Mr. Speaker, may I with the consent of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) draw attention to motion No. IV, standing in my name, and ask whether I may move this as an unopposed motion? The purpose of the motion is really, as it says, to have an enquiry, and no debate at this stage. I move—

Has the hon. member received the permission of the Minister interested?

I have not, but I think it is a matter which should go to a Select Committee.

I am sorry, but I must object.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) forthwith to reconstitute his Cabinet accordingly by appointing members who are thoroughly familiar with both official languages; and
2. (b) in future appointments of administrators, judges, members and personnel of boards, commissions and other bodies to which the Government makes appointments, strictly to give effect to the requirement of bilingualism.

This motion ought to be so self-evident that it should not be necessary to move it in this House. There should be no need of such a motion. We have now progressed 35 years since Union and I want to say with full conviction that if anyone had predicted to the National Convention in 1909 that 35 years after Union such a motion would be necessary they would have ridiculed them. I assume that the fathers of the Convention acted in good faith in respect of Section 137 of the constitution and that they would have regarded one as a fool if one had predicted that it would be the case in 1945 that a member of this Parliament had to propose that there should be bilingual Ministers, that the judges and the Administrators should be bilingual, and that the Government in the appointment of various boards and commissions should comply with the requirements of bilingualism. Why is such a motion necessary in South. Africa today? Because it appears that in practice the Government that is now in power and its party have never in practice had an honest intention in regard to bilingualism and because there is today in the Union great hypocrisy and political fraud on the question of bilingualism, greater hypocrisy and political deception than in connection with any other question in the country. We find that the party on the opposite benches have been proclaiming that they stand for bilingualism and suggesting that we on this side of the House are not in favour of bilingualism. The Party opposite have intimated that they will make the people of South Africa bilingual as if by magic, but I say that in practice they give the lie on every occasion to that principle. We on this side of the House have no confidence in the lip service of the Government Party, the Labour Party and the Dominion Party towards the principle of bilingualism. We have learnt dearly by experience that though they talk about bilingualism when it comes to carrying bilingualism into effect they fail. Section 137 of the Constitution of the Union contains the principle of language equality and bilingualism. We have regarded and we still regard it today as an honourable contract between English-speaking South Africa and Afrikaans-speaking South Africa. How has that honourable contract been carried out? I say emphatically that from the side of the Afrikaans-speaking people that contract has been faithfully fulfilled and carried out in practice.

But there was no compulsion about it.

There now we have the proof that the hon. member does not understand me at all. I spoke here about an honourable contract, and he says that there is no compulsion. Was it then merely a pious wish that was expressed in the constitution? If so it meant nothing. He lets the cat out of the bag when he talks about obligations, when I talk about an honourable agreement. In this House we have 153 members. We must accept that they are the elite of the people on both sides. We must accept that the nation does not send inferior people to Parliament. It is supposed that the best men are sent to Parliament. There is not a single Afrikaans-speaking member of this House who cannot follow the proceedings irrespective of which of the two languages is employed. There are perhaps members on this side who could not rise and make an eloquent speech in English, but all the Afrikaans-speaking members in the House fully understand what is going on. But there are between 30 and 40 English-speaking members who do not understand a word of two-thirds of the proceedings in this House.

Where are they?

One of them is sitting alongside of you, and there are the. Ministers on the front bench.

Is the member alongside me unilingual?

Does the hon. member wish us to believe that all the English-speaking members in this House can understand everything that takes place here? The member alongside him has to have an interpreter.

No, some do not understand Afrikaans but there are not 30 or 40 of them.

I maintain that there are 30 or 40 of them.

Why do you exaggerate the number?

I am not exaggerating. Let the hon. member investigate the number. I have gone into the figures. There are a few who are doubtful and therefore I spoke of between 30 and 40.

You should ask the voters not to return such people.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) says that we must not return such people, but it is his side of the House who are sending these people, and not this side. He must go to his own Party and tell them not to send such people to the House.

I am hot complaining about it.

There are Afrikaans-speaking people in the House who speak English just as well as the English-speaking members, and in many respects they know it better and talk and write it better. I can mention several Afrikaans-speaking members who know the English language better than the English-speaking members. Consequently I say that the Afrikaans-speaking people have carried out their part of an honourable contract, and are still carrying it out. We have seen to it that we have become bilingual and that we send people to the House who can uderstand both languages well and who in most instances can speak them well. Take the front bench on this side, and you will find that every one of them can speak English just as well or better than the English-speaking people on the other side. We cannot say that about the front bench on the opposite side. If an Afrikaans-speaking member in the House attempts to speak English and speaks poor English he would die of shame, and the English-speaking members would also mock him if his grammar were a little wrong. But the English-speaking member can simply talk defective Afrikaans and you will hear “Hoor, hoor,” just because he is making the effort. An Afrikaner would die of shame if he had to stand up here and speak English of the same standard, because he would be ridiculed. I assert that it is a disgrace that we have here more than 30 members who cannot understand two-thirds of our proceedings—because two-thirds of the speeches are in Afrikaans. People from other countries have frequently said to us: But how is it possible that there should be members and Ministers who cannot understand both languages when sometimes for hours and days Afrikaans is spoken? It means that for hours and for days we have Ministers who simply do not appreciate what is being done. Well, that appears to us to be very strange. In regard to the record of the various parties, may I say that the Nationalist Party that is sitting here is the only party in the House all the members of which can follow all the proceedings. We have 44 members and they are able to follow all the proceedings of the House, whether they are in English or in Afrikaans, but there is not a single other party that can make that claim. A great many members of the United Party cannot understand what is being said when Afrikaans is spoken; a great many members of the Dominion Party cannot follow everything, and a great many in the Labour Party cannot follow everything. The Nationalist Party is the only political party that has done its share in faithfully fulfilling the honourable contract to which I have referred. At one time a Nationalist Party Government was in power. I want to put the question whether during those nine years of the Nationalist Party Government any injustice was done to the English language either by the Minister or by the party as such. I maintain that no injustice was ever done to the English language. If a member put a question in English or if he addressed the House in English, the Minister when he had to give a reply gave it in English. Ministers like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and the late Mr. Grobler faithfully answered in English all the questions that were put to them in English.

Did they all do that?

Yes, all of them. All the questions that were put to them in English were answered by them in English.

And they also replied in English to speeches made in English.

When an English-speaking member made a speech in English the Minister replied in English. The Nationalist Party has never allowed any injustice to occur to one of the two languages. The Nationalist Party which is being charged as the extremist party and the racial party, has always let justice prevail in regard to the English language. Under this Government we have numbers of cases where the Ministers fail to do this. You can put a question in Afrikaans, but you are answered in English. For the whole day you can speak in Afrikaans but the reply is in English. Unfortunately we are also faced with this position today, that the people for whom this motion has been coined cannot even understand what I say. I repeat that during the time of the Nationalist Party Government no injustice was ever done to the English language, and English-speaking members never found it necessary to fight for the rights of the English language. But under this Government we have an incessant struggle and battle to maintain the rights of Afrikaans. It has always been that way. The Afrikaans-speaking people have to fight for every atom of justice that they want to obtain for their language, but in the case of the English-speaking people it is handed to them on a plate. There ought not to be a single person today who can doubt the proposition I am making here, namely, that it is necessary that the principle of bilingualism should be properly maintained. But the objection is that in practice effect is not being given to that principle. We ask here for the practical carrying out of that principle in certain respects. My motion has been so constructed that it relates to people who do not fall under any special law. The ordinary public servants come under the law. That law is sometimes maintained very weakly, but still the law is there. But the classes of people mentioned in my motion do not come under the law. I refer in the first place to those who are at the head of our State institutions and who are responsible for the executive authority, namely Ministers and Administrators, and then also the heads of our judicature, namely our judges who have to apply the law in the judicial sphere. Then I go on to refer to members of boards and commissions who are appointed by the Government from time to time and who also do not fall under any law. I ask: What right has a Minister or an Administrator to go to his officials and to tell them that he is going to compel them to be bilingual when he himself is not bilingual? With what propriety can he carry out the law in regard to bilingualism without himself being bilingual? The officials would then be able to turn round and tell him to his face that he himself is not bilingual; that he should set an example and that he should himself do what he is telling others to do. It is an untenable position. What right has an Administrator to tell his people that they must be bilingual and to apply the requirements of bilingualism when he himself is not bilingual? I should like to point out that in 1910 with the commencement of Union, there were only two unilingual members of the Cabinet. They were both English-speaking: one was Col. Leuchars and the other Dr. O’Grady Gubbins. There were only two unilingual members and the others were completely bilingual. In the year 1923-’24, just before the Smuts Government fell, he had three unilingual men in his Cabinet. Then the Nationalist Party Government went into co-operation with the Labour Party. In accordance with the agreement made with the Labour Party certain members of the Labour Party were taken in the Cabinet, and we could not find bilingual people in the Labour Party who were qualified and consequently three English-speaking persons were placed in the Cabinet. They were not members of this party, but members of the Labour Party, and in addition I want to point out this was twenty-one years ago. What do we find today? The Prime Minister has a free choice; he can find bilingual people in his party, but after 30 years of Union, three members of his Cabinet are absolutely unilingual. There is the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Mines, who are absolutely unilingual. They cannot follow what is happening in this House in Afrikaans. Then we have two others who try to be bilingual, namely the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Economic Development. I want to express my appreciation towards those two members who have made an attempt to learn Afrikaans and to become bilingual, but I want to say this to them that it is pretty late in the day for them to begin. The Minister of Transport is no longer a young man. The Minister of Economic Development was a young man at the time of the commencement of Union; he was born here, and he has only himself to blame that he does not know Afrikaans yet. The Minister of Transport does his best, and we commend him for it, and the young Minister of Economic Development replies in Afrikaans, but one has to listen attentively to detect whether he is speaking Afrikaans or English. They can only read Afrikaans from a paper that is in front of them and they cannot speak ex tempore in Afrikaans. Then there is the Minister of Demobilisation. He can reply to a question in Afrikaans and he can more or less make shift if he has to. The other members of the Cabinet are Afrikaans-speaking. Six of them are Afrikaans-speaking and they can all speak English better than they speak Afrikaans. This is an illustration of the difference between the two sections. Now I ask this House and the country whether this is a sound position that after 35 years of Union we have still so many Ministers in the Cabinet who are not conversant with the Afrikaans language and who are not able to follow what is taking place when their votes are under discussion, if the debate is in Afrikaans. They have to make use of an interpreter to tell them what is being said. Those are half measures. You cannot tell me that when a member makes a speech here an interpreter can repeat so quickly to the Minister everything that the member says. It is an indefensible position. We have the right to point out that after so many years of Union all the Ministers should be fully bilingual. I say that we have the right to demand this. It is the right of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the country to claim that the English-speaking people should also keep this honourable agreement and that the Government shall say that no one who is not bilingual has the right to sit on the ministerial benches. Apart from the right of Afrikaans-speaking people to demand this there is also the question of the efficiency of the administration. I maintain that a Minister who is not bilingual is not fit for his post, that in the very nature of things it is impossible for him to do justice to his work. He sits here in the House and he does not know what is going on, he is not qualified for his job.

Is that the only test?

Will the hon. member say that a person who only knows Afrikaans and who can only speak Afrikaans is qualified to be a Minister; will the English-speaking people say that he is qualified if he cannot understand a word of what is said to him here? Will the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) be satisfied if a Minister was sitting here who could not understand a word of English?

I asked whether this was the only test.

You cannot run away from the point. Answer my question. I challenge the hon. member to say that a man sitting here as Minister and who could not understand a word of English would be competent to do his work. There is not one of them who dares to say that he would be competent. That is the test. But still the attitude on the opposite benches is that if a Minister or a member cannot understand Afrikaans it is quite all right. Afrikaans-speaking members like the hon. member for Swartruggens crawl before unilingual Ministers, pamper them and try to explain away their unilingualism.

That is our definition of a “hanskakie”.

Let those hon. members stand up here and assert that they as Afrikaans-speaking people demand that all who are sitting on the ministerial benches are bilingual. But instead of doing that they want to protect the unilingual Ministers. The Nationalist Party during the Pact Government also had three unilingual English-speaking members. This was because the Afrikaans-speaking people with their usual courtesy were accommodating and because we could not get any others in the Labour Party. But it is 21 years ago since that Cabinet was constituted; Today the position is otherwise. There are enough bilingual members on the opposite benches who are just as able as the unilingual Ministers in the Cabinet, and who are even abler than they are. Hon. members opposite will not deny that this is the case, so why does the Prime Minister appoint unilingual members? If it was the other way about, if there were members in the Cabinet who did not know English and who did not understand a word when English was spoken, we would have seen how things would have gone. If English-speaking members were replied to in Afrikaans they would long ago have kicked up an awful fuss, and I would say they would have had a perfect right to do so. In our country no man has the right to sit on a ministerial bench or to act as an Administrator unless he knows both official languages. I make bold to say that we have been making concessions for too long. We have now advanced 35 years since Union and it is high time that this state of affairs was rectified. I turn now to the various members of the Cabinet and I take the Minister of Posts. He was a young man in his ’30’s at the time of the inauguration of the Union. He was born in the country, but he never thought it worth while to learn Afrikaans. The Minister of Transport was at that time also comparatively young as were also other Ministers. They cannot come along now and say that it is not their fault that they do not know Afrikaans. We ask here, because we are entitled to and because it is a prerequisite to efficiency in administration, that we should have bilingual Ministers. Another reason is that this sort of thing is continually ruffling the good relationship that exists between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections of the community. This language question and the fact that a large number of English-speaking people do not want to learn Afrikaans, and because the distinction is drawn that unilingual English-speaking persons can be appointed to high positions and not unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons, induces a bad relationship between the two sections. When we address Ministers in Afrikaans and they speak English we feel disgruntled. It is a discourtesy towards us and towards our language. So much for the Ministers. I think that the time Jias arrived when we can demand that this House should make a pronouncement that Ministers ought to be bilingual. In reference to Administrators I do not need to say much because the same arguments apply. In Natal unilingual Administrators have always been appointed. Mr. Heaton Nicholls was unilingual. I do not know what the position is in respect of the present Administrator. But a bilingual person ought to be appointed. An Administrator has to attend many public functions and he should be able to use the language of both sections. The neglect of the Afrikaans language must cease, and that applies to Natal as well. The next class is the judges. Last year the Minister of Justice gave a half-hearted assurance that so far as practicable he would appoint bilingual judges. If there is one department of the administration where it is absolutely necessary to have thoroughly bilingual individuals it is in respect of those on our Bench. When a person is tried before the court his liberty and frequently his very life are at stake. The man who tries him should be bilingual because if the judge does not know the language of the accused right and justice cannot prevail. That is self-evident and no one can get away from it. We still have judges who are unilingual, and the Minister is still prone to appoint people with a “slight working knowledge” of Afrikaans. I do not want to mention the names of judges here. I do not think it would be fair to the Bench. But the position is that due attention is not being devoted to the requirement of bilingualism, and I maintain that no one can question that judges should be absolutely bilingual. Then we come to all the other bodies and commissions that the Government appoints. I do not need to go into that in detail because it is a subject that has often been discussed here. I state the fact that at the present time unilingual persons are continually being appointed to boards and commissions. We have had the example of the Distribution Costs Commission. Six of the eight members were English-speaking and only three were bilingual. So the majority were unilingual. The Minister cannot tell us that he could not secure for that commission the services of men who are properly bilingual. Last year I disclosed in connection with the Distribution Costs Commission that they were writing to Afrikaans firms asking them to be good enough to put up their memorandums in English because many members of the commission could not understand Afrikaans. Commissions frequently travel through the country instituiting enquiries and unilingual members sit on them. That is what happened last year, and then the Government claims that equality of language rights is being maintained. We demand that the Government should impose this requirement; when it appoints members of commissions it must see to it that they are bilingual. It will prove an incentive to the whole country if every person knows that he may not serve on any commission unless he is bilingual. It is the duty of the Government to see that justice is done in connection with this matter. It is its duty to see that the laws of the country are administered in the spirit as well as in the letter, but it is also its duty, where there is no specific law, to set an example to the people by saying: You must be bilingual. The United Party, and the Labour Party and the Dominion Party have never encouraged bilingualism in their actions and example but only by talk. We have frequently been characterised as racialists and extremists because we fight for the rights of our language, because we stand up in this House and demand what is our rightful due, because after 35 years we are not satisfied that bilingualism is being safeguarded nor that language equality is being safeguarded; that is why we are being dubbed racialists. If that is a test of racialism then they can put me in my grave and call me a racialist. But I and the Party sitting on these benches shall continue to fight and to battle for the rights of the Afrikaans language.

We shall help you.

No, that hon. member will not help me.

You no longer want to drive the English into the sea.

I think it would be a good thing for your country if they drove you into the sea.

I never wanted to drive the English into the sea. There are nevertheless a few I would like to dispose of if I could.

Perhaps I am one of them.

I should like to dispose of those who still talk of Afrikaans as a “bastard language”. I expect that the Government today will say that it endorses the principle that is laid down here. It agrees that bilingualism must be maintained but a big “but” will be added. “We shall not be able to do it” or “This we shall not be able to do”. This Government and this Party agrees only and always by word of mouth but they never carry out the principle in practice, and I say that if we are going to wait for this Government and for this Party actually to safeguard bilingualism in fact we shall have to wait till doomsday. I am moving this motion because it is the policy of this Party, because our Party have always put it into practice; because our Party as we have shown have never done any injustice to the English language, and so we have the right to ask that justice will be done to the Afrikaans language because our Party desires to see a better relationship subsisting between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in the country. That is not possible so long as this language difficulty remains. We should like to see the administration of this country carried out efficiently, and to see it in the hands of competent people, and we say that they are not fitted for that task if they do not know one of the country’s languages and that moreover the language of the majority. I am submitting this motion not in the hope that the Government will accept it or put it into operation but because I know it is the wish and desire of the large majority of the people of South Africa.

I have much pleasure in seconding the motion that has been moved by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). This motion has been brought before the House so that right and justice should prevail in respect of both sections of the population, but it has also been brought before the House with another object, and that is to test the sincerity of hon. members on that side and also more especially to test the sincerity of the Government of the day in connection with their cry of bilingualism which is heard in this country in season and out of season. As the motion has been presented for that purpose it was very disappointing to us on this side of the House at the commencement of the debate and now again to notice and to hear the statements that are being made on the Government side of the House, the statements and the expressions of disapproval of this motion. This is disappointing, and we at once come to the conclusion that the cry of bilingualism which ascends from that side of the House is just hollow lip service and that it has never been a serious matter to them in the past. It is also necessary that a motion of this character should be brought to test the feeling in this House; as I say to test their sincerity; but I maintain that it is regrettable, as the hon. member for Winburg has stated, that after a period of 35 years it should still be necessary to discuss such a motion in this House where men are sitting who are ruling and administering a bilingual country. I say that it is a pity that this has to be done. We are submitting this motion because we are convinced that it harmonises with the spirit that inspired the framers of the constitution when they were drafting it. I assert that we are taking this step because it is in accord with that, it is attuned to the spirit that inspired them, and we want to make a test case of the fact that up to present it has not been carried into effect, and we want to insist as from Parliament and the people that the government of the day shall do what we ask in this motion.

