I move—

I move this resolution in terms of paragraph (b) of Section 12 of the Fishing Industry Development Act. There is therefore nothing extraordinary in it. I am merely carrying out the routine prescribed by the Act in respect of the issue of “B” shares by the Corporation. Hon. members will be aware that the share capital of the Fisheries Development Corporation is divided into two classes called “A” shares and “B” shares, and the “A” share capital is to be used for the purpose defined in paragraphs (a) and (d) in Clause 3 of the Act, and the “B” share capital for the purposes defined in paragraphs (b) and (c). The objects in paragraphs (a) and (d) relate to the promotion, etc., of schemes for the catching and sale of fish by the inshore fishermen, and for the establishment and carrying on of a number of undertakings of a social welfare nature calculated to be beneficial to the fishermen registered under the Act or to the employees of the Corporation. The objects in paragraphs (b) and (c) for which “B” share capital may be used and is required include the carrying on of the business of buying and selling and marketing or processing fish, and the acquiring and the holding of shares in any company engaged in any of these businesses to which I have just referred; and the following Clause 4 of the Act defines in some detail the very wide powers indeed given to the Corporation for the purpose of carrying out these objects. Now, Sir, the exercise of some of the powers for the use of “B” share capital is likely to bring the Corporation into the activities which have hitherto been carried on by private undertakings, and when the Bill was under discussion last year, since it was the declared intention of the Government in forming the Corporation not to establish a nationalised State fishing industry, but to enable the Corporation to take an active part in developing the inshore fishing industry and to co-operate with private enterprise in integrating it into the fishing industry as a whole, in the national interest, Parliament last Session in its wisdom decided that when the Corporation wished to issue “B” shares it should come to Parliament and state the purposes for which the capital was required, in order that Parliament should be satisfied that the Corporation was carrying out the policy which Parliament had in mind when it passed the Act. Hon. members will therefore appreciate that in moving this resolution I am not asking for anything which is not explicitly provided for by the Act, but simply for an issue of capital to enable certain of these objects as defined in the Act to be carried out, and my duty therefore is not to argue the merits of the Act itself but simply to report to the House on certain of the activities of the Corporation and to place before the House the Corporation’s request for authority to issue “B” shares together with its reasons for wishing to do so. The Corporation was established towards the end of last year, in October, 1944, and since then most of its time has been devoted to visiting the various fishing areas and investigating the possibilities and giving consideration to the ways and means of usefully investing the proceeds of “A” share capital; and as a result, to date, I am informed that the Corporation proposes during the next twelve months to embark upon a number of schemes with “A” share capital. In the first place it will be necessary to declare these areas in which the schemes are to be undertaken controlled areas in terms of the Act, and for that purpose a meeting of the Fishing Advisory Council will very shortly be held, as provided in the Act. The first scheme proposed is at Lamberts Bay. There the Corporation proposes to proceed with the establishment of a township for non-European fishermen, comprising some 200 to 300 houses. It also proposes to build 30 to 40 houses for European fishermen in Lamberts Bay and to undertake the provision of light and water for the new settlement. The light will be drawn from the existing factories there. The water will have to be brought some 15 miles from recently sunk boreholes in the area. The ultimate cost of this scheme—I say ultimate cost because the whole amount will not be spent next year —is expected to be somewhere between £60,000 and £70,000. Next the Corporation proposes to help to provide more boats and gear, improved boats, to the fishermen working in the area of St. Helena Bay. Thirdly, at Hout Bay, the divisional council is proceeding with a scheme for erecting a number of dwellings for fishermen and the Corporation is in consultation with the divisional council for taking over, either in whole or in part, these dwellings when the Divisional Council has erected them. Also at Hout Bay the Corporation proposes to proceed with the establishment of a communal centre for the fishermen working there and to provide the social amenities which today are practically non-existent. Next, at Gansbaai, in the Bredasdorp area, the Corporation proposes to proceed with the erection of a cold storage plant which is badly needed there, and is also conducting negotiations with the Electricity Supply Commission and the Hermanus Municipality for the extension of electric power and light to Gansbaai and the villages nearby.

To be supplied from Cape Town?

Yes, it is linked up with that. Also, the Corporation has investigated the opportunity of other schemes which have not reached finality. They are, for example, considering the question of St. Helena Bay, which appears to afford an ideal site for establishing a settlement for returned soldiers who can be trained to go into the fishing industry. That will depend on the experimental work done on oil and meal obtained from the industry, but if those are as successful as we think it will be, the prospects of a settlement there seem to be bright. It is too early for a detailed plan to be completed, but the Corporation is investigating that proposition. In addition to that, discussions have taken place with independent fishermen in Kalk Bay and Cape Town area with a view to establishing co-operative societies for those independent line fishermen, and the Corporation is now working on the regulations which will be required for such a co-operative society based on the idea that the Corporation will provide, at any rate in the beginning, the managerial and secretarial services and will finance the cooperative societies at a low rate of interest to get them established. This particular development will be a slow one, because the idea of co-operation is new to fishermen and cannot be forced Upon them. They have to be satified that it is to their advantage before we can get very far with it, and at the present moment the prices which inshore fishermen are getting for their fish is so high that they are not aware of the need for cooperation, as they would be aware of it in normal times. But that is only a temporary state of affairs and I have no doubt that later on the fishermen will be only too ready to enter into a co-operative organisation which will be able to guarantee them some stable conditions for their industry, and the Corporation’s policy therefore to go ahead with the drafting of the regulations preparing the machinery and working out details for these proposed co-operative societies, so that at the opportune time they will be ready.

Will the fishermen get an explanatory memorandum from time to time?

I think it will probably have to be more than that. There will have to be a certain amount of missionary work done. They have had discussions in the Cape area but they have not got round to the coast yet. It is intended to do that. As the House is aware, we have on the board of the Corporation a director representing the interests of the fishermen, and he will make it his business to undertake that particular part of the work.

Is there to be no development work on the whole of the south-west coast?

I am coming to that in a minute. For the information of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) the board of the Corporation spent the whole of last week in his constituency investigating conditions there with a view to seeing what can be done. I will refer to it in a moment. I may as well tell the hon. member now. Discussions have taken place at Knysna with the object of developing a scheme with the industry there. Definite proposals have been received from interests in that area and this scheme will be predominantly an “A” share scheme, although a certain amount of “B” share capital may be required to complete it, and later, when the scheme is proposed, I will have to lay that before the House. Lastly, there is the question of replenishing the crawfish beds of the Union, There has in the past been considerable overfishing of crawfish, and as a result, right along the west coast as far as Port Nolloth, some of those beds have been very considerably depleted. As hon. members know, crawfish has been the mainstay of the canning industry in the past, and the Corporation is now examining a scheme for breeding crawfish in controlled conditions on a large scale, which comes under the heading of “fish farming” as defined in the Act, the idea being to breed crawfish on a large scale and to transfer the small fish, when they reach a certain size, to areas which have become depopulated through overfishing. Of course this scheme will require considerable planning and there will have to be regulations for crawfishing to cease to allow the fish to grow, but it can be carried out entirely with “A” share capital. Well, considering that the Corporation was only established some seven months ago, I feel that the House will be satisfied that the Corporation is tackling with energy the question of the best advantage to be taken of the “A” share capital. I come now to the question of the “B” shares. When I introduced the Bill I expressed the opinion that it might be some time before the Corporation would come to us and ask for an issue of “B” shares, but since then two things have happened to justify the present application. In the first place, the Corporation when it surveyed the position of the inshore fishing industry, very soon came to the conclusion that if it’ were to play any effective part in the development of inshore fishing, as its name implies, it would have to become interested to some extent with those engaged in the canning or processing of fish. Secondly, the Corporation was hardly in existence when it was approached by various concerns engaged in the fishing industry with a view to the Corporation co-operating with them by acquiring a financial interest in the development and expansion of their business. Conditions in the inshore fishing industry fall roughly into two categories, when you consider the conditions under which fishermen work. Along the south and south-east coasts the fishermen are for the most part individual fishermen living a somewhat precarious existence and without any properly organised method or system for marketing their fish, and without any facilities for storing or processing. In such conditions “A” share capital can and will be used to organise the fishermen and to equip them with better boats and gear, but side by side with that, and parallel with it, arrangements will have to be made to deal, either by marketing in an efficient way, or processing, with the increased catch of fish which must be expected if better facilities are provided for the catching of fish, and this means that “B” share capital will be required. Now “B” share capital may be used by the Corporation in terms of the Act either to erect its own processing plant or start its own marketing organisation or its own factories, or else it may be used to acquire an interest, to take shares or to come to a financial arrangement, with existing companies. As I have explained the nature of the amendment, the Corporation is proposing the latter course, having decided that its activities should co-operate in every possible way with existing private concerns. Conditions on the west coast are different. There nearly all the fish is either canned or processed and the canners and processors are, I am informed, to a very large extent the’ owners of the boats and gear and employers of the fishermen. Apart from housing there is very little the Corporation can do for the fishermen in those areas who are engaged in catching fish for the canneries, and still less they can do for developing schemes for the better catching of fish and the wider exploitation of the inshore fisheries, and in order therefore that both the welfare and the interests of the fishermen in… those areas shall be promoted and the Corporation should at the same time take an active part in the developing of the inshore fisheries along the coasts, the Corporation consider it should be interested in the canning and processig along with existing concerns. As I say, the Corporation was approached very early on by a large firm of canners with a proposal it should take up a share in a scheme for the development of its canneries. The board consulted me about this proposal and my reply was I did not think it right at that stage for the Corporation to link up with one individual concern, without giving other and similar concerns a similar opportunity to do the same thing. I should add at this stage two or three other firms approached the Corporation for the development of that particular branch of the industry. So the Corporation then approached the other canners with the object of getting as large a number as possible to link up in a general rationalising scheme for the canning industry on the West Coast. All the canners except one firm received the board’s proposal in principle favourably, and expressed their desire to co-operate, on the basis of a financial link-up subject to a measure of rationalisation being introduced at an early date. Subsequently, chiefly I think due to the opposition of one firm, most of the canners changed their minds, and therefore the idea of a general reorganisation and rationalisation of the canning industry, with the Corpora tion as an interested party, did not materialise. I may say that in my opinion if the canning industry is to maintain its war-time growth, or if it is to develop, some form of organisation and rationalisation is essential. Whether that reorganisation takes place with or without the participation of the Corporation it will be necessary. In the meanwhile two canning companies have maintained their desire to co-operate on a financial basis with the Corporation and the Corporation desires to go ahead with them and also to enter into arrangements with two other companies elsewhere, and the purposes therefore for which authority is being asked this morning to issue “B” shares to the value of £155,000 are as follows: In the first place, 50,000 shares have to be set aside for issue to registered fishermen. In terms of Section 13 (4) (a) we are bound to do this as soon as “B” shares are made available. I do not think the fishermen are very likely to want to take up the shares in the early stages, or until the Corporation has reached the dividend-paying stage.

Are they given a time limit?

No.

And if they do not take them up?

They will not be issued. This is authorised capital we are asking for.

What happens if you do not get the money?

I am explaining the scheme at the present moment. This authorised issue of 50,000 shares to the fishermen is a formality we have to observe in terms of the Act. The present intention is not to issue them for the time being, but it seems to me when the Corporation reaches the dividend-paying stage these shares will be very useful in enabling the fishermen, through the Corporation, to become shareholders in their own industry. But, for practical purposes at the present moment I am in terms of the Act asking authority to issue the shares and if the fishermen are prepared to take them up ….

Is that issue restricted to fishermen?

Purely for fishermen; if the hon. member will read the Act he will find it is clearly laid down. The next proposition is in respect of the issue of 60,000 shares to enable the Corporation to invest £60,000 in the Lamberts Bay Canning Company, which is the largest cannery along the West Coast and which has had a very successful record in the last ten years. Originally it confined itself to crawfish, but in the last few years it has branched out into the canning of pilchards, and it is this development which holds the greatest interest because as a result of the operations of this company it appears reasonably certain a new industry with great opportunities may develop in the pilchard industry.

May we have the names of the directors?

I have not the names here.

May we have them?

You can get them anywhere.

Are you in a position to get them?

I may be.

Why ask the Minister; you can get them on the letterheads.

In regard to the pilchard industry, large shoals of these fish run off our coast for approximately nine months in the year and they may be caught at a reasonably low cost. In California, America, where the pilchards only run about four months in the year—it is seasonable fishing—there is a very large industry that has been built up based on pilchards, and I am told the annual catch represents about 1,000 million pounds of fish and there are good grounds for believing that we can develop the industry on similar lines here. The Lamberts Bay Canning Company, owing to war conditions, has been canning pilchards but the pilchards are also used for the production of oil and meal. Up to now the Union has had to rely on importation for its requirements of edible oil, and it can be assumed most of the importations could be replaced by oil obtained from the pilchard industry. At the present moment the annual importation of edible oil and oil seeds is equivalent to 12 million gallons of oil per annum valued at over £2,000,000. In addition to that the Union is deficient in protein, and the fish meal obtained from the pilchard has a particularly high protein content, running I believe to about 60 per cent., and it will provide a valuable food for cattle, poultry and pigs. The Corporation’s investment, therefore, in this company will be used for the development of the pilchard industry, firstly to erect a new and modern plant (through the war years it has been impossible to modernise the factory which at present is equipped with a crawfish canning plant and not a modern plant for pilchards) and, secondly, to establish a modern meal plant and oil extraction plant. The second investment the Corporation wishes to make is in relation to Stephan Bros., Ltd., one of the oldest of the canning factories. It operates two canneries at St. Helena Bay. They have what the Corporation considers the best sites in the whole industry along that coast, quite near the present known pilchard grounds, and the fresh capital we propose to put in will be used to modernise the equipment of the existing factories. It is at this spot, if the development of the oil and meal industry prove successful, conditions offer the ideal opportunity for the settlement of ex-servicemen in ’the industry. I should mention these two companies are considering a financial line-up in order to pool their experience in the development of these new industries. The third investment, of £10,000, is in a new company, South African Products, Ltd. This is a new company and the principal shareholders are three gentlemen with very considerable experience and assets in the fishing industry, men who have held an important position in Cape industry for many years, and they propose to operate from Hout Bay. The company will erect a modern cold storage, and acquire a freezing plant and a modern smokery and oil extraction plant, and will be in a position to provide a ready and steady market for the fishermen there whom the Corporation, as I have mentioned plans to assist in various ways by means of “A” shares. The last proposal is for £10,000 to take shares in the Ocean Products Co., Ltd. This company has been one of the pioneers in the shark liver oil industry with an extraction plant at Gaansbaai, and they propose to join with the Corporation in the development of the industry in the Gansbaai area. The draw-, back of Gansbaai is the harbour, which at the present moment, does not provide sufficient shelter for boats of the size required to exploit the whole of that bay. My department is, however, actively continuing investigations with a view to improving harbour facilities there and making it suitable for the development we have in mind. Hon.’ members will have seen a very small sum of money does appear on the estimates for a small slipway; but I think it will be necessary to go much further and to develop it into a first-class fishing harbour. Pending the developments and the improvements to that harbour the Ocean Products will undertake, with the Corporation, experiments in catching fish with larger boats and more modern gear with a view to collecting the final data necessary when we come to equip the fishermen in the Gansbaai area with the object of improving their individual catches. It will also erect a small cold storage plant for the benefit of the fishermen at Gansbaai, which is badly needed. At the present moment the fishermen come in there with their fish and they have to dispose of it at once to whoever happens to be there to buy them, or else they go bad. These are the four proposals for which the Corporation wishes “B” share capital, and they all represent approximately one-third interest in the companies. I should say the proposals have been very carefully examined by the officials of the Corporation, also by the Corporation’s auditors and by valuators appointed by the Corporation, and I am satisfied that the actual money side of the investment has been thoroughly examined and is satisfactory.

If other companies want to come in what will be the position?

At the present moment these are four separate investments in different companies; if other companies wish to come in the Corporation is there to assist in developing the inshore fishing industry, and it is open to receive suggestions from any quarter, provided the proposals have as their object the better development of the fishing industry.

But you would have to come and ask for more money.

Certainly; if there are any further proposals the Corporation wishes to accept and in respect of which it desires to issue “B” share capital, they will have to come before this House. As I say, those are the proposals and I submit, taking the “A” shares activities together with the “B” share proposals we can say that the Corporation has made a suitable and promising start, and I hope the House will have no difficulty in giving approval to what they propose and in passing this resolution.

