of heads of Departments. We do not seek to hamper the executive unduly, but we do cherish the supremacy of Parliament. We will certainly, I think, today ask the Government to introduce safeguards which would, although they might cause some delay, cause a minimum of delay; and I think we only seek to check and correct that Minister, that person or that body which seeks to flout Parliament, or is inefficient or mistaken, and even though we only delegate authority, our legislative authority to trustworthy authorities, we are doing no more than our duty to ourselves and to the people of the country when we insist that that authority, however high or powerful it may be, should always be able to be called to account, should there ever be any wrongful or excessive use of the powers granted to it by this Parliament; and I am sure that we will be jealous to see that no legislative power should ever be granted to the executive which ought properly to be handled here on the floor of this House. It was tolerable when Parliament granted to Ministers powers under the provisions of an Act which used the words then in vogue, which allows that “ the Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act.” The power to make regulations consistent with the Act is reasonable and necessary and in that case control only of a formal kind can be asked for. It has, however, become rather too much of a rule to allow—again may I quote—“ that the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing generally all matters which he considers it necessary or expedient to prescribe in order that the purpose of this Act may be achieved,” or some such words as that. Would it be a wrong presumption to say that this changed wording was introduced with this specific object in mind of giving the Minister uncontrolled powers and preventing the upset of any regulations which may be made on the ground of inconsistency? And therefore in a case like that I think the case calls for stricter Parliamentary control. It is not right that a Government department should perform, unchecked, the rightful duties of Parliament or that it should be absolutely uncontrolled in what regulations it makes, even under properly delegated authority. Machinery should be instituted which is capable of changing, amending or revoking, easily and automatically, delegated legislation, which will give safeguards against possible abuse of delegated power. That is the question on which we are now asking the Government to state its policy for the future. Now, it is true that we have at this moment certain safeguarding mechanisms. We should examine them closely to see whether they are adequate and if not, whether they need supplementing. I will try to make out a case today that our present safeguards do need supplementing. I have divided them into four heads. I have called them Legislative safeguards, Parliamentary safeguards, and like an Insurance company, legal and general safeguards. Of course in terms of the Interpretation Act of 1910, regulations made by virtue of delegated powers are required to be laid on the Tables of both Houses, but the process by which a regulation becomes law varies, as it should not vary, in three or four different ways. Some regulations are required to be laid on the Tables of both Houses, coming into force on a prescribed date, unless both Houses shall by resolution disapprove of them. The University of Cape Town Act of 1916 and the South-West Africa Constitution Act of 1935 are examples of that. Some regulations require the prior approval of both Houses by a positive affirmative resolution within a specified time like the Higher Education Act, the Sea Shore Act and the Labour Colonies Act. Some regulations come into force upon publication, but can be annulled or modified by later resolution of both Houses within a specific time, without prejudice to anything legally done under them. The Police Act of 1912 and the Native Administration Act of 1927 are examples of that. This latter Act is particularly interesting. I would refer this House to Section 26 (2) of it. In terms of this sub-section the Native Affairs Commission can, if it objects to certain proclamations made under this Act, give its reasons for dissent, and such dissent together with reasons are laid on the Tables of both Houses. Here we have the Native Affairs Commission now able to act as a scrutinising committee to examine delegated legislation. Here we have a practical example, perhaps in a minor key, of one way in which delegated legislation can be controlled, and we have a precedent for the institution of some form of scrutinising committee to examine delegated powers. The machinery is there, even if they do not use it. That is what we want. The very existence of machinery often means doing away with abuses that might exist if there was no machinery. The majority of regulations are specifically required to be laid on the Tables of both Houses, but no definite instructions or specific directions are given. But in each case it just seems to be a reiteration of the Interpretation Act of 1910 in terms of which, in any case, they would have to be laid on the Table. In all these four processes that I have mentioned, Parliament has now some safeguard against abuse of power, some form of protection. The majority of regulations do come into force forthwith upon publication, and even if they are laid upon the Tables of the House, members, as a rule, have neither the time nor the inclination to examine them thoroughly or to invoke, should it be necessary, even the existing processes of Parliamentary correction. Now, I have mentioned the existing systems of Parliamentary correction. What are they? Are they sufficient to prevent the growth of arbitrary power? We have seen what the legislative safeguards are. We have seen the four different processes by which regulations become law by being laid on the Tables of both Houses. In that case we might say, why is there the necessity for four different ways of doing it? Why should there not be uniformity? But that is just a thought thrown out in passing? Now, let us examine what Parliamentary safeguards we have. First of all, as we all know, while the Bill is in its process of passage through the House, members have the usual opportunities for objecting, should they feel it necessary, to the delegation of power to any particular body or Minister, and they have all the usual Parliamentary processes which we know of raising the matter: at the second reading on a matter of principle, in committee stage, by amendment at report stage, and in select committee, if the Bill goes to a select committee. Even if the Bill becomes an Act we have in this Parliament certain Parliamentary safeguards, certain ways in which we can attempt to correct any abuse of delegated power. The member who is at present not here, the member who is always asking questions, will know the inadequacy of using that weapon to try to correct abuse of power. In Committee of Supply on the Minister’s vote, we can bring up the matter, and also by a special motion after due notice and if the matter is very important we can adjourn the House on a matter of urgent public importance. These are the existing Parliamentary safeguards in our hands, but I think that their weakness is the fact that they are neither systematised nor automatic, leaving as they do correction to the initiative of the individual, and then giving that individual member only limited occasions on which to make his voice heard. Consider too the fact that the Party system and Party discipline tend to prevent a Government member, anyway, from taking up the limited time of the House, or, if I might say so, from bringing motions which could be regarded as motions of no confidence in a particular Minister or in the Government. I think that the Whips would naturally rally the Party to see that anything which might be considered—and perhaps rightly considered—as a motion of no confidence, would be defeated. I mention this, and just to make this point, that any form of Parliamentary control of delegated power by Parliament must not only be easily invoked and automatic, but should also be divorced from any suggestion of Party partisanship. There is, of course, another safeguard, what I might call the legal safeguard, that persons on whom delegated law-making powers are conferred must always act within the terms of their statutory authority. If it can be proved that a regulation is ultra vires of the authority which made it, the courts will of course upset that regulation, and that is why I think Government draftsmen are always seeking ways and means of placing Ministers’ actions above and beyond the reach of the law courts. No Minister, I think, would deny that. There is that legal safeguard, and then there is the general safeguard, depending on the human element, that where the power of regulation-making is in the hands of a loyal and devoted body of public servants, an abuse of power is unlikely and infrequent. These are all the safeguards which we at present have. There are the legislative safeguards, the Parliamentary safeguards, the legal safeguards and the general safeguard of a loyal and devoted civil service. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that jointly and severally these safeguards are both ineffective and insufficient. New machinery must be found, not to remove them but to reinforce them. It would be informative at this stage to examine some of the steps taken in countries with constitutions similar to our own to meet these very same problems about which we are worrying today. In Australia, as far back as 1932, the Commonwealth Senate set up an all party standing committee to examine all regulations made by virtue of delegated power, and to ensure that no legislative power was conferred which ought not to be exercised by Parliament, and to see that all regulations made were in accordance with the Statute. They were guided by the principle that such regulations should properly be concerned with administrative detail and not substantive legislation, which should be a matter for Parliament. The committee’s fourth report mentions that the work they did “was appreciated by the public”. Very significant words, “appreciated by the public”. It is significant that their work did not result in a reduction of the number of necessary regulations which came from Government departments, but to quote again “in an increase in the efficacy of such Jaws made …. and that the experiment had been justified”. In South Australia there is a joint committee of both Houses which examines and reports to each House upon all the regulations made by virtue of power delegated in an Act. It is significant that the committee has the right—again I am quoting—“to report if regulations made unduly trespass on rights previously established by law”. They have the right to examine persons, papers, documents and records, and a report of their work done up to September, 1938, says that—

Here we have evidence of machinery that exists and effectively controls delegated legislation, and we should note it and take advantage of it. Even the Unicameral Queensland House has introduced special facilities for the discussion of regulations on the floor of the House, opportunities which we do not have in this House. In England we come finally to our best example of how machinery should work to control such delegated power. The House of Lords, of course, has had for many years a Special Orders Committee to examine all orders which require an affirmative resolution of the House for their validity or continuance. This committee, incidentally, was called into being because the House of Commons did not at that stage have any such controlling committee. That the need was felt for the institution of some sort of control in the House of Commons was proved by the vociferous public clamour, especially on the part of such men as Sir Cecil Carr and Lord Hewart. This eventually resulted in the appointment of a select committee in 1929, under the chairmanship of Lord Donoughmore, “to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the law”. The report of this committee took three years to complete. It recommended, amongst other things, the establishment of a standing committee to sift all delegated legislation, a suggestion which perhaps might be made today for the consideration of our Government. Meanwhile members of the Commons periodically raised this question in the House and accentuated the need for some form of supervision of delegated legislation, and it is interesting to remember those members of Parliament in England who while on firewatching duties at night formed themselves into an unofficial scrutinising committee to examine all legislation made by virtue of delegtted power and that they studied and watched all rules and regulations and raised in the House by such means as were available to them by ordinary Parliamentary procedure any faults, any evils, any ambiguities and any wrong terminologies they saw in the Acts that were passed. They were very successful, particularly in the use made of questions, in the use of which there are greater possibilities than we have in this House, of rectifying many incipient abuses in regulations passed.

Of course in this country the Parliamentarian is a “mompara.”

Well, sometimes we have the truth out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. Eventually in May, 1944, a permanent scrutinising commitee was established in Egland. It consisted of eleven members drawn from all parties with a quorum of five, and, its duty was to examine and report upon delegated legislation. It has only functioned for a short time, but it will be interesting and informative, I think, to examine its workings. Its scope is wider than the House of Lords Committee. It examines all departmental legislation which is the subject of proceedings of the House, not only orders which need an affirmative resolution. There are features of the committee’s functions that might well be kept in mind by our Government when defining their policy. The committee’s functions do not, of course, as they should not, supersede or do away with any of the ordinary rights of members in supervising the executive, or do away with the ordinary machinery they have for raising matters like this. I do not think, it should, nor does the committee interfere with the policy or initiative of any department in such a way as to relieve the Minister of his responsibility to the House. The Minister therefore cannot shelter behind the committee. It was not considered a function of the committee to go into matters of principle or merits or policy, another consideration that may be kept in view in connection with any scrutinising committee that may be set up in the House, because it is one of the things that prevents the opponents of the Bill renewing a partisan battle at this stage. It is also laid down no report should be made to the House without hearing a representative of the department concerned though it is not considered the duty of this committee to exercise any supervision over the department. There we have a committee actually in force which seems to be successful. There we have machinery which seems to work. Is it too much to ask our Government to consider whether similar machinery might be introduced into this House? If I might recapitulate. Here is evidence of the actual working of a scrutinising committee. I have attempted to show first of all that delegation has advantages, that delegation is necessary and inevitable, that delegation—if we like to put it that way—is a necessary evil. It is to our advantage to use it, but we must control it. I have shown the existing safeguards, legislative, Parliamentary, legal and general, but they are not automatic enough, they are not satisfactory enough. I have shown what Australasia has done, I have shown what England has done to tackle this same problem. Now it remains for us to consider here what we should do in South Africa, what we expect the Government to do. What form of machinery will the Government give us? I myself think it would be a good thing to institute the same sort of scrutinising committee here in South Africa to examine all delegated legislation. If that is not possible it would be interesting to hear the objections the Government has to offer. It might be argued ….

They do not argue, they say nothing.

I notice some other members do not follow their example. It might be argued against the institution of such a scrutinising committee that although the personnel might soon become experts and specialists, even they could not hope to cope with the spate of legislation which flows now, and which will continue to flow from Government Departments. They cannot hope to “vet” every conceivable sort of regulation. May I meet this objection by pointing out three things. First, I should like to say in England the most important function of the scrutinising committee would be to examine the enabling Bill itself. This committeee will examine the enabling Bill itself, and see the relative delegating clause is brought to the attention of the House, and I think in that way it might foresee and forestall subsequently complications and objections and prevent objectionable regulations. Secondly, it will undoubtedly be found in practice that ministerial or departmental knowledge of the existence of a scrutiinising committee will inculcate into Ministers and heads of departments and the legal branch, greater care and greater caution in drafting, and will tend to prevent them from trying to circumvent the rightful and necessary Parliamentary powers which we have here. In South Africa I feel the draftsman, under the careful eye of such a scrutinising committee, will cease to try and find ways of circumventing us. The third point I want to make in favour of the working of such a committee is this. In actual working in England the scrutinising committee has found it necessary in the first six months of their working only to call attention to one regulation or order. It has not lessened the number of regulations which come from departments but it has only found it necessary to call the attention of the House to one order, and then it was on the ground of the unusual use of delegated powers, and that the form and purport of the order called for elucidation. It might be said that in this case and in respect of every case I mention, we have precedents to guide us if we are given our own committee to do this scrutinising work. The committee heard a representative of the department and heard his reasons for this Order, and secured from him an undertaking to meet this particular criticism in the future. In drawing attention to this order the committee merely named the document and set out the grounds for justification of the report. So previous experience shows, and the Government will find it difficult to deny that such a scrutinising committee would be and could be practicable. In South Africa the Government might say it is necessary to appoint a select committee to enquire into the need for a scrutinising committee. You will see I am trying to meet in advance all possible arguments that might be urged against the institution of some form of workable machinery. I would not object to the setting up, in the interval before the war ends, of a select committee to enquire into the need of a scrutinising committee. There is much work to be done by such a select committee. There is a case to be made out for the prior appointment of a select committee. It may be found on examination we have in our South African constitution, in our Parliamentary procedure, certain features which differ very much from those of other kindred constitutions, and that a special investigation is necessary. We can take advantage of the experience and findings of other similar committees whose work I have examined, perhaps rather casually, today. This committee may have to decide whether such a scrutinising committee will be a committee of this House, a committee of the Senate (to give them more work), or a joint committee of both Houses. They might have to decide just what duties this scrutinising committee should have, how it should busy itself in considering this complicated legislation, and how it might be empowered to consider periodically the consolidation of regulations to make them self-contained. It might busy itself with considering the introducing of a greater systemisation and standardisation of the procedure of delegation and the procedure of laying regulations before the House which is at present haphazard. There might also begin the practice, as they have in England, of initiating the use of unbiassed explanatory notes to anything with an obscure meaning and watch for any unjustifiable delay in the publication of regulations. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that though a scrutinising committee may seem to be the most desirable thing at the moment, a select committee may be necessary in order to enquire how a scrutinising committee should act. So I have worded my motion in such a way as not to ask specifically for either a scrutinising committee or a select committee. I have merely asked the Government to state “what steps should be taken”. I have asked them to state their intentions and policy. The fact I have done so does not prevent me from hoping that that policy, when stated, will be forthright and positive; from hoping they will declare boldly the need for a scrutinising committee composed of all parties and their intention of establishing such a committee as soon as the war ends. I also hope that the Government has been considering the matter, and will make some statement regarding the possibilities of forming a Parliamentary link between Parliament and public utilities such as the National Road Board, the Fishing Corporation, Iscor, the I.D.C

And the D.F.B.

Yes, the D.F.B. and Escom and other bodies created by Parliament. What is required is machinery which will not interfere with the free scope of the workings of these utilities but would place before Parliament an unbiassed and non-party report of the work of such utilities, and call the attention of the House to the trends of policy and directions of development of these utilities—for the House to decide and approve or disapprove. So much for regulations made by virtue of delegated power. It now seems necessary for me to consider and examine separately the question of the conferment of judicial powers on subordinate departments. It has been said that this is an administrative necessity, and we regard it as such. There are in South Africa many instances in which Parliament, governed by reasons of practical convenience, has conferred upon Ministers, ministerial nominees, heads of departments or other authorities the power of making decisions which affect the lives of private citizens. Though it is essential that we place this right of making administrative decisions in the hands of subordinate authorities, we should examine with meticulous care a system or a process which tends, with increasing frequency, to try and place these authorities beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of law. There are Acts in which Parliament has attempted deliberately to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts, expressly laying down that there should be no review of the decision of a Minister, authorised person or statutory authority, on certain specified questions. This situation is not dissimilar to that which existed in England and the Dominions to whom we can again go for instructive guidance. In South Australia the function of the Joint Scrutinising Committee set up to examine delegated legislation includes a direction to report to both Houses “if regulations unduly trepass on rights previously established by law” and “if regulations unduly make rights dependent up administrative and not judicial decisions”. It is always granted they will have to make these regulations but the emphasis is on “unduly”. The Donoughmore Committee in England recommended that the power of judicial decisions should only be conferred on a Minister, or some subordinate statutory authority, for “some very special or exceptional reason”. The fear was felt that a Minister might, when acting judicially be influenced, even unconsciously, by the policy of his department. They accentuated the need for the following safeguards, which seem reasonable and workable—

1. (1) All parties concerned must be fully heard.
2. (2) Decisions should be given in the form of reasoned documents.
3. (3) Any party aggrieved should have an absolute right to appeal to the courts on any question of law.