What are you asking?

What are we asking?

Yes, tell us.

We ask in the first instance ….

Number one.

If the hon. member will only read the motion it will be unnecessary to waste time. We ask that the Government of the day should immediately reconstitute its Cabinet with bilingual Ministers.

Did you not have unilingual Ministers?

You know we did not.

And while we are asking for this in the first paragraph we feel that the motion of the hon. member for Winburg does not go far enough, because we ask here that the Prime Minister should immediately form a Cabinet in that way. We cannot just stop at that. Assuming that the Prime Minister gives heed—we doubt very much whether he will—and he accepts this motion and he proceeds to form a Cabinet by the elimination of the English-speaking unilingual Ministers in his Cabinet in order that he may re-form it as we have urged in our motion, this motion only states that the Cabinet must be formed in that way, and that is where I feel the hon. member for Winburg does not go far enough. I would like this House to accept a motion that in the construction of all future Cabinets the provision will be stringently applied and that no Cabinet should be constituted in which any unlingual Minister, whether he speaks only English or only Afrikaans, should have the right to serve. We ought not to restrict ourselves to the present Cabinet but extend the principle to to the constitution of future Cabinets. This must be a law of this House and it must be complied with in letter and in spirit as was contemplated on the framing of the constitution. We should never again in the future have to witness and experience the sad spectacle we are witnessing and experiencing today. We are living in a bilingual country and the great majority of the European inhabitants are Afrikaans-speaking; the larger percentage are Afrikaans-speaking. Has that section of the community not the right to make an appeal to Section 137 of the constitution, and not only to that section but have they not the right in the name of justice to make an appeal to the Government of the day and to all future Governments to take their language rights into consideration, to respect their language, and to constitute the Cabinet that rules over these people on the lines we have indicated. We are living in a bilingual country, a country in which we have respected the rights of the British in the past and we respect them still, and accordingly we desire that they should also respect our rights. We do not want to be personal in this House in the discussion on this motion but as the first part of the motion relates to the reshuffling and the re-constitution of this Cabinet and the formation of future Cabinets it is fitting that, as the hon. member for Winburg has done, we should refer to some extent to the position in relation to the present Cabinet. I do not want to be personal but take the Minister of Transport a kind and charming man—we have nothing against him personally, but when he is so unilingual is that fair to the staff of the railways, the overwhelming majority of whom are Afrikaans-speaking. I mention them in particular; is it fair to them that they should be ruled by one of the country’s unilingual Ministers.

What about his ability?

The Minister of Transport is not unilingual.

He speaks Scots.

If the hon. member thinks that the Minister of Transport is bilingual when he stands up here as he has done this morning and reads in Afrikaans a few words that have been typed out for him then we are justified in saying that your protestations about bilingualism are merely lip-service.

Why have you never addressed the House in English?

We take the Minister of Posts. He also does not understand a word of Afrikaans.

Why do you not speak English?

Because I prefer to speak my own language. Take the Minister of Mines. He is sitting there. He does not even know that I am attacking him. He is now asking another hon. Minister: Why is that fellow pointing in my direction? We are mentioning them here, we are not touching them personally. We can say the same thing about the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Economic Development and I have now mentioned a large section of the Cabinet. Is that a position which is permissible in a bilingual country, in which the greater proportion of the people are Afrikaans-speaking, where in the highest court of our country we have men in control in a position of authority to govern the country and the people, men who are so English-speaking unilingual as those Ministers.

And you shed crocodile tears about the power position.

We have nothing against these people. In other respects they are nice people. In my view they are just dead as far as their positions are concerned. In this House legislation is submitted from time to time by English-speaking unilingual Ministers.

Bilingual laws.

Yes, bilingual laws that they can only read in the one language. They do not understand the other.

It is translated.

I say that laws are submitted to this House by these Ministers whom I mentioned a moment ago. When speeches are made in Afrikaans about these laws they do not know anything about them. They do not understand what is said. As the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has said they from time to time call for a member to come and sit alongside and interpret. Is that a desirable state of affairs? Must this be tolerated? Can we put up with it any longer? Then at certain stages of these Bills the interpreter is not avaiable at the moment and it has happened in this House that during the discussion of these Bills we on this side of the House suggest acceptable ideas and we also propose very desirable amendments with a view to improving the Bills, and because these Ministers cannot follow what we say and because they cannot understand the amendments they jump to their feet at once and say that they cannot accept the amendments. They do not even know what we are driving at, and so the laws go through in that form; and these are the laws which govern the people, laws that possibly would have been just laws if the amendments from this side of the House had gone through, but just because the Minister is unilingual English-speaking that sort of thing has occurred and it is still occurring today.

Just because the motions or the amendments were no good?

I maintain this is an undesirable state of affairs despite the croaking of the black crow in the kitchen. That is a very undesirable state of affairs and a most undesirable state of affairs in this House. The Cabinet exercise the authority; they rule over the people of this country, European and non-European. When I talk about the rights of the European population I say that the majority of the European population that they rule over are Afrikaans-speaking. We do not consider it just to have an English-speaking unilingual Minister in the Cabinet. We regard it as an affront to our people. These Ministers do not speak our language; they cannot understand it and still less can they govern these people. I say that not only is it unjust but that they are unqualified for their high posts.

Would you like the job?

I say that they are unfitted to fill the posts that they are filling at the moment. It is necessary from time to time—surely it is essential that Ministers who make laws, who lay down Government policy, should have to announce them to the people and that they should have to attend large meetings of the people from time to time to announce the policy of the Government. Now I ask you: How on earth can we ask one of those English-speaking unilingual Minister who are serving in the Cabinet at the moment to go to the platteland of the Free State or the Transvaal; how can we invite them to go there to announce their policy to the people in the language that the people there use? We cannot do it. They are unqualified to do that. And I ask you what will happen if we invite the Minister of Mines to Harrismith to attend a farmers’ meeting. He will not be able to speak to them in their own language. They will be able to understand him, as they have endeavoured to maintain the policy of bilingualism. By their own efforts they will understand him, but I ask is it just towards these people to be ruled by Ministers who are incompetent in that respect and not qualified for their posts? The second portion of the motion deals with the appointment of Administrators, judges and members of Government Commissions in the future. We know that the law does not make it essential that judges and Administrators and members of Government commissions should be bilingual. That is why we are bringing up this motion because we consider that the people should since 1910 have been true to the spirit in which Section 137 was drawn up and they should have done those things which up to the present they have failed to do. We ask them in the spirit of that section that in the future they should not allow unilingual men to be appointed on Government commissions. These persons, the judges, Administrators and members of the Government commissions must serve the public, and the public is not only comprised of English-speaking people. The public comprises Afrikaans and English-speaking people and consequently I say it is necessary that this matter should be given serious consideration and that it should be made incumbent on us to appoint bilingual people to posts of this nature. We are not actuated by racialism when we talk on this subject. We plead and we make an appeal to the sense of justice in those people who the live-long day chatter about bilingualism. We do not want to confine bilingualism to the English-speaking members who are in the Cabinet and who fill other appointments. We lay it down as an essential that even unilingual Afrikaans-speaking people may not become members of the Cabinet or be appointed as judges, Administrators or members of Government commissions. We are prepared also to do this to show that we are not filled with hatred against the English-speaking section of the population.

But it was the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) who said “One party, one people, one republic”.

He did not say that this morning.

That is not true. You will not prove that. I challenge you to prove it.

May I say that the hon. member for Winburg at one stage always reacted to any appeal that came from supporters of the other side when they said they would kill our language. The hon. member’s reply was that if the threat came from the English-speaking section of the population to kill our language we would strike back and pay them back in the same coin.

The hon. member should read it up well before he talks again.

He opened his mouth too soon.

We also know by experience what happened of late. Perhaps it has not been so much to the forefront during the present session but during last session and the sessions before that a couple of our Ministers had the appointment of certain commissions in view on which members who were unilingual were to be appointed. Every time members on this side rose and put amendments to the effect that members of those important commissions should be bilingual, but the Ministers, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking Ministers, consistently refused. Tell me this morning as they have always been crying “bilingualism, bilingualism”, what is their reason for refusing to constitute Government commissions of bilingual members.

Gen. Hertzog also refused.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. I should like to know on what point the late Gen. Hertzog declined to let justice be done to the English-speaking section. Really my difficulty with Gen. Hertzog was that in many cases he was too compliant to the demands of the English-speaking section of this country, whose rights were never to be affected and that he perhaps bestowed too little attention to the rights of Afrikaans-speaking people.

What about ….

You should not talk; you stabbed him in the back in 1939.

You are now really scandalmonger No. 1.

I want to go further than the hon. member for Winburg has gone in his proposal. He has made an obserbation on unilingual members of Parliament who are sitting in this House. I feel that it should be a requirement in the nomination of candidates for Parliament that no unilingual person should be allowed to be a candidate whether English-speaking unilingual or Afrikaans-speaking unilingual, and I say this because it is not justified in respect of the voters of the district and the country in general. It is not just and proper towards them. We find it here; the hon. member for Winburg has made mention of it; a considerable number of members of the Dominion Party are unilingual English-speaking. We have considerable English-speaking unilingual members on the other side. Is this right towards the people they serve and whom they represent. As we are urging that Government officials should be bilingual because they are serving the public, I would like to ask you whether it is not true that a member of Parliament is only the servant of his constituency; does he not serve the public? I say that he is unfitted to serve the public properly, to give satisfaction, if he is unilingual. We ought to enforce the law that candidates who are unilingual may not be nominated for the election of members of Parliament. It is not lip-service with us when we say that the policy of bilingualism must be applied in practice. We have furnished the proof. Observations have been made here this morning in connection with what governments in the past would have done, why they would not have done this or that. I maintain that it was a serious matter with us. On this side of the House we undertake to carry out what we ask in the motion, and even to go further, and then we shall only be doing what is right to the nation, and what they desire. When we come into power—and I have no doubt this will happen —we shall convert our words into action. It will not be lip-service with us. There has been scornful talk about what we should have done in the past when we are in power. I say that when we come into office, as we shall do, no one else than the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will fill the Prime Minister’s seat, and I would only say to hon. members opposite—and it is sad enough that our Afrikaans-speaking members sitting on that side chatter when we deal with this important problem—I only want to tell them what the English Press said about the future Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister of the Interior. I repeat that we only envisage justice when we speak on these matters and when we urge that the bilingual policy should be applied in practice. This is what they said—

Hear, hear.

I read further—

Hear, hear.

They go on—

Here we have the outspoken opinion about the future Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister of the Interior, and what the public servants who were under him thought about him. We know this without our having to quote from the English newspapers how justly the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country always acted towards the English-speaking citizens of this country.

And it is Arthur Barlow who wrote this.

It is the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who wrote this in “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly”.

No, it was in the “Sunday Express”.

It is what the hon. member for Hospital wrote in the “Sunday Express”. Our standpoint on this side is not only lip-service. We want to put the test to those people. We want to test their honesty and sincerity over their cry of bilingualism that they are continually shouting out. We are also again testing the honesty and sincerity of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister who is so concerned about bilingualism and we are testing the honesty and sincerity of the Government and the adherence of the Government. They should not only shout “bilingualism”. What we ask them is: Suit the word to the deed; do what you are talking about every day; you are doing an injustice to the people; the people do not believe you any more; they will not feel justified later on in believing anything you say, because you set out to be the champion of these things and later you do not carry them out. I say for the umpteenth time we want to weigh up the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and his adherents. We are sizing them up again today by applying a test through the medium of this motion in respect of their honesty and their sincerity; we want to ascertain whether they will suit the word to the deed. Yet again we wish to place the Prime Minister with his Cabinet and his followers on the other side of the House, in the scale. We are weighing them up. They are again being put to the test by this motion to ascertain whether they are sincere in their arguments and whether they will practise what they preach. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet and all the members on the other side of the House are being placed on the scale and I am afraid the people will find them wanting. Hitherto we have always found that in respect of everything that they preach here and in respect of everything that they tackle, they remain in default. Will they come up to expectations this time; we shall wait and see.

I love my language and I would pass through fire for it but this motion that is now before the House is one of the unfairest that has ever been brought up, and I shall give my reasons for that.

Have the Saps been egging you on?

No one has been egging me on. I am speaking for myself. I am saying what is in my heart. This motion makes mention of Ministers, judges, administrators, boards and commissions, but the motion omits to say what they are going to do about the old guard of our people, those who through thick and thin have made sacrifices for the country and whose throats will be cut by this motion. I want to protest as strongly as possible against that. Our people who have fought and suffered for the country from our childhood are having their throats cut by this motion, and I am protesting against that. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has stated that his side of the House are all bilingual, and he mentions Ministers and says that they are not bilingual. I am prepared to prove that the Minister of Demobilisation is more bilingual than some of the members who are sitting here.

Prove it.

What about the old fire eaters? There are some of the old fire eaters who have suffered with me and they are sitting on the side of the Opposition. They are not bilingual. The hon. member for Winburg has also omitted to explain to me what is bilingualism. Now they come and say that you may not be a member of Parliament if you are not bilingual. Unfortunately the position is that we talk all day about the tree of South Africa. The tree is growing there, but the old guard, the old fire-eaters who still survive today, are the bark of that tree, and this motion is going to cut the bark from around it. What is going to become of the tree? It is then going to die. To mention a few points. Is it right to demand that where you are dealing with native councils or agricultural commissions there should be bilingualism.

Why not?

I shall say why not. There are people in agricultural movements who have done twice as good work for the country as you; they are working well; they are doing good work for the farmers and protecting our farmers.

Mention the names of unilingual men.

They are Afrikaans-speaking and they have to voetsak.

Mention a name; you cannot mention one name.

I am sorry to say that as far as the Opposition is concerned you must first be an ex-predikant, or an advocate or an attorney or a dentist before you are a good Afrikaner. If you are none of those you signify nothing. That I deplore. I did not expect that the Opposition would bring forward such a motion. The Opposition took a whip this morning to strike the other side. But I want to tell them that they are striking the cause of the Afrikaners, at the old people who suffered for the country. I am 100 per cent. in favour of bilingualism.

Ah.

My children are being educated thoroughly in both languages. Let us exercise a little patience. Encourage dual medium education and see to it that the children are educated in both languages. Then the difficulty will disappear of itself. During the past few weeks one after another of the old guard have been carried to their graves, and the younger folk who have taken their place are bilingual, and they will govern the country and let justice prevail in regard to both languages. The old people are passing away, the unilingual Ministers will pass and the younger generation who are bilingual will take their place. Let us therefore be a little patient and not accept such an unfair motion. I ask the House not to accept the motion, because it affects the old guard, the old fire-eaters. I would like to see the hon. members going on to a public platform and announcing this thing. If we had Gen. Christiaan de Wet or Gen. de la Rey or Paul Kruger here, would they have brought forward such a motion? The comrades of Gen. de la Rey and Gen. de Wet are still there, and now they must have their throats cut. Let them first pass and let the younger generation take their places, and then bilingualism will come of itself.

This morning I was in my office and I had a fairly good day’s work before me, but before getting down to my daily task I desired to slip out and get my hair cut, but my attention was drawn to the Votes and Proceedings, and there I saw the notice of motion of my hon. friend the member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). Looking at that motion when I first read it, I thought, “This is just nonsense and I need not pay much attention.” But when I saw it was the hon. member for Winburg himself who was moving it, I confess that the motion had fresh attractions for me and I made up my mind to see if I could not attend the debate. I have to go to Johannesburg tomorrow so I shall not be able to go and get my hair cut tomorrow morning. I had to balance the hair cut against the hon. member for Winburg, and it was a very nice balance. I thought it over and could not make up my mind, so I did what I usually do in these embarrassing conditions, I found my crooked sixpence in my pocket, I tossed, and it came down Winburg. So I have stayed here and have not gone to get my hair cut. I have come here to listsen to the hon. member for Winburg and I confess I have not been disappointed. The hon. member has delivered himself on lines ….

You did not know what he was saying.

The MINISTER OF MINES …. which made it quite clear to me, and I think quite clear to the House, that having exhausted himself over the matters in which he thought he could deliver an attack, he came back on the well-chewed theme of language. There, of course, he was much stronger in his attack.

This is really a very serious matter.

He got a bump. And when he attacked my hon. friend the Minister of Labour he got another bump. I am bound to confess he has never had the temerity to attack me in respect of my department, and therefore I think he has shown a wise discretion, and it is much easier for him, having found he could not get through an attack on gold mines, on diamonds or minerals, to say the Minister cannot speak Afrikaans; that he may know something about gold and diamonds, but he cannot talk Afrikaans. In the early days of the earthly pilgrimage of the hon. member for Winburg he used to practise at the Bar. He was a junior at the Bar, and as I do with the junior members at the Bar, I took a fatherly interest in his progress, and I used to note his advance with great pleasure. He has therefore some knowledge and the knowledge that he has got has led to this conclusion, although you may be very good at Afrikaans—I have no doubt he is not only very good but very polished, and he certainly is very eloquent; and he may be very good in English, he is—but the hon. member for Winburg found that all these high qualifications could not necessarily get him along at the Bar; after all, it was necessary to have some knowledge of the law, and although you are proficient in both languages unless you have a really good knowledge of the law you do not get on.

A mean Englishman.

The lesson is that you may be able to talk very eloquently in both languages, but unless you have a knowledge of your subject you make no progress whatsoever. [Interruptions]. It does not do to introduce Bills you do not understand. It is a great thing to understand at any rate in one language, and if you want to talk nonsense you can talk nonsense in two languages. But it does not cease to be nonsense, because it is talked in both languages, and if you want to understand a Bill it is a great thing to be able to understand it at any rate in one language. Some hon. members, I am afraid, will not be able to understand mining Bills or mining subjects even if it is put in Afrikaans as well as it is put in English. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg), I am afraid, will not be able to understand my Bill in either language. However, he will have the opportunity to see it. I sympathise with the hon. member for Winburg. He is driven to the line which he has adopted on account of his failure to get through on any other basis and any other way. I would have liked very much to hear him attack the Mines Department.

You would not understand it if I did.

Do not get angry. Young men at the Bar must not get angry.

You are very provocative.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon just before coming into the House it was conveyed to me that either the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) or some other member opposite had understood my remarks this morning as suggesting that the hon. member for Winburg knew no law. Anyone who followed my argument would have seen that to have said anything of that sort was to defeat completely the very argument which I used.

You used just the opposite argument.

Yes, I used just the opposite. What I said was that I compared the hon. member’s knowledge of law with my knowledge of law. You may know two languages, or either language, very well indeed, and be able to express yourself with the greatest eloquence and fluency, but only knowledge will supply the technical knowledge for the job you have to do.

If you do not know both languages you cannot learn a profession properly.