I second.

At the present moment this side of the House is not actually in a position to judge of the proposals made by the Corporation and to come to a conclusion in regard to the justification or otherwise of advancing the required capital, proposals for which have been submitted to us today. The Minister will surely realise that the time has been too short to provide the House with the facts which are necessary to enable us to form an opinion, because the period of the Corporation’s experience has been too short. Whatever the case may be, there are two aspects in the proposals now before us which should receive attention and which have received the attention of this House in the past. The first aspect is whether the registered fishermen should obtain a share in the capital of the Company. That is a matter towards which the Select Committee of last year felt favourably inclined and I take it that actually there can be no fundamental objection against giving the registered fishermen an interest in the industry itself. Secondly capital is now asked for on “B” shares which will mean an investment in the industry as such. This question was extensively discussed last year and I do not want to go once more into the details of it. I am sorry that the Minister laid too much stress on the fact that the “B” shares will only be used for the promotion of inshore fishing since the original purpose was not to develop only the inshore fishing industry. As far as the matter as a whole is concerned, we are therefore in the position that we can only express an opinion on the principle, and as far as the principle is concerned, I think I can wholeheartedly and candidly state that this side of the House raises no objection against allowing the required capital to be raised. About certain aspects thereof we cannot form an opinion at present and this must be left to the responsibility of the Minister and his Department. But as far as the principle is concerned, we on this side cannot raise any objection, because during the previous Session we were even prepared to go much further than the Minister is now going in his request. The proposal is made in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Act and it does not go beyond the existing powers laid down in the Act. In the provisions which contain the objects of the Act, provision has also been made for the application of the required capital, as now proposed by the Minister. They have been outlined, and some of the aspects have been justified in particular, in Section 3 (2) of the existing Act and they have furthermore been covered by the powers granted to the Corporation under Section 4 (c) (1) (h). No additional powers are now being asked for. The whole idea of the capital investment asked for, is already covered and made sure of in the existing Act which the House passed last year. Since we as a party are now being asked to express our attitude in regard to this proposal, we can frankly support the proposal, with one reservation which I shall deal with later, because the request does not go further than what has already been approved of by the party last year. On principle we have no “objection against the request made by the Minister. We even go further and we maintain that this request means that the Minister is now coming back to the original objects of the Bill as introduced last year. We took up this attitude last year in regard to the original objects of the Bill and though the Minister for reasons which will be clear to himself departed from those objects, he now comes with this request which goes into the direction of supplementing the powers which had been intended last year but which were abandoned owing to circumstances which the Minister himself will be best able to explain. The position was that the original object which we had in view for the participation of the State in this large and important industry in South Africa, as it appeared in the original Section 12 had to be abandoned or replaced by a much watered down provision. For that reason we welcome this tentative—I expressly call it tentative—return to the original objects of the Bill and in welcoming this return I want to congratulate the Minister at the same time on his apparent success to bring about a conversion in certain circles. It does not matter whether that conversion took place within or outside his party. We are grateful to the Minister that he succeeded in achieving a return to the original objects of the Bill. I only hope that his colleagues in the Cabinet will not again leave him in the lurch as they did last year. There are a few principles embodied by implication in this proposal. The first one is the attitude adopted by this House in regard to the invesment of private capital. During the previous Session I expressed my point of view in regard to this matter. I then said that none of us are prepared to declare that we must destroy private initiative. On the contrary, the point of view of the House as a whole and of all parties is that we are in favour of the retention of private capital. We do not want to tie down capital in an unfair manner. Private initiative, however, which is not prepared to keep pace with developments or which does not want to acknowledge or accept the new circumstances will in my opinion, if it does not adapt itself be swamped in the flood. We need not go into further detail but we once more want to stress our view that private initiative must play its rightful part in the development of the possibilities of our country and our people. This point of view, which we now stress, is bound to be reassuring to private capital which is worried and concerned about the participation of the State in industry. We are strongly in favour of the use of private capital. On the other hand the State definitely has an obligation, especially in this industry in which certain tendencies were noticeable in the past, to participate, in the national interest, in the development of the industry. The State should participate in certain fields of activity. We only regret the attitude taken up last year by private capital in regard to this problem. Seeing that a fresh attempt is now being made, and I take it that the House as a whole is going to support the proposal, that the House is going to support this attempt by the Minister to foster the development which is necessary in the interest of the consumer as well as of the State as a whole, I hope that this House will in turn also take up the point of view in regard to private capital that such private capital will only have a limited field of activity in such development. There will be limits to the application of private capital, within which private initiative will have to be satisfied. I just want to mention here for the benefit of the House and the people outside that we have taken note of the attitude taken up by private initiative and of the objections raised by organised industry. I assume that the memorandum which has been drawn up by organised trade and industry and especially by one branch of the organised industry, namely the Food Canners’ Council, and which I have received, has also been received by other hon. members. I believe that we can frankly say that nobody is indifferent to private capital already invested in industry or to private initiative. On the other hand I think that it can also be said that the organised industry has put forward certain suppositions and certain basic principles which cannot be accepted. I have read with interest and consideration the various points put forward in the memorandum. Of course it is impossible to go fully into these questions on this occasion and neither is it necessary to do so. Nevertheless I feel I must reply to certain of the suppositions and statements made by organised industry. First of all I want to say that organised industry apparently has not yet made any headway in departing from the point of view it adopted last year, namely, that the Corporation has no right to play a part in any other field but the field of the inshore fisheries. Here we find the following proposition—

According to this memorandum one nas to assume that the purpose of the Corporation—its only object—is to encourage the inshore fishing industry. Surely we cannot accept the view that the Corporation should limit its activities to that only. Then another fundamental objection is raised, namely that—

Admittedly it is true that this specific exclusion did take place, but not as a result of a change in the point of view as a whole. It only happened as the result of the pressure which those interests are able to exercise and I believe that if those interests were to insist on their previous attitude and were to exert further pressure, they would not only render a disservice to the country and to the people as such, but they would also render the greatest disservice to organised industry itself. The time is past when any group of organised capital can risk and dare risk to prescribe to the State to the House of Assembly, certain limitations of the latter’s powers. I believe that organised industry, although we sympathised withits objects, wants to go too far in asserting that there is no justification for the extension of the powers of this Corporation. There are a few further fundamental objections which I shall not go into now. I do not want to keep up the House any longer. Also on behalf of my Party I want to state that we have taken note of a statement issued during the last few days by organised trade in Cape Town, namely, that this entrance by the State in certain fields of activities is in fact the beginning of the downfall of private enterprise. I think that is an exaggeration. I want to repeat that I believe that we are all concerned about the maintenance of private initiative and the investment of private capital, but still I think that that statement is an exaggeration of the position because the people outside can assume that we are all concerned with the maintenance of private enterprise. I want, however, to object against the assertion by a highly placed representative of the organised trade that this step to introduce a Bill and to devise schemes for the participation of the State in private undertakings, represents a new spirit in the public service. I think that is an unfair imputation against the public service. First of all it is unfair to maintain that our public servants are imbued with a new spirit to involve the State in everything which in the past was controlled by private initiative and secondly it is an insult to the House of Assembly to say that the House of Assembly cannot but say yes and amen to proposals originating from the public service. I believe, because I have knowledge of the original general feeling in favour of the Bill, especially in the Select Committee, that it is once more my duty to declare that these ideas do not originate with the public service. The idea was born from a new process in the relationship between the public service and private initiative and the development of the country as a whole, and for that reason it is our duty to raise objections to the insinuation that we are sitting here merely to endorse proposals coming from the public service. We therefore have no objections against the acceptance of the proposals We welcome it because it fills a gap which was created last year, and together with the people outside who are so concerned about it, we want to keep a watchful eye on the application of this capital in order to see that it is duly applied to the purposes which the House had in mind last year. One problem which remains is the economical application of the capital asked for. The House as a whole and least of all the Party which I represent cannot accept responsibility for this particular Investment. If it were assumed that we are therefore convinced of the sound economic investment of this money, we would have to withdraw ourselves from this matter, but nobody amongst us is able at this stage, except on the particulars given by the Minister, to judge of the soundness of the investment of the amount which is now being asked for What we can form a judgment on is whether the direction in which it has to be applied carries our approval. We have no objection against the direction in which it has to be applied. We believe that this is the commencement of an expansion which has to develop further until the State obtains its rightful share in the development of our industries. As far as the economic aspect is concerned, the Minister in the first instance and thereafter his Department will have to accept responsibility. And what we should furthermore like to stress is that since the Corporation as a body created by the State is now being empowered to issue capital and to invest it in existing companies, we should all like to see that the Corporation will obtain its due share in the management of those companies. We do not want protection only of capital which will again be under full private control, but we want to see that where the Government invests money of the State, the Corporation as a body created by the State must have proper control and be represented on the management of those companies to exercise such control. Furthermore I have nothing to add except that I want once more to express my appreciation for the point of view taken up by the Minister. This morning I read up what I said last year, namely that I saw no possibility of the Minister ever being able to come back here. Those words I now should like to withdraw in view of the progress which we are making and in view of the point of view adopted by the Minister and I hope that the capital now required to be invested in the industry will be only the beginning of a development which will be to the benefit of the industry as a whole, to the benefit of the consumer and will promote the independence which we all strive for.

I regret that I am unable to support the proposition of the Minister in applying to the House for authority to issue this £155,000 worth of additional capital for taking up “B” shares. I am one of those individuals who believes that while the State should foster private enterprise it should not compete actively in those fields which private enterprise has built up in industry and in commerce. I am well acquainted with the circumstances under which the Bill was last year amended, so as to include the provision that the “B” shares should not be issued until the sanction of both Houses of Parliament had been obtained, and the reason for that was that in its original form the Fishing Industries Bill was designed to take over the whole of the industry as it existed in this country. That caused the greatest alarm to the industry. It had been built up with the expenditure of great energy, ability and capital and suddenly the State decided to take control of the whole of that industry. Mr. Spooner, who was the civil servant responsible for the drafting of this Bill, and who took a very active interest in the organisation of the fishing industry, declared in his evidence before the Select Committee which was appointed by this House before the Bill was passed—

That is in Paragraph 2561 of his evidence, and it was after the Bill in that form had been approved of by the Select Committee that the Minister was induced to accept the amendment which provided that it would not issue the “B” shares unless private enterprise did not co-operate with the Corporation and the industry in marketing the products of the inshore fishermen. But the clear intention of the Bill was to improve the position of the inshore fishermen, and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) who has just spoken, in his remarks emphasised that aspect of the matter. He said this at page 6962 of Hansard—

That is, the powers under the “B” shares—

And the Minister, in his reply, repeated these very words, and emphasised the point that if there was co-operation on the part of industry, there would be no necessity for issuing the “B” shares. Now, I have listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister, and he has not suggested in a single sentence in that speech that there was no co-operation.

Do you say that co-operation was forthcoming?

The Minister himself gave a perfectly definite assurance in his speech—

Private enterprise asked for it.

This is what he said in column 6956 of Hansard (Vol. 49)—

Those are the words which I emphasise—

And I say that if ever there was a case where there was unwarranted incursion into private enterprise, it is this case. This Corporation was set up on the 1st October, 1944 and it had ample powers to improve the position of the inshore fisherman. I just want to refer to the provisions of the Act, which specify the purposes for which “A” shares can be used—The objects of the Corporation shall be—

So that they are entitled to assist them in catching fish and they are entitled to assist them to dispose of the fish. No steps, as far as I know and as far as I can understand from the Minister, have been taken in connection with that matter. Then there is sub-section (d) which says—

Here we have a Corporation formed for the uplift of the fishermen, which can assist them, finance them and market their products’. What more do you want as far as the inshore fishermen are concerned? But what about them now? The Corporation is issuing “B” shares for the purpose of taking up shares in the canning industry where fishermen are employed and well paid and live under satisfactory conditions. For what purpose? I do not know what the purpose is, excepting in order that the original conception of the Bill, as it was conceived and developed in the mind of Mr. Spooner and the Department should be put into effect and that the State should eventually obtain control over the whole of the fishing industry in this country. The Minister has declared to us that there was a meeting which took place with something like 12 of the canning companies. Only two were agreeable to the Minister’s conditions, because the circular upon which that meeting was based provided that the Government was to take a one-third interest in the capital of each of these companies and that it was to have a director on the board of these companies and that these conditions were only to obtain for 10 years, after which they could be reviewed by the Government. While two of them accepted this condition because, as they explained it themselves, the Government was determined to do this and they were not going to fight the Government, the other 10 took up the attitude that they would put up a fight for the rights and privileges they were entitled to as citizens of this country. We must not forget that this Bill originated in the Department of Commerce and Industries, and we know it is an unfortunate thing that for the last 10 years not only in this country but in every other country there has been an infiltration of the idea amongst civil service personnel that the civil service now must become the master of the State instead of the servant of the State. That, of course, was the result of conditions in Europe, and we must see to it that that position is not allowed to develop in South Africa. If there is one country in the world which was built up by private enterprise it is this country. It was colonised first of all by the East India Company, the republics were formed by private enterprise, Rhodesia was occupied by private enterprise, the diamond industry was discovered and developed by private enterprise and the gold mining industry has been discovered, developed and organised entirely by private enterprise. For us now to tolerate the interference and intrusion of a number of incompetent persons into a highly developed industry like the fishing industry seems to me to be an absurdity, and a thing this House should not tolerate for one moment.

Why did you not say these things last year?

I want to refer to the personnel. The chairman of the Fisheries Development Corporation is Dr. Skaife, a scientist and botanist. Then there is Dr. Von Bonde who was also largely responsible for the original conception of this Bill, which was based on similar Bills in Russia and in Germany. He is a scientist and Director of Fisheries. There is Mr. Barnard, who is a schoolmaster and social worker, a man who undoubtedly in the area in which he resides has done magnificent social work for the uplift of the fishermen. I do not say a word about his actions there. I recognise his work and I think his appointmen to this board is a recognition of that valuable work, and he was appointed to the board as the representative of those people for whom he worked for very long before this idea of a Fisheries Bill arose. But Mr. Barnard is not the sort of man who should be put on the board of a company to control the fishing industry, to market and to process fish. I would be very sorry indeed to put a company with £1,000,000 capital under his control. That is not his work. His work is particularly work in connection with which “A” shares were issued. That is his work and he is eminently fitted for it by virtue of his experience. The next man is Mr. D. Saunders, a sugar grower, and Mr. Crean who was at one time a price controller and is a shipper by calling. And of course the man is Mr. Spooner, who today is manager of that company. Mr. Spooner has first of all to make a success of the reasons for which the “A” shares were issued, and the Government should not go on until some steps have been taken to develop the ideas upon which the “A” shares were issued, and until they satisfy us that they have put up cold storages and have taken steps to market fish, and that there has been a distinct call for the issue of “B” shares, because, as the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) put it, there has been an absence of co-operation on the part of the industry. But so far from there being an absence of co-operation on the part of the industry, the industry actually appointed four men to advise and assist as far as they can to carry out the objects of the “A” shares. It seems to me that they should first of all have been given an opportunity of doing so. It is not a question of whether it is good business for the Government to purchase these shares and to enter into these industries in competition with private enterprise. The question of good or bad business is irrelevant. It is a vital question of principle which will affect the foundations of commercial enterprise in this country. I imagine that members yesterday must have been struck by the presidential address of the president of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, and I would like to quote a couple of passages from it, because it shows what we are up against and what we must look to before we sanction what the Minister asks. He said—

And he goes on to say—

I do not believe’ that the Minister, if he had not been new to his job at the time when this was introduced, would ever have brought in a Bill of this nature. It is not the type of policy for which we, on this side of the House, stand and are committed.

Speak for yourself.

The war has just been concluded to decide the rights of the individual as against the State. What is the use of the war having been won on a principle like that if this House immediately after the declaration of peace is going to pass a resolution which has the effect of striking at private enterprise and enabling the State to eliminate private enterprise.

The outburst by the hon. member, who has just sat down, does not leave a pleasant taste in one’s mouth. By way of interruption I asked him why he remained silent last year, when this Bill was before the House for the first time. I hope I am not doing the hon. member an injustice by repeating this question. If I do him an injustice I will apologise to him but here in front of me I have Hansard and as far as I can make out in the short time at my disposal I cannot find the hon. member having taken part in the debate last year.

