I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker, The Electoral Laws Amendment Bill [A.B. 49—’45] submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time.

Second reading on 30th April.

Mr. CLARK as Chairman, brought up the Second Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill and moved—

I second.

Agreed to.

I would like to object to the brewing of Kaffir Beer in the reserve, for the following reasons ….

Order, order! The hon. member cannot do that. It would entail alteration of existing legislation, and consequently the hon. member cannot move nor discuss it.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments made by the Select Committee.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 4, 6, 7 8, 9, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 39 and in the Schedule put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 26th April.

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule, and I want to direct the attention of the Minister to a subject to which we have drawn his attention in previous years. But it has now become such an urgent matter that we will be forgiven if we draw the attention of the House to it again. I refer to our film industry. If there is one matter to which the Government should devote its attention, it is the film industry. In peace time it is the world’s greatest industry. It is even bigger than the motor industry. In South Africa, as in other countries, it has assumed such proportions that one is surprised to find that the Government of any country displays such indifference towards this great industry as our Government does in respect of the film industry. What is the position? When the Nationalist Party Government was in power, they realised the seriousness of this matter by appointing a Board of Censors. That was done in 1931-’32. The Nationalist Party Government then came to an end. I do not doubt for a moment that if the Nationalist Party Government, which realised the seriousness of the matter at that time, and took steps accordingly, had remained in power, it would have taken practical steps to tackle the big question. The subsequent governments did not do it. I want to say at once that the present Minister is sympathetic. His predecessor appointed a commission, the Cilliers Commission, which drew up a comprehensive report. ’ I do not agree with the recommendations which the commission made. I think there are few people in this country who would agree with those recommendations, but it is worth while examining the facts which they collected. I say that the present Minister is sympathetic because after the report of the Cilliers Commission was received, he appointed a departmental committee to go into the matter. I hope the Minister will avail himself of this opportunity to acquaint the House with any further information he received in respect of the film industry as a result of the report of the departmental committee. The question I want to put to the Minister is this: Why are you taking such a long time? If you have the recommendations of the Cilliers Commission as well as the findings of the departmental committee, why do you refuse to act? The Minister is sympathetic. I know he is. Or are there certain powers in South Africa perhaps which are too strong and which do not want the Government to act. If this matter is further delayed, we on this side must be forgiven if we gain the impression that there are certain powers in South Africa which are so strong that the Government dare not act. What is the position of the film in the world? And what is the position in South Africa? I just want to deal with that briefly. It so happens that the three important factors which nowadays influence the human brain all fall under the Minister of the Interior. I refer to the Press —and the State has a measure of control over the Press—in the second place there is the radio, and the State has taken control of the radio, and in the third place there is the film. With regard to the first two factors, there is a certain amount of control therefore. With regard to the film, which, of the three factors probably exercises most influence over public opinion, there is no control. I think people outside South Africa will be surprised to hear that in this country, with our mixed population of Europeans and non-Europeans, the Government is so indifferent in regard to this factor which can exercise such tremendous influence on public opinion. I am inclined to place the film very high amongst the factors which influence public opinion. The film has come to stay in public life; it has gained a foothold in our schools and is gaining a foothold in the church. In South Africa too, it is beginning to gain a foothold. Nevertheless the Government is still indifferent towards the film. It is said by writers in regard to this matter that one cannot imagine any one factor which influences the mind of the child to a greater extent than the film. What one reads and hears influences one to a certain extent. One reads the newspaper which is brought to one. One listens to the radio in one’s home. But people who have a knowledge of these matters say that what one actually sees makes a greater impression on one’s mind than what one reads or hears. That is probably why the world is taking such a keen interest in the film industry. It is said that more money has been invested in the film industry throughout the world than in any other industry, that more than £700,000,000 has been invested in the film industry. Take the numbers. It is said that the number of people who went to the bioscope in peace time, before the war, was 150,000,000 per annum on an average throughout the world. The South African figures are interesting. As far as South Africa is concerned, it is estimated that the number of people who visit our bioscopes each year is a little more than 25,000,000. That means that many people visit our bioscopes more than once a week. In Cape Town the figure of the number of persons who visit the bioscopes each week is given as 93,000. I mention these figures to show how public opinion is influenced by this industry. South Africa undoubtedly has a great leeway to make up. It would seem that our Government and the people generally speaking do not appreciate the power of the film. In the first place we must guard against finding ourselves in the position, as far as this matter is concerned, in which the United States of America unfortunately found herself. In America the film industry has fallen into the hands of a number of big magnates who not only control the film industry but who have contacts and who are in touch with many other industries, such as the armament industry, the steel industry and the electricity industry. Through their contacts these magnates control not only the film industry but also other industries, so that by means of the money they make out of the film industry, they exercise control over hundreds of thousands of people who, as they call it come and look at their dream factories. South Africa has a great leeway to make up. We are behind all the other countries and Dominions. As far as this matter is concerned, South Africa is the Dominion which has the greatest leeway to make up. It costs money to make films. Amateurs and others have made praiseworthy attempts in South Africa. Vobi has done its best. The Railway Department has done its best; during the war the Department of Defence has also done its best, but nevertheless these efforts were all on a small scale because insufficient money was available. And because insufficient money was available we have not yet been able to make many films in South Africa with a South African background nor have we made many in which the Afrikaans language is used. In this country we are dependent on films which we get from overseas; and what type of films do we get? We are largely dependent on America and Great Britain. The British market is comparatively limited and for that reason too we are primarily dependent on the American market, because that market is able to give us the cheapest film. There is mass production of films in America. America makes approximately 600 big films every year and approximately 200 copies are made of each film. That means that they circulate 120,000 big films. South Africa takes many of those. America is so conscious of the influence of these films that she speaks of her 600 x 200, i.e. 120,000 ambassadors which she sends out into the world every year. She may well say that. But, generally speaking, are these films which help us in South Africa to solve our problems and to strengthen the conceptions of peace amongst the population; are these films which testify to an understanding of South Africa’s problem; are these films which reveal any sympathy for South Africa? There must be something wrong with a country like South Africa which does what we do in this country in connection with the bioscope. In the first place, there must be something wrong with a nation which exposes its mixed population to the mercy of the type of overseas film which is exhibited in this country. What is the position today? The film company places advertisements in the newspapers. These advertisements pay well. If any newspaper in South Africa dares to criticise any film those advertisements are cancelled the very next morning. That recently happened to a newspaper in Johannesburg. This paper dared to criticise one of the gangster films which are so freely exhibited to our children. The following morning the monopoly holders approached the paper and threatened to withdraw their advertisements from the paper the following day if the paper dared to criticise that type of film again. I say there must be something wrong with us in South Africa. Efforts have been made by amateurs and also by Vobi to produce good films. Beautiful films which can compete with the best in the world have been produced, but the Government refuses to grant a little assistance to enable these undertakings to exhibit these films. I have in mind a picture like “Moedertjie”, which was awarded the gold medal of the South African Cultural Association. That was our first sound film in South Africa. That film, on rare occasions, was exhibited here and there by private initiative but the people who have the film monopoly refuse to exihibit it in their bioscopes. Then there is “Kilimanjaro”, which is an adaptation from Sangiro’s “Oerwoed”. Hon. members who saw that film at the time will agree that it is a beautiful film perhaps the most beautiful which has been produced in South Africa. It was shown for weeks in London. It was such an excellent film that it was exhibited for weeks in the capitals of Europe, but in South Africa the public could scarcely see it because the people who have the monopoly are unsympathetic and apparently withhold anything which has a South African background. Why? Because they can get cheaper films from America. Why then should they exhibit films with a South African background? They prefer to show the cheap films which they can get from America. I want to protest most strongly against our present method of control. We hav a certain measure of control through the Board of Censors, but what is their position? In the first place I do not like the idea that they have to make use of a building belonging to one of the monopolies. What causes one even more anxiety is this. The Board of Censors has the power to cut portions of the film, and if they would only cut more freely it would be a good thing, because films which make one shudder are being exhibited in South Africa to our mixed population. When a European marries a non-European in Miami, the film is shown in this country to our mixed population. When Europeans and non-Europeans dance in the same hall in night clubs, the Board of Censors does not cut that. I am thinking of the film, “Rounding up the Marines”, for example, which was exhibited in this country and which shows drunk American sailors being picked up late at night and taken back to their ships. In South Africa that film was declared a duty-free educational film, and it was shown to our school children. Can the Minister deny it? No, he cannot. Another film which was shown in this country was “Mrs. Miniver”. I have no objection to an entertainment film of that nature. Mr. Schlesinger paid £511 customs duty on it. But subsequently the department came to the conclusion all of a sudden that it was an educational film, and Mr. Schlesinger was refunded his £511. Can that be denied? I say there must be something wrong in our country. A few days ago a report appeared in the Press which caused me great concern, namely, that a certain company proposed to make films in Afrikaans. I hope we are going to place them under control. If those people do to Afrikaans what has been done to Afrikaans with the production of certain gramophone records, I hope their product will be rejected. Some of these people learned a few years ago that there was a market for Afrikaans gramophone records. They jumped in and had so-called Afrikaans records made for commercial purposes, and one still shudders when one listens to them. Those records are devoid of all artistic value. The Afrikaans on the records is an Afrikaans which we do not know. It is the Afrikaans of the back street. But that is the type of thing which has been smeared off on to us.

They got it in District Six.

If those people want to make similar Afrikaans films, we must in heaven’s name stop them. Do not insult the Afrikaans-speaking population by again allowing things of that nature; take control. I can imagine what will happen. This company is aware of the agitation in our country to make films with a South African background and in the Afrikaans language. They realise the commercial possibilities. We can only ask: “Save us from that type of Afrikaans film which is made for business purposes only”. I can imagine what some of those films will be like; I can imagine that the language will be District Six language. No, let there be State control; help to make State money available so that we can place the whole matter under control. Let us use the bioscope for the benefit of the people of South Africa. It can be made a powerful influence for the good. It can cultivate strong public opinion in South Africa which will help to solve our great problems in this country, and an opinion in favour of peace and against war. What type of picture are we getting at the moment? Hollywood’s agitation against war has been watered down to such an extent that one can no longer recognise it. Years ago they made anti-war pictures. Where are those films today? Thereafter they started to make other films which glorified war and portrayed war as something romantic and beautiful. Let us do what Russia and France have done. They have developed the film into an instrument to mould public opinion in the form in which they want it to be moulded. I do not agree with that Russian trend, but Russia has realised for a long time that the film is the means to be employed to direct public opinion in the desired direction. Let us use the bioscopes to direct public opinion in the direction that we want European civilisation to go, in the direction in which we want to do upliftment work, and let us regard it as one of the best means to assist in solving our problems and to strengthen public opinion against war. In France the film industry is under the control of a few artists. In South Africa it is largely in the hands of a few money grabbers. I am thinking of the days when “All Quiet on the Western Front” was shown as an anti-war film. Thereafter America flooded this country with films which watered down the effect of that film and which portrayed war as something romantic and beautiful. I do not think we are aware of the power of the film. I want to repeat the example which I mentioned on a previous occasion, namely the book, “Gone With the Wind”.

A good book.

Yes, I do not dispute that. But I want to compare the influence of the book with the influence of the film. In about 1941 2,000,000 copies of that book were sold throughout the world. During the same year the film was exhibited to more than 150,000,000 people. I am comparing the influence of the book with the influence of the film, and we can all draw our own conclusions. My time has almost expired. What remedy do we suggest? We are asking for an industry which is based on art and which is under the control of the State. This industry must be controlled on artistic lines, so that the motive will not be merely to make profits. We ask for the conversion of the Board of Censors into a board of control, which will have the power not only to criticise and cut, but a board which can also bring about improvements. It can only effect improvements if it is in touch with the place where the films are made. But I say that we should produce documentary films more particularly, as far as possible, in our own country. We have the material for it. The South African life lends itself to the making of beautiful films. Our Government departments have also made fine films in the past. Give them further assistance. The films should also be synchronised. Take American, British and other films and synchronise them in Afrikaans. Italy is the country which has made the best progress in connection with the synchronisation of films. The Italians made John Boles speak Italian and they made Shirley Temple sing in Italian. What was done there, can also be done in this country. I say this because we have not got enough actors yet, and because it costs a great deal of money to make some of those films, and for that reason we should do what Italy and also France have done. When a good film is produced overseas we can synchronise it. As far as the financial aspect of the matter is concerned, we have the example of what South Africa has already done in other directions. While the Nationalist Party Government was in power it called into being the Iron and Steel Corporation, and subsequent Governments added other corporations. Both sides of the House—at first one side was opposed to it but today it is also in favour of it—realise today that corporations of this kind offer a means of bringing certain industries under State control. The State establishes such a corporation, takes 51 per cent. of the shares so that it will have control and the rest of the shares are made available to the public. I cannot think of any industry to which the public will subscribe money more readily than an industry of this kind. Let the Government call into being a film corporation; let it take 51 per cent. of the shares, and I say that I cannot think of any industry for which the State will get the money from the public as readily as it will for this industry. If we were able to find money for the iron industry, if we were able to find money for the Fisheries Corporation as well as for other corporations, we should be able to get the money for this corporation quite easily. I want to commend that to the Minister. Let us tackle this matter. If there is still time during this sitting we can investigate the matter now; but if there is no time, let us appoint a commission of experts, a commission consisting of people who know what they are talking about to devise a plan to establish this great industry for South Africa under State control.

On this vote I wish to return to an old attack on the practice— or lack of practice—of the Department of the Interior. I refer to the continued absence of a complete registration of vital statistics of the native population. This is a subject which has strong support in this House and yet it continues to fail to achieve its objective. For years we have been asking in this Hounse that the Department of Census and Statistics should be authorised to institute this complete registration of vital statistics of the native population. I am not going to ask the Minister again whether this is going to be done; I am going to ask him when it is going to be done. The demand in this regard has been backed consistently from all authoritative quarters. Years and years ago, long before I came into this House, the Statistical Council urged the Government to establish this registration. Just after I came into the House the Department of Public Health and the Native Affairs Department appointed an interdepartmental committee which reported strongly in favour of the immediate institution of this registration. Both of these authoritative recommendations were entirely ignored even before the war. After the war began, the answer we continually got from the Department of the Interior was that there was not the personnel available to institute this service, and that there were numerous other difficulties in the way. But it has been possible for the Government to insist on the registration of births and deaths of animals in native areas. There are complete vital statistics of the animal population of the country. But the Government continued to find it impossible to establish a census of the human population of the country. In the course of these years of the war, the need for this census has become more and more urgent, and the demand that it shall be instituted has become wider and wider. Since the war began there has been a very great change in the conception of the responsibilities of the country to the whole population. That change has focused on two specific demands on the part of the country generally. One is for an adequate public health service, and the other is for basic security for everybody. Those are two demands which are continually being pressed upon the Government, and in respect of which the Government has had to make certain gestures, if not immediate concessions; but the realisation of both of these objectives is being continually frustrated by the continued omission of the Government to supply the information on which a register of the whole community could be established. The last reported instance the last evidence of the weakness of our position in this regard, but only the latest, is contained in the memorandum of the Government’s proposals regarding some aspects of social security. One of the reasons given by the committee that was given the responsibility of going into the Select Committee’s report on social security last year for not following up the proposition of universal compulsory contributory pensions, was that they could not maintain the necessary national register owing to the absence of these statistics. They say that the alternatives before the country, if it is going to give a full pension service for the whole population, are that “there should be either a total population register, which would unfortunately have to exclude natives, because the natives’ births, deaths and marriages in rural areas are not notified, and this would render the keeping up to date of the register an impossible task”. Quite recently we were faced with the frustration of our perfectly legitimate desire—a desire which also has the backing of this country—to establish a pension basis for native workmen who are 100 per cent. disabled through industrial accidents. One of the chief reasons why we cannot achieve that objective, which has the full support of all reasonable members of this House, is that there are no vital statistics upon which to build the scheme. The reason is given ….

It is not a reason but an excuse.

Whether it is a reason or an excuse we have to overcome the fact that there are no vital statistics on which the department can estimate the cost of the service and therefore we cannot get the service. The result is we are continuing to accumulate burdens of poverty through granting lump sum payments which are awarded to people who are disabled and will not be able to maintain themselves. So long as this remains, so long as we have this gap in our statistical information, we shall inevitably go on piling up these sources of poverty and ill-health in this country. And the Public Health Department has been telling us for years that they cannot fulfil their obligations because they have not got proper records on which to act or to plan. Successive secretaries for Public Health have told us plainly that it is impossible for them to do their job so long as this gap remains in their statistical information. Now I have discussed this matter on various occasions with the Native Affairs Department, and I do not think I am giving away any secrets when I say that the Native Affairs Department feels as strongly as I do about the necessity for instituting this statistical service, and they have told me—which I think they are prepared to tell the Government or anyone else—that they are prepared to help with the institution of the service for the compilation of vital statistics. If that is the case I can see no reason why the Government should continue their inactivity in this connection. I believe the Native Affairs Department would be prepared to begin now. There would be gaps for a considerable time. Machinery would have to be built up; but the longer we take to institute the machinery the longer it will be before we get any effective return. I beg the Minister to give us a reasonable reply to this request, and not just to tell us we have to wait until our men return from the war. Numbers of men are coming back now. Now is the time to get on with the provision of the basic information on which alone we can establish the social security services the country demands. I hope the Minister will tell us he is prepared to venture where his predecessors were not prepared and that he will set himself to institute these services this very year. Now I want to return for a moment to the issues raised by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). I am sorry that the hon. member is again making such a big issue of the Indian situation in Natal. I want first of all to offer some comments on the figures the hon. member supplied the House with and the conclusion he drew from those figures. He referred to the report of the Registrar of Deeds for the year, 1944 and gave figures to show the purchases that had taken place in Natal of land by Europeans from Indians and by Indians from Europeans, both in the rural areas and the urban areas, and he drew the conclusion from those figures that Natal would soon be entirely bought up by the Indian population. By way of interjection I said I thought that a very considerable exaggeration. I want to repeat that. I think it is a very gross exaggeration. I consider that the figures in respect of the exchange of land in the rural areas are extremely moderate, very small indeed. Europeans bought from Indians in 1942, £11,000 worth of property while Indians bought from Europeans property worth £24,000; while in 1943 Europeans bought for £6,000 and Indians bought for £45,000 from Europeans. In 1944 Europeans bought £3,300 worth of property from Indians and the Indians bought £75,000 worth from Europeans. I think I have the hon. member’s figures correctly. I regard that as a very very small amount of change of land on the part of people who have been scarcely buying land for a number of years. The Broome Commission reported on two occasions. [Time limit.]