Oh yes you can, and that is the reason why you continually have to appoint, and the last Government appointed, and other Governments appointed, technical men when technical knowledge was required, irrespective of whether they are bilingual or unilingual. Everyone in this House knows that it is the first essential of an appointment, whether it be on a commission or office under the Crown or whatever the office may be. It is that knowledge which is the first essential and it is an additional qualification if you can speak in both languages and have other languages too. Now, I want to know further with regard to some of the expressions used by hon. members in a rather excited frame of mind as they moved out of this Chamber: You can take remarks made in two ways. You can very often take them seriously and regard them as insults. You can take them lightly, in jest, and laugh at them. This morning I adopted the latter method. I might have taken the greatest exception, taking as an insult that hon. members opposite presumed, or are entitled to laugh at me because I obviously did not follow some of the remarks made about me. They laughed at me, but I did not mind. They are quite entitled to do so. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and if they presume to laugh at me because I do not understand Afrikaans, can they complain when I laugh at them for the speeches, the motion that they put up this morning? I will do so. I much prefer to take these things as a jest and to laugh at them than to treat them seriously as insults. If I wish to do so, I can point to this. When I first took office I did my best to learn the pronunciation of Afrikaans. I did my best to answer questions in Afrikaans. I did try to do so. But the moment I opened my mouth in a sincere effort to be able to answer a question in Afrikaans I was met with shouts of laughter.

That is not so.

We very much appreciated your effort.

What a funny way of appreciating it.

I was met with such shouts of laughter that it was conveyed to me that I had to stop, and now, until the end of my life, it will be impossible for me to speak Afrikaans.

You treated the Afrikaans language as a joke.

I treated your motion as a joke and your motion deserves it. If I were on the lookout for insults, to table a motion here and ask that I and my English-speaking colleagues should be pitchforked out of the Cabinet because we do not know Afrikaans, that would be an insult, not merely to me personally but an insult to every English-speaking person in the country. But I did not treat it as an insult. To my mind it is no insult at all. But if I did not treat it as an insult, I may be permitted, may I not, to laugh at it? And I did laugh at it.

And you laughed alone.

And I believe that the majority of the English-speaking people will laugh at the motion tabled by the hon. member for Winburg today.

The joke is over.

The truth of the matter is that this has gone too far. It has gone to the length where what is passed over one day is made the foundation of a fresh jumping off place on another day. And what the members opposite want, as voiced by the hon. member for Winburg ….

Is efficiency.

…. is to make public life impossible for an English-speaking person. I do not treat that as an insult, but I treat it with lightness.

Are all English-speaking people unilingual?

No they are not, but when it is insisted upon that anyone who is unilingual and not a master of both languages, is to be stamped as being unfit for public life and unfit for a position in the Cabinet or on a commission or in any other post, I say that the time has come to call a halt to this kind of thing, and I call halt here. We, Mr. Speaker, have got to carry on the spirit as well as the letter ….

Hear, hear!

That is the most sensible thing you have said.

…. of the clause in the South Africa Act which dealt with the language question. The language question is dealt with in categorical terms. It provides for equal rights for both languages. What does that mean? No language itself can have any rights. The right is only vested in an individual, and if you take that literally a purist might say that it is a nonsensical term, but of course we understand what it means. Equal rights means this….

No rights at all for Afrikaans.

…. that anyone in South Africa can use any language he pleases on any occasion he pleases and need not be forced to speak a particular language. The only exception ….

What about the civil service?

The only exception that can be made to that is the natural one where we come to the civil service, where officials are appointed whose duty it is daily to come into contact with people of both races; and there we are all united in saying under those circumstances a knowledge of both languages is required and is necessary. I have always stood for that; I have always maintained that. But I have yet to learn that a Minister falls under that category. He is not a public servant, he is not a member of the civil service. He is a Minister of the Crown and is chosen from members of Parliament to the merbership of that Cabinet for the qualities he has—they may be wrong—and the capacity he has to deal with public questions in an adequate manner. If we are to have this language question driven to the length of overriding all qualifications of technique, of commerce, of mining and of the law—because judges are to be included in this—if we are going to have that, we are going to rob the country of some of the best elements it has, and we are going plainly against the fundamental doctrine laid down and embodied in the South Africa Act; which was the basis on which the four colonies came together.

That is ancient history.

Do you object to ancient history? Are we to regret our past? The hon. member and his friends are always going back to the past. They live on the past and they dish it up, sometimes in very garbled form, for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I have tried my utmost, as some hon. members know, to qualify myself in both languages. I have on several occasions engaged teachers and given study to it. I came to this country on in life. I have spent most of my life here. I have done my utmost to learn both languages, but my occupations at the Bar and in public life have been such, and my age being now advanced, I have not been able to do so. I confess my incapacity quite plainly; but is that any reason why I should be insulted? Is that any reason why I should be picked out as I have been this morning as being quite unfit for the office I hold; and the Prime Minister is being asked in a solemn motion to throw me out. If ever there was a motion that might be taken as an insult it is this motion, and the speeches too might well be taken as an insult.

You cannot follow them.

On the contrary, I laugh at it and prefer to do so.

Did you understand what I was saying when I said it?

I told you I did not.

Then how can you criticise our speeches?

You chose on the other side to jeer and to laugh at me. Do you suppose I am compelled to sit here and smile at these jeers and make no reply? I am going to make my reply.

You did not understand a word of what I said.

I am quite clear upon this that hon. members opposite love to jeer, love to sneer, love to make remarks which many people would take as insults, but when they get a laughing reply they just cannot take it.

I think I should preface my remarks by addressing a few questions to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). I have listened to his speech and to that of his seconder, and as far as concerns this motion what they desire is that the Cabinet and Parliament and everything else shall be based on compulsory bilingualism. Now I should like to ask the hon. member whether when a member of Parliament is elected, he is elected by the vote of the majority in the constituency, and when the majority return a man, be he bilingual or unilingual or multilingual, it is not for the hon. member to say that such a man is not competent to serve as a member of Parliament. In accordance with democratic rights the people elect a person and when a constituency elects a unilingual person it does not rest with a party or with an individual to assert that he is not fitted to represent those people who have elected him.

What about the Ministers you want to throw out of the Cabinet?

Every member who is elected by the people to represent a constituency is regarded by them as someone who is fit to sit in the Cabinet. Rightly or wrongly they elect that person and the question is not whether this man or that is the besst man, but the question is whom have the voters chosen as their representative?

You object to two members of the Cabinet.

The constituency says that this person or that should go to Parliament to represent them. The constituency says that this or that person is not only fitted to represent them but that he is also fitted to serve in the Cabinet. No constituency who returns a member to Parliament does so without believing that he is capable of serving in the Cabinet.

The people do not choose the Cabinet.

The people choose the members from which the Cabinet is comprised. We cannot simply go and undermine this democratic right. If the nation returns 150 unilingual members to this House the Cabinet must be formed out of that Parliament—that is the voice of the people. I am not arguing the matter, whether it is right or wrong, but faithful to democratic principles I accept the voice of the people, whatever faults they may make. The people decide who they will choose for a specific constituency and that man goes to Parliament as their representative. If we wish to impose language qualifications then we are striking deep at the roots of the constitution. Now I go further. This Cabinet as it is composed today is in the first place a War Cabinet. It is primarily a Cabinet to prosecute the war. This country consists of people who are bilingual and of a great number of people who are unilingual. At the front unilingual people are fighting side by side with bilingual people, and while the war is in progress and unilingual and bilingual people are fighting side by side, while we know that a large number of the people are unilingual, we cannot at this stage make a fuss about the composition of the Cabinet because a section of the Ministers are unilingual.

We have been making a fuss for 35 years now.

The Cabinet has taken upon itself a task that it is carrying out to the best of its ability. A great proportion of the army and of the people at home are unilingual, and it is their vote that brings the people here and you cannot deprive the people of that, however much you would like to do so. If a constituency says that this or that person is the suitable person for them, you cannot say that he may not be chosen. That would be an interference with the elementary principle of democracy.

Who wants to deprive them of that right?

Apparently the hon. member has not listened to the speech. The seconder of the motion more especially stated that candidates for Parliament must be bilingual. I listened, and listened with respect to the speeches. I do not want to do the hon. members any injustice, but merely to analyse the motion and the speeches. They must remember that they are meddling with a democratic right of the people, to elect whom they want, if they impose the condition that a man must be bilingual before he can be elected. If this House says that an individual who has been elected by the people may not take a seat in the Cabinet, you will be depriving the people of a democratic right. I have already stated that this is a War Cabinet and that being the case you may not even consider the point whether members of the Cabinet are bilingual or not. The first requirement demanded of them is that they should carry out their duty and give effect to hopes that have been reposed in them.

They have not only a duty towards the Empire but also towards their own people.

If the hon. member wants to be so superficial I am sorry. But if he will go into the matter further he will find that the motion is hot on such firm ground as he imagines. The first question is whether the member of the Cabinet is qualified to carry out the task that rests on him. Are his opinions and his ideas sound? He may be bilingual but perhaps his views are not sound.

How can anyone be capable if he cannot even understand you?

Will hon. members not admit that my own Minister who is sitting over there, the hon. Minister of Labour, conferred a service on all the workers of South Africa, that he accomplished a great task when he placed on the Statute Book that sound piece of legislation, the law in connection with workmen’s compensation? Will the people as a whole not appreciate that that was done? And that was not done by means of bilingualism? Bilingualism had no effect on that, only sound ideas. I assume that if the Minister had been bilingual but had not introduced that legislation the people would have been disappointed in their expectations despite his bilingualism. Then I, in turn, would have said that he had not fulfilled his function. Hon. members should consequently be careful not to go too far with this matter of bilingualism, not to ride it to death. The hon. member who seconded the motion wants to go so far as to trample upon the rights of the people. The motion has been drafted in such a way that undue weight must be accorded to language qualifications, not to the question whether a man has sound principles or sound views. Is not the principal qualification that a man should have good ideas and sound opinions? Hon. members have quoted what was said about the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister. I know he was a good administrator, and if he were to become Prime Minister I am convinced that he would be just as reasonable. But that is exactly why I believe the hon. member for Winburg is going too far. I think he feels that himself, that he is going too far, that he is riding a good horse to death. The hon. member is making no distinction between members of Parliament who have been elected by the people and officials who have been appointed by the Public Service Commission. He wants to treat them all alike. I am not prepared to do that, and I do not believe that this House will ever be prepared to deprive the people of the democratic right to say which members they should elect and which they should not. But if it is a case of anyone who is appointed by the State, anyone who in is daily contact with the public, then it is legitimate to ask that he should be bilingual, because he is paid by the taxpayers and he ought to be bilingual. But when the people say: “This is our man” we have not the right to say that we do not want him. I differ slightly from the hon. Minister of Mines. He presents the case as if the hon. member for Winburg is entirely unreasonable in his motion.

He could not even understand what I said, but yet he criticises my speech.

The only way in which I differ from the hon. member for Winburg is that he seeks to take away from the people the democratic right of saying who their representative will be. His seconder clearly stated that candidates for Parliament should be bilingual, that in future they should be bilingual.

Of course.

But then you are depriving the people of the right to say what man they should choose. If the people elect a unilingual man on account of his sound views and his commonsense, then you have not the right to refuse to accept that man as a member of Parliament. In what way would it really benefit us if everyone elected was bilingual, if at the same time their views were not sound, if their ideas in connection with industries were wrong, if their legal outlook was erroneous, if their conceptions in connection with labour were faulty—their qualification is that they are bilingual but apart from that they have no qualifications—then you will agree with me that they would not be the people we desire. I think that the hon. member for Winburg has gone a little too far, and I believe some of his colleagues agree with me in this. The hon. member for Winburg takes special interest in educational matters. I can recall his motions. A few years ago the hon. member told us that he was educated at an English-medium school.

Because there were no Afrikaans-medium schools.

He is in the fortunate position that he is fluent in both official languages. He can address an English-speaking or an Afrikaans-speaking audience. I think that really applies to all the members of his party.

Hear, hear.

I give credit where it is due, but then hon. members should also be reasonable. Why are there so many unilingual people today. In the old days there were no compulsory dual-medium schools or bilingualism and today we face the accumulated effects of that. We are actively trying to nut that right, but if we now have just begun with compulsory bilingualism in the schools, is it fair to expect that people whose lives have extended over half a century should comply immediately with the new circumstances? It was the fault of the educational system of 50 years ago that we had a unilingual product and that a large proportion of the population are still unilingual.

It is not so.

A large proportion are still unilingual because bilingualism was never compulsory. It is a fact that a large proportion are still unilingual.

What does Dr. Malherbe say?

Take their vote away.

You cannot get past the fact that a large proportion of the public are unilingual, and now on that account you want to rob them of certain civic rights. They did not learn Afrikaans because the educational system in the past did not make provision for that. But the children now at school are learning the two languages, and in the future the people will be bilingual. But to apply this to people who have already served 30 or 40 years in Parliament is not fair. It is unreasonable and unjust, and such an unreasonable attitude will never be accorded political support. You are bound to admit that a large proportion of the public are unilingual, and the reason is that the principle of bilingualism was never carried into effect in the schools, and after years of service you cannot kick out people despite the soundness of their outlook and the good service they have given.

Do you not think they have had time to learn the second language?

The youth of today will have no excuse in the future if he is unilingual, but I make an appeal to the House in regard to the present position not to kick out people who rendered fine service. That would be an act of injustice, of extreme unfriendliness, and it would be undemocratic if we should arbitrarily get rid of their services. Where people elect a man under the democratic system we must be prepared to say that he is a good representative so long as he seems good in the eyes of the voters.

I intervene for a moment in this debate because the motion specifically puts a question to me. It is a specific motion directed at me and I shall confine myself to the point. I am not going to discuss the principle of bilingualism. I take it that that principle has been accepted by all sections of the House.

Not by the Minister of Mines. He says that no such thing exists.

Consequently I do not want to argue about that. It is unnecessary. It falls outside the question. I want to say this that the fact that 35 or 37 years after the original resolution was taken —it was really taken in 1908—such a debate can be carried on as we have had today— shows that we must take drastic steps to foster bilingualism in the country. The big problem before our nation is to become bilingual. I see no other course with a view to having a corporate nation here in South Africa. So long as we are divided in the field of language the nation is going to be divided root and branch, and the division will go further. I think that strengthens the policy of the Government to promote bilingualism amongst the public in every possible way. But I do not want to talk about the principle of bilingualism. That is accepted by us. I come to the request that is put to me in this motion. The hon. member’s first question is that I should immediately reform my Cabinet with members who are thoroughly fluent in both official languages. Now I want to ask him whether this request is directed at me alone, at this Government, or whether it is to affect all governments.

In the future, to all governments.

We must be honest in the matter.

It will be the principle in the future.

The hon. member talked of lip-service and dissembling and hypocrisy and political fraud. But if you use these big words, words of extravagant criticism, then I at once ask if this is the principle that we have followed with one Government after another in this country. Is it a principle that was followed in the years of the Nationalist or Pact Government when they were in power? For nine years there was a government in this country of which the party on the opposite benches formed the principal part, the Pact Government, and it was a government in which unilingual Ministers were included. There were three members, later two members, in that Government who were not bilingual. But I ask this further: Does the hon. member think back to the state of affairs at that time when his party had the chance to form a purely unilingual government, and when they, just as is the case today, infringed that principle with which we are now charged.

That was 20 years ago.

Does the hon. member think about the future? Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition undertake that should he one day have the opportunity to form a government that the government he is going to constitute will consist only of persons who are thoroughly versed in both languages.

Yes.

I shall take it from the Leader of the Opposition himself. It will deeply affect the opinion in the country, the public opinion of South Africa when it is known that any future government that is formed by the other side will be a government that will consist exclusively of persons who know both languages thoroughly.

Why not?

They had the chance before. They formed a Pact Government and they took members into that Government who were not bilingual. We have heard talk here of pretence hypocrisy and lip-service, and we want to know whether they are going to follow that principle in the future. I would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition, so that there will be no doubt whether he will give the assurance if he has to form a government in the future it will be comprised purely of people who are thoroughly conversant with both languages.

What is your objection to that?

I do not think it is possible in the practical circumstances of South Africa.

We should like to have an answer from you.

This is my answer. I have given my answer, that I do not think it is possible in the practical circumstances of South Africa.

What are the practical circumstances?

Just as it was necessary in the days of the Pact Government to take people into the Cabinet who were not bilingual, it may also be necessary in the future.

But that has long passed.

We have those practical circumstances also today. This Government was formed as a coalition government. It was formed six years ago, and the war entailed that it was necessary to have a government in which three of the Parties co-operated. It was necessary to take the leaders of the three Parties into the Government, and the practical circumstances were thus the same as those in which the Pact Government was formed. The Nationalist Party could not at that time form a government independent of the Labour Party. They had to form a government of both Parties and to take the Leaders of the Labour Party in that Government. We have the same position today, and now I should like to know what attitude the Leader of the Opposition is going to take, whether he can intimate openly to the public that he stands for the principle that any future government in South Africa must be comprised exclusively of people who are completely bilingual.

My answer is yes. I am very surprised that you put such a question. You know of course what my attitude is.

What is your attitude? Does the Leader of the Opposition undertake that should he form a government in the future that Government will contain no person who is not bilingual.

I have already given my answer, and I add to that that there are enough English-speaking people in the country who know both languages to comply with those requirements in the Cabinet.

The hon. member does not answer my question. My question is whether the Leader of the Opposition undertakes, should he one day form a government, to take into the Cabinet exclusively people who are properly versed in both languages.

And I have answered yes.

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. The nation will note that answer that this is the policy that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is going to follow.

It is clear that you are going to start another racial campaign. This is now your last resort.

I had thought that these questions of pretence-hypocrisy and lip-service would come down to a fact. Now we have a fact, and it is the admission of the Leader of the Opposition that if one day he forms a government he will only take into his Cabinet people who are thoroughly bilingual.

What is wrong with that?

We accept that that is the hon. member’s attitude.

But tell us what is wrong with it?

I only want to have the fact stated, and that fact has now been stated.

It is a terribly important fact!

Yes, it is a very important proposition. The argument that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) adduced here was an argument with substance in it. So long as we have the democratic system the people have a free choice, and they can return unilingual or bilingual people as members of Parliament. That makes the acceptance of this motion impossible. It is proposed here that whoever the nation may choose to represent them in Parliament only certain persons who are conversant with both languages may be members of the Government. This is the resolution that is proposed here. I maintain that the public are free to choose who are the best people to send to Parliament. They can choose whom they want to. We have heard from the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) that 30 to 40 persons have been elected members of this House who are unilingual. Now it is proposed that although the public have chosen these 30 or 40 individuals they are not good enough though members of Parliament, to be considered potential members of the Government. They may not reach such a position. If we accept that proposition then we will be depriving the people of its democratic right to choose those who they consider best fitted to represent them. If we are logical we shall have to go a step further, and we shall have to pass a law that no one can be a candidate for a parliamentary election unless he is thoroughly bilingual. This is a second question that I want to put to the Leader of the Opposition. Must we accept that he and his party, should they come into power, are going to make it the law of the land that no one who is not fully bilingual may be a candidate for an election.