The Donoughmore Committee’s report was, of course, pigeon-holed for many years, but that its findings were not altogether ignored is proved by the fact that the Scrutinising Committee set up in 1944 in England has terms of reference to call the attention of the House to “departmental law-making which excludes the power to challenge its validity in the law courts”, and “laws relating to tribunals where the decision of that tribunal is made final”. In this way other democratic Parliaments have set out to guard the sanctity of the courts and safeguard the rights of the people without denying the necessity for granting judicial or quasi-judicial powers to the executive or unduly clogging the administrative machine. The safeguards suggested in the Donoughmore Report are not revolutionary. Surely it is reasonable to insist that all parties to a dispute should be fully heard—that reasons in writing should, if demanded, be given for any decision and that, on any question of law, appeal can be made to the courts. It is urged that there is in South Africa a similar need for similar safeguards. In the Bill stage of the Act, which gives Ministers judicial powers, or sets up tribunals which have judicial powers, no more is asked than that very careful consideration should be given by the House to the necessity, in that particular case, of granting such powers. Members of course have always in the past had all the usual Parliamentary opportunities of raising the matter during the passage of the enabling Bill. Perhaps they have given too little thought to the mattter, or perhaps it has become so regular a procedure that they pass it as a matter of course. I am sure, however, that we have not the time to examine thoroughly the Bills which pass through the House. One might take, for example, the Standards Bill that came before the House. How many in this House knew there was a clause in that Bill which gave the Minister the power of judicial decisions from which there was no right of appeal? How many hon. members know that it was through the foresight of the Minister that clause was removed? How many hon. members know that one omnibus clause empowered the Minister to add to the objects of the Bill? My point is this, that members have had neither the time nor the opportunity to examine these Bills as thoroughly as they should be examined. It is a specialist’s job, and we should have specialists and experts to guard the individual against arbitrary bureaucratic policy. I think it would not be going too far to say that where we have a clause in a Bill laying down that the decision given by the Minister shall be final, as it is in the Customs Act and in the Excise Act, some form of reasonable check should exist in regard to the rightness and impartiality of the decision. Where an Act goes further as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act (No. 30 of 1941) and lays down that—

—a thing that will make all lawyers shudder —is it not here more essential that the decisions of the tribunal concerned—whether it be the Minister or a commissioner—should be subject to some check? However necessary it may be to give a Minister the power to make a judicial decision we should know, when the Minister or the head of the department acts as a judge in terms of an Act authorising him to make a decision, that there are certain feaures present in these tribunals absolutely inconsistent with our ideas of what is right and just.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry the hon. member’s objections were not met at that time. The man sitting in this tribunal is a judge in his own court. He is not answerable to anyone for errors he may make and owes no responsibility to anyone except a superior official. The court, if we may call it such, holds its session in secret; it is not public. There are no rules of evidence. The judge is bound by no rule of procedure and by no rules of evidence. He can hear evidence only of his own choosing untested by cross-examination. There is no chance of interested parties putting up their case should the judge not ask for them. I trust it will sink into the minds of members that the judges of these cases are in positions in which they should not in fairness to themselves, be placed. In such cases the judge is governed by no rules or precedents and is not compelled to act in conformity with a previous decision made on the same set of familiar facts. He is not even obliged to give reasons for his decisions and indeed is not even obliged to act reasonably. The fact that it is becoming more and more usual to try and place these tribunals above and beyond the reach of the law is in itself suspect. Now I come back to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and I will say this. We know it is necessary to give the power to Ministers and to heads of departments to make these decisions. All I ask in the case of them making decisions under these circumstances is that all parties should be heard, and the reasons if necessary should be given in writing and on a point of law there should always be an appeal to the courts. These are simple safeguards which I am sure the hon. member for Fordsburg tried to introduce, but was unsuccessful. Justice may be done, justice probably is done, and I think it is to the everlasting credit of our civil service that there has been no concerted public clamour for the removal of this system; but I think the public has a right to the permanent security of law publicly administered; and it seems but a moderate request to make that the three essential safeguards of a full hearing, a reasoned decision in writing, and an appeal to the courts on a point of law, should always be guaranteed. These three essentials which would not clog the administrative machinery, are not too much to ask. I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the time I have occupied with this motion. I have left gaps and I am sure many hon. members here are eager to fill in these gaps, and I am sure many more senior members are perhaps chafing at the time I have stood on my feet keeping them in their seats. But I must say that to the best of my ability I have made out a case for some sort of controlling machinery being introduced in this House. I have dealt with the necessity of instituting some form of Parliamentary control over delegated law-making powers and conferred judicial powers. I have attempted to prove that some control by Parliament on the powers it confers on Ministers is called for, and I have shown what steps England and Australia have taken to meet these same problems. I am of the opinion that the smoothest, most efficient, automatic control could be exercised by an all-party sessional scrutinising committee with functions and powers along the lines of the scrutinising committees of England and Australasia. The Government may have different plans; the Government may have worked out some different, some more effective machinery. If so, I know the House is waiting with impatience to hear what their plans and policies are on this important matter of constitutional reform; and we are awaiting with eagerness to hear what recommendations the Government will make to ensure the correctness and impartiality of all judicial, or rather administrative decisions of the executive. I am sure it is the general feeling throughout the country that existing Parliamentary safeguards against possible arbitrary use of delegated powers are notoriously weak, and afford, at best, only an intermittent and haphazard check. If modern conditions require modern methods of Parliamentary function, we should not be afraid to march with the times. I am sure that peace will not bring any slackening in the spate of delegated legislation nor in the administrative necessity of conferring judicial power. Our system of Government and our political aspirations are inclining towards a much larger and extended field of operation, and the executive will have to be clothed with very formidable powers in the future. I do not think this will endanger our democratic Parliamentary system, or our civil liberties, so long as supreme control in practice as well as theory is effectively exercised by this supreme—this sovereign Legislative Assembly.

I second. The question raised by the hon. member who has just sat down is of such fundamental and vital importance that at the outset I should like to say one very much regrets that so little time can be afforded for its discussion. We have heard from the hon. member a very brilliant, a very penetrating and a very careful analysis of the position as it stands today; and he has opened up a field of enquiry and discussion which, for my part, I do not think can be covered within a few hours. He himself has said he has left certain gaps in this discussion, inevitably so I shall do the same; one can only hope to make a few suggestions here and there. Before I go further I should like to urge upon the Government if they can possibly see their way to give further time for the discussion of this motion, they should do so. I am certain many members present in the House are wating impatiently for me to sit down so that they may have the opportunity of releasing their own pent up feelings on this subject. I apologise for having the advantage of them, and shall detain the House for as brief a time as possible consistent with expressing a few of my own views on the subject. The question raised by the hon. member is, in my belief, in one form or another occupying the minds not only of people in this House but of people throughout the country. Stripped of all camouflage the question is a very simple one. And the question is “do the people govern?” That is the question raised. It was raised the other day in this House in another form, and it was attacked eargerly by hon. members, indicating the interest they took in this question. But that is the fundamental question being raised today: “Do the people govern?” Are we in Lincoln’s famous definition a true democracy, or have we drifted into a form of Government that is something entirely different?

Hypocrisy.

I am not prepared to subscribe to that, but there is a feeling in the minds of the people of the country that by an insensible process we have ceased to be a true democracy, that we are not governing ourselves, and have become something totally different. We have reached the stage, in other words, in the development of Parliamentary institutions, when, so to speak, under the disguise of Parliament, under cover of normal Parliamentary institutions, we have established a system under which the real business of Government is carried on without our knowing how and why it is carried on. Now, for my part, I believe that such a view, the view that Parliament itself, and Parliamentary control, are in a sense a mockery, is a very extreme view; it is very extreme and a very exaggerated view, but I will say this, that there seem to me to be very cogent arguments in support of it. I have no doubt that it can be supported by very cogent arguments and I have no doubt either that we are today witnessing a trend, a tendency,. which, unless it is checked, will eventually lead to depriving the supremacy of Parliament of all reality. There are, as I see it, two characteristics in this trend or tendency. In the first place, there is the party system itself; in the second place, there is the development to which the hon. member has drawn attention, namely a process by which by far the greater part of our laws, by far the greater part of the laws under which the lives of the mass of the people are regulated, are not passed by this House at all and are not even known to this House. It is the vast extent to which the ordinary lives of the people are regulated by such laws, laws put into effect outside this House, in the offices of Government departments, under the signature of a Minister, it is the vast extent to which that principle has developed, which leads one to doubt whether we, in fact, do govern ourselves. I mentioned that there were two characteristics of this trend or tendency. The first of them, I mentioned, was the party system itself. It may seem, at first sight, as if the party system falls beyond the scope of this motion, but I think you will agree, Sir, that it is impossible to discuss the subject matter of this motion adequately without some passing reference to the party system. After all, what are we discussing? We are discussing here a process by which the power of making laws is passing out of the direct control of Parliament and into the hands of the executive. While we are recognising the necessity for that process and the desirability of it and the inevitability of it, we urge that certain checks and safeguards should be introduced so that Parliamentary control may be made more effective. But it would be quite obviously futile to devise checks and safeguards to attain a higher degree of Parliamentary control if we were to find that by virtue of the party system itself, we were simply playing into the hands of the executive; if we were to find that the rigidity of party discipline is, in practice, surrendering Parliament more fully into the hands of the executive. We would be wasting our time in discussing the motion of the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) and in considering the safeguards he seeks to introduce if that were to be the ultimate result. Let me add that this aspect of the matter, this party system aspect, if I may call it that, has been alluded to by every writer on the subject whom I have come across. They all recognise that if our aim is to place some curb upon the runaway horse of delegated legislation, and to bring that horse back to the harness of Parliamentary control, we must make sure that Parliamentary control itself is real and not illusory. We must make sure, in other words, that the rigidity of Party discipline does not give Parliament, as has so often been alleged, the characteristics of a rubber stamp. I am perfectly well aware that I am touching here upon a delicate and difficult subject. Let me try to make my own attitude clear upon it. No-one in their senses, no-one with any respect for Parliamentary institutions, would desire to abolish the party system. No-one in their senses would deny the necessity for party discipline! nor am I suggesting for a moment that the discipline of this, that or the other party is too rigid. I am merely dealing with this matter in a general way. I am going to the principles of the matter. I put the question just now: Do the people govern? I say this, that the principle upon which self-government is founded is that decisions should be arrived at by members after free discussion. That is what we are here for. While one recognises both the virtues of the party system and the necessity for party discipline, I feel that we would do well if we want to help the hon. member in any way, to keep in mind that principle, that the principle behind Parliamentary institutions is that we arrive at decisions by discussion. Let us, as far as possible, give the fullest rein to that principle. I myself believe that unless we strive in that direction, the time is not far distant when the people of South Africa will begin to lose their faith in Parliamentary institutions, and signs in that direction are not wanting at present. That is the danger against which we have to guard. The losing of faith by the people in the efficacy of the system under which they live. It is especially dangerous at the present time, when democracy is emerging triumphant from her tremendous battle. It would be disastrous if now, when democracy has so emerged, we should find that the people have lost their faith in the efficacy of the instrument by which it is carried on. I cannot help recalling, when I discuss the necessity of establishing and maintaining the principle that decisions should be arrived at by discussion, the interjection of the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). His interjection was to the effect that, whether in his view or the view of the people as a whole, Parliamentarians are mom-paras. That is also a tendency against which we must guard. I feel that it would certainly be most unfortunate if in the next edition of the dictionary we were to find opposite the word “politician” “a term of opprobrium implying low intelligence and dubious integrity.” It is not inappropriate to draw attention to that, to the fact that the term “politician” is drifting in meaning in that direction.

It is quite true.

It is not desirable it is dangerous that there should be this tendency on the part of the people to lose faith in the efficacy of the institutions they have set up. Before I conclude—I am anxious to give other members an opportunity of speaking on this motion—there are one or two remarks I would like to make about the actual proposals which the hon. member for Woodstock put before us. He has, in effect, conceded that we have a great number of safeguards against the abuse of this power of making laws under delegated authority. We have a great number of safeguards and they are substantial. But he claims and I would like to support him there—that all of them are not wholly satisfactory or efficacious. The gist of his criticism really comes to something of this sort, that with respect to delegated legislation we are in effect a pack of bloodhounds and not a team of watchdogs. We are able, as bloodhounds are, to follow the trail of the miscreant if he misbehaves himself. I see the principal bloodhound entering the House at the present moment. We are glad of our bloodhounds. We welcome the fact that there are members like the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) who seek out any abuse of delegated authority and bring it to the notice of the House. We should be most reluctant to lose the function of the bloodhound, but we also want to have the function of the watchdog, and the function of the watchdog is to prevent in advance any abuse of delegated authority, by drawing the attention of the House to the nature of the powers conferred upon Ministers and inviting the House to curtail these powers if it considers that they give unnecessarily wide authority to the Minister or to the official in question. It is that aspect of the matter which, I think, is really the point particularly stressed by the hon. member for Woodstock. Now, Sir, I would like to support him simply in that particular, that we want to devise a system by which we become watchdogs, as well as bloodhounds I would like to support him in suggesting that we should, if necessary, set up some kind of committee which will investigate the powers, whether they are of a legislative or of a judicial character, which we are conferring upon the executive. I do not think it is possible to do more than invite such a committee to draw the attention of the House to the tendency and the direction in which we are going. I is quite impossible, as I see it, to look at every regulation and to examine what steps are taken under that regulation. The best we can hope to do or such a committee can do is to suggest that here and there the principle of delegation has gone too far. In that way, and in that way alone, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we shall retain, what I say is so imperative, the reality of the sovereignty of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. mover will have deserved well of the House, not only for raising this important subject, but also for his very able and lucid exposition of what after all is a very complex and difficult subject. I think it will be appreciated that in moving this amendment I am at one with him in his statement of the problem, in the degree of its importance and in the necessity for action. But in inviting the Government and not Parliament, to consider what steps should be taken, he displays, Mr. Speaker, a palpable want of logic.

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

I was observing before the adjournment that the hon. mover having established a strong prima facie case, had in his suggestion as to the remedy been some-what illogical. It seemed to me as if he had charged up to the gates of the bureaucratic citadel with a battering ram in his hands and then had contented himself with a prayer. His appeal to the Government to consider the matter however earnest, was surely begging the question. The growth of unchecked and uncontrolled delegated legislation is a challenge to Parliament and not only to the Government. This resolution is in essence a judgment upon the failure of Parliament to discharge its responsibilities in full measure. It is precisely because Parliament has stood by an acquiescent witness to the usurping of its functions and its authority, that it seems to me that in inviting the Government to consider what remedy should be undertaken to meet that situation the hon. member has failed to strike the very keynote of the problem. The remedies, Mr. Speaker, are the job and the duty of Parliament, and that is a job which cannot be delegated. The hon. mover very rightly referred to the late Lord Hewart, one of the foremost critics of delegated legislation, and in his time the Chief Justice of Great Britain. It was Lord Hewart who suggested the first and the obvious remedy in dealing with this problem of Parliament having surrendered its authority and it was “to re-assert in grim earnest the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the law”. And it is Parliament which must in grim earnest re-assert these. The liberty of the subject, perhaps the most priceless asset of the citizen, is entrusted by the constitution to the executive, to Parliament, and to the courts of law. Regardless of status, and regardless in theory at any rate of colour, that protection is ensured to the citizen for so long as the executive, Parliament and the courts remain jointly the trustees of the liberty of the subject. If Parliament surrenders its functions to that extent it puts in jeopardy the liberty of the subject. It is not enough that by placing these powers in the hands of a subordinate body, a department of State or the Minister, the citizen may not suffer an injustice. The citizen is entitled to security against injustice. And that security is guaranteed to him only for so long as the executive and Parliament and the courts of law remain jointly the guardians of the citizen’s liberty. The hon. mover has very rightly said that delegation of authority is inevitable, it is unavoidable. But what we must ensure, Mr. Speaker, is that while it is proper and appropriate for Parliament to delegate authority it must itself never abdicate. The tendency after the war may be for delegated authority to increase, and that makes all the more urgent the problem raised by the hon. member. I want to deal very briefly with one or two of the considerations urged by the hon. member in support of the view, which I do not challenge, that delegated legislation is unavoidable. I deal with them because it seems to me that there is always the danger of pressing home too far these considerations, the consideration that Parliament has not the time, the view that many matters which come before Parliament are technical in their nature, and the point that in the hands of a department of State it is easier to deal with regulations which are more flexible and lend themselves to experimentation. I consider these are sound considerations provided they are not pressed too far. It is said that matters dealt with by regulation are often technical. But Mr. Speaker the best expert is not necessarily the best legislator; nor in fact has the expert the responsibility which the member has. When it is urged that regulations are more flexible and lend themselves to changed circumstances and experimentation, I merely say this, that surely of all things legislation, touching as it often does the life and the property of thousands, is a matter least suitable for experimentation. Now there is no quarrel with delegated legislation as such. The objection, Mr. Speaker, is both as to its volume and its character. Today regulations—and the House will be more than familiar with the situation— regulations are shot out with the rapidity of a machine gun, and often with as much damage. We are, if I may mix my metaphors, swamped in an avalanche of regulations, and many of these touch matters of principle. There is scarcely a householder in the land, there is hardly a businessman or an industrialist who has not had his affairs influenced and largely shaped by regulations. And the nation is alarmed. What the country insists on is that the destinies of the people shall be determined by Parliament and not by the civil service. This matter—the importance of which cannot be overstressed—has engaged the attention of the country for some considerable time; in so far as commerce is concerned, it was the subject of a resolution some time in April, 1944, a resolution of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, in these terms—

It has been the subject of comment during the recess by members of Parliament, and I am under the impression that the hon. Minister of Finance some few months ago had occasion to deal with the subject. I am not too sure though of that. Delegated legislation has grown up, as I think the hon. mover correctly said—I think he made the point—without system, and a good deal of the trouble we suffer from today arises from that fact. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is tempting to look upon the growth of delegated legislation as a conspiracy on the part of the civil service. In Britain, Lord Hewart took that view and said so in emphatic terms. But if there has been a conspiracy on the part of the civil service then Parliament must have been a co-conspirator. These powers could not have been assumed by any department of State without the acquiescence, implied, at any rate, of Parliament. I, Mr. Speaker, do not look upon this matter as the consequence of a deliberate plot on the part of the civil service. For my part I think the average loyal civil servant, at any rate, is not looking for the aggrandisement of his constitutional functions. He wants to get on with the job. He believes in efficiency and he looks askance at the slow and cumbersome machinery of Parliament, which very often he regards as being in his way. And it is because he believes that he can do the job better without interference from Parliament, that he none the less assiduously, assumes more and more of these powers. I cannot help feeling that he has the outlook of the sentry in “Iolanthe” when he complained—