I want to say that I regret that the question of the relationship between Indians and Europeans has been introduced at this juncture in this debate. It is impossible to dissociate party political interests from this major national question now being considered. I feel that an objective view from Natal may be both interesting and helpful. In the first place, the Indian question is a national question, not merely a Natal question. The Indians are citizens of this country—most of them are; they have no other home. They live in practically all parts of the Union—with perhaps the exception of the Free State. Natal is part of the Union. The people of Natal therefore look to the Union Government for action now. When the question was referred to the people of Natal by the Prime Minister in terms of the Pretoria Agreement the Provincial Council of Natal drafted legislation, the ultimate form of which was practically approved unanimously by the Council, and I believe by the majority of the people of the province. That legislation is now being held up, much to the disappointment of the people of Natal, and certain enabling legislation is pending. I want to say that the people of Natal, as far as I can understand their feelings in the matter, are satisfied with this draft Ordinance, not because they think that it is the final solution of the problem, but because it is the best possible at the moment. Therefore, in view of the position in that province, in view of the fact that a Judicial Commission is still investigating the matter, I want to say at once that I think the introduction of this question now is inopportune and unnecessary. Secondly, the Indian question is not merely a South African question. It is a Commonwealth question. It is the result of 40 years’ neglect, and ineffective legislation, on the part of successive Imperial Governments and successive Natal governments. Nor is it peculiar to South Africa. Australia and New Zealand met in conference in January, 1934, and considered what is known as the South Seas Convention. Arising out of that Convention is the Canberra Agreement, an agreement which very strictly will control the migration of peoples into what is regarded as the European-settled parts of the Pacific. Now, that agreement illustrates how important is the question of the relationship of Australia and New Zealand to India and China. We, I maintain, cannot be uninfluenced by important decisions of that nature. These countries have the example of Fiji, a number of islands with a total population of 250,000 people. In 1878 Indians were introduced to work the sugar fields. Today they are nearly half the population and the aboriginal races have dwindled to nearly half. The Indians hold the best lands and have practically a monopoly of trade. The contiguity of India, China and the Malay States to New Zealand and Australia has brought into the foreground of the Commonwealth talks, the association between Europeans and Asiatics. The policy adopted appears to be similar to that of our own Prime Minister as outlined in an article he contributed to “Life” in 1942 in which he suggested a regional council for Africa, the object of which was well expressed by the Colonial Secretary in 1943—

I believe that this may ultimately be the line of approach we may have to adopt in South Africa in regard to the Indian problem. There is no doubt that the questsion will be discussed at Commonwealth meetings and perhaps even at the ’Frisco Conference. Therefore, I think that a debate here at this stage will not help, but might seriously embarrass, the delicate discussions of international statesmen. Finally, the Indian question is a human question. The cancer at the heart of our social life in this country is the glaring injustices which are meted out to our non-European peoples. The Indians feel those injustices. Except for a minority, who are rich and prosperous, and who can in any event look after themselves, the Indians in Natal are workers and peasants, and as such are valuable assets to the country. They are very poor; abominably housed; their education is at token standard; they live in squalor and want. Little wonder there is unrest and ill-will. Our first duty—and we can do it without special legislation and without any reference to Commonwealth relationships—our first duty is to provide for their rehabilitation and uplift. We must give them their own separate housing schemes and hospitals and schools, and raise their economic status. Let us determine to give them a civilised standard of living. That, I believe will eliminate the worst aspects of the Indian question. That question has several aspects. It has an ethnic aspect with tremendous pressure from an increasing population which might jeopardise the status of the white races. It has an economic aspect, with powerful competition between European and Indian traders and speculators. It has a political aspect, with pressure brought to bear for equal rights and the franchise, and we may have to meet that pressure by meeting the Indians in somewhat the same way as we have met the African peoples. The problem has all these facts; but, fundamentally, it is a human question. I want to say in conclusion that I believe it is the duty of this Union Parliament, dispassionately to arrive at a policy as just as we can make it; that policy must be a policy of uplift. Let us begin there. I believe that if we do that we can be sure that each step we take towards the uplift of the Indian people will make the ultimate solution easier and more harmonious. I would like to quote in conclusion from a book which I recommend every member of this House to read, “The Dual Policy in Kenya”, by M. F. Hill. ’ I substitute “South Africa” for “Kenya”; in his chapter dealing with Indians in Kenya, the author says this—

The hon. Minister stated in this House last year that the activities of his Department had expanded enormously. We accept that. I want to say that the activities of his Department will still expand enormously in the near future. We must admit that the war is approaching its end. We believe that a new world and perhaps new circumstances face us, but we must remember that this war is going to bring about tremendous problems which will increase the activities of the Minister’s Department to an even greater extent. It is going to be the task of the Government and of future governments of this country to solve those problems. It is going to be the task of this Government to lay down a policy to solve those problems. On the other hand we are going to need a large number of persons in South Africa to carry out that policy. They will have to take into account all the circumstances; I refer to the civil servants. When we look at the public service today ….

Order, order! The hon. member cannot raise that matter under this Vote.

Am I not in order in discussing the public service?

No, the hon. member will be able to raise it under the next Vote. There is a specific Vote for the public service.

I bow to your ruling, but am I not allowed to discuss the position of civil servants?

No.

Nor the policy of the civil servants?

No.

Then I shall do so under the next Vote. Then I want to confine myself to another matter. I want to tell the Minister this morning that the time has arrived for him to give an account to this House and to the nation in connection with the statements he made with reference to the Indian question in Natal. The time has arrived for the Minister to get up in this House and to tell us in no uncertain terms what his Government’s policy is and what his own policy is. Latterly the Minister has developed the habit of saying “I agree” whenever we on this side bring certain matters to his notice. The time has now arrived for the Minister to tell us in clear terms what his policy is and what the policy of the Government is. I think it is very dangerous for a responsible Minister of the Crown to go to Natal and to make a statement there which is tantamount to this—moreover he said so —that in his opinion the Indians in Natal should be given the franchise. On the last occasion we discussed this matter, we said that the Minister had now received support in this connection. The Acting Prime Minister told me personally in reply to a question that as far as he was concerned, the only solution of the Indian problem lay in giving the Indian the franchise. We are dealing with tremendous racial problems in South Africa today. As far as the franchise is concerned, we have not had any trouble with the Indians up to the present, but in making the statements which the Minister did in Natal, he practically aroused the Indians, and, rightly or wrongly, the Minister allows India to dictate his policy to him as far as this problem is concerned. Since this question has become so serious, we notice that even India is now taking steps against Union subjects in India. That was unnecessary. Now I want to ask the Minister what he thinks the position is going to be in Natal if he gives the Indian the franchise; what is the position going to be in ten or twelve years time. The Minister advocates a policy as far as this question is concerned, which will mean that in the future the Europeans will have no say in Natal. The result will be the Europeans in Natal will all leave the province. We have already raised the question of the ownership of land by Indians. The Government has a certain policy in this connection. We have the report of the Feetham Commission in which certain areas were delimitated for occupation for Indians. But what did we find? We found that that report partially legalised the unlawful ownership of land by Asiatics, and today peneration is taking place in certain parts of Johannesburg. Legal steps were taken in terms of the Act, but there was only one prosecution and thereafter no action was taken. The Minister of Justice issued instructions to stop further prosecutions. Now we come along and practically forgive the Indians for that penetration; we allow it and practically encourage them to continue it. If the franchise, which the Indian is now trying to get in Natal, is granted we are going to create worse conditions in Natal than we created in the Cape when we gave the coloureds the franchise. But what is now happening is this; this is a step which is going to result in further unnecessary racial clashes and racial friction in South Africa. The Minister is entitled to his opinion; he is entitled to that extremely liberalistic attitude, and so are the other Ministers of the Cabinet. But whatever their views may be—it is their concern what policy they lay down—they must take into account the European civilisation in the future and I say under present conditions, bearing in mind the large-scale ownership of land by Indians, it is dangerous to give the Indians the franchise at this stage. The Minister told the Indians: “You are not foreigners; you are South Africans; you are entitled to the rights of South Africans.” He has never denied that. He did not say what he meant in making that statement. I want to tell the Minister that we do not want him merely to say that he agrees with us when we criticise his policy. We want the Minister to say clearly what his policy is in connection with the granting of the franchise to the Indian in South Africa, what his attitude is in connection with the ownership of land by Indians and what his attitude is in connection with the Pegging Act in Natal. These are things which we want the Minister to tell the House and the people in the country explicitly.

I want to support the member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in her plea to the Minister and the Government for the application of vital statistics to all sections of the population of South Africa. It is perhaps not generally known that before Union, under the old Cape Government, such was the case, and it is only since Union that we have had no vital statistics as regards our native population, especially in the reserves and the rural areas. It is an aphorism that ill-health and poverty know no colour bar, but what is more important is that the spread, especially of formidable infectious diseases, knows no colour bar, so that the absence of vital statistics, as was proved recently in the outbreak of typhus in the Transkei, shows that the Europeans in this country run an enormous risk in not knowing about the health and other conditions especially of the natives in the rural areas and in the territories. Those members of the House who read the recommendation of the National Health Services Commission will know that it was made abundantly clear by that Commission that to lay down a policy of health for this country, and to make provisions for carrying out such a policy is impossible unless we have vital statistics available for all sections of the population. I have fought for this in the House since I have been a member, because from a point of view of health in the country, apart from the question of disability, i.e. knowing how many blind people there are amongst the natives, how many people are born with deformities—we have insufficient knowledge of that at all today—it is of the utmost importance that something should be done, and done soon. In the past I have always received the reply that the matter will receive favourable consideration. Well, the time for that is past. Just as we were receiving favourable consideration of the recommendations of the National Health Commission, just as I am dissatisfied with the consideration that received from the Government, so I am dissatisfied that this question of vital statistics has been shelved from year to year.

I would like to return to the matter raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). I do not want to say much about it because in 10 minutes I can only start but not get far. But the hon. member knows, and this House knows, that this is a important consideration which has been engaging the attention of most people in South Africa. We realise the enormous influence of the film on the national life of any country, and particullarly in South Africa. As far as the influence that the film is having in South Africa is concerned, that influence is today very largely un-South African, and from that point of view alone the national importance of our doing something about the matter cannot be stressed too strongly. Now, I think it was in 1943 that the Prime Minister was approached by several members of this House in connection with this matter, and as a result of negotiations with him he decided to appoint a commission. That Commission, Sir, the chairman of which was Prof. A. C. Cilliers, reported to the Minister, the Minister then being the present Minister of the Interior, during the last Session. But the extraordinary thing about it is this, that the report has never been printed. A few cyclostyled copies were circulated and the report was commented upon by the Press throughout South Africa. It was a document full of historical facts as far as the history of the film in South Africa was concerned, and in that regard it was a document of first class importance. That is more than one year ago, but the Minister has not seen fit to print that report. One wonders why.

Nor did he do anything about it.

But the first thing would have been to print that report. If that report had been printed and placed on the Table of the House, as I submit it should have been, one could have got the views of hon. members and could have got on with the job. I want the Minister in reply to tell us definitely why he has not printed that report. He may say of course that the Government cannot accept the report in toto. That is understandable, because it is a highly controversial question. I do not think however we want to follow Russia, as the hon. member for Moorresburg said.

I do not think you understood me.

The hon. member pointed out how Russia through its films controls or forms the political and national outlook, and that we should do the same thing in South Africa. He also referred to France. I do not think we ought to follow France or Russia, but I do think that the Commission has shown a way we can follow, a practical way. My hon. friend talks about a corporation being established, in the same way as Iscor. Well, the circumstances are entirely different, and I think that if my hon. friend will give this matter fuller consideration he will see that the last thing we want is to have a totalitarian film industry in this country which can be used by any Government. I submit that almost the first step that eventually led to the downfall of Rome, was that the people of Rome insisted not only on having their bread free, but free games. We might have a totalitarian film industry and used as the beginning of “games” and of our fall. I was a member of that commission and we produced a report which showed a way which would have been a beginning.

Your conclusions were all wrong.

No, I think they were all right, and I think that when it comes to questions of the practicability of doing things it will be found that my opinion is more right than my hon. friend’s. He lives in the clouds.

Dark clouds.

I will not say that, but he constantly brings before this House proposals and suggestions which are absolutely impracticable, and what he brought before the House this morning is also impracticable. Moreover, if he presents a case like that this House thinks it is too big a problem or an insoluble problem and hesitates to do anything. This Government or any Government would think it is too difficult and quite impracticable.

Speak for your own Government.

I do submit that if this report were studied by the House, I am sure more people would agree with it, and I would like the Minister to state frankly to the House and the country what his attitude is towards that report, why it has not been printed, whether it will be printed and whether or not the Government accepts its proposals.

I should like to say a few words in connection with the Indian problem. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) explained this matter yesterday, and I believe he is right when he says the Indians are penetrating more and more in our towns and cities and that the time has arrived when we should put a stop to it. In the Western Transvaal we have today the same problem as in Natal. Certain sections of Natal find penetration is occurring on such a scale that the Europeans are thoroughly dissatisfied. We have the same feeling in the Western Transvaal. The Western Transvaal is also an area where the Indians have recently penetrated to a large extent, and in Lichtenburg we have the case of one of our Afrikaans churches having to be sold. This church had to be sold because the Asiatics had penetrated into the immediate vicinity and made things impossible for the Europeans. That was a very sad development, and I shall be glad if the hon. Minister, as was requested by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz), would state the policy of the Government in connection with the penetration of Asiatics in the country. We have great problems in connection with the native population. We have the other coloured races here; we have Malays and others, and on top of that we cannot tolerate a great nation like India dumping its surplus population in South Africa and in that manner systematically squeezing us out. The native representatives in this House are making a big mistake when they champion the Indians; they are doing the natives an injustice. If they confine themselves to the natives they are representing I believe they will assist us much better. I believe the Asiatics are also penetrating in the commercial world, and it is impossible for a European to compete with an Asiatic, because the standard of living of the Asiatic is much lower and his living expenses are consequently much less than those of the Europeans. As a result of that fact his goods can be sold much cheaper. The Asiatics are not as good workers as the natives. The Asiatics work to some small extent in the sugar plantations in Natal, but in addition they are employed in commerce. I say emphatically that the Asiatics are not an asset to our country. Not at all. I want to express the hope that the Minister will make a statement in connection with the matter. I feel particularly disturbed because we know the attitude of the Minister of the Interior in connection with the Asiatics, and also the attitude of the Acting Prime’ Minister. His standpoint is such that We cannot be other than fraid; and we feel the coloured problem is not safe in their hands. For that reason I want to extend my cordial support to these hon. members and to express the hope that the Minister of the Interior will make a statement on Government policy on this serious problem.

I am unable to associate myself with what has been said on the Indian problem by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan). His may perhaps be the grand humane standpoint, but it is a standpoint that carries us no further. This matter has already assumed these dimensions because this Government is not doing anything in connection with it; it is following the policy of just letting things develop. We came nearest to having a solution of this problem when the Nationalist Party was in power and the present Leader of the Opposition tackled the subject, and when a public opinion was created right through the country and in India as well in connection with the problem. So much so that even the representative of the Government of India stated quite clearly that it was the policy of India as well to get the Indians out of South Africa. Such a statement was made at that time by the representative of the Indian Government. This policy of allowing things to develop will bring us nowhere. The fact is the whole nation is very perturbed over the matter. We do not know what the policy of the Government is. A provocative attitude has been adopted in India in connection with the matter but our Government is doing nothing, and the country does not know what the reply of our Government has been to the attitude of India. If you look at the attitude that the Government of India have adopted you would think that Natal is already an Indian colony. India pokes its nose into the domestic affairs of our country with which it has nothing to do. This is clear proof that Natal is rapidly being transferred into the hands of the Indians, and I would just add this to the statement made by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) that we have the report of the Registrar of Deeds in Natal, which is of course an official document. What do we find there? The Registrar states that in the three years 1942, 1943 and 1944 immovable property in Natal had changed hands between Indians and Indians to the extent of 26,921 acres to a value of £3,271,120. Indians have sold to Europeans and others during those three years 8,224 acres for the sum of £229,154. On the other hand Indians have bought from Europeans and others during these three years 27,929 acres for an amount of £1,664,770. And then the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) tells the House that she regards this as a very limited amount. She finds that there has been practically not penetration by Indians, though there has been transferred into the hands of the Indians property amounting to 54,850 acres of a value of £4,935,890 nearly £5,000,000 in just three years’ time. We see that the matter has assumed serious dimensions and recently we have had the development that the Indians are purchasing large portions of Natal in the platteland. Numbers of resolutions have been taken by farmers’ associations—not Nationalists but supporters of the United Party and the Dominion Party, and we hear the S.O.S. from Natal that the province is going over into the hands of the Indians. The time has arrived when we should have a clear statement on the matter. There is only one policy to follow, and I am glad that a few members of the Dominion Party have honestly admitted in this House that it is the policy that was indicated at that time by the present Leader of the Opposition. I am very glad that members of the Dominion Party have candidly admitted that, and have emphasised that a strong effort was made to induce Indians to leave South Africa. The repatriation of Indians to other parts of the world which are prepared to accept them is the only policy to follow, In this connection there is, moreover, the policy of effecting separation, especially in respect of the Indians. We cannot submit any longer to the penetrations of the Indians. I say in all seriousness that we cannot allow any further penetration. We have a large native population and a large coloured population. We have a full share of race problems, and with an eye on the future there is only one policy that can be followed, and that is the policy that the Nationalist Party represents in connection with the matter. It does not help at all to come here with touching cries about humane treatment etc. We do not want to treat these people in an inhumane manner, but on the other hand it should be made clear to every Indian and to the whole of India that we have only South Africa in which to live, while the Indians have India with its vastness and with its proverbial wealth, and we must act in the light of that.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) is not in his place, because he reacted to my speech in which I dealt with the matter of the film industry. When he sat down I was inclined to put the question: What powers are there in South Africa whose path the hon. member for Vasco does not want to cross? What forces are there which are not anxious that a film industry should be established in South Africa? In any case he was impressed with the seriousness of the problem, and also by the fact that the Minister has not yet done anything in connection with the report of the Cilliers Commission. To that extent he was right, but what is his solution? As one who has some knowledge of economic affairs and of industries, what is his solution? What is his recommendation? I listened and waited. Is it that of the Cilliers Commission? The Cilliers Commission recommended a board of control being set up and they suggested that the Government should make available a paltry £10,000 a year to the board of control. That is the recommendation of the Cilliers Commission. I must say I regard that as a joke. Throughout the world an amount of £700,000,000 has been invested in the industry, and it is now proposed here that the State should assume control and that £10,000 should be made available for that. My only reply to that is that it is altogether too ridiculous to mention that sum. How can you gain control of a great established industry and make £10,000 available for it? I hope the Minister will reject it, because it is neither here nor there. If a miserable £10,000 is made available to the board of control the great monopoly that controls our film industry here and that off-loads cheap films in South Africa, will be able to ignore entirely the board of control. The hon. member for Vasco, who was a member of the commission, seems to imagine that with an amount of £10,000 you can make documentary and other films. The Minister knows what a film costs. Should he want for instance to make a couple of good South African films, documentary films with a South African background, how far will this £10,000 go? It will not cover a tenth nor yet a twentieth of the cost. The hon. member says we are in the clouds with our plans. But we were not in the clouds with Iscor nor with the other corporations that we instituted, and here we have to do with an industrial enterprise that does not differ greatly from other corporations. The hon. member says there is a big difference between such an enterprise and the corporations we have established. He has not told us what that difference is. They are all industries, only this industry is the largest in the world in time of peace. Now the hon. member comes and wants to make £10,000 available for it. I hope the Minister will not listen to him, but that he will rather give his attention to the report of the departmental committee, go into the matter thoroughly, and follow our advice and appoint a commission of experts to prepare a plan for us. We have details in connection with the industry. The Cilliers Commission gave us those. We have received further particulars from the technical departmental committee, and we now want a commission of experts to tell us how South Africa should tackle the matter in order to escape out of the clutches of the monopolies. Our country is spending between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 for admission tickets to the cinema and we are paying charges out of all proportion to what may be considered reasonable. Our people here from the poorest to the wealthiest have to pay admission charges for sensational films. When you are in the hands of monopolies that is what you can expect. We have no control over the prices charged for admission. We have been handed over to the tender mercies of the monopoly that has the whole of the cinema business in its hands. We bring the seriousness of the position to the attention of the Minister, and I do not think it is necessary to make a fuss about the seriousness of the matter, or about the necessity for tackling it, although we may not be in agreement in regard to the manner in which it should be tackled. Money should be made available. Money was available for the other corporations we established, and there will be more money available than is required for the purposes of a film corporation, because it is an industry that lends itself to investment. In America and Britain the position is such that the film industry had to close its share lists. I understand you cannot buy any shares in the big film industry in America or Britain. If the public can get shares in a corporation of that sort they will be anxious to buy them. I say to the Minister that if he makes £500,000 or £1,000,000 available as from the State he will get two or three times as much from the public, and we can then do what we have done with other corporations and the State can retain control by holding 51 per cent. of the shares. Then only will you be able to have this big industry in South Africa in safe hands, not otherwise.