That does not appear in my motion.

It does not appear in the motion. But you cannot allow the people to elect members of Parliament, to elect 30 or 40 men who are unilingual, and then go and separate and segregate them as an inferior class who may not be members of the Government. If you want to be consistent and honest then we must also take the standpoint that those people may not be elected to Parliament. Then the people will not be entitled to elect them, and then we shall have to have an Act passed to lay down that only people who are bilingual can stand for an election.

But everyone who is elected is not able to be a Minister.

All who are elected are not able enough to become Ministers. That is so. But here the people have elected 30 or 40 men who are unilingual, to go to Parliament, but now we say to the people that those men are not fitted for everything that can be expected of a member of Parliament, and we are depriving the representatives of the people of that right. It means that we are violating a democratic right of the people. It appears to me perfectly logical that if we accept this motion of the hon. member for Winburg we must also say that no one may stand as a candidate for election if he is not bilingual. I should only like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition agreed with that policy.

That is not the postion. But let me put this question to you. Is it a healthy state of affairs that 30 or 40 members should have to read in the Cape Times the following day what has taken place in the House? If that is so, do you undertake to tell every constituency that is putting up a candidate that they should send a bilingual person?

I am not in favour of the alteration that is proposed here. I leave the free choice to the people. Let the people choose the best man according to their judgment. But I say that if this principle is accepted that has been argued by the hon. member opposite, then he must be consistent and say that only bilingual people must stand as candidates in elections. Remember we have had unilingual Ministers in the country ever since the commencement of Union. Every government I know of during the past 30 or 40 years was a government comprised of both unilingual and bilingual persons. That is a system that has existed under our democratic former government, and in my opinion it is impossible to adopt the standpoint now that we should only take bilingual people into the Government. Supposing we formed a coalition government then we should have to take the leaders of the various parties into the government. They have all the qualifications, except the qualification that the hon. member is now laying down; and they include a leader of a party. Take the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) who has substantial public support. He is the leader of the Labour Party, and although that party has not many members in this House it is a great party comprising unilingual and bilingual people. He is the leader of that powerful party outside, but now it is stated here that he is not worthy of serving in the government of the country because he is unilingual. We have the leader of the Dominion Party who represents a very important factor in the country. He was elected and sent to Parliament by that section of the population, but now we would have to say that no matter what support he has in the country he is not worthy of being a member of the Government because he is not bilingual. In my opinion it is an absolute reductio ad absurdum of the democratic system of Government. The day that we do that sort of thing we shall have to be pretty crazy in the country. Language is an important factor. We all admit that. In my argument there is not the slightest disparagement of the language. But the language qualification is not the only one. When you have to form a government there are other tests that you have to apply, and language is not the only test in such a case. What I have said here also applies to administrative bodies and commissions who are appointed. If you take only the language qualification then you cannot do justice to all the interests of the country.

What about the judges?

There too we are following the principle of appointing bilingual men.

In theory.

No, in practice. I think we can say that 95 per cent. if not more of our judges are bilingual.

That is nonsense.

No, it is not.

It is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member may be an authority on nonsense.

I know who the judges are.

The practice is this. We know that in general only persons are appointed as judges who are bilingual. There may be one or two exceptions, because we have one province which is very much less bilingual than the others.

Haver the Afrikaans-speaking minority in Natal no rights then or no equal rights?

Yes, they have rights, but the majority also have rights. Supposing there are four judges in such a province. Why should all four be bilingual? And are we not doing an injustice to the majority? Our practice is to appoint bilingual judges; there are exceptions in one province, but not in the others.

Have the Afrikaans-speaking people fewer rights than the English-speaking people?

No, they have equal rights. The same applies to commissions. We frequently need people who are not bilingual but who have special qualifications. They are experts who have practical and theoretical knowledge that is of the greatest importance in connection with the work of the State bearing in mind the matters under enquiry, but they are not bilingual. I as a practical man who have some knowledge of administration cannot see why a person should be excluded only on the ground of the language test. It is not in the interests of the country; it is a gross injustice that will be done if that policy is followed, if we have to apply this recommendation generally in the country. Although we are following the rule of appointing bilingual people and employing bilingual people, we have to be practical, and it is necessary sometimes to make exceptions. We are following that policy, and accordingly I cannot accept this motion with its general and unrestricted wording.

The Prime Minister in his speech devoted his attention principally to the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Labour. Those two Ministers sat there in suspense. They did not know whether there was a Cabinet crisis or not and what was going to happen to them. They sat there in suspense and they would not have had the slightest knowledge of what the Prime Minister was saying about them if someone had not sat alongside them to interpret. That is the competence and the qualifications that the Prime Minister has advocated here, and that he has recommended as the policy of himself and his party. The Prime Minister showed a marvellously pious countenance. That is an art he understands well. When he blinks his eyes and looks over his glasses we know what the tactics of the Prime Minister are going to be. In that pious manner he has stated here: “Look I am going to abide by the motion.” He has stated that he would not go outside the terms of the motion, but he had scarcely started before he came up against the boundaries of the motion, and then he jumped clean outside the motion. He said that he would follow up the corollary that flowed from this motion. The Prime Minister thought fit to direct certain questions to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. If the Prime Minister knew that his questions would be answered he would not have put them; in the hope and expectation that they would not be answered he put them. But the Prime Minister should remember this, that a question is a funny thing and a difficult thing. He should remember that when he puts questions to this side of the House, this side can also put questions to him. And I should now like to put a question to him. The Prime Minister’s excuse was that cirmumstances were of such a nature at the beginning of the war that he had to form a coalition government of the three Parties, and consequently he had to take the unilingual leaders of the other Parties into his Cabinet. Now I put this question to the Prime Minister: If he had to form a government that is comprised only of members of the United Party, will he appoint only bilingual Ministers or will he also take unilingual Ministers into his Cabinet? The Prime Minister is sitting there and he will not answer, or he cannot answer. I have told him that questions are queer things. You can put a question and you get an answer such as the Prime Minister got. But then you should know that a counter question is going to be put to you. The Prime Minister got a frank answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but now he is silent about our counter-question, or he does not want to reply. No, the Prime Minister has throughout his career shown that in respect of both sides—he wants to try to mislead the public from both sides.

It is not Parliamentary to say such a thing.

The hon. member must not accuse the Prime Minister of trying to mislead the public.

You can say the same thing in a much politer manner.

I did say it very politely and I shall say it in a politer way. I say that the Prime Minister is playing his old trick of throwing dust in the eyes of the public. He does not always succeed in this, but he often tries it. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister. As I have stated, the Prime Minister’s excuse was that the Nationalist Party, when it formed a coalition government, appointed unilingual Ministers in the Cabinet, and that he too when he constituted a coalition government had to appoint unilingual Ministers. But then I want to ask him what about the Minister of Posts? He is not a member of the Party with whom the Prime Minister has formed a coalition. He is not in the position in which the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Mines is. He is one of the members of the Prime Minister’s own Party, and he is unilingual. Moreover, he has not been elected by the people. What becomes now of the argument of the Prime Minister? He has come here with the argument that members were elected by the people and they should be entitled to become Ministers, even though they are unilingual. What remains of his argument, because here a unilingual Minister from his own Party has been appointed, and he has not even been elected by the people. The only argument that remained to the Prime Minister was to resort to the argument that was used here by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). The only argument that he could use was that marvellous argument of the marvellous member for Krugersdorp. Let us dwell for a moment on that argument. I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has taken over that argument, because we know that it is necessary for him to appease that side a little. I am not surprised at that, and no one in the country will be surprised at that. When the hon. member for Krugersdorp stood up here his speech reminded me strongly of the Jew who was sitting back to front on a horse. He sat facing the horse’s tail, and when someone remarked that he was sitting back to front his reply was: But how do you know in which direction I want to ride. In this same Session the hon. member for Krugersdorp has got up and made an embittered attack on members of the Cabinet on the other side. He told the Prime Minister that unless he threw out of the Cabinet the Minister of Demobilisation and the Minister of the Interior—he mentioned these two Ministers specifically— the relationship between the Government and the outside public would receive a tremendous shock. That was the whole spirit of his speech. What becomes now of the argument that he has used here and that the Prime Minister used subsequently? The public has elected them, and the argument of the Prime Minister is that because the public has elected them nothing may be said about them. Those Ministers were also elected by the public, but the hon. member for Krugersdorp comes here and says that those members should go out of the Cabinet, otherwise things will go wrong. But now when it suits the hon. member— this is what we get from opportunism—he turns round and he tries to protect the position of the Minister of Labour on the other side.

It was not a question of language.

The whole argument of the hon. member for Krugersdorp sounded so hollow that I am dumbfounded that anyone could have worried about it. But the Prime Minister is clutching at this straw in his desperate attempt to justify the position. But this debate also had its serious side this morning when the Minister of Mines took part in it. The Minister of Mines took part in the debate, and he revealed this morning what his real attitude is. It is an attitude that is both disparaging and insulting, that he has taken up in respect of the bilingual basis of our country. I assert that the attitude that he adopted this morning ought to be a revelation to members on the other side. The Minister deliberately revealed that attitude of contempt. He told us that he had to choose between participating in this debate about the practical maintenance of Section 137, and having his hair cut. He did not even give preference to attending the debate; he did not give preference to the debate on the maintenance of this honourable principle of an agreement that was entered into at the commencement of Union, and that as he had to choose in taking part in this important discussion and having a haircut, he tossed his sixpence for a decision. It is that derisive attitude of that type of man here in South Africa, and it is the approval of that attitude by the Prime Minister and his followers that has the sequel that we, as far as regards the language question, are today just where we were 35 years ago at the time of Union. If 35 years ago a debate had been carried on and such an attitude had been taken in respect of the language basis that was laid down in the constitution, I am convinced that it would have taken a different turn, and that we would not today have had this state of affairs in the country. What was announced by the Minister of Mines today under the aegis of the Prime Minister and under the aegis of that side of the House? It is equivalent to this, that the principle of bilingualism is not to be applied in practice. Year after year they bring legislation before the House which neglects the principle of bilingualism, and year after year we on this side of the House move that officials who are appointed should be bilingual. Whenever we speak hear about bilingualism we hear pious expressions about the principle from the other side, but that principle is not carried into effect in practice. Last year and this year too the other side introduced legislation under which officials had to be appointed, and it was this side of the House that had to propose that the principle of bilingualism should be put into practice. We proposed amendments, but our amendments were in vain, because the other side always voted them down, a further proof that we only get lip-service for bilingualism. We are still getting that this year. We know that this year we have had another fight about it. We see that one Bill has been introduced that allows the principle of bilingualism to come into its own to a slight extent. We have to argue here incessantly and the Afrikaans-speaking people have had to fight for every particle of its language rights that it has won. For the last 35 or 37 years, while everyone was under an obligation to give effect to the honourable agreement of 1908, the Afrikaans-speaking people for their part have had to fight for every fragment of the rights they have secured, and today they are still fighting, and on not a single occasion throughout the years has the English-speaking section of the population had a shred of reason for complaning that there has been interference with their language rights. It is always from the side of the Afrikaner that there has to be a fight for the maintenance of what was in 1908 regarded as an honourable agreement. I only want to say this to the Prime Minister—and with it I shall conclude—that if it depended on his contribution to the public life of South Africa, we should not have had a single fragment of those equal rights that we have today. Throughout his career he and his followers have been the people who have been in opposition to the Afrikaner’s rights and his contribution in respect of the execution of that honourable agreement and his contribution in respect of equal rights for the Afrikaner will be recorded by history as zero when he is no longer with us. I think we can claim that this motion of the hon. member for Winburg is based on a sound principle, that this motion is based on that honourable agreement, and the sooner we know where we stand with the honourable agreement and the sooner we know whether it is going to be carried out or not, the better will it be for those who have fought for it, for us who are fighting for it now and for those who will follow after us.

Yesterday I rose to a point of order. On the point of order I was compelled to ask a question to this effect, "whether the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) had the right to be so intensely rude to the member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher) on the question of bilingualism.” The hon. member said: “I repeat that the hon. member for East London has no right to be here”, and when I rose on a point of order, he also said that I had no right to be here.

Hear, hear.

I want to tell the hon. member for Humansdorp that this fetish of his and of his fellow colleagues in talking in that way only makes the position in regard to bilingualism and racial peace very much worse than it ought to be. I want to tell him also that if he stood for the constituency which I represent in this House, he would not get ten per cent. of the votes of the people. As a matter of fact, the only body I can think of that he would be put en would be the museum board.

They usually put old things in a museum, you know.

Yes, that is where the hon. member might look well.

Order, order. The hon. member must not make those personal remarks.

Well, he was personal to me yesterday.

It does not worry me, Mr. Speaker.

That is just exactly what I would expect, his rude remarks do not worry him, but they worry other people, while he himself is not worried at all about the progress of this country.

Is that what is worrying you?

What you want to bring you to your senses is “A dunt on the lug wi a humplet of glaur”.

Order, order.

I would remind the hon. member that we have only bilingualism in this country, not trilingualism.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the language of which I have just given you a sentence was spoken by the most progressive people in the world and they gave up that language for the sake of peace in Britain.

Do you want us to give it up too?

For the sake of peace in Britain?

I hope the Prime Minister listens to you.

I do.

You would not miss that for the world.

It is a very good illustration ….

Why don’t you give up your English for the sake of peace in South Africa?

I am coming to you if you will just wait a minute. Here is a very good illustration of the way in which English-speaking people take notice of the attitude of men like the hon. member for Humansdorp. A little while ago in this city there was a vacancy on a very important board. The person to be appointed—and quite rightly so—was to be bilingual. I knew the person who was ultimately appointed. Some of the members of the board considered that medical qualifications were much more important than linguistic qualifications for appointment to that particular board, and they advocated that the one thing necessary on the board—the Hospital Board, I may as well mention it—was medical proficiency. One member particularly was very much against that. He considered bilingualism more important. Strange to say I knew privately that this man took ill afterwards and he said he was going to Germany to get professional advice and treatment. He was asked—and this is a natural question to put to anyone who meets a man like the hon. member for Humansdorp— “whether when he got to Germany he was going to ask the person who intended to operate on him whether he could speak Afrikaans.”

Is that meant for a joke?

The member for Winburg ….

You must tell us when to laugh. We cannot see all the points of your jokes.

I do not expect you to see intelligent points.

If you want to raise a laugh try saying “Piep-piep”.

He is still angry with his mother.

Who?

She compelled him to learn English, compelled him to go to an English-medium school.

Who?

The hon. member for Winburg.

That is not so.

You said so last Session and you know it.

That is not so. My mother never compelled me to go to an English school.

She was a sensible woman, she also gave him two nice English names “Charles, Robberts”.

Your Milner lot compelled me to learn English.

If there is one way—and no one should know it better than the hon. member for Winburg—of producing and encouraging bilingualism it is to have bilingual or dual-medium schools but the hon. member for Winburg is against such schools, and that exposes his hypocrisy ….

Order, order.

Order, order. The hon. member must not use that word. It has been ruled to be un-Parliamentary.

Well, let us say he is inconsistent. Will that do? He said this—and I am now quoting from Hansard—

And further? I went on to say “compulsory instruction in the other language too”. You do not read that.

Ask him to speak English.

If the hon. member for Winburg wants me to repeat the speech which he made last Session, let me tell him that I have not the time to do it. It is so confused ….

At any rate, it would be a better speech than the one you are making now.

It is so confused that one does not really know what he meant, but there is no doubt about this, that he was definitely against bilingual schools.

Bilingual schools? Now you are talking nonsense.

I mean dual-medium schools.

You do not even know your own language.

His language is Scotch.

I have taught in a dual-medium school, and I say definitely that anyone who has any experience of teaching in a dual-medium school ….

It does not seem to have helped you much.

I say definitely that if these men are honest in their endeavours to have bilingual Cabinet Ministers, then they should be advocating dual-medium schools today; there is no doubt about that; but they are not in favour of that. All they are trying to do is to score some Parliamentary advantage that will put them into power, but heaven help this country if they do get into power. I read somewhere that the hon. member for Humansdorp is also supposed to be a great authority on Parliamentary procedure.

Procedure?

All I can say is that if the procedute he advocated yesterday afternoon is the procedure that the Nationalist Party wants to adopt if they ever get into power, they will be the rudest crowd of men ever to sit in this House; they are very rude even now as the quiet, unassuming member from East London will tell you.

Do you mean it would be rude of Port Elizabeth to chuck you out? It might be unsporting but it will not be rude.

Order, order!

The hon. member’s difficulty is this: He wants to know whether it will be rude of Port Elizabeth to put me out. No, not at all, but it will be stupid of Port Elizabeth to put me out, and it was equally stupid of Humansdorp to vote the hon. member into Parliament.

Will the hon. member come back to the motion.

I am in favour of bilingualism. I believe that every child in this country should be taught both languages, and I believe that every school should be a dual-medium school.

That is why you are bilingual.

I think a little attention should be paid to what the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmatans) said. After all, he is almost in the same position as I am, but not exactly in the same position. I do not know Afrikaans. He is not particularly well acquainted with English, and he asked for sympathy for men of his age and men of my age, and that we should wait for the development of bilingualism in this country through dual-medium schools. That would bring about what members of the Opposition are asking for today and what they cannot get today. The point is that by being rude to English-speaking people, they are doing their own case more harm than good.

I feel that I ought to say a word or two as an alleged unilingual member of this House, and I say a word particularly because the Leader of my party, the hon. Minister of Labour, has been specifically singled out in the motion. Whether he was specifically singled out by name by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), I do not know. But I just want to elaborate a little on what was said by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg). If bilingualism has got to be made a test for holding public office in this country—and I understand from the hon. member for Winburg and his party generally that bilingualism is a standard of proficiency in both languages which will enable you to speak and read and write them with almost the same facility—then for at least the next twenty years the policy of the Nationalist Party is going to be that they are prepared to exclude—shall I put it at a very low level—35 per cent. of the population of this country. The Nationalist Party speaks very glibly at times of Afrikanerdom and Afrikaners. May I point out that there are many unilingual English-speaking citizens in this country who have been in this country before some of the members of the Nationalist Party were born. Why some of them were born is still a mystery to me. There are many English-speaking South Africans who were in this country—some of them were actually born in this country, long before many members of the Nationalist Party were ever thought of, and yet the Nationalist Party’s idea is that merely because these people through various circumstances over which possibly they had no control, are not able to speak and write Afrikaans, they are to be excluded from the rights of citizenship. I believe the hon. member for Krugersdorp did make a very important point in connection with democracy, that a member having been elected for his constituency and being only unilingual, that member is entitled by democratic rights to sit in this House and he is fully entitled to become a Cabinet Minister even if he is unilingual. I want to develop that argument just a little further, and I am going to challenge the hon. member for Winburg at this moment as to what precisely he does mean by his motion, because surely that argument must have appealed to him. If he thought of his resolution at all—I am not so sure that he did think of it because it appears to me that as far as he is concerned, it is just a prejudice ….