I was satisfied with the proposal.

Last year we approved of the principle of the Bill after the Bill had been thoroughly thrashed out by a Select Committee and the hon. member was sitting here all that time and did not speak on the Bill. When he should have spoken on the principle of the Bill he remained silent and now he comes here— and with due deference to you, Sir, I thought at a certain stage that the hon. member was out of order, but you ruled otherwise—and criticises the principle of the Bill. The hon. member has now been taken in hand and I can guess who has taken him in hand. I think that Messrs. Irvin and Johnson have not yet abandoned their opposition to this measure.

I do not know them; I have never seen them.

Very well, I leave it at that. I accept the hon. member’s word that Messrs. Irvin and Johnson were not in touch with him and I hope that the hon. member also did not read the memoranda with which Irvin and. Johnson have swamped us.

I did.

What memoranda were those?

Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem? If the hon. member is not au fait with the memoranda by Irvin and Johnson with which hon. members have been swamped during the past year, I cannot help him. All I want to say is this; I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), in saying that we are filled with a measure of gratitude that the Government is prepared to go as far as has been indicated by the Minister this morning. That is the direction in which we all intended that the principles of the Bill should go and therefore I should, also like to express my thanks to the Government that it is prepared to make the provisions, which according to the Minister’s statement this morning, will be made. It is obvious that certain persons in the country, persons whose names were mentioned last year, and one name of which I mentioned a’ few moments ago, will not abandon their struggle against a measure of this nature. The Minister should be prepared for that. He should even be prepared for outbursts such as that of the hon. member who spoke before me. He should assume that the powerful interests of which we spoke last year will not abandon their opposition against the Bill. They will go on with it for years. He should take no notice of that. He has the large majority of the country behind him as far as these measures are concerned.

But this Bill makes them even more powerful.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the people on whose behalf he wants to speak. I am speaking now on behalf of the people who represent a large number of interests in the country and who gave evidence before the Select Committee last year. The hon. members who were on the Select Committee together with us gained an impression of the need for a measure of this nature. It is based on the same principles as Iscor; it goes in the same direction as the development of the iron and steel industry, and we have to state that the very large majority of the inhabitants of this country are today convinced that the industrial development of South Africa is to be based along lines similar to those applying to Iscor, and that is also the reason why in the meantime quite a number of Corporations have been established by this Parliament along those same lines. It is many years ago, 1927 or 1928, when Iscor was established,… but at no time after that date have people such as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and other large interests given up their opposition against that institution. It will still take many years before these people will realise the great advantages of the principle upon which the Corporation has been based. What I do deplore, however, is that the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis), went so far off the track that he saw fit to attack here in the House officials who, as he knows, cannot defend themselves. That was a most unsavoury scene. Last year the hon. member remained silent. Now he comes along and suddenly reveals himself as a very strong opponent against the measure and not only does he fight a measure proposed by his own Government but he also attacks and criticises public servants although he knows that they cannot defend themselves. I want to say this morning that our country owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde, two officials who are qualified in regard to the work for which they have been appointed. I do not know whether we would have been able to find two officials in South Africa—I do not ignore the others who also deserve praise—but I do not know whether in South Africa we could find two officials for this Fisheries Corporation who are bettter qualified than Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde. Then the hon. member with his defective knowledge—somebody must have whispered it into his ears— declares that they are not qualified and he attacks them. I resent that attack.

He never attacked the officials.

Was the hon. member deaf when he spoke?

I did not attack him.

If that was not an attack then I do not know what an attack is. He even went so far as to accuse Dr. Von Bonde and to drag in the argument that Dr. Von Bonde came with proposals and ideas originating in Russia.

Certainly.

That he recommended measures which had their origin in Russia. Well, the same thing was said when we established our iron and steel industry.

That was his own evidence before the Select Committee.

What does it matter’ whether the principle… underlying Iscor is taken over from any country of the world? I see nothing wrong in copying a principle from another country, but I want to add that that principle which underlies the idea of Iscor was to a large extent conceived in South Africa. But supposing that the principle originated in England or Germany or Russia, what does it matter if it is a sound principle for South African conditions, and it certainly is not fair of the hon. member to come here and to accuse an official who cannot defend himself that he has put forward proposals which were copied from Russia. What was the reflection he wanted to cast? That the officials approach the Government with proposals originating in Russia and that that is something which should not be made applicable to South Africa. That is the impression the hon. member wanted to create. The hon. member should be ashamed of himself. As far as the measure before us is concerned we hate every reason to feel pleased and to congratulate the Minister—I am not often in a position to congratulate the Minister and last, year I attacked him fairly sharply and I think he deserved it to a certain extent—but today we can congratulate him and I am glad that the Minister has taken a stand against certain vested interests which wanted to force him into a certain direction, and which want to force the commercial life of South Africa in a certain direction. I congratulate him and the Government with the attitude they have adopted against those people and that they said: We realise what is in the best interests of South Africa. I just want to make a few further remarks. The Department was kind enough to give me two names of the directors of two companies which are involved in this proposal, namely, the Lamberts Bay Canning Company and South African Sea Products. I shall not read out the names here. I only want to say that I was very pleased to hear that on account of more or less one third of the share capital which the Fisheries Corporation will invest in those companies, it will be able in respect of that one-third interest to appoint two directors on the management. That will mean that where the management of the Lamberts Bay Canning Company consists of four directors, the Corporation will have two directors, and where the South African Sea Products also has a management of four directors, the Corporation also will have two there. I hope that the Minister will continue with that policy and that also in respect of other companies to which capital amounts will be allotted, the Corporation will at least be able to appoint two directors for the one third interest. In this connection I want to issue a word of warning and that is that something has happened in the case of Iscor which is not above criticism, namely that Iscor, in regard to the “B” shares which have been invested in certain industries and where it consequently has obtained representation on the boards of management, has in my opinion made the mistake of appointing the same person to too many of those managements. I want to emphasise that the Government should not repeat the mistake of one person being appointed in perhaps five or six or eight boards of management, for then the position arises that too much power is placed in the hands of one person, and an octopus position is created. A man who is connected with so many bodies afterwards cannot cope effectively with all the work, and in the second place too much power is placed in the hands of such a person. I want to talk frankly. I believe that we should prevent this happening in regard to the Corporation in question, which will be directed along similar lines as Iscor; we should prevent happening here what has happened in the case of the management of Iscor. In my opinion some of the directors of Iscor are one the boards of management of too many subsidiary companies, companies in which Iscor has invested money. In that manner directors obtain powers in their hands which it was never the intention to give to them. We do not want to mention names. Hon. members who know the position will agree that it is an unhealthy state of affairs that a few of the directors of Iscor are members of the boards of management of so many subsidiary companies. That puts a power into the hands of certain persons which is already causing surprise today. As a result of these enormous powers the position today is that some men have obtained a hold on the industrial development of South Africa which would be practically impossible in most other countries of the world. One trembles at the thought of what might happen one day if those men would decide to abuse their powers. For that reason I want to warn the Minister in connection with this Fisheries Corporation not to appoint one or two or three persons on four or five or six subsidiary companies, for in that case they might possibly after wards obtain powers which we cannot again wrest from them and they might then put us before a fait accompli. The matter should preferably be dealt with in another way and the directorships should be spread over a number of people who enjoy the confidence of the Corporation. It will be an easy matter to find these. There is one other point of criticism which I want to raise. Perhaps it escaped the attention of the Minister, but I should have liked to have heard from him when he gave his explanation of the sums of money to be made available for the various companies and for the different kinds of work which they will have to undertake in connection with the development of this industry, when wé shall obtain cold storage facilities for the transport of fish. I waited in vain for a statement by the Minister on this point. He said that at Gansbaai there would be a company which will establish cold storage facilities there, but the Minister will remember, for he was the chairman of the Select Committee, that one very important matter to which our attention was drawn was the lack of cold storage facilities in regard to the transport of fish from one place to another. It will be of little use to establish only cold storage facilities at Gansbaai or Velddrift or anywhere else. Of course that is also necessary, but one must also have cold storage facilities for the transport of the fish to the railways, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to that aspect. Then there is one more point I wish to mention. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to send a memorandum to the fishermen in the areas to be proclaimed and also in the areas not to be proclaimed, in order to tell them in plain language what the purpose of this Corporation and the Act is. I was glad to hear from the Minister that they are already engaged in preparing such a memorandum, and I hope that he will avail himself of that opportunity to make that information known not only through the medium of the newspapers but also among the fishermen in the areas to be proclaimed and even among the fishermen outside the proclaimed areas, so that the fishermen may be able to inform themselves of the good intentions of these measures which are to be applied for their welfare. Recently I visited areas where the fishermen live and it became apparent to me that such a step is essential because they are not conversant with these matters. This is an intricateBill and the financial aspects are very involved, and for that reason they should be told in the plainest language possible what the position is. I want to conclude in saying that we are pleased that the Minister has put his foot down and that he has come along with these proposals.

It must have been obvious when the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) made his impassioned appeal for the sacred rights of exploitation by private enterprise that we on these benches would at least disagree with him. I am rather surprised to have to realise that a member of this House can stand up and can get so hot and bothered about people who are obviously able to look after their own business in a way he himself certainly is not able to do. In addition to his heartfelt and heartrending appeal to this House on behalf of the poor, oppressed fishing companies who would have nothing to do with co-operation in the matter of exploiting our fisheries, he has seen fit to question the bona fides of members of the Corporation and, he says: You have a schoolmaster. Well, what is wrong with that? What is the hon. member but just a lawyer? If he wants to question the status of any man appointed to serve on any particular body he must, of course, show that he himself possesses a superior qualification, and, unless it is because it is “fishy” business I do not know what right a lawyer has to question anybody’s status in the matter of catching fish.

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

I was referring to the aspersions cast by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) on the Corporation and questioning why he cast those aspersions. We are always content, in any endeavour to perform the business of this House, that men of goodwill should be appointed’ by whoever is empowered to appoint them to do the work that has to be done in order that the work shall be carried out, and we are prepared to judge the Corporation by its performance. We say to the Minister that we are glad that he has taken this step and that we wholeheartedly support him in the taking of it. We do regret that the Minister did not go as far as we would have liked him to go, but that does not detract from our appreciation of the fact that he has gone as far as he has. In connection with the hon. member’s reference to a Press statement I may say that we on these benches also read our daily papers, and we sometimes also read various memoranda which are sent to us as members of Parliament by many and various bodies whose wish it is to influence us in our doings in this House, and I read last night the recital of some parts of the speech of the new commercial leader of Cape Town, and was as struck by it was the hon. member for Pretoria (City). These are two of the things which struck me. The one is a statement by the city commercial leader to this effect—

That struck me very forcibly. Is it possible that any Minister can be forced by his Department, because of a misguided sense of loyalty, to enact in this House with our permission legislation which is unjust, because that is the imputation? I cannot believe that is so. I am rather inclined to believe that the Minister can too often be very much influenced by interests outside this House in order that legislation should not be passed in this House which will affect private arrangements. That, I think, is the true picture that we have to keep in mind. Then again, this same leader said—

He was referring to the Minister of Finance here—

So anxious to give them at a price, the price being the Ministers susceptibility in response to their ideas not to, or to implement legislation which will favour their interests. Now, if a leader of commerce in this city can be so indiscreet as to say things like this, shall we, as a House, listen, or shall we say rather that this is a case of the blind leading the blind? Now, there was another document which we have all had, as members of Parliament. I want to quote a little from that also. It is a memorandum on the Fisheries Industry Development Corporation, about the proposed issue of “B” shares and here we have this statement—

Now, that is very misleading. An amendment was adopted in this House, to our regret, may I say which was surely not adopted because it was designed to restrict the implementation of “B” shares. This was only inserted in the Bill after the Select Committee had reported that it heartily agreed with the original Bill, and because outside influences had been Gold to make their case and had done so very thoroughly. There again we have a statement that we in this House should discard and discredit, because it is certainly not true. And then there are other statements, in the matter of the proposed Corporation and the setting out of the work that the Corporation proposes to do, not against the interests of industry, but in the interests of industry, and I think no one will quarrel with the constructive nature of these proposals. It seems to me that under item 3 of this memorandum is set out what shall be the interest of the Government and what shall be the total financial liability in connection therewith, and is proof of the Government’s desire really to co-operate and not in any way to impose through the Corporation on the industry a restricting and smothering influence. I want to say it is my belief in that connection that the two big firms who did not want to collaborate with the Government did not so much object against the Government smothering or restricting them, but really objected to Government nominees being appointed because being on the inside they would get to know too much about the internal arrangements of the fisheries industry. The whole plan of campaign seems to be to attack the Department and its servants and to discredit what the Minister has done, and perhaps the Minister himself. This is a subtle and subversive attempt to discredit this legislation and to discourage its administration and to engender resentment against civil servants and to stir us as members of Parliament to unduly curb civil servants in the use of their powers. We know it is impossible for members to do without them. We realise we have to trust our civil servants.

I do not think the hon. member should go too deeply into that aspect of the matter.

I shall not carry it further, Sir. To return to the bone of contention, we have a Bill that the Minister is attempting to carry, out. The trouble has been that in the past we have had Bills designed which served merely to allay unrest in the minds of the public, and too often Bills have not been implemented. We welcome signs of real life and we congratulate the Minister on his courage and determination to set in motion the machinery he envisaged when he introduced this Bill. I think I may say that we on these benches are solidly behind him and we support him in this good job of work he is doing.

I am sorry the hon. member for Germiston read but portion of a passage from the memorandum issued jointly by the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the South, African Food Canners’ Council. In this memorandum the passage occurs—

It however continues—

It was owing to amendments introduced to that Bill last year that the debate we have had today has become necessary. They made it necessary for the issue of these shares to be subject to the resolution of this House, of both Houses. In the event of their issue being necessary the Corporation should, however, come forward with a settled and determined policy and on that information the House should decide whether to sanction the issue of “B” shares. First and foremost this corporation was established for the specific purpose of protecting the inshore fishermen, whose plight the Minister painted in very dismal colours. I do not think anybody questioned the objects of the “A” shares.

I hope the hon. member is not going to discuss the merits of the Bill now and that he will confine his remarks to the motion before the House.

I shall do that Sir. Nobody questioned that, the objects of the “A” shares, but the ’great problem we had last year was the issue of “B” shares, and “B” shares could only be issued for the purpose of engaging in normal trade carried on up to that stage by private enterprise. Today we have the motion by the Minister asking for the issue of £155,000 “B” shares.

That was foreseen last year when we voted for the Bill.

I agree with that. One of the fundamental points raised last year by the Minister was that there should be co-operation and that if it was felt an asset was not being developed by private enterprise the Minister would have ample grounds to ask the House for shares to develop that asset. But is that the case here? I submit it is not. I test it on the basis of the negotiations which have taken place. The Corporation was registered early in October, a few months back. From the information I have a certain company interested in this industry went to the Industrial Development Corporation before coming to this Corporation. It went to the I.D.C. because the essential difference between the I.D.C. and the F.D.C. is that money may be borrowed from the I.D.C. on a short-term redeemable basis, whereas the F.D.C. wants a permanent interest. The I.D.C., knowing this Bill was in contemplation, referred the company to the F.D.C. Another canning concern approached the F.D.C. with a proposition. That proposition was reduced to the proposal which was submitted to the various members of the canning industry. Hon. members probably have seen this document. From a business aspect this proposition leaves a great deal to be desired. It was submitted in great haste. The canning industry was virtually given an ultimatum. Their minutes of the meeting report Dr. Skaife as saying that if members fail to give the co-operation that was necessary the Corporation would be forced to take other means to attain its objects, and he said it was necessary to have their acceptance of the proposal in time to submit it to the Minister by the 20th February. That very statement indicates the way this matter has been approached. I submit such an approach is the very negation of co-operation. If there is one way not to do a thing, that is the way. You come along to a dozen different firms, who all have different problems to contend with, after you have been a short time in existence and throw an ultimatum at their heads. These are bigstick methods and is holding the Sword of Damocles over the heads of private enterprise, which was one of our main objections to the Bill last year. How can one expect an industry of this nature, with its numerous and diversified interests, to reconcile the different problems involved in any scheme in a matter of a few days? If this Corporation was being controlled by men with a real sound knowledge of business that would not have been the approach. The negotiations might have been expected to cover a long period of months, and what harm would there be provided the ultimate solution was sane, satisfactory, acceptable and conducive to a spirit of confidence? The approach to this matter could only be calculated to upset confidence badly, and it is in clear contra-distinction to the policy the Minister enunciated at a meeting held on the 17 th October last year of the annual convention of the South African Federated Chambers of Industries, when he said—

Confidence is an all important factor in the make-up of the body economic, and anything done to upset that confidence will have serious repercussions. I was surprised to hear the Minister tell the House that the scheme was accepted with only one company objecting.