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

I was emphasising that the Government should bestow earnest attention on the film industry in South Africa. Now something is presented to view that I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, namely, that certain film companies have for a number of years been urging the Government to increase the customs duty on films. It is peculiar. I know of no industry in the country that is demanding that the tariff should be increased on such a scale, and the motive behind it is that a higher tariff places that film company in a stronger position to exclude competitive companies. Consequently for a considerable number of years we have observed that not only are film companies not objecting to an increase of the customs tariff, but that they—so I have been told—purposely and intentionally are demanding that the customs tariff should be increased to exclude competitors. Not only the present Government but previous Governments are to be blamed for having accepted that suggestion. It no doubt appears peculiar and obliging of these people to ask for an increase in the customs tariff. If films are manufactured in South Africa, and if the local industry has to be protected, there would have been some sense in it. But now we have the very opposite. These companies are asking for an increase in the tariff, although they are importing films, with the result that our duty on films is exceptionally high, and the companies which ask that the tariff should be increased have not only excluded competition, but they are not themselves paying these high tariffs. The public who buy the admission tickets have to pay them when they attend the cinema. To exclude all comptition the public must pay a higher charge. That is one of those flagrant things in South Africa that should be given attention. We must enquire why the import duty on films is so high. It is not as a protection on the manufacture of South African films this is occuring. The protection is in respect of films we are not making in South Africa, namely, plays. It is especially on those that the duty is high. This can only have one effect, namely, to strengthen the monopoly, and the public has to pay for it. On every occasion when the tariff is increased the admission charges are increased. The public has to pay for the protection which these gentry enjoy. I should like to read to the Minister something in connection with the effect of foreign films in South Africa, but before I do that I would advise him to read a book “The Bantu in the City” written by Dr. Phillips. It is a book that appeared a little while ago, and in that the author tells us about the danger in connection with the importation of uncontrolled films in so far as they affect the mind of the native. [Time limit.]

I was amazed when I heard the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) this morning deprecating the introduction of the Indian problem at this stage. When we look back upon the happenings of the last few months, we find that the Indian members of the Commission, the Judicial Commission, set up by the Government to enquire into this problem, took leave of the Commission to come and present their case and their demands to the Post-War Reconstruction Commission of the Natal Provincial Council and moreover attended to present heir demands to the Select Committee on the Ordinance of the Natal Provincial Council, whilst still members of the Commission. Can you wonder, Sir, when we seize the opportunity we have to put the European case not only before the Government, but before the House and the country? It seems to me that there is a tendency in favour of the old Asquithian saying “Wait and see”. We are just playing with the question. We are procrastinating and fiddling whilst Natal is being offered up as a sacrifice on the altar of expediency. And that is all it amounts to. But in the meantime the Indian comes along with his demands to see Ministers. They saw the Ministers last week, and the Ministers went into their demands. I know of no single instance where any of us who represent Natal were called in to the discussion to hear these demands and the representations made, so that we, the representatives of the Europeans in Natal, might be conversant with what is happening. There has been no effort on the part of the Government to take us into its confidence. Everything is done in secrecy and all we get is a statement from the Indian delegation, afterwards, but what really transpired is never known to us. Of course, we can quite easily realise the nature of the demands put before the Minister. We know their complaints by repetition, but there may be new demands, and it is only right that we, as the representatives of the people in Natal, should know what these demands are and what is taking place and the attitude of the Government on this question. Now, Mr. Chairman in 1943 in his address to the Natal Municipal Association at Maritzburg, the Minister of the Interior said—

Who said that?

The Minister. That was included in the speech made by the Minister of the Interior at the Natal Municipal Congress on the 3rd December, 1943. May I now refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference held in London in 1923. The Government of India made certain proposals with a view to giving effect to the policy laid down in 1921. The Prime Minister said, to quote from an official statement—

When we take these two statements we find a complete divergency and the Prime Minister’s views have not been changed. The speech of the Minister of the Interior was an expression of opinion entirely opposed to Gen. Smuts’ statement. I suggest the Minister of the Interior has been fiddling with this Indian question and that he should get a little manganese into his constitution. He should steel himself against these insistent and insidious demands. He should pass a new set of Commandments, a new set of “thou shalt nots” for the Indian community. “Thou shalt not steal the heritage of the European and of the returned soldier”—and that is really what is happening. The House heard the figures yesterday regarding the purchases by Indians from Europeans in Natal both in the rural and urban areas. It is quite easy to see from them that this conversion of ownership from the European to the Indian is proceeding apace—nearly £1,000,000 in less than 18 months, and the valuation of urban and rural properties in Natal would not I suppose exceed £200,000,000. But the fact of the matter is that property is gradually falling into Indian ownership, and in the end there will be no European ownership at all, none that counts. I believe that the House and the country generally are not informed as to European opinion in Natal which does not very often get the opportunity of stating its case, and the only opportunity that is afforded is through their representatives in Parliament. That opportunity I hope will be seized by every Natal member, and I trust that his views and the views of his constituency will be placed before the Minister, the House and the country. This is not a matter where we can afford to wait and see. The onslaught on European property is going on day by day and it will not fall away so long as we follow this course of appeasement and waiting about to see what will turn up. I would like to refer to that oft repeated statement by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She said the commission stated that in the smaller urban areas of Natal, Indian penetration was only a trickle. She takes that passage out of the context. What the commission did say was that owing to the fact that before 1928 pracically all the land had been bought up by the Indians, and penetration was only a trickle. Her attention has been brought to that time and again. But she has taken that “trickle” out of the context and given a false impression to the House.

I wonder whether the hon. Minister would take a leaf out of the Cape Colonies book in regard to the Indian question. A good many years ago, in the early part of this century,. Cape Town was very much perturbed by an influx of Indians who came here and occupied general dealers shops, so much so that many of the Europeans were put out of business. A very clever Act was brought into the Cape Parliament in the days of Mr. Merriman, and under that no licence could be granted to any shopkeeper unless he had applied to the Municipal Council, had the Municipal Council by a majority vote, without giving any reason whatsoever, could decide whether that man was to get that licence or not. Would it be possible to do that in regard to property? Before property is transferred from one person to another in urban centres, the whole transaction, or the permission for the transaction should be placed before the council.

What would your present Cape Town municipality have to say to that?

If that were done all this trouble with regard to the transfer of property in Durban and elsewhere could be settled by the people concerned. If “A” did not like “B” coming to live next to him and he knew “B” proposed to do so, he could apply to the municipal council and represent to them that he did not like “B” to live next to him ….

You would have a nice lot of corruption.

I do not think so. In the case of these licences in Cape Town we did not find there was a great deal of corruption.

How do you know?

On the other hand; we were able to prevent Asiatics from obtaining any licences whatsoever. Then there is another class of case which applies generally. "A” has a house and “B” has a house and these two houses are next to each other. They both own the houses. You will find frequently that “B” will sell his house to speculators to put up flats or to build garages, which will jeopardise the value of “B’s” house. I know of a case in Rondebosch where a three-story block of flats was erected on the northern side of a resident who had a very nice garden, and the result is that the sun is obscured and leaves my friend’s garden in the shade all day long.

Shame.

Things of this sort would be obviated if an Act of that kind were passed, and no Indian or anybody else would be allowed to damage any resident. You have always the case of mal-administration on the part of municipal councils, but that question rests in the hands of the people themselves. Why cannot the people return municipal councillors whom they know will be above suspicion? It is their lookout, and you cannot blame the municipal bodies. It is the people themselves who return these representatives to the council; and I cannot help thinking if the Minister would approach the subject in that way much of this trouble will be overcome.

The hon. member who has just spoken, with all respect to him, seems to labour under the handicap of some vagueness as to what the licensing laws in the Cape and Natal are. The position in the Cape is this. The decision is at the discretion of the local authority, but it cannot refuse a licence on racial grounds. It can only refuse it on the grounds that the premises the applicant has provided are not of a healthy character. It is very much the same in Natal; the only difference between the Natal and the Cape law in this respect is that in Natal the matter, instead of being dealt with by the town’ council, is dealt with by a licensing officer appointed by the local authority. An appeal lies from his decision to a provincial board specially constituted. Those authorities also have a discretion, but they cannot exercise their discretion on racial grounds. Neither the local authority nor any licensing authority can exercise its discretion on racial grounds. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) says the Cape Town City Council did that for many years. If the Cape Town Council did so it was breaking the law. I want to support very strongly the pleas that have been launched this morning by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) for the Minister to tell us, not whether he is going to institute a system of registration of vital statistics for native people, but when he is going to do so. The case in this regard is absolutely overwhelming. Every commission or committee or department that is concerned with the planning of the social and economic life of the people of this country, whether particularly the native people or the community as a whole, have pressed for this. I do not know why we have been so long in getting it. When the present Minister of Demobilisation was Minister of the Interior he gave as his reason the expense —he said the exigencies of war finance made it impracticable—and he also referred to personnel. Those are reasons I never accepted at the time as sufficient reasons, because of the overwhelming social advantages that would result if we had this information at our disposal. But happily the grounds for those reasons are falling away now, and I wish to add my very strong plea to those made by these hon. members to the Minister to institute this system. What is the good of having a Public Health Department when its advice is never taken on a subject of this sort? The Social Security White Paper, quoted by the hon. member for Cape Eastern, also pressed the necessity for this. In fact, according to this White Paper it is impossible to put into force a social security scheme such as was recommended ‘by the Select Committee of this House unless this is done. The Miners’ Phthisis Committee minority report actually made this an excuse—the fact that there is no registration of vital statistics—for denying miners’ phthisis compensation by way of pensions to native sufferers. It should be perfectly obvious that it is impossible to have any system of social security and economic planning unless you have statistics of this kind and can intelligently forecast the strength of your labour force, unless you can forecast what your manpower is going to be. I can see absolutely no reason why this system should not be extended to the native people of this country, and I must ask the Minister to tell us when he is going to do it. I want to refer to some remarks made yesterday by the the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) and repeated by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) in regard to the Indian people of Natal. I preface what I am going to say by pointing out this proposition. The hon. member for Musgrave, it seems to me, finds it incredible that there should be people in this country who think that racial discrimination and racial antagonism are harmful in themselves for the whole community. He referred to á certain European, whose name he mentioned, who he said, was taking the side of the Indian. It ought by this time of the day to be obvious to the hon. member that it is not a question in this country today of anybody taking the side of any particular race. That, it seems to me, will simply lead to the intensification of racial antagonism. I do not think the interests of the various races should be separated; they should be complementary and not separate, and they will have to be reconciled. That indeed is the true task of statesmanship in this country. On the specific matter, the Natal Indian question, which he referred to, there always seems to me to be two separate aspects of this question. One is what I might call the social aspect, the aspect relating to premises, people of different races living together and coming into close contact with each other, when at present the ways of life of these two races are of a different nature. The other one is the economic aspect, the aspect which relates to the complaint’s that the Indians are buying up too much land, in an economic system which is essentially one and indivisible. As to the social or personal aspect the present position would appear to be like this, particularly so far as Durban is concerned: to the extent that Europeans object to living next door to Indians—and there is a lot of evidence they do object— a very large portion of the blame must be placed at the door of the Durban City Council, and it is not any use evading the facts on this matter. I know the hon. member for Musgrave is not the kind of person who deliberately wishes to evade facts; I would not accuse him of that sort of thing, but the facts he gave to the House last evening were of a very mistaken character. If the Durban City Council, on the one hand, is prepared to build housing schemes similar to what Cape Town is doing for the coloured people in the Cape, and if the Durban City Council had been prepared to offer to the Indians sites where they could live and own their land, there is strong evidence that this difficult problem would not have arisen. The hon. member mentioned the case of Cato Manor, and he said that in the nineteen-twenties the Durban City Council laid out Cato Manor with streets and drainage, and offered it for sale to the Indians, and they would not buy it. My information on that particular matter is of an entirely opposite character. It was in 1931 that 12 sites were offered to the Indians, and only four out of the 12 were purchased. The reasons given for failure to purchase were that the streets had not been made and the drainage had not been provided, while an excessive price was being charged for the land. The plots were offered without municipal amenities. Subsequently an economic housing scheme and a sub-economic housing scheme were built at Cato Manor, and those were occupied, and in the case of the economic scheme the houses were purchased. Cato Manor is occupied by the Indians today.

I should like to conclude my remarks in connection with films with a few observations and I offer my apologies to the House for having occupied so much time in connection with this subject. The last point I wish to make is in connection with the natives. I think we have really delayed too long in taking into review the type of film being exhibited to the natives. In the various cities there are cinema companies which engage in the exhibition of films to non-Europeans. This has been considerably developed, particularly in Johannesburg. Apart from the films shown in the compounds there are about half-a-dozen such cinemas in Johannesburg catering particularly for natives. What happens in their case? We have a Censor Board that has to pass films. So far as I know no member of that Board of Censors has an intimate knowledge of native life and customs. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider the advisability of having a separate films censor board for natives, or in any case, to appoint people to the present Board who have an intimate knowledge of native affairs. But there is a second matter which is still more serious, and it is that the State is not doing its duty, the Department of Justice and the Police are not doing their duty. It is true the Board of Censors rejects certain films and they cannot be shown to natives, while it passes others. If you glance at the titles of the films that have been approved you are amazed that in a country like South Africa such films can be shown to natives. In Dr. Phillips’ book, “The Bantu in the City,” that I recommend the Minister to read, the titles of the films are mentioned that have already been shown. It is not necessary to read out these titles, but one is surprised that in our country such films can be shown to the natives, some of them, moreover, coming in duty free. Dr. Phillips writes:

Dr. Phillips visited the cinemas showing the films to non-Europeans, and although it is stipulated in regard to these banned films that a notice should be displayed outside, “Natives will not be admitted to this performance,’’ no notice is taken of it. That is one of the sensational things he discovered. Then he says further—

Then he writes further—

I want to charge the Department of Justice with having failed to carry out its duty. Dr. Phillips quoted twenty banned films that were rejected by the Board of Censors, but that were yet shown to natives in the cinemas. Of what use then is it to have a Board of Censors when banned films are shown to Natives?

You are now quoting an American to tell us how things should be run in South Africa.

I should like to point out to the Minister that the Board of Censors disapproves of films which are subsequently shown to the Natives. I do not want to detain the Committee longer with this matter, but I would emphasise that something must be done. We cannot continue any longer with this laissez faire policy. I hope that the Minister will lose no time in giving his attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) raised the important question of immigration. He alluded to the difficulties now being experienced in Europe as the result of the war and the changing of frontiers and the changing of populations. He referred to certain conferences that are taking place, including the Conference of San Francisco; and in regard to what might happen to some of the surplus population he asked for a definite declaration.

Please turn this way and tell the decent people in the House what is going on.

I want to pay my respects to the Chair, but if the Chairman does not mind I will try to help. The hon. member for Beaufort West wants to obtain from me on behalf of the Government a definite declaration as to what our immigration policy is. The hon. member must have been aware that some hon. member asked the Prime Minister what the position was so far as immigration is concerned, and the Prime Minister’s reply was that the position was as given by me in the information I conveyed to the House, admittedly in a hurried manner, because I had to get in the last two minutes before the adjournment, that the policy of the Government is briefly this. We are in favour of suitable immigrants coming to the country, and we will make them welcome, but we have to take into consideration our own returned soldiers and those who have been employed in our war factories and to make sure they are fully employed before we can go in for a State policy of immigration.

What about the other unemployed? Are you going to take them into consideration?

I am prepared to go further and say South Africa is to have full employment before we bring in other immigrants. But what South Africa could do with tomorrow is 15,000 building artisans. That is one thing we are very short of. We could use them for the next ten years.

That is because you did not carry out the Apprenticeship policy properly.

That is briefly the position. But I do not want anyone to be under a misapprehension. Those who come here and have something to come to will be more than welcome. The hon. member referred to the people who had come here as refugees from other countries, and he was certainly sympathetic as far as they were concerned and did not object to South Africa giving them refuge while the war was on.

From the occupied countries.

But he says these people should return as soon as possible, when provision can be made for them. The bulk of them will go back.

What about the English refugees? That is what I referred to.

I am sorry that the hon. member dealt with the English refugees in the manner in which he did.

What manner.

You spoke about shirkers. They brought their wives and children here to get out of the bombed areas or places like Singapore. We went out of our way to give them shelter and we were willing to take thousands of children, but unfortunately the U-boat campaign knocked that on the head.

When are you sending them back? They stay in all the houses and hotels.

When the hon. member has finished interrupting I will proceed. Hon. members should know this, because I dealt with it last year, but for the benefit of the hon. member I want to refer to the existing policy of the Government. It is the policy which has been in existence since 1913. The Aliens Act of 1937 provides—

The hon. member ought to know that the Immigration Board is a Board which is outside the control of the Government. It was set up by Parliament and the Chairman is the Secretary for Native Affairs and various other members, including the Commissioner of Police, appointed by the Governor-General.

Do they grant temporary permits?

No, I will come to that.

You said I referred to permanent residents. That is not correct.

The number of people who came here under temporary permits was, as mentioned by the hon. member, 35,000 to 40,000 during the year.

Per annum.

