I move—

I may say, for the information of the House, that this report from the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders was very carefully considered by this body, a very representative body, a body representing the various parties in this House, and the Committee gave its close attention to the matters which appear in this report, and after very full consideration came to the conclusion which is now submitted to the House.

I should say this, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Select Committee is the proper forum for the consideration of this matter. If the House were to embark on a discussion as to the details of the report, it might be a lengthy business, and certainly not a satisfactory business’. This report deals with matters affecting the personnel of our staff; these are matters which have to be thrashed out in Committee, and that has been done and done very fully, and I think under the circumstances the proper course for the House is not to go into these details here in the House, not to reopen matters which have been very fully discussed in Committee, but to adopt the conclusions to which the Committee has come. I therefore move the adoption of the report.

I second.

Let me say, Sir, that the motion which I propose to put before this House is in no sense intended to imply any reflection on the hon. members composing this committee. My proposal will be that the matter should be referred back to the committee for further consideration, and that, Sir, will conform very closely to the expression of view voiced by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this morning. I shall be obliged only to refer to the circumstances of grievance that are inseparable from the carrying out of the recommendations, and in doing so I shall certainly be careful to use terms which will entirely absolve me from any reflection on the Chair or on the distinguished members in this House who compose the Standing Rules and Orders Committee. I know perfectly well the Select Committee of the House is composed of all the leaders of the parties, including the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and that it is a committee which in my opinion will be disposed to accept my proposal for further consideration of this matter in view of the acute issues raised by at least one of the recommendations before the House today. I therefore move—

I say, Sir, that this debate, according to the rules of the House, provides an opportunity —that cannot be denied to any member of this House—for the discussion of recommendations that emanate from this committee, however important and however far-reaching its recommendations may be.

I am mindful of the fact that that committee’s deliberations are presided over by you. Although I have on frequent occasions perhaps been misunderstood to have disregarded the Chair I have on no occasion intended to do anything of the kind. My whole attitude towards parliamentary institutions and the Chair is to show the proper respect that is due to the authority of the Speaker and the Chair in this House, and I have not the least intention of doing otherwise now. Let me be very careful what I say at this stage. A reference to the report shows that the promotion of Mr. Knoll to the post of Clerk of the Senate has created a vacancy among the clerks at the Table in this House, and that the Select Committee recommends the automatic promotion of Mr. Hugo, already Second Clerk-Assistant at the Table, to the higher appointment of Clerk-Assistant and Accountant. No objection can be raised to this recommendation even among the numerous members of the staff who are as anxious as the members of the staff are entitled to be for promotions in their due turn. But the recommendation goes on to say that the appointment of Mr. C. T. du Toit, Chief Translator, is recommended to fill the vacancy caused’ by Mr. Hugo’s promotion. Now, Sir, that brings about a new principle in the choice of Clerks at the Table. In the past as far as any member of this House has been able to ascertain the rule has been to train men for duties at the Table in the Select Committees, and that seems to be a reasonable way of giving them the necessary knowledge in regard to the rulings from the Chair. Select Committees, I think, even to the minds of the least observant of us, are really miniature parliaments in which all kinds of questions of order are bound to arise. The appointment of Mr. du Toit is in the minds of the men whose promotion is affected a violation of the principle of promotion by seniority and merit. I am not able to avoid a reference to the singular position which Mr. Wyndham has earned for himself both amongst members of this House and amongst the public outside. His devotion to duty over 26 years of service has earned for him a position in which those who know the situation in this House would feel that he is pre-eminently suited for the duties of one of the Clerks at the Table. I am not in Mr. Wyndham’s confidence. I am merely speaking with a vague knowledge of the relative service of the persons concerned, but I understand Mr. Wyndham’s service amounts to 26 years, I may be one year out. The member of the staff who is to be promoted to the Table has had say 15 years’ service, I am not sure of the exact period of months, but that may be near enough, that is 10 years’ shorter service than the service of Mr. Wyndham. Let me say this, that not only in the estimation of those who have long experience of Select Committees does Mr. Wyndham stand preeminently fitted for work at the Table, but recently on a train journey I made to Natal I met two senior counsel who were returning from Select Committee work in Cape Town and who spoke in the highest terms of Mr. Wyndham’s work as being the work of one who by his bearing, by his knowledge, and by his mastery of all the intricate details pertaining to private Bills and hybrid Bills was one of the most efficient men Parliament had today. I am not blind to the fact that Mr. Wyndham in the ordinary course would have received the promotion to the Table which he has worked for, and undoubtedly earned. But I understand there are reasons which have to do with the fact that his age would incidentally result in more than one man leaving the Table within a very short time of his immediate superior, and that might involve awkward complications. Those complications are ten years off, and in the ordinary course of events surely before any distinguished member of this staff is to be passed over for his promotion and consigned for the rest of his time to that post on the Select Committee Clerk staff, which probably entails more wear and tear and more drudgery than any other post in this House, surely before the House is committed to an injustice of that kind and we abandon the principle of promotion by seniority and promotion by merit, the Select Committee should consider whether some other way cannot be found to recognise the devoted and unselfish work that Mr. Wyndham and his assistant Mr. Macfarlane have put in in this House, and to affirm that the ordinary course of promotion is not to be interfered with and what the staff have worked for and earned they should have accorded to them. I understand there is some proposal that certain monetary compensation should be granted in each of these cases. But when a member of the service has an ambition before him, when he has sought to get an appointment which will give him opportunity of rising to a post which will carry with it a pension of a definite amount, then I think we have to consider these matters. Regulations are laid down which govern these matters. Regulations are laid down which govern pensions, and I am advised that even with the temporary monetary compensation that might be given, the fact remains that these officers would have no further prospect of promotion, and at the end of their time they would get considerably less by way of pension, probably £200 less than they would if they were allowed to proceed on what their merits have earned them, to an appointment at the Table, where the pensions are on a better scale. I have dealt with the points I wish to make, and I trust I have not offended against the recognised procedure in any way whatever in endeavouring to state the principles at stake in connection with this matter.

In seconding this motion of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) I am quite prepared to respect the request of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that the matter should not be discussed over the floor of the House. I would add that there are certain undesirable features regarding the new approach made by these appointments.

I think it will be expected that I, as leader of one of the parties and as a member of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, should also express my views in connection with this motion. Let me say at once that I am one who most certainly would never dispute the right, the absolute right, of this House to go into a matter of this nature. The officials who are being appointed are officials of this House, and if there is substantial ground for complaint I think a member has the fullest right to bring it before the House, as has been done now by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). But in any case I must on this occasion oppose the motion because I think it is undesirable to discuss here a matter such as this which affects individuals, which affects appointments. To have a discussion on the individuals and their comparative merits would be highly undesirable. Appointments in the public service cannot be entrusted to a large body, nor can the merits of the applicants, of persons who come under consideration, be discussed by a large body. Consequently appointments are in the first place entrusted to a small commission, the Public Service Commission, which actually is comprised of three members. It is just because we do not wish to discuss in public the merits or lack of merit of various applicants that there must be a large measure of confidence in the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, who make the appointment in the first place. This is a committee representative of all parties of the House, on which the leaders of the House serve, and there may be a difference of opinion—to a certain extent this was the case here, that a relatively small minority differed in their opinion about these particular appointments—but I think that taking all the circumstances into consideration, unless a glaring injustice has been done, and unless you are certain that the matter has not been handled bona fide with a view to the best interests of the House, it is undesirable to discuss the matter in the House. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the motion of the hon. member that the matter should be referred back to the committee. It ought to be regarded as a matter that has been settled. I wish to put one other aspect of the matter, namely, that if the merit or the lack of merit of one or other applicant is brought up for discussion in this House you can well understand what a bad influence it will have in the future, because this might easily have the sequel that applicants for various posts, individuals who wish to come under consideration, may approach one member of Parliament or another, or various members, in order to urge them to bring the matter before the House, and they may try in that way to achieve their purpose. They can approach not only members of Parliament but also members of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Let me say this, that I think the promotions that are being made in this House must be made from the parliamentary staff, because in the public service there are opportunities for promotion high up in the ordinary course of events in accordance with the merits of the person concerned. The chances of promotion are not so bright for members of the parliamentary staff. For that reason I would say that all posts that fall vacant in the parliamentary service, save in very exceptional instances which, certainly as far as I know, have never occurred, should be filled from the staff of Parliament. Nor do I wish to cast any doubt on the right of members of the staff who wish to come under consideration for a particular post to bring their claims in the right way to the notice of the authorities. I have nothing against members of the staff, for instance, writing to the Speaker or to the Clerk to intimate that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, they would like to be borne in mind for a specific appointment, but it must rest at that. No doubt the Speaker and the Clerk, when appointments have to be made, will bring to the notice of the Committee the claims of such members of the staff. I think that in any case that way must be open for the staff, but what certainly should not happen is members of the staff canvassing members of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders with the object of furthering their case. That would be a very improper position. I am not referring to any specific instance where that was done. Least of all am I referring to the person who was named here by the hon. member for Pinetown and for whom he pleaded this morning. It is unknown to me whether any representations were made. I do not wish to say that this was done by members of the staff as a whole. It may be so, and it may not. I only say this, that should a discussion take place in this House on a delicate subject such as this, the road would be open for canvassing by members, and I think that would create a very undesirable position.

I shall not say much in connection with this motion. I assume that it escaped the attention of the Prime Minister, but as a member of the Committee I am very sorry that he did not take the opportunity to explain why it was necessary to make certain of these appointments. We are exceptionally fortunate with the officials we have in the House. They are extremely capable, and we have not the slightest fault to find with the persons who have been appointed. But if the Prime Minister had only explained to members and the country that this was the result of the application of a new idea which has just originated, that as far as the officials at the Table are concerned provision must be made for a gap of about ten years between the retirement of the officials, members would have been in a better position to realise what the position is. Let me say that I did not endorse the idea that I have mentioned here. I accept, however, the recommendation of the majority. I only desire that it should be made clear to this House. I am not referring now to Mr. Hugo, because it was obvious that he should be promoted. In the case of the other appointment, we had extremely competent people who had to be passed over as a result of the application of the new idea and the fact that they were passed over’ has nothing to do with their capabilities or merits. If the Prime Minister had explained this to the House, this discussion would perhaps have been unnecessary, and one feels it should have been done in all fairness towards these officials. The members of this House do not know why they have not been appointed, and the first thought that arises is there must be a reason. I know the Prime Minister will be the first to admit that there is no reason. It was only the result of the new idea that arose, and we must see what the effect will be in the future. We hope it will be fortunate, but in this case it has given rise to a certain amount of friction. I hope that on a later occasion we shall have an opportunity to express our appreciation of the services of the retiring officials. I am referring to Mr. Knoll and Mr. Dempers. I hope that on the last day of the session we shall have an opportunity to express our appreciation of their services.

After what has been said by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), which I think represents the general feeling of the House, and with which I wish to associate myself, it may have been held that it was unnecessary to say anything more in support of the Prime Minister’s motion, but I do not think that the impression which the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) gave can quite be allowed to pass. The hon. member made the suggestion that in recommending the appointment of the head of the Translators’ Section as Second Clerk Assistant, we were departing from a recognised principle, and not following the ordinary course of promotions. I think the impression he left was that this is a position which ought to go automatically to the Chief Committee Clerk. I do not, however, think that that principle was ever accepted.

I did not say that.

That was the impression created by the hon. member’s remarks.

With the permission of the hon. Minister, all I said was that the principle of promotion by seniority and merit was not being observed in this case, and I want to indicate that the special training of the clerks in Select Committees has in the past been regarded as fitting them for promotion, but I did not say that because he was Senior Committee clerk he should be promoted.

Then I would like to point out that on the last occasion when we appointed a Second Clerk Assistant in the person of the gentleman whose appointment as First Clerk Assistant has now been recommended, we did appoint a man in exactly the same position as that held by Mr. du Toit, and the last appointment was therefore on all fours with the appointment now recommended. That last appointment was not filled by the appointment of the Senior Committee Clerk, but also by the appointment of the head of the Translators’ Section. On the question of seniority I think it is also right for hon. members to know that although the gentleman who was referred to by the hon. member for Pinetown has been a good deal longer in the service of the House, he and the gentleman who has been recommended by the Committee, are on the same notch of the same scale at present. As far as that is concerned the difference therefore is not very great. I do not wish to go into the matter of merit.

Who is the senior of the two?

I say they are on the same notch of the same scale, but the gentleman to whom the hon. member for Pinetown referred has had longer service. I do not wish to enter into the question of relative merit, except to say that there can be no inference drawn from the recommendation of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders that there is any lack of appreciation of the very notable services which the Chief Committee Clerk has rendered in his position.

Hear, hear.

Reference has been made to the question of spacing in the ages in respect of the Clerks of the Table. That undoubtedly is a matter which had an influence on the recommendation of the Committee. The recommendation was influenced by the fact that it is desirable that the ages of the three Clerks should be spaced in order to avoid the very great inconvenience which arises when two of these Clerks retire almost simultaneously. It is only by having spacing of that kind that adequate provision can be made for the training of someone by way of the post of Second Clerk Assistant through the post of First Clerk Assistant to become Clerk of the House. The Committee was undoubtedly influenced by that consideration, but in being influenced by that consideration the Committee had no other thought before it than to serve the best interests of the House, and I hope the House will be prepared to accept the assurance we give that that has been the only consideration influencing us, that we have in all sincerity tried to serve the interests of the House.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday evening I was engaged in presenting a picture and in pointing out the background that the Indians developed in the Transvaal as well as in the other provinces. I pause for a moment to indicate how the white man is largely responsible for that development. The Indians traded on our kindheartedness and they ingratiated themselves and that to such a degree that not only did they get the businesses into their hands but it even went so far that legislation had to be adopted to prevent the mixing of Afrikaners with Indians. But I see something more in the background, of this picture, and it is the effect the Indians have on the native population; and when I see this I am so surprised over the attitude of the native representatives, not one of whom is in the House at present. They have made a bad impression in connection with this matter. Take the last conference of Indians in Cape Town, which was opened with an address by one of the representatives of the natives.

What did they want there?

The hon. member’s question is quite correct—what were they looking for there? I think those members are completely neglecting their duty to keep an eye on the detrimental effects the Indians have bn the natives. But while I am speaking about the Indians I also see in the background that in the Transvaal there was a big danger in connection with the gold mines, not so much in connection with the Indians but in connection with the Chinese who were imported. Here I should like to turn to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He said the other day that he would go to the constituency of any member on this side of the House who voted for the Bill, and consequently I ask him to tell us about the people who rode round with petitions, and if he wishes me to mention names I shall do so. I mention the name of Rooi Paul du Plooy, and I ask the hon. member on whose instructions he rode round to get Afrikaners to sign that the Chinese should be brought in? This is in the background of my picture. That hon. member lived in the republic, where he was a prominent man, and I would ask him on whose instructions Rooi Paul du Plooy was entitled to take names.

On whose instructions was it?

Inevitably I have also something in mind that I wish to say to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), and I wish he would listen. He has frequently said in the House that the Voortrekkers were descended from the weaker class of people.

He did not.

He said that again yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) made the statement that I said that the Voortrekkers came from a “swak” or weak class of people. I said nothing of the kind. I said that all the immigrants to South Africa had come from the working classes, who had come here for their bread. It is absolutely untrue to say that I ever in my life at any time said that they came of a weak class.

Were the Huguenots working people?

The hon. member must accept the explanation of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow).

Yes, I shall accept that; but I would say nevertheless that I am proud of the people from whom I have sprung, as proud as any man in the world. They were as distinguished as any. This is the case in general, and it grieves one somewhat when it it stated here that they came from the working class.

What is wrong with that?

I shall go further. I accepted the member’s explanation, but I abide by my opinion that the Huguenots were noble and distinguished people. I go further, and I come to the Bill that is before the House, and then I should like to dwell on the amendment proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. As a Calvinist, I come inevitably to the thought that when the Saviour was on earth He called on one to proclaim the Gospel, but the first man said: No, wait, I must bury my father; and the second said that he had to ask his people. Here we have a recurrence of the idea: Wait a little and postpone; it is not serious yet; it is not a big matter. I received a telegram from the Indians, just as other members have received it, and in that telegram it is stated that we should not worry ourselves about the position of the Indians, and they say that they agree with the Nationalist Party that the whole measure should be combated. No member on the other side has yet rejected it. What have the Indians to do with the Nationalist Party? No, there is a mistake. Now I want to go back and remind the Leader of the Opposition of what was stated in 1927. We find it in Hansard, Volume 2, column 1083. He wished to extend the coloured vote. First I was prepared to cast doubt on it, but it seems to me that this is what the Leader of the Opposition intended, because the Indians had resolved that they are going to support the Nationalist Party. It appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition intended what is stated here in Hansard, that the natives in the north must get the franchise.

This is what your own leader stated.

The member reminds me of what I previously stated, when you throw a stone into a bush and hear a bark, then you know it was a hit. The Leader of the Opposition said this. It is recorded in Hansard. He has apparently forgotten that he said this, and if he is so weak that he should forget it so quickly, it is time that the Opposition should have another leader.

Read it out, we want to hear it.

Yes, I can read it out—

But you spoke about the native.

Has the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) heard that? He wanted to give the franchise to the coloureds, and especially to the coloured women. What will the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) say now when we go with these things to the platteland and tell the voters: Here is legislation before the House that we should accept; and hon. members on the opposite benches are fully entitled to point out if there are mistakes in this legislation? But they must not come here and simply say that we should procrastinate any further. Since the days of the Voortrekkers the Indians have come into this country as parasites, and as parasites they have injected their poison into our national life. If we are going to proscrastinate any further, what is going to happen then? I should like to explain a little. I think that the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) will rise presently to speak, and I should like him to explain what I am now going to read out—

I hope the hon. member will reply as to what the meaning of this is. I see in that background the telegrams from the Indians. This has come true. There is something between the lines. I do not know whether it is necessary that I should dwell on this matter any further. I want specially to make an appeal to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom):

Do you agree with the Minister of Finance?

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) will have his chance. If he wants to chirp he can chirp as much as he likes when I sit down. But I say these things are facts for which I stand. These reproaches that have been hurled at the Prime Minister’s head are figments of the imagination, designed to delay this legislation and to give the Indians an opportunity to develop still further. It seems to me these things have come too quickly, here we find that the Indians have supported the party on the other side. I regard the second telegram as an ultimatum, because they say here that a quarter of a million Indians cannot possibly be a threat to two million Europeans. We have always protected the Indian in the past and have always treated him properly. What right have they to be so cheeky? I only want to say this. Here the Prime Minister has come with important legislation before the House, and if hon. members opposite wish to say that they find fault with this or that clause and suggest improvements I am prepared to listen to them. What has happened in the past? We have exposed our purity as a European civilisation to danger as a result of this penetration. Have we to wait longer before we take action? Does my hon. friend opposite wish us to wait? This legislation is now stigmatised as the biggest gogga in the world. No, I make an appeal to my hon. friends to extend their earnest consideration to the matter. Let us for once be big. I am certain there are many hon. members on the other side who feel the same as I do. I am also a Calvinist and I feel like them. The Calvinist conception is simply that there should be a separation of the various colours. I readily admit that. I do not run away from that, but I say that we must not postpone this legislation. The Prime Minister must take action today so that we can put a stop to the outwitting of these people on the platteland by the Indians. We see it today in Natal and we can see it in the Transvaal, and I wish to direct a warning to members in the Free State. Let us keep the truth level. Langenhoven said that if you keep the truth level it is indeed the truth, but if do not hold it level it is a lie. This is a white man’s country, and we want it to remain a white man’s country, and if my hon. friends on the other side are right when they say that we must remain a white man’s country let us accept this legislation and establish separation. These Indians have been born in this country. Let us use our commonsense in this case and make a separation between those Asiatics and the European.