But what the civil servant, of course, overlooks, is that the very essence of Parliamentary government is responsibility. The member is responsible to his constituency. The Minister is responsible to the Cabinet, the Cabinet, even though it is not always aware of it, is nevertheless responsible to the House, and the House is responsible to the country. I will not say that the Civil Service is irresponsible, but it is not responsible to anyone. There is no objection to delegated legislation as long as the responsibility of Parliament for whatever is done to the country is not set aside and undermined. May I just say this too, in speaking of the Civil Service, that this problem does not arise necessarily from any weakness or from any faults in our Civil Service. In Britain, with the best Civil Service in the world, this problem, in a far acuter form, has for many years engaged the attention of the House of Commons. No, Mr. Speaker, the trouble is inherent in our system and we very largely are to blame. Parliament is the principal, and the Ministers are its agents. We have allowed the relationship to be reversed. Parliament has become subordinate to its agents. It has become very much the case of the tail wagging the dog. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have in this amendment moved for a Select Committee. The hon. the mover, in referring to this same sort of committee, prefers to call it a Scrutinising Committee. I shall not quarrel with him over the terminology. I hope I shall not give the impression that I look upon a Select Committee as an exhaustive remedy. Far from that is the case. But I do look upon a Select Committee of the sort envisaged in this amendment, as, at any rate, an essential without which the other safeguards and checks, either those suggested by the hon. the mover or others, will not be adequate; and it is important to remember that a safeguard which appears to be a safeguard is dangerous unless it is in fact and in reality a safeguard, because one is apt to rely upon a protection which does not then exist. Now, Mr. Speaker, before I touch on the Select Committee itself may I just say a word about other matters which I believe require to be dealt with if we are to have an effective check. The amendment draws attention to an obscurity which is fashionable today in our regulations. Complete uniformity, of course, is not possible. I am not at all sure what the procedure is in departments of State as to the drafting of regulations. I am not aware whether it is done by legal draftsmen, or whether it is done by the officials in the respective departments. It would certainly seem as if it is done by officials in the department, and the result is that we have a vast amount of legislation by regulation lacking uniformity, and suffering in large measure from obscurity which in the result penalises the innocent citizen who is anxious to respect the law and who is unable to determine for himself, without intensive research, what the law is which has emanated from a department of State. That is a matter to which the Government can be invited to give its attention, and in that respect I would invite the Government to give consideration to the various steps which have been taken in Britain in relation to this particular aspect of the problem under discussion. It should be possible also for Parliament, in conferring upon a Minister authority to promulgate subordinate legislation, to lay down within more or less definite limits the extent to which he is authorised to exercise that power, instead of giving him the completely free hand we give him today. It should be possible for Parliament to know in advance the type of subordinate legislation which will emerge from the office of the Minister who is so empowered to legislate. Then, Mr. Speaker, where special interests are affected we ought to look upon it as the duty of the department concerned, to consult those interested in the regulations which will affect it. Then there is the question of publicity. Legislation which emanates from this House is exposed to the fierce glare of publicity and it is affected therefore by the impact of public opinion. But legislation which comes from the office of a Minister, save for being notified to the public in the Gazette, is a matter limited to the knowledge of but a few who have had a part in creating it. And it seems to me to be a matter of considerable importance that regulations which touch the lives and the property of citizens just as much as laws which emerge from this House, should have, if not equal publicity, at any rate far more publicity than they enjoy today. Now, I have asked for a Select Committee and I listened to the hon. the mover for the objections to the setting up a committee, a Select Committee or a Scrutinising Commitee, such as is contemplated in this amendment. And I heard it urged that bearing in mind the set-up of politics in this country it was not advisable to have a Select Committee at this juncture until the war was over. Mr. Speaker, if I had any justification at the outset to impugn the logic of the hon. member, my justification is strengthened by this objection. The hon. member has told us the history of the agitation both in Australia and in Great Britain, resulting in Great Britain in the appointment of a Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, may I to that add that for some years there has been a voluntary committee in Great Britain, known as the A.B.B., the Active Back Benchers. That committee remained dormant from 1932 to 1942, when it became revived under the chairmanship of Sir Herbert Williams, and it was revived owing —these are the words of the committee —“ to the spate of statutory rules and orders made under Defence regulations threatening to become a flood.” There were three things which made it imperative. Firstly, these rules and orders became overwhelmingly numerous; secondly, many of them became incomprehensible, and thirdly they became the law of the land without more than a handful of persons being aware of it. It was for these reasons that during the progress of the war the House of Commons thought it fit to establish a Select Committee as is contemplated in this amendment; and I fail to appreciate what the distinction is between circumstances here and in Great Britain which have made it possible for such a Select Committee to be set up in Britain but which denies us the same opportunity. It may be said that the circumstances are different to this extent that the House of Commons sits pretty well throughout the year and we do not. If that is a fair objection then it must be pursued to its logical end, and it must be used to criticise the value of the Public Accounts Committee, which to my mind, in essence functions very much as this Select Committee would function. The objection has been taken perennially by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) that the Public Accounts Committee is ineffictive and the answer which has come from the hon. the Minister of Finance equally perennially, is that this committee has a salutory effect on the finances of the country because a Department knows that in the ensuing Session its expenditure may be reviewed by the Select Committee, and that in itself will act as a check upon any abuse and excessive expenditure by that particular department. It has never been urged in respect of the Public Accounts Committee that it is valueless because Parliament does not sit throughout the year, and precisely the same consideration obtains in respect of such a committee as I have asked for. The fact that regulations will come before the committee at the ensuing Session will act as a check upon the Minister responsible for such regulations. Today there is no check. Now, the hon. member wants action to be taken after the war, and he said that so far as the emergency regulations are concerned he did not think there would be any trouble about those. As I understood the argument I think it amounts to this, that after the war the emergency regulations will fall right away arid we shall have to concern ourselves only with regulations which do not owe their origin to the right to create emergency regulations. If that is the argument it is a dangerous one. There is implicit in that argument the suggestion that, having given Ministers the right to promulgate emergency regulations for the better prosecution of the war, these regulations have always been limited to that purpose, whereas in point of fact we have had a mass of regulations which were never justified as emergency regulations, and which can under no circumstances be said to further the prosecution of the war. The danger will be that the habit which has grown up during the war years will be extremely difficult to kill during the postwar period. And if we are to have an increase of government by regulation in the post-war years, it is imperative that we have set up, before that period reaches us, machinery whereby Parliament can exercise an effective check. I want to give one example of the extent to which emergency regulations can be used in respect of matters which do not help the prosecution of the war. I tabled a question some weeks ago asking the Minister of Agriculture whether the manufacture of margarine was to be permitted by an amendment to the relative Acts, or by emergency regulation, and the answer was that it was to be done by emergency regulations; and today we are told that all the principles concerning this problem have been determined by the Minister, principles which ought to be decided by this House, whether margarine is to be available to one section of the community or more, whether margarine is to be distributed through ordinary trade channels or through a certain Government department, and whether it is to be so coloured as to put off the consumer. All these are questions of principle and for that reason questions which it is the duty of this House to determine, and not the Minister. And this has all been done in terms of an emergency regulation which we empowered Ministers to use for the prosecution of the war. I use that mainly as an illustration of the danger with which we shall be faced in the post-war years unless we now set up machinery to deal with a situation of that kind. Let me remind the House that in Britain, after the last war, the British people suffered for years from the consequences of having had D.O.R.A. put on the Statute Book for the purposes of the war. There is no reason to suppose that we shall not suffer in the same way. Whatever checks and whatever safeguards we approve of, in the final analysis it must be for Parliament to say whether a regulation which it has authorised a Minister to promulgate is approved of or not, and if the regulation cannot stand the test of Parliamentary approval, it is obvious that that must be a regulation which it was never in the contemplation of Parliament that the Minister should have been able to enforce under the powers given to him. For this reason I ask the effective check of a scrutinising select committee. [Time limit.]

I second the amendment.

I think this House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) for having initiated this very important discussion today, and not only for having done that, but also for having presented his speech for reform with such neatness and thoroughness and ability. I think we really, as a House, are very much indebted to him, and personally I can only convey my congratulations to the hon. member for the manner in which he has marshalled his facts and his arguments here today, and for the very strong case that he has presented. The only point I am sorry about—and I may at once say that we on this side of the House are substantially in agreement with the principles underlying this motion—is that there are unfortunately, as the hon. member himself anticipated, certain gaps, rather unfortunate gaps, and it will be part of my duty today to fill these gaps which the hon. member has left. I am glad that we have had this opportunity of discussing this matter as Parliamentarians, because it is the honour and the powers and functions of Parliament which are concerned in this motion. The hon. member has asked that we should not exploit the occasion for making any attack upon the Government. May I say at once that as far as that invitation is concerned, I do not propose to accept it. I think that that is one of the defects under which the hon. member’s otherwise excellent oration suffered; that it was too academic, too much in the air, and that it was an address for the prosecution with nobody in the dock. I think that we should discuss this matter as Parliamentarians, and if we want to discuss it seriously as Parliamentarians, we must not be afraid; we must not be afraid to say who the culprit is, and if necessary to give him the necessary reprimand or whatever other punishment the House may deem fit.

A suspended sentence.

I think this abuse we are considering here today must not be considered in the abstract but in the concrete, with the culprit on the carpet, even if that culprit is the Government, and, to go further, even if the culprit is Parliament itself. Unless we do that and do not shrink back from our duty, our discussion will be an academic discussion and scarcely anything more than that. Therefore my hon. friend will excuse me for not accepting the invitation to tread the path of academic futility.

You must not be judge and accused at the same time.

It is quite all right to do that as long as you are accusing yourself. The point is that when you are the accuser in your own case, you can do that, but when you are the accuser of others, that is a different matter. Now, let me say at once that the fault I find in the motion of the hon. member and in his argument is, in the first place, that he has conveniently excluded from consideration the emergency regulations. Now, whatever argument you can have against the abuse of delegated legislation in peace-time, a fortiori, these arguments apply to emergency regulations. It is very easy to be gentlemanly to a gentleman; it is more difficult to be a gentleman when your adversary is not one. It is quite easy to tread the path of righteousness in peace-time, but the test of principles which one has to apply in a matter of this kind, is the same, whether you are in war or at peace. You will remember that in that famous judgment of his, which I think will go down in history as one of the most important pronouncements that ever fell from the Bench, the late Lord Atkin said: “Laws are not silent even amongst the clash of arms,” and he stood there and said: “I protest, even if I protest alone.” I think that is the sentiment which we should have, and we should not come at this stage and say: “We will discuss this matter but we will leave out of account that most important thing, the emergency reguations.” That is one respect in which I think there is a very severe gap. The other fault that I have to find with the motion of the hon. member is that he proposes that the remedy should be supplied by the person who is responsible for most of the transgressions. He wants to refer this matter to the Government. This, Mr. Speaker, is not the Government’s concern. It is the concern of Parliament, and Parliament will be failing in its duty if it is not able to devise a measure to remedy that fault without reference to the Government. That point has been made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg), and I will deal with his amendment later. I repeat that I do not think it is a matter to be referred to the Government. I think it is a matter which Parliament must refer to a Select Committee for decision.

Hear, hear!

There is much more in this. It is a very wide field that has been covered here. One had only to listen to the speeches which have been delivered, with the tacit admission that there are many other things still not covered, to realise that this is not a matter which his House can decide here and now, and for that reason I cannot agree with the hon. member for Umlazi that one should now provide a specific remedy for this. In the first place because, as I say, there are many other things which have to be considered, which have not been mentioned here, and which are not in his amendment, and secondly because I think it is a matter which will bear further investigation and more minute investigation, and which should then be reported back for such action as this House may deem fit to take. As I say, I do not think it is a matter to be referred back to the Government. When I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi, there are particularly two difficulties to which I wish to draw attention. The first is that as a scrutinising committee, or a select committee, as he calls it, it will only have to do with the delegated legislation itself and apparently Will have nothing to do with the enabling legislation. I think it is very important not only that a committee of that kind should investigate the product which has emanated from the ministerial or departmental brain in the form of regulations, but that their attention should also be directed to the enabling clause, under which the Minister or the department was authorised to pass that delegated legislation. Therefore I think that this does not go far enough. It refers only to a committee which will scrutinise regulations instead of a committee which will also scrutinise the power under which these regulations were conferred on some person or other. And the second objection I have to the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi is that it suggests only one particular way in which it should be done. It suggests only one particular way of dealing with this evil, and that is the select committee should act as a scrutinising committee. There are many other checks and safeguards and we should rather err on the side of having too many than too few. If we adopt this amendment as it stands it means we are suggesting one particular type of check. I would rather have a select committee investigate the whole matter and come to this House with a proposal which will include every possible safeguard against the abuse of delegated legislation. As far as the merits of the matter are concerned. I think one realises after one has been sitting here—I do not wish to repeat the arguments—that delegated legislation is a necessary evil; and might I say this, if in the past—and I find as long ago as in 1912 one of the Judges of Appeal remarked on this evil—if in the past this was an evil which was there, it is an evil which will be there in the future in greater measure. With the greater complexity of life, the greater diversity of things which this House has to deal with, it is necessary, it is inevitable that in respect of some of these things the principles of which may have been decided here, details will have to be worked out by means of delegated legislation. I envisage in the post-war period there will not he any the less reason for delegated legislation, but more reason; but that does not destroy the argument of the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell). On the contrary, the more it becomes inevitable to have delegated legislation, the more is it necessary to see that the proper checks and safeguards are provided to see there is no abuse of that power which has of necessity to be granted. I do not want to say much on that first point with which the hon. member dealt with in his address today. The general nature of the safeguards which have been suggested here and in other places I may summarise shortly as follows: In the first place, there must be the widest possible publicity for the intention to frame any delegated legislation. People who are likely to be concerned must have the fullest opportunity of knowing well in advance there is an intention to frame legislation of this kind. In the second place, there must be more uniformity in the draftmanship and it must become more and more a specialised and skilled matter, and only entrusted to people who have the necessary qualifications. Where regulations have to be drafted in various departments it is very desirable that there be some central authority in the legal advisers’ office who can scrutinise them and see that there is uniformity in the language used and in the whole style and set-up of these regulations. Thirdly, there is, in many countries, and in this country too, the procedure of laying these regulations upon the Table. As the hon. member has pointed out, there are various ways in which this has to be done. I think it is very essential that uniformity should also be attained as far as that is concerned. Where any regulation has to be laid on the Table there should be more or less uniformity of procedure, or we might perhaps classifly the regulations into two or three types, and for each of these larger types there should be a fixed procedure. At present some regulations that are laid on the Table automatically become law after the lapse of a certain period; other regulations cannot become law unless there is a motion for their adoption, in one case within fourteen days and in another case perhaps within twenty-eight days. There should be uniformity as far as that is concerned. In the fourth place, there is the suggestion on the lines of the practice adopted in Great Britain, of a standing committee to scrutinise the regulations. The select committee I am proposing could bear that in mind. I have seen the first report of that select committee appointed in Great Britain, and it seems to me there are some useful suggestions for a similar committee in South Africa. There should be some prohibitions, certain matters which, except in most exceptional circumstances, should never be made the subject of delegated legislation. unless there is the very clearest mandate from this House. The two things which in other countries have been so considered are the “Henry VIII clause”, which entitles the Minister to amend a law of the country, and the other is all regulations on matters of principle or regulations which impose taxation. I think those prohibitions should be there as landmarks, as warning signals, that we shall not allow this type of thing unless there is a mandate from Parliament expressed in the very clearest terms. Then I think another very important thing is that there should be the fullest judicial control over delegated legislation, and whenever there is delegated legislation there should be the most complete control. If it is necessary in regard to legislation of this House, it is far more necessary in the case of delegated legislation that there should be nothing between the subject and the court, and that if he is aggrieved by any decision taken under any legislation, he should have free access to the courts of the land, so that he may feel assured that his person and his property are properly safeguarded. There is finally a very important matter. If it is necessary to have delegated legislation in the future, and have it on a vaster scale than up to now, it is all the more necessary that we should make our civil service attractive so that it can attract the best brains in the country. If we are to a certain extent to put ourselves at the mercy of these civil servants, it is necessary that the people we put in these positions should be people of the very highest ability, and then it should be one of the main points in the Government to see, particularly in the higher branches of the service, that prospects are made attractive so that one does not get what frequently happens now that officials after twenty years’ service leave the service, because the prospects are not what they expected them to be, or not such that they can compete with the prospects outside the civil service. I say these are matters for the consideration of such a select committee. I do not think it is a matter we can decide today, and therefore in the amendment I am proposing it is a suggestion that this matter be referred to a select committee who can take into consideration these various factors. That brings me to the second point; and that is, apart from this evil of delegated legislation there is its counterpart, the evil of trying to exclude the subject from recourse to our courts of law from judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of a Minister or a department. As far as that point is concerned, that was also, it seems, dealt very fully with by the Donoughmore Committee. I listened with very great interest to what the hon. member for Woodstock had to say on this in his speech. I have not made a detailed study, but I have taken a few random examples from the 1942 statutes to show how this principle is infiltrating in an insidious manner into our law books. In the 1942 statutes I find in the War Pensions and Excise Acts examples of the Minister’s decision being made final. I note also that is the position in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where there was also an attempt to exclude the power of review. I know that is in the Customs Act. Then there is, most important of all, in the various war measures, particularly this most important war measure, No. 4 of 1941, the most far-reaching inroads made on the person and the liberty and the goods of citizens who are subjects of this country. Yet there is no appeal to any court of law. There are the principles of natural justice which the hon. member for Woodstock summarised with such eloquence this morning; they are all absent. There is no opportunity of hearing the other side, of the citizen cross-examining witnesses against him. Mr. Speaker, most of the South African subjects who have been interned have now been released. One should not imagine, however that they have been freed of all disabilities. There are people who today still are without a proper trial, who have not been allowed to be represented in connection with their case and who have not had the opportunity of cross-examining their accusers. They have been set free from the internment camps, but they have not the liberty of movement, which is the right of every citizen in the country. Today there is one particular friend of mine who, as far as one area is concerned, has no right to be there at all. The only tribunal that has attempted to investigate his case has refused to go forward in the matter. If there is anything more than a hollow mockery in the principles of natural justice, those remarks of the hon. member for Woodstock (if he had not excluded at the beginning the war emergency measures) would have been the finger of accusation levelled at the Government. That is really the irony of the position today, that we have a government which is supposed to be the protagonist of our system of democracy, of parliamentary government and personal freedom and liberty, yet if one must judge them by their actions they are just the very reverse. No body of persons in this counutry is doing more to make democracy a hissing in the ears of the people of this country than the Government which now does not grace the benches on the opposite side.