I said in principle, I did not say the scheme was accepted.

I am not satisfied that that is the case even, because the Corporation’s proposal was replied to by the various companies concerned, and various questions were raised and various doubts were expressed. However, on this question of confidence, what are the points in the scheme? One of the clauses provides that the Corporation will give the companies an undertaking that for a period of 10 years it will not seek a higher share of capital than 33⅓ per cent. Dr. Skaife, according to the minutes, said it was not possible to guarantee that after that period of 10 years the Corporation would not demand more than 33⅓ per cent. Surely the correct procedure for the Corporation is now to develop along the lines of the “A” share objects; it has a great deal to do. In that connection it has, I am sure, the wholehearted support of every member. But what has it done along the line of the “A” share objects? We hear nothing concrete. Has any area been declared yet?

The Minister has made a statement.

He virtually confined himself to saying a suitable and promising start had been made. They appear to have no tangible policy on any point. They appear still to be in the initial stages. When they have the “A” shares under way and make good use of some of the half million of money, which, is available to them at not exceeding 1 per cent., there is ample time to come to the House for authority to develop along other lines by issuing “B” shares. The Minister made a point about disposing of the catch of the inshore fishermen. The Corporation has the power under the “A” share objects to dispose of the fish. Last year the object known as paragraph (a) was amended to provide specifically for the selling of fish, because we foresaw that in limiting the issue of “B” shares to a resolution of both Houses, the Corporation would early be faced with the problem of disposing of the catches of inshore fishermen. So this provision which is ample, was made. Has the Corporation made any attempt to arrange for the disposal of any catch it may have from the inshore fishermen? I know of no arrangements that have been made. Instead of following reasonable and constructive lines the Corporation is now going in for the business objects, boots and all, with the issue of these “B” shares. It has failed to bring about unanimity in any section of the industry, and now it is committing the unpardonable mistake of putting money into only those concerns — of resorting inexpediency—who say come along and help us along. It has no policy. It is not investing this money in terms of any considered policy. How do they know that Stephan Bros is a firm of sufficient stability for them to put money into?

We have two directors to keep an eye on them.

My hon. friend was the man who criticised the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) because he was a lawyer, and should know.

You are wrong again; I did not say a word about that.

It was the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne).

I withdraw that then, I was under the impression it was the hon. member. Let this Corporation formulate its policy and come to the House with it. Let private enterprise and the Corporation co-operate together in a spirit of harmony rather than have a state of affairs which can only produce lack of confidence in the industry which has, under the pressure of war conditions grown remarkably, but which we all recognise may, under post-war conditions enter a difficult period. The support of the F.D.C. may then be necessary. I am not saying that in those circumstances “B” shares should not be issued, but they should only be issued after a sane and sound and carefully devised policy has been framed. For that reason I think this motion before us is premature, and that it should not be forced on the House at this stage. Under these circumstances I am not able to support it. I say so with regret, but I feel it does not implement the Minister’s own statement in the House last year when he envisaged the longterm character of the work involved in the “A” share objects and stated it would at least be two years before they would issue “B” shares. In regard to the motion itself, there is one aspect I have misgivings on. The motion merely asks for authority to issue 155,000 shares, but it does not state to what purposes that’ money is to be applied. This is a weakness. Having authorised this issue, has this House any definite assurance that the money will be invested only in the manner in which the Minister has explained today the Corporation proposes to invest it. Furthermore, I want to ask the Minister what is to be done with the proceeds from the 50,000 shares, which are to be made available for subscription by fishermen. It is a good object to allow the fishermen to come in and participate, but when they have subscribed. £50,000 what is the Corporation going to do with that money? I cannot conceive any business institution increasing its capital by £50,000 without being able to utilise the money to good purpose, and as the issue of these shares is subject to the approval of both Houses, I think the House, before it sanctions the issue, should know what is going to be done with the proceeds. In reply to an interjection on my part the Minister said this would constitute authorised capital, but authorised capital can be issued. He did further say it would not be issued immediately, and that makes it more difficult.

I will reply to that.

I hope the Minister will give us a full reply on the point. I regret that the Minister should come forward this year with this motion.

The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) raised the usual parrot cry about not interfering with private enterprise, and in his arguments he brought forward a speech delivered yesterday by the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Let me read out to you a comment on that speech by the editor of the “Cape Times” which appears in this morning’s paper. The comment says—

That is exactly the position we meet with in connection with the fishing industry, which not alone curtailed the supply of essential foodstuffs to this country, but it also kept the fishermen who were supposed to be cared for by “A” shares, very poor indeed, and the sooner it is realised that the time has arrived when there must be some modified control over capitalism ….

There are twelve canningfirms.

You have spoken quite long enough; leave me alone now. That capitalism has to be controlled more particularly where it affects the food of the people and the employment of people, and that is the case we meet with today. So I do not think that this parrot cry of “do not interfere with vested interests” does hold good any longer, and it represents merely so much retrogression because it is not going with the times. But the hon. member, like a lawyer who had a bad case, immediately starts an attack. And whom does he attack? He attacks the management of this Corporation. He says they are absolutely incompetent and know nothing at all about it.

I never said they were absolutely incompetent; I said they were incompetent to carry out the provisions of the “B” shares.

I understood the hon. member to say incompetent persons were handling the corporation. This is one of the rash statements he made, because he knows very little about the work the responsible people of this corporation put in before the Corporation was formed. He says that the action of the Corporation originated in the Department of Commerce and Industries, and that Mr. Spooner, now general manager of the Corporation, may be responsible for the whole thing, and it was ill-considered and done in a hurry. The hon. member should know, and he has heard of it before, that both Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde, these two directors, have been working on an Inter-departmental Fisheries Committee for the last four years. I personally was associated with them on that committee and I must say that Mr. Spooner, especially, who was a civil servant, is most competent to handle the management of that Corporation, and I think it is deplorable that these attacks should be made on people who cannot defend themselves and show they are unjustified. I think it is deplorable that these attacks should be made on people who cannot defend themselves. Not only did he attack Mr. Spooner but he also referred to the other directors. He referred to the chairman, who is a botanist and he referred to all the others; they are absolute nonentities in commerce and are not competent for the job. In fact, they are not competent to hold a directorship. As far as the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) is concerned I think he himself is a director of a company called Satmar and I would like to know what actual knowledge the hon. member has of extracting oil from coal or shale. He is also a director of a very big housing scheme in Pretoria.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of correction, that is not correct. I am a director of Satmar but I know a lot about the extraction of oil, more or less.

He knows less than more about the extraction of oil, but we can leave him alone. I do not think he knows what he is really talking about. He may have been fishing in the past in muddy waters or in the Boksburg Lake, but as far as the fishing industry is concerned I do not think he knows very much about it.

There is good fish in the Transvaal.

No, only sharks.

Let me come on to the Bill. Why is it necessary to issue these “B” shares? The argument is that everything can be done by the issue of “A” shares. One thing can be done. That is to provide these fishermen with amenities, with a house or with boats, but you cannot secure to them a market for the fish that are brought in by them, and that is why it is necessary to take that interest in the actual processing of fish.

That comes under the “A” shares.

It does not, because there are no facilities.

They charge us enough for fish today.

If those gentlemen who are so keen on interrupting are only acquainted with conditions in the fishing villages they will think differently. Arrangements will be made whereby the fishermen will be guaranteed a minimum price for all the fish they bring in, so that they know it will have a market. I think it is a far better proposition for the Corporation to take an interest in the established industries than tö erect new industries themselves. That is the main point at issue. The opponents of the Bill say that we can go into distribution with “A” share capital, and do this and that. Let me tell hon. members what happened in past years in connection with distribution. When some of these inshore fishermen wanted to market their fish in Johannesburg and other markets they were stopped by the big fishing trusts, because the latter went round to the distributors of fish, who were supplied by the inshore fishermen, and said that unless they stopped buying fish from the inshore fishermen direct they will stop supplying them with deep sea fish, such as soles, etc.

How many years ago was that?

Quite recently still. That is the position and that is the threat we are up against too. The very fact that the big fishing trusts here themselves try to buy these interests in the Lamberts Bay company shows that. They actually negotiated for it. Does that not show that the trusts want to go further in the stranglehold and get hold of the canning as well as of other fishing? That is what is before us and unless there is interference to bring competition to those very strong companies, so long will these inshore fishermen have no chance of earning a living.

They already have a law which deals with that.

What the House must remember is this that the big trawling people and the big fishing combines have an output of 60 per cent. of the total fish supplied, but they only employ’ 10 per cent. of the fishermen, so that the 40 per cent. of fish-catch which is left goes to 90 per cent. of the fishing population, and that population consists of nearly 50,000 souls, men, women and children, of which the trust employs only 10 per cent. Ninety per cent. depend entirely on the market on which these trusts have a stranglehold and will continue to do so until proper measures are taken to see that the inshore fisheries and other fishing interests are going to get a fair deal.

I am one of those who thinks that the State should not enter actively into commerce and industry. During the passage of the Bill last Session the amendments which were made to the Fisheries Development Bill together with the Minister’s statements in effect suspended the issue of “B” shares until such time as it can be shown that private enterprise in the fishing industry was failing to meet its responsibilities towards the development of the industry. Private enterprise has not yet been given a chance to show what it can do and the issue of “B” shares is at this stage premature. Opposition to the Bill when before the House last Session was specifically on the grounds that the Bill confers powers on the Fisheries Development Corporation to nationalise the industry in their last report. My friends who sit on the Planning Council are nibbling that way. They have drawn up a very interesting report. That is what I would like to see. If that is what we aim at, then I will go to the gentlemen on the board and I will say to them: “We will give you a million pounds to take over the fishing industry of South Africa; catch the fish and distribute it”.

Hear, hear.

Old Mussolini has awakened. He does not want to be a semicapitalist now. The Labour Party does not want to be a semi-capitalist now. The Labour Party is getting frightened now. No, it is the old story of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. They wanted to make friends with Irvin and Johnson; they wanted to make friends will all the other so-called devils; they wanted to make friends with the monopolists, and now they say they want to follow me.

Follow you?

Yes, follow me. They want to follow me in the policy that this country should lay down the basic principle that the basic food of the country should be distributed by the State, and I ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg whether he will support that. Will he support the principle that maize, milk and meat should be distributed by the State?

If it is the cheapest way.

My friend here says if it is the cheapest way. That is quite a good remark. The cheapest for whom? No, I tell the Labour Party to beware of the agreement they are making with my friends over there. They will let them down as they let them down many years ago I have not got much more to say. I do not want to go into this question because I do not want to tread on what I might call your hospitality and kindness in allowing me to go so far. But I want to say this to the Minister: I do not say that he may not be right in taking the action he is. I know it is difficult for him to go as far as I am going this afternoon, but the country will have to make up its mind whether it is going to take the socialist line or whether it is going to take this Bernham’s Managerial Economy. That is the fight today all over the world. It is no good my friends here talking about private enterprise. Private enterprise is as dead as Queen Anne. In no Parliament in the world can a man stand up and get the support of the House for private enterprise as such. That fight had been fought. It is now a changed world and you have either to follow the lead given to us by the young Minister today of making friends with the capitalists and dealing with them—as Iscor is today at a cost to the country of £2,000,000—or that the State should run the country as far as food distribution is concerned. That is what I would like the country to do, to say: We trust you and Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde and Dr. Skaife and the other scientists; come to us in a year or two with a comprehensive scheme so that we as Parliament can take over the basic food distribution of South Africa. We will protect the fishermen, we shall not ask Irvin aind Johnson to do so, but we shall do so under this Act in respect of wages, building their homes and everything else. Under this Act the price of fish must go up. The combination of capitalism with the Government has always resulted in the commodity in which it is dealing rising in price. And just as Iscor put up the price of steel so the new board is going to put up the price of fish. If the Minister makes a success of this let him go a little further and bring in sugar, and if a utility company dealing with sugar is a success let him bring in a utility company dealing with maize; and if that is a success let him bring in a utility company to deal with meat, and then a utility company to deal with wheat. Let us be run by utility companies and then when we have all the utility companies, let us then do as Mussolini did, bring to Parliament all the representatives of the utility companies, and when the Minister has that Parliament representing the utility cimpanies he will have the corporate State. Then all he has to do is to say: You have to vote as I tell you to vote. He will be a dictator and then he will have to be very careful or he will end up as Mussolini did.

I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) pleaded with so much ardour for a system which recently was thrown over in Germany and Italy. From the last part of the speech by the hon. member I cannot but come to the conclusion that he is in favour of fascism or national socialism or communism or a combination of all three. As a representative of an urban constituency I feel in the first instance, when the Minister comes to this House with a request of this nature to ask for more money for the State in order to extend the powers of this Corporation, that the first question which I must ask myself as a representative of the consumers is what the effect of this proposal will be on the price to be paid by the consumers. In the past we have accepted a similar interference by the State, for instance in connection with our fruit industry and the position in regard to fruit was weaker than ever before and the prices were higher than ever before in spite of the enormous supplies in our country. Even in the case of meat we witnessed the same thing. For that reason I got up last year and urged the Minister to keep these corporative bodies under supervision. I want to ask the same question again, namely, whether the Minister will keep supervision, strict supervision over the Corporation and its activities, over what is being done with the additional money which is now being asked for in this motion. Will it be spent in such a way that the consumers in the country will obtain the products of the Corporation at lower prices? The original idea was to protect the fishermen and we agreed to that. But even the fishermen are consumers and if this House were to accept the principle so strongly supported by the hon. member for Hospital, namely that everything should be handled through utility companies, also the whole distribution of food, then all your employees become consumers who will be affected by this extensive system of corporations. That is the reason why it is so essential in this modern world and in our country, where new corporations are continually being created and new powers are being given to existing corporations, that we should have the assurance that their activities will be such that the products of our country will reach the consumers on the basis of the very lowest overhead expenditure. In order to achieve this it is essential that the services of these bodies will be modelled on the most economical lines. The hon. member for Hospital mentioned Iscor. I think that the whole of South Africa is proud of the achievements of Iscor. Those of us who have visited the war factories and have seen what has been produced in those factories during the war know that the steel came from Iscor. But still Iscor produces the most expensive steel in the whole world and the hon. member for Hospital hit the nail on the head when he said that we should have proper control over those organisations. They handle enormous amounts of the State’s money and are in fact under the control of one dictator. And they are not stagnant but, as in this case, they are expanding and I predict that next year or the year after the Minister will come along again to ask this House for more money to finance such expansion. I understand that this is the intention and for that reason I should like to say that although we agree in principle, we do have our doubts in regard to the method in which the principle will be put into practice. In practically every case where interference and control have taken place we found that prices were increasing continually and together with the hon. member for Hospital I also want to express the fear that in two or three years’ time we may find that the price of fish and fish products will have gone up, and if they do not in fact become higher, they will still have become relatively higher—I mean in comparison with the price of similar products elsewhere in the world. I want to appeal earnestly to the Minister as I have done before that the Minister and through him this House should keep a check on the functions of the boards and corporations and bodies handling large amounts of State money, and if the Minister wants us to allot more money every year and to grant new powers every year he will realise why it is so essential that these bodies—I even want to include Iscor—should be kept under control and that the accounts and books of such corporations should be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. That is of the utmost importance. If he reports to this House, we can be kept informed of the whole position and through this House the country can be kept informed in regard to the question of what is happening to the money which is being spent on such a large scale by the Corporations. If we do this and keep a strict supervision over the Corporations, then only can we expect that their functions will be carried out in the best manner. We have no distrust in any individual person. I have known the managers of that organisation and of others quite well for a number of years and I am glad to say that they are the most capable people we could have appointed in their positions but they are not experienced business men and even if they would be that, the fact remains that no business undertaking anywhere in the world can continue to give the best service unless there is the stimulus of competition. This Bill and the money which is being provided by the State, to a large extent eliminate healthy competition, and consequently the stimulus disappears for the continual application of better methods, for the constant introduction of more modern methods, and for the realisation of lower production costs. That stimulus is now being eliminated by the money voted in this House for such organisations. For that reason I want to appeal to the Minister, although we on this side of the House support the proposal, to keep this in mind, so that when I go back to my constituency I will be able to declare that we have the assurance of this House and of the Minister concerned that the money asked for will be spent in such a way that the consumers will nave no need to fear that in future they will have to pay more for these products. On the contrary our opinion is that when you create such a large monopoly and when it functions properly, then it should be in a position to supply the consumer with its products at lower prices. We hope that the Minister will devote his attention to this matter and that we may rest assured on that point.