I am sure that not one of us has the least doubt that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) spoke in all sincerity here in this House, but it is nevertheless remarkable that in all his arguments he used here he consistently and totally condemned this Bill. The hon. member condemned the Bill because of the miscegenation which it allows and the consequences thereof, and he condemned the Bill by implication and by reference to the native representatives who sit in this House. He consistently condemned the Bill, but the tragedy is that the hon. member who condemns it had to use other arguments in order to justify his contention, and I am sorry about that. It is very difficult at this stage to say much that is new on this matter which has been discussed here for so many days now. Nevertheless, I imagine —and I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will agree with us—that this Bill will have evil repercussions, and not one of us who takes our national problem seriously can close his eyes to the consequences of this Bill. I will probably be able to mention little that is new in dealing with this Bill. I do not want to have high expectations, but it seems to me, when I sum up the position, as if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has compromised himself in this matter, and I am not using that term in any bad sense. I think that he is finding himself in the position where he can no longer listen to the appeals made chiefly by the Opposition. I do not want to do him an injustice, but that appears to me to be the position. For that reason, I am afraid that we cannot expect very much from the Prime Minister or any modification of his standpoint in this most serious question. I nevertheless want to emphasise a few aspects of this matter, and I want to make one revolutionary suggestion in the course of my speech. Before I go any further, however, I would like to emphasise this point on which I sympathise with the Prime Minister, namely that in this Bill and in the attitude I adopt towards the Bill no insult to the Indian population is intended. I am going to oppose the Bill in spirit, not so much as far as all its aspects are concerned, but I want to emphasise that it should be postponed and be brought before the people for consideration. Whatever views we hold in connection with the Bill, they do not intend any insult to the Indian population in South Africa nor to the people of India. I have had opportunity in my life as a student overseas to come into contact with these people, and I found kindred spirits among them, but that is no effective solution of our national problem. Whilst I have some knowledge, therefore, of individuals, and whilst I as an individual—and I think most of the members on this side of the House—am most heartily in sympathy with the striving of the Indian people in India towards independence and the disposing of their own destiny, we do not wish to derogate from their dignity. We also respect their culture. I also respect the initiative, in so far as it is sound, of prominent Indians in South Africa. I am in a position to know of their enterprise, but that is no justification for us, with the knowledge and the appreciation we have of these things, to remain silent or to see that the wrong steps are taken which will not only confuse the present time, but which will also endanger the future. I want to say further that the position as I see it requires immediate attention, and where I am going to vote for the postponement of this measure for further consideration, it is because this question has had serious attention for two generations now, and such serious attention that in the beginning of this century, in the year 1904, a large conference was held in Pretoria, where it was urged that this question should be tackled without delay. I read the resolution taken on that occasion—

The idea, therefore, of postponing it for a short time should not meet with any objection, even although we admit that it is an urgent problem. But then I would like to say that while appreciating the standpoint of the Indian people, we most certainly associate ourselves with the standpoint of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, a standpoint endorsed by the whole House, that this matter is inherently a domestic matter, and future international relations can only be confused by the attitude adopted by the Government of India, at any rate in the very recent past, and our domestic problems will also be aggravated as a result of the statements made on behalf of the Indian population in South Africa. We recognise two different points of view on this profound question. It is a difference of the value of the principles of the matter compared with its practical implications. It appears to me as if there are two aspects of the problem. The first is the right of a small nation with problems which no major nation has ever faced and problems which the Afrikaner people have had to contend with—I am now referring to the Afrikaner people in the first instance, and I do not mean only Afrikaans-speaking persons— problems in respect of which we have achieved much. On the one hand the question is: What should weigh more heavily— the question of self-preservation and the implications connected therewith; or should we, on the other hand, support the argument used by hon. members that, owing to our standpoint as a Christian people, we should concede to certain demands made by a foreign element, by foreign groups, or rather heterogeneous groups. In discussing the interests of a heterogeneous group and the implications connected therewith, owing to the presence of a large number of natives, we realise that this is not a new problem. South Africa has had to contend with it since the beginning. It is a question of the survival of the European population and a question of the preservation of its civilisation and its religion, and I want to reiterate that in discussing the principle of self-preservation and whereas we see a danger for the preservation of that principle in this new legislation, we could with justification appear before the world tribunal and appeal to the conscience of the world to prove that as an educated and civilised people, we have not failed to fulfil our duties in the past towards the non-European groups. Our policy was based on separation, but in spite of that basis, it was characterised by a broad and deep feeling of sympathy and a literal compliance with the principles of guardianship, and it was characterised by sympathy and sacrifice to the benefit of the non-European elements in South Africa. No nation in the world ever had to contend with the same problems; no nation in the world could appear before the tribunal of the world with the same clear conscience as the Afrikaner people in respect of its attitude towards the undercivilised, and it does not behove the world, therefore, in these days of anxiety to hurl reproaches at us. In view of our record in the past we can make a bold claim for solving our problems ourselves. I took notice with appreciation this morning of a new point in the history of the Afrikaners. I refer to the work which has been done in the past for the uplifting of Europeans as well as non-Europeans, and if any reproaches are made we can reply to all such reproaches; but what I want to refer to is this, that the Afrikaner and especially the church of the Afrikaner has always gone out of its way, as far as education is concerned, to uplift the non-European. If we want to find evidence of our relations with the non-Europeans and the proper exercise of our guardianship then there is an abundance of proof and we can look the world squarely in the face, and for that reason we are entitled to deal with this matter independently without any interference from outside and without any hurry, in the wisdom of or with the example of the wisdom with which our forefathers tackled these problems. It is for these reasons that I feel particularly concerned about the attitude of the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance, and I am sorry that he is not here now, but I am going to mention a few aspects which will come to his notice, if not in any other way then through Hansard. But I expect him as an educated and responsible person to give me a reply as an educated and responsible person. I regret his action in Johannesburg in the first place where he took up an attitude which from the nature of the case is foreign to the character of the Afrikaner and is foreign to the traditions of the nation as a whole. I do not want to say that the whole of Johannesburg is foreign to us, but inside the walls of the University there is a certain group which follow a course which is surely foreign to the traditions of South Africa. Under such influences, the Minister of Finance expressed certain remarks which I deprecate because I think that he acted under the influence of the moment and because I believe that if he had had time to consider, he would not have made those remarks with the implications attached to them, and I am sorry that in those remarks he showed a certain degree of contempt for the stock from which he himself was bred.

He was reported incorrectly.

I say once again that where the Minister of Finance spoke in such circumstances and in such an atmosphere of the Herrenvolk attitude of those who differ from him, he did an injustice in a way to those who differ from him, and particularly to the race from which he was bred. I take it that the Minister of Finance will probably know which words he used. In our minds there can possibly be some doubt as to the implications of his remarks concerning the Herrenvolk idea, but he has no justification whatsoever for using that language under the circumstances in which we are living in South Africa today. I can tell you this: that the Minister of Finance is, together with myself, heir to spiritual treasures which are precious and which have proved their value, but to his sorrow and also mine, he is heir together with me but not testator, and that is the big difference. I am not suggesting that he is indifferent about the matter, but while I and other heirs bequeath something, it is to us a much more precious thing than it could possibly be to him. I realise that it causes the Minister of Finance a certain measure of concern to hold the views which he has expressed. It has certain implications for him; it has implications for his party; but it has still greater implications for South Africa, and when he meets with opposition to his standpoint he should not regard it as unreasonable. As far as I myself am concerned and the party which I represent, I desire to maintain a standard in this struggle at which such self-respect is not harmed in any way. But the standpoint adopted by the Minister of Finance places him in a position which is in conflict with our whole conception, and for that reason he must expect that in future he will be opposed in every place where he is given the opportunity of expressing those views held by him. I was gratified to note that only a few members on his side of the House were in agreement with him. He received the loudest applause from the crossbenches where the native representatives sit. But he took up an attitude in which he regards us as a danger, and he should expect therefore that we will regard that danger in a serious light and that we will also regard his attitude as a serious matter. I would like to give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to reply and I have therefore written down a number of implications of his statements which I want to read with leave of the House. I am making certain deductions from his speech. If I have misinterpreted his meaning, I shall be glad to be corrected by him. The first implication in his speech is the removal of the communal franchise for non-Europeans. The second is not only the removal of the communal franchise, but the substitution of an individual franchise on an equal basis with Europeans. Thirdly, the equality of all races in the provincial system, the granting of full municipal franchise. By implication racial strife, a fierce racial struggle in South Africa, must follow which will be settled either by force or by intervention. His standpoint implies further economic repercussions which will have detrimental results in the first instance for the Europeans, but also for the natives, and if I had to draw the logical conclusion from his standpoint, then I see only the downfall of his and my people on that basis. This standpoint which we hold is not only our standpoint. I have noticed for a number of years now that there are also English-speaking people who hold these views. For many years in the English-speaking world, both in England and in America, this problem has assumed a more acute form, because an inherent tendency towards separation existed and because there is an instinctive feeling that it could be detrimental to the national character of the people, whether only a small number or on a large scale. But where the minority take up the attitude of the Minister of Finance, and by implication the conclusions from the Bill, we are entitled to appeal not only to the tribunal of the world but to people who have a sense of responsibility towards the future of the world. I am particularly sorry that the Prime Minister does not avail himself of the opportunity he has today to bring Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people together. For thirty years he made an appeal to the European people of South Africa from time to time to unite. I maintain that since 1915 there has not been such a golden opportunity as this one for uniting the European people once more. With due regard and appreciation of the services rendered to South Africa by the Prime Minister, I want to state that he has never had such a golden opportunity to render a service to South Africa as is being afforded to him on this occasion and it will probably be one of the last, to achieve the unity of the European population in South Africa. I think that it is a particularly good opportunity and I hope that the Prime Minister will feel that this opportunity is worth some sacrifice on his part and that he will not in haste allow this opportunity to pass. Various arguments have been used with regard to the demands or rights on account of which we have to agree to the implications of the principles of this Bill. I find it very difficult to discover a solution amongst the many arguments which have weight. I have asked myself the question: When is a nation obliged to concede to the so-called demands of a minority group or of a heterogeneous element or of a less civilised group; when is a nation obliged to concede to the demands which are put, and I want to express my own views in this regard. There can never be any obligation on the part of any nation, morally or otherwise, to grant any rights when it cannot ensure its own right of existence. There can be no reason for granting rights by which the right to existence of the main race will be endangered and particularly the race which had borne civilisation for a long time, which did only good in the past and which desires to carry civilisation into the future and for that reason no demands can be made as a result of which the existence of the race will be endangered if it acceded to those demands. I am rather amazed, therefore, when I listen to the arguments coming from the cross-benches. I assume that the intentions are honourable but it is a shortsighted action and when it is urged that we should grant the franchise to the heterogeneous element, then I ask the Prime Minister and all the front-benchers on that side of the House: Since when have we had this agitation for the granting of the franchise? It is since yesterday that pressure is being applied to South Africa to grant a general franchise. It is something which has existed since only yesterday. Even in England where there is probably the widest franchise, it has not yet stood the test of time. It has only been in force for between thirty and forty years. It is not for one generation as yet that the system has stood the test of time. There is no justification for insisting that a nation should grant the franchise which will endanger its future and more particularly a right which has not yet stood the test of experience. The self-preservation of a people and its religion and its racial features, its destiny—that is what should be safeguarded by a nation before it creates circumstances which will endanger its position. I repeat, therefore, that there is no demand which morally or otherwise is justified. There can be no justification for granting powers and rights and privileges before those who are granted the privileges will take steps together with us not only to ensure the continued existence of the European civilisation, but will undertake to contribute towards that end. Then and only then will I be prepared to regard it as a demand or rather as a moral claim that we should be asked to grant the franchise to those who have not yet proved their ability to exercise those rights properly. I have given attention to the possibilities of doing two things over which there is a difference of opinion in this House. Firstly, the maintenance of the principle and secondly the granting or conceding of rights to civilised peoples. I want to admit that as a result of the steps taken by the European people in South Africa, there is a pleasing advancement in civilisation. I do not want to say to what extent such advancement is superficial or to what extent it is genuine but as far as the external manifestations of civilisation are concerned, there is an advancement. And now I would like to say that I believe that South Africa has taken over a legislative system which has worked excellently in the mother country or countries, but which is not the most suitable for South Africa. From the one country we took over Parliament as such; we took it over from a homogeneous country. The other country from which we took over the provincial system is not composed of a homogeneous people, but I think it was obvious that in drafting the constitution it could not exist for all time. If we intend to uphold two things, viz. the rights of our people and our national existence, fundamental changes must eventually be introduced. And now I feel that I am justified in presenting the case that the Parliamentary system, which served for a homogeneous people, cannot in the long run serve South Africa. I therefore feel that with the elapse of 37 years the time has now come to review the matter. If we seek to bestow rights, let us in the first place secure the right to a continued existence of our own Europeans through a legislative institution which will secure its future, which will preserve the sovereignty of the people and which will satisfy the demands in connection with the right of existence of our people and the maintenance of our religion, our civilisation and our traditions. That is one demand. It is essential. Then secondly, as regards executive matters and effective administration, we should maintain the Sovereignty of the Legislative Assembly and control by Europeans. To me it is a painful matter that the provincial councils have been singled out for the administration of national education and that it is that selfsame body which is regarded as the body from which the various groups are constituted also in the sphere of religion and a philosophy of life. What future would national education have if such a merger of ideologies and feelings were to take place in future. If our national existence is to be secured, care should be taken in the first place that our educational system should also have a sound future, but in the provincial council it is actually being exposed to the influences of that merger, and thereby it is being endangered. Of course, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can reply that it has existed in the Cape Province. But that is no reason for its continued existence. We should have an institution in South Africa under the Parliamentary system where these groups can be brought into contact with one another, and I want to dwell on that for a moment. That is an important matter for the future of South Africa. It does not mean extortion or a negation of rights. I am of the opinion that along such lines the interests of South Africa can be served for generations to come. But it requires time to consider them and I would therefore direct an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister. He has probably considered this matter. These thoughts have not originated with me; I obtained them from a kindred spirit of his, but I feel that we are in danger of rushing along a road where we may be able to climb to greater heights, but where we may also fall into the abyss. I have just a few minutes more. I would ask the Prime Minister not to dispose of this matter in haste, because our national development is at stake. What does one year matter, what would ten years matter in the life of a nation? Do not thrust this upon us in a hurry. Wisdom demands deliberation and consideration, not haste. No good has ever come from haste. I range myself on the side of the Prime Minister when he says that this is essentially a national affair, but I begin to have my doubts when I observe how hurriedly the matter is being disposed of. If this is a matter about which he is convinced, this haste is not befitting. It creates suspicion in the outside world that other considerations may be at stake, and I would like the Prime Minister to consider it from that aspect. World opinion may say: A conference is being held in New York; has this anything to do with it? Discussions are taking place in India; has it something to do with that? Discussions will shortly be taking place in England; the Prime Minister is being expected there; could it have anything to do with that? It would then not be an essentially domestic affair, because other considerations will be in the balance. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to yield to the temptation of giving the world an opportunity to doubt our sincerity and our convictions. It is not fair towards the public that this matter should be dealt with by means of the party machine. We are prepared to contribute to the best of our ability, but we should be given the opportunity. I would like to reiterate the points. A drama is being enacted. Perhaps there is a bit of comedy, too, in which case it would be a tragi-comedy. But I think this matter is too serious to allow of comic interludes. Although the Bill has adopted the principle of segregation, which we all support, you have the extra element that the same Bill has a number of shortcomings and gaps through which the principle could altogether be undermined and reduced to a farce. If your intentions are honest, why not make provision to avoid such possible loopholes? This is a matter of vital importance to coming generations, and in dealing with an extraneous element we should act with great circumspection in admitting them to our legislative body. They are being admitted to the provincial system which was instituted for our national education and in order to serve the public; regardless of its local nature, it should in the first place be designed to foster our national character and views among our youth I appeal to the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), who is known as an educationalist. He has promised to support this Bill. I can hardly believe that he has considered the educational aspect. The Bill also provides the principle of uplifting, but that is being applied to one province only and not to the others. I do not want to go into that because it has already been dealt with. We already have the phenomenon that the Prime Minister and the Deputy-Prime Minister are opposing each other in the House on fundamental principles. When you have that happening it is a sign of danger when the co-operation is continued. I am accusing neither the one nor the other, but the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister must feel that when his right hand, in this case the Minister of Finance, declares his views so openly, he, the Prime Minister, should convince the people that he does not agree with the Minister of Finance. We expect that of him. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister once again to avail himself of this opportunity not to jeopardise the future of South Africa through hasty action, but to create the proper conditions for an internal peace which will prevail for many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the obvious necessity for this Bill. I think it would be intolerable to allow the situation to develop. We have a situation in Durban particularly where the friction and antagonism between the Indians and Europeans has reached such a stage that it is a situation which is not good, not only for the welfare of this country, but for the welfare of any country. It is essential, therefore, that steps should be taken to remove the causes of that situation. The questions dealt with in this Bill set out to remove what perhaps is the most prominent cause, and I believe that there is no fairer way of dealing with this question than the way it is proposed to follow by means of the Bill. The Bill was criticised on certain grounds, firstly that it represents segregation; that may or may not be true, and I do not propose to argue that question, except to say that I believe it is a fundamental human instinct that men desire to live with other men who share the same culture and who have the same outlook on and habits of life. This Bill does no more than that, in that it makes it possible for that instinct to assert itself in our complex society. And the Prime Minister himself has said that this is no new principle, it is a principle which has been accepted in this country and has become part of the complex pattern of this country. Another ground upon which this Bill is criticised is that it takes away certain rights of Indians in the northern provinces. I quite frankly question the validity of that contention, because, after all, the basic right of all rights is the right of citizenship, and in this Bill that basic right will be conferred upon those people, by the passing of this Bill into law. It seems to me, therefore, that for the first time in the history of South Africa, at least so far as the northern provinces are concerned, we are accepting the Indian population as a permanent part of the population of this country. It has been argued here that hitherto the Indian community has only been a temporary part of the population, and this is a point of view which I accept, because the Cape Town Agreement which has been quoted so often in this House provides as probably one of its main conditions that the principle of the removal of the Indians from this country and their repatriation to India….

It is explicitly a voluntary scheme.

That may or may not be so. But I want to go so far as to say that I appreciate very much what was said by the Minister of Finance on this question. The Minister of Finance made out a very good case. But my difficulty is to reconcile this policy with the fact that only six years afterwards this country, together with India, agreed on a colonisation scheme. To me it seems that this is the final seal of approval to this question that hitherto the Indians were regarded as only a temporary part of the population. However, the important part is that they are now regarded as a permanent part of the population, and from that point of view we come now to the criticisms in regard to this question of their being a permanent part, emanating from the Opposition, and the logical conclusion that a franchise should now be granted to them.

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

Before the luncheon interval interjections were made in regard to the principle of voluntary segregation. In that respect I do want to associate myself with the Minister of Finance in regard to the point he made that it was desirable to try and bring about segregation on a voluntary basis. If we examine the history of this problem, and particularly in regard to Durban, it becomes abundantly clear despite all the efforts that have been made, that we are left with no alternative than to force this position on a compulsory basis. In fact, the predecessor to the present Minister of the Interior appointed a committee in Durban known as the Lawrence Committee—it consisted of three Europeans and three Indians—and after this committee had functioned for some time the Minister made this statement in the House—

Then, after that, as we all know there was the Pretoria Agreement, another and a final attempt to put the problem on the basis of an agreement. The Natal Indian Judicial Commission says that—

May I quote one further report of the Natal Judicial Commission in regard to the Pretoria Agreement—

I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the Pretoria Agreement, except to say that the failure of the Pretoria Agreement led up to this Bill which is now before the House. If there is one important event that has taken place, it has been that the element in the Natal Indian Congress which even at the last minute was prepared to come to some agreement has gone, and it has been replaced by another element which is demanding absolute equality, and it is on that basis that I say the Government cannot possibly hope to achieve, in any way whatever, an agreement on a voluntary basis. For that reason we find ourselves where we have to continue with this Bill.

Now I want to deal with another criticism which has been levelled in this House, and that criticism is from an entirely different angle. That criticism has been that we should not confer the right of citizenship upon these Indian people. I want to ask those who hold that view two simple questions. Do they accept the principle that there should be no taxation without representation; and, secondly, for how long would they say we should continue to deny that principle? I believe there can be no doubt that the method by which this Bill proposes to deal with this franchise, namely by offering the group franchise, is the only logical way to deal with it. This has been challenged by some members who would rather see the franchise on the common roll. If, as has been stated, there are dangers in connection with the communal roll how much greater is not the danger in regard to the common roll? I may not be tempted to think the common roll might sound the death knell of European civilisation. But I am confident the arrangement if made in regard to a common roll, at least so far as Natal is concerned, would eventually disenfranchise the vast majority of the European people in that province. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) quoted certain statistics in regard to the fertility rate of Indians against the background of the European figures in an attempt to prove there was no danger in the franchise on a common roll. There is, of course, a fallacy in that argument, because we might as well say as there are only five Europeans per acre in Germany therefore there is no overcrowding in the concentration camps. One cannot examine the question of the increase in Indian population in Natal and compare it with the European increase on the Union basis. I think one can clearly see as far as Durban is concerned, where the Indian population at the moment is over 100,000, that in 1995, i.e., perhaps not in my own lifetime, but in my children’s lifetime, we shall see a population of something like 300,000, and I do think that the House, in arriving at a decision, must take into account the question of increasing population.