Were not the war measures the next best thing to martial law?

Here also in the matter of the destruction of the supremacy of law by the elimination of the right of appeal, Parliament is frequently the sinner. But where Parliament has sinned and in its generosity given too much power to the executive government of the day, it has done so unwittingly. Its sins have been committed unwit tingly. And if that is the case it is all the more necessary for a committee of scrutiny to draw the attention of Parliament to any clause in a Bill, which gives any power to the government of the day—

Misplaced generosity.

Yes, it is misplaced generosity. I say it is very necessary, because I am quite certain if Parliament’s attention was specifically drawn to any clause of that nature it would hesitate to pass it and abdicate its functions, and not only abdicate its functions, but also in a measure destroy the foundation of parliamentary government in this country. Such a committee would then have to scrutinise every Bill to see if there was any clause which, partially or wholly, excludes recourse to the courts of law and then bring that pertinently to the attention of Parliament. If Parliament under those circumstances, knowing what it is doing, is still prepared to do it, it will have nobody to blame but itself. I do not want to pause too long on this point, because there is a third point, and that is the tendency one has noticed on the part of the executive Government to ignore Parliament and its usurpation of parliamentary powers. This, Mr. Speaker, is an undermining of the sovereignty of Parliament, where the former dealt with the undermining of the supremacy of the law. In that connection I have already referred to the War Measure, No. 4 of 1941. Apart from affecting the freedom of the people, we have this extraordinary position that they were actually promulgated by the responsible Minister on the 3rd February, 1941, whilst this House was in Session. One realises that in time of war it is necessary to grant such powers if there is a need for them. If Parliament was not in Session one could understand such powers being used subject to their being ratified by Parliament at its next Session. In this particular case Parliament was ignored. On the 3rd February while we were sitting here, these regulations were promulgated. If the matter had been in the hands of a Government which was desirous of preserving the sovereignty of Parliament, it would have come to us. It would only have been necessary to have acted as it did if Parliament was not in Session. In those circumstances the matter could have been brought before Parliament so that Parliament could discuss it. In this same category there are certain emergency regulations which have been applied to a class of cases that Parliament never contemplated. There is the regulation for detaining and questioning, a most far-reaching encroachment on the personal liberty of the subject. A person can be detained and kept detained until he has answered questions to the satisfaction of the Minister of Justice.

You forget there is a war on.

What an argument.

Yes, you always forget.

I should have thought the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) would have got over that now. Surely he has some other weapon in his armoury. I have no objection to its being applied, as it was intended to be applied, in matters where the carrying on of the war is in question. Parliament gave it with that object, or rather the Minister gave it with that object, but now we find it applies in ordinary criminal cases, in cases where the question of the war is not in issue. We had it in connection with a question of the theft of petrol coupons. This procedure that was contemplated should be used in reference to sabotage cases is applied in a case that was nothing of that kind at all. It was used in an ordinary case of theft of petrol coupons; the same thing applies in ordinary I.D.B. cases. This procedure is being used and not the ordinary common law procedure. It may be said: “Well, the diamonds are being exported to Germany, they are industrial diamonds and they may be used for war purposes. But there were about 20 prosecutions; 19 have been dealt with, but up to date in not a single case has it been said that the diamonds were not traced back in this country or to the diamond cutters in this country. In not a single case has there been a suggestion that the diamonds were industrial diamonds which can be used for war purposes. This is abuse of a power which, in its correct place I have no objection to. If these measures are used for the purpose of proving sabotage I should have no objection. But what we do say is that when they are used in a manner never contemplated, it is a usurpation of power by the executive to which they are not entitled. Then there is another matter, and that is the inordinate delay in proclaiming either Acts of Parliament or particular portions of Acts. We passed the Motor Insurance Act in 1942. In terms of Section 19 of that Act, No 29 of 1942—

That was the wish of Parliament, that every person should carry compulsory third party insurance. That was passed in 1942; it was actually assented to on the 17th April, 1942. I have made enquiries from the Secretary of the Executive Committee, and I find no such proclamation has yet been issued, after the lapse of almost three years. When Parliament said “a day to be fixed” it did not mean a day in the discretion of the Minister. That ordinarily means within a period that may be reasonably necessary to effect the necessary administrative changes. But we find, three years afterwards, that there is still no compulsory third party insurance in this country, in face of Parliament’s will as expressed in this Act. The Magistrate’s Court Act of last year has still not been promulgated. It was assented to in May of last year. What is the reason? Why have we this flouting of the will of Parliament? It was never the will of Parliament when it passed a Bill to let it be hung up indefinitely, but to have it carried into effect within a reasonable time. I am just giving a few random examples. Probably it is a matter that could be examined by a select committee of the kind I am proposing. There is Section 45 of War Measure, No. 4 of 1941. That provided that a person, if he assaulted any person in uniform, would be guilty of an offence and summarily punishable without the option of a fine. That was passed by the Minister, in terms of the wide powers given to him. But what do we find? We find the Minister has in effect taken the power to amend that regulation at his own discretion from time to time. If a case is referred to him, he may say that this regulation does not exist as far as that case is concerned; and in the next case he may say it does exist. In other words, you have a regulation, however good or bad it may be it is there, but the Minister can say that in certain cases it applies and in other cases it does not apply. I say again that is a usurpation of the functions of Parliament. Parliament may pass an Act saying that in certain cases this is the law and in other cases that is the law, but it should not be left to the whim and caprice of a Minister of the Crown. There is another matter I want to deal shortly with, that is the various utility companies and semi-public corporations like Iscor, I.D.C. and all those things. In respect of them the control of Parliament has parctically been removed. Government money is involved there, but there is no effective control by Parliament. We do not know who to call to account. That is the whole priciple of Parliamentary government. We must have some Minister responsible. But in respect of these conctrns and the money spent on them, there is no Minister we can call to account. There is another important point, where we again have this unfortunate tendency on the part of the Government, and that is where commissions of enquiry are concerned. The hon. member for Woodstock said this morning that it is one of the first principles of natural justice that a man should not be a judge in his own cause. But what do we find? We find a Minister of the Crown coming into this House and making the most violent charges against a public body. There is an investigation, but the commission that has to investigate that matter is appointed by the accuser.

Are you referring to Kakamas?

I am referring to the Kakamas Commission. I do not want to deal with it in detail, I am just making this observation on the principle, that the Minister concerned who has shown very clearly his particular prejudices, is yet allowed to nominatte the commission to investigate the charges he has made. That is a travesty of justice. Anybody that has any sense, I need not say any sense of justice, I would say even any sense of decency, would not for a moment tolerate a thing of that kind. It is unfortunate for the commission, unfortunate for the members, and unfortunate for all concerned that they should have been placed in such an invidious position. Under such conditions and circumstances it is unnatural to expect the public to believe that a commission so appointed could have attacked the problem they were set to deal with, with an unprejudiced mind. I have just given a few random examples of what I conceive to be a consistent tendency on the part of the Government, because as I said at the beginning, one cannot divorce this discussion from actual facts. It is only when you lay your finger on specific abuses that you can put any force into your argument, that argument the hon. member for Woodstock is using. This is not a debating society in which one can airily and academically discuss these matters; one has to bring home the facts and show what is being done. This is a growing tendency, and I say we on this side of the House, and I think many hon. members on that side of the House, view with alarm this tendency which in the last few years has been coming to the fore. Before I put my amendment I want to say this; I have attacked the Government; but in the final resort Parliament itself is responsible. Only if there is a jealous vigilance on the part of Parliament to protect its own rights, only then can we expect to see an end to these abuses of power and these encroachments on our rights. When I have noticed the placidity with which hon. members of this House have at times witnessed encroachments upon the powers of Parliament, I have been filled with grave misgivings. There is an apathy among members of Parliament, a docility towards the crack of the whip, and there is not that true sense of independence which one expects from members of Parliament, as Parliamentarians, apart from any question of membership of a particular party. And therefore I beg to move as a further amendment—

1. (a) the abuse of the powers of delegated legislation;
2. (b) the tendency to exclude recourse to courts of law from judicial and quasijudicial decisions of Ministers or departmental tribunals;
3. (c) any encroachment by the Executive on the powers of Parliament; and that for this purpose the House appoints a Select Committee to enquire into and report upon the best way of attaining this object”.

I should like briefly to second this amendment. I wish with other hon. members to express my regret that a better opportunity has not been granted for the discussion of such an important subject as this, and I also wish to voice the hope that the Government will accord a proper opportunity for a thorough discussion of this subject, which is not possible today in the short time at our disposal. It does astonish one that though this subject has been spoken about and written about for quite a few years, the first opportunity for a discussion has come today, and a very hurried discussion at that. One would have thought, after the subject had aroused so much attention in recent times, after so much had been written and so much had been said in the various Parliaments of the democratic countries, that the matter would have come up for discussion at an earlier stage. I am surprised it has only now been taken up seriously by us, and that in any case a discussion is taking place on it. The downward path that Parliaments in democratic lands have taken, the downward path that South Africa’s Parliament has taken in the direction of autocracy and bureaucracy makes one despair for the future, unless a halt is called at some stage or other. The subject has been thoroughly discussed, but I should like to allude to one or two of its aspects. The blows that the Parliamentary system has recently sustained have been severe. It is not only the emergency regulations during the war that have brought Parliamentary government into discredit, but it is also the conduct of the governments of today. I can recall when we had an election in 1943, one would have expected that the government of the day would have convened Parliament immediately after the election. But what did the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister do? He did not convene the new Parliament. Immediately after that he went to London. There as Prime Minister of South Africa, after the formation of the Government, after the elections, he attended important discussions and took part in discussions in which this Parliament took the greatest interest, discussions that this Parliament would like to have followed, discussions which this Parliament itself would like to have debated. But the Prime Minister went to London immediately after the elections and he did not summon Parliament before January, 1944. I maintain that it is not only emergency regulations that have been a derogation of the Parliamentary system, but also the conduct of Parliament itself. There are not many precedents in history that can be compared with this, that a government so ignored a parliament that it did not immediately summon the new Parliament, but only six months afterwards did it advise members of Parliament, and the country, of the measures taken in the interim. I mention this as one example of disrespect for the Parliamentary system, and accordingly one is not surprised that the Parliament of the Union of South Africa has gone more and more down the road of bureaucracy and autocracy. It is not only the emergency regulations to which the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and other members have referred in such a striking way. There are other matters. I should like to refer this afternoon to the trend revealed by the Government of the day gradually to take over the regulations previously approved and to have them drafted and approved by officials. I should like to refer to the Nationalist Government of 1924-’32, and to tell the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he might very well take a leaf out of the book of that Government. I cannot go into this matter thoroughly, but so far as one can examine it one may state that the Government of that day inserted into the regulations whenever possible a provision that the regulations should be approved by Parliament. I should like to refer to one important measure. In those days we had before Parliament an amendment of the Electoral Act, the introduction of postal voting. Parliament then was still so jealous of its powers that the Government of the day proposed and Parliament accepted that the regulations should be approved by Parliament. Without the approval of Parliament they could not be brought into operation, and this is where we could follow the example of the Nationalist Government of those days. But what happened after that? The matter went from bad to worse. If you examine the legislation of the last few years—also in regard to the electoral law—you will see it was there the first departure was made from the procedure followed by the Nationalist Government that regulations, in the main, had to be approved by Parliament. Then there appeared in legislation a new procedure, and it was stated that regulations could be made by the Governor-General-in-Council, though only on specified points, points that were specified in that particular law. Subsequently we departed even from that step, and we took another step back; and if you examine our legislation today you will find that in the majority of cases that provision does not appear, and that the provisions of the law now state that the Governor-General-in-Council, in other words the Government, shall draw up the regulations. That is the downward course to which eventually we shall have to call a halt. On this side of the House we have frequently registered our protest and have stated that this should now stop, but the Government now in office has taken up an intolerant attitude and stated it was the right thing; the regulations had to be approved by the Governor-General-in-Council, in other words by the Government. It is going from bad to worse. Does it surprise hon. members that there should be so little interest in Parliament today, that hon. members when we talk to them in the lobby, say that they really do not know what they have come down here for. There is a large number of members on the opposite benches who tell you that when you talk to them in the lobby. I realise it is always difficult for members opposite to take part in the debate. The Opposition is still in a better position, but hon. members opposite ask you: “What are we doing here? ” Hence this motion, and hence this fruitful discussion. Is there no manner whereby Parliament can return to its proper functions and its powers? The other day I read an article in connection with this matter, and an English writer said that it appeared more and more to people that Parliament was summoned only when the Government needed money. One does not know whether the day will arrive when the Government will go so far as to issue regulations enabling it to obtain money without convening Parliament. In any case, it is going from bad to worse. The following point I want to make is this, or before I deal with that point I should like to point this out. An English writer, the Earl of Cottenham, wrote an interesting article a few years ago on the necessity of the reform of Parliament, and he used these words—

Then he says—

Who is the writer?

The Earl of Cottenham.

It is remarkable how you quote English writers when it suits you.

It is relevant to what we have been saying today that the members of Parliament must be given work. That explains why we on this side of the House have made various suggestions. The other day I made this suggestion. If we accept the amendment that this matter may be considered by a Select Committee I should like to see us go a step further. At the moment select committees are nominated; members of the House serve on the select committees for a few hours, and then they have to run away from them, unprepared, to take part in the debates in the House. Why cannot Parliament assemble and decide what Bills should be referred to a select committee, and then adjourn to give the select committees an opportunity to go into these Bills? Let the Government lay the Bills on the Table; nominate select committees, and let Parliament then adjourn for a couple of weeks to give the Select Committees an opportunity to complete the work thoroughly. Parliament can then reassemble when the Select Committees have disposed of their business. That is one direction in connection with which an improvement can be effected. The other matter that I want to touch on is the unenviable position that the Government places us in today. Col. Reitz referred to this matter in his book “No Outspan”. Quite incidentally and more as a joke he mentioned that Ministers usually waited till near the end of the Session to push their Bills through because they found it much easier then. Col. Reitz may have said it as a joke, but it is nevertheless a reflection on the Government; it is unfortunately true. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will admit it. Why do you find this extrordinary feature during the last few years when you look through the Statute Book; you find that all the important measures have been put through at the end of the Session. It seems to me that there is considerable truth in that allegation.

You take up all our time in talking at the beginning of the Session.

No, the Prime Minister cannot say that. He was also in the Opposition. The Government of the day introduces its measures very late. That is always the complaint. The Government does not announce its measures in the Government Gazette so that Parliament will know what will appear before it during the Session. We have also departed from that good old practice. Only certain Bills are today published in the Government Gazette. The Government comes along with the measures too late.

That shows how thorough they are, because they always come along very late with the measures.

And then they come to light with such meagre measures. The Government places the officials in a very unenviable position. The officials are not made responsible to the people, but the drafting of the regulations is in their hands. The public is thus the victim of a measure that is drawn up by an official. This is no reflection on such an official, but the Government simply says to him: “You must draw up such-and-such a Bill”. Frequently it happens that the official is not acquainted with the practical side of life, and it has even happened that officials have drafted regulations the Government have later had to withdraw, because they were found to be impracticable. Now I want to ask not only that the Government should protect the officials, but they should also protect the victims of the officials, namely, the public who have to suffer under those regulations. I want to be brief, because we would like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say in connection with this matter, but before I resume my seat I should like to refer to a matter that I previously mentioned here, and it is this. It is not right for Parliament merely to spend the people’s money in connection with various matters, and then not to afford the people an opportunity of asking what has become of that money. We have discussed this before. I refer to the corporations, namely, Iscor, the Industrial Corporation, the Fishing Corporation and others. One must assume that this Parliament is satisfied with a miserable little report that is contained in the chairman’s speech, and a balance sheet which makes no one any the wiser because one is not an expert. This little report is laid on the Table, and the House gets no chance to discuss it, not to mention approve it, and here we have millions of the people’s money invested in these concerns. Now I want to ask, as the corporations are developing in a direction that one did not expect as the corporations have placed such large powers in the hands of individuals, is it not high time that we should not also refer this subject to a permanent select committee? These corporations have placed powers in the hands of certain people who can do what they like with the people’s money, and amongst them there are people that take up the attitude that they refuse to appear before the Select Committee. I do not want to say that they are challenging the Government, but they are assuming an attitude that is unintelligible. They are now taking up the attitude that they may not be called before the Select Committee, because they are superior to Parliament’s Select Committees. I merely mention the danger to which such a development can lead. In private enterprises the shareholders retain a strong hold on their directorates. It is only when you come to the expenditure of the people’s money in connection with Iscor, Escom, the Industrial Corporation and the Fishing Corporation when we say: “No, there we are giving powers into hands of a few people and they can make what use of them they please”.

Who was responsible for the legislation about Iscor?

The Nationalist Government, against the Opposition of the hon. member and his friends opposite.

Why is it then a “meagre measure?”

Iscor is very good, but there are naturally these small points that can be improved. But the Government that first opposed the establishment of Iscor now finds it good to take one step after another on the same lines. But improvements can be effected, and I am referring now to the improvements that must be brought about. No one will deny the utility of that innovation by Parliament, but if you wish to retain that utility the time is ripe to effect improvements, and there ought to be efficient improvements otherwise they will not help matters.

I just want to say one or two words in reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. The charge that he made here incidentally against the Government is that the legislation for this Session, or for any Session, is delayed until towards the end of the sitting, and that that is done deliberately in order to baulk discussions.

The late Col. Reitz said so.

There is no ground whatever for that assertion. Hon. members need only look at the number of Bills which have been introduced into the House this Session, or the number of Bills that are introduced early in any Session and they never get passed until the very last moment in the Session.