And he tried to inform the House that we must have 50 or 60 thousand of these people in the country. I have no hesitation in saying, from the information I can glean from my Department, that there are no more than ten thousand in the country at a time. These temporary people are constantly coming and going. They come from the Congo, East Africa and elsewhere.

Has that been the position since the war?

Yes.

I can quote your own reply to the effect that there were 40,000.

You have misinterpreted the figures.

No, the position is as I have explained. These people come here under temporary permits for a specific purpose, and let me tell the House that when requests are made for an extension of these temporary permits, in very few cases are extensions granted. The immigration authorities and the police check up on these people and have a report, and they are dealt with. I will admit that a few of them have escaped our vigilance, but eventually they will be traced. One was missed for five years but he was traced the other day and dealt with.

That is only because he committed a crime.

That is true. But when they get hold of him they deal with him.

Will the Board at the same time consider the naturalisation of persons who have been in the Union for the last eight years?

This Board has nothing to do with naturalisation. The responsibility for that is mine, as Minister of the Interior. I have to take full responsibility for naturalisation.

Cannot you take some naturalisation away from the Nationalists?

You should never have been naturalised.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) raised the question of these men who were deprived and denaturalised as the result of my action. There were 103 of them. As the hon. member knows one who was interned took me to the Supreme Court on this question and the Court decided, although I had acted on legal advice, that unless I was prepared to disclose the sources of my information which led me to take that action in order to enable them to judge, I had no right to denaturalise these men. We gave notice of appeal, but when the matter was considered by the legal advisers they decided that they did not think we would succeed on appeal, and I have given the necessary instructions for these certificates of denaturalisation to be cancelled.

All of them?

Yes, all. But I want to say this, that we are going through these papers again to see whether there are cases where we can give the necessary reasons and action will be taken in that regard. Many of these people who are responsible for the internments of these men did so under the undertaking that their names and information would not be disclosed and it is for that reason that Parliament last year amended the Act, but unfortunately the interpretation placed upon it by the Court is different from what I thought Parliament had intended. But the position today is that these men whom I denaturalised will be reinstated. Instructions have been given for that order to be withdrawn, and they will be naturalised again. The hon. members for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), and Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) dealt with the important question of vital statistics. I realise the importance of it and if it is possible I will see that it is undertaken. It is a matter with which we have to work in the closest conjunction with the Native Affairs Department and they are in favour of it. I wish they had made representations to me in connection with the matter, and we would then have been able to give a more satisfactory reply. All I can say now is that I agree that the criticisms are sound and that effect should be given to it. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has raised the question of films. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) also discussed this question, but these two members are at variance as to what they think should happen in connection with the matter. May I tell the hon. member for Vasco that the report which he and his two fellow commissioners were responsible for was considered by me. I asked the Chairman to give me a synopsis of it in order that it might be published and so that the public might know, and it was handed to the Press and given the widest publicity. It was not a detailed report. I am sure that everyone interested can peruse it and get the details. I assured the House last session that I intended referring it to a Departmental Committee, which I did. That Committee consisted of Mr. Smith, the exSecretary for Commerce, Mr. Hurter, the Secretary for the Interior, and the Postmaster-General. They had reports from the various departments affected, such as the Educational Film Department, the Union Defence Force and the Bureau of Information, and on all that information they have come to the conclusion that something must be done in connection with the matter, not in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, or to that extent, certainly, and not as suggested by the hon. member for Vasco. The hon. member for Moorreesburg will remember that last year when this matter was discussed he was most anxious that Afrikaans films should appear, even if only for five minutes, as a token, in South Africa, and I told him I was sympathetic in connection with the matter. Today African Films inform me they will make Afrikaans films in South Africa, but the hon. member objects to it, complaining, before he knows what is happening, about the manner in which the Afrikaans may be spoken. I do not claim to be an authority on Afrikaans, and I agree with him 100 per cent. that the Afrikaans of these films should be perfect, and I am confident that this concern will see to that. I have used no pressure and did not discuss the matter with them. It is their own venture and I think they should be encouraged when they feel that there is a demand in South Africa for Afrikaans films, and it should not be condemned out of hand.

We might even have a film of the Nationalist Caucus.

Or of you, with a fez on your head.

The hon. member for Vasco wanted to know whether the report will be available. I am prepared to let any member interested in this question read it, but I do not think it is a document which should be laid on the table of the House. There again I have been obliging and I gave the hon. member extracts dealing with the films. But at this stage, however desirable it may be to establish a corporation to be run by the people of South Africa to produce films for South Africa, it is not a practical proposition. We can do something to help with our films, but to try to compete with the production of films by the British and American people is an impossibility. But, Mr. Chairman, another thing I would point out is this. Take your Afrikaans films. I do not want to be misunderstood, but the Afrikaans film will only be useful in South Africa and probably in Holland.

Was that the case with Kilimanjaro?

I do not know anything about that, except what the hon. member said. But the other point we have to deal with is that we have throughout South Africa hundreds of bioscopes which belong to companies or to private individuals and as long as the present position exists, they are the people who say what will be exhibited in their bioscopes. That brings me to the last point raised by the hon. member, and to my mind the most important in connection with the matter, and that is the question of the Film Censor Board. I am very sorry to hear what he said and to listen to the quotations he made from the book by Mr. Phillips, about the police not carrying out the decisions of the Censor Board. The Censor Board deals with films in relation to the population in South Africa, European, coloured and native. They may say that some films can only be shown to Europeans, others only to Europeans and coloureds, and others to Europeans, coloureds and natives. The Board cannot do more than that, and the Police should certainly see that the decisions taken by the Board are carried out.

Will you bring that to the notice of the Department of Justice?

Certainly. What is the good of having a Films Board if its instructions are not carried out? I will see that it is conveyed to the police authorities. But I think that that can only take place in some of the smaller bioscopes, probably in the locations, because the bigger bioscopes, co-operated to the fullest extent. They agreed to cuts being made in the films owing to the peculiar conditions affecting South Africa. Now I come to the question first raised by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) and dealt with by various other members. I will not pick out the remarks of any individual member in this connection but I will deal with it generally. I will give the House full information and deal with this important matter of the ’Indian question in South Africa, more particularly as it affects the Transvaal and Natal. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition occupied the position which I occupy as Minister of the Interior for nine years. During that period he had to deal with the Indian question. They introduced the Closed Areas Bill. There was a lot of trouble and agitation and they had a round table conference. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) said we should follow his policy. Well, the fundamental principle of the 1927 agreement was that the Indian should be treated as a South African; he was to be uplifted and all the advantages of education and other facilities should be granted to him plus the repatriation of Indians, and they discussed the question of repatriating them in bulk to some islands in the East or somewhere else, and there was a suggestion that a commission should be appointed to investigate the most suitable place for these people to go to. Well, one of the results of the 1927 conference’ was the appointment of an Agent-General here. Do not think I am finding fault with what happened, but he was here to look after the interests of the Indians. About 15,000 Indians were repatriated to India as repatriating them to any other country did not seem to please the Indian Government. That repatriation scheme did not come to fruition. At that time everyone in South Africa was anxious that this question should be looked at and dealt with from the national point of view and not from a narrow point of view, and the Leader of the Opposition in those days had the wholehearted support of the people of Natal. Well, that repatriation did not take place and the matter has been allowed to drift from then right up until we had these two reports, the first and the second Broome Reports, and the second Broome Report was responsible for the Pegging Act of three years ago, which expires on 31st December next year. That was brought into existence on account of the Indians acquiring property in what was then known as predominantly European areas. Under the Pegging Act the Minister of the Interior has to agree to transactions between Europeans and Indians, and Indians and Europeans, and It is a task which no one will be more pleased than I will be to be relieved of when that can be done. Provision was made in that Act that the Pegging Act applying straight away to Durban may be extended to other towns in Natal. I called those leaders and the present leaders of the Indians in Natal together and told them that if they observed the spirit of the Pegging Act, as it applied to Durban and to other towns, we would not extend it. It has not been extended as the Indians have followed the spirit of that Act.

They have not.

Individuals have broken it but in many instances they were brought to book by the Natal Indian Congress. Following on that was the meeting to which the hon. member refers, in Maritzburg. Prior to that I had met the Durban City Council. Now, if anyone is to blame for the drifting that has taken place in connection with this matter it is the Durban City Council.

That is not worthy of you.

I will give you some facts of my own personal knowledge. I was responsible as a member of the Provincial Council for taking away the municipal franchise from the Indian and the vote which the Indian had in Natal, and was also responsible for enabling the City of Durban, and the following year the other towns, including Maritzburg, to set aside areas for the different sections; and the City of Durban, as a result of this, gave a solemn undertaking to the Provincial Council that if they passed that legislation they would do for the Indians what they were going to do for the Europeans.

The same old story again. It is denied every year.

It is true. The Durban City Council has laid out two of the most beautiful suburbs to be found anywhere in South Africa, but they have done nothing for the Indians. They tried to do something; that was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Western, but my complaint in this connection is that if the City Council of Durban had ignored—mind you, I will say frankly that the Indians of Natal during this period were very hostile: they were dead against the City Council doing anything and against segregation, and that has been the difficulty and the City Council has done nothing in consequence. But today there is a totally different picture. The City Council of Durban recognises its responsibilities in connection with this matter.

It is a Union question.

It recognises its responsibilities. They have 2,000 acres that they can use and they have Durban North, and if they lay it out, as it should have been laid out years ago, and as they did for Europeans, the question of the juxta-position of Indians and Europeans would have been settled. Subsequently a commission was appointed under Judge Broome and on that commission there were two Indians. Once that commission was hearing evidence, a hurried meeting was held in Pretoria just before the Prime Minister left for the north last year. The hon. member for Musgrave wants to pretend that that was my particular meeting and that I Called it.

You are the Minister of the Interior.

Yes, that is why I was called up to Pretoria for it. I do not want to shed myself of any responsibilities, but I did not take the initiative. That meeting was held, and hon. members know the result of the Pretoria Agreement.

You were convinced that they would accept it.

At that meeting there were the Administrator of Natal and certain Indians and Mr. Basson and I and the Prime Minister, who presided. On that the Provincial Administration produced their Ordinance to deal with this question. Now, the Ordinance which was originally suggested and which was passed, and to which the Indians took such exception, is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee in my opinion. The hon. member for Musgrave has stressed more than anything else the fact that the question of the acquisition of residential property for investment is not worth while; no one would undertake it. That is the only difference between the Pretoria Agreement and this Ordinance. In this Ordinance it was insisted that Indians should not purchase properties in these residential areas without a permit. That Ordinance, by itself, was not sufficient to deal with the position. There were two other Ordinances which were vital and had to be passed in order that the whole scheme could be given effect to, and the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) is correct when he says that when these Ordinances were passed they had the approval of the Municipal Councils of the Province of Natal. They accepted it. When these two Ordinances, the Housing Ordinance and the Expropriation Ordinance, came before our legal advisers they found that in their opinion they were both ultra vires, or certain sections were. This is a very important and difficult matter and one cannot afford to have any doubt as to the legality of Ordinances. The Indians protested against the passing of these Ordinances and so the Prime Minister and myself met in Pretoria and the Prime Minister issued a statement which was later published telling the Indians that the Housing Ordinance and the Expropriation Ordinance would be given effect to if they could get over some of the difficulties which might be possible in connection with the matter. As a result of the discussions with the Administrator and the Province, these two particular questions, the Housing Ordinance and the Expropriation Ordinance are being dealt with by this Parliament so if they are passed here there will be no question of their being ultra vires. The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation is amending the Housing Act to give the Housing Commission generally powers, and in it provision will be made as regards establishing the Natal Housing Board, which was a fundamental principle of the Ordinance. Now, for the benefit of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) there was a fourth Ordinance with which the Indians are not very much concerned and that is the Water Ordinance. That was declared ultra vires. He will be pleased to hear that the Acting Prime Minister intends to introduce legislation authorising the Province of Natal and giving them power to do what is necessary.

When will it be introduced?

During this Session. The appeal that I make to the Natal members and to the municipalities—thb City Councils of Durban and Maritzburg have agreed to lay aside certain areas for Indian occupation, and the Indians refuse this principle. They hate segregation. They call a rose by any other name. They are not objecting to an area which will be Indian being called an open area, and I hope the City Council of Durban will adopt that attitude.

Why don’t you listen to us for a change instead of listening to the Indians?

I am talking about conversations I had with the Administrator of Natal and the Mayor of Durban. This matter is progressing as well as one can expect in the circumstances, and if we can get over the housing difficulty and do away with the position that Indians and Europeans are living in juxta-position most of the difficulties in Natal, as far as the Indian problem is concerned, will be disposed of.

They protested and stated that they did not want this legislation unless it covered business houses.

I am quite aware of that position. Now I come to the position of the Transvaal. My predecessor in this post realised the seriousness of the position in the Transvaal and he appointed the Feetham Commission. I do not know whether it was a one-man commission or whether there were other members. However, that is beside the point. That commission dealt with the position as far as Johannesburg is concerned, and this only goes to show how difficult the position is that we are confronted with in connection with this matter. By the time Judge Feetham had set aside, as he rightly felt, areas that the Indians were entitled to, more than half that area had got into European occupation, including the big magistrates’ courts. As a matter of fact, I did not know that that area was being set aside for Indians, and we bought a big plot there for the courts. The City Council of Johannesburg realised the seriousness of the position and is anxious to tackle it. Attempts are being made now to clear land for the purpose of laying out an Indian township. But as soon as the Johannesburg City Council attempts to do anything of this kind, the European residents are up in arms. I have been in touch with every municipality throughout the Transvaal and with the exception of two or three, the bulk of them are anxious to play the game by the Indians and to set aside these areas. I have to come to the House so far as the Transvaal is concerned and get legislation passed enabling the municipalities to carry out what they are willing to do, that is, to set aside areas for Indian purchase and occupation, so that the Indians can build their own houses. This Indian question is not being allowed to drift.

Will it be compulsory?

No, the present intention is not to make it compulsory. The present intention—I have prevailed upon some of the municipalities to accept this view—is to provide these facilities and then the Indians must go. In this connection Port Elizabeth is entitled to full marks for the way they tackled this question. There they had to deal with the coloured question and the native question. They did not, have to deal with the Indian question. In Port Elizabeth they erected houses for occupation by coloureds and natives, and as soon as 300 or 400 houses were ready, they brought the provisions of the Slums Act into operation and condemned 300 or 400 houses. There they had the question of segregation, but it did not matter; they solved the problem by declaring the area concerned a slum area, and then they proceeded to destroy these houses.

That only affects slums; that is not segregation.

It is mainly a question of slums. The whole question in Johannesburg is a question of slums. In Fordsburg where it was sought to eject these people, the difficulty was that they had nowhere else to go. The same thing applies in Durban. We have the worst slums in South African in Durban. These people have nowhere else to go. But the City Council has given the assurance to me and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that they are going all out to provide alternative accommodation and to clean up these areas.

What about the better class of house owned by Indians in European Areas?

If the Leader of the Opposition is in my position he will see the hardship that exists in connection with this matter. These Indians are unable to get accommodation, and they are prepared to pay any price. They have increased the prices considerably but they are not able to do it now. The difficulty was that the City Council did not have land for them to go on. If they had tackled Riverside ten years ago, as I suggested, they would not have had any trouble. It is the better class Indian who is causing the difficulty. It is the better class Indian who is responsible for the introduction of the Pegging Act. These people find fault with the agreement that was entered into years ago—please understand that I am not finding fault with the Leader of the Opposition for entering into this agreement— I am merely stating the fact that these people find fault with this agreement. I am doing my level best to settle this question.

I take it that what you are saying now does not apply to wealthy Indians?

Yes, it is the wealthy Indian who is responsible for the Pegging Act.

But the wealthy Indian does not come into it.

If the hon. member knew how many applications we get from wealthy Indians to go into those areas, he will not say that.

When you continually allude to better class Indians, are we to understand that you mean wealthy Indians?

I am sorry, I assumed that hon. members would know the distinction in Natal. 96 per cent. of the Indians in Natal are working. There is no difficulty with regard to 95 per cent. or perhaps 96 per cent. of the Indian population. All our trouble and all our difficulty are caused by the remaining 4 per cent. the wealthy Indians. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) and the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) raised the question of the speech that I made in Pietermaritzburg, when I addressed the combined municipal executives, where I said, as the hon. member has quoted, that it is difficult to see how we can refuse to give the Indians communal representation on the municipalities, the provincial council and in Parliament. This Indian question is a practical question that faces us in South Africa and we have to make every attempt to settle it. It should never be made a party question. These Indians are in South Africa today. I am not going into the history of how they came to this country. They are here and we have to play the game by them, and as long as I occupy the post of Minister of the Interior, I am going to do my best to try and solve this problem, recognising and insisting on the supremacy of the European civilisation and to keep the Indians as far away from the Europeans as possible, so far as residential areas are concerned, and I am entirely opposed to social intercourse between Indians and Europeans.

What about municipal franchise?

I gave my views at this meeting that they should have communal representation. I appeal to the hon. member to look at the matter in this light; how is he going to refuse communal representation to the Indians in this country when we have granted it to the natives?

I do not know why the hon. Minister and hon. members should year after year put up this case against the Durban Municipality and accuse them of not endeavouring to provide houses for the Indians. When this matter came before the House in 1943, the municipality drew up a memorandum, which I have in my hand at the present moment. There are eleven pages here of refutations of the accusation against the City Council in this respect. This memorandum shows where the City Council bought land for the Indians and the Indians would not occupy it—they said it was segregation. The Town Council built houses for the Indians on the sub-economic plan, and it was with very great difficulty that they were able to persaude the Indians after many months to occupy these sub-economic houses. Here I have eleven pages of it; I do not want to weary the House by quoting from this document, but every year it falls to my lot to defend the City Council of Durban and to refute these accusations against the Council. There is no proof whatsoever of those statements. Here I have a document prepared by the City Council of Durban. Here we have the written evidence. The Council did all it possibly could for the Indians, with the limited ground which they have at their disposal and the Indians would not co-operate.

What about Riverside?

When the Council wanted to declare the whole area a slum ….

And hand it over to Europeans.

No, that is not correct. The Council intended to clean up the whole area and set aside building lots for Europeans and Indians in separate sections, but the Indians objected and held a mass meeting in the City Hall and they passed resolutions and sent inflammatory cables to India, so the Municipality dropped the whole thing. When I was speaking on this subject yesterday afternoon and was interrupted by the time limit, I was dealing with the question of the way in which the Indians frustrate any attempts on the part of municipalities to provide housing for them. Everybody seems to think that the City Council of Durban does not play the game towards the Indians. I strongly deny that. But let us go to the village of Tongaat. I have before me a cutting from a Natal newspaper, the headlines of which are “Natal Model Village Scheme Amended”, here you have an illustration of a hovel in which Indians are living at the present time, and another picture showing a type of dwelling which the Tongaat Town Board intended to erect for the Indians. Here we have this comparison. But I would like to read the further subheadlines of this article just to show how the wealthy Indians will obstruct any scheme that is put forward.