Another irresponsible criticism we find here is that Natal brought these people to the country, and therefore Natal must pay for their mistake. I do put it to the House, when 35 years ago Union was brought about Natal came into the Union not only with all her assets, but all her liabilities to be put into a common pool, and I say that Natal also shared the assets of the other provinces and the liabilities of the other provinces, and I may perhaps dispose further of that criticism by again referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) in his contribution to the debate; he disposed of that fallacy. I maintain Natal has loyally kept to her part of the bargain of Union, and I also claim that the Indian problem must be regarded as a national problem, and in that respect the House must discharge all its obligations in regard to that problem. This Bill, let us frankly admit, is no solution of the Indian problem at all. It is only the basis on which a solution can be found. After all, I regard as the most important feature of the Indian problem the economic aspect. In fact, the Prime Minister has reminded us that due attention must be paid to the needs of the Indian population in regard to matters such as health, housing, employment and social welfare. Until these matters have been properly dealt with, this problem will not be solved.

This brings me, of course, Mr. Speaker, to the criticisms of the Minister of Finance, particularly in regard to the criticism he levelled against the European community in Natal, and not least the Durban City Council. The substance of his criticism, in fact, was that the City Council had not carried out the main provisions of the uplift clause of the Cape Town Agreement. This is a small point, but nevertheless I feel that I ought to mention it.

What do you say is a small point?

I am coming to it, it is this: that the Union Government entered into an agreement with the Indian Government, known as the Cape Town Agreement, and one of the provisions of that agreement was that it would undertake to discharge certain obligations. Neither the Provincial Administration of Natal, nor any of the local authorities, were informed of the Union Government’s undertaking, and, what is more, they were not told what they were, and to me it is surprising to find that the local authorities in Natal and the Provincial Administration should be criticised for not carrying out the uplift provisions. I am not alone in that viewpoint, and I just want to quote the report of the Natal Indian Judicial Commission wherein the position briefly is that that contention is upheld particularly in regard to education by that Commission.

But in regard to the City Council of Durban, what are the real facts in regard to its attitude towards the Indian problem? First let me say that when I think of the Indian problem I am not thinking of the problem in regard to that class of Indian with which we are dealing in this Bill. The Minister of Finance quoted the present Minister of the Interior as saying that if the Durban City Council had shown a sense of responsibility and tackled the housing problem as it affected Indians, there would have been no Indian problem in Durban today. I want to disagree sharply with the Minister of Finance. In 1932 the City of Durban had no Indian problem. It was only after that, that as a result of the Commission presided over by the Minister of Finance, the Natal Provincial Administration passed an Ordinance which on 1st August, 1932, increased the existing size of the territory of Durban, some 13 square miles, by an additional 55 square miles. That acquisition of territory brought with it certain other problems, and the main problem that it brought was that whereas in the past the Indian population of Durban was only 18,500 before 1st August, 1932, now the population was 94,000. But the point is this: although we extended the boundaries, the fact remains we placed an additional responsibility on the City of Durban.

That was their own fault.

Well, the hon. member says it was their own fault. Let me say that the Chairman of the Commission, the present Minister of Finance, said in his report that these people were very backward and were living in deplorable conditions.

They still are.

It was on the grounds of public health that these added areas were incorporated in Durban. Therefore, any contention that it is the fault of the Durban City Council is absurd. Nevertheless, since 1932, after a period of ten years, the City Council of Durban has endeavoured to tackle this housing problem, and in fact the Chairman of the Commission indicated in their recommendation that if the Municipality of Durban in the first ten years were to spend £500,000 on capital works in the new areas, it was considered that that would be a fair and reasonable expenditure. But the facts are that in these ten years the City Council spent three times that amount. But what I find in rather sharp contrast to the statement of the Minister of the Interior is the statement made by his predecessor when he introduced the Pegging Act and said—

That commission was appointed. It became history that the Indian members of the committee saw fit to resign, and surely it is an accepted cardinal principle that no man should be prejudged before he has been tried. To say that the City Council has failed in its obligations when this commission was not in a position to hear the City Council, is wrong. The Council, by the action of the representatives, was denied the right of defending itself against the calumnies that Were heaped upon it.

Why were they not heard?

I do not know the reason.

Do you say there was no housing problem before 1932?

There was, but that problem was in regard to all sections of the community, not only to Indians. As a matter of fact I want to deal with some of these points.

Let us take this housing problem. I may say first that the problems confronting the Durban City Council are four in number. They comprise the question of segregation, availability of material, artisans and finance. Let us deal with segregation. I just want to add this point that whatever scheme the Municipality has tried to put up has been boycotted by the Natal Indian Congress as representing segregation. In 1937 the Municipality spent £20,000 on sub-economic houses, and then had considerable difficulty in finding tenants. Later they spent £27,000 on another scheme, and later again £25,000, and on all these occasions they had difficulty in finding tenants because the Congress boycotted all these schemes with the nett result that sometimes it took twelve months to find tenants to occupy the houses, and it is in that respect that the Natal Indian Judicial Commission pointed out that there is, of course, one circumstance which differentiates the Indian problem from that of any other racial group, namely, the well-known Indian attitude towards segregation; and they continued to say that housing schemes for Indians had been frustrated because Indians have suspected an ulterior motive, even where those suspicions were proved to be without foundation. I think these facts alone show quite clearly that far from the City Council not discharging its duties and responsibilities, it has had to contend with very serious problems. But what is more important is this, and I want to remind the House that as long as the provincial barriers are closed and the Indian problem is regarded as a Natal problem, it cannot be solved by Natal alone. The House must recognise the fact that it is a national responsibility, and all the implications of such responsibility must be borne by the Government.

Are you in favour of provincial barriers being removed?

Yes. In other words, if we examine on the one hand the fact that it is a national responsibility and that there is a crying need for houses, and if on the other hand we realise that in Durban 82 per cent. of the ratepayers are Europeans, we must realise that it is an impossibility for the ratepayers there to bear the financial burdens which will be incurred by putting up housing schemes to meet the needs of the sub-economic group. In fact, the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) made it perfectly clear that if the Municipality of Durban had to provide adequate housing on a sub-economic basis, the cost to the ratepayers would be £300,000 per annum, and it is my submission that they cannot bear that burden. Let us go a little further in regard to uplift measures. Take education. Since 1910 until last year the education vote increased up to £320,000. I think this year the education vote for Indians in Natal will be nearer £370,000, and I have reason to believe that if we have to meet the requirements of all the Indians in Natal, the Provincial Administration would need not £370,000 but £740,000.

Does not the Government subsidise it?

That includes it. I do not know how much the Government subsidy is. It is important that if we are to provide for all the educational needs we will need an amount twice as much. Take the hospital position. We are having considerable difficulty financially in building our present hospitals. If we were to meet the needs of all the Indian population, we would require at least another £200,000. So if the local authorities and Provincial Administration of Natal were to meet the cost of uplift in regard to housing, hospitals and education, I think it is plain that if this problem is to be tackled at all, Natal alone cannot carry the financial burden. I want to say that one must realise that the vast majority of the Indian population, who are not concerned with the Bill, are the sub-economic people, and it is on that point that quite frankly I want to criticise the Indian leaders in this country and in India. In my opinion they are more concerned with the political and property rights of a small number of wealthy and privileged Indians, and I believe that if they were to direct their energies towards the needs of the people as a whole; and do not run off to the Government of India in their own selfish interests, they would be making a far better contribution towards the solution of the problem. May I just say also that in regard to these facts I have put before the House, I believe that it will be impossible for Natal by herself and without any further financial assistance, to carry this burden of economic adjustment and social services which is the concomitant of the provisions of the Bill, bearing in mind that the problem must be tackled on a national basis, more particularly when the provincial barriers are closed; and as the other provinces are refusing to open their barriers I believe that this country and the Minister of Finance particularly, must face up to the financial needs of Natal to meet these conditions, in order to carry out the provisions of the uplift clauses.

May I just finally say that as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, in sponsoring this Bill, I believe the people of Natal can safely leave this matter in his hands, for I believe that never before in the history of South Africa has the Prime Minister stood so high in the esteem of the people of Natal. I can give him the assurance that in sponsoring this measure the Prime Minister has the unstinted support of the great majority, if not all, of the people in the country.

I am very pleased to hear that at last a certain section in this House are prepared to agree with the statements we have been making from these benches for years. I am also pleased to hear that we are likely to get some support from a direction which did not give us support in the past. The hon. member who was in some doubt, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) has stressed abundantly that this problem of the Indians in Natal is a financial problem. I told the House that ten years ago, and said that it was essentially a greater problem financially than in any other respect, and that it was impossible for Natal and for Durban in particular to bear the financial obligations imposed upon the city in connection with the problem, and I am very pleased that at last we are getting some support. The House is beginning to realise that this is a national problem. My time is very limited, and I am anxious to put forward a point of view I have so often stressed before in this House. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill. I would like to say to the Indian community that they have forced the Prime Minister to introduce a Bill of this nature. The Prime Minister and the people of Natal have endeavoured for many years to persuade a section of the Indian community to behave and to discontinue with this policy of penetrating into European areas in an attempt to bring about a solution voluntarily, but the Indians have taken absolutely no notice, with the result that we have this Bill, which the Prime Minister has been forced to introduce, although I am sure it is the last thing he really wanted to do. I say again, that there ought to be no necessity for such legislation. For years we tried to make the Indians understand the damage they were doing to their own case in Natal, and to explain to them that they would bring the problem to a crisis, until today amongst the European community, they have driven away all their friends. But the tragedy of it is that a small section of the Indian community is responsible for this state of affairs. No government in South Africa could have afforded to shelve this problem any longer. It is fifty years overdue already, and if no action is taken now it will be a thousand times more difficult to deal with the problem in another few years. The problem has been there for ninety-two years, but it takes the majority of members of the Labour Party and of the United Party almost a century to realise that there is danger in the country. It seems as if they are not capable of understanding any problem unless they have considered it for ninety-two years. I am glad that at least they have realised that it is a problem, and that it must be solved. That is what we have tried to do for fifty years in Durban. We wanted settlement on a voluntary basis, and pleaded with the Indians again and again to co-operate. Now we are accused of passing this Bill as a ghetto measure. The Indians are telling us that we are turning South Africa upside down. This could all have been avoided. They have even lost the friendship of the Minister of Finance. Who is to blame? Are the Europeans in Natal to blame?

Did you listen to the speech of the Minister of Finance?

Yes, very carefully. We now have this Bill, and I do not think there are many members of this House who will oppose the Bill as a whole, in principle. There are clauses in it which are not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It is something which I hope the Indians will cooperate to make workable, in a realisation that at last the European population in South Africa, and especially in Natal, are anxious to get rid of this racial problem, and to work together as citizens of the Union. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) clearly illustrated to the House the attempts made by the City Council and the Government in all goodwill towards the Indians, to bring about co-operation. There was the Lawrence Committee. It proved a failure, and this went on until it was necessary to introduce the present Bill, and I sincerely hope that the House will pass this Bill, when amendments have been moved and accepted.

Your party do not want it passed. You want to have it put off.

We do not want to destroy the Bill. We do not want it sent to a Select Committee or some other committee to appease the Indians once more, because the Indians cannot tell us anything more at a Select Committee. There is nothing the Indians can advance which will be acceptable to the House to improve the Bill. My time is very short, but I do want to say this, that I am glad to hear that the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) is prepared to support what we have advocated. Many members criticised Natal and call this a Natal problem. Why are they not sincere and honest, and say that they are prepared to help Natal by opening the boundaries of the Transvaal so that they can take over half the problem? [Laughter.] They all laugh at that. It is the same as when years ago I suggested voluntary repatriation We got some support, but members like the native representatives and others will persist in telling the Indians that what we are doing is forcibly sending them back to India.

Oh, no.

I put up a scheme of voluntary repatriation, a more generous sort of scheme than that which has been in existence in recent years, but instead of assisting to persuade the Indians to leave South Africa, they say that it is an insult to the Indians. I say we must make it worth while for them to go, and never mind the cost. Now, hon. members are coming round to that idea. There are evidently a number of them who approve of it, and see nothing in it to which objection could be taken either by the Indians or by anyone else. I would make it so attractive that they would come and ask us to be allowed to go to some other part. What does the cost matter if you have a contented people settled in some other part? [Laughter.] We have spent hundreds of millions on the war, and we can spend a large amount of money if we can get an agreement on those lines. Hon. members laugh, but they know as well as I do what the position is, only they will not face up to it. They want to pass on to posterity what they are afraid to face up to themselves.

[Inaudible.]

I suggest in the first place we might get rid of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), who left England for England’s good. That would be conferring a service on the Europeans of this country. The hon. member for Hospital and others encouraged Indians to penetrate into the European areas, and when the damage is done they will leave them in the lurch. The Prime Minister mentioned the other day in moving the second reading of the Bill—

Is the hon. member reading the Prime Minister’s speech?

Yes, I am reading a portion of the Prime Minister’s speech. I would like to suggest if I may, in conclusion, to the Prime Minister that we have to go a long way to settle this Indian problem. It is going to be a very costly settlement. I would appeal to the Prime Minister immediately to appoint a Minister of Indian Affairs to deal with Indian affairs only and nothing more. They are a growing population of quarter of a million. It is recognised that this is the greatest problem that faces South Africa, and you require a special Minister to deal with it. The Minister of the Interior is dealing with it now, but he has hundreds of other jobs. I appeal to the Prime Minister to make this appointment as a gesture to the Indian community under this Bill. Such a Minister will deal solely and entirely with Indian affairs. I believe he would have his work cut out to cope with a position of that kind. They are a community who require a lot of attention, and I feel sure it would be appreciated. I hope the Prime Minister will give that some consideration, so that we can say to the Indian community: Here you have someone to look after your interests, and your interests only. We could then dispense with the Board set up under this Bill, and this new Minister would see about the further areas to be allotted to the Indian community. I am sure this would be appreciated by the Indians themselves, by the Indian Government and by the British Government, and would, moreover, be a further demonstration of the goodwill of the European population towards the Indian community. I hope the Indian community will accept this Bill and try to make it work, and be prepared to join with the Government in bringing about a solution of the problem that will result in the Indian and European communities being brought together once again, and the racial strife that exists being removed once and for all.

Practically all the members on the other side, at any rate a great majority of them, have spoken against the Bill. They all find fault with it, but their argument is that they cannot vote for the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition because the amendment asks for a postponement, and in the interim the mischief may be spread. I should like to direct attention to the fact that this is a distorted representation of the amendment. May I just read out the latter portion of it—

It is a distortion when members opposite maintain that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition only asks for a postponement and that the matter may degenerate further. They seek to find justification in that for their action in voting for the Bill. But this is a perversion of the facts and they cannot rid themselves of their responsibility, because this amendment explicitly requests that the Pegging Act should be further extended, and that according to circumstances the defects in the Act should be remedied. Consequently they cannot justify their position by misrepresenting the motion as they have so frequently tried to do. I am not going to confine myself to how the Indians came here and in what circumstances the problem arose. We have to deal with this problem, and we must look it squarely in the face. We do this with a full realisation of the difficulties connected with that. We realise that when we wish to have legislation affecting the Indians in South Africa we have to deal with India, a country with a large population, one of the great countries which is perhaps nearest to South Africa. We know that we can establish a considerable trade with that country, especially in connection with bags and similar articles. But because we know how important India is, and that it is a great country with which we shall have to deal in future, that is all the more reason we wish to postpone the introduction of this Bill. We desire to solve the problem in such a way that it will give satisfaction not only in this country but also in that country with which we have to reckon in the future. I feel convinced that the procedure which we have hitherto followed gives us no reason to believe that we shall secure satisfaction in that country, which is a great country and which is not far distant from us. The Prime Minister tackled this as purely a party matter, with the result that all free individuals in this House are opposed to the Bill. When I speak of free persons I mean people who do not stand under the party discipline of the Prime Minister. Take the attitude of the Opposition, of the Dominion Party, of the Labour Party, and even of the native representatives—people who do not fall under his party discipline—they are opposed to this Bill, and then I do not even mention the Prime Minister’s own party. We have dissension there right from the Minister of Finance to the backbenchers. This is a Bill which has awakened dissatisfaction not only in this House and in our country, but also overseas, which is testified to by the various telegrams we have received from the Indian Congress.

At 3.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 1st April.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members’ business.

I am sure this House regrets the absence of the Minister of Agriculture owing to ill health, and wishes him a speedy recovery. When this debate was adjourned I was endeavouring to show our pre-war setup in regard to food policy, and I indicated that this set-up was really a producers’ setup and not for the purpose of carrying out a long-term nutritional scheme. It was to put the producers of the country in a better position, and the problem at that time was not the problem we are trying to face today. Their concern was over-production, as it was called, a surplus, and from that developed what is known as scarcity policy, which was described by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), in which the consumers of the country were, through premiums made to subsidise exports and low prices, or in some way a comparatively scarce market was maintained, to the extent that rebates were given for cattle consumption but not for human consumption, and no real reserves of stock were contemplated. It was more a policy of from year to year depending upon production. Then, as indicated by the Opposition, that developed. In one case you had a total refusal of production, as in the case of margarine. You had the exports under subsidy I have referred to, and you had the heavy duties on the importation of food. In practice it did not work against the consumers as a whole, particularly the European consumers, because at all times there appeared to be an excess of supply over the demand. But there is no doubt even in those years there was a very low standard of purchasing power, particularly among the non-European population, and therefore it was not really excessive supply, but underconsumption. Then came the war, and immediate steps were taken to create further boards, again not with the idea of protecting the interests of the consuming public but because certain producers’ markets were closed for export. Other boards were appointed to help the financial position overall. Even then no food policy was contemplated on the lines indicated by the motion. We know in the case of the Maize Board in the first two years of war they were faced as they thought with a surplus, and they exported over 13,000,000 bags of maize in the first two years of war under a heavy consumers’ subsidy. In the case of the Citrus and Deciduous Boards, they developed a policy which became a destructive policy, to get rid of their surplus. The Wheat Board was able to carry on with the available supplies, and the only charge one can lay there is that it did not build up reserves. But there again that was not the problem that was given to those boards to solve. The real problem we are facing today is only of a few years’ duration. It was brought about by unprecedented droughts and crop failures on such a scale that this country was faced with an all-in shortage of supply, and at that time, and previously even, we had established a Cabinet food committee, presumably to try and connect up with the consumer interests in this country, to see they were protected. The boards themselves have an entirely different problem. Whereas before they were faced with trying to hold up internal prices they were now faced with a different set of conditions, with holding down producer prices, and we have the case of the Maize Board holding down the producer price as against what it would have been on the basis of demand and supply. One cannot generalise, but they did hold down their prices, but the boards themselves were not composed to try to elucidate the problems that arose from then onwards. They were producer boards on a producer basis, but they were not in a position to solve the producers’ problems and to solve them properly. When this Parliament met I think South Africa was facing a food crisis of unparalleled severity. The drought was exceptional. We were threatened with an absolutely total loss of the maize crop, and generally the position was very bad indeed. It was bad because there had been no reserves on which the country could draw. It is no exaggeration to say that if conditions had remained the same, and if certain actions had not been taken by the Government, we would have had thousands of deaths from starvation. The weather changed and there was definitely activity from the Government side on the food problem. I think in this respect the greatest credit is due to the Cabinet Food Committee, because they were able to purchase tremendous quantities of imports which I think would not otherwise have been available to the country, and the Prime Minister himself, due to his personal influence, was able to obtain tremendous quantities of wheat which will help to alleviate the very difficult position in this country. Then again from the Treasury point of view we had a different set-up. Here imports into the country are being subsidised heavily as against the idea that the consumer in this country subsidises exports. I feel that the country as a whole must take warning from what happened in previous years. I feel that we should take heed of the position in which this country is placed through circumstances, as a result of the inability to consider the machinery which existed from the national point of view. The consumer problem was not just an annoying problem from the agricultural point of view, but it was a national problem, and that is where I support the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in her demand for a Ministry of Food. There must be a different approach to the problem, and although the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) argued that the establishment of a Ministry of Food would mean less co-ordination, I do not think you can get less co-ordination than we have at the present moment in the approach to this problem. Let me give the House an example. You have the Department of Social Welfare and its food relief scheme working through their department, and you have the provincial authorities taking care of the European and coloured school children feeding scheme, and I think the Native Affairs Department taking care of the native school feeding scheme. Surely that is not a co-ordinated food scheme. I feel that with a Ministry of Food very much more co-ordination can be obtained, and the consumers’ interests would be regarded as a matter of national concern. Generally speaking, the world food position is acute, but it is a problem not of this year, but it will be a problem for years to come. In England they have not disbanded the Ministry of Food. It was established as a war-time Ministry, but the war is now over and they have not disbanded it. In other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, they have continued with it.