Can you mention one important Bill which has passed its second reading?

It is due entirely to the length of the debates, to the amount of time that is allotted to private members and the length of the debate in the earlier part of the Session; and it is our universal experience that it is only towards the end of the Session that it is possible to get through the work. By that time the Government is in control of the time of the House to a very large extent. By that time members have had their fill of talking. By that time they are ready to do business, and it is universally the experience, not the policy of the Government, but the universal experience of the House that the actual work of the Session is only done towards the end of the Session. There is no conspiracy on the part of the Government at all; it is actually the way in which our Parliamentary machinery works because of the talkativeness of the members and the amount of debating that goes on in the early part of the Session.

Who arranges the Order Paper?

When I listened to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) I thought I was back four years ago. Hon. members will remember that we spent practically two Sessions in discussing the war measures legislation of this country and every point made by the hon. member for Fauresmith here today was made over and over again at that time. The hon. member is still in that atmosphere of years ago. He was not in the House then and did not take part in those discussions. But we who were here have a very lively recollection of that debate. Every point mentioned here by the hon. member was raised then. Parliament asserted its rights. The hon. member says it is for Parliament to assert its rights. Parliament did assert its rights, and if it had not done so, we might not have had a Parliament in this country today. We were up against a difficult position, and we had a situation in this country which made it necessary for us to curtail the ordinary rights of members and the ordinary rights of Parliament too. We had no choice. And in the course of that legislation, in the course of the work of Parliament at that time, a large number of war measures were passed and they are on the Statute Book and they are still being applied in war-time under the abnormal conditions existing in the country. If we have to go back on all that and institute an inquisition now into all the war work that has been done and the measures that were taken to protect ourselves, if all that has to be overhauled again, and an inquisition made into it, then I think the intention of the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) will be nullified. I do not think he has any intention of doing that, and I do not think any hon. member on this side of the House will ever submit to a procedure of that kind. What has been done is done and it has been well done. No doubt private rights have had to be interfered with, but in many cases those private rights were used against the rights of this country and this Parliament had to protect the rights of the people. It was not a case of riding roughshod over the interests of the people of the country but the intention was to protect them.

Like that book of the Roman Catholic Church which you took away from the ministers.

I say that in reference to these arguments and the statements that have been made. That is done, and it has been well done. But I come back for the few moments that are at my disposal to the motion that has been moved by my hon. friend, the member for Woodstock, and I may say that the Government on the whole is favourably disposed to that motion. We feel that a case has been made out for a closer scrutiny of certain types of regulations that are departmentally made and which may call for the scrutiny of this House. It is a difficult matter because it cuts both ways. We know that Parliament has only a limited amount of time at its disposal. We know that the legislative business of the country is increasing all the time and increasing very fast, and the more work that is thrown on Parliament, the more difficult it will be to do the necessary work of this country. Legislation that is now done by way of delegation, if thrown before Parliament, would not only mean lengthening the Session very much, but it will mean that much of that work would not be done at all; much of that legislation will not be passed at all, and the interests of the country would suffer. The House will understand that if we push this spirit of scrutiny of regulations too far, we may paralyse the administration of the country. If the departments in all the necessary, inevitable work they have to do, have to pass through an examination before committees, if we had to take all the steps which have been suggested here today, as necessary for the safety of the public, then I am afraid the administration of this country will be so clogged, will find it so difficult to do the work of the country that the public interest will suffer very much. Therefore a medium has to be drawn somewhere. You cannot go the whole way. A certain amount of delegated legislation is necessary, and the question is just where you are going to draw the line. We have the precedent which is now being tried in the House of Commons. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Woodstock and it has been referred to repeatedly during the discussion here today. Since last year a measure of control is being exercised in the House of Commons and to my mind it is feasible for us to try a similar experiment here. We may do the same that they are trying to do there, and see what the result will be. But the committee of Parliament, this scrutinising committee of the House of Commons acts under certain restrictions and the two most important restrictions are these, that the committee does not deal with and does no scrutinise the regulations—rules or orders as they are called in Britain—which are not subject to Parliamentary action. If the rules or orders —or regulations as we call them—have been finally passed under legislation, they are not scrutinised further. There are three types of regulations both here and in London. The one is the type of regulation which, under statutory power is passed, and published and put into action. No further Parliamentary action is required in regard to that, and in regard to this type of regulation the scrutinising committee in the House of Commons does not deal with it at all. But there are two other types of regulation. There is the regulation which does not come into force. It is framed, it is published, but it does not come into force until the approval of the House of Commons or of the other House, the House of Lords, has been obtained. It is subject to Parliamentary action. There is another type, a third type of regulation, which comes into force and it is subject to repeal and disapproval by the Legislature. Now, the scrutinising committee has jurisdiction in regard to these two types of regulation, the regulation which does not come into force until it has been approved of, or the regulation which does come into force but which can be upset within a certain time by one of the two Houses. These two types of regulation are those which require Parliamentary action, and it is in regard to them that this committee of scrutiny functions in the British Parliament. The position there is this, that the volume of regulations, rules and orders, as they are called is so great that Members of Parliament find it impossible to scrutinise these rules and read them to know whether any action has to be taken in regard to them. They are rules which require Parliamentary action, either of approval or of disapproval, and members do not know about them because there is such a volume of them; they do not know what to do about them. It is in regard to these two sets of rules and orders that this select committee functions and scrutinises them, and makes a report about them. These reports are issued weekly, I think, so that Members of Parliament can know that such and such a regulation requires Parliamentary action, and they make certain comments upon them. Members are guided in their action by the report of this Select Committee.

That is a permanent committee?

It is a Standing Committee of the House of Commons. Their functions are limited to these regulations which call for approval by Parliament under the Act by virtue of which they are passed. Then there is also the further limitation that the scrutinising committee can only make certain comments on specific grounds about these regulations. They may for instance point out that a charge is possible under the regulation, a charge which is some licence fee or some other charge, some monetary charge, either in favour of the Exchequer or of some local authority. In such case they report on that ground. Or a regulation may, in terms, exclude the jurisdiction of the courts and may say that this regulation is final, and cannot be upset by the courts. Now, the scrutinising committee points out that there is such and such a clause in the regulation. Also, it may be that the regulation is quite unusual and unexpected. It is a regulation which, although probably falling within the Statute under which it was passed, is so extraordinary, so unusual and unexpected, that the Scrutinising Committee thinks that the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn to it. That they can do also. They may also think that the regulation is obscure and requires elucidation. That is, of course, a fault that can be found with many regulations, even here. The regulation is so framed that it is very difficult for the public to understand it.

Hear, hear!

Yes, that is quite usual. In such cases this committee calls special attention to this feature. It may be also that there is some—I have noted a point here that there is unjustifiable delay in the publication. It my be that owing to the length of time which has passed there is so much delay in publishing a regulation that the committee thinks that the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn to that. But hon. members will see, as this committee works in London, that it is limited to matters which call for the action of Parliament, and it is limited to making certain remarks and drawing attention to certain specific subjects, and this committee acts on those grounds. It makes its report weekly, and I suppose, supplies a useful guide to members of the House of Commons in making them see what to do in regard to this vast volume of regulations which are published from time to time. Now, that is the committee. There is nothing here which deals with regulations which are validly passed. They are matters for the courts. If a regulation does not call for Parliamentary action but is finally passed and it is intra vires, within the limits of the statute under which it is passed, that is a matter not for the committee or Parliament to decide, but for the law courts, and the law courts there decide these matters, and also our courts. So there is no interference with the law courts at all on the part of this committee. I think it may serve some useful purpose. We have a large volume of regulations issued by various departments. These regulations are generally drafted by departments. They then go to the legal advisers who scrutinise them and they are published in due course, but I can well understand that owing to the volume of these regulations and certain aspects of them we may do the same. We may also call for a Standing Committee of the House to scrutinise these regulations during the Session and to pass remarks upon them. But hon. members will understand that these remarks and scrutiny and the recommendations made only apply to such regulations as call for Parliamentary action. Most of our regulations do not. Most of our regulations are passed under Parliamentary authority, under the authority of a statute, and are finally passed and do not call for any subsequent action by Parliament.

Yes, unfortunately.

So that the scope of this committee in our Parliament would probably be much more limited than in England. In England the number of regulations subject to later Parliamentary action is very much more than here.

Is not that preferable?

It is a matter for Parliament. I do not mind. I think that the experiment which is being tried in England may be instituted here too. In conclusion I want to say this, that the Government feels that there is something to be said for a scrutiny of the activities of our corporations.

Hear, hear!

I am referring to these utility corporations which we have in this country. They are doing magnificent work here, but they have financial independence, as far as Parliament is concerned, which will lead to difficulties. The Government has been busy for some time going into this matter, and seeing what would be the best procedure of making the general administration and activities of these bodies subject to Parliamentary criticism. We should like to see a debate raised in Parliament, from Session to Session, in regard to these bodies, whose accounts are laid on the Table. We have their financial reports read before us but there is very little opportunity of discussing these reports.

Will there be a chance this Session?

I do not know. It depends on how far we go with our work.

It is very necessary.

We are considering the framing of this procedure, as hon. members will know, in Another Place. We are now discussing the general policy of the Government, without taking any resolution. We may very well discuss particular matters in this House without taking a decision, simply for the enlightenment of the country. I think that that is about the length we can go. We can try the same experiment in regard to scrutiny of regulations that they have in England, and we may also institute this additional procedure by which the financial activities of our utility bodies can also be scrutinised and discussed in the House. The Government thinks that this is the furthest that we can go in this matter at this moment.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 23rd March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

With world affairs in the confusion they are in today, if one stops to pause and meditates, the only conclusion one can arrive at is that civilisation is being destroyed. I do not think that at the commencement of the war either individuals or great powers ever dreamed that this was going to be the out come of it all. Today we see that women and children are being wiped out on a gigantic scale—innocent people. Nations are being annihilated. Here in our own fatherland we have many difficulties to contend with. Not only are families at loggerheads with one another, but we find dissension around every corner. I want to say just this, that the time has arrived for all the Europeans in South Africa who are responsible for civilisation in this country, to stand together and to decide whether South Africa should remain a white man’s country or whether it is to be obliterated in the whirlpool of events today. We have no time to lose, for circumstances develop very swiftly. The Prime Minister is going to the conference to be held in London shortly for the Commonwealth of Nations. I am convinced that he will use his influence in the interests of peace, and, with the experience he has acquired of what has happened in the past, he will endeavour to protect small nations. Whatever may come to pass, small nations must not be obliterated. One loves one’s own language, one’s family and country. Small nations should stand together and gain more say in world affairs. Peace will not be accomplished if small nations do not obtain their rights. It is so easily said that we are fighting for peace. I have already lived through a few wars and seen innocent blood spilled. Once you are engaged in war, it gains a hold on you and you are automatically out to destroy. You do not look round to see what is happening. You want to gain victory, to reach your goal, and you have to do things which you do not want to be placed on record. But are we really free now? There can be no liberty if we are busy destroying peoples and nations on such a gigantic scale. It is said that Germany must be defeated. The Allies have decided to annihilate Germany. Well, I just want to say this. The Prime Minister said at the last peace conference: Look, if you do certain things, you must suffer the consequences. That also came to pass. He said that if parts of nations were cut up and annexed to other countries and if they were not allowed to defend themselves, certain things would result, and this has come about. I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will use his mature experience. I am not talking politics, for I see dark years ahead, hunger and misery. We do not know where things are going to end. Who could have said that the war would end as it is ending now? With the mature experience the Prime Minister possesses he will be able to throw oil on troubled waters and perhaps calm the storm partially or completely. We cannot career along madly as we are at present. What will be the outcome if we carry on sending thousands of aeroplanes 20 or 30 times a day over countries to drop their explosives and thus destroy lives? It can have only one result, namely, that civilisation will be shattered and destroyed. Today we are more barbaric than we were centuries ago, and unless we start again from the beginning; unless we begin again with the family and rebuild, we will be unable to save civilisation. We must put an end to our quarrels here and look to the interests of our country and the civilisation we have established here on the southern tip of Africa. We must maintain and spread civilisation here. It is even being said that quite possibly there will not even be a peace conference and that the five great powers will determine what is going to happen. If they are going to dictate to small nations, there will never be peace. There will be no peace and happiness, and once again upheavals will take place. They must come and we are powerless to stop them. You cannot suppress a family, neither can you suppress a nation. It is similar to a cork floating on the water. If you press it down, it shoots up again. We must see that justice is done. I would not allow nations to take aggressive action, but where are we going to draw the line if things go on as they are doing now? Are we going to suppress nations and annihilate them? If we are seeking revenge, of which we hear so much overseas, where is it going to end? There will never be peace in the world and for centuries there will be no prospects for civilisation. Civilisation will be put back by centuries. I am anxious about the future when people talk so flippantly of these things. We can differ with one another over small matters, but why should it lead us to mistrust and suspéct one another when one proposes something or wants to do something? We find this as well with big nations, and if we continue to adopt that attitude, we are going to destroy and annihilate civilisation. I am glad of the opportunity of being able to say these few words, for I feel very deeply over these matters. We are a free nation and cannot be suppressed. We have acquired rights and we are going to keep those rights. We small nations must stand together and must be protected. If we are suppressed, we will be an unhappy nation and difficulties will arise. We have obligations towards the natives in this country. We are responsible for them, and if we solve our problems only to our own advantage, we will go under. We must see that justice is done to all. So also the great powers. If small nations are mocked and suppressed, then in this century we will never see peace. With these few words I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister, on his return, will inform this House fully of what has taken place. This House should be better informed of what the Prime Minister intends doing when he departs to attend conferences, and also as to what he has done there when he returns. He ought to consult the House and take us into his confidence. We are democratic born. We do not want a dictator here. For that reason we feel that the House should be consulted and kept well-informed. The Prime Minister would do much good if he always took this House into his confidence and consulted with us before departing and also on his return.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity, in view of the Prime Minister’s early departure for overseas to suggest to him—I have no doubt that he has done it in the past and will pursue the same policy when he goes to Europe—to establish closer co-operation between the various states of Africa. I would go so far as to express my own personal opinion that this co-operation is essential for Africa and that we must secure it. I may say that for industrial development co-operation of these various states—I am talking now of the British states—should be established. I say this prompted by the feeling that we have a lot in common from the point of view of various problems ahead of us. There are certain things which are of common interest to us, like native problems, industrial problems, and the development of mineral wealth. For that reason I suggest that the Prime Minister would be well advised and would receive the wholehearted support of South Africa in his efforts to proceed on those lines. I know that I have the right to expect him to think in that direction, but I do not know whether he is satisfied that he has the support of the whole of the country if he does so. I would also like to suggest it in view of our particular native policy, and that it becomes necessary for his work in the direction of including the native territories of Bechuanaland and Basutoland in the Union. Overseas there is fear, unfounded. I think, that the South African native policy is such that the time has not arrived for the inclusion of these territories in the Union. But if the Prime Minister has said a very true thing—and I was also in London and heard the late Colonel Reitz argue on the same lines—it is that no better proof has been offered of the value of our native policy than our war policy. We leave our homes in cahrge of our native servants during our absence. That shows that we have faith in them and that they were loyal to us. If our native policy were as bad as some people make it out to be, we would not find natives from adjoining territories coming into the Union in order to find work. Our policy cannot be so bad as it is presented to the outside world. Knowing that the native of South Africa is a valuable asset to the country, an asset which we do not yet treasure enough in the way of looking after their health and making life attractive to them by providing the necessary amenities, I feel that the native policy of South Africa can still be developed to such an extent that the natives in the adjoining territories will have complete confidence in our policy. I think the time has arrived for the Prime Minister to encourage people overseas to think in that direction. There is nothing better for the benefit of all of us in Southern Africa and the British territories than for the native territories to be included in the Union. I hope the Prime Minister will not think it presumptuous of me if I suggest it, but I do so only because I feel that generally speaking civil servants are not paid enough and for that reason are restricted in their movements in the business world and consequently are restricted in their outlook. I do not wish to insult them, but I say because they are restricted in their movements in business they do not hold a broad enough practical view. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister, who has done so much for this country, if he were to extend an invitation to some of the leading businessmen of the country to accompany him, more particularly when trade matters are involved, they would offer their services free of charge for the welfare of the Union and they can be in company with the experts in the civil service, who will get good advice. I am only saying that the civil servants have not got that salary which enables them to move freely enough in business circles and get experience in business. I suggest that the Prime Minister should render sterling service to the Union by taking along with him both able experienced businessmen and civil servants.

We have never seen the Prime Minister in such a fervour as he was yesterday. He was so exalted that I got the impression that he would not require an aeroplane to convey him to San Francisco. He himself will have wings to enable him to go there. I assume that England has taken the initiative in calling that conference, that it is really the originator of the conference, as has happened in the past in respect of other conferences. England, the protagonist of world peace! You will pardon me, but I am somewhat sceptical about England in the rôle of protagonist and advocate of world peace. You will of course agree with me that England in the past has acted as a champion of world war. I do not want to be gloomy nor to hurl reproaches, but when we think of the share that England has had in the past in connection with world wars, in respect of the bringing about of wars in the past, it sounds rather funny to learn that it is now acting as the great protagonist of world peace. How long did it stand for world peace in the past? In the first world war did it stand for world peace? How long? Until England was again the first to have recourse to arms. Our present Prime Minister is going now to take part in the creation of world peace, that marvellous and eternal world peace. He is acting as an advocate. And yet in the past we have not had the Prime Minister as an advocate of world peace but of world war. During his whole life since he was a child he has taken part in world wars. Now we wonder whether a conversion is going to be brought about, and whether in the last days of his life he will strive for world peace. The Prime Minister must not be offended if we are sceptical about him appearing in the rôle of advocate for world peace. When he returns, and if there is a clash between England and Russia what will his attitude be then? Will he still be the advocate of world peace, or will he plunge South Africa into the third world war, not on behalf of South Africa but every time on behalf of England. We feel it deeply when we talk on this matter. We know how the world war extended to South Africa. We are terror-stricken to think that a further world war will not be long in coming. What will the Prime Minister’s future attitude be if there is another world war? Will he then stand by South Africa? Will he then cherish the interests of South Africa? Will he keep South Africa neutral, out of war? Or will South Africa have to be sacrificed for the third time to the British Empire. We have heard some fine words about world peace, but I think if they really unburdened their souls they would have to admit that they are striving for world trade, the domination of World trade. Capitalism has always been in the past the fomenter of war. I think the Prime Minister should devote more attention to the financial power in the world and tie their hands, for capitalism has always hitherto been the cause of wars and will also in future show the dragon’s teeth. We cannot say otherwise than that England is now shackled to capitalism. It has built up its strength on trade, on trade domination, on capitalism. When a nation becomes stronger and greater and begins to expand in regard to world trade, envy arises and then there comes co-operation between countries to nut an end to the expansion of the world trade of a specific nation, and then steps are taken to break that nation. England has always shown a capitalistic tendency, and will never be content to play second fiddle in connection with world trade. It is for that reason the conference has been convened. Of course, we know the history of the League of Nations. Who brought the League of Nations into being? England took the lead with the selfish object of forming the small nations and the colonies into a commonwealth as a wall within which England’s world trade would be safe. It is also again the aim to build a wall around the British Empire. The Prime Minister is going, but he is certainly not going with the agreement of this side of the House. We cannot stop him. How long it will continue we do not know, but he is going purely and simply for the welfare of England, to protect and promote England’s position in world trade.