I am not getting up to raise any objection against the proposal of the Minister. On the contrary, like other members on this side, I welcome it. The whole country has always been dissatisfied with the conditions of poverty and neglect in which our inshore fishermen had to live and our fishing industry cannot get away from the fact that it is responsible for this position of poverty and neglect. Where therefore, the State interferes in order to correct this state of affairs, we are prepared to support the Government 100 per cent. and we hope that it will be a warning to every industry that, when it allows conditions to… arise in the industry with which the public of South Africa are dissatisfied, such an industry may have to expect interference by the State. I therefore want to say that the objections raised by the other side of the House do not carry much weight as far as I am concerned. I want to say clearly that we consider the welfare of the fishermen and of the persons employed in the industry to be of very much more importance than the dividends of the fishing companies. That is the principle which this side of the House accepts. I would, however, like the Minister to keep two things in mind. The first one is that the coast of South Africa does not stretch only from Lamberts Bay to Skansbaai. What I heard this morning from the Minister gave me the impression that the attention of the Corporation is focused only on the short stretch of coast between those two places, as if this is the only part of the coast that matters and the only part where the sea contains fish. That is not the case. One of the very best fishing banks along the coast is to be found along the South-West coast and I should like the Minister and the Corporation to keep two places continually in their thoughts, namely Swartvlei and Buffalo-vlei. I hope that the Fisheries Corporation will keep these places continually in mind and I should like the Minister to remember that at one time that whole area existed from the products of the forests. Today that is no longer possible and they have to find some other means of existence and during this period of transition some of the people will go and work in the factories, etc., but there is one industry in which a large section of the people there can find a living and that is in the fishing industry. This area is the most highly populated part of rural South Africa. It is not a cattle area where one can farm with cattle and sheep. The food of the people has to consist of fish; but the fishing industry has not been developed there. Therefore I want to impress on the Minister that he should not forget Swartvlei and Buffalo-vlei. And just a word of warning to the Minister: Fish is a perishable product. Make haste slowly! If I may give the hon. Minister some advice, then it is not to be in too great a hurry to undertake the marketing and distribution of fish through the State. We have had the experience of the deciduous fruit industry. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to state what our experience has been in regard to the deciduous fruit industry. At the time when a large percentage of our fruit went overseas, the fruit here was plentiful and cheap, but today, although we do not export but have a Deciduous Fruit Board, one cannot obtain fruit at any price. We do not want to have a repetition in the fishing industry of what happened in regard to the deciduous fruit industry and my advice to the Minister is to concentrate on the chief function, namely, to reorganise the fishing industry in such a manner that we raise the standard of the coastal fishing industry and uplift the inshore fishermen. In that respect he can count on our entire support. But he should not attempt to interfere in too great a hurry in the marketing of the product, because he might create the same muddle which we have had in our country in connection with the deciduous fruit industry.

I entirely agree with what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) says as to the necessity for hastening slowly when it comes to interfering with the existing organisations, that is to say, “The devil you know is sometimes better than the devil you don’t know”. I take his point. As far as his acute interest in his own constituency is concerned I told him this morning that the whole board of the Corporation was down in his area last week examining the whole position, and I am told they examined both Swartvlei and Buffalovlei in company with several important people like the Mayor of Knysna and Mr. Raubenheimer of the Roads Board, and they risked their lives being carried on sledges to see the spot. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) raised the question of price. I do not take the view that the price of fish should be raised by the operations of this Corporation. On the contrary, by extra efficiency they should be decreased, but what we should achieve is a stabilisation which over a year will probably give the fishermen a better return and possibly even reduce the average price over the year to the consumer, in the same way has happened in respect of butter by the activities of the Dairy Control Board. I feel that this resolution has the overwhelming support of this House and there is very little for me to reply to. All the points raised by hon. members who have objections to the resolution have already been dealt with by other hon. members, but there is one point I wish to refer to that was dealt with by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) on the question of the “B” shares. I outlined fully this morning the intention and the purpose for which the “B” share capital is asked to be used, and that is what it will be used for. As far as the fishermen’s shares are concerned I made it clear it is unlikely they would be issued, but if they were the capital raised from the fishermen’s shares would be used for the purposes stated here already, and in consequence fewer shares would be required to be taken up by the Government. So the total investment is £155,000. If the shares are issued to the fishermen we shall require correspondingly less. There is little else for me to reply to except I want to say once more I do not accept the argument that anything in this proposal is other than absolutely in line with the policy adopted by this House last year. I do not accept that the amendment I accepted last year was intended to restrict the activities of the Corporation to the object covered by the “A” shares or to prevent the encroachment of the State on the sphere of private enterprise. That was not the purpose. The purpose was this, that the powers given to the Corporation under the Bill last year were extremely wide. They were wide enough to enable it, as was stated in evidencé in the Select Committee, to establish a complete fishing industry, a nationalised organisation. That was not the intention. For that reason whilst leaving the powers latent in the Act in order that they could be used if necessary to attain the objects of the Corporation, we circumscribed those powers by saying: In order to exercise those powers and in order to obtain the issue of “B” shares for the purpose you shall come to Parliament to state the policy you are following so that Parliament may be able to satisfy itself it is in line with the purpose of this Act. I agree with the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). His Party cannot be expected to vouch for the soundness or success of any particular investment by the Corporation. That must be left to the board of the Corporation who are charged with that specifically. I feel very gratified that the activities of the Corporation so far have had the support of this House and I have no doubt that their future operations will be worthy of the support the House has bestowed so far.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

In moving the second reading of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill I should like to explain that the original Bill was a Bill that was prepared by the various electoral officers of the Union in order that we should have a Bill dealing with the experiences they gained in connection with the matter. I then reported the Bill, before the second reading to a Select Committee for the House presided over by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). I want to pay a tribute to that Select Committee. They have improved the Bill the second reading of which I am moving at the present moment. The principal features of the Bill before the House are those which provide for continuous registration and for permanent changes of address of registered voters to be reported to the electoral officer for the area in which the new address is situate. Apart from the saving of the ever-increasing cost of a biennial registration under the existing system (over £100,000 in 1941) and the use of literally millions of sheets of paper required for the various lists, forms and index cards which are prescribed under the present system, one great advantage of the system proposed in the Bill is that when a person has completed an application form in duplicate for registration, he is registered permanently for the rest of his life or stay in the Union, unless he becomes disqualified by conviction. If he moves permanently from a residence in one electoral division to a residence in another division, he must inform the electoral officer concerned and it becomes the duty of that officer to remove his name from the Voters’ List for the division in which he lived and to insert his name in the Voters’ List for the division into which he has moved. Under the present system, every registered voter (of whom there are now 1,400,000) must complete a registration form every two years but that requirement disappears under the provisions of the Bill. At present if a person is registered as a voter at a biennial registration in the month of April, as the list does not become valid until January of the following year, it is nine months before he can vote. Under the Bill he can vote as soon as his name is on the list, after two months’ residence in the division in which his new address is situate, provided, of course that he has completed and delivered or posted to the electoral officer a form of application to be registered as a voter, or has informed that officer of any permanent change in his address. Revision courts disappear, any objections to registration or to rejection of applications to be registered or to removal of names from the Voters’ List, being lodged for decision with the electoral officer concerned. If objectors are not satisfied with the decision of the electoral officer, they may appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer and if not satisfied with the decision of that officer, they may appeal to a Judge in Chambers. To enable political organisations to keep Voters’ Lists up-to-date provision is made in the Bill for monthly returns of changes such as new entries or deletions of names of persons who have become registered in other divisions or have died or become disqualified, to be supplied to representatives of political parties. Existing franchise qualifications have not been amended and the provisions of the Bill in Clauses 31 to 36 inclusive are consequential amendments in respect of the commencement of periods of registration, which are a feature of the existing scheme. Clause 38 remedies an omission in the principal Act. At present there is no provision for appointment of a substitute for a returning officer who during the progress of an election becomes ill or dies. Clause 39 provides (1) for the nomination of a candidate for election to be possible at any time after the issue of the proclamation ordering the election; (2) for the written consent of the person nominated, to be a candidate and (3) for the withdrawal of a candidate, up to the close of the nomination court. Clause 40. In 1931 the Electoral Law was amended to provide for the establishment of a second polling station in a polling district for the use of female voters only in view of undesirable occurrences associated with nonEuropean voters. The amendment in the present Bill enables the Minister to establish additional polling stations where necessary. Clause 44. The reason for the change contemplated in this clause is that at almost every General Election, parcels or packages of election documents go astray. After the last General Election, the ballot papers and election documents from one electoral division were lost on the railways and in view of the necessity for absolute secrecy of the ballot, provision is made in the Bill for retention of election documents and ballot papers by the returning officer, counterfoils of ballot papers being sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. It will be quite impossible under this arrangement for anyone to ascertain how any person voted. Clause 43 and other similar clauses. The Chief Electoral Officer is substituted for the Minister in certain cases in which, under the delegating provisions of Section 24 of Act No. 35 of 1931, the Minister has delegated his powers and duties to the Chief Electoral Officer. Clause 48 corrects an omission in amending the principal Act in 1940. Clauses 50 and 51. The Select Committee recommends that the display of national flags should not be used for election purposes. Clause 52. It is not desirable that political meetings should be held in any building in which intoxicating liquor can be obtained. Clauses 53 and 54. These amendments are consequential upon change in the system of registration. Clause 55. Remedies a defect in principal Act. At present intoxicating liquor may not be supplied in any division in which an election is being held. On the occasion of a by-election in an urban area comprised of more than one division, if any voter or other person interested in the election wishes to obtain intoxicating liquor, he need only cross the boundary line, i.e. from one side of a street to the other—and he can at once obtain such liquor at the nearest bar or hotel. The amendment in the Bill prevents the defeat of the object of the provision in the principal Act. Clauses 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61. These are consequential and amendments which, in the experience of the Department, are desirable. Clause 62. In the Amendment Act of 1940, the Department provided for persons who were seriously ill or infirm or (if a female) was pregnant, to vote as an absent voter. The proposal was wrecked in the House owing to a conflict of ideas as to the furnishing of a certificate. In the provision now made in the Bill, there is no reference to any certificate. The applicant makes an affirmation as to the reason for the application and if that affirmation is false to the knowledge of the declarant, he or she may on conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding £50. Clause 63: In this clause, an amendment affects the period up to which a returning officer may receive applications for absent voters’ ballot papers. The period originally was eight days. This was later reduced to five days and in 1940—though the Department did not recommend it, the period was further reduced to three days. As elections are generally held on a Wednesday, this meant that the returning officer had to receive applications up to 4 p.m. on a Sunday. Under the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, this in effect meant that he had to receive applications up to 4 p.m. on a Monday—two days before polling day. Under the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Voting by Post Regulations, the returningofficer is required to issue the ballot paper and other documents not later than the day following, i.e. one day before polling day. In practice this seriously interferes with the work of the returning officer. He is required to indicate the issue of absent voters’ ballot papers in each copy of the Voters’ Lists to be used by polling officers at the various polling stations in the division and when a division consists of 20 to 50 polling districts, the immense amount of work involved will be apparent. Clauses 64 and 65. The period in the amendment is restored to five days, i.e. the Friday previous to the polling day. This will enable the returning officer to mark the lists and get the election material for each polling station ready on the Saturday and during the week-end. The returning officer usually distributes the material and instructs the presiding officers on the Monday prior to the election and the period up to which he can receive applications for absent voters’ ballot papers should not in any circumstances be less than five days before polling day. Clause 66 enables an absent voter to exercise choice. He may personally deliver or post his completed ballot paper and other documents to the returning officer or he may hand these to the officer before whom he completes them, as is now the practice. At almost every election the Department has been requested to authorise this procedure owing to the post having closed or gone but under the existing provisions in the regulations, no such authority could be given. Clause 67. Enquiries have frequently been addressed to the Department as to the validity of a ballot paper marked by a voter in cases where the voter died before 7 a.m. on polling day. There being no provision in the existing regulations, the clause remedies the omission. Clause 68. This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in Clause 44. Clauses 69 to 73 inclusive. These are consequential upon the changes in the system or registration which, under the earlier provisions of this Bill, is proposed to be continuous and not in biennial or supplementary periods. Clause 74. The amendment provides for the disenfranchisement of persons ordered to be detained in work colonies while so detained, a provision transferred from the Work Colonies Act of 1927. The amendments to Clauses 75 to 79 inclusive are consequential. I have no hesitation in asking hon. members to give this Bill their full support. When this Bill is passed, as I feel confident it will be passed by this House, because it is not a controversial Bill but a technical one which was conceived and dealt with purely from a non-Party point of view, for the purpose of making our electoral machinery as simple as possible, next year we will be able to have what my predecessor in office suggested should be done, and what is very necessary, namely a consolidating Bill dealing with the electoral laws.