They have not got a food Ministry in Australia.

In New Zealand they have. I feel that in this country where we are faced with such a great agricultural problem, where our production is going down every year, and where we have such a serious problem of soil erosion, there must be more than sufficient work for a Minister of Agriculture to attend to on those lines, instead of having to worry at all times of the day about problems such as the distribution of food. I know that the Minister himself when he was first appointed as Minister of Agriculture, stated that 95 per cent. of his time was taken up with these problems, and that he could only devote the remaining 5 per cent. of his time to the problem of production. I feel that up to now the Government has dealt with the problem by means of half measures and palliatives. In the circumstances it has done remarkably well in my opinion, and I have no complaint as far as the results which have been achieved in the last three months are concerned, with regard to obtaining supplies for the country. I think in that respect every effort was made to meet the immediate crisis which faced us, but there is very much more to do and very much more to be done in the future. I feel that a Ministry of Food would provide a full-time job for one Minister, and such a Minister of Food could devote all his energies to the problem of malnutrition in this country. If ever a problem has needed the full-time efforts of a Minister, the feeding of the people of South Africa in the future will need the full-time efforts and the conscientious efforts of one Minister.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) has referred sympathetically to the absence under medical advice of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he expressed the feelings of all members of the House. In the absence of my colleague, I am rising to intervene quite briefly in this debate. I do so in order to state in general terms the Government’s point of view on the motion moved by the hon. member for Cane Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) without going into details, as only the Minister of Agriculture would be able to do. I hope it will not be taken amiss of me if I do not refer to the, amendment moved by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw)….

Why not?

…. except in so far as it overlaps the motion. The amendment raises quite a number of detailed questions with which I am hardly in a position to deal, and which I think can be raised more appropriately when the Minister of Agriculture is here, if need be when his votes are discussed in Committee of Supply. The taxation question that is raised in the amendment has been dealt with by me on another occasion. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to the request for a Ministry of Food, the immediate establishment of a Ministry of Food, by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. The hon. member, as always, put forward her plea very ably and very forcibly. Unfortunately, I was not here to listen to her speech. I have had to read it, but to a considerable extent I remain unconvinced by that speech. As I read this speech of the hon. member for Cape Eastern, I had to ask myself what exactly is this Ministry of Food going to do which is not being done already, or which could not be done under the existing set-up, and that, it seems to me, is the test which should be applied to this motion. The hon. member indicated three immediate duties of a Ministry of Food, the first being to make a comprehensive survey, of the food needs of all "people. Well, of course, that is being done by the Nutritional Council.

Oh, no.

It may be said that it is not done sufficiently comprehensively. It may not be done in the way in which the hon. member desires, but there is no reason why it should not be done by the Nutritional Council in the way in which she desires. There is no need to set up a Ministry of Food for that purpose.

Then we come to the second point, namely, that the Ministry of Food has to elaborate plans to make available the supplies of food necessary to satisfy those needs. That, of course, is really the most important point, and I will rather deal with that after I have referred to the third point.

The third point raised is the question of subsidisation. There again, as the hon. member admitted in her speech, something is being done. She, of course, contended that we are not doing enough along the lines of subsidisation. During the new financial year we are, in fact, going to do a very great deal as far as the amount of expenditure is concerned. We are going to spend a great deal more than the Planning Council contemplated. But, of course, that is an abnormal position, and the point which the hon. member would make naturally is that normally we do not do enough. I would, however, urge that this question of the extent to which we pursue a policy of subsidisation is, after all, a question of general Government policy, and I cannot see why the establishment of a Ministry of Food will have as an effect an increase in the amount of subsidisation. May I just make three subsidiary remarks in that connection? The first is this: When we talk of food subsidisation, we should not think merely in terms of the subsidies which there are today in respect of such articles as bread or butter. We should not forget the indirect methods of subsidisation for the benefit of the consumer. We should not forget, for instance, the school feeding scheme, now already an institution of considerable magnitude as far as both European and native schoolchildren are concerned.

What is the cost?

My colleague asks how much it costs. I am afraid I cannot answer that offhand. The scheme, as far as native schoolchildren are concerned, is costing about £750,000 this year. I cannot give the figure in respect of European children, because the cost is borne in the first instance by the provinces, subject to a subsidy of 50 per cent. by the Treasury, but I should imagine that it would also be in the neighbourhood of £1 million. We should also not forget the system of food depots, developed partly under the Department of Social Welfare, and partly under the Food Controller, although now wholly under the Food Controller for administrative purposes. We should also not overlook the action being taken on an experimental basis in regard to communal restaurants. These are all methods of indirect food subsidisation which, if added to these other matters to which the hon. member referred, do represent a substantial contribution to that particular province. But there is another point which I think we should not forget when we talk about food subsidisation and that is this. I think I am correct in saying that the majority of the people in this country live on food grown by themselves. The Government cannot supply subsidised food to them. They must produce their food and food subsidisation is therefore only a help in respect of the minority of the consumers of this country. I want to make another subsidiary point which is perhaps of some special importance for the Minister of Finance and that is this. One must not overlook the possibility of food subsidisation especially in a country like South Africa coming to be employed primarily in the interests of the producers and only secondarily in the interests of the consumers. There is just a danger that when you adopt fully and wholeheartedly a policy of food subsidisation you are leaving the Treasury defenceless against some of our pressure groups.

But now let me come to the second immediate task which the hon. member wished to assign to the Ministry of Food. This is the most important of its tasks. It is, in effect, an increase of the available supplies. Of course, that matter is of particular importance during a period of drought-created shortages like the present. I hope, however, that in our approach to this motion we are not going to be influenced unduly by passing circumstances. The hon. member herself, I think, emphasised the necessity of looking at this matter from the long-range point of view. Quite apart from the question of the drought—we leave that aside—I think we must admit with the hon. member for Cape Eastern, that there is a substantial gap between the real food needs of the people and the available supplies. But again I ask myself: How would we have been better off in respect of those available supplies if we had had a Ministry of Food? We might have had more supplies as the result of one of two things, one being importation and the other increased production. Would we have imported more food if we had had a Ministry of Food than we are in fact doing?

We might have imported less.

My hon. friend says that we might have imported less. Some people seem to think that the control boards in some way block the importation of food, but certainly in the altered circumstances to which the hon. member for Orange Grove has been referring, the questions of import and export are very definitely matters of policy for the Government as a whole, and I am quite sure that the decisions which have been come to in that regard would not have been any different from what they were in fact, if there had been a Ministry of Food, But then there is another aspect. There is the possibility of food supplies having been greater by way of increased local production if we had had a Ministry of Food. That immediately raises the question of whether it is to be a function of the Ministry of Food to stimulate the production of food. If it is so, and if, as the hon. member for Cape Eastern contemplates, the Ministry of Food is to be entirely separate from the Ministry of Agriculture, then overlapping of functions would inevitably arise. The hon. member for Cape Eastern has stressed the importance of co-ordination. She wants the Ministry of Food as a co-ordinating factor, but I am afraid its establishment would create a new problem of co-ordination. Today, the Minister of Agriculture does the co-ordination between production and consumption, but under her scheme we would then have a new organ to co-ordinate the functions of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food. That just shows how difficult it is really to separate production and consumption. Of course I would immediately admit that the Union’s food production industry does admit of further expansion, that it should be expanded from both the nutritional and the economic points of view. But do not let us forget that unless the stimulation of food production is to be at the cost of our soil stability then it must go hand in hand with conservation farming methods. That is one of the points on which the agricultural White Paper issued by the Government lays emphasis and rightly lays emphasis. Taking the long-range point of view, we must be careful of the possibility of our stimulating food production at the cost of our soil security for the future. The last state might very well be worse than the first, and that being so, surely the development of our food producing potential is not just a matter for a Ministry of Food. It is also a matter and primarily a matter for a Ministry of Agriculture.

There is another aspect of the matter also to which I want to refer just in passing, and that is this: Undoubtedly there is great scope for education and propaganda in this matter of stimulation of production and I think the hon. member for Cape Eastern will admit that that is not the least true as far as the non-European elements of our population are concerned in the rural areas and also in the urban areas. There is room for greater food production in a small way by large numbers of people. There is room for education and propaganda in regard to this particular question. This is a matter again in which the Nutritional Council is taking a hand. I believe it is spending £14,000 on such propaganda this year, but both in regard to that matter and in regard to the more general question of the stimulation of food production to which I have referred, we must face the facts that the full results can only be achieved in process of time. We cannot expect miracles in the way of stepping up food production. But while that is so, one must also point out that in the matter of the increase of food production, we have not in these last few years really done so badly, after all, in bridging that gap between food needs and the available food supplies today. Let us pay our tribute to the farmers for having made that possible. Let us compare the position from the point of view of the consumers in this country in 1945 with the position in 1939. I take 1945 because the present year is a drought year, and I think it would be unfair to take it for purposes of comparison. During that six-year period the consumption of fruit has been trebled. The consumption of sugar, butter, cheese, eggs, fish has been doubled in South Africa. There have been substantial increases also in the consumption of maize, wheat, milk, meat and dried fruit. Do not let us create the impression that we have not in fact been making progress in the stimulation of production, or that the farmers have failed in the demands that have been made upon them.

Are those production figures or consumption figures?

These are consumption figures. In part, the increase is due to the fact that there has been less exportation, but in considerable part it is due to increased production. I find it difficult to see, having regard to our immediate problems, what a Ministry of Food would do that is not being done today. A Ministry of Food would certainly not have avoided the present shortages or the shortages that we are facing; these shortages are due to an adverse season and also to world difficulties. The hon. member for Orange Grove has referred appreciatively to the way in which the Government has dealt with these difficulties, and I think he agrees with me— in fact, he said so—that it would not have been otherwise if we had had a Ministry of Food. I would say also that a Ministry of Food would not find it any easier than the Government has hitherto found it to overcome difficulties in devising a rationing system appropriate to South Africa, the difficulties of manpower and the difficulties which arise from the heterogeneity of our population. I also doubt very much, if we had a Ministry of Food, whether it would have found it possible to do without the services of the Control Boards. In the matter of distribution, I believe it would have utilised the Control Boards just as the Controller of Food under the Minister of Agriculture had utilised them, and so I would say that from this point of view from the immediate point of view, I see no real advantage in a Ministry of Food, other than a psychological advantage. I do not deny the importance of that psychological advantage. I believe, from that point of view, that the establishment of a Ministry of Food might have made it easier to break down prejudices against the Control Boards, in so far as these prejudices have been based on a misunderstanding of their rationing functions. It might also have broken down the feeling that consumers’ interests are being subordinated to producers’ interests, and I think I am right in saying that that is really the most important consideration in the mind of the hon. member for Cape Eastern. That is why she is so emphatic that food control and agriculture should be separate, not merely technically as at present, but absolutely. She said that the interests of the consumers should transcend all sectional interests. She also said that she is afraid of the conflict between agriculture and the rest of the community, but I doubt very much if such a separation as she proposes would really avert that danger of conflict between agriculture and the rest of the community. I am very much afraid that it might accentuate that conflict. But the general policy of the. Government in this connection has been to bring the producer and the consumer together. The hon. member for Orange Grove has said that the tendency was to go too far into the producers’ direction; that can be corrected, of course, without havirg a Ministry of Food. No doubt we shall hear more about that when we are considering the amendments to the Marketing Act. But that has been our general policy, and we have travelled some distance along that road. I think we should be careful about any reversal of that process. I wonder whether we really at this stage expect our primary producers to be prepared to relinquish all say in the products which they produce after they leave their farms. Would that not inevitably lead to that dissension which the hon. member for Cape Eastern fears? Would it not accentuate the danger?

If they can have guaranteed prices, why should it?

Oh, I see; does the hon. member wish to guarantee them fixed prices? On what basis? However, I am afraid I cannot pursue that rather new vista which opens up. The hon. member has referred to the Planning Council in regard to this matter. I want also to do so. The Planning Council at one stage suggested that we should have a department’ of distribution or a department of home and overseas trade. At one time it also spoke in terms of a department of food. Hon. members will have noted that in the Government’s White Paper dealing with agricultural policy there is included an annexure giving a combined report on the reconstruction of agriculture and the future of farming as between the representatives of the Agricultural Department and the Social and Economic Planning Council. I feel it is worth while referring to what is said there on this particular point—

The main point there is that the Planning Council which originally was thinking on the lines of the hon. member for Cape Eastern, does now appreciate the fact that there are other aspects to this matter. The Government, I contend, must take account of these other aspects of the matter. In so far as the short-term aspect of this matter is concerned, my reply would therefore be that I cannot see how the coming into being of a Ministry of Food would have made the position any different from what it is or would in the immediate future make the position any different from what it would be, and in so far as the long-range aspects of the matter are concerned, which the hon. member for Cape Eastern mainly emphasised and stressed, I would contend, more especially in the light of what I have just read here, that this is certainly a matter which requires a good deal more consideration than has so far been given to it. For these reasons then I find myself unable to agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern, that we should take immediate steps for the establishment of a Ministry of Food.

I am afraid that changing the horse’s name in this case won’t help much. It is the policy that the Government carries out that is at fault. This horse, after all, won’t pull the cart. The best thing will be to outspan this horse and to put a horse in its place that will pull the cart, and that is why the Nationalist Party should take over the Government and feed the people properly. I want to come back to the remarks the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) passed when he said that control boards were set up by producers. Of course that is so. Why should the farmer not look after his own interests and set up a board to protect his interests? In the past he had nothing to protect him. The control boards, though perhaps they did not come up to expectations in some instances, have been a boon to the farmer. There is no doubt about it that the Agricultural Union and the organised farmers of South Africa are not going to say good-bye to control boards. So if my friend who represents commercial interests thinks he will get rid of them he is wrong. His whole idea is that the farmer must produce cheap food so that the middle man can make profits.

He didn’t say that.

The member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is also out to hold down the price to the farmer, so as to give cheap food to the native. But the native farmer also produces food, and she is also keeping down his prices. That is, I believe, why she walked out of the Mealie Control Board, because prices are too high. During the war the farmer sacrificed a lot. My hon. friend over there said that this is a producers’ set-up. It is that, but during the war the farmer gave up a lot, because if he had an open market and no control board, he would have made a lot of money, profiteering at the expense of others. The Government realised that, and the farmers accepted the principle of control boards subject to guarantees, namely, that the boards should continue after the war to protect the interests of farmers and so stop soil erosion. The Prime Minister spoke about erosion. I can assure you that big areas in this country have been eroded. If the farmer had a stabilised price over a period of years, erosion would not be so bad. But now he is guaranteed no price for his product. The Agricultural Unions are now trying to give him that security of a fixed price.

You have had a control board for nearly ten years.

My friend knows what his own attitude is. I say that the farmers produced at the cheapest possible prices during the war, and during that period there was practically no profit in farming, if you compare their prices with that of other articles. If you take the index figures of agricultural products, you will find that in practically every other instance the index figures will be much lower than the rise in the figures for other commodities. Take wool. The index figure was 100 and it is 120 now, but the manufactured article lose much more. A suit of clothes costing £5 now costs £18. The wool farmer agreed to a lower price provided that it went over a period of years. The farmer has come to the point now where he must look after his interests no matter what other people say. We have never been out to exploit others. If we have a cost plus figure for our products, where we can put something back into the farms and put something away instead of taking everything possible out of the farms, we will be satisfied, and we have the right to that. We have said quite clearly that if the Government has a scheme to stop erosion on a large scale, it will cost much money, but if we get fixed prices, it will stop erosion. If the Government stores water we can double our population. I agree that that must be done. The trouble in the past was that we had no system of distribution and perhaps where the control boards failed is that we tackled distribution before we should have. We should first have provided machinery for distribution, but we did not. Take meat. We started controlling meat without such machinery, and everyone was dissatisfied. The principle is good, but the method is wrong. If in the beginning the Government had provided cold storage to store meat When stock was fat and plentiful in order to carry it Over a period of months, this scheme would have been a great success, but we had it thrown at us without a proper scheme being thought out. I suggest the Government can still make a great success of that scheme if they will supply these facilities. You cannot control unless you store. That is accepted by all other agricultural countries like Australia and New Zealand and the Argentine, and in these countries you have control on a 100 per cent. basis. You cannot control in a slipshod way, in one area and not in another, and that is where our control failed. You must control and store 100 per cent. Therefore although I have often criticised control boards, I still say that they are the salvation of the farmer, and the farmer realises that, and he realises that his best client is the consumer. He is not out to exploit that client, but you always have propaganda made that the farmer exploits the consumer, and the latter believes it. We say that if we are foolish enough to make the consumer pay more than he can afford, we are cutting our own throats. We are out to create a system by which we can profit, but we do not want to profiteer whilst others have to die. Our sole salvation is to allow everyone to live and that is what the farmer wants. We want to give the middleman a certain profit which he needs, but he should not profiteer both at the expense of the farmer and of the consumer. We realise the middleman must be there. In Australia where they control wheat 100 per cent. they have storage for the wheat. The farmer is, supplied with storage in elevators, and when they want to export they can carry out the different contracts at any time. But what do we do with the miller? In Australia they allow him a certain profit for the work he does. They give him 3s. 3d. a bag for milling and handling, but here it works out at 8s. Who is the profiteer, the middleman or the farmer?

Or the co-operative society which owns the mill.

That is something we can discuss, but it does not alter the principle we are dealing with. You find people speaking about the high price of wheat. If you take 200 lb. of wheat at 36s. you will find a very large gap between what the farmer gets and the consumer pays. If you take it that 200 lb. of meal bakes 112 loaves of bread, which are sold at 6½d. each, you can see the difference between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays. This margin is too big. In the Western Province you find farmers who owing to climatic conditions have one good season followed by two bad ones. It is essential that they should have a fair average price for the wheat, so that their lands do not get eroded. At Wellington you will find that ground is absolutely washed away and impoverished. That is because production costs are so high that nothing can be put back into the ground. The farmer cannot do contour ploughing and is merely forced to continue his present methods.

Your commission does not support that.

I am not talking about commissions, but about common sense, things everyone knows, and if you had common sense you would realise it. I am here to state the views of the producer and to protect him, and to show that he must be protected if you want to live. All your health schemes are just pretty words if you do not pay the farmer a decent price on which to live, and then South Africa will be turned into a desert like Egypt. Prosperity makes a country. This country is prosperous now and we must try to keep it prosperous. If you take the history of Palestine you will see that 600 B.C. the Jews did a tremendous amount of soil conservation work. After the Arabs came there, it became poor, and the works were washed away and Palestine became almost a desert. I want to give credit to the Jews today for their conservation works in Palestine. They know that the whole happiness of the world lies in food. We see what trouble the world is in today because there is no food. Why not help the farmer to produce? In Great Britain the Government have inaugurated that policy and have laid down minimum prices over a number of years. We ask for no more. We do not want to profiteer. We only want stability for some years. We want to know that we shall not have to sell below cost. Farm bonds amount to £100 million. Is that due to laziness or to circumstances? Once a man has high bonds he overtaxes his soil and erosion follows. Those are matters we have to face if we want to keep the farmer on the ground and have a healthy people. Food is essential. In America they subsidise erosion schemes to the extent of £75 million per annum. We feel it is essential to do something here, and unless you do so the country will go dry and the farmer disappear. The water table has already gone down. The soil in the earth is just like your hand. If you cut your arteries it dies. I repeat that these people who always talk about cheaper prices for food and abolishing control are doing harm to the country. They will ruin the farmer and ruin themselves. The whole world realises today that they depend on agriculture.

We speak about the export of maize. I agree that in the past we made serious mistakes. We exported maize to Holland and Denmark at 6s. a bag, and they produce dairy products for sale to Britain on the sweat of the people in South Africa. That policy is wrong. We should walk our produce to market. America does that and we should do it. We should not export huge quantities of foodstuffs while thousands of people in this country starve. When we exported maize at 6s. many people starved here. The Government should have seen to that. They should control the price and keep the stuff in the country. It is not only people who will be fed. Indirectly if you feed your stock you also feed your people. In this country we are just starting to breed high-class cattle. In the past we had scrub. We can use 12 million bags just for stock. This old policy is something of the past, and we cannot go back to it. Maize is one of the most essential products in the world, as we now realise. When I was in Australia they told me that if they had the maize we exported to Britain, they would not change places with any other country.