I have listened with the greatest interest to the important statement made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister on the question of the San Francisco Conference and the consultations to take place in London between Dominion representatives and those of the United Kingdom prior to the meeting of the conference. The purpose of that meeting seems to be primarily to consider, and if possible agree upon the terms of the statute for world security, or some kind of world security organisation. The majority of the people in South Africa who are old enough to have lived through two world wars, have learned to put their trust in the all-out mobilisation of Empire defence and to look somewhat askance at the League of Nations organisation, and such other forms of world security that are apt to prove no security at all when put to the test. I am one of those who hopes that the Prime Minister will not be too much intrigued with the complexities of the statute for a world security organisation. One cannot forget that the League of Nations failed us, and failed us utterly in every respect. I doubt whether any single act of that moribund body can be recalled that has served any good purpose to mankind, certainly not in the realm of providing security against war. From that point of view I recall the attitude of the late Mr. J. X. Merriman towards that body. He held it up to well-mannered derision throughout the whole of his later career, and I am only sorry he did not live long enough to see how truly he had spoken of the overrated possibilities and promises of that body. I hope the Prime Minister will divert his great attainments to the improvement of Empire defence, a means of real security, which has proved a sure shield to all the peoples of the Empire in the time of its greatest peril. To show how real the dangers in our midst were at a time when the attempt to bring us into neutrality failed, I should like to read a quotation—which I only saw the other day—from a speech made by Mr. Pirow, our former Minister of Defence, and published in “Die Vaderland”. This was on the 23rd June, 1944—

This was stated at a meeting at Benoni.

By whom?

Mr. Pirow. He added that—

I believe him. The report goes on—

Those were the views of Mr. Pirow as expressed publicly as recently as June, 1944; and though that is a remarkable confession for a Minister of the Crown to make who was the chosen delegate from South Africa to go to London from time to time to consult and take part in a scheme of common Empire defence, his whole attitude was that of national socialism, Nazism, and it is no use blinking the fact that this doctrine is being actively preached in South Africa today. I think it is a mistake either to try and appease adherents of that doctrine or in any way to attempt to ignore its existence. Quite recently I read from a well-printed and well-produced pamphlet or booklet, the declaration of Colonel or General—I forget what his exact title is—Van Rensburg, who declared his adherence to this very doctrine of national socialism, and indicated that if there could only be a united front among those who believe in the dominance of Afrikanerdom they would succeed in destroying every other party and establishing his party— that is the Ossewabrandwag, I presume—as the one party in South Africa. Anyone else, it seemed to me, was likely to be liquidated or treated very much as Hitler treated his opponents. That is a very live and real doctrine that is being preached from day to day, and it would be idle for us to say we are going to count on world security when, in our midst, that sort of mischievous and obnoxious doctrine is being preached to the whole of the younger generation. That doctrine is being preached, I venture to say, by practically every teacher and every minister of religion in the northern provinces. That being so, I think it behoves the country to see to it that that doctrine is not allowed to be brought into force, because there is certainly every prospect of its being the objective of a very large number of the younger generation in South Africa. It is idle for us to talk of our pursuing the objectives that are set before us in these bigger conferences if we completely ignore the developments that are taking place under our very noses in South Africa. I was disappointed in reading the report of the speech of Mr. Curtin in Australia to find that the attitude of our own Prime Minister towards Empire defence had been almost neutral. He had made no comment whatever on the proposals made by Mr. Curtin and others with a view to the improvement of Empire defence arrangements in the Premiers’ Conference in 1944. [Time limit.]

I should like to refer very shortly to the contribution of the Union Government to Rehabilitation and Relief as organised by the United Nations. I think the House will be interested to get a clear picture, as far as we can gather the information from overseas journals, in regard to the activities of Unrra in general. The debate in the House of Lords in December last was very illuminating; judging from what was said there, and from articles in the English papers, in particular the “Economist”, an authoritative organ, all does not seem to be well with Unrra in its operations, in particular in Western Europe. Lord Huntingdon in the House of Lords, expressed very real anxiety in regard to the rôle Unrra is playing in respect of relief in Western Europe. He revealed this rather remarkable fact that Unrra had not yet been brought to bear on civilian suffering in that part of the world though it was doing good work in regard to displaced persons. He stated that they were finding it impossible, under present conditions to carry out the big responsibilities entrusted to them. Two of the main obstacles in the way of their work were their limited powers and the duplicating of authority in Western Europe at the present time. In regard to the duplication of authority, it appears that each country in Western Europe is now in a position to buy its own supplies; and does buy those supplies, and distributes them to the civilian population both for sale and relief. This seems to be the result of operations of the Anglo-American combined Boards of Supplies which supply the food and raw materials to the governments for them to dispose of. It seems clear, therefore, in Western Europe, that the governments and not Unrra are distributing relief to the population. It is also clear that the big businesses of the world have already shown that they intend to get hold of the distribution of food both for ordinary sale purposes, and for the mitigation of relief and suffering. When we come to Eastern Europe the reports are not quite so clear, but they do indicate that owing to military and political difficulties, Unrra is finding it very difficult to get a footing there, mainly owing to the fact that stable governments do not seem to be possible. The big factor in regard to Eastern Europe is, however, that the countries there are within the Russian military and political sphere. It is true that Russia is represented on Unrra; but the reports indicate that Russia is following the examples of the United Nations in the West, and intends herself to distribute supplies from her own resources, as well as from supplies obtained under Lease-Lend, to the suppressed and needy populations of Eastern Europe, that is to say Rumania, Bulgaria, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czecho-Slovakia. Provided, therefore, Unrra can get the collaboration of Soviet Russia, Unrra may suc ceed in its efforts in Eastern Europe. It would be interesting to know from the Prime Minister this afternoon whether, as Germany becomes progressively occupied, it will be the function of Unrra to relieve the population there in the same way. We are going to allocate £250,000 towards relief and rehabilitation in Europe. I am sure all of us in this House are in sympathy with that intention. It is a big sum for Souh Africa; and in view of the facts attested to by the “ Economist ” in more than one authoritative article, that Unrra has not yet one big success to its credit, and that a very big change has come over the whole political position by the dominance of Russia, this House should surely have the assurance that if this money is voted; it will be for the designated purposes of Unrra; and if it is not to be used for those purposes but diverted to other purposes, the Government should be consulted before such diversion takes place. No doubt the Prime Minister has more extensive information. I should like to ask, in conclusion, if the Prime Minister is satisfied that Unrra as it is today is fulfilling and can fulfil the purposes for which it was designed in 1942?

Yesterday the matter of the incorporation of South-West Africa was brought on the tapis. I do not want to enter into the matter further, but a related matter is the incorporation of the British Protectorates of Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland. I want to confine myself more particularly to the incorporation of Swaziland, because that especially affects the interests of the Eastern Transvaal. Considerations of like nature will be applicable to Bechuanaland and Basutoland, but there is no doubt that the incorporation of Swaziland is of great interest to the Eastern Transvaal. As far as our native policy is concerned we need not take a back seat, as far as the treatment of natives is concerned, to any other British Colony in Southern Africa. We can be proud of it that our native population is treated better than in any other part of Southern Africa, and I therefore believe that as far as the interests of the natives are concerned they will not suffer any set-back. As far as Swaziland is concerned, much of the ground there is the property of Union citizens. We have many difficulties because there is not a uniform native policy in the British Colonies and in the Union. If these three territories are incorporated in the Union it will remove great difficulties, not only as regards the native policy, but there are other national problems which would be ameliorated thereby. Take for example the fight against soil erosion. It does not help to fight it on one side of the boundary if on the other side of it no effective measures are adopted. Take further the combating of stock diseases. We know how difficult it is on the Swaziland border, and we cannot demand that the Administration of Swaziland should apply the same measures that are applied in the Union. The major portion of the boundary between the Transvaal and Swaziland is not fenced, and one can imagine what difficulties are caused thereby. I am of opinion that it would contribute much towards improving the stock especially in the Eastern Transvaal if we can apply better protective measures and can exercise the same degree of control in Swaziland. There is the matter of veld fires. We have absolutely no control. The Swazis set fire to the veld and not only burn out their own veld but the fire spreads and also burns out the adjoining portions of the Transvaal. As far as the smuggling of cattle is concerned it is also very difficult to exercise control. It is therefore of the greatest importance that we should plead for the incorporation of the three British Protectorates in the Union with the utmost speed. We would like to see that happen as soon as possible, and we know that the Prime Minister, when he attends the conference in London, will make representations in that direction. I do not think that the Administrations of the three territories can raise any actual objection that it will not be to their interest. I realise that there may be a little opposition from the side of certain officials who occupy high positions there and who will not have so much authority in a bigger State. Today they are perhaps big men in a small State, but if these territories should be incorporated their authority may not be so great, but those officials will not be dismissed, and we want to ensure the future of these territories. We also feel that as soon as Swaziland falls within the Union a much better position will be created in future as regards communications. At the present moment the sheep-farming industry of the Eastern Transvaal practically depends on Swaziland, because the majority of the farmers have winter grazing in Swaziland. It is becoming increasingly difficult for those farmers to trek with their cattle to Swaziland, because the ground there is gradually being populated more and more and farming is becoming more intensive. Today it is practically impossible for the sheep farmers of the Transvaal to trek to Swaziland, because the trekpaths are becoming narrower and narrower and there is no grazing alongside them. Unless in the near future we obtain rail communications with Swaziland and with the Portuguese territory the farmers in the Transvaal will suffer tremendous damage. It is unnecessary for me to remind the House of the fact that the Eastern Transvaal has many more sheep than any other portion of the Transvaal. I think that in the Eastern Transvaal we have more sheep than in all the rest of the Transvaal together. I am sure that the representations we make here will not fall on deaf ears, and we antici pate with longing and confidence that the Prime Minister will help us.

When the Hon. the Prime Minister replied yesterday afternoon it was late in the afternoon and he had to be very brief. With his friendly consent I would like to mention a few matters here which were touched on yesterday and on which we should very much like to have a reply. The most important matter, which is not clear to anybody in South-West Africa, is who really governs there. The country is not being governed by its population, and the people who hold the actual governing power in their hands cannot be held responsible, because the population cannot challenge them to appear on a public platform. They are not elected men, but nominated men. If we come to the Prime Minister and ask questions of him he says that those matters are not relevant in the Union Parliament, but that these questions should be asked in South-West Africa. Now the people in South-West do not know who governs them. Previously they could still go and complain to the League of Nations, but now that body is no longer there. Whither now? Who is really responsible? The Prime Minister said that it was his personal opinion that South-West Africa would be incorporated in or annexed to the Union. We have native territories like Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland, but in connection with them we do not talk of annexation. They do not want to enter the Union. Those natives have a voice, and therefore we do not annex them. The Europeans in South-West have no voice. They cannot say whether they want to be incorporated or not, and in connection with them the Prime Minister speaks about annexation. They do not know who governs them. Even though they have no confidence in the government of the country; even though they can outvote the government 100 per cent., they are nevertheless powerless, and for this reason, that the Prime Minister can nullify the value of their vote by means of the six members of the Legislative Council which he can appoint out of the eighteen. Those eighteen members elect an executive committee on the basis of proportional representation. The six members appointed by him must then appoint one member at least. It then consists of an appointed official in whom the Prime Minister has confidence, but in whom the population have no confidence. Half of the executive committee is therefore appointed. But not even the executive committee governs the country. The territory is governed by the Advisory Council. That consists of the Administrator, the four executive committee members, plus three members appointed by the Administrator. He therefore appoints his own government. He, together with his three nominated members, can always outvote the four executive committee members. So the country is governed. When I here ask the Prime Minister questions about very important matters, matters about which the whole of South-West feels aggrieved, the Prime Minister refers me to South-West Africa and says that it is at home there. I however now want to mention a very important matter about which the whole of the country feels aggrieved, and that is the delimitation of constituencies. The reply of the Prime Minister is that he did not cause a new delimitation of constituencies to be made because the Advisory Council advised against it. If that Advisory Council is not the highest body in the territory, why then does the Prime Minister accept their advice? We would not have been so worried about it if the position had been a reasonable one. But as the position is now, it is very unjust. I verily believe that the constituencies are not being redelimitated now for the reason that the United Party constituencies, in order to keep their people in the Legislative Assembly, need less than half the votes required by the Nationalist Party seats. Perhaps I should put it this way, that the constituencies which are predominantly Nationalist have twice as many voters as some United Party constituencies. Some of the constituencies which appear to be safe for the United Party have less than half the number of votes of constituencies which are safe for the Nationalist Party, and now, after 14 years, the advice of the Advisory Council is that there should not be a redelimitation of constituencies. I pointed out yesterday that a quarter of the voters had been disqualified. There are constituencies which lost 34 voters and others which lost 534 and 634. It is, however, left that way. I wish to point out that two constituencies like Luderitz and Grootfontein, or Luderitz and Zwakop, together have as many voters as constituencies like Outjiwarongo or Stampriet. The Prime Minister here plays the rôle of the champion of popular government and democracy. That country is deprived of a government which can be regarded as a democratic government. Yesterday, in very moderate language I asked the Prime Minister what he is going to do to develop the self-government of that country a little in a democratic direction. The Prime Minister did not deal with that subject. I now again want to ask him whether he has such a plan. I just want to tell him what the position there is. Since we annexed the country, or received it under Mandate C, the present Prime Minister has not moved a finger to cause an iota of development in the sphere of popular government. What the country has it received from the Nationalist Party Government. The Prime Minister did not continue to build On that. On the contrary he nullifies that small degree of Government which they have by constantly and repeatedly appointing only his own people, irrespective of what the voting power of the country desires. He nullifies the little power they have of governing themselves by obstinately nominating only his own people. That is not just. That is not self-government but a farce. We very much want to hear from the Prime Minister what he feels about the matter. It may be that he returns from San Francisco with no power to annex South-West Africa, and what will then be the condition of that territory? Strong rumours are leaking through; we find it spread throughout the whole Press in the country; it repeatedly appears in the Press that there is a very strong tendency that the mandated areas should be placed under international control. The people in South-West are deply anxious about the situation, and want to know what the position is. We feel that the Prime Minister is desirous of having South-West incorporated, but in case that does not happen, what would then be his attitude in regard to a higher measure of self-government? The Government which there is at present cannot be called to account by the population of the country. They are not elected. They may have complete lack of confidence in the people who govern the country, but they cannot call them to account. They cannot challenge those people on a public platform, because they are people who are appointed and not elected. For those reasons I wish to bring certain matters to the notice of the Prime Minister. We have heard it said that such matters are at home in the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa. But as the position is there and as I have described it here, I am forced now to bring one matter especially to the notice of the Prime Minister. That is a transaction which was recently put through by two people regarding a large block of ground called the Garrison Block. The two people concerned are Cohen and Lichtenstein. [Time Limit.]

It becomes us, on this side, where the Prime Minister is on the point of departure, to express our best wishes to and high expectations of him, and to wish him all success and prosperity, as it becomes a nation on such an occasion to do to its Head of State. We hope that he will have more success than we can expect, and that he will surpass all our expectations. As the Prime Minister is going to such an important conference, I want to remind him as an old veteran that the man who can make the best peace is the man who has fought. His heart is pure and he has a better realisation of what the peace must be than the man who has stood outside. The Prime Minister, as a man who has stood on battlefields, will realise that, but I want to remind him that when he sits in those Council Chambers and when clever people make many plans, he must remember and realise, as my hon. friend behind me so clearly pointed out in his book in connection with the position after the previous war, that the people who fought in the army have a better realisation of what the peace ought to be than those other clever people. The people who were in the fight themselves are the people who could have made the best peace. We do not wish to overburden the mind of the Prime Minister, because we know that there are a hundred and one matters which will occupy him. But we know that before a statesman goes on a journey he gives orders to the man who stays behind, and I now want to ask the Prime Minister to tell us, before his departure, whether he, with a view to the general public disapproval of the attitude adopted by certain controllers and the statements made in this House anent controllers, accepts the offer of the Society of Practising Architects to prove that corruption was committed provided the Government grants indemnity to them and to certain of their clients, and that the public therefore regard control with suspicion, and whether the Prime Minister is prepared to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee in order to investigate all public complaints against controllers and as speedily as possible to make recommendations and to report to the House? I should like to know whether the Prime Minister, amongst the instructions he will give to those who remain behind, will also consent to the appointment of such a Select Committee.