We on this side of the House support the Bill. It means a step forward, but unfortunately it does not go far enough and for that reason we shall discuss it further during the Committee Stage. There are a few points in regard to which we think that the Bill does not go far enough and to those we may come back during the Committee Stage. For the moment I only want to make a few general remarks. First of all I regard this Bill as a good example of what happens when the Government agrees to sending a Bill, if necessary, before the second reading, to a Select Committee. If one takes up the attitude that our legislation in this country should be thoroughly prepared, then it is desirable as we have stressed lately, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. This Bill is an example of what a Select Committee can achieve if such a Select Committee faithfully carries out its duties and works as hard as I may say the other hon. members of this Select Committee have worked. I maintain that this Bill is a step in the right direction. We were pleased to hear from the Minister that next year we shall have a consolidating measure. Consolidating legislation in regard to our electoral laws is more than overdue. I hope that the Government will avail itself fully of the services of a certain official, viz. Mr. Owens, who in my opinion is an outstanding official in South Africa as far as technical and practical knowledge of the Electoral Law is concerned. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government intends making use of his services. If it should be necessary to send him overseas in order to make a study of the electoral systems in other countries, I hope that the Government will not fail in affording him the necessary facilities to do so. I maintain that the Government acted wisely in referring this Bill to a Select Committee. If you compare the Bill which we have today before us with the Bill as referred to the Select Committee, you will notice that important alterations have been made therein. I am almost inclined to say that those alterations were drastic. For that reason it is of interest to read carefully the Bill as originally introduced and the Bill now before us. Before I go into this matter, I should like to point out that in the Select Committee it unfortunately became clear that as far as certain provisions of the Bill are concerned, a difference of opinion exists on certain principles between this side of the House and that side of the House—a difference of opinion which is so wide that in some respects it seems, in my opinion, insurmountable. The hon. members who have read the report of the Select Committee will have noticed that there were serious conflicts of opinion on certain points. One can assume that the Select Committee reflects the opinion of the two sides of the House, of the United Party on the one hand and of the Nationalist Party on the other hand. I want to refer to two points where there were sharp clashes of opinion and where, as its seems to me, there exists no possibility of bridging the gap. The first one concerns a national registration. The attitude of the Nationalist Party in regard to a national registration of the population is well known. The impression I received in the Select Committee, and one will most likely also receive that impression in this House, is that the United Party is not prepared to bring about a registration of the whole population. However one may regret the fact it became apparent in the Select Committee that the question of a national registration is such an important point of difference that it is insurmountable. It will be of little use to go into this question except to say— I have still to hear from the members on the other side whether it will not be in the real interests of South Africa to obtain once and for all a register of the whole population, so that the basic composition of our population in this country may be determined. At the commencement of the Session I was almost surprised to hear that the Minister was prepared to introduce legislation to make provision for the continuous registration of all adult Europeans in South Africa. In the Select Committee we then said: If you are prepared to say A, why not say B too? If you are willing to take down the names and the particulars of all Europeans in this country above the age of 21 years, why are you not willing to take down all the particulars of all Europeans in South Africa, and to also take it down in regard to all natives and coloured persons in South Africa, so that we may know where we stand? Our country is suffering much damage on account of the lack of a complete population register. I maintain that the time is more than due— I do not want to go fully into the matter again—that we should bring the pouplation and the races of South Africa on a fixed basis of registration so that in future there can no longer be any doubt about who is who. But leave it at that. In the Select Committee it became apparent that as far as this point is concerned, there is a difference in the points of view of the two parties which is insurmountable. Another difference of opinion concerns the colour question. On this point too, it seems to me, that there is an abyss between the Nationalist Party and the United Party, as far as the political representation of the coloured people is concerned, which is unbridgeable. In a few moments I shall go further into that question. I want to come back once more to the amendments in our electoral laws which have also been approved by the Select Committee. I think these amendments are in the best interests of the country. The first amendment of the electoral laws which was agreed to by the Select Committee is that there shall be a continuous registration of all European persons above the age of 21 years and that this will be made compulsory. The penalty on evasions has been increased. It will now be a fine of £25 or three months imprisonment. In regard hereto the Select Committee also inserted the provision that the Minister shall table a report every year in which will be indicated how many people have been prosecuted in terms of that provision during the previous year. This is a drastic measure, but the Select Committee considered that it was an essential one for South Africa. Another important change brought about by the Select Committee is the following. The Government proposed that if one did not object, within three weeks after a person had been registered, against his registration, one could never in future object again in that case. The Select Committee said: No, if there is to be continuous registration, there must also be a continuous opportunity to object against a person who has been registered or in regard to a person who has not been registered. The Committee inserted such an amendment and I am pleased that the Government has introduced the Bill with this alteration. It is in the interests of the people that if there is a continuous registration, one shall also always have an opportunity to lodge objections. Another alteration which has been made is the following. In South Africa we have become accustomed to the revision courts. Since 1918 we have heard much already about these electoral revision courts. That revision court is now being abolished by virtue of this Bill, and in the place of it the Union will be divided into ten areas. At the head of each area there will be an elctoral officer and you have to lodge your objection with him if you object against a person who has been registered or in regard to one who does not appear on the list. This is a very radical change. If you are dissatisfied with the officer’s decision, you do not go to court, as is the position at present. From such officer in his area you first appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer in Pretoria. Only when you are also dissatisfied with his decision you can go to court about it. That is now the provision in regard to appeals. Another provision which is new and which has been inserted by the Select Committee and which is also essential, is that a definition is now given of a non-European, which will regulate the colour problem as far as electors are concerned. As a matter of fact the Select Committee accepted the definition of “native” appearing in the native segregation laws of 1936, which gave separate political representation to natives in our Parliament. That definition is now also being applied to the Electoral Law. It is a very far-reaching step, but it is also a step which is very welcome. What does that definition say? It says that the child of whom one of the parents is a native, will be considered to be a native. I mention this with pleasure, because South Africa can only base its future on that principle. If we do not want a tremendous increase in our coloured poplation in this country, we have to call a halt in some way or another, and in that definition we call a halt as far as the coloured voters are concerned. However much miscegenation there has been amongst natives, as far as the electoral provisions of the law are concerned, and I do hope that this definition will be applied right throughout our social life, the natives can no longer, as far as the electorate is concerned, cause the number of coloured voters to be increased unduly, for in future every child whose father or grandfather, or mother or grandmother is a native, will be considered to be a native. If one of the parents or grandparents is a native, then that child will also be a native. That is one of the welcome and most important provisions in this Bill. Furthermore, there is some dead wood which has been cut out. Remarkably enough the Minister introduced a proposal which I did not expect from him and which would have put a damper on all public meetings. Whether he was thinking of Klerksdorp or some other meeting I do not know. We do not know at which meeting the Minister may have got the mitten, but in the Bill he proposed that any person who might do something at a political meeting to disturb the proceedings, would be liable to a fine of not more than £50. In the Select Committee this clause became known as the “kill joy” clause.

It was not the Minister’s proposal.

Then I have to apologise. But it was a provision in his Bill all the same. Seeing that the hon. member now tells us that there is some other sinister hand behind this clause, he is bound to know who it is. I am glad that at the stage when this clause became the butt of ridicule in the Select Committee, it was withdrawn by the Government. Another provision to be found in the Bill as originally drafted was the following. You will remember that when a person was sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine he lost his vote for three years thereafter. The Government came with a proposal saying that this was too drastic and that one had to wait until a man received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment without the option, and then only he would lose his vote for three years. I am glad that at a certain stage the Government was prepared also to withdraw that proposal. The section now reads that if a person is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, he loses his vote for the following three years, except in cases where the imprisonment or detention is only for a few hours or few minutes until the rising of the court on that particular day. Another change brought about by the Select Committee is the following and that closes my remarks on these points. It is obvious that our Voters’ Lists will now change continually, and since every month new supplementary lists will have to be composed by the Department, the Select Committee recommended that those lists should now be available every month at all police stations in our country so that, since you are putting a heavy penalty on a person for failure to register, he will also have easy access to the Voters’ List. The Select Committee thought it advisable to insert such a provision, and I am pleased that the Government introduced the Bill with that provision, namely that the Voters’ Lists will be available at the police stations for the information of the public in that vicinity. Furthermore the officials of the political parties will also receive copies of the Voters’ Lists as amended from time to time.

What happens where there is no police station?

Unfortunately we could not make provision for that contingency. Our idea was to lay down that it should be hung in all Post Offices, but the Department was of the opinion that there are too many Post Offices and that this would require too many copies. The hon. member can, however, put forward such a proposal during the Committee stage and I am sure the Minister will then consider it.

Some electors are living at a great distance from the police station.

There is much to be said for the argument of the hon. member. He can raise this matter during the Committee stage, and we can then see what can be done. This will suffice as far as the amendments are concerned. There are still some minor points in regard to which amendments were made but I do not want to discuss those now. I want to confine myself now to the first clash of opinions which apparently reflects the difference of opinion in this House in regard to the colour bar. I am very sorry that whereas we have here in South Africa, so far as the natives are concerned, progressed to such an extent that we could agree to give the natives separate political representation, we have not yet reached that same stage as far as our coloured people are concerned. There is no doubt that one day South Africa will reach that stage. It is only the United Party which today is diametrically opposed to us. If only we can get rid of the United Party, we shall be able to provide for the colour bar in South Africa as far as politics are concerned. It is only the United Party which is barring the way to separate political representation for the coloured people. There is no actual difficulty in this regard but our only difficulty is the Acting Prime Minister and his Party and the attitude he takes up. I want to read out what his point of view is in regard to separate represenation for natives. It is the same point of view which he and his Party today adopt in regard to separate political representation for coloured people. It is the point of view of the Acting Prime Minister which is barring the way. If it had depended on him we would not even have had separate political representation for natives only, but South Africa progressed more rapidly than the Acting Prime Minister. South Africa passed him and he has remained far behind. It took the Nationalist Party from 15 to 17 years to get the majority of the South African Party so far as to be prepared to give separate political representation to natives in 1936. I hope that we will not need so much time for persuading the members of the United Party to grant separate political representation to the coloured people too. In the Select Committee we tried to select the province from which we thought we would get the strongest support, namely the province of the Minister of the Interior, the Natal province, and we said: Let us abolish the franchise of the coloured people in Natal. Do you think we could achieve that? According to the ruling of Mr. Speaker we could not insert such a provision in this Bill, but then we said: Let the Select Committee make a recommendation to the Government that such legislation should be introduced. You will find that in the Report. When we proposed that it was voted out by the members of the United Party. This side of the House voted in favour of such a provision. We suggested that the coloureds in Natal be given separate political representation just like the natives. We took as a test case the province from which we expected the greatest support, but it then became apparent that the United Party holds such strong views on the matter that they did not even want the coloured people of Natal to have separate representation as distinct from the Europeans. The Transvaal, yes, the Free State, yes, but as soon as you come to Natal, they’ become adamant, including the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) who is a young Afrikaner.

You do not know what my views are. I was not present during that last sitting.

If the hon. member was not present when we voted on this matter, I hope that he will clearly state his point of view here. Perhaps he can now give it to us at once. Is he in favour of the removal of the franchise for coloured people in Natal, is he in favour of separate representation there?

I shall tell you in a moment.

Surely that is a simple question. When we from this side moved a further proposal that the coloured people in the Cape Province should be separated in regard to political representation and that the Cape Province should be divided into three electoral areas and that the coloured people should be able to send three European representatives to this House instead of voting together with the Europeans as is the case now, then the United Party voted against it and turned it down.

Then you touch the franchise, the Constitution

Only the Nationalists on the Select Committee voted in favour of separateness, of separate political representations for the coloured people. The hon. member now maintains that it would be in conflict with the Constitution. Our contention is that on this point the Constitution can be altered by means of an ordinary majority. Our contention is that this Parliament is empowered to pass legislation with an ordinary majority in order to alter the entrenched sections.

In spite of the Speaker’s ruling?

The Speaker’s ruling was that the Select Committee could not insert it in the Bill which is now before us.

Exactly, we are now dealing with this Bill.

Then we proposed a recommendation to this House. We were entitled to do so and the Chairman of the Select Committee also allowed it. I put forward the proposal that the coloured people should have separate political representation, as I explained. Thereupon the members of the United Party voted against it, including the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). In other words, they do not want to recommend to this House that legislation should be passed which would result in the coloured people being able to obtain separate political representation. Our contention is that this Parliament has the power to pass such legislation by means of an ordinary majority. Here on my desk I have the opinion of two prominent legal men, namely the late Mr. Justice F. W. Beyers, when he was still an advocate, drafted by him in 1932 and supported by advocate H. A. Fagan, at present a judge of the Cape Division. They drafted this legal opinion together. I do not want to read it out from beginning to end because that would take up too much time, but the conclusion which they arrived at after argument was—

What will be the electoral quota?

That is quite another matter again. I do not want to go into that because I do not have the time for it. I am at present only dealing with this point. Our point of view is that Parliament has the right by virtue of the Statute of Westminster, to amend all the entrenched sections by means of an ordinary majority and to pass a law in order to amend the Constitution on that particular point. Thereafter a law can be passed providing that the coloured people will have separate political representation. That is my reply to the hon. member for Rustenburg. We maintain, backed up by the legal opinion of these very prominent legal authorities, that no two-thirds majority is required to amend the entrenched sections of the Constitution since we have become sovereign independent. This Parliament is supreme and can amend the sections with an ordinary majority, and can thereafter introduce a Bill to provide that the coloured people will be placed on a separate Voters’ List and will have separate political representation.

What certainty do you have that that legal opinion is conclusive?

I can only quote it as the opinion of very prominent legal men. The one became a Judge of Appeal and the other is at present a provincial judge. They are people whose opinion deserves the highest respect.

What is the date of that opinion?

It was written in 1932, shortly after the Statute of Westminster had been ratified in Britain. I said that I am very sorry that hon. members on the other side, under the guidance of the Acting Prime Minister, take up the attitude which they now do in regard to separate political representation. It is the same point of view held by the Acting Prime Minister in 1936 in regard to the natives. When this Parliament with a large majority decided that we should have separate political representation of the natives, the Acting Prime Minister stated his views clearly and voted against it. At that time he was our Minister of the Interior and he laid down four axioms which I want to quote because the views he held at that time in regard to the natives—I am very glad he lost then—are the views held today by his Party and himself in regard to separate representation for coloured people. I also want to say, that in the same way as South Africa rejected his point of view in regard to natives, it will also one day reject his point of view in regard to the coloured people. It is merely a matter of time. It is only to be regretted that it should take so much time that South Africa has to suffer so immeasurably as a result of the fact that there are certain people barring the way of this development. When the Acting Prime Minister was the Minister of the Interior, he summed up his objections to separate political representation of natives. His first objection, according to the Hansard report of the Joint Sitting in 1936, was that it would mean a colour bar. It would introduce a colour bar into the Cape Provincial Council. That was his first objection. His second objection was that the Bill of 1936 contained a definition of “native” to which he was opposed. That is the definition embodied in this Bill to which I referred a short while ago. His third objection was that it would place natives on separate lists separated from the Europeans. He said that the removal of all natives who appeared on the Voters’ Lists of the country from those lists was, in his opinion, in conflict with the Constitution. His fourth and last objection against separate political representation of the natives was—

That was his most important point, his greatest objection. These were his four objections against separate political representation for natives. I assume that today these are still the objections he and his Party raise against separate political representation for the coloured people. They now say that they did not want to attempt to deceive the coloured people. In this Bill now before us the United Party in the Select Committee inserted a provision which to my mind very much looks like political deceit. What is it? We proposed that the Europeans should vote at one polling booth and the coloureds at another polling booth in order to achieve political and social separation. What did the United Party say then? No—the hon. member for Rustenburg was one of them—their argument was (I hope I interpret it correctly) that we would hurt the feelings of the coloured people by inserting such a provision. That was the argument of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). What did they do then? They accepted a provision which was to deceive the coloured people. They said: Do not tell the coloured people that they will vote at a separate polling booth, separate from the Europeans, but let us do the following and insert a provision in the Bill—and that is how we find it in this Bill before us—that the Minister will have the power to allot serial numbers to all the voters, say for instance from 1 to 6,000 or 7,000, and then the Minister by proclamation can determine that for instance Nos. 1 to 5,000 shall vote at one polling booth and Nos. 5,001 to 7,000 shall vote at another polling booth. In that way you will be able to let the coloured people vote at a separate polling booth. I maintain that they are deceiving the coloured people in that manner. They do not want to say straightforwardly that coloured people shall vote separately from the Europeans, but they want to achieve this by giving serial numbers. We then said: Supposing you make a mistake with one number? As the Voters’ Lists are today you first get the names of the European males,* thereafter the European females and finally the coloured voters. Now supposing they make a mistake and they pass this Bill and the Government determines that Nos. so to so will have to vote at polling booth A and the other numbers at polling booth B. Let us suppose a mistake has been made and that in the proclamation the last number (a European female) falls within the wrong group so that she will have to vote together with the coloured people, what then? Then the Government members had a brilliant idea. They said: Well, we see the danger and we do not want such a position to arise, but if the person concerned is a European male, it will not be so serious. If it is a European female, the United Party will suffer much damage but if it is a European man, it will not be so terrible. So they conceived the bright idea of in future putting the names of the European females first on the Voters’ Lists, and thereafter the names of the European males, so that when a mistake were made in regard to the numbers, it would affect a European man and not a European woman. They want to throw dust in the eyes of the coloured people, but the coloured people will also find them out one day. We then propose to publish the names of the Europeans in one book and the names of the coloured people in another book.

What for?

Then they solidly voted against it. The hon. member asks “what for?” Because we want a total colour bar as far as this matter is concerned. There are polling stations where people do not even heed the coloured Voters’ Lists, but now they have to pay double for the double list because the coloureds are also appearing in the same list. If the Europeans were separately on one list and the coloured voters in another book, it would also be cheaper. Our main reason is that we want separateness. The hon. member asks “Why?” My question as one European to another European is: “Why do you not want it”? The onus is not on me to state why I do not want it. The onus is on him as a European to say why the Coloured voters should not appear in a separate book. That is the question. What do hon. members on the other side, hailing from the Transvaal and Natal, say about this matter? Let them tell us today. The road they are following by giving franchise to coloureds is not the road which the Voortrekkers followed in Natal. Before the English took over Natal, the Voortrekkers upheld the law that only Europeans would have the franchise. Only by an English proclamation of 1856 were non-Europeans also given the franchise in Natal. I tell the hon. members representing Natal that this was not the road of the Voortrekkers. I tell the hon. member for Rustenburg and other hon. members that this was not the road of President Kruger in the Transvaal. Do they want to give the vote to coloured persons in the Transvaal. No, they will violently oppose it. But if you do not want it in your own province, why do you force it down the throats of the people in the Cape. Why do you want the Cape to suffer continually from the fact that at one time it was a British Crown colony? You in the Free State and in the Transvaal years ago escaped the punishment which was laid upon us as a British Crown colony, but in the Cape Province and Natal the coloured franchise has been in force since 1853. Why should we suffer perpetual punishment because at one time we happened to be a Crown colony? [Time limit.]