Margarine was referred to. I realise that under present circumstances margarine could perhaps be manufactured here, but only under present circumstances. Once the country is normal and has had good rains and there is a proper marketing system and the farmer knows he will get a fixed price, we will produce butter economically enough to feed the whole population, and even to export. We do not want margarine to kill an industry. Many millions have been invested in the dairy industry. Why should such an industry be allowed to go down? I think that when these people speak like that they do not realise that they are bringing down the farmer’s product. Margarine is there to force down the price of the farmer’s product and in normal times we will not really need margarine. There is nothing in the world better as a balanced ration than milk. If the hon. member for Cape Eastern knows anything about natives, she should know that they drink much milk and that it is a balanced ration. But she always wants to interfere in our domestic affairs, and to tell us how to do things. She should go back to her native territories. We all realise that the native is an asset to the country, but we ask her to go back to the native areas and to preach to her natives to produce and to adopt better methods, and to have agricultural schools. If they are not taught to work and taught the value of producing agricultural produce, they will not be an asset. We will assist her, but do not let her tell the white population in this country, the farmers, what they must get for their produce. Then we will fight her. I hope I have made my case for the farmer. I once more want to say that the farmer is not out to exploit, that he is satisfied with the cost plus price, just as the commercial people ought to be, so that he can put away something to develop the land and preserve it for future generations, but he does not wish to exploit the consumer who is his best friend. I hope there will be a better understanding in future. We as farmers stand by our rights to get a fair price for our produce.

The hon. member who has just sat down made the significant admission that the farmers have no right to deal with distribution.

I did not say that.

He told us that it was a mistake for the producers, for the boards, to rush into distribution without experience.

I said only in the beginning.

That was a point which has been raised many times in this House. As early as 1942 we raised the question of price control and a food control, and in consequence of the agitation in the House the Government saw fit to appoint a price controller. But when the price controller was appointed he told the Government that it was no use having control of the price of luxury articles when primary products were not controlled, and he was right. Subsequently the farmers and the Department of Agriculture under the predecessor of the present Minister, resolutely refused to have price control for primary products, and that was the mistake he made. That refusal caused the breakdown of the whole of our distribution system, because farmers insisted in stepping into the business about which they knew nothing, the business of distribution. It was handled by amateurs and caused chaos. Their meat scheme broke down because there was no control at the consumers’ end. Every control broke down because consumers were not consulted. The hon. member is under the impression that the consumers as such want to keep the farmer down. Nothing of the kind. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) never mentioned the price of food, but only said that there must be sufficient food for the people in the country.

How will you get it?

She left the price alone. But what we do want to see is that the people of this country, particularly the poorer people, earn sufficient so as to buy food so that they can pay decent prices to the producers.

Develop your industries and you can do it.

That is being done. We have no objection to the producing farmer obtaining his price. He mistook the meaning of the hon. member who spoke before me. I would like to see the farmer secured, the same as anyone else, even to the extent of being guaranteed a minimum price, by a long-range policy, so that they will increase production. This difficulty we are in today is not a matter of months. Consumption is going up enormously, and I doubt very much whether we will ever be able to produce sufficient food in this country to feed an increasing population, unless you bring all the producers into our economy. There the hon. member who so ably represents the interests of the natives might perhaps have brought forward a suggestion to turn the natives into producers as well. We have the fact that the Government bought 500,000 morgen of land in Bechuanaland for the native farmers, with the idea of bringing back the native peasant class on to the land, who in the past were big producers. I remember the days when every native territory produced sufficient food for its own requirements and had surpluses. But what has the Government done in connection With the production of the natives in Bechuanaland, where there are 500,000 morgen lying idle? For the last six years many farms in Bechuanaland, improved farms with housing and water, have not been occupied by these natives, though that particular land would lend itself to a great deal of production. When I was in the House 26 years ago representing that part of the world, I remember the farmers’ opposition to the emancipation of the natives, to the idea that they should become producers as well, and the farming community took up the same selfish attitude as the hon. member takes up now in regard to the manufacture of margarine. They said: We do not want the natives to produce. They did not assist them.

Did the Agricultural Union ever take up that attitude?

I think so. The farmers always want to under-produce to keep the prices up.

That is not so.

That is my view. We have been battling for these last twenty years over this shortage of production. The solution of providing more food lies in the co-operation of the whole of the community, and I particularly want to appeal to members opposite to see that their native workers are looked after in this respect. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) says her objections are not to the price farmers obtain for food, but that the ruling price is prohibitive, the earning power of these people is not sufficient, and the farmers who employ native and other labour are the worst offenders so far as wages are concerned.

You do not know what you are speaking about.

So there is room for improvement there. This has little to do with the motion, I admit. Hon. members must remember that I for one objected years and years ago to the food of the people being made the football of politics, and, further, that speculation that was so rife in the people’s food must stop, and it should disappear for ever. I agree that the producer should have the full benefit of his production.

You do agree with that?

Yes, I have said that before in the House, but I say this merely to establish my belief in the Control Boards, and that they have to continue. But some alteration has to be made, because the point I want you to remember is that the Control Boards under the Marketing Act are well established merely as a regulatory factor, and in that capacity they should act and not interfere with the mode of distribution, because that is where they evidently went wrong. I can understand the Boards having a great deal to say in the distribution of primary products, but when it comes to processed foods that control must stop and they must not interfere. What do we find? The dairy farmers will have all the say in regard to processed foods. What is margarine other than processed food? It is a new industry, and it should never come under the control of the Dairy Board. It should come under the control of the Minister of Economic Development, because it is an industry in itself. But let me disabuse the mind of the hon. member about dairy farmers suffering. The Minister of Finance told us today what we are spending on milk. It will take years before cur milk scheme for schools will be able to work on a proper ration basis, because there is not sufficient milk. Many years will elapse before we produce sufficient milk for the condensing factories; for many years there is no fear of margarine replacing butter. No, it is just that selfish fear of a few interested parties

It is a matter of self-preservation; how can it be selfish?

Let me get back to the subject of the debate, the establishment of a Ministry of Food. I have been an advocate of this because I was convinced by experience and after the work I did travelling through the country taking evidence, more particularly in regard to distribution, that that would be a solution. But when I suggested a Ministry of Food, the intention was not to appoint a new Minister. All we wanted was a division of food control under another Minister than the Minister of Agriculture, because we say his primary object is food production, and heaven knows he has enough leeway to make up to stimulate production, and he should not have anything at all to do with the distribution side. There should be a separate division for administering the distributive side, and it should come under the control of the Minister of Health. So I am not convinced by the remarks of the Minister of Finance. I believe that when these experts arrive here, they will endorse the verdict of the members of this House who have handled food distribution in the past. I believe when these men know the complexities of the country and its productive power, they will come to one conclusion, and that is on the lines of the recommendations we have submitted from time to time to our Government, to separate distribution from production. We will benefit greatly by that. There is something very interesting which has been said today. The hon. member opposite is anxious to protect his farmer friends who, he says, have not made any money. They, according to him, have been starving during the war. But a good many have paid E.P.D., and we find that our farmers are better off than they have been. Do not let a member tell us that the farmers are not profiteering; they are profiteering.

You say that the poor farmer is profiteering?

Yes, some of them, those who pay E.P.D., and if you pay E.P.D. you are profiteering.

How many pay E.P.D.?

I hope you are one of them.

I am not one of them.

It does not matter how many there are. Today they have high prices that are far above the world level, and prices are going up everywhere. Other countries can supply us with food cheaper than we can produce it.

You bring maize in at a much higher price than you pay us.

Why the price of sugar is low is because it is the only commodity not controlled by the Agricultural Department, because it is under the control of the Minister of Economic Development and the people are getting sugar at a reasonable price. It is a fortunate thing for the consumers that the price of sugar has not been controlled by the food controller.

I did not say anything about sugar. I was talking about maize.

I want to tell you something about vegetables. Today we import canned beetroot in 2 lb. cans, the cost after paying 2¼d. a lb. duty is 9s. 6d. per dozen tins landed. The same size tins from local producers—and I might say it is an inferior article—costs 12s. 6d.

Tell us something about maize and wheat.

The position in regard to maize and wheat has been so well explained that there is nothing more for me to add. Not only can imported vegetables be sold much more cheaply than we are paying for the local product, but dried fruit, Californian prunes, are landed and sold in the country, after paying a heavy protective duty, at a lower figure than the South African farmer receives. I merely want to tell the hon. member that his argument that the farmer is not getting the prices he should is an absolutely wrong one. I think the position is just this, that we found in the first instance that our price control and our distribution control broke down because the Minister of Agriculture refused to bring primary products under the control of the price control, and because of the mistake the Government made in not having a system of rationing introduced at the consumer’s end. I am not afraid of our position. I think that the recuperative powers of this country are very good; they are great. And before long we will do away with these shortages, but it requires united effort, and if you get that united effort I am sure this food shortage we are experiencing will soon be overcome. But one thing I do want to say, until the control and distribution of that food comes under some other administration than the Department of Agriculture, so long will nothing happen. We have had enough food in this country, but the distribution has gone wrong because waste was allowed to go on and today this waste is continuing. Eliminate waste and institute proper control, which probably would be achieved under a Division of Food, and everyone will be satisfied. Before I sit down I want to refer to a remark that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) made in his address in connection with the export of food under this “Thank you Britain” Fund with which the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) and I have been associated. The hon. member for Beaufort West stated we were going to export £2,000,000 worth of food. Utterly wrong. What we did was to export from this country £100,000 worth of foodstuffs, but those were not foodstuffs in short supply here, they were canned fruit, jams and other things we had available.

We have a shortage of both those things.

No, there never has been.

You are telling me.

There never has been a shortage of plum puddings. You can get as much dried prunes as you can consume. The goods exported by this fund were not in short supply here, and the exports did not affect our position in any way. We knew at the time we had no meat and no butter to send. But we do want to help these people if we can, and help them without denying ourselves anything. I want to remind the hon. member for Beaufort West there was a fund before this fund was started. A fund was started here to send food to Holland, to his kinsmen, and everybody liberally subscribed to that, and these people were helped. But of course anything sent to Britain would not appeal to the hon. member. I had a letter today which is rather impressive. We received hundreds of letters from people in Great Britain who got their Christmas puddings or tinned fruit, and this is an extract from one letter—

What does this mean, this food we sent to Great Britain to which exception has been taken, these few extra things we were able to give people who suffered so severely and for so long? It meant that South African produce is well advertised in Great Britain. You must remember Great Britain has always been your best market, and Great Britain will always be looked upon as our best market for all surplus food in future. Therefore I think hon. members opposite are wrong not only in not helping by subscribing to the fund but in decrying its object.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) today merely displayed his ignorance in regard to farming. He stated that farming is so marvellously profitable. Why then does he not farm himself?

I do farm myself.

Then the hon. member surely has another source of income if he makes such wonderful profits. He surely has a store as well. If he has any knowledge of farming then he will know that a farmer sometimes sows for five years in succession and only reaps one crop. If it happens, as it has happened in the past few years, that a farmer’s crops are a failure and he eventually reaps a crop and receives a reasonable price, then he has to make up for the matter and we are grateful for that, the losses of the former years. In the past few years mealies as well as wheat was a failure and even if the farmer should now receive £6 per bag, he will not cover his expenses over all those years. If the farmer receives a fixed price and he reaps regular crops then it is quite another matter. Take the case of wheat. It costs the farmer £2 per bag to sow wheat. He sowed the first year but he received nothing in return. In the second year he sowed again and it therefore already cost him £4 per bag. If he sows again this year then it costs him £6 per bag and all those expenses have to be met before he can show a profit. In spite of that we hear from the hon. member opposite that the farmer receives such high prices.

I am not opposed to high prices.

But you said that the farmers made such wonderful profits.

Some of them.

If there is an industry which in the past always came off second best, then it is farming. That has not only been the case in our country, but also the case all over the world. Although 60 per cent. of our population make a living out of farming it nevertheless appears that only one-third of the income tax payments are made by farmers. That proves what small incomes they have. If in future the hon. member wants to speak about farming then he must first of all acquire a thorough knowledge of the matter. I want to draw attention today to the question of famine which is threatening the whole country. We know that there is a food shortage right throughout the whole world. In Europe especially there is again a volcano which can perhaps erupt and lead to war. We are still receiving a small quantity of food from Europe, but if that happens, what is our position going to be. We know that people in Europe are dying from hunger and we cannot expect that they should feed us. The important problem today is the production of food. More than two months ago we on this side of the House approached the Minister of Agriculture in connection with seed wheat with a view to the prevention of famine. After considerable struggling the Minister went so far as to devise a small scheme of providing seed wheat in the areas which were drought stricken. The maximum was 20 bags and in addition a small quantity of fertiliser was also provided. We pointed out to the Hon. Minister that it was absolutely inadequate because the scheme was limited solely to the more needy farmers. We asked the Government to encourage the production of wheat in general by assisting the farmers with seed wheat. It is now the sowing season. Copious rains have fallen right throughout the Free State as well as over a considerable portion of the Transvaal. The areas which were drought stricken are now the best situated to provide a bumper crop, but where is the seed wheat? Nothing has been done by the Government to assist the farmers in obtaining wheat for it is the same thing, and this is also their policy in regard to cheese. I have just endeavoured to show that it is that policy of the Government that has led to all the unpleasantness and shortages, and then hon. members on the cross-benches come and ask for another Ministry, they ask for another control.

Not a control.

This will create more shortages.

You want another government, not another Ministry.

This motion is proposed with the object of getting a Food Ministry, but what is the position? There was a time here in Cape Town, and elsewhere, when the people stood in queues hundreds of yards in length and then they could not get their necessaries. Take sugar, for instance. What happened with sugar? These people cannot get it.

That is not true.

That hon. member apparently does not know there was a time when the poor people could not get more than ½ lb. sugar at a time. I assume that that hon. member could get plenty of sugar, but I know that in the platteland, in the streets where the people had to stand in queues, they could not get more than 1 lb. of sugar. I am perfectly satisfied with the method that is being applied today. I am perfectly satisfied with our control system as it is being applied, and I am perfectly satisfied with the bodies that are in charge of that control. There is continuous consultation between the various bodies. The smallest details are gone into, and the hon. member knows that decisions are not taken with eyes shut. If you have a claim you can present it, and that claim is dealt with on its merits. If you institute a new Food Ministry you will have to create a new organisation. You will still have to put your claims to that organisation and it will still be gone into thoroughly. Consequently I cannot support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). I am not prepared to vote for it. I think it is better for those hon. members first to put their own house in order and then they will find there is nothing wrong today with the control system and the distribution system, but with the Government.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) started her speech by referring to the attitude of the farmers on this particular question of establishing a Ministry of Food, and she stated that the very fact that so much opposition was coming from the farming members opposite would lead one to think that there is a great amount of justification for the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger).

I can understand why you say that.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has made various ex parte statements this afternoon, none of which can be justified by facts or figures at all, and it is an extraordinary thing in a matter like this that the farmers in this House, as the hon. member for Jeppes pointed out, object to this motion. This motion, far from showing any hostility to the farmers at all, will be in the interests of the farmers if by the establishment of a Ministry of Food it is going to give greater satisfaction to the people of this country. The farmers are going to be given a square deal. I would like to remind the farmers of this country that the prices of the bulk of the products are controlled. The consumer and the middleman has nothing to do at all with the price of maize, for example. It has been fixed by the board. Similarly the price of wheat has been fixed by the board, and the consumer and the middleman had no say at all in the fixation of that price. The same applies to the price of dairy products, and when hon. members say that this motion is hostile to the farmer they do not seem to realise that the prices of the bulk of these products are usually fixed by farmers’ organisations and our concern is merely from the business point of view. The hon. member for Cradock was good enough to make some sneering reference to an interjection I made on the question of wheat. I would like to tell the hon. member for Cradock that twelve years ago—I am not sure whether he was in the House then—but twelve years ago I was one of the five members of the commission which was appointed to enquire into co-operation and agricultural credit, and there was not a single product that we did not investigate. The report that we brought out then still stands today as the guide as to what farming should be in this country. The conclusions that that commission arrived at have never been controverted and a great deal of the trouble and the difficulty that we are in today is because we have not followed the recommendations contained in that report. On the question of price control, boards, the fixation of prices and sale through one channel, we pointed out in this report the difficulties that were bound to follow and when the hon. member made this attack this afternoon on the middleman, when he stated that it is the middleman who is making all the profits and that the prices of the farmers are depressed in order to give larger profits to the middleman, all that is just camouflage. It will not bear investigation. It will not bear investigation by any thoroughly impartial commission, and I am going to deal briefly with the findings of this commission on the value of the middleman’s services, which has been proved particularly in the last few years. It is stated in paragraph 129 of the commission’s report—

And so it goes on. Our contention is that it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to see to the production of our primary products. During the early part of the war, when I was connected with the question of food supplies, it ‘was one of the essential duties that was placed on the Minister of Agriculture to increase production, to advise the farmers as to what was required and to do everything possible to increase the total production of this country. But there his function stopped, and it was the function then of the marketing side to be responsible to get rid of that increased production. To this extent I do agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern that it is necessary to establish a Ministry of Food to deal with the business side. I am not so much concerned whether a new Ministry is created, or whether this is put under another Ministry, but I do feel that there should be a Ministry which is concerned solely with the business side. It should be his duty to see that he gets food from every possible source, and it is also his responsibility to see that that food is marketed properly. Hon. members have made various references to the difficulties that have existed in the last few years. I realise, of course, that especially during the war years the position has been abnormal. I venture to say this—and that is where I found the argument of the Minister of Finance not quite convincing—if there is no necessity to have a Ministry of Food, why was it necessary to have one in Britain? There they had a Minister of Agriculture, and he told us at the time that his function was to get increased production, to get increased crops. His duty was to guide the farmers.

What about prices?

I will deal with the question of prices in a moment. It was the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to guide the farmers and, what was mote, it was his duty to tell the farmers what they could grow and where they could grow it, and if they did not grow what they were told to grow they were put off the land. Their farms were taken away from them and put in charge of people who would carry out the instructions of the Department. The whole system of agriculture was reorganised and placed under the Minister of Agriculture, and it was his duty to see that there was the maximum production, and he instructed the farmers what land was to be put under crops and what land was to be reserved for dairy farming. The whole system was organised by the Minister of Agriculture. There can be no question that in this country you have had a distinct clash between the duties and responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture and the interests of the consumers. I can give the House definite instances. I know myself what happened when I was on the Food Council. Whenever it was a case of the interests of the producers as opposed to the interests of the consumers, the officials of the Agricultural Department were inclined to put the interests of the producer first. It must be so; that is the way they are brought up in the Department; they place the interests of the farmer first. Those of us who were not directly connected with the Department had different views. It was not a question of lack of bona fides on the part of the officials. Take the question of rationing, for instance. I am now referring to the year 1941, when the question was first raised of a rise in the price of meat, and then the question arose what control should be exercised. I can remember very well at the time the argument took place that there was one distinguished member of the Department who opposed the rationing of meat because, he said, it might seriously interfere with the consumption of meat, and that would be detrimental to the interests of the farmer. And there you have the agricultural point of view, which was entirely different from the business point of view. I believe myself that if this thing had been tackled properly from the beginning, you would have had a very different position in regard to food supplies. I do not agree with the Minister of Finance there. This question of supply and production is a thing that has exercised the minds of farmers and Governments for a long time. You have had these reports at different times, and they give one cause for very serious alarm when you read here that there has been much abuse of the veld, etc. I remember that some 12 years ago, when we were dealing with the question of wheat production in the Cape, one of the things that was pointed out to us at that time was the deterioration of the wheat lands in the Cape, the increased cost of fertilising those lands each year and so forcing up the price of wheat. Take another aspect of this question of price control. You have a price control. The Department of Agriculture or the relative board fixes the price of the product. They are the sole persons to do so. They fix the price for wheat at 36s. per bag or whatever the price may be, quite regardless of the fact that in different parts of the country the cost of production of wheat varies. May I read just one paragraph from this particular report? We went into the price that should be paid for mealies. At that time the price was 20s. per bag. I am not holding that up as the price that should be paid at the present moment. What I am saying is that different prices should be paid in different areas. Paragraph 323 of this report reads—

These facts, of course, are very well known to the House.

The values of land, of course, have changed.

Yes, I readily concede that, but you do get varying costs of production of wheat in South Africa. You get different costs in two or three different areas. You get different costs in the Free State, and since the Government has practically taken over the whole of the wheat crop, there ought to be zones for the price of wheat, and I feel that it is wrong to fix a price of 36s. per bag for wheat in all areas and to pay that price irrespective of the production costs. It is not fair to the man whose production costs are high, and it gives the man whose production costs are low a bigger profit than he is entitled to, and if zoning were introduced, in this respect, it would reduce the costs all round.