If that is the attitude you are going to adopt, why argue with me? Leave me alone.

It is no use the hon. member waving his hands at me; I am not disturbed in the slightest degree and I would remind him that he is not in Hollywood now. If the hon. member had thought about his motion at all, it must surely have appealed to him that a member of this House, having been duly elected by his constituency, is entitled to become a member of the Cabinet. He has been duly elected by the constitutional procedure, which has never been objected to by the Nationalist Party and which lays down no principles about bilingualism. If the hon. member had thought about his motion at all, surely that argument must have appealed to him, and if he wants to be logical he should have been perfectly clear in his motion in this House and he should have asked the Government to accept a motion which says that no man shall be permitted to stand for this House unless he is fully bilingual. The hon. member is afraid to do that, because it might even eliminate some of his own members who are not bilingual. We know that their idea of bilingualism, is the ability to speak Afrikaans. If you can speak Afrikaans and you cannot speak English, according to them you are still bilingual. The hon. member for East London, only some few weeks ago, during the Railway debate, was pleading the cause of the railwaymen who found it impossible to pass the second language, and he was met with interjections from this side, asking why he did not learn English; and the hon. member for East London was able to reply to the Opposition that these people for whom he pleaded were unable to pass their written examination in English. I myself have pleaded for dock labourers in Cape Town who could be promoted to a higher grade but found it impossible to pass their written examination in English.

I have done it myself.

So has the hon. member for Greenpoint (Mr. Bowen), and many other Cape Town members. Hon. members of the Opposition think that bilingualism is the prerogative of one particular section of the community only, and this extreme insistence on bilingualism will probably redound to the disadvantage of a great many of their own supporters if it is enforced in the way they want it to be enforced. But that does not mean to say that I do not agree with a policy of bilingualism. I think South Africa’s destiny is to be a fully bilingual country but to ram down the throats of people who for various reasons have found it impossible to master another language, is quite another proposition, and to suggest that in the arts of government anything else than brains and ability should count, is, I think, sheer nonsense. I know of many prominent Afrikaners in this country, first-class Afrikaans speakers, who when they want to give the country the full benefit of their intelligence —and very keen intelligence—do it in English. There are some members in the Nationalist Party for instance who speak a great deal better or convey to this House a great deal more keenly and comprehensively what they really mean, when they speak in English. Can you tell me of any bilingual member of the Nationalist Party who would be a better Minister of Labour than the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) who is occupying that post. Even in their own Cabinet they had to seek a unilingual Labour Party member to occupy that post. As a matter of fact, in the old Nationalist Government days, the Nationalists had to ask Labour members to show them how to run a Government. It is perhaps to our eternal discredit that we carried them through those critical days in this country. I hope history will never repeat itself in this respect. We did our best and we did certain things on occasions which benefited this country considerably, but today we are very sorry for our association with the Nationalist Party. But the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, when he was in the Cabinet, did not object to having unilingual Ministers. He did not object to having Col. Cresswell as Minister of Defence; he did not object to having Mr. Boydell as Minister of Labour or Mr. Sampson as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. As a matter of fact the Leader of the Opposition did not object to the hon. member for Benoni, as Minister of Labour. Why suddenly after this lapse of time come to the conclusion, as he has apparently done, that unilingual members are such a drawback in the Cabinet. Actually they are not. The organisation of State departments, is such that apart from answering questions, most of which are supine and stupid, Ministers who are unilingual in this House, do not suffer at all. They can quite easily get the speeches interpreted. Some of them who are alleged to be unilingual are not nearly so unilingual as Nationalist Party members think. And that brings me to the point I want to make. I have never yet heard a single Nationalist member in this House giving the slightest bit of encouragement to an English-speaking member even to understand Afrikaans, and if you make an intelligent interjection in this House, when you have managed as an English-speaking member, to follow what was being said in Afrikaans, the reply usually given to you with a sneer on the lips is that you do not know what you are talking about. I had that from Mr. Pirow in the old days. I can follow a great deal of the Afrikaans which is spoken by hon. members on the Opposition benches. There is a great deal to which I turn a deaf ear because it is not worth following, but even when I do and I make a pertinent interjection—and interjections are a very necessary part of Parliamentary procedure—I am usually met by a jibe and a sneer, “you do not know what we are talking about”. I am constrained to think that the Nationalist Party are really afraid that the English-speaking people in this country will become fully bilingual because if we do we will take away from them this ever-recurring opportunity to make propaganda about the holy rights of their language. How much sympathy or how much respect have they for other people’s language? I heard several supine interjections—they usually are when they come from the hon. member for Humansdorp—during the course of the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) who speaks with a Scotch accent, and I assumed from the interjections that the hon. member for Humansdorp had taken it upon himself to try to teach the hon. member for Port Elizabeth how to speak English. We do not care whether we speak English with a Scotch accent. It is what we say that matters, and one ounce of Scotch is worth a ton of Humansdorp any time. I challenge, as I have challenged the Nationalist Party in this House on their economic programme, I challenge them on their sincerity in so far as bilingualism is concerned. They do not propagate the principles of bilingualism in this House in order to make this country bilingual. They propagate the alleged principles of bilingualism—I say “alleged” so far as they are concerned—in order to have one little more dig at the English-speaking South Africans. They do it with venom and bitterness. The Nationalist Party moved for bilingualism in the Standards Bill; they will move for the principles of bilingualism to be given effect to in any and every Bill, in a Bill to control rats and cats. If it is possible to have a debate on bilingualism it is brought forward by some members in the Nationalist Party. If you really want to make this country fully bilingual it can be done by showing a little more sympathy; but I do not believe that is the purpose of the Nationalists. Probably if we were all bilingual in this House the Nationalist Party would talk English, that I believe would be the natural result. I know many of them can put forward their views a good deal better in English, but this country despite the Nationalist Party, is becoming a bilingual country, and it is becoming a country where the younger generation is neither English-speaking nor Afrikaans-speaking, where they are neither English nor Afrikaans, the country is being gradually populated by individuals like my son, English on one side and Afrikaans on the other side. The future of this country lies in the hands of this generation that is growing up. I was very pleased to hear the outspoken speech made by the hon. Minister of Mines; I think it was the first time I have found myself in full agreement with the Minister of Mines. He did say a few things today which I think needed saying in this House. Possibly in this House far too much courtesy is extended to the Nationalist Party, even in regard to the Afrikaans language. I think it would be far better for the hon. Minister of Railways to speak Scots than the mangled Afrikaans he tries to speak with due deference to the Nationalist Party. If a Minister can speak Afrikaans properly I believe he should give replies to questions in Afrikaans. When bilingualism is a reality and not a piece of political propaganda, we shall not find one party making all their speeches in one language but we shall find them using both languages. That, to me, is the essence of a bilingual country. Bilingualism as it is preached by members of the Nationalist Party is not a question of using two languages. I heard my hon. friend the member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) making an English speech the other day, and I am sure it is one of the best speeches he made in his life, because when he speaks in English he makes his meaning clear, while in Afrikaans it is only a diatribe. The Nationalist Party through the hon. members opposite, take the line that they are entitled to get up here and sling off at the English-speaking members, that they are entitled to be sarcastic, to jibe and to do everything they can which can be quoted for the edification of their unintelligent supporters in the backveld, but when they get hit back they do not like it. The English-speaking members of this House are far too courteous to the members of the Nationalist Party. The Prime Minister is far too courteous to them, and all the members of the Cabinet are far too courteous to them, while the hon. members of the Nationalist Party on the other side of the House have even gone outside ordinary Parliamentary courtesy. They manage to get away with it, but it is time it stopped in this House. I have been in this country longer than many members of the Nationalist Party and I contend that I am as good a South African as any members of the Nationalist Party. South Africa is my country; South Africa is my home; and I can do my bit in my job towards the future prosperity of South Africa as well in English as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) can in Afrikaans.

Mr. Speaker ….

Have a banana.

That is an illustration, Mr. Speaker, of how English-speaking members are received in this House by hon. members of that party. This motion is only another stage in a process which started many years ago by certain sections of the Afrikaans-speaking people towards their English-speaking fellow citizens. When the Act of Union was discussed this matter of language cropped up and we in Natal were promised this thing and that; we were not to be disadvantaged, we were not to be penalised in any way, our children and our children’s children were not to be penalised in any way, and the decision of the National Convention was to embody Section 137 in the Act and provide for equal opportunity to and equal use of both languages, English and Afrikaans, in the Union of South Africa. But no compulsion was intended and everybody was to speak the language with which he was most familiar. It was not until 1923 that the element of compulsion was brought into effect in the Public Service Act and in the Railway Services Act. I have read Patrick Duncan’s protests on the occasion of the passing of those Bills when compulsion was included; he asked the House not to go too far, but in opposition to that express wish of his the Bills did embody this compulsory clause. Members of the Public Service were give five years in which to qualify. Many of us in the Public Service had grown old in the service. Moreover, we were given more than an ordinary day’s work. I myself was engaged seven days in the week, and very often I worked from 1 o’clock on Saturday to 10 o’clock on Monday without a break. I was expected not only to do a day’s work but a night’s work too as well as week-ends, and I was asked why I did not qualify in Afrikaans. My reply was that if I did my job I had no time to learn another language. Moreover, as I say, I had spent practically a lifetime in the service of the country. But certain sections, and I do not exclude the old South African Party Government, because they were responsible for inserting this clause in the Public Service Act and the Railways Act, certain sections, they and their successors, used this clause as a big stick with which to beat the English-speaking section, and what was the result? I can tell you what it was a few years ago. The efficiency of the public service and of our railway service went down flop and reached rock bottom. The men were not efficient, they were not even courteous. The public did not even get service from them, and during the last few years I believe it has been impossible on account of this bilingual clause to find efficient highly-placed officers for certain posts. That has militated against South Africa as a whole. It has kept practically the whole population of Natal out of the public service. In Natal I do not think you will find five per cent. of Natal people serving in the public service or the railway service. They are all excluded by this big stick. Those who have the temerity to enter the service soon find their position is made so hopeless that they are glad to leave as soon as they can.

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 28th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

Various members have repeatedly drawn attention to the danger caused by the influx of natives to the towns. The cause is that the pass laws are not properly applied in the Union. The natives who today come from Nyasaland, Rhodesia and Mozambique are recruited there on a six months pass for the Union. After they have served their six months they go to the towns without their pass and come to the reception depôts. There they wait perhaps four or five days, and then they do everything in their power to get a pass office again to get a pass for six months to remain in the Union. The native may succeed in getting a pass. Then he goes from one depot to the other. Take for instance the East Rand. At Springs you have a depot. The native remains there for four or five days and he makes not the slightest effort to obtain work, while the following week he moves on to Brakpan and does the same thing. At the reception depôts they get a good meal every day, and so they go on from one to the other. I myself have gone there to recruit natives, and as soon as you ask natives to work they want to know where the place of employment is. When you tell them it is on a farm they do not want to go; pay them what you like. They want to remain in the towns. They want to be there not to look for work but their principal object is robbery from morning till night. The pass laws are not enforced and the police are not in a position to arrest the natives if they are not in possession of passes. The result is that in Johannesburg the position has arisen, and a short while ago a similar position arose in Pretoria, that police drives had to be organised and in the course of three days the police arrested more than 700 natives who were not in possession of passes, and who were wandering idle around the town. We feel that if the pass law is more strictly enforced there will be more control over the vagrant natives in the towns. Then they would not wander around as they are doing because they would be arrested and brought back to the farms. Not only this, but the result will also be that the influx will be decreased. What is the position in connection with farm labour today? The native enters into an agreement with the employer and after he has served six months he asks his employer for a pass to go elsewhere to look for work for six months. He gets a pass for six months, and then he goes to the town. He does not want to work with another farmer, he does not want to work on the farm, because the wages in the town are so attractive that he does everything in his power to get there. On the expiry of the six months that he was granted by the employer on the farm, he does not return to the farm but he remains in the town. He goes to the pass office and pays his 2s. 6d. fee and then he gets another pass for six months, and he never returns to the owner of the farm. The position is that most young natives migrate from the farms to the towns. Not one of them remains on the farm, with the result that the old native is settled with his women, nor can they continue to find shelter with the farmer, because the farmer cannot continue to look after the old native and his women and it cannot be expected that he should look after the old natives while the labour forces are all attracted to the town. These things are happening under the policy of the present Minister. He takes no action. He does not put his foot down to exercise more control over the natives. He lets them carry on as they like. If the Minister of Native Affairs had taken action long ago and had said that he was going to enforce the pass laws stringently in connection with vagrancy in the towns, there would not have been a shortage of farm labour, nor would the influx of natives from Nyasaland, Rhodesia and Mozambique have been so great. The natives cannot receive proper remuneration in those territories, and they flock to the Union because they believe they can earn more here. You have native bus drivers in Johannesburg who earn £20 a month and this is what attracts natives and that is why they stream into the towns. I want to urge on the Minister of Native Affairs by means of legislation to make the pass laws more stringent, so that he can place his finger on the pulse of the native and prevent this vagrancy; then I can assure the Minister the position will be greatly improved. Otherwise he is going to create an impossible position, such a position that he will not be able to control it in the future. The native is establishing native trade unions in the towns today, and thereby organising the labour forces and trying to get better pay for the natives. What do you find today? The people who have natives in their service experience difficulty in retaining them in their employment because the wages are too high. We are not opposed to the native being paid a good wage for the services he gives; not in the least. But we do feel that the native trade unions are something unsound. I would like to remove a misunderstanding which may easily be created in connection with the Protectorates. We are not opposed to the natives from the Protectorates going to work in the towns or on the platteland, but then depôts will have to be established in the Protectorates, and the native will have to be recruited there. The manager of the depot should have a list of names of employers who require ten or fifteen or twenty natives, and he must send them on from there. In this way you will prevent, to a certain degree, the influx to the towns. Not only this, it is the policy that we want the Minister to follow, but you get cases today at the depôts in the towns where the farmer goes and perhaps recruits 20 or 25 natives. The natives go out to the farmer’s place and they are scarcely there a day before they run away. This happens even with natives from Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The farmer has to pay £4 a head recruiting fee to the recruiting depot that recruits the natives, and it has already happened that a farmer has paid up to £200 in one amount for 50 natives he has recruited, and the following morning when he has got up there has not been a single one left. Then the police are notified, and the farmer chases round and he may be in a position to get 10 of the 50 back. The money has been lost. The natives leave the place without a pass. I mention this to show how necessary it is that the pass laws should be more strictly administered. Now the farmer has to suffer damage, and then he has just to go again to the recruiting office to pay another £150 for a further 40 natives. If the pass laws are enforced an end can be put to this, and an end en can be put to the vagrancy and to the migration from the platteland to the towns.

I do not wish to retard the consolidation of the various laws. We discussed this subject last year at fairly great length, but I should like to bring a few relevant points before the attention of the Minister, and in the first place I want to say that notwithstanding the legislation that has been adopted and the powers that have been granted to the Minister, nothing has been achieved in the interim. The time is long overdue when the Minister should realise that it does not help matters to talk here or to talk from a platform, but the Minister must take practical steps. Powerful criticism will be passed on the Minister if he does take steps. It will come from the agitators who are active amongst the natives throughout the country. But the time has come to face up to this matter, and the little dissatisfaction that will occur will not break the Minister. This House has given him powers and he should exercise them. Take the municipalities today and the position in the locations. Nothing has happened in respect of them, although the Minister has taken the powers. The authority that was given to the Minister was to intervene and that natives who had thronged into the location could be removed. But nothing is being done. If the Minister goes away from here and sets a quota for a location in conformity with the size of the population of the town or city, there will be a firm basis and the police can enter the location, and if the number of people there exceeds the quota, if there are more than are necessary for the requirements to be found, the natives can immediately be removed. In the free and easy way we are going about things now we are making no progress. Natives come over the boundary and in many instances they write out their own passes, and there are farmers who take them into service without any passes. Even the Department of Railways and Harbours take them into service without passes, and even if they leave the service they get passes and roam the country at will. Depots must be instituted, reception depôts, but they must really be depôts. They should not develop into lodgings, as is now the case. The Minister should also utilise the reception depôts as distribution depôts. The persons who are there to receive the natives should be in a position to oblige them to go to the area where there is a shortage of labour. Otherwise the reception depots will be of no value, though we shall have to pay for them. The natives will wander through the country at will unworried and have the advantage of that, and we shall have to pay. I want to support the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) in what he has said in connection with people who have no knowledge of the natives. The Minister who is a practical farmer has experience of the natives. We have grown up with them and worked with them since childhood, and we know their customs and methods. After all these years of experience we are in a position to give hints in their own interest. If the Minister will take action there will be certain members in this House who will stand up and shout that the natives are being oppressed, but the Minister as a practical man must ask himself what will be in the interests of the natives in the long run. It will perhaps occasion some discontent for a number of years, but eventually the natives themselves will find that the Minister is working in their interests. There is only a small percentage of natives who can be regarded as educated natives. The percentage is so limited that you cannot on that ground give to the uneducated and uncivilised natives privileges that they cannot appreciate. The great majority are uncivilised, and still cling to their traditions and customs and manners, and they are not going to abandon them notwithstanding the agitation that has been whipped up in the country. All that can spring from that is difficulty for the native himself. He does not realise today that the people who are inciting him are dragging him down into an abyss. Today in his simplicity he is assuming that these people are striving to attain something for him, but that is not the position. We as farmers know that the people are thrusting the natives into the abyss. If you let the native free on Saturday afternoon without a pass then he remains away till Monday morning and he wanders round the district in the week-end and thinks only of beer and company and pleasure, with the result that on, Monday morning he is inefficient and fagged out. The Minister must take practical steps. He must do what he is convinced will be in the interests of the native in the future. Then the Minister of Native Affairs should also use his influence on municipalities, the Railway Administration, the Provincial Administration and all similar bodies. The farmers must have the right to give a native a certificate stating that the native has been discharged, so that the next employer may see whether he is a good type and whether he is qualified for his work or otherwise. At the moment a native comes and asks for work and we do not know anything about him. If I knew that the native was a good boy who can do his work and that he is a faithful servant I shall be inclined to pay him a higher wage. Daily we hear pleas for higher wages for the natives. We pay increased wages but we do not get enhanced or improved services. These hon. members forget that we could pay the native £20 a month and he would not improve his services in the slightest.

Just try it.

That member is the intercessor for the natives. The young native comes to work in the morning, he carries on through the day and they have only one routine, and that is to work as little as possible and to get as much money as possible. I really hope that the pass laws will be more strictly applied, and not only that but that the farmer may be able to give the native a certificate on his pass. Then when the native goes to his second employer he will know whether he is a good and reliable native. As matters are going at the moment the position is becoming almost impossible. We have the influx to the towns which is proceeding unchecked. The farmers are left with the old natives and their families and stock on their farms. The young natives who can work stream to the towns, and they are not impeded and no one asks for their passes. There is nothing in their way. When they come into the town there is a reception depot for them. Unless the Minister of Native Affairs sees that those reception depôts are much better controlled they will, within a short time, not be distribution depots but only free lodging houses for the natives.