I do not want to add much to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has said. I want to endorse everything he said and I want to express my appreciation to the Minister that he has declared himself willing to consolidate our electoral laws and that he has also agreed to make available the services of his principal official. Mr. Owens, for that purpose. In recent times I have come in contact fairly frequently with Mr. Owens as our chief official and I want to express my appreciation for his help. Especially during the period when feelings ran fairly high and many officials often acted wantonly against people who were of another opinion, Mr. Owens, although he held different views from my own, was always filled with one idea, namely, to give effect to the provisions of the Act and to do his duty as an official. We cannot but express our appreciation of finding an official, especially during these difficult times, who so faithfully carries out his work. As the Minister intends introducing a consolidating measure I want to ask him whether it might not be possible perhaps to draw up a short summary, a popular guide to our electoral laws. Many people have to deal with electoral legislation and unfortunately they are not all in a position to study all our electoral laws and a summarised popular handbook on the electoral Act would be of great value to our people. I hope that the hon. Minister will give his attention to this matter. Then I should like to add a few remarks to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said in regard to a general registration of the population. If there is one thing which has now become a national necessity in South Africa then it is a compulsory national registration. The time has come that this should be incor porated in our laws and I hope that the Minister will in future keep this in mind continually. If we look at all aspects of our social life, we begin to realise that we can only build up a happy future for South Africa if we first have a foundation on which to build. A healthy economic fixture and especially the achievement of a healthy moral growth of the population can only be realised if we have this compulsory national registration, and this is essential not only from the point of view of racial separation, etc. but also for the building up of a healthy people. I also want to say a few words in addition to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said in regard to separateness. We must admit that there are times when the proper relationship between European and non-European is seriously disturbed and disrupted, namely, during election time. To a great extent the non-Europeans who have the vote simply become a political football during that time. That is not a healthy condition and it does not promote a sound relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans. During the last few years we have witnessed the results of separateness in connection with our native problem. I think that every person who has the interests of the natives and the interests of South Africa at heart will today be able to say that it was a very sound and fortunate step when we established separateness in regard to native political representation. It not only was to the advantage of South Africa as a whole but also of the native population itself. We are now in a position to approach the whole native problem from an objective point of view and the natives as well as everybody else profit by it. What is true in regard to native interests is also true today in regard to the interests of the coloured people. Ultimately it will be only to the advantage of the coloured people and of the whole of South Africa if the franchise can be split up and they can obtain separate representation. Reference is often made to the colour bar. The fact is that we do hold the point of view of separateness and of a colour bar in South Africa and everybody can witness the fact that the non-European races are to a large extent already satisfied with it. Only political agitators among the nonEuropean races raise all kinds of objections against it and we notice that fact in particular in regard to the Communist group which exploits this in a most unfair manner and uses it against the European. Also from the point of view of the political position of the other side of the House it will ultimately be to the benefit of South Africa, that effect is given to that policy. I just want to point out that although some hon. members on the other side are not prepared to accept a policy of political separateness, they should remember that the time is very near and that the signs are very clear that they, together with us on this side, will harvest the bitter fruits of the policy they are following and that the advantages of such a policy, which is opposed to separateness, will only be obtained by one section, namely, the Communist section. It is a fact today that a very large percentage of the coloured people are already politically under the influence of the Communist group, which is a very dangerous omen for the future of our country. If hon. members on the other side want to be really great and want to take a wise step, they should immediately adopt the attitude of this side of the House in regard to this matter. For that reason there should no longer be any doubt about it, that this is the obvious direction in which matters are running. It is essential that, as in the case of natives, there should be separate Voters’ Lists and a separate vote also in regard to the coloured people. I do not want to add much to this, but I want to stress that it is a fact which everybody who watches the development of South Africa will admit, namely, that on election day clashes sometimes take place, and that sometimes these conflicts are of such a nature that the good relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans becomes rather upset, and that a state of affairs is created which is not at all in the real interest of a sound relationship between Europeans and non-Europeanss. If that position could be remedied it would do a great deal to improve the future relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa and this would contribute greatly to the furtherance of our national welfare. There is still one other matter I want to suggest. It was also discussed in the Select Committee, namely, that the Minister should consider publishing with every Voters’ List in every electoral division a map of such a division. It will be very handy and very useful if every Voters’ List can be accompanied by a map of the electoral division concerned. It may mean some additional expenditure but on the other hand it will be of very great value during election time. Then there is another very important question which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is the different quotas for our urban and rural constituencies and I want to ask the Minister to consider very seriously increasing the quota of our rural constituencies. There are many factors which have to be taken into account in determining the value of a vote. I want to point to the excellent example which Australia has given us in this respect, namely, that the quotas fixed for rural constituencies are much higher than the quotas for the urban constituencies. In South Africa we have the phenomenon that the towns to a large extent are being played off against the rural areas. That is not a healthy state of affairs. As a result you get a large scale agitation on the part of the towns to entirely do away with the quota for the rural constituencies. That is a very unhealthy state of affairs. I want to suggest to the Minister that if he wants to take the best interests of the country into consideration, he should increase the present quota in regard to rural constituencies very considerably.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but that subject does not come under this Bill. The question of delimitation does not come under this Bill at all.

I only mentioned that incidentally. Then there is another very important point in regard to the Bill, namely, the following: It is laid down there that no flag which “is” or “was” a national flag of any country shall be displayed on election day. I want to emphasise that we want to suggest very strongly that the words “or was” should be taken out of the Bill because it will only cause trouble. We know and hon. members on the other side also admit that the purpose of these words was in fact meant to prohibit the use of the Vierkleur of the Free State and the Transvaal. We know what the Vierkleur means to the Free Staters and the Transvalers. We know what the sentiments of the voters are in this respect on election day. On election day you will not find a single Nationalist in the Transvaal who will worry about the provision in the Act, and I want to state quite frankly—although I am a very loyal and obedient citizen— that on election day I am not going to comply with this provision. I will be prepared to bear the consequences of committing an offence against the law and you will be surprised, when these cases will have to be brought to court, how many thousands of Nationalists there will be who will have to appear in court. I am not in favour of looking for trouble. I therefore want to appeal very earnestly to the Minister to take out those words “or was” from the Bill in order to prevent the difficulties we will obviously have to face. The Vierkleur occupies a very important position in the liearts of our Freestaters and Transvalers and there is no power or law in the whole world which will compel us not to hoist our Vierkleur on election day. During the last election we had the instance of a very dignified lady who brought the Vierkleur a little bit too near the polling station, at least in the opinion of the police, and the result was that that lady who was always a very good-natured and gentle lady gave the police officer concerned a smack in his face, which knocked him over, and that was the end of action being taken against the Vierkleur. That only shows how strongly we feel about the Vierkleur. If the Minister deletes those words from the Bill he will prevent a lot of unnecessary trouble. With these few words I want to conclude and I only want to say that we appreciate the attitude of the Minister in regard to this legislation, also during the Select Committee stage. It was something which convinced us that good work can be done in future if a matter is handled in the way in which the Minister handled this matter.

At the outset I should like to congratulate the Minister on having referred this Bill to a select committee. I think if the Minister compares the original Bill that was referred to the Select Committee with the Bill as it has come back from the Select Committee, he will frankly admit ….

I wished the committee luck.

…. and he is doing it now—that the Bill as it has come back is a very improved one. I do not want to cast any reflection on whoever drew up the original Bill. I also want to join the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) in expressing appreciation to Mr. Owen and to Dr. Steyn and others who sat with us all these days on the Select Committee. In connection with the Electoral Law and the legal position we received exceptional services from these officials and we appreciate them highly. I want to voice my appreciation to the Minister on his having reached the stage where he says that next year we shall have consolidating legislation. It has long been necessary for us to have a consolidating Act.

If this Bill goes through we shall get it.

The Minister says we shall get it if this Bill goes through. That depends on the Minister himself. If the Minister will now be gracious and remain gracious and accept valuable amendments we have no objection to the Bill going through. I hope that when that consolidating Bill comes before the House that the House will have the service of those officials, and that those officials and the joint work of all sides will then provide us with a consolidating Bill which everyone in this House and in the country can be proud of. I shall not dwell long on that special point. I do not blame anyone for the Bill as it was drafted. Let us leave it at that. But the fact remains that this Bill went to a Select Committee and was dealt with thoroughly there. There were consultations for days on end, and the Select Committee came with a Bill before this House which, in my opinion, was a big improvement on the original Bill. I only wish to refer—and I hope the Minister will allude to this in his reply—to certain points on which the Select Committee made recommendations. Now I must unfortunately refer to two sorts of recommendations that were made there. One set of recommendations was adopted unanimously by the committee. The Minister will find them on page 19 of the report of the Select Committee. I shall now just ask the Minister to tell the House in his reply to the second reading debate what his answer is in connection with the matter. I refer, in the first place, to the resolutions that were unanimously adopted by the Select Committee, and the first is this—

I only want to refer to the fact that this is a question that has been discussed on previous occasions, and I clearly recall that we made this proposition in the past when Mr. Stuttaford was still Minister of the Interior, and he said that he approved this recommendation, that it was highly necessary and that he hoped it could be done. I mention this merely to show that it is very necessary the Minister should give his attention to this recommendation. It frequently happens at elections that confusion arises amongst the voters not only between one electoral division and another but also between a polling district and another polling district, and when the boundary line between the electoral divisions and also between the polling districts are indicated on the map much of the confusion that now arises can be prevented. I want to give the Minister the assurance that with such a map many of the difficulties that arise, the duplication of votes that frequently occur and of which we had many examples at the last election, can be prevented. People come along and their votes are registered in different districts. Many of these things can be avoided if the Voters’ List is accompanied with a proper map on which the voting districts are properly demarcated, and the voter will have in his hand a map on which his electoral division and his polling district are clearly defined. I want to ask the Minister whether he will accept that recommendation. Then there is the second recommendation that was unanimously adopted by the Select Committee and which runs as follows—

As far as this matter is concerned I only want, to emphasise that it is a recommendation that was also adopted by members on the other side of the House after there was a definite vote against a recommendation which originated from this side of the House, namely, that we should have absolutely separate Voters’ Lists. I do not think I am betraying a secret when I say that at a certain stage in that committee we really were in hearty agreement on the necessity for having separate Voters’ Rolls. I still recall that there was no serious objection. As the Voters’ Roll is at present compiled—I am referring now to the Cape Voters’ Rolls—it has three sections. In the first section you have the names of the male voters, then follow the names of the female voters, and finally you have the names of the non-European voters. This is necessary and this was the standpoint of this side of the House on that committee, that we should consistently follow out that good dividing line, that we should not only have that dividing line as far as the Voters’ Roll being in one volume is concerned, but that we should have two volumes. The hon. member for Moorreesburg stated clearly what the reason for that was. The reason is obvious. This side of the House uses those coloured Voters’ Rolls. There are many polling districts where people never look into the rolls, and we say that we want to have a separate list. Let it be printed then in two separate volumes, but as the proposal that there should be two separate volumes was not adopted we agreed to this as the second alternative, but we want to add that this is our standpoint, and this is our request to the Minister, that this provision should be laid down in the Bill, that it is not sufficient for us merely to accept this recommendation but we want to see that provision laid down in the law. As the recommendation now stands it was our second alternative, and I would only say that the necessity is very strong for having two separate lists. That must be laid down in the law. In the history of South Africa, and especially in the history of this Parliament, many changes have occurred in reference to the portfolio of Minister of the Interior. You do not know who is going to be Minister of the Interior tomorrow. We think it has been a good practice until now —it was the second best—to have a separate list, even if it is in the one book, and what we desire is that the basis of there being a seperate roll should be laid down in the law, so that any Minister who may take over the portfolio from the present Minister cannot follow a different procedure according to his own whim. I would like to put it in this way to hon. members on the other side: Is it right and proper that those rolls should be kept separate? If it is right and proper let us lay it down in the Statute; let us lay it down in the law. My reply to this argument that we should not insert it for fear of hurting the feelings of the coloured people is that all these years there have been separate rolls, and the coloured people have never complained, so why should there now be a complaint if it is laid down in practice and in the law that there should be separate rolls for Europeans and coloureds. I hope the Minister will meet us and lay down in the law that he will keep these Voters’ Rolls apart and that no one, either his successor or himself, will be able to effect an alteration whereunder that separation will be disturbed. The danger mentioned by the hon. member for Moorreesburg is a very real danger, and it is that by a technical error you may arrive at that position that mixed voting can occur, and that might have very serious results. This brings me to the third point—

I have already spoken about this, but I should like to pass on to this question on which in most instances there was no unanimity in the committee, though we should like to have it, and the points on which there was no unanimity were those mentioned by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, in the first instance the question of general national registration, and in the second instance the creation of a clear dividing line as far as concerns Europeans and non-Europeans. And now I want to say this quite clearly: We on this side proposed—and it was unfortunately defeated —that it should be clearly laid down in the law that there should be separate ballot boxes, that there should be separate ballot boxes where non-Europeans would not crowd with Europeans at the one ballot box. It is when this crowding together occurs that friction arises, and this is where the clashes develop. Now I want to put this question very clearly to the Minister. In the past we had the position in the Cape that the European male and the non-European male went together to the one ballot box. That is what we had. The Minister had the right, under the old law, of being able to decide that in respect of certain electoral divisions European males and non-European males should vote at the one polling booth, and that female Europeans should vote at a separate polling booth, sometimes just across the street. We found that this was a good thing that European women had not to mix with coloureds at the same voting station; and if this was nice and fine, having the European women voting separately then it is equally nice and fine that European men should also vote separately—purely European. Accordingly we proposed and we are in favour of that now, that the Minister should provide and lay down in the law that where it is necessary and where this herding together may occur, he should make this division and that there should be separate ballot boxes for white men and women on the one side and for coloureds on the other side, and I should like the Minister to give a clear expression of his views on this matter when he replies to the debate. I only want to mention here that these were the two proposals before the Select Committee where the question of separation came up for discussion; it was principally in regard to the Voters’ Rolls and separate ballot boxes. Now today I want to state that on the question of separation South Africa has gone further than it has ever previously done in the history of our people. There may be people on the other side who say we must not force the question, we must allow it to develop of its own accord along the line of evolution, that it will come right of itself, we must not take drastic measures. Let me just say this, that South Africa has progressed further on the question of separation than it has ever done before, that today in South Africa public opinion is growing, a public opinion that is becoming stronger and stronger in the country, and that demands this separation in every sphere, and I maintain this is attributable to the attitude of the Nationalist Party because it has pleaded all these years for that policy of separation. If the people had said years ago that we should not adopt measures to effect separation, that we should allow it to occur on evolutionary lines, then I ask where we would be standing in respect of the colour dividing line. If we had adopted this argument of not forcing the issue in regard to Voters’ Rolls and if we had allowed development to proceed on evolutionary lines, we would never have laid it down in the law that there should be separation. If we proceeded along those lines the native would today still have been on the European Voters’ Roll, but it is because this side of the House has always taken action regarding the question of separation that gradually public opinion has been formed in this country, and that public opinion has become so strong that even hon. members on the other side can no longer resist the pressure of that public opinion, and they are gradually being compelled to adopt that policy that we have preached all these years. I only want to refer the Minister to the argument mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister—it has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Moorreesburg—when the Acting Prime Minister said at that time that he was averse to native’s vote appearing on a separate Voters’ Roll, that it should have a separate electoral division, and the principle he mentioned was this: “To me it appears to be in conflict with the spirit of the constitution”. And although it appeared to him to be in conflict with the spirit of the constitution that measure was piloted through at the time, that Gordian knot was cut through, and that step was taken. I ask whether there is anyone in the House who wishes to return to the old position. I want to put the question to hon. members on the other side. Was it fit and proper that we should have placed the native on a separate electoral division as he is today? Is there a single member who will rise in his place and maintain that he wants the native to vote alongside the European? And yet that is an argument that was used at that time, and it is precisely the same argument you hear again today. Is there any member on the other side who will now stand up and say that we should not give a separate franchise to the coloured person, that we should not have him on a separate Voters’ Roll, because it appears to us this is in conflict with the spirit of the constitution. The hon. member for Moorreesburg mentioned the legal point in this connection. Let me clearly put this question: As we are dealing with an important Bill affecting our electoral laws, irrespective of the legal position, is it right and proper or is it not right that the native should be placed on a separate list, that there should be separate electoral divisions for the native, that they should have separate representation in this House. Is it right or is it wrong? And if it is right we should have the courage of our convictions and we should stand up and take that step in the case of the coloured people. I can understand the position of hon. members on the other side. There are two schools of thought on the other side of the House. There are members on the other side who are just as anxious as we are to put the coloured person on a separate Voters’ Roll, but today they sit there bound to that side and they do not want to be disloyal to their Party. I would merely state that if it had not been for the presence on that Select Committee of the hon. member for Hotten-tots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure), I wonder whether that recommendation would have come from the committee that this step should have been taken? But the hon. members on the opposite benches, the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) amongst others, may feel just as I do about separation, but they dare not plead for it. They dare not leave their Party in the lurch. This is the actual position in connection with this serious question. Unfortunately this is the position as far as it affects the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland, the hon. member for Paarl and other hon. members who are dependent on the coloured vote for getting their seats in this House. I say that those members have not enough white people as supporters in their constituencies to vote for them. They need the coloured vote to enable them to come and sit here. But the day will arrive when they will have to see beyond their personal interests and their Party policy and when we shall have to take this step in the case of the coloured person, just as we took it in the case of the native in 1936, and we shall place the coloured people on separate Voters’ Rolls. South Africa will be confronted in the ensuing years with many grave decisions. It is very clear to us who are in touch with public life that the path of South Africa, as far as public life is concerned, will not be strewn with roses. Very weighty decisions will have to be taken, and it is necessary that when these decisions are arrived at Party interests should be set on one side and that we should vote in the best interests of the maintenance of European civilisation in South Africa. I am pleading for this and I should like the Minister to stand up now and tell us as the responsible Minister what his policy is not his personal policy, but his policy as Minister of the Interior, and what the policy of the Government is on this question. I should like to reiterate these three main points. If a thing is right put it down in the Statute Book; affirm it in the Statute Book. Do not let us argue about these things tomorrow and the next day in this House. If it is the policy of the Government that there should be separate polling booths for Europeans and coloured people, or should there not be separate polling booths? What is the Government’s policy? And if it is the policy to have separate polling booths, will the Minister then stand up and state in replying to the second reading debate—and thereby he will be improving his Bill and gratifying public opinion—that in the future he will not allow any intermingling of Europeans and coloured people at these polling booths. Let the hon. Minister also say this in respect if the Voters’ Rolls. Let the hon. Minister make a statement on behalf of the Government, not on his own behalf but on behalf of the Government as to what his standpoint and the standpoint of the Government is in connection with the proposal by this side of the House to have a separate electoral division and separate representation for the coloureds, just as the natives now have a separate electoral division. I have stressed certain points on which we differ. For the benefit of the Minister I should like to refer him to page 18 of the Select Committe’s report. He can read it there. He has it before him in English. There are two pro posals affecting this matter that were made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg and both these proposals were rejected. The members on the Government side turned them down. The one proposal redds as follows—