I should like to make use of this occasion to thank the Prime Minister heartily for the nice manner in which he enlightened laymen like us about his journey overseas, I should like to say that I feel that we, as a nation, and not only South Africa, but also the whole world have departed in a large degree from certain customs and traditions which in the past were regarded as the tradition of a civilised nation. The guidance we received from our ancestors was to honour someone higher than ourselves. I want to direct an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister that he should not lose out of sight that tradition of our nation when he has those discussions, namely that there is somebody from whom we can expect leadership. I am constantly seeing that emphasis is being laid by certain people of high position in the various churches when they direct an appeal to every nation once and for all to lay down that before we take each other’s lives, we should see to it that we first receive that direction from above. In the second place I should like to bring something to the attention of the Prime Minister which affects South Africa, and that is in connection with the native population. In this House a decision was taken some years ago that certain ground should be bought for the natives. I am afraid that if we do not give effect to that, we shall be blamed for not giving the natives their rights. May I say here that certain areas in South Africa were bought for the native population, for which our country will still pay dearly in the future, because those areas are now being misused. The fountains are drying up and certain things are being done which will be of great detriment to the country. I do not want to blame the natives for that. That ground was bought and they were placed there. Nevertheless I wish to utter a word of warning that we should see to it that those parts of our fruitful soil should not be ruined because a wrong standpoint was adopted in connection with the purchase of the ground. In certain areas which I represent, where we have some of the very best soil, we find that the trees are today being chopped up because the natives received the ground in order to plough and to sow. The result is that with the first storms that soil washes away, and the European population below cannot get enough water for their ground as a result of these things which are done. We should not blame the natives for it. They received that soil in order to cultivate it. They must make a living and had we not bought the ground for them, we as a European population would not have been acting with justice towards them. I do not want the outside world to think that South Africa did an injustice to those people. We must treat them justly and reasonably, but we did it in a way which will be to the detriment of the European population.

The position in regard to the next election in the mandated territory of South-West Africa is not satisfactory. It is a pity that an election should now take place. It seems to me that the Government has simply let the matter slide, and that in spite of the law passed in this House whereby a large number of voters were disqualified the Government has not devoted its attention to the position. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has said here in connection with the matter, because it is of great interest to the public there. The constitution of South-West Africa is contained in an Act which was passed by this Parliament in 1925. The provision in regard to the division of the territory into constituencies is that it should be divided into 12 constituencies, and that the division should be made in such a manner that as far as possible there should be equal numbers of voters in each division. But what is the position now? I want to quote a few cases. In Luderitz the number of voters is 597. That is both men and women. There are only 258 men. In Zwartkop the total is 666; Grootfontein 671. But now we come to Keetmanskoop, 1,201; Gibeon, 1,206; Stampriet, 1,298. All the other constituencies have more or less 1,200 voters. But there are three which have less than 700, an one has even less than 600. In other words, the other constituencies have almost twice as many voters as these three. How does that comply with the Act which determined that as far as possible there should be equal numbers of voters in each constituency? I think that the Union Government should have stepped in before the election took place and rectified the matter. I want to go further and to ask the Prime Minister what reason still exists today for not giving the inhabitants of South-West Africa democratic Government? At that time when the constitution of South-West Africa was adopted it was very clear why a democratic government was not granted to the territory. The reason was this. There was still a large number of ex-enemy subjects in the territory. There was a very small number of Union citizens, and the fear at the time was that in this conquered territory the ex-enemy subjects would dominate the Union citizens and govern the country. There had to be safeguards against this and that is the reason why the constitution was drawn up at it is today. For that reason a third of the members of the Legislative Assembly were nominated members. In addition to that we have the Advisory Council of which a number are also nominated. But the position is no longer as it was at that time. Even before a number of voters were disqualified by far the greatest majority were Union citizens. Today all the enemy subjects are disqualified, and Union subjecst are the voters. They vote, but it simply means nothing because the Administration nominates six men. Do we not trust those people enough or do we think they are incapable of governing themselves and of electing their own Council, even though it is with this limited form of Government? What is the reason for it? My allegation is that the Government should have stepped in before this election took place and should have changed the system. In the first place it should have provided for a proper delimitation of the constituencies and in the second place a proper representative Government should have been granted to these people, without those nominated persons. It is absolutely unnecessary to have the nominated members in the Legislative Assembly. In the third place the Advisory Council can be abolished and the Executive Committee can be elected by the Legislative Assembly. The Prime Minister can realise what contempt for the Government must develop on the part of these people. It is no national Government or representative Government. It seems as if we do not trust these people enough to allow them to govern their own country. They are treated as if they are small children. We must treat them as adult and sensible people and give them the rights which we nejoy in the Union. I repeat that I cannot understand why national Government should be withheld from that population. Perhaps it is too late to do anything now, because the election has already been authorised. But it is strange to me that the Government did not rectify the matter in connection with the delimitation of the constituencies before it authorised the election in May. I want to tell the Prime Minister that if he is willing to submit a Bill to Parliament now, to let the election stand over and first to rectify the Constitution so as to give these people representative Government, we will support him. We will give him the opportunity to pass a Bill like that quickly through the House. I make him that offer so that we can do right by the public of South-West Africa. The Bill will pass very quickly and we will help him to pass legislation here which will give those people a really democratic Government, which they want. As the position is now it seems as if we do not trust those people. We must permit them to elect their own Legislative Assembly and then their own Executive Council.

I would like to add my appreciation for the great speech made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister yesterday on the subject of his intended visit to London and San Francisco, but I am afraid I am not quite so optimistic as to the future as the Prime Minister appears to be. The Prime Minister stated that any decision come to by the Big Five under the scheme would have to be agreed to unanimously before any action can be taken. To my mind that is a very great disadvantage. It will be a very difficult matter to get a body of that sort representing five great powers of the world, to agree unanimously on any particular subject. I can see a great weakness in this decision which has already been come to, apparently, at the Yalta Conference. I say that if the Prime Minister can, with his influence, arrange for a 4—1 majority, it will make this scheme more practicable. If they had a 4—1 majority they would then be able to act. I can also foresee a possible division of the great powers in the ratio of 3 to 2. When that arises I should think that one can foresee a third world war in the offing. In my humble judgment I would say that the best guarantee for world peace would be for the nations who are privileged to arm themselves—and I take it that South Africa would be one—to remain armed after the war and I hope that the British Commonwealth will never again be so lacking in foresight as to be disarmed as they were at the beginning of this war. As the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) pointed out it behoves the British Commonwealth to remain armed up to the hilt in order to preserve peace in the world.

And the rights of Natal.

The Prime Minister referred in his speech yesterday to war-like aggression by other nations, and in that event the Big Five, or the new League of Nations, would possibly take action to suppress such aggression. But he did not refer to aggression of another type which I am particularly afraid of in this part of the world, and that is the question of peaceful penetration. That is a question which greatly threatens South Africa at the present time and will increase as the years go by, and I hope that the hon. gentleman when he has his deliberations in London and in San Francisco will not oeverlook this factor. I would like to ask what was the cause of the friction between the United States and Japan? The cause of the friction was, in the first instance, Japanese penetration into California, and the American Government, realising the gravity of the situation and what it would lead to, passed an Act preventing further penetration of Japanese. When the American Government passed this legislation, the Japanese nation went into mourning, and it was that Act—I quite agree with the action of the American Government—which caused the friction between those two countries and which eventually led to the present war between those two nations.

But these people are not immigrants; we brought them over.

If the question of peaceful penetration which is going on in this country, and along the East coast of Africa, is not checked, it will eventually swallow up the whole of these states, and as I prophesied in this House some twenty years ago, unless this movement is checked, the whole of these states will become a second India. It is now twenty years ago since I made that prophecy, and we are well on the way already. I would strongly urge the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to look into this matter and to see what can be done to save white civilisation in South Africa. I looked at some figures in regard to Mauritius, and I think they will be rather illuminating to hon. members of this House. In 1846, just about a hundred years ago, the general population of Mauritius, mostly Europeans, was 64.5 per cent. of the total. The IndoMauritian and Mauritian population was 35.5 per cent. In 1861, fifteen years later, the European population had dropped from 64 per cent. to 37.4 per cent.; the others had increased from 35.5 per cent. to 64.5 per cent.

What was the total population?

The statistics do not show it, but the percentages show what the position was. Then in 1871 ten years later, the Indians had so intermarried with the Mauritians that they grouped the two together. By that time the European population had again dropped to 30 per cent. and the Indo-Mauritian population had increased to 70 per cent. Now I want to give the total as it is today. I got the following figures from a prominent resident of Mauritius about a year ago, and he told me that the postion now is that there are 17,000 Europeans in Mauritius compared with 360,000 Indo-Mauritians, and what has happened in Mauritius is taking place here and on the East coast of Africa. I strongly urge the Prime Minister when he goes overseas not to lose sight of this great danger that is threatening our white civilisation in this country.

I speak as a man feeling sick at heart and therefore if I say anything that is unjust (I shall try not to do so), but if I should say anything which is unjust, I apologise in advance to this House.

Why say it?

I have been thinking how difficult we found it not so long ago to find £4,000,000 a year for old age pensions, and how firmly we were told money could not possibly be provided to improve the conditions of life for coloured people, natives, and the like, to feed their bodies and their minds. But for several years we have been spending £40,000,000 or £50,000.000 annually on war. Looking over the world, Sir, one thinks of literally hundreds of millions of men either fighting, training or working in the manufacture of fighting weapons. We know the immense organisation that has been established to enable that dreadful thing to go on. We used to be told by Mr. Norman Angell that it would be impossible financially to do anything of the kind but it is being done. The whole thing moves financially as smoothly as a minuet and that gives me great trouble, because I fear very much that the plans for this excellent efficiency were made long ago in the peace. I want first, of all, to associate myself very closely with the tribute to the English people, as a whole and as a fighting nation, which was paid yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg.) When the British Government of that day, dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying were appeasing Hitler, the people of that country, unprepared and ill-equipped, declared war against all that Hitler stood and still stands for. When their armies came back from the Continent via Dunkirk, the people of England braced themselves for invasion. While the whole world held its breath, they put up their midget strength into the air, against the German Colossus of the sky. The R.A.F. in those days was outnumbered by ten or fifteen or even twenty to one, and it was amazing that it was not the Spitfires and Hurricanes that came down; it was the great planes of Germany that fell blazing into the lands, the fields, the sea and the city squares. It was a magnificent feat of arms. But I want to know— I hope the world will want to know in the next few years—why it was that England was so ill-equipped. The manufacturers of armaments, the steel princes from Birmingham, the Baldwins and the Chamberlains, did they then learn nothing from 1914 when they had no adequate army ready? Were there no signs and portents, that they had to be unprepared again in 1939; or is it true that trade is stronger that patriotism, and that the manufacturers of armaments and the like have no god but gold? I will tell you why England was unprepared, and we can argue from that country quite fairly to others; Paul Einzig, foreign editor of the “Financial News”, wrote in “World Finance, 1938-’39”—

Big business got the money back all right, but into its own pocket, not that of the nation. It is a fact that Bauxite and other materials essential for the production of munitions and armaments were being supplied to Germany from France right up to the eve of the war; and similarly only thirteen days before hostilities broke out, 17,000 tons of rubber, 8,000 tons of copper, and great quantities of tin and lead were furnished by British capitalists to Germany. This was done unblushingly and openly, and fully reported at the time in the London Press. The “Evening Standard” of the 21st August, 1939, published the following statement—

Three days later, on the 4th of September, the war started. I want to say this to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, it is the thing closest to my mind and to my heart: Had there been no profits there would have been no sales. Had there been no profits there would have been no war; and I hope that whether at San Francisco or at London or wherever the Peace Conference my be, the Prime Minister will keep that all-important fact in mind, that in that way and in no other way—not by clever talking or scheming —can peace come to the world and remain. The logic of a child is sufficient to rule that if armaments and munitions must be manufactured, no profit should go to any individual pocket. It is perfectly obvious that armaments should be, and in the future must be made by the State. If armaments are made and delivered to foreign nations simply because great profit is thereby made, war is not merely possible; war is deserved, and inevitable. I want to give the House some extracts. If I did not, I do not think the House would believe the facts that I wish to lay before it—I want to give you some facts from evidence laid before the Royal Commission on the Arms Traffic, and extracts from speeches by the present Minister of Economic Warfare in England. Mr. W. Arnold-Forster, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on the Arms Traffic, pointed out that between October, 1933, and the early months of 1934, the Daily Mail,” followed by the “Daily Mirror,” was conducting a campaign in favour of a large increase of the British Air Force, a very necessary thing. I want to show the House what made it an immediate requisite. Between October 2, 1933, and March 31, 1934, the market prices of the shares of the six principal companies making aircraft had appreciated on an average by 70 per cent., not 7 per cent. The returns at Somerset House dated January 12, 1934, show that at that time the Daily Mirror Newspapers, Limited, held 4,000 shares in Fairey Aviation Company, Limited. In an article by the editor of Airplane in the issue for January 17, 1934, there is a clear explanation of why these journals continued …. [Time limit.]

Before he went overseas last year the Prime Minister made two important statements in this House, really also confessions, and in view of the Prime Minister’s impending departure for San Francisco I think that clear consideration must be given to these statements. In the one statement the Prime Minister admitted that within the British Commonwealth today there are various tendencies, that in certain directions there is no unity as far as concerns the British Commonwealth. I want to remind the Prime Minister of this; there was read out to him here an address by Mr. McKenzie King an address which he gave as a result of the Prime Minister’s explosive speech in London. There is was shown how there are various schools of thought within the British Commonwealth. The Prime Minister admitted this, and moreover he referred more definitely to South Africa and stated that here too in South Africa there was a tendency to go further, namely, to obtain a republic in South Africa. Then the Prime Minister went so far as to tell the House, “Look, I stand for still closer union with the British Empire.” The second was that the Prime Minister admitted that England was economically bankrupt. That he acknowledged. Yesterday it was stated clearly and frankly by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) that the dominions must now carry England, and he pointed out how necessary it is that we should make extreme contributions in order to strengthen England economically again, so that it can in the long run again act as our protector. There is not much difference between the statement of the Prime Minister and that of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Under those circumstances we should have expected the Prime Minister, when he spoke yesterday, to have clearly communicated to this House his future plans in connection with South Africa, and South Africa’s position. But the Prime Minister spent a long time in furnishing us with information in reference to conversations which took place a year or more ago, and which when the time was ripe for it we could not extract from him. For the rest we must say that the position rests just where it was. No further light has been thrown on the subject, and moreover the Prime Minister stated yesterday afternoon in the House in reply to questions that were put to him by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that he could not answer these questions, and that San Francisco would show the way. I have his words here—

That may be true, but a great statesman like the Prime Minister must know more or less what his plans are in reference to South Africa in the post-war period. Accordingly, we still expect that the Prime Minister will take the House more into his confidence in this matter. The conference that he is attending is, of course, not without an agenda. Presumably the agenda has already been drawn up and is now in his possession. Now we want to ask the Prime Minister: Where does he stand today in reference to the various currents that exist within the British Commonwealth, and also with reference to the various currents within South Africa itself; is he going to take them into account, yes or no; is he going to strike the course that the hon. member for Hillbrow has mentioned, that we should do our best to strengthen England. If that is the case I would say as the Leader of the Opposition has said: Woe to South Africa. I recall how the Prime Minister in those days of the establishment of Iscor fought it tooth and nail. Today Iscor stands as a monument for this side of the House. The Minister today realises its value. I fear if the Minister is going to plead for closer co-operation we shall have to forget about industrial expansion in South Africa should the Prime Minister govern the country again after this war. I should like to deal briefly with the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in reference to the hew world organisation. I am glad that the Prime Minister admitted yesterday that the League of Nations had been a failure. He admitted that openly, and as the new organisation is being established in the way the Prime Minister has explained I welcome the deletion of this amount that we should have to pay to this world organisation. My time is rather too limited to enable me to go fully into the matter, but I should just like to mention that as this country is a member of that organisation we shall have our share of the responsibility. If England becomes involved in war, we are going to be in the same position as we were in 1914 and 1939. We shall again be dragged into the war, and this closer co-operation only brings to us continuous waging of war alongside England. Since 1902 South Africa has been dragged into two bloody world wars. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister: If South Africa is dragged into a bloody war every ten or twelve years together with England, what hope has South Africa ever to become a nation? It has no hope. We have had to experience two great wars, and I say without those circumstances we have no hope. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to take the House more into his confidence. He knows, of course, what the plans are in respect of that conference, and especially with reference to the various tendencies that exist he should tell us how he stands as far as South Africa is concerned, especially after this war.