What paper is that?

This is from the “Natal Daily News” of the 16th September, 1944. It is stated here—

That is quite true, but the Tongaat people are going on with the scheme.

They are going on with the scheme ….

That is what Durban should do.

I have not finished. They are going on with the scheme but not as originally intended. In order to meet the opposition of the Natal Indian Congress, they have had to modify their scheme and the result is that the Indians will not have such good housing as they would have had under the original scheme. Other cities are trying to find accommodation for the Indians but the Natal Indian Congress which is run by the wealthy Indians puts a spoke in the wheel every time and tries to sabotage the scheme, as it has always done in the past. This subject is getting beyond a Natal subject, as so many people thought it was a few years ago. It is even getting beyond a South African problem. It is becoming an international problem. It seems to me there is a conspiracy abroad, engineered in India, to extend the borders of India. India has continually sought to expand its borders. The Fiji group of islands which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) mentioned this morning, has been overrun by Indians. Mauritius which used to be a European settlement, today has a European population of 14,000 and an Indian population of 360,000. Fifty or sixty years ago Mauritius was looked upon as a European island. The Indian population in South Africa is increasing three times as rapidly as the European population. In support of what I have said regarding a conspiracy, I would like to read an extract from an Indian paper known as “The Voice of India”, dated September, 1944. Here it is stated—

This is written by the President of the Hindu Mahasabha. Referring to Indian demands in South Africa, the paper says—

There you have the whole conspiracy.

Why did you bring them to Natal?

There you have it again. All this is just like water on a duck’s back. What does it matter who brought the Indians to this country? The Indians are here and we are faced with this problem. The former Minister of the Interior who has interjected merely toyed with the Indian problem and did nothing to safeguard the rights of Europeans in South Africa. [Time limit.]

I do not blame anyone if he takes it upon himself to champion the cause of any section if he believes that that section has been treated unfairly. The impression which the hon. Minister is giving us and the country is that the Indians in Natal suffer very largely through the actions of the City Council of Durban and that the Indians have not been treated fairly. I want to compare the position of the Indians in Natal, whose cause the Minister has taken up, with the position of the Indians in Krugersdorp. I want to confine myself to what happened in Krugersdorp, because that is one of the places where the Indians of Transvaal concentrate.

That municipality is an example to the rest.

I am very pleased to see that the Minister is fairly well informed. The Krugersdorp Town Council set a very fine example in this matter, and I want to know why the Indians refused to co-operate. The Krugersdorp Town Council set aside a certain piece of land with the approval of the then Minister of the Interior. The Indians were promised land close to Krugersdorp itself for a model township. They were offered everything they required. In Krugersdorp the council said to the Indians: “There is a piece of land which is being set aside for you”, but in spite of that the Indians—not all the Indians but the so-called elite—persistently obstructed this scheme as projected by the Town Council of Krugersdorp.

But nevertheless you went on with it.

Yes, the council is still going on with it. The council offered the Indians all these facilities and asked for their co-operation. Now I want to ask the hon. Minister, in view of the experience we have had in Krugersdorp, in view of the attitude which the Indians adopted there, what he thinks the attitude of the Indians in Durban will be if the City Council of Durban did exactly the same thing as Krugersdorp? Does the Minister suggest that we have more reasonable Asiatics in Durban than in Krugersdorp? If the Indians turn down this proposition in Krugersdorp, as they have done persistently for a number of years, I want to ask the Minister whether he has any reason to believe that the Indians in Durban will not adopt the same attitude? Would he also try to champion the cause of these people in spite of the attitude adopted by them. I want to ask the Minister whether he considered that attitude on the part of the Indians reasonable? They maintain that they represent a minority and that they need protection, and yet when the Town Council of Krugersdorp or the Government offers them these privileges, they reply: “Oh, no, we want to dictate to the council and to the Government where we want to settle in Krugersdorp, in other words, right around the market square”. I do not want to level any unfair criticism against the Minister, but I want him to compare the attitude of the Indians in Natal with the attitude adopted by the Indians of Krugersdorp, and I want him to tell us what he thinks of their attitude.

How can they obtain the right to settle round the market square?

They have got it.

But how did they obtain that right?

The Minister knows that when the Feetham Commission sat, certain stands were recommended for exemption and others were not. The Council said: “Well, in order to solve this problem finally, we are prepared, if you want living space and if you want to show the European that you are capable of managing your own township ….

You are hedging now, answer my question. From whom did they buy it; from Indians or from the Town Council?

They bought it years ago.

From whom?

From white people.

Then the whites are responsible.

I am sorry, I cannot argue with the hon. member. My point is simply this, that we have provided a decent locality for the Indians. The hon. member asks who sold this land to the Indians. Why did these Europeans sell the land to them? That is a point the hon. member will never ask the House. He knows the truth is that if you have a piece of land and an Indian buys adjacent land you know and the country knows, in spite of the hon. member’s pretents of ignorance, that the land situated next to that or the premises situated next to that land depreciates more and more, and instead of having a useful piece of land in time to come the European eventually has no option but to sell that land. The hon. member knows that.

Who sold them that land?

The other day that hon. member told the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he was getting old and that he had the ways of an old man. But the hon. member over there has the ways of an old man. He wants to shout down everyone and no one has the right to speak, except he. If there is one man who has developed the mentality of an old man, it is that hon. member, and I would advise him to listen to other members instead of wanting to do all the talking himself; the more he listens the more he will learn the outlook of young South Africa. He thinks he is an authority on everything I want to ask the Minister whether he is going to tell the Indians that they are wrong in their attitude.

Certainly.

I wish he would do that. I wish he would indicate to them in no uncertain terms that if the municipality makes a reasonable suggestion to them they must not always try to have their own way. The white man also has his rights. The hon. Minister knows that it is not the ordinary Indian who makes things impossible for us; it is the so-called elite amongst the Indians. I would like to have the statement of the Minister on this point.

I want to reply briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). The information he has given this House is quite correct. The difficulty at Krugersdorp is caused by a few Indians. The bulk of the Indians do not give us any trouble at all. These Indians cannot acquire land in freehold. They form companies and use dummies, it is true, but the municipality has control so far as the granting of licences are concerned. If all the municipalities followed the example of the Krugersdorp Town Council, we would have no difficulty. Last year, I had to have a special resolution passed in order to enable the Krugersdorp and Barberton municipalities to deal with this matter. You have always got a minority. I say frankly, and they can give it as much publicity as’ they like, Krugersdorp has played the game and the Indians will get no sympathy from me at Krugersdorp.

The hon. Minister tried to cover up his failings by referreing to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was at that time also advised to withdraw the so-called Pegging Act. I want to point out that what he got at that time in its place was of much greater benefit to South Africa.

I am making no charge against the Leader of the Opposition. I am only referring to the fact that I am experiencing the same difficulties as he experienced at that time.

I welcome the explanation by the Minister. What the Leader of the Opposition obtained at that time was of far greater benefit to South Africa. The principle was accepted by our Government and the Government of India that repatriation would be the principle applied. I refer to an interesting article by Morris Webb in “Race Relations” on the Cape Town Agreement, in which he makes the proposition that the whole aim and object of the Cape Town Agreement was not an improvement in the conditions of the Indians in South Africa, but on the contrary, the great principle contained in it was the principle of repatriation of all Indians in South Africa. From time to time hon. members on the opposite benches come with a smoke-cloud that the Leader of the Opposition at that time extended a great benefit to the Indians. I say again that is entirely in conflict with the truth. The difficulty with which we have to contend, however, is that from time to time the Indians in South Africa receive encouragement from the side of the Government and from the present Minister to remain in South Africa. Instead of exerting themselves to get rid of the Indians from South Africa they encourage them to remain here. Ministers make promises to the Indians in South Africa that even the Government of India does not make to the citizens of that country. The Minister of the Interior has admitted that he has in view granting the franchise to Indians in South Africa, a very attractive prospect for the Indians. If I were an Indian that prospect would make me think again and again before I returned to India. I would prefer to remain in South Africa. Then the prospect is placed before the Indians of providing them with houses on a large scale in Natal and also in the Transvaal. I would be a very weak Indian if with these prospects I return to India. The position today is that the Acting Prime Minister in particular and the Minister of the Interior from time to time hold out the prospect of things for the Indians in South Africa that even the Indians in India dare not hope for. The observation has been made by hon. members on the other side that this matter is being approached by us from the racial angle. That is one of the difficulties we have to contend with. Whenever a European in South Africa wants to tackle the matter properly for the sake of the future of the white race and also for the sake of the future of the Indians themselves or of other races, the cry of racialism is at once raised. Whenever we approach the matter from the angle of the Europeans, whenever we approach the matter from the angle of the future interests of the community as a whole, the cry of racialism goes up. But if we really have regard to the future, it is in the interests of our country that we shall act in such a way as to indicate to the people the dangers of the development that is occurring. Accordingly, I take exception to the fact that some hon. members are prone to say that we regard matters from a racial angle. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) uttered a warning against individuals who take up the case of the Indians. I repeat that if an injustice is being done to the Indians I give them the full right to protest and to take action against it, but we may not close our eyes to the fact ’that people in South Africa are frequently paid to do this work, to make propaganda, and to incite the non-European races and the Indians against the viewpoint of the Europeans. We have also to look this fact in the face today and to pay attention to it. It is our duty to bring the problem before the attention of the people. We cannot merely allow matters to develop. I should like, if you will permit me, to read again the full report of the Registrar of Deeds in Natal. The hon. member for Musgrave did that yesterday, but he left out a portion. I want to read it out again, and I agree with the hon. member for Musgrave that it now time the people knew what was happening. One feature noticeable recently is we are unable to obtain the necessary information from the Minister in connection with Indian affairs. Question after question we put is really not answered.

What information have I not given? I believe I have given all the information asked for.

It is seldom we receive a definite reply to a question. In the days of the old Nationalist Party the Census Department published proper statistics every month on the Indian question, and it is high time that good procedure was revived so we can have proper information and all the data at our disposal. I should, however like to read out the report of the Registrar’ of Deeds. It is contained in the report the Minister laid on the Table of the House a few days ago—

Indians sold to Europeans and others—

In urban areas: Indians bought from Indians—

Indians bought from Europeans and others—

The position is in respect of the total amount of land that underwent a change of ownership some 18 per cent. changed into the hands of Indians in the towns. These are the facts that we have to bring to the notice of the people. I was surprised at the statement of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) that we should remain silent on this matter. The fact is that the Indians, on their side, have vigorously and forcefully, in season and out of season, proclaimed their standpoint and have placed their interests in the foreground. But as soon as we, as Europeans, endeavour to advocate our interests it is called racialism. We should not let this state of affairs continue. [Time limit.].

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) has dealt with the question of the charge that was brought from time to time against the City Council of Durban to the effect that they defaulted in connection with the upliftment programme and particularly in connection with the provision of suitable areas for the Indians to live in, which was implied by the Cape Town Agreement of 1927. The Minister, who has repeated this accusation against the City Council today, has surely overlooked the fact that the then member for Zululand (Mr. Heaton Nicholls), said in this House that when there was a further conference in 1932 to assess the value of the Cape Town Agreement the Indian delegates were all admitting that the agreement had been a failure. They, for their part, were willing to confess that the agreement had not been carried out.

I said that, the repatriation portion.

Not only the repatriation portion. The reception of Indians who were sent back to India under the repatriation scheme was so hostile in their own country that they did not wish to stay, and in addition to that the whole structure of the agreement was proved to be a hollow failure. Mr. Heaton Nicholls and other delegates were on the point of denouncing the agreement as valueless. He pointed out in this House how the Government of India had defaulted, and how hopeless it was to continue with such an agreement. He was only constrained to refrain from denouncing the agreement by a proposal that a new direction should be explored for providing land for the Indians by a land colonisation scheme elsewhere. In consultation with other countries and with the aid of the Indian Government; and the Indian Government, for the second time, failed to do anything whatsoever towards carrying out this agreement. They did not even appoint their representatives on the commission that investigated the matter, and it was left to South Africa alone to appoint a commission, on which Mr. Nicholls himself served, to try to find suitable areas, which they failed to do. Although these facts are on record in Hansard the Minister tries to make us believe that the nigger in the woodpile is the Durban City Council. In 1943 in this House I summarised all the efforts made on behalf of the Indians; the record will be found in the Hansard 1943 dealing with the Second Reading of the Pegging Act. There is no truth whatsoever in this charge against the Durban City Council.

Tell me any place that the City Council has prepared for the Indians equal to those two places prepared for the Europeans. That is the gravamen of my charge.

If the hon. Minister wishes me to go over the details of over £2,000,000 expenditure I shall do so.

You know Durban as well as I do, they have not set aside any area.

I can give details of the several areas making up the total value of £2,000,000. We come to a stage in which the matter of the purchase of property by Indians was fully investigated by a Select Committee of the Provincial Council and several of us appeared before the Select Committee. I defy anybody who has the slightest interest in the Indian, to challenge the fairness with which those of us from this House spoke of the matter before the Select Committee. I indicated the whole history of the matter from the days when the late Mr. McKeurtan used to move in this House for a Select Committee to deal with it, right away through all the events touching this Indian question, and I indicated that the best solution would be to follow the principle that is being followed in India of having Improvement Trusts which would devote their work and the capital provided for them, to the improvement of the conditions of the Indians in the various urban areas in which they are situated. I indicated the magnificent work these two bodies have done with almost unlimited funds at their disposal. I said my observations in India had convinced me that that was the right course of action to take. The regulation of the purchase of land and the establishment of a board to control purchases for which provision was made in the amended Bill was very largely influenced by the Select Committee’s grasp of what was being done in India by these Improvement Trusts. We have reached the stage, as the Minister said this afternoon, when the matter of control has become vital to Europeans. I have indicated that we have never been nearer the danger of the loss of European supremacy in South Africa. The Indians, as the hon. member for Musgrave has said, are boasting already of their superior numbers in the various African colonies in which they have settled. To bring the matter home, I want to quote from a paper read to certain members of Parhament by a Dr. Alport, a South African himself, who had been a professor in Cairo University in Egypt and who has had very extensive opportunities of observing the effect of the Mohammedan community in Egypt and of the tremendous infiltration of Indians in East Africa, in addition to which he has lived in South Africa for a long time.

Is he a South African?

He is a South African of very distinguished family. One of the original members of the family was referred to not long ago in the “Cape Times” as having been the hero of an act of bravery similar to that of Woltemade. He laid down his life in riding out to a wreck with a horse and bringing people ashore. He brought in one person after another, but in the end he himself was drowned. This gentleman points out the tremendous predominance of the Indians in the territories to the North. He states that in Kenya there are 28,000 Europeans and 47,000 Indians; in Tanganyika 6,000 Europeans and 33,000 Indians; in Uganda 2,000 Europeans and 26,972 Indians. Then you will find in Kenya where there are 47,000 Indians, there are 3½ million natives, and in Tanganyika where there are 33,000 Indians, there are 5¼ million natives, while in Uganda, where there are 26,000 Indians, there are 3 to 4 million natives. So there is a great deal of truth in their claim that they outnumber the Europeans by a very large proportion in the African colonies in which they are settled. In addition to that, there is a definite move on the part of the Indians in connection with these world conferences that are being held, to secure the mandate in Africa over Tanganyika, and if they succeed in doing that the greatest infiltration of Indians to South Africa will immediately begin. Dr. Alport points out, in his informative paper, that this would form a bridgehead for the Indians pouring into Africa. With the unlimited capital that has already been placed at the disposal of the Kenya Indians by the Aga Khan there is a method by which every Indian arriving in the country is provided with funds to cover the necessary cash deposit he has to produce. [Time limit.]

I had hoped that the Minister in mentioning what the municipalities were doing in connection with the Indian question, might have enlightened us a little on what is taking place in Johannesburg. I understand the Johannesburg municipality has recommended the purchase of the Diepkloof prison site with the idea of turning it into an Indian township. The House should know that the Johannesburg Municipal Council is comprised at present of the representatives of the three Parties present in this House, and if steps are taken to establish that Indian township next to a white township recently surveyed and laid out with every up-to-date-amenity, and where plots have been purchased by 110 soldiers, every section of this House will be held responsible for placing that Indian township there. Ex-soldiers have purchased plots with the intention of building their homes there, homes that will be near their work. As far as Langlaagte is concerned, no fewer than 1,000 soldiers have gone to the front and I am glad to know a good many intend, when they return, to build homes on the site I have mentioned. The point is whether these people will be expected to build their homes there if the Diepkloof site is to be an Indian township; I should say that the eastern boundary of the Diepkloof prison site forms the western Merridale boundary of the Merridale township, the two places being continuous, only a fence between them. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government intends to go on with this scheme, whether it intends to carry out the request made by the Johannesburg Municipality, because many people are interested to know the Government’s intentions. Protest meetings have been held in connection with the matter and it is only fair that the Minister should clarify the position and tell the House what the Government intends to do.

I have always been taught to believe that justice, truth and fair play prevails in the end. We find, however, in a discussion of this nature that those hon. members who loudly proclaim their Christian beliefs are the first to forget we are all God’s children and we should do to others as we would like them to do to us. Despite the protestations of some of the members from Durban, who seek to rebut the allegation that the City Council of Durban has failed in its duty to the Indian community of Durban, I take the contrary view, and I say the City Council of Durban can be held guilty of neglect to the Indian community of Durban. The hon. member for Musgrave rightly said that the Indian Congress is dominated by wealthy Indians. It is equally true that this House of Assembly is dominated by wealthy sections of the European community, and the European community treats its less fortunate members in exactly the same way and in no way different to the manner in which the rich Indians treat the poor Indians. The problem must be examined from the perspective of a community in which there are rich and in which there are poor, and the poor members in the Indian community who live in the constituency of Pinetown, who live just over the Ridge of Durban, know that the City Council of Durban is guilty of neglect not only in its failure to provide them with decent houses but also in failure to provide them with the ordinary essentials to good health, sanitary conditions and roads. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) cannot tell us of any decent macadamised road—other than the major trunk road leading out from Durban—which has been built in his own area immediately over the Ridge, and if you go to the other side of Durban, on the other side of the Umklatuzana River, exactly the same conditions prevail. The hon. member for Musgrave’s (Mr. Acutt) says that all Indians should be shifted to the other side of the Umgeni and in the other direction on the other side of the Umklatuzana.

Or into the Indian Ocean.