I cannot do otherwise than congratulate the Minister of Native Affairs on presenting a consolidating Bill. It was high time, because the position was such that recently it was absolutely impossible for the administration, the municipalities and the inspectors to follow the law properly in view of the manifold amendments that have been introduced into the acts and into the regulations. On that account we are thankful that the Minister has kept his promise to introduce a consolidating measure. It will greatly simplify that position. But at the same time we want to take advantage of this opportunity to point out to him that there are directions in which he will have to do some constructive work. We ask him to do the necessary constructive work, and there are a few points of which I have had experience in my constituency that I want to bring to his notice. The first is the problem of the natives who are coming into the Union illegally from the North. This matter has already been mentioned here, but the problem is that they are coming in on such a big scale, and I think it is again necessary to emphasise this. The Minister knows that these natives are entering the Union illegally; the Commissioner of the South African Police knows it and the Minister of Justice is also aware that those natives are here illegally. They are streaming direct to the towns. As Pretoria is to the north of the Rand and my constituency to the north of Pretoria, that area is, as a matter of fact, the reception point for these natives who enter illegally. The argument is used that the farmers complain that they need these foreign natives, and that if we exclude these natives there will be a greater shortage of labour on the farms. If this is so, that the farmers need these natives, then I think there is all the more need for control of that immigration. The natives come from the adjacent territories and the Minister will agree with me that we do not know what contagious diseases and what stuff they bring along with them. Immigration laws are applied over the whole world, and it is necessary that there should be proper control in respect of these natives who are coming in. There are agents just the other side of the Limpopo who are making money by bringing these natives in here. Those particular people only see to it that they get a few pounds from the natives in payment for bringing them into the Union, and then they turn them adrift in the country and do not care what happens to them subsequently. The result is that in the absence of a thorough control those natives are coming into the Union on a large scale, and they are streaming into our urban and peri-urban areas. A Peri-Urban Board has now been created to exercise a measure of control in the peri-urban areas. But what do we find now in the environs of Pretoria? They have instituted control over the Europeans in the peri-urban areas. It does not avail to have a board of control created for the European people if the natives can continue so uncontrolled. It is absolutely necessary that where we institute control for peri-urban areas the Minister should see to it that such boards may at the same time exercise control over the natives and frame proper regulations whereunder these roving natives can be controlled. Even in the military camps there is not much control over the natives. The Railway Department do not control their natives. At Capital Park there were railway works, and until a little while ago this was the great rendezvous on Sundays for beer parties. This was annoying to the European population, because on Sunday evenings the streets were so full of drunken natives that the European population could not go to church. Representations were made and the position has been improved, but those conditions continued for a long time in the centre of the town. That is why I say that it is necessary that the natives, just like the Europeans, must be properly controlled, and that some restraint should be placed on their movements, just as in the case of other sections of the community in our country. Accordingly I want to say that the Minister of Native Affairs and his department ought to co-operate with the municipalities and other bodies to combat these evils. Near Pretoria we have East Lynne and Riverside where the natives simply live amongst the Europeans. A terrible state of affairs has developed there. The police have endeavoured to combat it, hut eventually they threw up their hands in despair and said that nothing could be done. On Saturday evenings it became so bad that thousands of natives gathered there, became drunk, and terrible and disgraceful scenes were witnessed there, which one cannot mention over the floor of the House. This, in my opinion, is to a large extent the sequel to having large numbers of migratory natives in the country who have come into the Union owing to their not being any control. It is not a question of oppressing the native. The present position is a menace to the natives established there, and they must be protected. There are so many of the older natives living there who have settled there and who are decent. On my farm outside Pretoria I have respectable natives who have settled there, and it has happened that some of these vagrant natives have come there and attacked my natives, It has become a danger to the natives themselves, and how much more is it not a menace to the Europeans? A little while ago one of these vagrant natives stepped into a house just outside Pretoria and attacked a woman with a flat iron, so that she had 38 wounds in her head. The European population are terror-stricken. I repeat the European population are terror-stricken. The people feel that there is no protection for them, and yet we find that this Peri-urban Board now comes and tells us that they are going to control the European population. I know personally that the Minister of Native Affairs has for a long time made a study of our native policy and that he is endeavouring to carry out a native policy as a practical person who has grown up with the coloured people and the non-European population in our country. We know that he has done a great deal in the direction we desire to go. The constructive speech of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has helped him with the solution of this problem, but on the other hand his task is being hampered by the propaganda that is being made by persons who believe that they are representing the natives. To those persons we want to say that the time is past for gulling the native with all sorts of things, and that they should rather make a constructive contribution to assist in putting the natives on a sound basis, so that they may improve their relationship between European and non-European in the country. I want to repeat that if the Minister continues in the direction he has chosen, and if he goes much further in that direction we will make progress with the solution of this problem. If the Minister does this he will place this important part of our administration on a sound basis, so that this menacing problem of a collision between black and white in our country can be solved. Only in this way can we make the native in our country happy. Then these people can be happy and prosperous in the country, but not if the present position of lawlessness and lack of control continues. Accordingly, I urge the Minister in all seriousness to continue in this direction and to go further and to do his best to find a solution for this problem.

I shall not keep the House long. I only want to emphasise a few points. The Minister will remember that a year or so ago there was a congress of agricultural associations in Pretoria. He will also remember that there were big complaints about the thronging of natives in the neighbourhood of the Premier Mine. There had been military camps, and I suspect that much beer was being brewed that attracted the natives. There were many complaints about the position. The same position arose in the neighbourhood of Alberton. The natives simply went and put up a location there and later oh the town council was obliged to take them away in lorries, I do not know where to. This shows us what undesirable conditions are being created by these natives who are roaming the country. Another matter on which people in the Transvaal feel very strongly is the question of native squatters on farms. If the farmer wants to remove these natives his only remedy is by way of civil action. The police do not take it up because it is not a criminal charge. In other words, the farmer must summon the natives. He has to waste his time appearing in court. And in this period of shortage of petrol that puts him in a difficult position.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot discuss this matter under this Bill.

It is dealing with natives who roam around.

The hon. member may only speak about natives in urban areas who are dealt with under this Bill.

It has partly to do with the influx of natives, but I shall leave it there. I want to direct the Minister’s attention to the position in our neighbouring state, Rhodesia. The Minister of Native Affairs is not a crony of the natives or a negrophilist like the native representatives. He acts in a practical way towards the natives. Nevertheless I would like to point out to him what is happening in Rhodesia, and I think he should make a study of their methods. There are no fewer than six sorts of passes that the natives who travel around in that country have to possess. It is absolutely forbidden to those natives to establish trade unions such as is being done here. Their letters are subject to a censorship. They are opened, and in that respect we must remember that Rhodesia falls under the Dominions Office in England. That is the way in which the natives are treated when they are under the administration of England. The complaint is often made against us that we are severe towards the natives. In this connection I should like to refer to a motion made by the Mayor of Salisbury, and I think it will be interesting to the Minister to know what they consider necessary for proper control of the natives. The mayor introduced the following motion in the Town Council of Salisbury—

It is being proposed that natives should be prevented from going into those locations to make propaganda such as is being done in our country. I should also like to refer to what a Rhodesian member of Parliament said in connection with the control of natives—

We do not there get the conditions that we have in Cape Town and Johannesburg of inflammatory speeches being permitted amongst the natives. He continues—

Will you give that to me.

Yes, I shall do that. I want to give the hint that hon. members who represent the natives should interest themselves a little in the affairs of Rhodesia in connection with the natives to be able to judge whether the natives here are sympathetically dealt with by us. It will be very good if they could attend refresher courses so that they could see how the natives are treated under the Dominion system, which is in existence in Rhodesia. It will be good if our native representatives investigate what is happening there.

Mr. Speaker, as this is a Consolidating Bill I do not propose to discuss the whole of the Urban Areas Act, an Act which was discussed ad lib and ad nauseam several times since I have been Minister, during the two short years I have been Minister. I think hon. members will remember how last year, when I moved an amendment to the original Act, I was kept going for some five weeks in this House and in Another Place. If they wanted to raise the matter entirely, the question of the Urban Areas Act as such, they could have done it by means of a motion. I am not objecting at all to the discussion or the debate, but I do say that this is a Consolidating Bill, in the first instance, as the term indicates, which aims at consolidating certain Acts, and therefore I feel that this is not really the time where the whole of the Urban Areas Act should have been raised in the full debate, and this now for the fifth day. I agree with one hon. member here that a pleasing factor of the debate was the complete objectivity and the dispassionate way in which the Bill was discussed. It shows that all members on both sides of the House, whatever their feellings may be, and many of them have very strong feelings on the matter on both sides of the House and over there, have discussed the matter from the point of view of what they believe to be in the best interests of the natives as a whole; and I feel that that is a big step forward. Six or eight years ago this would not have been the case; much more heat would have been engendered. J feel that that is a very important advance in the sphere of native affairs when we can discuss matters like these in the House in a calm spirit. I was persuaded to introduce this Bill for the benefit of those people who have to administer it, officials and others who are not qualified lawyers and yet have to understand and apply an original Act and no less than six amending Acts to it. At the time I stated categorically that I did not propose to introduce any Bill which would raise the whole matter of the Urban Areas Act at this time, because quite frankly I felt that the position, for example as it is today in Cape Town, may be very different when the war is over and things are normal again, and much of the work which is being done here now, like building docks, repairing ships, working on airfields and in factories, may change. Where there is an influx into the Peninsula now there may be a movement out then, and I feel that the present is not the time to discuss the matter. But a more important feature than that is the fact that there is a tremendous amount of unsettlement amongst all sections of the population of the country, European, native and coloured, and that condition can only be made worse if we now throw this Act into the melting pot, an Act which has been on the Statute Book for years, and therefore I do feel that this is not the time to change the Urban Areas Act, as was suggested on both sides of the House, and that a commission should be appointed, something with which I shall deal later on.

†*The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) asked me last year to introduce this consolidating Bill in the interests of those who have to work with these native laws. As the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) has stated, this has been done in the interests of the people who are not lawyers and who have to deal with these Acts every day. I have made it quite clear to the House that this a consolidating Bill; and at that time I also explained to the House that it was only a consolidating measure I would introduce, and the House was content with that. I must honestly say that I was somewhat surprised when the hon. member for Moorreesburg on the third day of the debate introduced an amendment under which he virtually attacked the Bill. I am sorry but I cannot accept that amendment. I must say that if I had known I would have such a hornet’s nest about my ears I would certainly never have made the promise I gave. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) spoke about the foreign natives who are crossing our borders. Other members also mentioned that point. On the one hand it is complained that we are allowing the natives to come in and we are asked to put a stop to this and also to eject these natives. But let me say here that if we want to guard our borders to keep out those natives we shall need an army almost as big as that which is in the North. We have to guard an extended boundary to prevent those natives crossing. On the other hand, an hon. member on the other side said that if they did not get foreign natives to work on their farms they would have to discontinue their farming. On the one hand they want us to keep out the natives, and on the other hand they want us to allow the natives in. Let me say here that the natives who enter go to a reception depot at Louis Trichardt, and from there they are sent to farms to work. If they go to the towns, for instance to Johannesburg, they again go into a reception depot and they are again sent to work on the platteland. They are not allowed to work in the towns. If they are not content with working on the farms they are sent back. They do not get a pass to work in the towns. We have created those two reception depôts. The one at Louis Trichardt and the other in Johannesburg, and the object is to let the natives work on the farms. If they will not accept that work or if they run away they are sent out of the country.

†I do not propose replying to individual speeches, because many speeches were made, but as it is a consolidating measure I shall reply in general terms, though here and there I shall refer to some of the individual speeches that have been made. The debate has ranged over a very wide area. Some hon. members have discussed natives from the reserves as a source of labour supply for the farms. When I asked them where they should go to they said on the farms. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) who should know more about native affairs than I do, because he is an old official of the Native Affairs Department, made a lengthy speech about that terrible thing, government by proclamation. He criticised me, he criticised the department, he criticised officials and mentioned certain officials by name. Well, there is no question of government by proclamation in the Urban Areas Act, and it is surprising that the hon. member, in view of his experience, should have attempted to make this point.

[Inaudible.]

My hon. friend had better not say too much, because he got into that trouble too. The urban areas laws contain no power at all to legislate by proclamation, and that is the legislation I am discussing. This power is contained in the Native Land Administration Act, which is not under consideration. This all shows how far the discussion has ranged, and how impossible it would be for me to answer the points raised in each individual speech. As I say, certain matters that have been raised do not even concern the Bill before us at all. I listened with very close attention to the very important speeches that have been made. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) made her usual brilliant speech, slightly glib, perhaps, very learned, but she has this advantage over me that she has not to carry out these theories that it is so easy for her to enunciate. It is all very well for her to tell me what I should do, but I have to actually carry out these things and to see that justice is done to all sections.

You might try.

Try! Well, I know what would happen pretty soon. But I shall not take up the time of the House by following up that point. We all listened with great interest to the very important contribution to the debate made by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), which was shortly afterwards followed by a speech from the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers). I also listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming), and I hope to come to that later. And of course I will have to deal later with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), who introduced his amendment, because I may as well put him out of his misery at once and tell him I am not going to accept his amendment. I think he is very grateful that I am not doing so. On the one hand it is our endeavour by sympathetic administration to minimise hardships that result from some of the provisions of the Native Urban Areas laws, and on the other hand the Government and the local authorities have done much to improve housing conditions and to provide social amenities for the urban native population. The administration of these laws, however, I frankly admit, presents many great problems. We are very largely in a transition stage with people coming from the territories where they have been accustomed to live in the wide open spaces to a town which is a most delicate social organisation. So contact with the Europeans and employment in urban and industrial centres have created a large class of detribalised natives who have now made their home in the towns, and have developed an entirely different outlook, and one entirely divorced from that of their confreres who live in the reserves. Many of these natives, as we all know, have cut adrift from the restraints of tribal life, and have lost their traditional background and have thus no moral or religious sanctions to steady them in their new and strange surroundings. They are adrift. This type of native is growing as the demand for his labour increases, and presents one of the biggest problems we have to deal with. It is no use hedging, that is a picture we have to face. The great mass of these people who drift into the towns in search of work are illiterate. Some of those who have attended school vary in their attainments from the large number who possess only the rudiments of education to a small minority who aspire to the same education and the same intellectual level as educated Europeans. But the point is this, that if a white man or a coloured man, or even a civilised native who has been living in an urban area for a long time, finds that he cannot get a house, although he can find work, he will not stay there but will move out. On account of not having a house he will go somewhere else to find work. But that does not apply in the case of natives who come straight from the reserves, what I might call almost raw natives, who have never had contact before with large towns, who have been accustomed to live in a hut, who have been accustomed to wide open spaces, where the necessity for sanitation and other things of that sort are not so pressing as in a town where they are absolutely essential in the interests of all the people living there; and if these natives can find work they are content to live in the open in the peri-urban areas, and to make a shelter of any rough material and live there. The ordinary restrictions make it impossible for a white man to do that, and therefore there is no necessity to impose restrictions on him. In the case of the type of native I am now referring to he does live in these conditions, and therefore it is impossible to suggest that we should do away with all restrictions in his case and allow him to develop just as he likes. In those circumstances it is essential in the present stage of our development to exercise measures of control over the movement and location of natives, and whilst my department uses its endeavours to apply restrictive laws tactfully and sympathetically wherever we can, it must be appreciated that these measures must remain, because we cannot allow everybody to stream in here and to do as they like, living in peri-urban areas under the conditions such as prevail at Windermere. The Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923 was the complement of the Native Land Act of 1913 and with the amending Acts was an attempt to provide for the protection and control of natives in the towns. It is based on the principle that the town is a European area and as far as practicable separate areas must be set apart by the municipalities for the residence of their native inhabitants. Whilst a great deal has been said in condemnation of the restrictive provisions of these laws, such as the restriction of the right of the natives to enter urban areas, the section requiring registration, service contracts and curfew, the application of these other provisions has secured an enormous improvement in the conditions under which natives live in the towns. But that point is never gone into. That point is never brought before the House by the hon. members representing native interests, who are condemning the Act but who never mention the good points.

That could have been done under the Slums Act, as was done in Port Elizabeth.

It is quite a different proposition here. How can you apply the Slums Act to places like Windermere, and these peri-urban areas, when there is nothing to break down except a grass hut or a shanty? How can you apply the Slums Act to that sort of thing? That is what makes my job so difficult. Coming back to the hon. member for Transkei, he complained of the appalling conditions at Windermere. I think that is the gravamen of his charge, that there is a lack of housing and the tremendous number of people coming in have created that situation. But when I want to try to restrict that influx he says. “No, they must come in as they like.” Where am I? Is that reasonable? I do not blame him. He has these interests to look after and he has to put them before the House, but it does not alter the facts that make it so difficult to deal with this problem. You cannot in one breath tell me that the death rate is appalling at Windermere, that the conditions are dreadful, knowing full well what has created those conditions, and then in the next breath, when I want to stop these conditions, to say: “There is no need to do that; the native population has increased to 60,000, let them come in and let it go up to 120,000.” I do not think sufficient appreciation has been shown of the action of the Government in setting aside large sums of money for native housing, or of the co-operation and generosity of many of our local authorities in providing decent housing and healthy conditions for their native populations. Where you show me bad conditions I can show you very fine and very successful attempts to house the native decently and to give him proper living conditions. I can mention these efforts in Port Elizabeth and in many other places. The fact is that the influx of natives into our urban areas today is greater than the housing accommodation that is available, and quite apart from whether you expect the local authorities to provide houses for natives who cannot find employment in the urban area concerned, housing conditions cannot be sufficiently improved during these war years when we have difficulties in regard to supplies and labour. We can hardly in the circumstances expect local authorities to provide houses for labour that is surplus to the requirements of their industries. Some years before the war large sums of money were provided by the Government on a sub-economic basis for the housing of our natives, and hon. members will be aware of the plans that are being made by my colleague, the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, and they will know from the statements he has made that the Government has in hand a huge scheme for housing all sections of the community. It is not necessary for me to repeat what he said. He has told the people of South Africa what the intention of the Government is as regards housing, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into further details in regard to that. It is enough to say that the Government has done everything in its power and will continue to do so in future to provide decent housing and amenities for all sections of the community, including the natives. It is a significant fact, however, that this improvement in the conditions of the native people, together with the increase in wages in industries, has added to our problem in urban areas by increasing the influx from the rural districts. So far from solving the problem, it has merely added to our difficulties. We see that in the Cape Peninsula, where the local authorities owing to war conditions cannot cope with the influx. This state of affairs has been accentuated by the war. The phenomenal expansion of industries has increased the demand for labour, and the municipalities owing to lack of material and shortage of technical staffs have been absolutely unable to provide the housing that is required by the thousands of natives who have flocked into the towns. This sort of thing is nothing unusual. What is happening now has happened before in Great Britain and in other countries at different periods in history, when a large section of the labour population has had to find accommodation under makeshift conditions as a result of the sudden influx from the rural areas into the towns as industries developed. It was then found in Great Britain and in almost every industrial centre in Europe, that with the great volume of workers that were pouring in they had to put up with makeshift conditions.