I should like the Minister to tell us plainly in his reply what the attitude of the Government is in respect of this proposal. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) has stated that he has his own standpoint on that. That is true. He was not present at the meeting of the Select Committee when this recommendation was proposed. When this recommendation was put up only the three members of the Nationalist Party voted for it.

I was not present.

I do not question that. I knew the hon. member was away, and I said so. I should like the hon. member to acquaint the House with his standpoint. He should say where his name would have been recorded had he not been absent.

This is his opportunity.

I trust that he will tell us now, and if he does not apprise us he will not again be able to say that he was away.

Why now?

If the hon. member asks “why now?” I tell him straight to his face that it was convenient for him to have been absent when this motion was put.

That is mean.

If it is mean I shall now give the hon. member an opportunity to state what his standpoint is.

Why not now?

Then I shall give the hon. member a chance to stand up and to say what he feels. His excuse is that he was absent; let him stand up now and tell us how he would have voted on this recommendation if he had been present. I should just like to know from him how he is going to vote in the committee stage.

Which one?

The curious thing about the hon. member is that when he had the opportunity to say something he was away. Now when for the second time he has an opportunity to say something he wants to know why he should say anything. He will have a… third chance, and we expect that he will then tell us clearly where he stands. He is a representative of Natal. Afrikaners in Natal have sent him to the House and they are entitled to know what his attitude is on this matter. I think the hon. member has now had an opportunity to air his views, and he ought to say what his standpoint is in regard to the 800 coloureds who still have the franchise in Natal. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is glad that he has not got them in the Transvaal, and we are glad that in the Free State we have not got a single coloured person who has the vote. The hon. member for Vryheid will get his chance in the Committee stage to disclose clearly what his attitude is. I want now to come back to the Minister in connection with the second proposal appearing on the same page of the report of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Moorreesburg proposed that in the opinion of the Select Committee it is desirable that coloured voters should appear on separate lists and that they should be represented in the Assembly by separate representatives, namely three Europeans to be elected by three electoral areas into which the country would be divided for this purpose. I shall be very glad if the Minister will advise us what his attitude is, and if there are members on the other side who do not agree with him they will have an opportunity in the committee stage to declare themselves on this question. I trust that the Minister will exhibit a conciliatory spirit when we deal with this drastic Bill in the committee stage. We desire to have our electoral system placed on a sound foundation, and I want to tell the Minister that there are further amendments we wish to put. Many of our proposals were adopted unanimously by the Select Committee and in this way the Bill was considerably improved. There are others still that we wish to propose in order to improve the Bill and we hope that the Minister will be considerate in the committee stage. If he does this the Bill may possibly be improved to the same degree at the third reading compared with what it is now, as the Bill at the second reading was improved compared with what it was when the Minister introduced it originally and when it was referred to a Select Committee. I should like to take this opportunity to refer to a statement made by the Minister a little while ago when a question was put to him concerning the by-election in the Kimberley District. He remarked that the Voters’ Roll was “in such a deplorable state” that an election could not be held. I assume if that is the case in the Kimberley District it is the same throughout the country.

That is perfectly true.

The Minister admits that everything is in a lamentable state. The Government is responsible for that, and consequently it is high time that this measure was adopted in order to place things in a proper state. For that reason we are supporting this Bill, so that there may be an end to the “deplorable” condition of the Voters’ Rolls. I only want to tell the Minister this, that this side of the House has done its best on the Select Committee to effect an improvement in the Bill. The Minister has admitted that himself, and I hope that in the Committee stage he will avail himself of assistance from all quarters of the House in order to have proper legislation placed on the Statute Book, so that we may carry out our elections on a sound basis. The main idea of the Bill is that of continuous registration. Its whole foundation is continuous registration. We support it, and we shall accord it further support in the hope that we may have an electoral Act on the Statute Book whereunder every white citizen in the country who is entitled to do so will be enabled to register their approval or disapproval of the political structure of the day through the medium of a proper election.

I shall be very brief. I only wish to refer to a few of the provisions in the Bill agreed to by the Select Committee, which we cordially welcome and on which we wish to congratulate the Minister. Many of the alterations have already been mentioned. I shall not repeat them but merely mention a few that have been passed over. The first refers to the definition of the word “witness”. I wish to congratulate the Minister on the insertion of the condition that such a person must be a voter and not merely a Union national. We warmly welcome that modification because we always felt unhappy about the old provision. In the second place I wish to congratulate the Minister on his conversion in connection with the definition of non-European. I do not know to what the Minister’s conversion is due but I have uppermost in mind the numerous tussles the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has had in this House in connection with various measures in order to have that definition adopted. He was continually thwarted by the other side of the House, and I now wish to congratulate the Minister on that definition. Another amendment is that it is an offence to resort to the intimidation of voters. We welcome this because at elections one often finds the less privileged section of the population are intimidated. Another alteration we welcome is the clarity regarding the date when the candidate may commence with his election expenses. That was a bad defect because the candidate never knew when he could begin to reckon these expenses. The last amendment that was taken over is the alteration in connection with an invalid who cannot go to the polling station. Now under the law such persons may vote through the post. I want to mention a tragic case that occurred during the elections. I was called to see a young man who was on the point of death. He desired to vote. It is characteristic of the Afrikaner citizen that he wants to use his franchise. This man was in extremis and his last wish was that he should register his vote. He said this was the last thing he could do for his country. A few hours later he expired and his last wish could not be fulfilled. We must thank the Minister on having cured this defect. But what amazes me is the attitude of members on the opposite benches who having ears hear not and having eyes see not. When we began to discuss in this House the motion that the coloured people should appear on separate Voters’ Rolls and have separate representation we observed that hon. members on the other side were fidgety. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) was absent when a vote was taken in the Select Committee. I assume he had good reasons for not being present when that point came up for discussion, but if we bring forward an amendment tomorrow he will, I predict, either not be present or if he does vote he will vote against it.

You are going astray.

The members on the other side did not discuss this matter. I think the Acting Prime Minister prevented them from speaking. It is his instruction that they should not take part in this and they remained seated. What is so peculiar to me is that a Transvaal member like the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) sits there and welcomes the Government’s policy of equality. This hon. member became so nervous that he fled from one seat to the other.

You will never make me flee.

No, but your conscience makes you flee. The hon. member intimated that he was in favour of coloured voters appearing on separate lists.

When?

Then I assume that he is opposed to that. The Transvaal, and particularly Rustenburg, will settle accounts with the hon. member, because the Transvaal does not want that.

These are trashy stories.

That member is apparently in favour of it. He cannot reply now. I know that his real feelings coincide with mine, but he is under the orders of the liberalistic Government. They are supporting the Minister of the Interior, who has already intimated that he wishes to give the franchise, municipal and otherwise, to the Asiatics in Natal. I want to ask my Transvaal friends if that is what they want to do for European civilisation in South Africa. I wish to go further. They too readily allow themselves to be led by the nose by the Acting Prime Minister. He is going very far and if they continue along the road they are now travelling the Minister will lead them until they have the coloured franchise of the Cape extended to the Transvaal.

Nonsense.

I put a question to the Acting Prime Minister at a public meeting in the Transvaal in connection with representations that were made to him by certain delegates from an organisation that wished to extend the coloured franchise to the Transvaal. The Acting Prime Minister cannot deny that he was not opposed to that. The Transvaal members are allowing themselves to be used to ram down the throat of the Cape a system that they know to be wrong. They have not the courage of their convictions to stand up here and to tell the Minister that they are opposed to that. They ought to stand up and say this is a sacred ideal of theirs and there is no possibility of them supporting the system. I want to tell the hon. member for Vryheid I know his constituency as well as he does from one side to the other. The people who have sent the hon. member for Vryheid here are Afrikaners, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. They do not want this franchise for the coloureds as it stands at present so why does the hon. member for Vryheid preserve silence? The Sap votes at Vryheid will no longer be given to him. He has to get the coloured vote there and that is why he is as silent as the grave. Vryheid will deal with him. I want to ask him what a single member on the other side who is in this House as a result of the coloured vote has ever done for the coloured people? They have only used the coloured man to vote for them. They only know the coloured man in election time. I maintain that during this Session the native representatives have obtained far more for the natives than have those representatives of the coloured people. I want to tell the coloured people quite frankly that we believe that if they have three representatives in this House they will get much more than they have gained through the S.A.P. members in this House. They cannot deny this. I shall close with an appeal to the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people who share our feelings in this matter. Tomorrow, during the Committee stage, we shall make an appeal to them to carry out the principle of segregation in South Africa in this connection.

I appreciate very much indeed, and I support the reference made to Mr. Owens and Dr. Steyn in connection with the help they gave the Select Committee with regard to bringing this amended Bill before the House. I thought I had expressed my appreciation to all members of the Select Committee for the improvements they were responsible for making in the Bill which was sent to them. All sides welcome this Bill. They realise the necessity for it, and if this Bill passes, as I am confident it will, we will be able to put our Voters’ Lists and organisations in connection with elections in the shape in which they should be. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) wanted to know about amendments in connection with the Bill. I do not know what fresh amedments he may contemplate in connection with it, but if any amendment is proposed which is going to improve this Bill it will have my support. This Bill is one for which I want the support of all sections. There is no Party advantage in connection with these various sections. It is designed just to make elections run as smoothly as possible. Now, the only difference of opinion which was expressed in the Select Committee, and also expressed here to some extent this afternoon — and I presume that there will be amendments proposed in the Committee stage — is in connection with the colour question. Let me say that the main object in moving this amendment and consolidating the Bill is to get the thing to work and not to introduce into a workable measure matters which the hon. member may consider — and I quite appreciate his point of view — should be altered in connection with the Bill. These matters were discussed in Select Committee and the Committee in their wisdom came to that decision, and I accept the view of the Select Committee and I feel confident that members on this side of the House will accept their view on these questions. Do not let us jeopardise the other good provisions in connection with a Bill which you all welcome. The hon. member for Boshof dealt with a matter for which there is a motion in the House in regard to the question of maps attached to Voters’ Lists. It is not quite as easy as evidently the Select Committee thought, but I give you the assurance that every effort will be made to comply with it. Maps are provided to magistrates in connection with elections, but it is difficult to give effect to this recommendation. There is a technical difficulty, but I hope it will be realised. With regard to the second point raised, I am quite prepared to see that it is embodied in the law that women are put on the list first, then men and then coloured people, and with regard to the third point raised I have already accepted that in my opening remarks where I said that the object of this measure is to consolidate the electoral laws. He also raised the question of the 800 coloured voters in Natal. I am going to support the attitude adopted by the Select Committee in connection with this matter, that this is not a serious proposition in connection with this Bill. What I am concerned with is that we should get the machinery into working order, and these other questions can be dealt with in their proper place.

Are you in favour of that separation or not?

I am coming to the point. Then the hon. member raised the question of separate lists. Again I stand by the attitude adopted by the Select Committee. They rejected it and I will reject an amendment to that effect.

In connection with those lists, do you only reject it because they did so?

For the same reasons that they were against it, I am against it.

Which reasons did they bring forward?

The present practice is to put it on one list, and it can continue and if you do not want the coloured list you can tear it off and retain the others.

After you have paid for it, yes.

I did not think that the Nationalist Party would consider a little expense in this matter. The other point is separating entirely the Europeans from the coloureds. I think the suggestion was that they should have three representatives. That is a matter which is covered by the South Africa Act. It is true that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) quoted the legal opinion that the South Africa Act could be altered, but I am not going into that matter, and I will not discuss it. That is a matter which is really foreign to the objects of this Bill. This Bill is one to deal with people who are entitled to vote, who have been entitled to vote, and to make it easy for them to vote, and to have these lists compiled so that everyone will be able to be on the roll, and everyone acknowledges that this is a vast improvement on the present arrangement. The other question which the hon. member for Moorreesburg and the hon. member for Boshof raised was the question of national registration. As far as that is concerned I am personally in favour of it, but it is foreign to this Bill.

Is that the policy of the Government?

It has not reached that stage. I told you what my own view is. I think it would be a fine thing if South Africa should have a national register for everyone, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) again quoted the speech I delivered in Maritzburg 18 months ago. That has nothing to do with this Bill. I do not retract one word I uttered in that connection. I am still of the same opinion. I do not want to drag in the question of the Indian problem in Natal into a Bill which aims at improving the present unsatisfactory laws dealing with registration and voting. I again say that I appreciate the sentiments expressed, except on the one on which we differ, in connection with this Bill. I think all hon. members realise that this Bill is an honest attempt to put our electoral laws into a better state than they are in at present.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 24th May.

I move the following amendment—

I cannot accept this amendment. This amendment contemplates a board on which the Secretary for Native Affairs will be the chairman. I shall move an amendment that will put this into effect. But that board will be in the position that the Department of Education will do its administrative work. The Secretary for Education will be the accounting official and consequently the Minister of Education must bear the responsibility for that.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I should like to move the following amendment—

I have no objection to the amendment as now proposed, but in order to give effect to the undertaking I gave to the House during the second reading debate and which I repeated on this occasion to the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) I wish to move an amendment in a more comprehensive form. I move—

1. “(2) The members of the board shall include—
   1. (a) the Secretary for Native Affairs who shall be chairman;
   2. (b) the Secretary for Education; and
   3. (c) a representative of each province, nominated by the executive committee of the province in question.”

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Swart was withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Education was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

1. (f) the expenditure of, and the accounting for, any moneys paid to a Province under Section 2;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses, the Schedule and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 24th May.