I believe one of the members of the Dominion Party denies the allegation that he stated that all the Indians should be thrown into the Bay. But the point is this, that the hon. member for Musgrave views the position through the eyes of Musgrave Road, and what he holds out as a virtue in European people he regards as a crime in the Indian community of Durban. European landlords and the European owners of slum property who have enjoyed their prosperity in the past are now being challenged in the landed estate business by the Indian community; what they considered a virtue in the past, the virtue of private enterprise, is now being challenged in the landed estate business by the Indian community; what they considered a virtue in the past, the virtue of private enterprise, is now ’ being practised by the Indians. The House must realise that the whole question cannot be examined except in relation to the whole economic fabric of South Africa. The European black market profiteers with the surplus profits they have made out of the war have sought investment in land, and this has brought about land increments in farming areas. Black market profiteers in the Indian community are also seeking investments for their money, and because they are denied the ordinary avenues of investment they seek it in the penetration of European areas and the purchase of European residential property. Now, there is a solution for it, but a solution which I am afraid the hon. Minister of the Interior is not likely to accept. You can nationalise housing or socialise it. You then deny to the Indian capitalists the right to buy property and to exploit it through some other individual paying rent. You will also deny the same right to the European capitalistic investor, and if you make that proposal, I know what the answer of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) will be, but it is a solution which is based upon honesty and justice.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless). He brought a fresh breath of air from the Indian Ocean. He is speaking about Durban, where all his constituents are white. With regard to my gallant friend, Capt. Van den Berg, the member for Krugersdorp, let me tell him that 25 years ago, speaking from the seat now occupied by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), the late Sir Abe Bailey, who was then the member for Krugersdorp, made a speech on exactly the same lines as my friend made today. He went so far as to say this: At that time the present Prime Minister was also the Prime Minister, it was just after the death of General Botha. Sir Abe Bailey said that if this Government does not put this question right he would lead a Republican Government in this country. How far has Krugersdorp come? If we make it a capital offence that every white man in Krugersdorp who has sold a piece of land to Indians should be hanged, half of Krugersdorp will have to be hanged.

Must a man lose his property? They are poor people.

Half of them would have been hanged. It is the European capitalist who brought this about.

A capitalist who owns a piece of ground?

But the ordinary South African has to suffer for it, the poorer Afrikaans-speaking man, not the well-to-do member for the Labour Party. He will suffer because the English-speaking capitalist and the Afrikaans Jew has sold his land. That is the story of South Africa. Just as the hon. member for Musgrave’s (Mr. Acutt) grandfather brought the Indians to this country ….

He protested against it.

But what is the solution that my hon. friend offers? He went to India. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) went there and saw the might of India. They came back to this country but how do they wish to solve the problem? He said you must have a little town alongside another little town, but one must be black and the other white; the Ghetto system; and when that little black town gets too full, what happens? Then you have another little black town, and so South Africa becomes a chessboard, with a white man living here, a coloured man there, a native there, and’ an Indian there, and the rich man over there. May I ask the gallant captain whether he was in favour of segregation of the Indian division when it fought alongside the Sixth Armoured Division in Italy.

What on earth are you talking about now?

They were not in the same regiment.

I am talking to the “gallant captain of the Pinafore,” as a military man, and asking him wether the Indians and South Africans fought together in the Middle East, and whether he was against their fightting together, and whether he said they will have to be segregated so as to let the Germans break through in the middle.

Of course they were segregated.

Did they fight together as an army? Of course they did. The Indians and the South Africans fought together as allies. The members of the Opposition have an argument but the gallant captain who went out and got people to go and fight alongside the Indians, what place has he got?

You know that is not true.

Of course it is true. The Indian armies and the white armies fought together. Now we will hear that the Indians did not fight, when the fact is that more V.C.’s were won by the Indians than by anyone else. [Interjection.] My friend becomes angry. He speaks like the Mad Hatter in “Alice in Wonderland.” His culture is so limited that I will not continue with that, but I will translate it into “Mary had a little lamb.” I only want to say this: Old as I am I have had experience and I know this. I know that we are living on a black man’s sea, the Indian Oceán, and that we are two million white people amongst nine million blacks and we are the only white men on this sea of the black man which extends from Trincomalpo to Cape Town. We must uphold civilisation and the only way we can do it is to follow the teachings of Christ, otherwise this civilisation will perish. The sins of the fathers are now coming down to the fourth generation as the hon. member for Msugrave knows. You bring into a land a semi-slave people to cut your sugar and you are responsible for the Indians; not the Afrikaans-speaking people, but the English-speaking people, the capitalists, are responsible for doing this thing to South Africa. Now they say: “Open up the gates and let them flow out”. They are responsible and they want a Ghetto system and my hon. friend there, for whom I have great respect, says that the Indians themselves said that they would build up a town and they went to the koppies far away to lay out a town on Indian lines but as soon as they did that my hon. friend says they must not have that, because they will see the smoke from the chimneys. What is the solution? The solution is not a Ghetto system. The solution is to pay the Indians a proper wage when they work for you. For years Natal has lived on the sweat of the Indians and people built up the country on the sweat of the Indians. Now it is becoming an Indian country. It is the story of the ages which rings down the corridors of history in every country, and the Indians were not brought here by the Indian Government. In fact the Indian Government protested against them being brought here. [Interjection.] Read your history and you will see that is so. But it is these capitalistic Englishmen who said they wanted to grow sugar and they will grow it but they will not grow it in the sweat of their own brow but with the sweat of the Indians’ brow and now they have to suffer for it. I think that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister, did more towards solving the Indian problem than anyone else. I pay full tribute to the member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) for what he did. He got the Agent-General here. They put flowers round his chest and he made a gentleman’s agreement with the Indians and everything went well. Then this Minister comes along and takes away the vote of the Indians. [Time limit.]

In connection with this complaint we have here today about the pelletration of Indians, I should like to give the Minister certain information. The information I want to give him is about the following matter. In the year 1940 the C.I.D. of the South African Police were instructed to investigate fully the evasion of the law in connection with the possession of ground by Indians in the Transvaal. The C.I.D. investigated the matter very thoroughly and found that a very serious state of affairs existed everywhere in the Transvaal, both on the Witwatersrand and in small places like Wolmaransstad, Zeerust, Bloemhof, Christiana and everywhere where there was much property in the possession of certain fictitious companies. They were companies of which Europeans were the shareholders and the directors. They were purely fictitious shareholders and directors because everything was in the hands of the Indians. They were the people who had provided the money and who handled the whole matter. It was found that one person was a director of 31 companies about which he himself knew nothing. He made an affidavit to the effect that he had simply been asked that his name should be used. He never attends any directors meeting and does not know anything that in going on. People were found even in the Free State who were shareholders and directors in these companies across the Vaal. They also stated they knew nothing about it. One person replied that he had been asked to sign for shares; that he paid not a penny for them and that he became a director, but that he knew nothing more about the matter. They were simply dummies, while the business was really in the hands of the Indians. The C.I.D. sent to the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, who handed it over to the Minister of the Interior, a complete report containing sworn affidavits, exhibits of all the names of the people who were so-called directors and shareholders of companies, although they knew nothing about the companies. That was in 1940. The C.I.D. was thereafter given a message—I understand that it was a telephone message—from the Minister of the Interior to the effect that they were to take no legal steps in connection with the matter. In 1940 the present Minister was not yet the Minister of the Interior. But the Ministry of the Interior has all that information, all that evidence with the exhibits and sworn affidavits and the names, but it never took any steps to give effect to that investigation and to institute a prosecution. I should now like to have a statement from the Minister as to why steps were never taken, why the Government instituted the investigation and caused all the exhibits to be obtained, and yet did nothing with all the information? I am informed that the legal advisers stated that it was an exceptionally good case with no chance of an acquittal, and that steps could have been taken against the persons concerned, and I think that this House is entitled to have an explanation from the Minister. What is the use of instituting this sort of case and to let the police and detectives investigate and find out everything and when they find cases where evasions of the law are proved no steps are taken by the authorities? We received this information from a very responsible source, and we want a statement from the Minister about it. Then there is another matter which I raised a little while ago, and that is the misuse made of its position by the Information Bureau. The Minister will remember that I quoted from an official report of the Information Bureau in which they recommended Mr. Percy Niehaus as a candidate for the election in South-West Africa. The Minister stated that he regarded it as wrong, and that anything like that should not be done. The Minister must now report to this Committee what he did in connection with the matter. It is no use saying that it is wrong; we want to know what steps the Minister took in connection with it as the result of the fact that we raised it here in the House. Then we come to the following matter, namely the question of the South African Library in Cape Town. A little while ago I put a question to the Minister in connection with it. The allowance by the State the previous year was £5,100 and this year it is £5,700. I asked the Minister whether any conditions had been put in connection with the bilingualism of the personnel. His reply was no. I further asked him what the policy of the trustees or curators is in connection with bilingualism. His reply to that was—

Thereafter a storm raged in the local Press about this matter, and the allegation was that the reply of the Minister was quite incorrect, not that he wanted to give incorrect information but incorrect information was given to him. On 13th February Mr. McCausland, the Chairman of the Curators, informed a representative of “Die Burger” that Mr. Robinson, the Assistant Librarian who had been appointed, was unilingual. The most recent appointment, namely that of the Assistant Chief, which was therefore a very important appointment was that of a unilingual person. About seven years ago the present chief was appointed. He was imported from England. He was unilingual, but the condition was put that he should be bilingual within two years. Persons who have come into contact with him allege that although he wrote the lower Taalbond examination he is not so bilingual that he can converse in Afrikaans, or if he is, he is unwilling to do so. In the meantime there was Mr. Ian Murray in the Library who is bilingual but who was not appointed as chief or deputy-chief.

He went to fight also.

Yes, he resigned and went to fight. A representative of “Die Burger” investigated and found the following in the case of five people who come into direct contact with the public. Two are unilingually English-speaking, two can speak Afrikaans and the fifth one knows enough Afrikaans to be able to make a sort of noise that sounds like “Ja”. There is a man working there, and the following question was put to him in Afrikaans—

The reply was—

A series of letters appeared in the Press from prominent people in which they alleged that the majority of the personnel was unilingual. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to extend the debate on the Indian question by a review of facts which have already been traversed more frequently than has been happy in this House, but while the situation in respect of the Indians in Natal is still to some extent fluid, it is tending to set in directions which I personally feel are extremely dangerous. Now some of the facts that have been discussed already are relevant to my argument in this regard, and that is the only reason why I refer to them again. To begin with, I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless), and first of all by the hon. Minister, that the essence of this trouble has been the neglect of the Durban Municipality. I know the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) has a feeling of despair at this being repeated, but I must repeat it. After the Pegging Act was passed I spent a fortnight in Durban, which I already knew fairly intimately, having lived there for some years, going over the whole of the ground myself, and I feel that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) was in a difficulty when the hon. Minister challenged him today to name one area which was comparable to the two fine areas which have been laid out in the last few years for Europeans. I think of Montclair in the days when I lived in Durban, when it was little better than the lower side of the road which now divides Montclair from Clairwood. I think that is a situation which applies to the whole of Durban. I went through all the areas where Indians live. I did not see one single area in which the streets were made up as they had been made up in Montclair where a very fine middle-class suburb has been created. Wherever you have European settlement, the rates of Durban have been spent to provide that area with the amenities which we regard as essential to decent living. But there is no comparable area for Indian settlement. In this regard I may say, Durban is no different from a number of other towns I know, where there is just as clear a dividing line between the areas occupied by non-Europeans and Europeans. I am talking about towns in the Cape Province, where the pavement ends where the European area ends and the native residential area begins. I only refer to this because it is relevant to my argument, but before I go on with that argument I want to come on to the question I was trying to deal with this morning, the figures given by the hon. member for Musgrave, which I am forced to use in preference to those given by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) for the simple reason that the latter gave us so many and at such a rate that I could not get them down. The argument I want to develop on the figures of the hon. member for Musgrave is, as I said this morning, that on the rural side, they did not show a large increase in Indian ownership. On the urban side, as far as they do reflect a fairly considerable rise in the value of Indian ownership, there are focused to some extent by what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) told us, that the whole value of property in Natal is probably £200,000,000. On that basis, on the hon. member’s own figures, it would take the Indians 200 years to buy it up. But on these figures I want to suggest that in so far as there has been a spectacular rise in the figures, there is an explanation for it which goes beyond what the hon. member for Umbilo gave, and that is that in the last four years, since the Durban Council urged its present proposals, the Indian population has been in a state of acute anxiety, expecting that a policy of complete segregation, like that which has been applied to natives, would be imposed on them; and they were doing exactly what the natives did when they say the 1936 Land Act looming on the horizon. They acquired everything they could in the hope that when the axe fell they would have something left on their side of the division. Fear has been one of the great factors in the increase of these purchases: and that fear has not been allayed since the passing of the Pegging Act. Indeed it has steadily been aggravated by the negotiations which have taken place since then, and it is in regard to those negotiations that I feel that perhaps the Minister’s statement did less than justice in the information he placed before us. That information gave us a less clear understanding of what has happened since then than some of us had hoped for. I do not say that that was intentional. The situation is complicated and the Minister gives the facts which strike him as being most pertinent. But there is a factor in the situation which is very important. As I understand it, the Pretoria Agreement was accepted by the Indians, in so far as it was accepted by them, because it was guaranteed—I hope the Minister will correct me if T am wrong— that what would be controlled would be acquisition and not ownership. In other words, after the Pegging Act was passed, when negotiations between the Indians and the Government took place, the line we took on the Pegging Act which was that whatever might be done in the way of controlling occupation there should be no interference with the rights of acquisition was apparently accepted by the Government. That is, that there should be no interference with the rights of investing money in property. But the Ordinances which were passed by the Provincial Council and which have since been held to be ultra vires went much beyond that. My understanding of the situation is this, that these Ordinances not only aimed at controlling the occupation of premises, but also aimed at controlling the purchase of premises. That in fact, was the ground of the attack by the hon. member for Musgrave on these Ordinances. But apparently they did not so far enough for the hon. member for Musgrave and his friends and I was shocked beyond measure to hear the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) say that one of the grounds, apparently the main ground for his opposition to the Ordinances was that these were limited to the purchase of residential property. He said that residences were the least productive form of investment. In other words he made it clear that his attack on the situation makes no pretence of being social. It aims at destroying the economic position of those who have succeeded in lifting themselves out of the gutter; and as I understand the attitude of the people whom my hon. friend from Musgrave represents, is that the Government shall put Natal in the position that it shall be able to control not only the purchase and occupation of residential property, but the purchase and occupation of business premises; in other words complete control. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Cane Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) returns to the charge that the City Council of Durban was responsible for the present conditions in regard to the housing of Indians in Durban. May I just put the Durban Corporation’s case as it appears in Hansard, Volume 46, column 5460—

How much of that was spent?

We will come to that—

May I further just refer to another scheme. The Springfield area is generally recognised to possess some of the finest marine and inland views, comparable with any sites within the city. The Council has already under construction in this area a vast sub-economic housing scheme for Indians consisting of 686 dwellings—total cost £332,176. In view of that, can it be said that the Durban City Council failed in its duty? It cannot, and that is a complete refutation of all allegations made against the City Council of Durban during this debate. The question is, what is the Indian problem? If we can get down to bedrock and recognise really what it is we may find a solution to it. When the Round Table Conference took place in 1927 it was recognised then that the Indian problem was the numerous and rapidly increasing Indian population in Natal. That was the crux of the position, and the only solution the Minister of the Interior at that time—now the Hon. Leader of the Opposition—could have come to was that it lay in the diminution of that number of Indians in Natal, and in the agreement with the Indian Government and the Indian Congress there was an agreement by all sides that permitted of a scheme of repatriation of Indians to India and elsewhere.

What about! the uplift?

I am not emphasising that side, but the repatriation side of it. Now having come down to bedrock arid stated what the problem is, and the fact that so far back as 1927 the only solution was the repatriation of the Indian, in the accentuated circumstances today it must be conceded that repatriation is the only solution of the problem. It is all very well the Minister shaking his head and looking down and looking disgusted and looking all over the place as if this is impracticable, but that is the only practical solution. [Interruption.] I did not say what the scheme will cost. I did say that £100,000,00 or £150,000,000 might be required over a number of years. The scheme was described as fantastic, but boil it down and see whether anybody else can find another solution. Nobody yet has suggested another solution, and the solution put forward is simply smiled at or frowned on and the scheme is called fantastic. As a matter of fact, there is no other solution, apart from the one I have outlined, of this Indian problem; the solution is the repatriation of the Indians, and I say make it a voluntary repatriation, make it worth while for the Indians to get out of South Africa.

You want to buy them off.

Induce him to go somewhere else. Give our returned soldiers an opportunity of inheriting their heritage and not have it given over to an alien race, alien in living conditions, alien in language and alien in every respect.

Would you do that with the natives?

You cannot, of course, apply it to the natives. It is much easier to get rid of the Indians, who are battening on the natives from the Red Sea right down the coast to Natal. They batten on the natives and do nothing else. There is an agricultural class in Natal who give us no trouble, and who differ very considerably in their outlook from these wealthy Indians, who have all the say and who are vociferous and vocal seven days in the week and all night long. If anyone can put up another solution let him put it before the country, but as a matter of fact no one has found another solution. The solution outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in 1927 is the solution which is feasible today, and it only means that the country must make up its mind to look into this question and consider it and see whether there is any other solution before they turn this down.

I want to associate myself with the wish which was expressed by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). It has long been the view adopted by this side of the House that the best manner of solving the Indian question is by means of a system of encouraged repatriation, and I agree with the hon. member that this question has assumed such magnitude that it is worth while not to think of the expense which will be involved. When the Leader of the Opposition, the then Minister of the Interior, tackled this matter, the country was not yet sufficiently aware of the proportions this problem had attained, and at that time they would perhaps not have been prepared to vote the large amount which would be necessary to effect the total repatriation of the Indians from South Africa. But I think that since that time the scheme has received consideration and that the country realises the danger of the Indian problem, and that the country is prepared to make any sacrifice towards the solution of this problem. I appeal to the Minister to approach the matter from this viewpoint and to realise that the Indian question, if it is not solved, will yet develop into the greatest problem confronting our country, for it is a problem not only of national scope but of international scope, a problem which can become a great menace to South Africa. If we regard it in this light then the sums of money which are necessary to solve it cannot be too large. I hope that the Minister will seek a solution in the direction of subsidised repatriation in conjunction with the Indian Government. We want to solve this problem amicably with the Government of India. South Africa does not wish to be on a hostile footing with India, but on a friendly footing, but we know that if the problem is not solved, friendly relations cannot continue to exist. We have seen it in the past; we have seen the challenging attitude and the challenging statements on the part of prominent persons from India. They will continue and increase and for that reason we must find a solution. The solution was indicated by the former Nationalistic Government. The Minister must not cease his search for a solution along these lines, and I want to express the hope that he will give earnest consideration to the matter and submit it to the Cabinet, and that he will continue seeking a solution along these lines. But I actually rose with regard to another matter which I raised, and in connection with which I would like to make further representations to the Minister. I was glad to learn from him this afternoon that the Government has resolved to abandon the rescision of naturalisation certificates in respect of interned Germans, but I was disappointed to learn that in the following breath he said that the Government definitely does intend considering taking steps against certain internees with a view to their deportation. I would like to know why the Minister is doing this? Is it because the internees are of German descent and must be persecuted? Why? When the Minister announced that he would abandon the rescision of naturalisation certificates, I hoped that it was being done out of a feeling of fairness and decency towards persons of German descent who were interned. But now wé learn that he wants to go into the matter once more and see whether he cannot deport some of these people under the provisions of the law. Why this spirit of persecution? In many cases those persons have been kept in internment camps for years, where they have experienced hardships, and in some cases they are still there; why persecute them in this way by depriving them of their citizenship? The fact that they made application to become citizens of the Union was a manifestation that they wished to remain here and that they meant well towards South Africa. Why should they be deprived of the right which they enjoyed? If the people had done something, if they had participated in subversive activities by which they endangered the security of South Africa, they could have been persecuted in another way, and they could on those grounds have been deprived of their citizenship, if they were guilty. But there was no case against them. Just because they were interned—a large proportion of them have been released—they are deprived of citizenship. It is surely a manifestation on the part of the Government that they only want to persecute people because they are of German descent. Is this their attitude? If it is not their policy to persecute people because they are of German descent, why is the same step not taken against other people who are interned, as for example people of Italian descent? They are not deprived of citizenship. This is only done to Germans. This is discrimination. I want to ask the Minister to put an end to this persecution. If the people want to live in South Africa and wish to become good citizens, why should they be persecuted? I know some of them, capable persons, with qualifications, who will be profitable citizens of South Africa. They indicated by their application for citizenship that they wished to become good citizens. At that time Germans were discouraged from becoming naturalised outside Germany. Against the wish and commands of the Nazi Government they became naturalised. This manifests their intentions of becoming profitable citizens, but the Minister wants to persecute them. Only the law checked him from rescinding the naturalisation certificates, but now the Minister wants to go further and see how many he can deprive of citizenship all the same. Why this spirit of persecution? Many of them have been discharged which proves that they are not a danger to the State. Some of them are still in the internment camps. Can you imagine the suffering they have endured being interned for five years? There was no case made out against them. They had done nothing illegal, but were interned, and now after all their sufefring they still find that at the moment when the country, with which they certainly still sympathise, is suffering defeat, they are deprived of their citizenship. It is a cruel action on the part of the Minister, and I hope he will withdraw it. [Time limit.]