They did not pass an Urban Areas Act.

No, that is why conditions are so dreadful, and that is why we are trying to stop some of these conditions. This is merely a phase in the industrial history of our country, and we hope it will be possible to bring about the necessary readjustments more rapidly as times return to normal. Now I come to the hon. member for Cape Western. He referred particularly to the position here in the Cape Peninsula, and he also referred to Shanty Town and other places like that on the Witwatersrand. I agree that the overcrowding and lack of accommodlation that has led to this undesirable state of affairs which we are witnessing at Windermere and elsewhere should not be permitted to continue. Everybody agreed on that. But I do suggest to the hon. member that if by waving a magic wand proper housing could be provided for every native who is now here, it would never stop the influx of natives into this area. If you give free houses to them regardless of whether there is work to be found for them or not, as soon as these houses are occupied the same conditions would arise again, only the problem would probably be bigger and even worse. That is obvious to everybody, and that is why these hon. members contradict themselves; on the one hand they argue we should have no restrictions on these natives, and on the other hand they complain about these conditions that have arisen largely on account of there being no restrictions. These conditions are largely due to the war and the impossibility of providing houses to keep pace with industrial expansion. The native population in the Cape Peninsula has increased during the war from between 16,000 and 20,000 to 60,000, and it is quite wrong to lay the blame at the door of the local authorities or the Government.

You say 60,000; should the figure not be 80,000?

No, the last figures I got show that it is only 60,000.

Eighty thousand.

The last census makes it clear that there is now only 60,000. They are leaving. I will give the figures if the hon. member wants them to show that the number is dropping. In January-February, 1944, 9,637 arrived and the departures were 3,899, which gave a surplus of 5,728. In January-February, 1945, only 6,019 came in and 3,476 left, which meant a surplus of 2,543. So that the position is improving.

†The local authorities, in collaboration with my department have prepared a comprehensive scheme for the settlement of natives in well-appointed locations, and the erection of a reception depot and also a labour bureau, so as to limit the influx of the natives to the labour requirements of the Cape Peninsula. But whilst money has been made available by the Government the scheme cannot be carried out, as I said before, owing to lack of material and other conditions created by the war. But I think I should say this, the Municipality of Cape Town has arranged for the erection of 16 3-storied hostels for unattached natives at the Langa Location. Four of these are nearing completion, and a contract has been entered into for four more. But as I mentioned when I put this Bill through the House last year—and this applies to much of the comment made from the other side of the House—many of these natives go to places like Paarl, Wellington and so on, and last year it was agreed that the Cape Town City Council would assume responsibility for the administration of the registration system throughout the Cape Peninsula. The council said the depot is planned to accommodate 2,000 natives and would cost about £130,000; this provides for a reception depot and a labour bureau. But they realise that they cannot do anything for four or five years. This present condition cannot be allowed to go on as it is. What I am mentioning now is merely to show that though it has nothing to do with my department once it has been handed over to the local authority, we do work in the closest co-operation with the local authority, and up to now they have played ball with us. When they told us they would not be able to finish the reception depot for five years, we made enquiries and we found out on the same day that the Military Surplus Stores Disposal Board had a number of McCarthy huts, and we got in touch with the quartermaster General to stop them being sold to anybody else until they had been offered to the City Council. The cost would have been £8,000 to dismantle and bring them down here, and the City Council felt they would not be justified in spending a sum of £8,000 on a temporary measure when they had a big scheme involving £175,000. They said that the ratepayers would object. My department the same day went to see the Housing Board and we got a sub-economic loan, in respect of which the Government pays two-thirds, and we got in touch with the Disposal Board and got the huts allotted to them. They are now going forward with this temporary reception depot, and they are getting down to the job at once. One hon. member on the other side of the House, I think it was the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) raised an important point. He asked what we were going to do if we got these natives into the area and there was no work for them. We will try to place these natives, and those that are surplus to our requirements we will try to place in the South-Western Districts on farms, etc. If they absolutely refuse to accept the work, they will be sent back to the place from where they came.

But it is only by a registration system you can do that.

But on the Witwatersrand where the number of native labourers employed in secondary industries has increased by 18,000 in 12 months we have had the phenomenon of Shanty Towns arising at Johannesburg and Alberton. At Johannesburg the housing programme has, owing to the shortage of material and staff, not kept pace with the increase in the numbers of these people coming in, people for whom there actually is work in Johannesburg. The result is that many thousands of families are living as lodgers in the location at Orlando, and they have spread themselves out in peri-urban areas under undesirable conditions outside the municipal boundaries. One morning some 3,000 families moved from Orlando to an adjacent piece of municipal ground and set up Shanty Town there. They took up their abode in shacks of hessian and other flimsy material. It was all well organised and it happened in a very short period. I went through Shanty Town personally. There had been agitators at work who had influenced these people. I spoke to a large number of them and in every single case they told me that they had had a roof over their heads in Orlando, but they were promised by agitators that they would all have houses, so they left conditions where they at least had a roof over their heads. In this case I believe it was a native on a white horse who was responsible; he collected a half-crown from all the inmates, and even when the people of Johannesburg went out and tried to establish a soup kitchen they would not allow them to distribute the soup. The Johannesburg Municipality has acted sympathetically towards these people and is providing temporary accommodation in the immediate neighbour-bourhood as fast as they can. The undesirable conditions which hon. members and the Press have drawn attention to have been aggravated by present war conditions and other circumstances over which we have no control. The hon. member for Cape Western also stated that Section 4 (bis) of the Act prohibits natives from buying or leasing land, and thus prevents them from trading or investing their savings.

Cannot you do something about the agitators?

That native was brought before the courts and he got off. Well, the hon. member for Cape Western has overlooked one important point; he has forgotten that Section 4 (bis.) does not apply to areas set aside under Section 5 (2) (h) of the Act, and this very thing the hon. gentleman has referred to. The same hon. member argued that the law unduly restricts movement and place of residence in the urban areas. But the state of affairs in the Cape Peninsula where restrictive provisions have not been applied illustrates the necessity for control measures; the very fact that there is no restriction here because a native has not to carry a pass shows what happens when there is no control. The question of extending labour bureaux to all large centres is under consideration, and I agree with the hon. member that this is a necessary development, not only in the interests of the native but also in the interests of the European community. But whatever steps we take, the mere provision of more and more housing, as the native population increases, will not provide a solution for our existing condition. The amount of housing which the local authority or the Government is required to provide must surely bear some relation to the labour needs of the urban area concerned. You cannot expect the local authority to build houses ad lib regardless of the requirements of industry for labour. The hon. member for Transkei said that even if the native knew he could not get a house here he would still come down, so you must have some form of restriction. I do wish hon. members would see that, and that they would not tell the natives that they are imposing these restrictive conditions on them merely because they are natives. In the light of what happened in recent years, it is essential to restrict the influx of natives to the reasonable requirements of the towns. To follow any other course would serve only to perpetuate conditions that have arisen during the war and lead to a state of chaos that no responsible Government can contemplate.

There is chaos now.

Yes, but the hon. member wants to make chaos more chaotic. Here I am struggling to try to prevent a condition of affairs that has arisen quite suddenly. All these years there have been only 16,000 natives here, and today we have 60,000. I have to cope with new and difficult conditions, and when I try to do so the hon. member tries to strike at the only means we have for coping with the difficulty. It would be a good thing if hon. members spent their time diming the recess telling the natives not to come down, that there is no work for them. Leading members of the Opposition have said that they recognise that the Urban Areas laws are not satisfactory. I must say it is paradoxical to find that as in the case of the hon. member for Pietersburg they are largely supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Western for the appointment of a commission. This is quite a new set up. They have however laid stress on the influx of natives to the towns, and the difficulties in the way of control. They have given their support to the request for a convention or a commission to investigate the position. I have given this request very careful consideration, but I do not think that it would be correct in these days, while times are still abnormal, to appoint a commission of this description. Owing to the war, a state of affairs has arisen which may alter very considerably when peace comes. It is possible that then we may only need 30,000 natives here in the Cape. It would be impossible for any commission to avoid being influenced in their findings by conditions existing now and which may be temporary in character. If after you have made all arrangements on a basis that you think proper, the commission makes a report and they consider 60,000 natives is the right number to arrange for, and conditions change, if there is a big drop in the demand for labour owing to curtailment of activities at the docks or in industrial development not going ahead as fast as was expected, you may only require arrangements on a scale the third of the size recommended in the report, and the report is going to be out of date. Surely it is not the time now to suggest that the whole thing should be taken into consideration when we know that conditions are in a state of flux and abnormal, and that nothing can be settled or adjudged on their merits as they are today, knowing that the position is going to change entirely after the war. Such a commission could not fail to be influenced by the conditions that are apparent here now. There is also the fact that the legislation of 1936 and 1937 formed the subject of an exhaustive enquiry dating back to the appointment of the Beaumont Commission in 1916, and as I pointed out in dealing with another matter before this House (I think it was on a motion by the hon. member for Cape Eastern), the policy that has been agreed to by all sections of this House has not been given a fair trial.

The Prime Minister said that times have changed and policies will have to change.

That is where the hon. member can give a little twist to what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has said. He will tell her that was not the position he was looking at. I suggest that the hon. member herself asks the Prime Minister.

What was he looking at?

It was a question of the Urban Areas Act as opposed to the original 1936-’37 legislation. But I am not going into the whole subject of the past history of this matter. If the hon. member cannot understand the Prime Minister, who always expresses himself so lucidly, I do not think it is necessary for me to try to deal with the point. The point is that I am certain that such a commission would not satisfy any side of the House. A commission as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Western, and such a commission as suggested here by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) when he said he was almost inclined to support the hon. member for Cape Western would be diametrically opposed to each other. I am certain the hon. member for Cape Western hopes that this commission will be so comprised that it will do away with the Urban Areas Act, and the hon. member for Pietersburg would like to see more stringent control. The Opposition feels that there is not sufficient control of the movement of natives. I do suggest that it is only going to cause much more friction and uncertainty and unsettlement amongst the people as a whole to come and suggest that the whole of the Urban Areas Act may be done away with or, on the other hand to suggest that the restrictions should be much more severe. Therefore I do not think the time has arrived to do it now. As I said before, this legislation was put through in 1936-’37 and all our schemes for the housing of people and the rehabilitation of reserves were interrupted by the war in 1939, and so there has been a gap of six years in which we have not been able to give effect to the policy underlying the law. Four or five years have intervened since the outbreak of the war and we have only had four or five years to put this legislation to the test. I do not feel in view of the fact that this legislation was considered by a Select Committee for nine years, and that it was passed by both Houses of Parliament, that it should be scrapped now. In any event the passing of this Consolidating Bill can have no influence on the situation whatsoever. This is a Consolidating Bill. It can have no effect on the situation one way or the other, so why not let my Bill go through so that hon. members will be able to understand the Bill when it is put in a much more simplified form. As I have already said, I introduced this Bill in response to urgent requests from both Houses of Parliament and from large numbers of municipalities who had difficulty in following the various laws affecting their administration of native affairs, and if I had known that I was putting my head into this beehive, I should not have taken this step. I shall be very much more careful in the future before making a promise of that kind. I regret in the circumstances, therefore, that I am unable to accept the hon. gentleman’s amendment.

With leave of the House, the amendment proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus was withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Molteno put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

When this debate was adjourned I had just started to say that I was surprised that a man with the family history and the social life which the hon. Minister has before him should come to Parliament with a Bill of this kind. I appreciate, of course, that we are living in abnormal times, but one would have expected the Minister of the Interior to retain his sense of balance, and not only to retain his sense of balance but do the best he can to obviate the passing of laws which cannot be described as anything but abnormal. In the meantime the hon. Minister has spoken to me about the matter, and it would appear that he shares my views, namely that there can be no stability in the nation unless you have a stable married life, and it is necessary in the circumstances that this matter should be fully enquired into. I believe it is felt in some circles in the country that there can be marriage by proxy, that that is the law of the country taken over from Holland. I understand there are other lawyers who do not agree with that. Speaking for myself, I do not agree with it either, and I do not think the draftsman of this Bill thought that that was the law of the country, otherwise he would not have drafted this Bill in this particular form. If you look at the Bill, you will see that it creates another form of marriage. It does not say that because there is such a method of getting married and in order to obviate this method from being adopted in the country and for other reasons, the consent of the Minister must be obtained. In the first clause that mode of marriage is created. As far as I am concerned and as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we will do everything in our power to place married life on a firm basis so that it will lead to the stability of the nation. We have only got to look at the existing conditions, people get married one week and the next week they divorce, and a couple of weeks later, they get married again. This sort of business should stop, because it certainly does not lead to stability in family life. There is something more than just the form of marriage. Marriage is not like an ordinary agreement. I know there are people who think it is merely an agreement to cohabitate. Marriage means more than that. Even this Bill speaks about solemnising the marriage. There is something more about marriage than entering into an agreement to live together. I think that every member in this House will agree with me that we ought to do whatever we can not only to make marriages happy but to induce people once they have decided to marry, to live together and to maintain their family life. There is an Afrikaans maxim which says that “Trou is nie perde koop nie”. In other words, marriage is not like buying a horse.

You know the Magyars make a declaration in public, and very few of their marriages are dissolved.

In Russia they get married without any ceremony. The husband and wife merely take each other and if they decide to leave each other tomorrow they simply go to some officer or other and make a declaration and they divorce.

That was twenty years ago.

The position was changed some years ago. Even in Russia they are beginning to appreciate that this looseness in married life should not be allowed.

Does not the looseness lie in the association of the man and the woman? It does not matter whether they are married or not.

We know what the laws of divorce are today. Many divorces which take place today are not in terms of the law. In terms of the law you cannot just leave your wife and go to court and get a divorce, and yet that is taking place today. You get divorces by agreement.

My point is that the marriage does not prevent that.

You may think otherwise, but my view is that a formal marriage, provided the people love each other, is more binding. Today the position is that young men come down from the front; they meet a young girl; they fall in love with each other and they marry. In a couple of years’ time they come back on leave again; they meet some other girl, fall in love with her and then they want a divorce. I do not know how we are going to make the marriage more stable if we make it easier for the parties to get married. One set of lawyers feels that this is the law of the country; I say it is not, and I think the draftsman of the law too is of the opinion that it is not the law of the country, because that is why he drafted the Bill in this particular form. I take it the Minister with his family history behind him will not lightly consent to any action which may lead to more divorces, but the position is that someone else may be in his place tomorrow, someone holding extremists’ views. I want to be as tactful about this matter as I can. I do not want to do things that will put the Minister’s back up. But I submit that if a girl living in South Africa wishes to marry a soldier who is in England, he can come here on a month’s leave. If he cannot come down, they ought to wait, and perhaps that will be better for both parties. As far as legitimacy is concerned, our laws are not the same as the British laws. In our law, even if a child is born illegitimate and the parents subsequently marry, the child becomes a legitimate child. In the English law the rule is “Once a bastard always a bastard.” I think we are going to look for trouble in passing this Bill without sending it to a Select Committee. By passing legislation of this sort we are going to create a dangerous precedent. In the old days when a brother-in-law wanted to marry another sister in the family, he could not do so. They specially passed an Act to allow him to do so. I do not say that the Act itself was wrong, but the method behind it was wrong. I think in this case we should have some definite enquiry, and I am prepared to say after the discussions I have had with members on both sides of the House that they do not feel happy about this Bill. They feel that we ought to submit it to a Select Committee and they feel that if at all possible we should stop this method of getting married. I could try to be funny and say all sorts of things about this Bill, but I am in earnest. I do not want anything to be done now which may be regarded as a precedent in the future. I believe there is one case where people have married by proxy and they now ask that that marriage be legalised. Ordinarily, I would say that it would be better for people to get married as they ought to get married. But if these people were really under the impression that they were legally married, I have no objection to the second clause. That is what I feel about the matter. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, and I think it will eliminate a great deal of discussion if the Minister will adopt the amendment which I intend to move. I think it ought to save a lot of discussion and we ought then to be able to dispose of the Bill in a short space of time. I move as a further amendment—

I think that is the most tactful way to do it. It will give everyone an opportunity to state his views. I do no think a lengthy session of the Select Committee will be necessary.

I was wondering whether you could take evidence.

I do not think that is necessary. If the Minister accepts this amendment there will not be very much more discussion on this Bill.

I second the further amendment.

I just want to say in reply to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that I have no objection to accepting the amendment that he moved in connection with this matter. As he rightly explained, I am as keen as anyone to see that the sanctity of married life is maintained. But this Bill was introduced for two purposes, firstly, to put a stop to a form of marriage which is regarded as the law of the land today, whereby people can get married by proxy, and the other was to allow, as a result of requests made, a certain number of marriages by proxy subject to the prior consent of the Minister of the Interior being obtained. As the hon. member correctly said, we discussed this matter and I am confident that the select committee will be able to bring in a Bill that will meet with the approval of all members of the House, and I think that is the best way to settle the matter.

I understood the hon. Minister to say in introducing his second reading that no marriage of this kind had taken place for one hundred years, but that one had taken place recently. If I understand the legal aspect correctly, the law of desuetude comes into the picture. Even if it was the law of the land a hundred years ago, the mere fact that it has been in disuse for a hundred years, practically makes it illegal. Whether that is so or not I leave to my legal friends to decide. But it seems to me that this Bill has been introduced for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to legalise a certain marriage which took place by proxy on a certain date. I understand one of the contracting parties is coming to South Africa, so an easy way out of the difficulty would be to get the parties to have the marriage solemnised afresh, when the other party arrives in the Union, and I see no necessity whatever for a Bill of this kind to legalise one marriage. But apart from that factor, I feel that some cognisance should be taken of our definition of a private Bill. The definition of a private Bill is this: “Every Bill for a particular interest or benefit of any person or persons as distinct from a measure of public policy shall be treated by this House as a private Bill.” I presume, of course, that the examiners have passed this as a Bill dealing with a matter of public policy, but it is very hard to convince members that a Bill specially introduced for the purpose of regularising one marriage, is not in the interests of a person or persons, and not a matter of public policy. That is, of course, out of my hands. I simply draw attention to it. But there is an aspect in the Bill which I think has not been touched upon, and that is that if marriage by proxy, even with the consent of the Minister, becomes the law of the land, then there is nothing to prevent innumerable applications to the Minister from our Indian population. Many people may say that this is a bugbear as far as I am concerned, that I am obsessed with the Indian problem. I do not look forward with any degree of confidence to such applications being made and possibly granted. I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that the Bill be sent to a select committee. There is an article in a small paper which I have just received, entitled “Hitler Responsible”. It is an Indian paper and here it is stated—

I do not know whether the word “consummated” has been used in the wrong sense, but it seems to me that if this form of marriage in the sense claimed in this Bill becomes the law of the land, we are going to have quite a number of applications to the Minister for permits to marry by proxy, and I think that is a thing which we must discourage in every possible way.