The hon. member who has just sat down, in his reference to the Commonwealth is, of course if not prejudiced, then at any rate under a misconception as to the real position. It is perfectly true that the association of the Dominions with Great Britain in the Commonwealth is bound to strengthen the position of Great Britain, not merely economically, but as a force for peace, as a force for the advancement of the world. But the real reason why the Union of South Africa — and, for that matter, other Dominions — is a member of the Commonwealth—and the late Gen. Hertzog was largely responsible for that—is not because we desire to benefit Great Britain, but because we realise that the day of small nations standing as isolationists is at an end. It was realised long ago. The late Marquis of Salisbury, the Prime Minister at the end of the last century, said: “The day of small nations is past.” We realise that and for our own benefit and for our own interest and our own protection, we are a member of the Commonwealth, and if we were to get out of that, once a war broke out—it does not matter whether between America or the Soviet or any other great Power, it would spread—nothing in the world would save us from being parties in that war unwillingly instead of being so willingly. [Interjection]. My hon. friend over there always talks about South Africa standing on its own. Small nations cannot possibly effectively carry out the policy which my hon. friend advocated yesterday. I say that the protection for small nations is based on co-operation between the great powers who have been bearing the burden of this war to a great extent. I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) that the interests and the security of the Union of South Africa demand our continued co-operation as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. My hon. friend, the member for Durban (North) (The Rev. Miles-Cadman) raised a very important issue here this afternoon, namely the question of armaments, but I would like to point out that theories, while exceedingly good, often work out quite differently in practice. He talked about the question of armaments. I do not know whether at San Francisco the question of national armaments will be dealt with, but the fact that we must not overlook is that in Great Britain the late Mr. Ramsay McDonald, Lord Baldwin and even Mr. Chamberlain were going on the basis of a policy of disarmament whilst Germany was arming up to the hilt, and the point we have to remember is that in the conditions as we know them even if we establish state armaments, and I prefer that the state rather than private firms should control the manufacture of armaments, say in South Africa, or even in Great Britain, that is going to be no solution to the evil mentioned by the hon. member unless every other nation in the world follow suit. Because otherwise we may have state armament which will protect us to a very small extent whilst other nations will go on building to the fullest extent and arming themselves to the fullest extent. That was our experience with Germany itself, that whilst Great Britain was disarming, Hitler used armaments for two purposes. He built armaments to the fullest extent, not only from the point of view of world domination, but also as a means of solving his unemployment problem and I say that this question of armaments must be based on an international arrangement, and this will have to be arrived at sooner or later to secure co-operation in so far as armaments are concerned, preferably by the establishment of an international police force. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) raised an important issue on which I am sure all sides of the House would like to have some statement from the Prime Minister. He raised the question of the Indian problem in Natal. On the last occasion when the right hon. gentleman went overseas he virtually brought about a settlement—the Pretoria agreement— which was acceptable to all sections. Today unfortunately that has gone by the board. Some hon. members, like the hon. member for Musgrave, feel that settlement was perhaps a little too favourable to the Indian community, and I think it is desirable before the right hon. gentleman leaves South Africa, he should give some indication that the stage has again been set for a settlement. Because after all we have to remember two things; in the first instance all this fear of Indian penetration that is being talked about is not going to help us to satisfactorily solve the problem. The fact remains we are a small European population in a sea of colour in this country, and the only way we can maintain our supremacy, or rather maintain our position —I do not believe in supremacy in the sense many people use the term—the only way we can maintain our position is firstly by acting fairly and justly to the nonEuropean population and raising their standard of life in every direction possible; and secondly, to see that we supplement our small European population. Unfortunately our statistics go to show that the white population is not increasing to the same extent and in the same proportion as the non-European population. Therefore we shall have to supplement it, whether we like it or not, by an increase of the white population by immigration. The other point we have to remember and I think our friends of the Dominion Party, who are such imperialists, ought to remember, that any difficulty that arises as a result of their policy in connection with the Indian question, will have reactions on India, which will soon be a dominion and will be inimical to the Commonwealth. It will also be inimical to the best interests of South Africa, because in India we have at our door a great state of 350,000,000 people who can do a great deal towards helping the development of South Africa and who can do a great deal towards retarding it. Our policy should be to leave no stone unturned to effect a settlement of the Indian question which would be acceptable to all sections of the population, and not only to those Europeans on the spot who are prejudiced. I have referred to this question of increasing our population, and I realise the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday the difficulties in that connection, especially as Great Britain is not likely to encourage emigration of her people to the dominions. On the other hand we know that Australia, New Zealand and Canada are clamouring for more population, and in Australia they are pursuing a policy of encouraging American soldiers who have been there, particularly airmen, to remain there. I have made a suggestion and I put a question to the Prime Minister the other day (which was replied to today, but is really no reply if I may be permitted to say so), whether the Prime Minister will consider the advisability of consulting the British War Minister with a view to arranging that R.A.F. boys who happen to be stationed in the Union and who desire to remain in the Union, either because they are married to South African girls, or engaged to be married to South African girls, or perhaps because they like South Africa generally (we must remember that many people from the old countries will be anxious to go to new countries), whether he would consider negotiating some method by which agreement can be arrived at to enable those boys who wish to remain here to do so instead of travelling to England and then returning here, involving themselves in expense and difficulty in doing so. I know it is for them to decide overseas, but I would suggest to the Prime Minister that when he is in London he should discuss that question, as well as another question—Australia is dealing with at the present moment—and that is having regard to the difficulties of attracting the necessary immigrants, that arrangements may be made for a large scale immigration of orphans into the country; they can be brought up and trained in the Union and absorb the environment of South Africa and become good South Africans. These are all methods by which we can increase our population, and reduce the disparity between our European and non-European population, which is one of the greatest difficulties confronting us in the solution of our problems.

I think it must be really painful for the Prime Minister to have to sit and listen to what in reality does not amount to criticism, but practically to instructions given him by the Opposition over the floor of the House. I think the country must be quite amused listening to the discussions which take place here in connection with the conference which is to be held. When one takes into consideration the whole attitude of the Opposition, that the Prime Minister when he entered this war encountered the greatest opposition on their part, and despite this has brought the country through the war with success, it is amusing to see how they have come here this afternoon and want to instruct the Prime Minister as to what he should do at the peace conference. If you would have nothing to do with the war, how can you expect to have anything to do with the peace? I did not intend participating in the debate, but have risen as a result of the speech of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). He particularly emphasised the fact that we are tied to the Commonwealth of Nations. When did this change in the attitude of the other side occur, that they come now and say we are tied up? I have before me a speech which was made not many years ago—

That was not said by the Prime Minister, but by the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing constitutional has taken place since he made that speech in 1930, or still less has anything constitutional taken place from 1930 to 1939 which could have led to a change of attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and his whole party. The resolution adopted in this House in 1939 was the free resolution of a Dominion. No one forced South Africa. We decided of our own free will as a sovereign independent nation. I know that the Opposition does not enjoy being reminded of the facts. They would like the country to forget everything. They want to look upon the period between 1939 and 1945 as a closed book. They have made earnest endeavours to accomplish this. How far they will succeed, the future will show. But there is another aspect of the advice which they have given the Prime Minister, and that is that we do not want to be mixed up in European affairs, and do not want Europe to interfere in our affairs. What have we got to do with them? We are the Southern Hemisphere. We are independent and want to remain independent and will have nothing to do with the rest of the world. The historian, Stockenström, who ranks somewhat high in their opinion, certainly taught them a lesson when he said “the world is like a dam. If you throw a small stone into the dam, the circles travel in all directions.” But I would like to quote something else which the Leader of the Opposition will also not deny—

Here we hear many words. The Prime Minister must not go to the conference as a part of the free association of nations which is called the Commonwealth of Nations. What would they have done? Would they have gone to Europe to ask for a republic? What was their attitude? They were ready to go and ask for a republic. What did the joint leader of the same party say—

Those are the people who now want to participate in the discussions.

Who wants to participate?

They want to give the Prime Minister instructions. I think we should really marvel at the Prime Minister’s patience having to sit and listen for hours on end to a heap of senseless talk. Under the circumstances I feel that we on this side of the House should simply ignore it, and wish the Prime Minister every success. I think we can leave the future of the country in his hands with the utmost confidence.

I think it is time I should answer the great number of questions that have been put to me. I shall endeavour to answer briefly the points touched upon. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has asked me to use my influence for closer co-operation between South Africa and the states lying to the north of us. The hon. member knows, as the Committee knows, it is the policy of this Government, and more especially of myself, to promote this close co-operation. A great conference is now sitting in Cape Town to discuss the big common interests between us and the northern states in respect of air services. The organisation of air services in Southern Africa, which is of the greatest importance not alone to us but to our neighbours, is being discussed. It is of interest to all states up to the Equator.

Has this policy reference only to the British territories?

To all territories. It is a matter for all the states of Southern Africa, and we believe that at this conference and the conference that will follow it with our non-British neighbours, an arrangement will be arrived at. This conference in Cape Town and the other conference will be followed by another conference and other discussions on similar subjects. There is a large number of subjects in which we are all most closely concerned, and which are of the greatest interest, and the Committee can take it from me that I shall use all my influence to estab lish closer relations, because I know that the future of our trade and the prosperity of South Africa, and the development of our market depends a great deal on the northern territories. If our people in South Africa think they can manufacture and send their manufactured articles outside the country, they will find it is going to be very difficult. It is in our interests to endeavour to develop our natural markets on the continent of Africa, and to take all possible steps in that direction. The hon. member also mentioned the question of the High Commission territories, the native territories in our midst, and he asked what is going to be done with reference to their incorporation. The question of the incorporation of these territories has not been tackled and dealt with during the war. We have had neither the time nor the opportunity for that, but we hope with the termination of the war to tackle the question again, The point has also been mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) whose constituency is greatly interested in the incorporation of Swaziland. It is of special interest to our stock farmers in those parts. I am well acquainted with the position, and I think all possible steps will have to be taken after the war to promote that step. The hon. member also asked whether a number of businessmen will accompany me to San Francisco. I replied to that point yesterday. If I were to follow all the advice that has been given to me to represent interests there, to take people with me from South Africa to represent various interests, I wonder what our delegation would look like. It could easily become a South African circus. The people over there may expect lions from South Africa, but not a circus of this sort. I consider that the representation that will go there will be quite adequate to look after the various interests of South Africa in so far as they will come up for discussion at San Francisco. As I have stated, San Francisco will be limited, and so far as we know, according to the invitation, it will only be a discussion over the statute of the world organisation that will be created, and it will not concern itself with all sorts of business points and special interests.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) referred to this question of San Francisco and the world organisation and pointed out, I think quite rightly, we had better be careful and not rely exclusively on any world organisation. We have put our faith before in the League of Nations, in disarmament, and in a number of very high idealistic principles, but we have found that notwithstanding our great faith in these ideals we have been plunged into the most devastating war the world has known. I think one of the lessons we have learnt is not to put our faith merely in documents and in organisations, but to look after ourselves and to keep well armed. I believe South Africa has learnt this lesson too, and after this war we shall not revert to a state of total and complete disarmament such as existed before the present war. We have a people who are willing, there is no need for them to be commandeered, to be trained for the defence of the country, and we have a defence law which makes provision for the purpose; and I hope Parliament will be willing in the years to come to vote the necessary moneys and to see that we are kept in a reasonable—not an extravagant state of preparedness to meet any contingency that might suddenly arise on our borders. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has asked me a question about Unrra. He seemed concerned, almost distressed over reports which have appeared in the newspapers, statements which have been made in the British Parliament about the apparent failure of Unrra to make good. I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the House when I referred to this question a few days ago, and also referred to these newspaper reports he mentioned. I have seen them, and I knew about them, and I may say I felt the same concern that he gave expression to. I took the trouble to wire to the British Government and asked for authentic information, and the information is much more reassuring than would appear from these reports. The facts seem to be this, that Unrra got into very grave difficulties and was brought practically to a standstill in the whole Balkan area because of the war that has taken place there; the war is covering the whole area and is almost in the nature of a civil war, and the position is such that it is almost impossible for a civilian organisation like Unrra to operate. Unrra had to retire from the field. It was the same in Greece; it was actually operating there and had to retire. Some of its personnel were killed in Greece in what practically amounted to a civil war.

War between Russia and Britain.

We know the circumstances of Greece and what was happening there. Under those circumstances Unrra had to retire from the scene, and a number of people, and some of the papers, became very concerned about the situation, but it is temporary and it has passed. Unrra is already hard at work again. In Greece it has started again and it has started in the Balkans. Some of our representatives are going to assist Unrra there, and over a large part of Europe Unrra will soon be in full swing, and there is no doubt _the need will be absolutely desperate. Whatever we can do to help, please let us do. Let it not be on our conscience in future, and let it not be a blot on our honour that we, one of the prosperous countries of the world did not give the helping hand which was necessary in so many of these countries. It is true many of the smaller countries in Western Europe say they can help themselves if they can get the supplies; they are prepared to pay. I think both Holland and Belgium have told us—and I am not so sure about France— they will do that; they have taken up that line; they want supplies but they are prepared to pay. But there are many other countries in Europe in the deepest distress and I think whatever we can do we should do. This amount of £250,000 on the estimates I think is really the very minimum South Africa should give. My hon. friend has asked a question about Germany; is Germany going to share in this money which we are voting? As a matter of fact the position about Germany will be this, that Germany so far as she is already free, so far as she is occupied by the Allies, and so far as she will continue to be occupied, will remain a charge on the great military powers; they are looking after the relief of the German population, feeding them and keeping them going so far as is necessary. It is purely a military question. Unrra is not a military organisation at all. It is a purely civilian organisation, working quite apart from the military machine. Germany will be looked after by the military at any rate for the present.

*The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has returned to the position of South-West Africa, and has again put the questions which he put yesterday. I thought I had answered them. I answered briefly, there was not much time, but I thought I had explained the position. The hon. member again asks who governs there, who is responsible. The hon. member knows what the position is. He knows the constitution of South-West Africa. South-West Africa carries on under the constitution that was adopted in 1925 and which remains in existence. The hon. member knows how the governing authority is composed under that constitution. He knows that South-West stands under a mandate, and that the Union is the mandatory power. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) asks why a democratic government has not been created, why the people there are still being held under compulsion. The answer is that we are only preserving the existing constitution, and under the mandate the Union Government remains responsible. We are responsible under the League of Nations for South-West Africa, and as long as that position holds, there is no plan to form a democratic government there.

Do you not accept the responsibility for the government there?

The final responsibility rests on the Union Government as the holder of the mandate, and the Union Government feels responsible in terms of the constitution. The hon. member for Winburg knows that this is a C. mandate, and under that mandate we are the mandatory state. The intention under the mandate is that the objective of the mandate will be a free country.

That does not prevent the territory being given a democratic form of government.

We exercise final authority in the name of the League of Nations. We abide for the present by the constitution, which cannot be altered. During the last five years it could not be altered. There will first have to be a final arrangement made in respect of South-West Africa. If a decision is taken at San Francisco and we know where we stand in connection with the mandate, we shall be able to act. I have said what my personal idea is about the arrangement, namely, that the territory should be incorporated in the Union as a province with a provincial constitution which quite possibly in some respects will not be in conformity with the constitutions of the other provinces.

Will you be prepared to consult the people there?

Of course, we shall keep in touch with the people there. That can be done. The constitution now in force is a means for consultation with the people.

Are you not going to take action if one of the nominated members does anything wrong?

I cannot accept they are doing wrong there. The hon. member for Winburg proceeds on the assumption that what he is saying on behalf of the minority there is the opinion of South-West Africa. I do not accept that. I take the advice given me on constitutional lines, and this is the advice which has been followed by me.

If there was a national government they would have spoken otherwise.

If that is so then my hon. friend will have to wait until there is a Nationalist Government.

That will not be long.

Then both hon. members spoke about the delimitation of constituencies. It is impossible during this period to make a different delimitation to that already existing. I accept that the facts are exactly as have been presented by hon. members namely that there is a shortfall in the number of voters in certain constituencies. But in the circumstances it is not possible to make another arrangement now, and the elections will have to be proceeded with.

Do you admit that it is unjust?

It is wrong in the sense that in normal circumstances it would not have happened. But in a period of war when one is hedged round with difficulties such things do happen.

Will you be prepared to abolish the nominated members?

No, that cannot be done. I am acting now in terms of the constitution. It is a law that was accepted by this Parliament, and I may not interfere with that. It is in the hands of this Parliament. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) asked me whether before my departure I would give instructions for the appointment of a select committee.

Whether you would give your assent.

Whether I would give my assent to the appointment of a select committee in connection with certain accusations that were made on the position in Durban. Certain allegations of corruption were made. As soon as those charges were made instructions were given to the Department of Justice that the matter should be enquired into.

It was in Johannesburg and not in Durban.

There has been so much trouble in Durban recently that one is inclined to think about Durban when difficulties are mentioned. But Johannesburg is still there as well. As those charges of gross abuse have been made and those charges are now being investigated with a view to a possible prosecution, it would be wrong to appoint a select committee instead of following the usual procedure.

But what about the dissatisfaction of the general public?

That question my hon. friend should put to the Minister concerned. I am not in possession of all the details in reference to controllers. My hon. friend will have an opportunity to put that question to my colleague. I say the same to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers), who sought a reply from me in regard to certain lands that have been purchased for the natives in the Zoutpansberg and where the springs are now drying up. I want to give him the same advice, to put those questions to my colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs.

But when you are away the Minister of Finance will trounce us if we put these questions.

No, he will not do that, if it is not necessary. Those questions can be put to the Minister concerned.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) has raised the question of unanimity which I referred to in my discussion of the Security Council, and he wants to change it to 4 to 1. I cannot conceive anything putting the heather more on fire than a proposal of that kind. Everyone would put his own interpretation at once on what that would mean, and I do not think it would work. I have explained very fully my idea that unless we can keep the four or five of them together, then we lose. It is no use talking about peace or a world organisation in that case. The whole foundation of future world peace is keeping these big dogs together so that they do not fight each other and do not fight the rest of us. He also raised the question of an Empire well armed. I think that they have all learnt their lesson. I certainly hope that we have learnt ours. He raised the question of peaceful penetration. That is one of the most modern and highly important scientific forms of attack. Peaceful penetration, a fifth column working in secret to get control of a situation. He applies that to the coloured question, which is a very difficult question. I thought I had discussed the coloured question in the debate raised by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). I discussed it fairly fully, so far as it is wise to discuss it, and I hope my hon. friend will read my speech again, and he will find that I have answered most of the questions he asked. Even as far as Durban is concerned the whole machinery has been set in frame and will be carried out this Session for the eventual solution of the Indian question.

Will it be a solution?

We must see what emerges. I have made so many attempts that have failed already that I am becoming almost a pessimist, but not quite. I think in the end we will succeed. I have been busy with the Indian question for the last 40 years. I started with it in 1907, and generally we have kept going, with failures and misfires, but we have sometimes also hit the mark, and I hope we shall do so again. I do not think these things are unsolvable. With patience and good temper and civility one goes very far in the world.

*The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) will know where I stand in connection with the future of South Africa. He says that there are various ideologies in the British Empire, and he wants to know where I stand. I do not know how many ideologies there are in the British Empire. The British Empire is large, and there are perhaps more schools of thought than what there are members in this House. But if the hon. member asks me where I stand it is a naïve question, because my attitude is known to all. We have our status and our position in the world; we have a free say in the world, and the standpoint of the Government and of every decent Afrikaner is that that say and status, that position, must be safeguarded to the last.

Do you wish to imply then that we are not decent people?

I am not saying that about the hon. member. But there are people in the country who do not accept that standpoint. I think that disposes of all the points.

At 6.40 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 21st March.