In the first place I want to say a few words in connection with the Minister’s reply to the question of immigration. I do not want to go into the matter again, but just wish to say that we now know the Minister’s standpoint in relation to immigration. He has now declared explicitly what his policy is, and I take it to be the policy of the Government, namely to encourage immigration in South Africa. The only qualification he had was in connection with returned soldiers, and only after I had asked by way of an interruption “what about the unemployed in our own country”, he replied half-heartedly “naturally” we must look after them”. The hon. Minister and his Party must not be disgruntled and assert that we are distorting his policy and that of the Government when we tell the nation, the English-speaking section as well as the Afrikaans-speaking section, what the Government’s policy is in regard to immigration. It is very evident that there are also many English-speaking people who are not in agreement with it, for even Mr. Sibbett, chairman of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association said that they would have to be careful in relation to the question of immigration We now know the standpoint adopted by the Minister and his Government. Good. Then I come to another matter, one which I have already raised during the course of various sittings, namely the question of the changing of names. I told the Minister last year that there was an improvement in the position. I am sorry to have to say that the position has not improved since last year.

Has it not further improved since then?

No, and I want to express my disappointment all the more because this time changes have been permitted for reasons which were not accented last year, and the reason is that names are being changed for “business and social reasons”. Our standpoint in connection with this matter is clear. We say that we have no objection to the changing of names where there are sound reasons. The law stipulates that “sound reasons” must exist. We say that the reason “for business reasons and social reasons” is not a sound reason. It amounts to deceiving the public. Our objection is not to the fact that a man changes his name, but that he changes his race. It is deceiving the public. Now it is asserted that only a few persons have changed their names. But each one may perhaps have two or three or five sons, and these in turn have a number of sons, and this means that whereas today one man is given the right to change his name, in fifteen or twenty years’ time there may perhaps be twenty or more with a changed name who practise deceipt on the public. I want to take a few cases from the reply the Minister gave to me on my question. There is the case of Katzenstein who changed his name to Kaye. What was his reason—

Then we come to Bukofzer, who changed his name to Burts. What is the reason—

If this is his reason, why did he not do what was done by other members of his race, namely to shorten his name, as for example Samolsky who changed his name to Samols. He could have changed his name to Bukof. But he wants to change his race. Then we come to Keli who changed his name to Kelly, and his reason is—

Now we have an interesting case which I want particularly to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean). This is the case of Stein who changed his name to McLean). What is his reason—

So not only is the ridiculous reason given that the name is of German origin, but he also wants to get rid of his Jewish origin. It is Strange that suddenly after the outbreak of the war they no longer want to have German names. But they gave exactly the same reasons before the war, and if it is the reason, then the Commander in Chief of the Allies, Gen. Eisenhower, should also change his name. A more German name one could not find. The spelling has only been changed to make it phonetic, but is a German name through and through. Then he should also get rid of it. The possibility exists that Stein will not only change his surname to McLean, but I want to warn the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) that he will perhaps find that he will also change his Christian name to Jimmy, and I imagine that at the next meeting of the Caledonian Society at Port Elizabeth, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) will have to sit alongside the new member of his race, the new McLean. Perhaps he will don the kilt, and claim the right to wear the kilt of the McLean Clan. This is the position in which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is placed by the Minister of the Interior.

On a point of order. All I want to say is that if the hon. member for Beaufort West had to wear the kilt, he would first of all have to wash his knees.

Now a few other cases. There is the case of Isaacs who changed his name to Hollander. Just listen to the reason—which according to law must be a “sound reason”—

Imagine, his mother’s nephew. But then he goes on to say—

And the Minister allows it. This is precisely what we object to, namely that these people change their race and parade under a Christian name for business reasons. [Time limit.]

The point that I wanted to put to the hon. Minister when my time expired before was that there seemed to be a very considerable difference between the undertaking given to the Indian community in the Pretoria Agreement and the conditions that the Provincial Council of Natal sought to establish last year.

I cannot hear a word.

Order, order!

I can understand that hon. members on the Opposition benches do not want to hear this. [Interruption.] I do not think the Minister gave quite a fair reflection of the situation. I think there is no doubt the Natal Ordinances went very far beyond the Pretoria Agreement. And I suggest that if the hon. Minister intends, or the Government intends, to place the Provincial Council of Natal in a position that they can legally achieve the situation those Ordinances were designed to effect, the Indian community in Natal will have just ground for believing that the Government are not abiding by their undertaking. I am still of the opinion I was two years ago when the Pegging Act was passed, that the Pegging Act was a fatal blunder in the history of this country; but I think that if we seek to replace the Pegging Act by the situation which the Natal Provincial Council is aiming at, we shall be committing a second blunder of similar proportions. To implement those Ordinances is going to please nobody at all; that is perfectly clear from today’s debate. Hon. members of the Dominion Party in this House have made it abundantly clear that they and the people for whom they speak will not be satisfied with these Ordinances. They have made it perfectly clear that they are prepared to demand that Natal shall be put in a position that it can control the alienation of all properties of all kinds with a view to preventing their acquisition by Indians. The Indian community have already stated their position, that they will regard the implementation even of these Ordinances as a betrayal of the promise which they consider was given to them by the Pretoria Agreement. But I hope very sincerely that the Government will not move in this direction, that it will not take this step. I think it will be a most disastrous step, particularly at the present time. I want to emphasise again what has been said on various sides of the House that this is not merely a national matter; it is an international matter; and for us to establish the position which the hon. Minister has suggested and which the Minister is apparently prepared to establish —and to do that now when all these delicate matters are in the melting pot at San Francisco—I submit is going to do the very worst possible service to South Africa. Now the question arises what is to be done. I can only state what my own feeling is in the matter, what I myself would suggest as the line to be followed. I feel that the hon. Minister should press, as he has already done, for Durban and similar municipalities to meet their obligations by giving adequate facilities to the Indian community to maintain the standard of living to which they consider their activities entitle them. That is what they have asked and that is what they have been denied so far. They have the right to claim facilities like any other section of the community. They are prepared to accept, preferably without legal sanction, a certain degree of separation. I believe an agreement on those lines could be reached. Beyond that, our policy ought to be the maintenance of open avenues of investment based on our desire to uplift the whole Indian population and here I range myself on the side of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) when he says that the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) in the days when he was Minister of the Interior, did take the most statesmanlike approach that we have yet had to this problem. I am sorry and I dare say many people are, that the hon. member has repudiated that stand. I myself feel that the agreement that was negotiated in 1927 was perfectly right and sound in its principle; and this brings me to my third point. I suggest, what has also been suggested here, that the main problem of the Indian population is not the problem of the small portion for the facilities they demand must in justice be provided, but it is a problem of the great mass of the Indian community in Natal, and so far no policy for these people has been adumbrated by anybody. I feel that the great gap in the treatment of this Indian question has been the absence of a programme of development for the mass of the Indian community. The basis of the agreement which the hon. member for Piketberg negotiated with the Indian Government, on the lines of preserving European civilisation in this country by bringing up everybody else to a civilised level, to my mind, was a statesmanlike approach and is still the statesmanlike approach to all our problems with reference to non-Europeans in this country. It is the only statesmanlike approach to those problems. Whatever happens we have to live together in this country. We must therefore strive to live together in peace and amity. We are all anxious to maintain and secure the level of civilisation which we have achieved but the only way in which we can do this is to set ourselves the task of wiping out that lower standard of civilisation which is the real menace to that civilisation; and the only way we can do that is by a positive policy of upliftment, a policy of education and development. I suggest that this policy is terribly urgent so far as the Indian community is concerned. While all this argument has been going on, while there has been this drive to segregate the Indians, which is merely a thinly disguised aspect of the force of economic competition—the real drive is to get rid of the economic competition of the successful Indian trader—the bulk of the Indian community has been sinking more and more deeply into the ditch. I repeat what I have said before, that the real problem of Durban is not Indian penetration into European areas, but European penetration into areas where the Indians have for generations been making some sort of a living, and where they have been serving the European community. Those people have been pushed out on all sides of Durban; they have been pushed out to the periphery of Durban; they have been pushed off the land where they were once successful market gardeners to areas where they cannot be successful market gardeners either because the land is unsuitable or because it is too far from the market. Has any constructive effort been made to help those people to some new basis of economic efficiency? None at all. There is no plan whatsoever to rehabilitate those people. I should have expected to see long ago some organised effort made to enable those people to continue their market gardening and to continue their occupations which are or were of great value to Durban. They should have been provided with the means and the transport to carry on those occupations. But the Indian has simply been pushed out further, where again he is clearing the bush for European settlement to be pushed out again as European settlers follow him up. [Time limit.]

I want to correct an impression that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) evidently gathered—and I hope other hon. members have not done so—when I said that the difference between the ordinances introduced originally in terms of the Pretoria Agreement and the ordinances they passed was the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I was referring to the remark of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) when he said that the ordinances as passed only dealt with the residential problem and that it was worthless from the business point of view. That is really only the difference between the Pretoria Agreement and the ordinance that was passed. The Indians objected to it because of the principle of segregation involved in it. The principle of limiting investment. But my point is this; from a practical point of view no Indian would have bought property in a residential area if he could not live in it himself. Flats and business premises were available to him. I do not want to misrepresent the position, but from a practical point of view there is no difference in its application between the Pretoria Agreement and the ordinance that the Province of Natal passed, because I repeat—that is what the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) said —that an investment in a property in a residential area in Durban is not a profitable investment and no Indian would have bought property from an investment point of view. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) asked me not to prosecute or persecute these people. I can give the hon. member the assurance that steps will only be taken in those cases where it is necessary. Probably there is not one of these people who will be disfranchised. I cannot go into the position while Parliament is sitting. I am going into the position as soon as Parliament rises.

Why is there discrimination against the Germans?

I am not in a position to say now that it is only confined to Germans. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) made a statement here about certain information having been given to the Minister of the Interior and sent to the Minister of Justice in 1940. I tried to get some information in connection with the matter, and my Department knows nothing about it. But I do know that one of the cases that was referred to by hon. members—I think the case at Ventersdorp—was sent to the Attorney-General.

You will see that that was in 1940, at the same time as the others.

I personally know nothing about it, but I will look into it.

No, you were not Minister of the Interior at that time.

I do not want to mislead the House, but I do know that action was contemplated in Johannesburg and my predecessor rightly said that there must be no prosecutions until the necessary accommodation had been provided. We cannot turn these people out on to the streets. In Johannesburg the Attorney-General was going to prosecute certain people who were in legal occupation.

This is not a question of legal occupation; this is a question of acquiring land.

So far as the acquisition of land is concerned, there will be no intereference. The law will be enforced. The information I have is that these people were in occupation at Fordsburg, and it was sought to eject them. They were in legal occupation and the point was that the Johannesburg Municipality did not have accommodation for them. The hon. member for Winburg also raised a question in connection with the Bureau of Information. All I can do in this matter, I have done, and that was to tackle the Director of Information and to tell him that this was not to be repeated, and hon. members will probably be surprised to hear that it is the only case that has happened in five years.

What was his explanation; why was it done?

It is one of those things that occur in the best regulated concerns. The Director of Information has a new staff. He personally knows nothing about it. I told the hon. member that I would take action and I did take action, and the director agreed with me.

I think it is necessary to remind the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) as I have done on a previous occasion two or three years ago, that she and her fellow-members were sent to this House to represent the interests of the natives in South Africa. But there has been a growing tendency on the part of these members to pose here as representatives of all coloured interests in this country, and, particularly in the past few days, they have posed as the representatives of the Indians in this country. They are here to represent native interests, and native interests only.

We are here in the cause of justice.

The hon. member says they are here in the cause of justice, may I also point out to the hon. member over there that my information is that the Indian in Natal has never been the friend of the native and that the native in Natal has been exploited by the Indian, and therefore these representatives of the natives are doing a distinct disservice to the cause, of these people whom they are supposed to represent in this House when they appear in this House and act as the defenders of the Indians in Natal. I think the time has arrived that the members representing the natives should realise the limitations of their representation in this House. And now just a few words—I spoke in Afrikaans just now—on the question of the changing of names. I pointed out, and it is sufficiently important to merit repetition, that our objection to the changing of names is not the fact of names being changed when there is a good and valid reason for the change. Our objection is not so much to the changing of the names but to the changing of the race, which I contend is intended as a fraud on the public, especially when the reason given is that the change is sought to be made for business purposes. There have been several cases in the list given to me by the hon. Minister where changes have been allowed, in cases the persons were adopted in infancy; even though in that case a change of race would be involved, I do riot seriously object to the change. I say in those cases where the person was adopted in infancy and subsequently seeks to adopt the name of his foster-parents, I do not object, nor do I object to those cases where there are other good reasons. Take this case, for example, where the name exposed the holder to ridicule. We have such a case in the list given by the Minister, the case of a certain Mr. Tubby—

All my sympathy is with Mr. Tubby. I can quite appreciate Mr. Tubby wishing to change his name in those circumstances. It will be noticed that he has now gone to the other extreme and assumed the name of Read, a name which was probably more in conformity with his physical stature. I say therefore that we do not object to the changing of these names for good reasons. But not in order to change his race, nor where a man changes a name merely because it is a particularly long one or, difficult to pronounce. I want to give a few more cases from this list. Here we have the case of Mr. Sandbach, who changed his name to Sandbrook and he gives the following reason—

Again the same reason. As I pointed out, even prior to this war, names were being changed exactly in the same way to much greater extent also for business purposes and for social reasons, but now the excuse is that they are changing their names because of German origin. I repeat that these changes are not justified because they are, in fact, a fraud on the public. We come to another case, the case of Mr. Stuczynski. Mr. Stuczynski’s reason is the difficulty experienced in pronouncing his name, so he changed his name to Stutson. Why does he not do what Mr. Samolsky did, who changed his name to Samols; why did he not change his name to Stuc? Why make it an English name, as in the case of the namesake of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean), Mr. Stein who changed his name to McLean. Why change the name of Stein to the good old Scotch name of McLean? I do not think it is fair to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South)! Now we come to the name of Mr. Schwartz. He changed his name to Pevrett. It is extraordinary the names they do take. Thank God, up to the present they have avoided using Afrikaans names, but I fear the worst. Mr. Schwartz changes his name to Pevrett, and he gives the following reason—

So far so good. It is not a good reason, but it is not too bad. Then he goes on to say—

We have other Jewish members in this House who have not changed their names. We have a member with the name of Gluckman; he has not changed his name and as far as I know the name Gluckman has not proved detrimental to his business or profession. He became the chairman of a very important commission. On the other hand, as far as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is concerned who changed his name from Kantarowitz to Kentridge, I cannot say that the change of name has in any way improved his position in this House, nor his reputation, nor his prestige. Now we come to Mr. Solomon, a very easy name to pronounce, but he changed his name to Crawford and he says—

They wanted to perpetuate the name of the mother, so he changed his name. There are several other cases but I do not want to take up the time of the House. I wish to say again that although there is not so many changes of name as in the past, but I pointed out previously when speaking Afrikaans, that for every Katzenstein who changes his name, there will be 20 or 30 male Katzensteins going about in the future with the name of Kaye to which they are not entitled. I say it is a fraud on the public. Why do these people want to change their race? Surely the average Jew with the history of his race which he has behind him, why does he want to change his name? It, is perfectly clear he does it for one reason and one reason only, not because he is ashamed of being a Jew, but he does it for business and social reasons. We ask that the Minister should put a stop to it. These changes which were allowed are not in accordance with the Act, because the Act says very distinctly that they should be allowed only for good and sufficient reasons.

The last speaker made the peculiar suggestion that in Natal the Indians are not the friends of the Africans. Here you get repeated continuously the Viewpoint which seems to maintain that the only Indians in Natal are Indians who are very wealthy. There is obsolute economic community of interest between the Indians who are agricultural, pastural, peasant people in Natal and the African people, in exactly the same way—whether the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) likes it or not—that there is a community of interest between the Indians who are agricultural workers and Africans in Natal with the Afrikaner bywoner on the platteland. There is a community of interests whether the hon. member for Beaufort West likes it or not.

What do you know about it?

I know what the economic position of the poor Indian in Natal is, as well as I know the economic position of the bywoner, and I know what factors gave rise to that economic position. There is an economic untiy of interests between these people, and if in the future you have a united front between rich Indians and poor Indians and rich Africans and poor Africans it will be because of the steps which have been taken in South Africa to bring about compulsory legalised segregation, thereby forcing the rich Indian into that social position which compels him to form a unified front with all non-Europeans. Take the position which has arisen in the course of this debate. Both the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), whose views are entirely different to the views of the members who sit on the Dominion Party benches have come to the conclusion that the policy laid down by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), when he was Minister of the Interior, was the correct and the statesmanlike policy to be pursued. They come to that conclusion for reasons which are entirely different, and I arise in an endeavour to show how utterly impracticable the proposal of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) is, and I want to analyse it on the statements which he made himself. He said, and quite rightly, that there are a large number of agricultural and industrial Indian workers in Natal who are docile, who are subjugated and who give no trouble whatsoever. But he proposes a voluntary scheme of repatriation with sufficient monetary reward which will encourage the Indians to leave South Africa. I ask the hon. member for South Coast for one moment to seriously consider what the practical results of such a scheme would be. Does the hon. member for South Coast, who complains not of the docile agricultural or industrial Indian workers in Natal, but whose complaint is against the wealthy Indian, imagine for one moment that the wealthy Indian would be attracted by the monetary reward and take advantage of any voluntary repatriation scheme to go back to India? No. So who would go, if any? Only the poor agricultural and industrial workers who are poor and who give no trouble whatsoever. You see how absolutely impracticable it is. A large mass of the Indian community would still remain in South Africa even if you offered them a bonus of £1,000 to go back to India. They would not want to go back to India ….