With leave of the House, the amendment proposed by Mr. Sauer was withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

In moving the second reading of this Bill I would remind hon. members that in 1943 my predecessor had to introduce a similar Bill, and there has been no biennial registration due to the fact that the Department could not possibly get the staff, and there was a paper shortage and petrol restrictions and tyre restrictions preventing it taking place. These difficulties occurred in 1943. The position in 1945 is considerably worse than it was in 1943. I realised and recognised the impossibility of registration and I would point out that since the last general registration in 1941 there have been no less than nine supplementary periods of registration up to September of 1944, and there will be a further three this year and next year. The Department is completing the Voters’ Roll from the 1941 roll plus the lists of supplementary registrations. Mr. Speaker, I introduced and sent to a Select Committee the amended Bill dealing with the Electoral Law, and in that Bill one of the main provisions is the continued registration of voters. Next year we are having a census taken in terms of the law for the purpose of the delimitation, and at that census it is intended to complete that Voters’ Roll, and although T am asking that it be suspended it is hoped that in May, 1946, we are to have a complete Voters’ Roll for every constituency in the Union and that the Voters’ Roll will always be kept up to date, because registration will be continuous. That is the reason why we are asking for it. As I say, the real crux of the matter is that this year we are unable to undertake this work, but I feel confident, and so does the Department, that the work in connection with the census will take place and that we will be able to have a Voters’ Roll more complete than has ever been in existence.

I regret that the hon. Minister of the Interior has introduced this measure so near the time when the usual biennial registration should take place if this measure were not to become law. One feels disappointed that the Minister should find it necessary to postpone this biennial registration which should have taken place in April. As he said, the biennial registration has already been postponed since 1941. The excuse offered is that the necessary paper and personnel are not available. I cannot understand how the Department of the Interior can allow the registers to get into the state they are in now, and can still maintain that we are acting righteously towards the voters in the country. Never before have the registers been in the state they are in today. The last biennial registration took place in 1941. Since then we have had supplementary registrations. The biennial registration is compulsory. The supplementary registrations are not. And what is the result? Nobody pays any heed to the supplementary registrations. According to the law the biennial registration is compulsory, and a person is liable to punishment if he fails to register. He is not liable to be punished if at a supplementary registration he does not register, with the result that the country since 1941 has not taken much notice of the registrations. Nobody puts themselves out to register. The result is that the position which now obtains is almost untenable. We have the 1941 registers, and since then there have been 9, 10 or 11 supplementary registrations — and one of these days there will have been 14 or 15— which all represent additions and amplifications to the 1941 register. Has the Minister ever gone to the trouble of looking at one of the 1941 registers, particularly that of a constituency where people are always on the move? Has the Minister ever looked at a Voters’ Roll in one of the urban areas in Johannesburg or in Cape Town, say, for instance, Sea Point? He will find that there is hardly a name on the Voters’ Roll which has not been crossed out. There is but a small percentage of the people who lived in that particular constituency in 1941 who are still there. The book which we have is one mass of deletions, and then we have a whole series of additions and supplements. Our Voters’ Roll have never been in the state of confusion in which they are at present. At the moment a Select Committee is sitting in connection with the Bill which will enforce continuous registration as from the 20th May, 1946. That register cannot be completed before the end of 1946. It cannot come into operation before January, 1947. Only in January, 1947, will we have complete registration in our country. Until that time arrives, we have to be content with the 1941 Voters’ Roll, plus all the supplementary reigstrations which by that time will number 14 or 15. We consider this an untenable position. I do not know whether the Government is of intention to hold an election before that time. But supposing a General Election should take place before January, 1947, what confusion will not then exist? Shortly a by-election must take place in Kimberley (District), and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity of telling us when the election in Kimberley (District) will be held. I have only risen to protest against this measure because I cannot fathom why the Minister wants to postpone the interim registration which should have taken place in April, within a few days. His first reason is that there is a shortage of paper. One has only to look round this House and throughout the country to see the purposes for which paper is available, and that is why I cannot fathom how the Minister of the Interior can tell us that the department has not the necessary paper at its disposal to allow of the biennial registration taking place. That argument is simply without substance. Then we come to the question of personnel. In my opinion it is unnecessary to have a very large number of officials for the biennial registration, particularly if it is remembered that the biennial registration is compulsory. If the Minister does not enforce the law, then a larger number of officials may be needed. I do not suggest that the Minister should prosecute people, but my difficulty with the Government is that it makes laws and then fails to administer those laws. The biennial registration is compulsory, and anyone who fails to register can be fined £1 or more. But it has gone no further than the law. The Government has all this time had the power to act under this law, and nothing has been done. I do not say that the Government should prosecute people, but I mention it only to indicate that the Government fails to enforce its own laws. Not one single man or woman has been prosecuted for failing to register at the biennial registration. It seems to me that the two reasons which the Minister has advanced for the postponement of the biennial registration are simply without substance. The Government is aware that the new registers will only be available in January, 1947. That is still a long way ahead, and in the meantime we have to make do with supplementary registrations. There is no compulsion to register at a supplementary registration, and we know how they are carried out. The Minister leaves the task to the party organisations. Whichever party is the wealthiest has the best chances of registering voters. We find also that in the towns the Minister entrusts the work to officials, and whatever is left undone by them is entrusted to the party organisations. On the platteland this is not done. The people in the towns have not complained for the Government ensures that there are canvassers in the towns to carry out this work. But on the platteland people are not sent round and it is left to the party organisers to do the work. In the towns the Government has the work done at its own expense, but on the platteland there is no registration. In the towns canvassers are appointed to register voters, but this is not done on the platteland.

This is a negligence towards the platteland.

But nevertheless it is so. I put a question to the Minister, namely how many people were appointed permanently or temporarily in 1944 and 1945 in the service of the State to go around from place to place in connection with the registration of voters. He replied that 13 had been appointed at Government expense. I also asked in which areas they had been appointed, and the Ministser replied: Pretoria, Johannesburg. Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London. It is only in the urban areas, and in no single other area have such people been appointed. I do not wish to create any misunderstanding in this matter, and therefore I will read out this further question which I put to the Minister: “In which places or areas have they functioned up to now?” And he gave the answer which I have mentioned here. It is therefore evident that the Government has only appointed canvassers in the towns to do the work at Government expense, but this has not been done on the platteland. What I really want to point out is that the Minister owes an explanation to the country—a very good explanation—as to how he came to decide in the years 1944 and 1945 to appoint people in the towns only at Government cost and not a single one on the platteland. Therefore the towns have not the expense of a supplementary registration. If we had had the usual bienniel registration as in the past, then the platteland would also have had the chance of people being sent round by the Government to ensure that everyone is registered. If things had been done as they were up to 1941, then the platteland would have been in the same position as the towns. That is not the case now. The police have been refused this task. Nobody is sent round on behalf of the State to see to the regstration of voters. The platteland registration is left to the party organisers and the public, must, at its own expense, ensure that voters become registered. But in the towns canvassers are appointed at Government expense. That is all I want to say. I want to protest against the postponement of the biennial registration, because we know that the completed registers will only be available in January, 1947, and because we have to make do with registers in which a large number of the names have been deleted, and we have to use 14 or 15 supplementary registers. At the by-election at Wakkerstroom the Voters’ Rolls were in a state of confusion. People came to the ballot box and then found out that their names had been crossed off the register. They had been quite rightly deleted but they had not been informed, for their names still appeared on the registers they had in their possession. On the registers which were at the disposal of the public the names had not been crossed out, but this had only been done on the registers which were sent out by the Department; with the result that these people went to the ballot boxes and only then found out that their names were no longer on the register. I repeat that our Voters’ Rolls have never before been in such a state of confusion as they are now under the present Minister, and that is why I am protesting against the fact that we are only having a supplementary registration this year and not the biennial registration, for we must wait to January, 1947, before we will have a complete register.

I have listened to the Minister’s argument as to why he deems it necessary to postpone the biennial registration. His first argument is that it was done in 1943, and because it was done in 1943, it must be done again in 1945. I think that the argument is just the other way around. The fact that it was done in 1943, namely that then we did not have a biennial registration only strengthens the argument that the biennial registration should not again be postponed in 1945. I cannot fathom why the Minister is using this argument. Owing to the fact that the biennial registration was postponed in 1943, it is self-evident that since 1943 the voters’ registers have become very confused and are not a true reflection of the voters who ought to be on the register. As the supplementary registration was postponed in 1943, that is precisely the argument why it should not be done again in 1945. Then we come to the Minister’s second argument. He says that there will not be sufficient personnel and paper available to allow of the biennial registration taking place. Have we then to accept that sufficient personnel and paper cannot be found for the proper execution of the principles of the Electoral Act in South Africa? Is this the country where we are always shouting at the top of our voices that we are a democratic people, that we must exercise our voting rights because we are governed on democratic principles? Today we heard of the democratic foundation on which our Government stands, and the echo of those voices had hardly died away when the Minister of the Interior advanced the argument that the Electoral Act of the country could not be properly executed owing to the shortage of paper and personnel to see that the registration is carried out effectively. No, I think that after using these two arguments, the Minister should rise once again and see whether he cannot find another argument. But. I want to point out that, rightly or wrongly, by way of legislation we have accepted the principle of compulsory registration. The principle of compulsory registration is in our Statute Book. This postponement of the biennial registration which should have taken place in 1943 and which should take place again in 1945 is in conflict with the principles of compulsory registration, and completely frustrates that law in our Statute Book. It simply makes a farce of that law. I agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that it is necessary in the interests of this House and in the interests of the country that we afford the opportunity to every burgher who is entitled to vote to exercise this right the moment he is called upon to do so. It is the foundation of our right to vote, and I might tell the Minister that the Bill to amend the Electoral Act which is now before the Select Committee embraces the principles of continual registration. The purpose thereof is to make provision for the proper registration of all voters and to see that all the machinery is in working order so as to ensure that the public are in a position to be properly registered; and while we have in view such an improvement to our machinery, why does the Minister come along with this measure to place out of action the existing machinery of our registration and the regulations for compulsory registration? Why does he come along with this now? It is completely in conflict with the spirit which is aimed at in the framing of the Bill to amend the Electoral Act. It is quite out of place, while we are busy with this Bill to amend the Electoral Act, and while it is alleged that we are desirous of creating a position in South Africa which will afford every person in equal measure the opportunity of registering his vote, that the Minister should introduce this measure. I want to express my disappointment at the disclosure which the hon. member for Moorreesburg was forced to make, namely that discrimination takes place, in connection with the registration of voters, between the different sections of the community, that whereas special officials are appointed in the urban areas to pay particular attention to registration, the platteland does not enjoy that privilege. It is a very serious accusation which the hon. member has made against the Minister, and I think that the Minister owes an explanation to this House and to the country. I just want to say that if there is one thing against which we seriously protest it is that so often experiments are made by Ministers in connection with the right to vote in the country and with the voting public of the Union of South Africa. The voting public are often subjected to experiments on the part of the Government. It is not something which a government ought to experiment on. We have already had various cases in recent years when Ministers have busied themselves experimenting with the voting right of the population, and the time has arrived when those experiments should cease and when we should be penned down to steadfast principles, so that everyone who is entitled to vote will be afforded the opportunity of exercising this right on the day he is called upon to do so. There is nothing which causes more confusion at an election than if one has to work with Voters’ Rolls on which a large proportion of the names have been deleted and the rest are to be found on supplementary rolls and additions. People arrive at the ballot box under the impression that they are still entitled to vote for they have seen their names on the supplements. They find out there that they are no longer entitled to vote, and their disappointment is very great. It is a tremendous disappointment for a voter when he wants to go and register his vote only to find that he is no longer on the register. For that reason I want to associate myself with the protest which was made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg against the postponement of this registration by the Minister. It will still be a long time before we have effective and controlled registration throughout the country. It will not be before 1947, and in the meanwhile we cannot allow matters to develop into such confusion. Citizens who after 1947 will exercise their right to vote, have really no more right to proper control and the exercising of their right to vote than the voters who before that time were so entitled.

There are just a few points I would like to touch upon. In the first place I want to express my astonishment at what was disclosed here this afternoon by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), namely that in certain areas people are being registered at Government expense, particularly in the urban areas, while this is not being done on the platteland. I would almost go so far as to say that I really do not think that the Minister’s answer can be correct. There must be a mistake, for I cannot imagine a Minister appointing officials at Government expense to register the public in an area where he knows his party is the strongest, whereas in other parts of the country he fails to do the same. I should say that this borders as closely on corruption as ever anything could. The hon. member on the other side is amused about it. He is laughing because he knows it to be the truth, and because he knows that that registration is taking place at Government expense in the towns where his party is the strongest. He would not be laughing if it was the other way about. This shows the mentality of those people. I have risen, however to discuss other matters. I corroborate what was said by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, namely that the Voters’ Roll have never before been in such a state of confusion as they are today under the present Minister. I think it is a disgrace. It is disgraceful that people can say that they are fighting for democracy and at the same time allow the Voters’ Rolls of people who have to exercise their voting right in the country to land in such confusion. In my constituency there were 20 or 30 people registered in two constituencies. Have you ever heard of a bigger muddle than this? I know of people who arranged things so. It happened in the Speaker’s constituency. He did not arrange matters so. An Opposition candidate was the culprit. The man did this because the Nationalist Party needed the votes. He wanted to vote where he thought his vote would count most. Fortunately it made no difference. But can you see the sort of corruption which is made possible if 20 or 30 voters of a party can vote in two constituencies? I do not believe that the Minister is desirous that such things should take place, for it can make a difference. However, it boils down to the fact that a person is perhaps domiciled in Bethlehem and he can vote in Queenstown or Edenburg. Then he can choose where he wants to vote. One cannot imagine that a government wants to permit such things to happen. It can now be said that people can vote by post and then such things can be prevented. But the man can vote by post and then perhaps take his car and also go and vote in the other constituency.

And there are people who have also voted twice by post.

Yes, that is so. I cannot believe that the Minister can know of these things for otherwise he would not allow the Voters’ Rolls to get into such a muddle. Let us for once get away from the war argument. We cannot get away from the war itself, but let us put aside the war argument and reach normality and let matters take their normal course. The war is running to a finish, and let us now put our Voters’ Rolls in proper order as they were before the war.

I would also like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and to protest very strongly against the step which the Minister of the Interior has now taken in connection with the registration of voters. It is surely the whole purpose and intent of the Electoral Act that as far as possible the names of those citizens entitled to vote should appear on the register. Therefore everything possible should be done on the part of the State to get everything in working order in order to achieve this goal. What, however, have we encountered in the past, and particularly with this proposed Bill? That it is nothing else than a violation of the purpose and intent Of the Electoral Act. It is not fair towards the country. I have only to take the case of Wakkerstroom where it was proved without doubt how matters are managed and in what a muddle they are. Between 400 and 500 people were not on the Voters’ Rolls. The number was perhaps higher. This is more or less the position in the country as a whole. The argument is advanced that there are not sufficient officials. I am not prepared to accept this excuse from the Minister. I have only to look at the numbers of people in the military camps who could perhaps be effectively used for the purpose. There are a number of cases where officials have been appointed in the towns, but I would also like to make a disclosure and that is that you also encounter the phenomenon in the towns that officials are used in constituencies where they are really rendering good service in the interest of the Minister’s party. Discrimination actually takes place. We have already had it in Pretoria. They are used in constituencies where they can render good service in the interests of the Government and the parties are not all treated alike.

Party propaganda at Government expense.

If it is really the Minister’s intention to exercise the laws, then he has no right to postpone this biennial registration. Then he should rather create the necessary machinery to carry out the law. In the past the electoral legislation has already been violated to a large extent, and now the Minister comes along with this Bill to violate it further. It is not fair towards the voting public in the country. The excuse is offered that there is now a scheme for compulsory registration, but there again the Government has purposely made a dead letter of this portion of the Electoral Act. If the Government is really in earnest in ensuring that the electoral laws are carried out, namely that as high a percentage as possible of the voting public are afforded the opportunity of voting, then the Government cannot introduce this sort of legislation in this House, but instead should make every attempt to ensure that the people are placed on the Voters’ Rolls. I do not want to discuss the matter any further, but would like to register strong protest, because the whole purpose of the Electoral Law is being destroyed and undermined.

I would also like to associate myself with what was said by other hon. members, and as one who represents a platteland constituency, I want to register a strong protest against the Minister’s intention. The platteland is again being neglected. I was astonished to learn from the hon. member for Moorreesburg that people are being appointed at Government expense to register the names of people in the towns, while this is not done on the platteland. The platteland is already in many respects neglected. It is often very difficult for anybody to get to a place where he can register himself. Now the Minister is going still further in giving preference to the towns over the platteland. I cannot understand it. I am almost inclined to believe that there must be a mistake somewhere. But the argument which the Minister is using as to why a registration cannot take place now, also does not hold water. We know there is a war on and officials are scarce and there is a scarcity of paper and petrol. But supposing, for instance, that the war lasts another year or two, will the Minister again after two years offer the same excuse that owing to the scarcity of paper and petrol, registration cannot be carried out? If the general registration is further delayed by the Minister, then in 1948, when a General Election must take place, we will have to go by the old registers which are already in such a sorry state. Now already there are many people whose names do not appear on the registers, and on the other hand there are many people who are registered in two places. I also want to appeal to the Minister to waive this Bill and to let the general registration take place in October, for otherwise we are going to have great confusion on the platteland, and we shall possibly have to use the old registers for the General Election in 1948.

I feel I would neglect my duty if I did not express strong disapproval at the attitude of the Minister who is now busy postponing the registration. The hon. member for Moorreesburg disclosed here that the Minister is now appointing officials to canvass in the towns. I would like to say to the hon. member that if the work on the platteland were done just as it is in the towns, then it is perhaps just as well that they do not canvass on the platteland. I am sorry to have to say it, but things are not as they should be. I have not come across any officials in my constituency, but Nationalists have come to me and said that a canvasser had visited them to register their names, but up to now their names have not yet been recorded on the register. I must honestly say that I do not trust the Minister’s system. I do not believe in it. I would like the Minister to tell me how the officials are appointed, on whose advice they are appointed? I think that the proposal the Minister is making is a very unfair and unjust one. It is costing a lot of money and we do not know where we stand. Even in the towns the Voters’ Rolls are in a terrible state of chaos. If tomorrow or the day after a General Election had to take place, then I don’t know what the position would be in many constituencies. You have the position, for instance, that husband and wife are registered in a constituency. Then you get a number of omissions further down on the Voters’ Roll. Only the numbers are given, and you find the greatest muddle there. Some people are simply taken off, and they do not know why they are no longer on the register. The position is critical. We cannot go on in this manner. The vote is the only weapon we have in South Africa, and the Minister must see to it that every person in the country is registered on the Voters’ Roll. Now we have the principal roll of 1941, but there have already been nine supplementary registrations since then. Each supplementary register is again worked in with another, and so from time to time you have one official register which consists of a large number of other official registers. It is an impossible position, and we cannot go on like this any longer.

At 6.40 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 28th March.