I want to deal with another matter on this question of food. I have already pointed out that there are controlled prices in respect of the bulk of the food commodities in the country. You find that practically every item in the grocers’ shops is subject to price control, and it has all been worked out on a very narrow margin of profit. The primary products are all price controlled, and yet the highest increase over the prices which were obtained in 1938 is in the case of food. Here I have the price index for December, 1945. It shows that there was an increase of 39.2 per cent. over the 1938 figures. When you include food, fuel, rent and light the increase is 28½ per cent., and if you add the increases under the heading sundries it comes to 33 per cent. I want to tell the House what the significance is of this increase in the price of food and its effect on the cost of living, and why it is so necessary to take steps to bring it down. The following figures are given in the Year Book for 1938; these figures are in relation to the income of the family. According to these figures food represents 34.7 per cent. of the family’s expenditure, fuel and light 5 per cent., rent 25 per cent. and sundries 34.8 per cent. The expenditure of food represents more than one third of the total expenditure of the family. But what I want to point out is this, that the biggest increase in the cost of living is in respect of those items which come under food, and those items are all controlled. Items such as light and sundries, where the business people have control, show a very much smaller increase in price. I feel that this is a matter that definitely requires consideration. The responsibility of a Minister of Food is quite different from that of the farmer. As I have indicated earlier, the farmer’s responsibility is to see that food is produced, and if he finds that he cannot produce economically or that the crops are likely to be a failure, then it becomes the responsibility of the business side. We know what has happened in the past. We have been living in hopes now for the last year or two that there would be better crops and that there will be no need to import, and what has been the result? In the last month or two we have had to rush overseas to buy where we could, whereas if the thing had been tackled properly in a businesslike manner we should probably have been able to ensure adequate supplies earlier. I want to emphasise the fact that far from this motion being hostile towards the farmers, its acceptance and the establishment in consequence of a Ministry of Food will definitely be in their interests. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern where she mixes up the question of nutrition with the establishment of a Ministry of Food. The problem of nutrition goes far beyond the question of a Ministry of Food. I think it has been indicated here that the proper place to deal with nutrition is under the Department of Health. Let me say also that malnutrition is not always a question of lack of food. We know of many people who have large incomes and yet the nutritional standard in their families is very bad indeed. I would say that that aspect would rather come under the Department of Education. But it is essential that there should be the closest co-ordination between a Ministry of Food and a nutritional council to see that proper food is obtained for the people of this country. I hardly expect that the Minister will accept this motion, but I would say definitely that it is going to be in the interests of this country eventually to have a Ministry of Food, because it is quite evident that owing to increased wages and the improved standard of living of the people in this country, we are not able to supply everything that is required in the way of nutritional food. We are consuming more butter today than we can produce. Even with an improved crop of maize I doubt whether we shall be able to meet our requirements, and one of these days steps will have to be taken to bring down the cost of maize to a price which the lower wage groups can meet. When you see that there is a proposal to fix the price of maize at 22s. 6d. per bag and when you look at this report which was drawn up only ten years ago and you find that there we pointed out what the effect would be on the lower income groups if the price of maize ever reached the figure of 15s. per bag, then you realise how very serious the position is. I say that you will never be able to get back to the old prices of your primary products. I think the Minister will have to face largely increased subsidies on food, and I believe that having a purely disinterested Minister to deal with this will tend to improve the position.

It is encouraging to have the support of a Government front-bencher in our desire to set up a Ministry of Food and it is equally encouraging to hear him say that wheat is not subsidised on a reasonable basis in this country. It is quite unscientific that land capable of producing ten bushels of wheat to the acre should be subsidised to the same degree as land which is only capable of producing four bushels of wheat to the acre. Obviously the cost of the production of wheat from land only capable of producing four bushels to the acre is proportionately higher than the cost of producing wheat from land capable of producing ten bushes. It is reasonable and acceptable even to a schoolboy that land capable of producing only four bushels of wheat to the acre should be subsidised to a higher extent than land capable of producing much more, or conversely that land capable of producing a higher yield is not entitled to the same amount of subsidy as land producing much less. There must be some explanation for the fact that such things can go on in South Africa, and the explanation is easy to find. It is because the Department of Agriculture is concerned solely with the interests of the producer. Nobody cavils at there being a department solely concerned with the interests of the producer, but the producer is not the only party concerned in the production, distribution and consumption of food. While it is creditable to the farmers that they are highly organised and able to exert some influence on the Government, it is equally true it is unfortunate that the consumers are not highly organised, that they are not organised into a single consumers’ organisation which could adequately exercise influence on the governmental departments concerned with the provision and consumption of goods in this country. The argument by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that the advocacy of the setting up of a Ministry of Food is not in any way hostile to the farmers is an argument which may be subject to some criticism, because under the present circumstances where the Department of Agriculture is solely concerned with the interests of the farmer the consequence is that farmers are reaping the benefit, and prices are being fixed at their own dictates irrespective of the needs and interests of the consuming community. It must obviously follow that if a Ministry of Food is set up for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the interests of consumers it must inevitably come into conflict with the interests of the farming community. So one has to realise that there is inherently a basic difference between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the producer, between the interests of the purchaser and of the seller. The seller always wants to get as high a price as possible for the commodity he offers for sale. On the other hand the purchaser wants to buy that commodity at the lowest possible price at which he can purchase. So there is an inherent conflict. It is reasonable that the producers should make representations to a State department through their organisation in their own interests, and they are sufficiently highly organised to make the best arrangements they can for themselves through their collective bargaining machinery. The only way in which the interests of the consumers can be protected is by setting up a State department which will secure and protect the interests of consumers, particularly in the absence of a single organisation representing the consumers as such. At present the consumers are integrated in various political parties, there is not a single consumers’ organisation that is strong enough to represent them adequately. Their interests need to be protected. Many examples can be presented to show that the farmers are being well protected, but that they are being protected at the expense of the consumers. The nett effect of this, and I have dealt with this special point frequently on, public platforms, is that there exists in the minds of the urban population a consistent and persistent belief that the farmers are being spoon-fed. It is an allegation one frequently heard in pre-war days, but with less frequency during the period of the war, especially during times when food shortages were not confined to South Africa but experienced universally, and which we are hearing again in the urban areas with increasing frequency, especially now that the world shortage of basic cereal products has been alleviated. This inevitably engenders an antagonism between the urban population and the rural dwellers, and an antagonism which can only be mitigated if the interests of the consuming population are adequately represented in the way we have asked for, by the establishment of a Ministry of Food. It is true control boards have been set up with the primary object of regulating the flow of various commodities and fixing the basic prices at which they shall be sold, but almost every one of these control boards is a board not representative of the three parties interested, producer, distributor and consumer, but the control boards are almost completely dominated by producer interests. It is my firm believe there is an additional reason why the farming interests, and these control boards representing as they do the producing interests, are afraid of what is asked for in this resolution, and that is easy to explain. We state that there should be subsidisation of the lower income groups in order that the goods necessary for their nutrition should be made available to them, and that subsidisation is in effect utterly opposed by the producing interests because the subsidisation of the lower income groups tends to indicate the possibility of the farmer as the producer being paid at too high a level for the goods he produces.

A particular request was made to me that I should not speak at any great length on this subject. The hon. member for Sunnyside concluded by saying there is no likelihood of the Government accepting the resolution. This subject has been aired on the second privates members’ day, and important though I know it to be I realise a number of members of this House are equally concerned with and would like us to pass on to the next motion on the Order Paper. I believe the hon. mover of this resolution has indicated her preparedness to accept a motion for the adjournment of this debate. With the permission of the mover, I move—

I second.

I wish to say a few words on the motion for the adjournment of this debate. Representing a party in this House which has not had the opportunity to take part in so important a debate as this I do suggest in the interests of good government, and in the interests of the people of South Africa who are anxiously waiting to know what the position of the Dominion Party is in connection with the resolution before the House—I feel sure the House will be prepared to carry on this very important debate, affecting, as it may be said, the livelihood of many thousands of our people. This is a question on which the country as a whole is feeling very concerned. We have had the Housewives’ League repeatedly making representations to the Government, and officials of the Agricultural Department have been sent to most of the large towns in the Union in an endeavour to explain to the people who are so agitated what the present position is in regard to the production and distribution of food. These officials have been touring the country, explaining the difficulties in connection with food, but today there is a definite demand that the Food Ministry should be established. If we are going to adjourn the debate without the House having an opportunity of arriving at a decision on whether a Ministry of Food should be set up or whether the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) should be accepted or otherwise, I think the country will be keenly disappointed that the House has failed to give its decision on a matter of such urgency and importance. I think I would be justified in saying that there is not a single newspaper in this country that has not advocated the desirability of a Ministry of Food being established.

The hon. member must not go into the merits of the case. The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

It has been established, Sir, from every side of the House that a decision should be taken whether a Ministry of Food should come into being or not, as has been done practically throughout the Commonwealth. One is justified, therefore, in suggesting that South Africa is desirous of knowing the opinion of each member of the House on this subject. I see the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) there. It has been suggested in many influential quarters he should be the next Minister of Agriculture.

Order, order. That has nothing to do with the motion.

The hon. member has been sitting in the House for the last two hours awaiting an opportunity to be able to rise in his place and give his views in connection with this important resolution which is before the House. Members of the Dominion Party are anxious that their views should be made known. The majority of the members who have been sitting here the whole afternoon are anxious to give the House and the country the benefit of their views. I have been very disappointed at the mover of a motion such as this being prepared to accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate. The National Council of Women, the Housewives’ League and other women’s organisations who are keenly interested in this matter will, I think, make it plain to the hon. member that they desire the decision of Parliament on this subject, and the hon. member will not receive any thanks from the women of South Africa when they know that the motion has been disposed of in this way. The hon. member will be forced to admit she was not too interested in it, because at the critical moment she was quite prepared that someone should get up in the House—probably on her suggestion—and move the adjournment of the debate. She is deliberately denying this House….

The hon. member has used that same argument three times.

Yes. [Laughter.] In order to influence the hon. member to allow this debate to continue, it may be necessary to repeat it four times.

Order, order. If the hon. member disregards the authority of the Chair, I shall have to enforce the Standing Order which forbids repetition.

I am really suggesting that the interests of the farming community have been attacked so much that the farming members ought to be accorded the opportunity to carry on the debate, as a number of them are anxious to submit facts and figures which they consider will prove that the farming community have not been exploiting the position in regard to the shortages of food. I feel that consideration should be given to that even if I am not permitted to plead that probably the most influential party in this House, the Dominion Party, is being denied the opportunity of stating its views on this motion. I do appeal to the hon. member to withdraw the motion for the adjournment and allow the debate to go on to a division, so that we will know what support there is for the motion and for the amendment.

I wish to say a few words in support of the remarks which have fallen from my colleague.

Blah, blah.

I am very disappointed if this debate is to come to an end without a decision being taken so that we may know who are in favour of the proposal for a Food Ministry and who are not. I wished to put a very important proposal before this House, but now it is proposed the debate should come to a sudden end. I feel that very keenly. [Laughter.] I was prepared to support the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in this very excellent proposal that a Food Ministry should be established. This food position has developed very seriously….

Order, order. The hon. member must not discuss the merits of the subject. He must speak to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I wish to bring to the notice of the House the serious position which was experienced in Durban, far worse than at the other end of South Africa. I am sure my constituents and the City of Durban will be very disappointed if this debate is adjourned. We have had public meetings, and the women of Durban especially have advocated the desirability for setting up a Ministry of Food. We are now told the debate is going to be adjourned, and that will mean the motion will never come before the House again. I think it is most unfortunate.

I have never before experienced anything such as occurred in the House this afternoon. I was very glad to hear the various arguments but it was a shock to me to hear a member of the Labour Party propose the adjournment of this important debate, and I was still more surprised that the mover of the motion gave her approval to it. One comes to the conclusion that the motion was meant simply as an advertisement, and that it was proposed frivolously.

The hon. member must not go into the merits of the motion.

I am speaking about the adjournment of the debate, which the mover approved, and I would like her to give us the motive for the adjournment of the debate so that the motion cannot be discussed any further.

Sit down, and give her a chance.

I want her to tell us what the reason is why this debate should be adjourned. We know what follows on the Order Paper. The adjournment has been proposed because there is an agreement between certain people. That does not place the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in a good light. Our side of the House has an amendment for consideration. It is a very important amendment and we should like to have another whole day to discuss it. We have the time now, and though we have the time the proposer of the motion comes along and attaches her approval to the adjournment of the debate.

Where is the mover of the amendment?

I saw him a minute ago in the lobby. He has not left. We have so many speakers on this motion that we need another day, and now we are being deprived of this time—I have never encountered anything so shocking in this House—without the mover of the motion telling us why she is prepared to accept the adjournment. Therefore we on this side are not prepared to support the motion for the adjournment. It is a question of principle. When we observe which members are supporting the motion of the hon. member it is necessary to have a division on this motion so that the farmers can see how the members vote, and so that the consumers can also see how the members vote. I have nothing to do with the next item on the Order Paper. Apparently the debate must now be adjourned so that it can come up. I am not concerned whether it comes up or not, but we wish to express our views on this motion and to rebut the arguments that have already been used. If the hon. member will stand up and tell us why she is taking this course of action we may review our position. She must have the courage to stand up and tell us why she wishes to have the debate adjourned.

I would like to raise my protest against the adjournment. The subject of the Food Ministry has been brought up by many groups in Johannesburg and has been advocated in the City Council especially by the mayor and the Labour members of the council. I am surprised that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has agreed to the adjournment of the debate, because I have always thought nothing would give greater pleasure than to have a Ministry of Food, especially in the circumstances that obtains in the country today. Now, to find that she agrees to the adjournment surprises me very much after the fine manner in which she put forward her motion. I only hope that the hon. member is not afraid of her motion being turned down. I do hope that the hon. member will ignore this plea for the adjournment and will allow the House to continue the debate. We have had this cry for a Ministry of Food from all the women’s associations on the Rand.

Order, order. That argument has been used already by all the members who have spoken.

Sir, I did not hear it. If there is one thing I never do it is to say what other members have said, and I can assure you that I did not hear other members referring to it. While I was in the Minister’s chambers in Pretoria we had a mass meeting of women from Pretoria and Johannesburg who forced their way in demanding that we should have a Ministry of Food, and then to find that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) to whom all the women in South Africa look for a lead, agrees to the adjournment, surprises and pains me.

Order, order. The hon. member must speak to the motion for the adjournment.

I would plead with the hon. member not to agree to the adjournment.

I did not propose the adjournment.

You agreed to it.

I move—

I second.

May I rise on a point of order. I understand from what I observed here now that the previous speaker did not move that the question be now put and he had not finished speaking when the question was put.

The question was put in accordance with the rules of the House.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—40.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—20.

Acutt, F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

McLean, J.

Mentz, F. E.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. J. van Nierop and F. W. Waring.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and the House divided:

Ayes—40.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T.B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—21.

Acutt, F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

McLean. J.

Mentz, F. E.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. J. van Nierop and F. W. Waring.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th April.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—14.

Acutt, F. H.

Derbyshire. J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Gray, T. P.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: F. E. Mentz and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—31.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friend, G. A.

Hayward. G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge. M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Fayne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Wanless, A. T.

Tellers: T. B. Bowker and V. L. Shearer.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I want to move a further amendment to Clause 12.

The hon. member can only move an amendment to the new Clause 12 as moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). The Committee is considering the new Clause 12 moved by the hon. member for South Coast.

On a point of order, are we not entitled to know what is before the House?

I have pointed out that the hon. member for South Coast moved a new Clause 12 as printed in the Votes and Proceedings.

New Clause 12, proposed by Mr. Neate, put and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt and Derbyshire) voted in favour of the Clause, the Chairman declared it negatived.

On Clause 12,

On this clause I have an amendment printed on page 175, which assumes that this clause will first of all be negatived. In view of the fact that we are applying the provisions of the Building Societies Act to this Department, most of what is in this clause is unnecessary. All that is necessary is to fix the maximum rate of advances, which it is proposed should be in excess of that which is provided for in the Building Societies Act. In the Building Societies Act the proportion allowed is 75 per cent. The Select Committee resolved to raise it to 95 per cent., and it will be necessary for me to move to insert another clause if this clause is negatived merely to give effect to the higher rate. The rest of the clause is unnecessary, and it is therefore necessary to delete same in order to enable the Committee to insert another clause.

On the motion of Mr. Acutt, the Chairman put the amendment proposed to the Select Committee in line 36,

I do not know whether the clause is going to be cancelled, as the Minister of Finance suggests, but I consider that 95 per cent. is far too great a percentage for a financial institution to lend money on property. We know what our experience has been in South Africa in the past. Today we live in prosperous times and inflated values, and tomorrow something happens which causes a depression, and the value of property goes down. It is dangerous to allow any financial institution to lend money on property up to the extent of 95 per cent. of its value, and I think it would be very unwise of this House to pass a law to allow municipalities to have a savings bank and to lend money out on property. I think it would be a very dangerous experiment. For many years we have had inflation and high values in property, and to my mind we would be doing a great harm to the city of Durban if we passed a law of this nature. I therefore wish to move as an amendment to the amendment—

Even 85 per cent. is not considered a very safe margin, but I want to help the city as far as possible if they are going to have this bank, to make a success of it, and I realise that there are many people who have not got the necessary cash to put down, and if I can be of any assistance in that respect, I am quite willing to make it 85 per cent. and not 75 per cent. as was suggested here. This clause has got so mixed up with all the amendments that it is difficult to know where we stand exactly. But in all earnestness I commend this amendment to this House.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept the Closure at this stage.

I do not want to challenge your ruling in any way, but where an amendment is moved to apply the closure after five minutes’ debate on a most important Bill like this, I think it is really a dangerous principle. Let us make an attempt to give Durban a Bill worthy of Parliament. We are trying on this side to make it a Bill that will be workable and acceptable, and I do appeal to hon. members to give us their assistance. May I suggest that in these days of inflation that any municipality which undertakes to advance 95 per cent. of the value of property, is courting disaster. We know what happened after the last war with regard to property values. A house that was worth as much as £2,000 after the last Great War dropped as much as 50 per cent. in value after a few years. At a later stage I shall endeavour to have inserted in this Bill a clause that will enable our city councils throughout the country, and Durban in particular, to advance another 10 per cent. on mortgages that have been arranged by building societies. That would mean that the municipalities would be incurring a possible liability of something life 10 per cent. only. I notice that my friends of the Labour Party, as usual, are missing. They do put in an appearance when an adjournment on a very important debate is moved, but they are conspicuous by their absence, as usual, when we are discussing a most important matter affecting the city of Durban. I suggest to the House that if we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) we will be able to meet the situation. We must remember that in these days the pound is only worth about ten shillings and I contend that you are trifling with the intelligence of the ratepayers in asking the House to lay down that the municipalities should advance 95 per cent. on the values of fixed property. We cannot saddle the ratepayers of Durban with what may be a very serious loss on houses when the time will come, as it must come, when there will be a slump in property values. Today you have a property that is valued at something like £1,000 or £1,500 which is sold for as much as £8,000, almost six times its real value. In these circumstances of terrific inflation with which South Africa is faced at the moment, I would ask the House whether it is right and just and fair that we should empower any local authority to advance 95 per cent. on the value of property, when in another few years’ time it will only be worth something like 50 per cent. of the present price. I do appeal to the business men and the leaders of commerce in South Africa to consider this. We cannot think of implementing in a Bill an outrageous, unbusinesslike, unsatisfactory clause as this that may mean that the ratepayers of Durban will probably lose millions of pounds if any large scheme is embarked upon whereby hundreds of houses are erected at this time of high values. Only just recently the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) mentioned that if the Bill had been passed, 600 houses would have been erected today. Suppose this Bill had to pass through Parliament and suppose that 600 houses were to be built in the next six months, those 600 houses will be a liability on the Durban ratepayers. Representing a Durban constituency, and the most important part of Durban, I feel that I cannot allow this clause to stand as it is. The municipality has never built a single house in Durban without running the risk of losing a considerable amount of money. [Time limit.]

With regard to the remarks made by my colleague, I really do not quite know what he was getting at. I should like to know more clearly what his intentions are. He suggested that he was going to move later on that the municipality should be empowered to advance 10 per cent. in addition to the building society loan. That is a new idea to me, but I realise that the hon. member has a very fertile brain. That may become an established principle. But later in his remarks he reverted to 95 per cent.

I move—

Division called.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact tha† Mr. Derbyshire, who called for a division, has left the Chamber?

The hon. member who called for the division must vote in the division. Will the Serjeant-at-Arms please inform the hon. member that his presence is required in the Chamber?

Mr. DERBYSHIRE having taken his seat, it was found that fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Acutt and Derbyshire) voted against the motion.