Naturally.

…. anymore than I would want to go back to the land of my birth.

They do not want to go back because there they are Untouchables.

South Africa is my home. I like South Africa. I came from Scotland when I was six months old. I do not know much about Scotland except what my parents have told me and the average Indian worker in Natal is in exactly the same position. The only home he knows is South Africa and he likes South Africa and there is every reason why he should like South Africa and will not go back to India, and he certainly would not be induced by a bonus of £250 or I doubt if even a bonus of £1,000 would induce him to go back to India. He does not want to go to a land which he does not know. Reference has been made here to a commission which was appointed to investigate to what part of the world they could be sent, and it was agreed by that commission that they might be sent to Brazil. They have no more desire to go to Brazil than they have to go to India.

Does your Party share your views?

My Party shares the view that the Indian should be uplifted as the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) laid down in 1927. My Party believes and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) also believes, that the Indian should be paid decent wages. We believe that they should enjoy decent social conditions, and my Party also believes that there should be a zoning scheme, and that is the solution of the problem. The trouble is that there is an absence of co-ordination between Governments, Provincial Councils and Municipalities in order to make effective a zoning scheme. I speak with some knowledge, not so much of the rich Indian but of the working Indian who works in the factories, and I come into contact with them in connection with trade union organisation—and willingly come into contact with them—and I say these people are prepared to have a zoning scheme. They do not desire to live among Europeans any more than we desire to live among them. They would like to live in decent social and hygienic conditions, conditions they are denied at present because the municipality do not give them decent social surroundings in which to live. They can be encouraged in zoning, but hon. members of the Dominion Party, when they speak of the Indian opinion, speak entirely of the opinion expressed by the Indian Congress, the wealthy Indians who compose the Congress, and they forget to tell the House that the organised and expressed opinion of the poorer Indians is also against legalised segregation. The Indian working classes are equally against segregation. If I were an Indian I would also be against it, against the social stigma of legalised segregation, which says that because you are coloured you must stay here or there. But the policy of zoning is different. All that is required is a strenuous effort, but a persistent and strenuous effort must be made to co-ordinate the work of the various bodies to ensure zoning, and on that basis you can get the consent of ‘the majority of the Indian population, and especially the large mass of poorer Indians; but you cannot get from them recognition of any legal principle of segregation placed in a Statute Book.

I should like to support the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in connection with this question raised by him about the changing of names. One feels that this matter is going too far because we continually have the position that people come to our country and simply change their name to any other name. I happen to have here one copy of the Government Gazette, that of 23rd February of this year, and in that I find nine applications for change of name. It is the same old story as regards the reasons why these people want to change their names. In some cases there is something to be said for it, but in other cases there is absolutely nothing to be said in favour. Because a man has a fairly long Jewish surname it gives him no right to go to the Minister to ask that according to the Act he should be allowed to change his name. The Act provides that there should be sound reason for it—“good and sufficient reason”. The fact that a man’s name is a little difficult to pronounce or to spell is surely not a good and sufficent reason why his name should be changed. Here we have one Hans Stefan Horovitz. He wants to change his name to Holt-Horovitz. The reason he gives is that that is the family name of his mother and that he therefore is partially of Christian descent. The following is Zusmananas Boruchas Abramavicius. He wants to change his name to Abrams. Then we have Gerhard Sandelowsky. He wants to change his name to Sanders. The reason he gives is that his name is difficult to pronounce and hinders him in his work. It is not very difficult to pronounce his name. The following one is Jacob Klavansky. He wants to change his name to Kaye, and he also gives the reason that his surname is “cumbersome and difficult to spell”. Then there is one which is perhaps really difficult to pronounce—Zusman Krivochiev. He wants to change his name to Kriev. Then there is one Jeffrey Rubinstein who wants to change his name to Robinson. Rubenstein is a well-known name and it is easy to spell. His reason is that he has been known for four years already as Robinson. In other words he gave himself the name of Robinson four years ago and now he wants his name to be Robinson. Then we find one with the name of Sidney Abrams who wishes to change his name to Colley. The following one is that of Morris Joseph Grazioli who wishes to change his name to Veale.

I suppose that is the Italian for beef.

Then I come to another person who really asks for a ridiculous change of name. It makes us think of the case come across by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) during the last war, where Johannes Jacobus van der Merwe had his name changed to James John MacMerwe. Here we find the application of Gerhardus Petrus Pretorius who wishes to change his name to Praetor. His reason is the following: “For the reason that there is a considerable confusion owing to many bearing the surname Pretorius, resulting in great inconvenience and trouble with correspondence and the post; further that my wife is British and cannot speak Afrikaans; her desire is to change the said surname, and she and my children move about in a British environment”. These applications have possibly not yet been approved of, and I want to ask the Minister to put an end to it. Gerhardus Pretorius is a nice Afrikaans name and there are not so many of them that it can cause any confusion. I do not know in how far the Minister’s. Department really investigates these things and to what degree each application is investigated. In most cases it is quite unnecessary and undesirable to bring about this change of name. Recently I read a book in the library here about the same subject, and there I found the following about name changes—

Didn’t he call himself Swart?

I agree with this author that these changes of name do not take place “to avoid the fame of brilliant deeds or out of oversensitiveness”. We find people coming in here from elsewhere and then changing their names to those of old citizens of the country. We also find such ridiculous things as Pretorius who wishes to become Praetor, and such things should not be allowed.

It surprised me to see in the House that a member of the Labour Party, which pretends that it stands up for the poor man in the country, that it protects the workers of South Africa, rises in this House as the champion of the Indians in South Africa. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) completely sided with the native representatives on that side of the House. I wish to tell him that Indian penetration is felt most seriously just in those places where the European workers live in the greatest numbers. The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) have just returned from Johannesburg where they addressed meetings of mineworkers. They stated that they felt anxious about the position of the white man, about those people who make existence difficult for them and who then, as we know, have to deal with this Indian penetration. But the hon. member for Umbilo stood up here as the champion of those Indians, and what is more, he states that through his actions he is announcing the policy of his Party. I am glad that we now know what the policy of the Labour Party is, and I wish to challenge that member and the Labour Party to go and preach that policy of the Labour Party on the Witwatersrand or in any other place to the European population of South Africa. This afternoon I challenged the Minister to explain to this House and to the country his policy and the policy of the Government in regard to two matters. The first is the ownership of ground by Indians, and the second is franchise for the Indians. I am disappointed at the Minister’s reply, but to me it was not unexpected. As regards the ownership of ground and penetration by the Indians, the Minister stated that it is the policy of the Government to try to shift responsibility from its shoulders and to place it on the shoulders of the local authorities. I want to remind the Minister that this problem is no longer a local or a provincial one. The Indian question has become a national problem and it is time that the Minister and the Government evolve a policy and adopt a national point of view, and that they should clearly tell South Africa where we stand. That is what we want to know and the Minister must not try to evade his duty by shifting the responsibility off on to the local authorities. He must say where he and the Government stand in this connection. As the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has already stated here, follow the footsteps of the Leader of the Opposition and you will go in the right direction. As regards the other matter, the Minister went a little further and I am thankful to him. He did not tell us precisely what his policy is, but as regards myself, I am convinced that this House knows what his point of view is with regard to the civil rights of the Indians in Natal. In reply to an interjection he said that it is very difficult to refuse their rights to 200,000 Indians when they ask for them. As regards myself, I understand it in this way that the Minister, if they exert a little pressure on him, will give way to the Indians and grant them what they are asking for in their representations to him. The Minister of Social Welfare was also present in the House and asked by way of an interjection who had brought the Indians here. A responsible Government cannot evade its duties in that manner. I still want to ask the Minister this: If he does not feel what I have indicated here, this is his chance to stand up here and to tell the House and the country that he will do everything in his power against extending the franchise to the Indians in Natal. If he does not do it now, we will take it that his point of view is that if the Indians insist upon it, and because there are a large number of them, he will give way and make concessions to them. If the Minister goes so far as to say: It will be very difficult to refuse the requests of a mass of Indians, then it is clear to us that that matter has already received the attention of the Minister, and then I want to put this question to the Minister. If he feels that the time has arrived that the Indians should be given the franchise, what are his feelings for or against placing the Indians on a separate list? He owes this Committee an explanation. He said it would be difficult to refuse them. I think he said that they should come on the list just like the natives. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding between me and the Minister, because the Minister spoke about a very urgent matter here. This statement by the Minister will receive the greatest attention in places like Johannesburg and we do not want there to be misunderstanding about what the Minister’s attitude is. The Minister still has a chance to tell us that he will see to it that those civic rights are not granted to the Indians. If he does not do so, the Minister must expect us to fight him openly on this point.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) saw fit a little earlier in the debate to make a general attack upon the group to which I belong. I am sorry that the hon. member did that. As he knows, we as a group have a policy of our own which we have put forward consistently for eight years in this House. It is not the policy either of his side of the House or that of his opponents.

Policy in regard to what?

General policy.

Then why do you always vote on the other side?

As, the hon. member knows the reason for that is due to the war.

No, not the war.

I did not interrupt the hon. member and I ask him to have the courtesy to allow me to reply to him. We have a policy in this country which is not based on any assumed conflict of interests between the native people and any other section. If I thought there was a definite conflict of interests between the natives and the Europeans, does the hon. member for Beaufort West suggest that I would support a race whose interests I regard as contrary to my own? It is an entirely wrong suggestion he is making.

There is a conflict.

It is because we here regard the interests of the various races of this country as essentially reconcilable that we put forward the policy we do in this House. But what the hon. member for Beaufort West really said was that one should not speak in relation to people who are not one’s voters. On that basis no member who is returned by European votes would have the right to speak on anything but directly European matters, and anyone returned by one particular race would have no right to speak on any subject but one directly referring to the race in question. We take a different view; that everyone in this House is responsible for the whole of South Africa. That is particularly the case where only a minority have the franchise, and we have expressed that view, not only as the hon. member says in relation to natives, but equally as regards any exploited section of the community. I did not hear any protest from the hon. member for Beaufort West when I, by speech and vote supported the protest of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) against the small compensation paid to dispossessed woodcutters at Knysna, and we explained that we did that because these were also exploited people. As far as the remark by the hon. member for Beaufort West about the Indian people exploiting the native is concerned, my answer is that I am against all exploitation, and for that reason we have always supported wage determinations, and we support price control and prosecution of black marketeers. We are always against exploitation. I am sorry to have had to go into this question at such length, but the hon. member for Beaufort West has made this general attack upon our group before, such as we do not make on his Party. Now, I am still not clear what the Minister meant by saying that the difference between the draft Natal Ordinance on residential property and the Pretoria Agreement is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The Minister, as I understood him, said it was different in its practical effect. If so he is not in agreement with the finding of the first Broome Commission as to what was the reason for penetration in Natal. They said—

Now, the Commissioners were there talking about the purchase of residential property and all the evidence that was led before the Select Committee of the Natal Provincial Council on this draft Ordinance, both for the Municipal "Association, the Durban City Council and the Maritzburg Council and the Indian Congress, was all concerned with that issue. That was the whole issue, as to whether the acquisition of residential property, as opposed to its occupation, should be prevented, and it was in that vital respect that the Ordinance has departed from the Pretoria Agreement.

That is perfectly true.

I want to refer again to what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) said about the Durban City Council having done its duty to the Indian people. He referred to the housing schemes at Springfield, which he said will ultimately cost £300,000. My information is to the effect that the total expenditure on Indian housing by the Durban City Council has been £203,000, and the Housing Act has been on the Statute Book since 1920. That is in a quarter of a century what their actual achievements have come to. [Interjection.] The statement was that the Springfield scheme would ultimately cost £300,000. I am talking about what they have done so far. Now I say that if a big municipality with a large section of poverty-stricken people and with the facilities available to them under the Housing Act only spends £200,000 in 25 years, that is a very poor record indeed. Its European record is also bad. It is because it has neglected this vital housing obligation that there are these difficulties. Now, it is all very well to say that the problem is not confined to Durban. The fact remains that it was from Durban that the agitation came which led to the passing of the Pegging Act. It was the municipal area of Durban only that the second Broome Commission investigated, and not the rest of Natal, and as the Minister said, it was as the result of that commission’s report that the Pegging Act was passed; and when the Act was passed it was made applicable to Durban only, and other urban areas were told that if they could make out a case for it they could get it. My view of the Pegging Act is well-known and I will not labour it, but the fact remains that not a single municipality has so far made provision.

There were 14 of them.

I do not know whether the hon. member is doubting the correctness of the hon. Minister’s information. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) seems to have a conscience gnawing at him. He has been objecting to something which the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said, that the independent attitude which the native representatives promised to take up at the beginning of their entrance into Parliament, had been wandered away from by them.

When did we promise that?

When you came into the House here you made the rafters ring with the statement that you were here for the interests of the natives and that for the rest you would take up an independent attitude and vote as your conscience dictated.

And so we have done.

Your conscience may have dictated your actions but never in this House has there been such slavish support of the Government as from the so-called independent members. Never have there been members who have been more faithful to the crack of the Party whip, even if it was not their own whip, which makes your attitude more slavish than ever. There have even been members on the opposite side of this House who had the courage to vote against their own Party. Have those members over there ever voted against their own Party? On occasion they have found that discretion is the better part of valour and have left the Chamber when voting started, but their convictions have never made them anything else but slavish supporters of the Party whips of the South African Party. Now, I felt that I had to say something on this subject. I have not gone into action before because I felt I would be doing a grave injustice to my hon. friend the Minister if I did not say something. I felt that he would never forgive me. He would be most disappointed. What I want to talk about today is one of the Minister’s pets. This pet, like most pets, is an expensive one. I refer to the Bureau of Information, a very expensive pet. Like most pets it is a pet that is very objectionable to everybody else except its master. I said it was a very expensive pet. This Bureau of Information has cost about £45,000 to £50,000 this year. I think if the cost of living allowance is added to the salaries it will be found it is considerably in excess of £50,000. We would like to know, are we getting value for the money?

What do they do?

I do not know what they do, but half their duties relate to giving information to the Press. Their colleagues, or rather the members of the Press, refer to the bureau as the Bureau of Misinformation and not as the Bureau of Information. Why I do not know. I do not know if it is that the information given is not correct; they say it is muddled. Another duty imposed on them is that of censoring matter which comes for publication in the Press. This is now done to a large extent by the bureau. Let us investigate this matter slightly. This Bureau of Information was started as was stated by the Minister then responsible, to help the Press in South Africa with regard to news. The Press say they get no help from the bureau at all, that in fact what takes place is just the opposite, that it becomes more difficult for them to get news than it was before the bureau came into existence. Another thing the Press object to is the so-called directives which newspaper editors receive from time to time from the bureau. These directives seem to be hints to the editors as to what they should publish and what point of view they should take up in regard to certain matters. What right has this bureau to tell the newspapers what attitude they should take up and what they should publish? It is not their sphere; they are not there for that. The newspaper editor knows perfectly well what attitude he wants to take up and to publish without the Government’s pet paid civil servants telling them what they should publish or what line they should take up. I consider that an impertinent interference with the rights of the Press of South Africa. The bureau also censors military information. Why should they?

They do not.

I will put these two cases. Some time ago Gen. Poole arrived from the North. The newspapers wanted to publish the news that Gen. Poole was in Cape Town or Pretoria, they were immediately informed by the bureau they were not to publish the information that Gen. Poole was in the Union. Gen. Poole was publishing it himself. He was walking all over the place with his tabs and insignia of generalship. He made no secret of it. But it was not to be published. One newspaper rang up the military authorities and said: We see Gen. Poole walking about in Cape Town, have you any objection to our publishing this information. They said they had no objection, that it was not a secret. But the Bureau of Information said no, we will lose the war if you publish that.

I do not know where you get your information from.

Our experience is that we know considerably more of what takes place in the Minister’s department than he knows himself. There was a railway accident three or four months ago at Standerton on the railway bridge. A truck conveying a tank was crossing the bridge when one of the cannon that was protruding from the tank struck a girder and there was an accident in which two or three trucks were derailed. The Bureau of Information said to the Press: “You can publish there has been an accident and a number of trucks were derailed, but you cannot say there were tanks on the train. It will be giving information to the enemy”. But those tanks were going to the Cavalcade in Johannesburg where they were to be exhibited within a week. And those tanks were in Cape Town and, probably much nearer to the Japanese, in Durban. But the bureau said it was a military secret; you cannot say there were tanks on the train, you will be giving information to the enemy. This ridiculous nonsense should be put a stop to. The Minister is very worried himself about the Bureau of Information. In fact he was so worried that some time ago he appointed a commission of three able people to have a thorough investigation into the working of the bureau and to consider whether we were justified in spending all this money on it, and whether it should not be allowed to die a natural or unnatural death as soon as possible. That commission brought out a report to the effect that the bureau should be either done away with completely, or completely changed. Is that not so?

Not that it should be done away with.

Will the Minister lay on the Table of the House the report of this commission which has been completed and handed to the Minister a considerable time ago. We would like to know what that report says. I ask the Minister, will he lay that report on the Table of the House so we can know what the commission of investigation found.

In terms of the rules of the House we cannot, it is only in English.

In “M” in regard to the Bureau of Information there is a special translation service, £125. Cannot we use that £125 to have that report translated, and I ask the Minister definitely will he then lay it on the Table of the House?

Yes.

Will he give the report to me now before he lays it on the Table, and let me peruse it? Will he allow me to quote out of it in the House? Will he hand it to the Press?

There is no reason why the Press should not have it. It is a departmental report and there is no reason why it should not have the fullest publicity.

I am very glad. I have great faith in the members of that commission, and I am very glad that publicity will be given now to the full report of that commission, so we can know if the attitude taken up by the Press to the bureau is justified. Now we can have that report and see who is correct in this matter.

In addition to the large number of Europeans in Natal who would like to see the Indian question solved there are also quite a number of Indians who would like to see the question solved. A number of those Indians in my constituency actually came to an agreement with the Glencoe Municipality. They there decided to solve the question for themselves, and I would like to put it to the Minister that where people voluntarily can come to an agreement in a certain area that that agreement should then be made law. I feel that one or two people should not come in now and break that agreement whereas the actual inhabitants of the area feel that it is an agreement satisfactory to all parties.

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

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 26th April.