The CHAIRMAN accordingly declared the motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 5th April.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Leave it alone.

It is easy for the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) to say that, but it will not solve the problem. You can pass a flippant remark for the sake of party considerations and for the sake of your seat, but it will not solve the problem. It is a problem which has every European by the throat. I hope that the reason for the Prime Minister not tackling and solving this question properly is not that South Africa must simply be sacrificed for the sake of his holistic idea. I hope that South Africa’s interests will not be sacrificed by him for the sake of a great Empire unity. I think the Prime Minister owes South Africa a statement as to why he is not tackling and solving this aspect of the matter, for he knows and admits that it is the greatest and most urgent problem. I think, too, that it is no more than right towards South Africa that the Minister of Finance should tell South Africa now for good and always where he stands and what he wants. I want to utter a warning to those in South Africa who do not agree with the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance that today he is playing a game in a party of which the majority of the members do not share his views, a dangerous game, as a result of which he is gaining ground and converting people to his viewpoint. It would be in the interests of South Africa and the country in general if he would say openly where he stands, so that South Africa could choose for always, not between the United Party and this party, but between the great principles which concern us and our descendants. The Minister of Finance is gaming converts. We have seen how the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), who came here animated with great ideals, stood up and apparently abandoned the principle of guardianship of the European. His last speech aroused serious suspicions among us, and created the impression that he is rapidly being influenced by the Minister of Finance. Thên there was the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) who apparently also found that it would pay him to make propaganda in order to become a representative of the Indians in South Africa in this House. This game is being played today. The Minister of Finance is playing a game to convert people to his principles, not his party, and there are perhaps people who are already preparing themselves for the seats which the Indians will obtain. The Minister of Finance is managing to convert certain people to his views, and South Africa will have to suffer for it. Before I sit down I want to utter another warning in this connection. Owing to the battle which is being waged politically, the outlook of a section of the population is perhaps very narrow, and there is a section of the United Party who today think only in terms of war, and who reckon that if a few more non-European representatives come to this House, they will have the support of those people when it comes to a question of war or no war. It cannot be denied that that is the opinion among a section of the members. But let me point out that there is the danger that it can work like a boomerang. Practically all of us feel that the future struggle will be a struggle between East and West, a struggle between democracy and Bolshevism, and it can easily happen that the vast majority of the European population will decide to fight on the side of England and the democratic world, but that India will fight on the other side. Have you ever thought that in that event the Indian representatives may perhaps turn the scale in this Parliament if they hold the balance? They Will perhaps turn the scale in favour of the anti-war group, and in this way the result will be just the opposite to what hon. members on the other side perhaps expect. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister—I cannot dictate to him how to solve the problem, and in any case I do not want to do so—but I want to appeal to him all the same to solve this question. The least we expect is that he will make an explicit statement to the country as to why he is not tackling this matter in its entirety and why he is doing his work by halves.

I want to say at the outset I personally support this Bill 100 per cent. This is the first attempt there has really ever been made to solve this problem once and for all by a policy of segregation. As was stated by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, we are determined to solve it and to retain the European structure of our society. The policy of this section of the House is known to all, but there has been no contribution towards a solution of the Indian problem from the opposite side of the House. We have had criticism directed by them at the liberal views that have been expressed by a few members on this side, but there has been nothing dealing with the merits of the Bill. The more I listen to the views expressed by members opposite, the more I am convinced that we are tackling this problem properly. It is a problem of evolution, it is not a problem you can legislate on today for all time. It is a problem of an evolutionary nature, and irresponsible and ill-founded criticism, founded on the fear complex, that is the stock-in-trade of members on that side, will be used by them until the next general election. Hence their amendment with a view to this legislation being postponed until 1948. They are a politically bankrupt party, and this is the one straw they are clutching at. In 1938 they fought an election on this “swart gevaar”. They have indulged in criticism of the liberal views of the Minister of Finance.

He is a negrophilist.

If he is a negrophilist, what is the Leader of the Opposition, and what are some of the other members over there? Do you know that, according to the report of the proceedings of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on the Native Bills, before representation was granted to the natives in this House, hon. members on that side were prepared to give direct representation to natives in the Senate?

When did they say that?

This was at a joint sitting of the Committee of both Houses 1930-1935.

It is not true.

Mr. Wessels moved that, subject to obtaining eventual uniformity, the committee accept a motion in regard to representation by natives in the Senate, and the people who voted in favour of that included, amongst other members sitting over there today, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), Mr. Tom Naudé, Dr. Stals, Mr. Strydom, Mr. van W. le Roux van Niekerk. If we want to come to liberal views, there were no more liberal views expressed in this country than by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He fought for the rights of the Indians and the rights of the natives. He said he was fighting for the extension of the vote to the coloured women. I will read you a letter written by the hon. Minister of the Interior at that time, Dr. Malan, to Mr. P. Asshan, of 76, Van der Leur Street, Cape Town—

Have you not a better argument than that?

What is wrong with the letter?

He is worse than a negrophilist.

If that is all you can use, you are bankrupt of argument.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said the Minister had swallowed all his principles, but surely his own leader has.

Is that one of the principles?

Yes, it is one. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus), who has just spoken, has asked us whether we cannot include the Cape. But the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is to leave the Cape alone. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech at the Malay Congress at Cape Town, on 18th June, 1925, said—

Who said that?

Dr. Malan said that. At a coloured congress on 1st April, 1928, he expressed similar views. He said—

Those are your liberal views. If you want to fight the next election on liberal views and views expressed by this side of the House, we are prepared to accept that.

Do you agree with the views expressed by the Minister of Finance?

I agree with the views expressed in this Bill.

Do you agree with the Witwatersrand University speech?

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Order, order. Will the hon. member just address the Chair and not be deflected by interruptions.

We have had no contribution, as I said before, in regard to the merits of the Bill from that side. What are the problems and their ultimate solution? That is what we have to discuss, and the Prime Minister has tackled it in a statesmanlike way. The problem is, as has been stated by many other members, that in 1860 Indians were brought here to work in the cane fields of Natal. They were indentured as labourers because at that time it was practically impossible to get labour for the cane fields. In those days the Zulu male considered himself a warrior and a hunter, and he thought it beneath his dignity to work in the cane fields. The result was it was very difficult to obtain native labour. These Indians were indentured for five years and they could extend the period for another five years. The Government of Natal agreed at that time that if the Indians stayed for longer than ten years those who did not go back to India would be compensated by a grant of Crown land, the equivalent in value of their passage to India.

How many accepted that?

I do not know how many accepted it. In any case they obtained vested rights in this country, and therefore to say we have to approach the problem by considering whether they are temporary residents is beside the point. For practical politics they are permanent residents. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) founded his whole argument on the assumption that these people were not permanent residents, but practically a quarter of a million of them are permanent residents.

The agitation we have today comes from the Indian Congress. They do not represent the majority of Indians. They represent a small influential trading class of Indians, usually Moslems. Only about 10,000 Indians are represented by congress. The other 240,000, the labouring class, are not interested. They do not care whether they have the right to vote or not, because they have never had it before and they have never had it in India. It is immaterial to them. This agitation comes from a section of the Indian community who have said they will be satisfied with nothing less than the franchise on the common roll. We have to protect ourselves, and the supremacy of the European race must be maintained, and this is the first step in that direction. We have had one commission after the other enquiring into this matter. This amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition asks for another select committee, and is thus just postponing the issue. We have the Broome Commission report and their recommendation for another round table conference and the loaded franchise. What will be the use of that? In America they have made a farce of the loaded franchise. There the negro is set an intelligence test where quiz questions are put to him and they try to plough him, no matter how sound his general knowledge. They ask him some stupid question like: Who is the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa? He will not know that, and so he cannot get the franchise. Is that the sort of thing we wish to see here? What is the position today in most small towns in the Union? In my own small town of Middelburg 30 years ago we had four commercial streets, and in those streets practically all the businesses were in the hands of Europeans. But now we have one street left for European businesses and the other three are in the hands of the Indians. No new general business has been opened by a European in my town for the last 30 years. That is the position in most towns today. The Indian is encouraged to such an extent and is such a parasite in those small towns that the European businessman cannot exist. Now we are making an honest attempt to protect our European structure by giving them free areas. They have always stated they have no place to invest their money. Now they can invest their money in the free areas, and they can develop along their own lines. They will not have the excuse that every Indian must open a business because there is no other avenue open to him.

The problem of the Indian is more or less his religion. I have had experience with Indians from a medical point of view. The Indian lives in a small room behind his shop, and he breeds because it is his religion that when one child is born the woman must see to it that before that child is out of her arms the next one has been born or is on its way. I have seen most prolific cases amongst the Indian women. In one case a mother had eighteen babies. They get married at fourteen, and from the age of 16 they start producing children, and by the time she is 30 the Indian woman is broken in health and spirit and a prey to all the diseases, especially tuberculosis. I know of one instance of an Indian who had four child marriages one after the other, and had just buried the last of his wives. The problem in India is the same. There are four hundred millions in India, but the population is practically stationary. The death rate is nearly equivalent to the birth rate. The death rate is astounding, and it is astounding because of the life these Indians lead. In India, half the population from the cradle to the grave never get a square meal. That is a fact. Half of the population never have a proper balanced meal one day of their lives. And then these people have the audacity to come and tell us that they are unfairly treated in this country. We are prepared, according to the upliftment clauses, to give them all the rights they deserve, but we are the guardians of European civilisation in this country, and it is our duty to see that that guardianship remains in our hands and does not pass over to the non-European races. With a coloured population on the common roll, with a native population clamouring to be on-the common roll, and with the Indians wanting to be on the common roll, what will be our plight once these people get the majority in this country, unless we can peg them down? I am not in favour of keeping them in economic and social subjection for ever. We are in an evolutionary stage, and the solution lies in this Bill presented by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and a scheme of mass immigration of Europeans to this country. I have stated before that the solution for South Africa is mass immigration of Europeans. Only when we do that will we have solved our problems, and we can find employment for them all. Unless we do that, we will have the position of Indonesia. What happened there? The Hollanders thought that they were the ruling class and could keep the Indonesians in subjection for ever. Today I think the Hollanders are just about to get their marching orders to clear out of Indonesia. Unless we are prepared now to increase our European population, our fate will probably be the fate of Indonesia. Other European communities in the past have disappeared, and we are in danger of disappearing in the future. But, if members on the opposite side of the House would only cooperate with us in trying to solve these problems, instead of trying to make political capital out of the issue, we would be able to do something. Not one constructive suggestion have we heard from that side. If they would co-operate and stand by the European community in solving these problems, then we would have a chance. If they would help us and support an immigration policy, if they would help us to get a European population of ten million to balance against the non-European population in the country, they would do something constructive in the interests of South Africa. This Bill has the support of the majority of members on this side of the House, and most of the Transvaal members, as far as I know, with few exceptions, are prepared to accept this Bill, and we welcome it.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat said there has been no constructive criticism of any sort from this side of the House. All I can say is that the hon. member has apparently not read the amendment proposed by this side, and that he completely fails to realise that we on this side of the House really want a solution, not only a solution of the Indian problem, but a solution of the native problem and the coloured problem for which we stand. Then he also stated that the great majority of members on that side are in favour of the Bill. We realise that they are not all in favour of it, and he frankly admits that the majority on that side are in favour of the Bill. If the majority on that side favour the Bill, then I ask him if the minority on that side will range themselves with those who really want a solution of these problems? Then the hon. member says that the Transvaal members are completely satisfied with the Bill. I assume that the hon. member is also satisfied with the provision that is made here for the Transvaal, that where there is today an Indian lessee on a farm the existing servitude will remain for ever on that farm I think his constituents would very much like to know that from him, particularly those who have farms with Indian lessees on them.

The Leader of the Opposition stated that we must not attack vested rights.

It is not a matter of vested rights to lease a farm and then to lay down that that servitude will remain in perpetuity. My hon. friends on the other side have apparently lost sight of the fact that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition asks that the necessary steps be taken for “the solution of the colour question in all its aspects upon a basis of separation, including the Indian, coloured and native questions”, by referring it to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament for consideration and report. Then the hon. member says that we on this side do not wish to co-operate, that we will not cooperate to make a success of the thing.

He is talking through his neck.

South Africa has adopted a course which is scientifically unsound in giving representation in Parliament to groups in the country, and this is what this side of the House is opposed to.

You all voted for it in 1936.

We did not vote for this. The course we have adopted of giving representation in this House, and not only representation but representation with the right to vote, is a harmful method. We can realise that in the Senate, and perhaps in this House, we require advocates for certain sections of the population, but to give these advocates in the House the power to vote on all problems affecting the future of South Africa, and problems which in many cases have to do purely with one section of the population, is in itself a wrong principle, and because we realise that it is a wrong principle in regard to the three native representatives, we say that the character of this Parliament is changing from being a House that reflects the opinions of the people until now it is a patchwork-coloured blanket that we are trying to make, and we do not know what it will lead to.

You voted for it.

It is now proposed to give the Indians three representatives in this House. Later on other sections will come along, and that side of the House will wish to give them representation as well.

You put the native representatives there.

We did not put them there; hon. members opposite put them there. The thing started with the co-operation of hon. members on the other side, and I maintain we in the first place took a course which was faulty, and it is time we called a halt; and for that reason we are not in favour of going on with this sort of representation. That these people should have spokesmen is quite a different question, but to give them a voice in the House, where they will be elected on another basis and appointed on another basis is an erroneous principle which will undermine the system under which we work; it will land us in big difficulties in South Africa, and the sooner we put an end to it the better. On this side of the House we have perceived for a long time that while we need spokesmen for certain sections of the population we also require members and even representation for their separate interests in separate bodies unattached to Parliament.

What about the Senate, should they have representation there?

I regard the Senate as a good place where spokesmen can function.

Without a vote.

They may vote there. My point is this, that while these representatives today are merely spokesmen they are used behind the scenes for their votes, and this is quite wrong. We cannot put up with them being appointed in this House to use their votes for certain purposes apart from those for which they have been appointed. I am convinced that no one in the House will deny that it is a false principle that members who are elected for a definite purpose in the House should vote and have a say in that direction. Our opinion towards that part of the population has always been associated with this, that while we are treating these people on a basis of separation we must be in a position to look after their interests scientifically and effectually. This is inspired by the spirit on this side of the House that we want to give and do much more for the Indian population, the coloured population and the native population. It is inspired by a spirit of right and justice, that we do not want to have the votes of these people used to promote the interests of certain European parties in the country. It may be that party today and tomorrow it might be this party, but we are averse to them being used as a football to be kicked hither and thither, and to their being used to promote the interests of one party or the other. I say with emphasis that our opinion is inspired by the one desire, namely, that we shall be free to give those sections of the people an immediate opportunity to develop, to give them what they are entitled to, and to uplift them. Under the circumstances in which we find ourselves today in reference to the Indians and the coloureds and the natives it is impossible to do for those people really in all friendship and affection what we would like to do, because as soon as you try to help them in certain directions it is used for the purpose of giving them power as against the European population of the country, and that we should avoid at all costs. We will thus see that what is being prevented is that a new group should be formed in Parliament that would immediately launch propaganda for the extension of that vote. It is fundamentally wrong that they should come here to agitate continuously for a bigger vote for the nonEuropeans. To a scientific mind it is very pleasant to contemplate that in Parliament we can have 200 members, each of whom represents 50,000 voters in South Africa, whether they are coloureds, Europeans, Indians or natives. That looks nice on paper. Mathematically it is fine, and we all like a nice mathematical problem. As has been repeatedly stated on this side of the House, the European part of the population realised that under the system to which this will ultimately lead it means there will be forty European representatives in Parliament, five Indian representatives, twenty coloured representatives and 110 or 130 native representatives. The European section of the community is not in favour of that, and they do not want it.

We shall never allow that.

My hon. friend says they will never allow that. I do not say that is what that side of the House wants. I say that it will eventually lead to that, and I want the representation we give to those sections of the people to be of a completely different character. This is not representation that will enable the non-Europeans to achieve things by their voting power. It is not the intention that through their voting power they can achieve anything in this House. Why, then, give them voting power that they can use? They cannot, of course, achieve anything with that vote. There you have now three native representatives and three Indian representatives if this Bill is adopted. With their voting power they cannot achieve their purpose. But why, then, give them that voting power? Is it not clear that if we have a joint committee sitting for six months, or if necessary for a year, we would then be able to come to a decision as to what sort of representation is best for those people themselves, what sort of representation will result in their being able to obtain something in a material sense that will uplift them and give them better opportunities?

What is your suggestion?

My reply is that we can do much more for these people if we do not give them voting power, in the Senate either, but that we shall only have people here and in the Senate who will be their spokesmen, and then we can see that their interests are promoted by the provision of separate councils for them outside Parliament.

Did you vote for the Natives’ Representation Bill in 1936?

No. We can see that their interests are looked after in this way. If we wish to look after their interests to the utmost, what happens? Are the interests of the coloured people in Cape Town looked after as they should be? Yes, we have here two or three members who stand up and plead for the coloured people, and what happens to the coloureds? Do they improve in the Western Province? Yes, a small group of them improve, but what about the others? They can only sink and degenerate. Nothing is being done for these people. Their vote is used, and an ex-member of Parliament has written that it is a vote that can be bought collectively and wholesale. There lies the danger. There is no section of the European population whose vote you can buy wholesale. Mr. Long has written that the representation of the coloureds as it is today is not in the best interests of the coloured man himself. This side of the House had also a definite proposal for the Cape coloureds. At the moment it may be only my opinion, but it has been stated by numbers of members that we must give the coloureds European representation in Parliament, and that, too, on a basis of their numbers, because they are a permanent section of the population, but not linked with the European voters as they are today, because today their interests are not looked after as they ought to be. They are bound up with other interests. We come, then, to the conclusion that in any case these are premature proposals that are now before the House, proposals that prepare the way for the Cape Province to be opened up to great masses of Indian capital which they will invest uneconomically in the Cape Province merely to gain control over certain towns and certain parts of the Cape Province. We cannot put up with that in the Cape Province. Not a single member who represents the Cape Province has risen and protested that the growing mass of capital being invested in the Cape Province should be stopped and that provision should be made for that in the Bill. We did not draft the Bill. There is not a single word in the Bill that seeks to prevent that volume of capital fleeing from Natal to the Cape Province. Last year £750,000 of that capital fled from Natal because they knew what was coming in Natal. They have been expecting it for a few years, and now capital is fleeing from it to a much greater degree, and it is disastrous for the Cape Province that it should happen in this way. When that capital flees here, it enables Indians to penetrate any part of the Peninsula and any part of the country. Let us investigate the position. Hon. members opposite say they are satisfied with that position. Are they honest when they say that the Indian in the Cape Province can buy any house in the Peninsula in any residential area with one exception? Where those members and the Ministers live there are servitudes on the land, and the servitudes lay it down that the Indians may not buy there; in other words, if you are wealthy enough, you can with your wealth place such servitudes on the land and the neighbourhood you live in, but if you are poor you will be forced to buy land and to make your living in an area that is a mixed residential area. You will have to live in the same area as coloureds and Indians, and in some instances with natives as well. These are matters which we on this side of the House wish to solve. These are serious questions we wish to solve with the assistance of hon. members on the other side. There is no question, as my hon. friend on the other side said, of our not co-operating and of our not making proposals. We wish to bring the whole problem of the coloured franchise in South Africa and in the Cape under consideration and discussion. We want to discuss the whole future of those people. We want to know: Are they going to remain slaves in the Cape Province of bad conditions and of the abuse of liquor; are they going to remain like that? Are we going to see they are given an opportunity to be uplifted on the basis of separation? If we are in favour of that we must accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that we should discuss jointly the question of the Indians, and consider in what way, without making them feel they are oppressed, we can make them understand that in South Africa we shall go as far as we possibly can with the policy of separation provided it results in the improvement and the uplift of those sections of the population affected by separation, as well as the European section of the population. We can then see what we can do for those sections for whom we wish separation and for whom we will ensure separate residential areas and a separate social environment. We do not agree with the new element that has come into this country in the last fifty years who do not wish to draw any colour line. We do not go with those people who consider that you must let events run their course and who consider that you must so set to work that eventually 50,000 people in South Africa will be represented by one member of Parliament, whether he is a European, a coloured person, a native or an Indian. Through the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition we wish to arrive at the position of also solving the native problem in South Africa in the same way. What is happening today? What is the effect of the legislation that we have had in the past? We find that in the native areas it has not resulted in the natives becoming alive to the fact that they themselves must work to contribute to their existence, not only in periods of starvation but also in periods of abundance. What is happening today in the native areas? We know that these people are not organised for work when things are going well. They allow their women to work, and they send their men to the mines to work when necessity drives them, but there is no proper organisation amongst the native people to bring it home to them that anyone who wants a haven in this country must work honestly and regularly. Therefore we want to see the whole problem tackled de novo and regarded from every point of view so that we may arrive at an eventual solution. I speak about a final solution, but I know, of course, that there will not be a final solution. We know what the upshot will be. I am not pessimistic about it, but I believe that the system proposed here will bring developments, and the time will come in the course of centuries when they will no longer be a danger to the European population, if you wish to describe it in that way. I am ashamed to speak about European civilisation and to compare it in the same breath with Eastern civilisation. I am not enamoured of what you call European civilisation. I have no illusions in regard to it, but I would just say that European civilisation is different to Eastern civilisation, and it is different to the noncivilisation of the greater part of the native population, but it is a civilisation in which we can have so much pride as to say that we must defend our European civilisation at all costs. What we want is a better European civilisation, and that we should develop and establish an honest European civilisation, a European civilisation that will not be dishonest towards those other elements amongst which Providence or the mistakes of the past have thrown us in this country. We cannot achieve anything in the way we are going at present with this Bill which is dealing with the matter piecemeal, and attempting to solve it in a fragmentary way, and which is góing to saddle Parliament with a system which it will not easily free itself of, a system which will occasion great difficulty to Parliament, and so we ask and we ask in all earnestness that the proposal of the hon. Leader of the Opposition shall be adopted and that we shall all really co-operate to solve the problem.

The subject normally referred to as the Indian problem is one which has caused a considerable beating of the drums in and about Durban. The agitation which has gone on for some time has largely been conducted by those whose forefathers are mainly responsible for the position as it exists today. Those who have made profits from the importation of Indian labour, those who made profits from the services rendered to the Indian community, are those who are largely responsible for the position that exists today, and who are certainly responsible for leading the agitation which developed into the position described by the Minister of Finance as a “state of mass intolerance in Durban”, and being what he referred to as one of the least creditable aspects of life in South Africa.

I approach this subject from a socialist point of view. I declare and reiterate my faith in the socialist solution to social problems. I have developed no fear of any race or group in South Africa, and I think any fear on the part of the European population is unwarranted and unjustified. The key to the reason for any social problem must be searched for in the economic conditions of the country, and in the examination of Our economic conditions one can find a reason for the present condition of mind on the part of the people of South Africa. The first point that strikes me in regard to the Bill itself is that it is an abrogation or a unilateral act on the part of the Government of South Africa in breaking treaty obligations because the communique after the 1926 Round Table Conference was clear and specific on the point that the two governments, in following out the agreement, were to exchange views from time to time.’ It would seem therefore that this Bill is a unilateral act and does in effect repudiate the 1926 Agreement without any formal notification by the Government of South Africa. Largely it is an Act not in conformity with international standards of conduct of government in the relationships of government as between one state and another, and that I believe is a powerful reason why this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. In suggesting the Bill goes to a Select Committee I also believe that the Government of India should be invited to give evidence before such a Select Committee. I am inclined to believe that the Government of India will accept such an invitation, and would lead evidence before a Select Committee so appointed. The appointment of a Select Committee and referring this Bill to it does not endanger the present position, because there is unanimity in this House, there is complete agreement in this House, that in the event of the passage of the Bill being delayed it would be desirable to re-proclaim or extend the Pegging Act and observe the status quo until such time as we have a real and true solution to the problem with which we are faced today. I honestly believe we have reached the point in the development of the position in which there are reasonable prospects for an agreement being reached between the representatives of Indian opinion and the representatives of European opinion in this country on the subject. I believe a second powerful reason why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is that if there is anything the House can do to create the possibility of getting a measure by consent then that act should be performed by this House and we must make every effort to see such an event is made possible. I have spent a considerable part of my adult life in negotiating agreements where there have been points of conflict. It is true it has largely been in the field of trade union activity. Often when things have seemed blackest, when the possibilities of a solution seemed most remote, conditions have been created in the last minute in which the two opposing parties could be brought together and a solution finally reached. I believe those conditions have been created today. The conditions have been created today by the presentation to this House of the Bill now before us on the one part, and on the other part the threat—if you like—by the Indian community of South Africa to invoke the aid of the Indian Government and to have the matter referred to UNO. The leader of our party declared himself in association with the Prime Minister in resisting any threats of interference by the Government of India in the internal affairs of South Africa, so that we are quite clear on that point. But nevertheless the threat does exist, and the threat has been made that the aid of the Government of India would be invoked on this question, and while that is a possibility, and in the desire to avoid that, without submitting to any threat, I believe it is desirable to avoid such a possibility by referring the matter to a Select Committee and inviting the Government of India to lead evidence before such a Select Committee. The House is likely to sit till the end of June. It is possible before the end of June for a Select Committee to carry out investigations and to make a report in time for this House during this session to pass appropriate legislation, particularly if consent or agreement is reached upon the point. It does not take considerable time by air passage for representatives of the Indian Government to come to South Africa to lead evidence before a Select Committee, and certainly it is possible for a Select Committee to take evidence and make a report during the time Parliament is in session in 1946. But even if that is not possible, the matter is of such tremendous importance to the future welfare of South Africa that Parliament could be re-convened at a later stage of the year for the purpose of dealing with such proposed legislation.

I am opposed to the Bill for the reason it is a unilateral act to which I am not prepared to give my consent, and for the reason that I think it should be referred to a Select Committee. A statement was made on behalf of our party that in the event of the Prime Minister not agreeing to refer the matter to a Select Committee, our party would support the second reading of the Bill. I have been given dispensation, and I am permittéd to differ from our party in that respect. I believe it is a weakening of the resolution, in demanding the appointment of a Select Committee, to declare in advance that in the event of such a Select Committee not being appointed—and there has been no indication from the Government benches that they are prepared to agree to a Select Committee—that it is a weakening of the resolution by indicating in advance that we are prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill.

There are other reasons that cause me to be opposed to the Bill. The whole question of the Indian problem has been created in the first instance by the living together side by side—in juxtaposition—in residential areas of Europeans and Indians. It has also been occasiond by the difference in living standards and social customs of Europeans as compared with Indians. But on these two fundamental points there is agreement between the Europeans and the Indian population. It is agreed by both sections that western civilisation should prevail, and that western standards of living should be observed and maintained; it is equally agreed that it is desirable that there should be an agreement as between the Indian community and the European community on residential occupation to avoid the racial animosity that has developed consequent upon people of two different races and of different social standards and customs living side by side. Agreement having been reached on those two fundamental points, I submit it is not impossible to get agreement and consent on the other outstanding features of this whole question.

On the question of intermarriage, on the question of miscegenation, it is equally condemned by the Indian community as a whole as it is done by the European community. In Durban the penetration into European residential areas has been brought about not by the Indian community in the mass, but by a few wealthy Indians who, unfortunately, are infected by inverted Chauvinism and snobbery, and desire to live in European areas purely from the point of view of snobbery.

That is not correct.

I am making that statement. The number of Indians who have penetrated into European areas in recent years is limited, and the persons responsible for it could be named on the fingers of two hands. I could give the names of the persons, but it would serve no good purpose. The action of that few has been condemned by the responsible spokesmen of the Indian community. The representatives of the Indian Congress have condemned these persons for their action, which has brought about a state almost ’ of mass hysteria, or mass intolerance, which is adversely affecting the Indian community as a whole. The principle embodied in the Bill which provides for residential separation, or what I prefer to call zoning, is one which is accepted by members of the Labour Party, and I am not excluded on this particular point.

The Labour Party has agreed to support the second reading of the Bill, because they hold to the belief that any opposition to the Bill on the second reading will be a vote against the principle of zoning and against residential separation. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not believe I am called upon to accept responsibility for measures introduced by the Government, the form of which —I am not now referring to the content—to my mind does not present a solution to the problem. I believe there is a solution to the problem. It is embodied in the booklet I have in my hand which was published by the Natal Executive Committee of the South African Labour Party in 1943. The principle submitted there is in part now embodied in the Bill, the appointment of a Commission equally representative of both communities, with a judicial head to the Commission, as provided for in the Bill now before the House, and which perhaps originates from the very pamphlet which I hold in my hand, because it was circulated in Durban to some considerable extent.

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

When business was suspended before lunch I was dealing with the booklet I have in my hand, headed “Indian Penetration,” with a sub-title “Labour’s Plan,” which was distributed quite freely in Durban, through the medium of advertisements in newspapers, through the leading bookshops and on the street. The suggestions put forward in this pamphlet were, insofar as we were able to test the reaction, well received by the public of Durban, suggestions which are based on sanity and reason on the part of the European population of South Africa, who are prepared to accept a solution of the Indian problem on a basis of justice and equity. The proposal embodied herein is a proposal based on the corner stones of justice and getting consent to the solution of the Indian problem. It visualises the setting up of a permanent committee representative both of Indians and of Europeans, with a judge as the chairman of the committee, but it is quite unlike the board proposed in the Bill. That proposed board is an advisory board. The manner we are suggesting of dealing with it is by the appointment of a committee with plenary powers, because it is necessary to vest such powers in such a board. There have been suggestions in the past of having voluntary committees established to control the state of affairs in Durban, but such committees have not been of any good by reason of the fact that there was an absence of such plenary powers. It is necessary for such a board to have plenary powers and the sanction of law in order to become effective, in exactly the same way that we require the sanction of law for wage agreements and determinations. There are always some recalcitrant persons who require the exercise of plenary powers to ensure that they will follow what is laid down for the settlement of any problem; and when I made reference before lunch to a small number of people, ten or so, being responsible for the penetration into the European residential areas, I was not merely referring to the number of houses which had become occupied by Indians, but to the number of persons who were responsible for that, people whose vested interests drove them to the point of acquiring houses from Europeans which became occupied by Indians and led to the existing animosity. Those interests were largely fostered by estate agencies; they made use of loose capital which had been accumulated through black marketeering activities. It is true, of course, that some of the Indian merchants in this country are guilty of black marketeering, selling rice to the poorer Indians in Natal far above the price laid down in the price regulations. The accumulation of this black market money led to investment in the form of property acquisitions. But the charge of black marketeering is not a charge levelled against the whole Indian community anymore than such a charge could be laid against the European business community as a whole. There are some guilty persons, and in the case of the Indians those guilty persons are in the minority, just as such Europeans are in the minority. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) precipitated my dealing with this particular booklet. At the point at which he made the interjection, I was dealing with the principle of zoning, and the decision of our own party to support the second reading of the Bill, and the reasons why they felt it advisable to support the second reading of the Bill. Those reasons I cannot agree with. I find myself unwilling to support a measure which is not based upon consent. I am most unwilling to accept responsibility for Government plans if in the main those plans are not based on the principle of consent. I believe it is possible to get consent for the solution of the Indian problem through negotiation, and I believe that it is necessary at this stage, when both sides stand on the brink of open conflict, where one party is imposing upon the Indians something they are unwilling to accept, and the Indians are appealing to international intervention, to find a basis of consent. We should do our best before that happens to find such a basis, and I think that consent could be got through the medium of a Select Committee.

Where are you going to find it?

Mr. Speaker, I recall one occasion previously when you advised me to disregard interjections coming from the House, and I think that if the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) will allow me to conclude what I was about to say, he will find that I will deal with all the points.

The hon. member for Hospital commended the Minister of Finance for what he described as a courageous speech. Now, all the reasons and arguments advanced by the hon. Minister of Finance in relation to political rights, in relation to property rights, and in relation to residential separation, are arguments with which I fully agree. It is not necessary for me, therefore, to reiterate in different words the arguments made by the Minister of Finance, and I am doubtful whether he would feel himself to be in good company if I stressed the fact that I feel as he feels on these particular points. But the position of the Minister of Finance is quite different from mine. He is bound by party discipline in the same way as every other member of this House is bound by some form of party discipline. I do not object to his acknowledging that he has to vote for the second reading of the Bill in spite of the arguments he adduced. It is necessary for him, in the interests of his party, to vote for the measure, because the Government naturally requires as large as possible a majority for the passage of this Bill. But my position is not the same. I do not have to rationalise the position. I do not have to seek for reasons why I should support the Bill, because I am not responsible for the actions of the Government, and if it were possible to secure through amendments the things which we set out in this pamphlet, after the passing of the second reading of the Bill, I might be induced to support the second reading. But in the belief that within the structure of the Bill it is not possible to tinker with it by amendments to reach a true solution of the problem, I am unwilling to vote for the Bill, and in that respect my party can exercise a little laxity in regard to the discipline of members on these benches, and I have their permission to refrain from voting. The Minister of Finance is not in that happy position. But it does not call for the particular tribute that was given by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to the Minister of Finance who was commended by him for having made a courageous speech. To me it is not a courageous speech, but expressing one’s opinions and one’s convictions. The expression of honest convictions is not necessarily allied to courage. It is the most natural thing to express one’s beliefs, and even if they are not accepted by the whole population, at least one is respected for the expression of such honest opinion. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), in initiating the discussion from our benches, said quite correctly that, come what may, he was prepared to stand by what he had to say, irrespective of what the results might be at a subsequent election. I want now to refer to the 1926 Agreement. It provides: (1) Both governments — that is, the Government of South Africa and the Government of India —reaffirm their recognition of the right of South Africa to use all just means for the maintenance of western standards of life: (2) the Union Government recognise that Indians domiciled in the Union who are prepared to conform to western standards of life should be enabled to do so. That last point, of course, establishes beyond question that it was expected there would be a permanent Indian population within the borders of the Union, and their needs were to be met in the upliftment clause.

The allegations that were made against the Indians at that time were generally summarised in the phrase that they were a menace to European standards because they lived on the smell on an oil rag. The allegations, divided in parts, fell into such challenges as these: (a) The Indian did not make South Africa his permanent home: (b) he did not invest his savings in South Africa, but transferred them to India; (c) he lived in a state of congestion by way of joint family life; (d) he accepted a lower wage than Europeans; (e) he did not help himself to improve his social and educational standards. That was the indictment which was made by the European population up until 1926, and it was generally summarised in the phrase that they lived on the smell of an oil rag. How has that position been met by the Indians and, arising out of the uplift clause in the 1926 agreement, how have they mended their ways? They certainly mended their ways by the small number who were moving between India and South Africa, making this country their permanent home by bringing over their wives and children. Previously they had refrained from bringing their wives and daughters to South Africa, and only sons were brought to South Africa. But they have made South Africa then permanent home, they have invested their savings by acquiring property, they have broken up the joint family system and are living in separate homes in better houses, they have accepted the principle of equal pay for equal work and have become members of trade unions. I have enumerated the charges that were made against the Indian community before the 1926 Agreement, and have shown how they have responded and done what was expected from them. They have in an ever-increasing degree raised their standards of life, they no longer accept lower wages than European workers, they are organised into trade unions and where it is possible for them they prefer to be organised into trade unions where there is no colour bar restriction. In every respect the challenge made against them in 1926 has been met on their part. They have improved their standards of living. They have fulfilled the requirements in regard to primary and secondary education by the building of their own schools at their own expense. All these things have been done by them. So why, having done everything possible to mend their ways and meet the allegations made against them in 1926, why should it be necessary now to punish them for doing the very things we wanted them to do? That is the implication of the Bill. The passage of such a Bill as this without the consent of the Indian population is imposing something against them, is condemning them and punishing them for doing the very things we asked them to do. Those are some of the reasons why I am opposed to the passage of the Bill. The Bill itself provides for the establishment of an advisory board. The reasonable assumption from that is that after the passage of this Bill we are to have the consent of the Indian community and we are to have their representatives as part and parcel of the board, and that in the future they are to co-operate in regulating and controlling the acquisition and the residential occupation of property by the Indian community. If that is a reasonable and just assumption, why put the cart before the horse, why close the stable door after the horse has bolted? If it is right to have that after the passage of the Bill, surely it is better to have it beforehand.

On the question of land tenure, as a socialist I say that inevitably when you have a multi-racial population as we have in South Africa, or whether we were a completely homogeneous population, trouble arises from an immoral state of affairs in which land is the cultural heritage of the whole population, and which belongs equally to children yet unborn, when that land is allowed to be vested in the hands of private individuals you must reach a state when there is social discontent, if we disregard entirely what some describe as divine laws. Curiously enough those who proclaim themselves to be Christian or National Socialists are the last to agree that land is the social property of the whole of the community, and they continue to advocate an immoral system under which land belonging to the whole community is vested in a few individuals. While that continues you will get unrest whether we have a multi-racial or a homogeneous population. The Labour Party stands, and always has stood for the control of investment, and they certainly stand for a control of land in the direction in which those who nominally hold occupation for social usuage shall hold no absolute right to continue with it, but shall pay to the State its rental value, and only in the case of land used for living purposes shall a person be entitled to hold title and ownership to that land. We advocate the control of investments, and this is not directed against the Indian community only, but also to our own European capitalist. On that basis I believe there is also a solution to the question of land tenure, but it is a solution which I know the Government would be very unwilling to accept. One must respect human rights, and there is no respect for human rights in a Bill which lays down that the right to impose restrictions with regard to the acquisition and occupation of fixed property in the province of Natal shall be confined to one racial group. A solution along the lines I have suggested is a solution which would avoid the necessity of having a Bill which commences with the title placing a racial stigma on a race group in this country. If it were possible to amend all these things by the setting down of amendments on the Order Paper I might be prepared to vote for the second reading of this Bill. But knowing that is not possible within the structure of the Bill as presented to the House I am compelled to oppose it and sincerely and strongly to urge on the House that they take steps, all the steps possible, before the conflict reaches the exploding point, a conflict which has now reached a point where we are willing to impose on these people a Bill unwelcome to them, and which has therefore resulted in their invoking aid from overseas on a matter which should be essentially an internal matter for the people of South Africa. It has been argued, quite reasonably, it would have been a much wiser and much saner act to have first of all given the Indian community a franchise before dealing with the other aspects covered in this Bill, and there is some basis for that suggestion. The provisions for a communal franchise are provisions which, if followed on the pattern suggested by the Prime Minister in his speech when he introduced this Bill, can only lead in South Africa to a conflict between different race groups. The very pattern outlined by the Prime Minister is a pattern that will compel and bring about a non-European united front in this country. [Time limit.]

I move—

I object.

The Indian problem has up to the present made considerable progress in this House. When we listen to the various arguments that have been adduced here, arguments based on the past and that are now being applied to the future and the present, we are surprised at the attitude of some hon. members and groups of members in this House. I regret that an extension of time was not conceded to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because I would like to have heard what more he has to say about agreements to be made with the Indians for a solution of this problem. He mentioned here all the things that the Indians are supposed to have done and everything that can be done to meet them in order to solve the problem. But let me tell the hon. member there is only one thing —and we know from our past experience— that will satisfy the Indians, there is only one demand they are putting forward, and that is equal rights and equal status with Europeans in South Africa.

What about the Pretoria Agreement?

We have here a new or superior section of the Indian community, and my experience is—and this has been the experience of the country—that no measures in connection with the upliftment of the Indians or anything of that sort will satisfy them. They are advancing only one demand, and that is equal status for the Indians with the Europeans in South Africa. They make only one demand, and if we do not accede to that demand it avails nothing to talk about an agreement.

But what about the Pretoria Agreement?

We understand very well the attitude of our hon. friend here who makes interjections. We know that he looks through dark glasses and as a result he sees only a black race in South Africa, and consequently also a black South Africa. I would like to tell him at once that with that attitude he is undermining the position of the natives whom he should be representing. He is making the position of the natives very difficult for the future; if in future difficulties should arise between the Europeans and the natives he will be the cause of that and no one else.

But you have not yet told me whether you know about the Pretoria Agreement.

He tells all sorts of things to the natives, and instead of him acting in an advisory capacity he does not do that but will only put demands to us here that this or that is the right thing for the natives. Small wonder many people feel we will do much better with a native as representative in this House in order to advance their interests than with the members who are now representing the natives.

I thoroughly agree.

But we must leave that there. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) says we must secure a solution by means of an agreement with the Indians. He has not mentioned any case to us where a solution has been found as the result of an agreement that has arisen from representations addressed to the Indians. Unfortunately I must here agree with the members who stated that the Indians in South Africa are making their position much worse than it was ever before, because in South Africa they have viewed this problem from an international standpoint instead of a national standpoint. It is the same mistake that India made by wishing to interfere in a local matter which it knows nothing about and regarding which it has much to learn, namely to regard this problem in South Africa from an international viewpoint and not from a national viewpoint.

I would at once congratulate the Prime Minister cordially on having had the courage to introduce this legislation and on having always remained consistent in respect of the policy he has followed and which has now brought him to the stage of introducing legislation of this character. I shall vote for (the Bill. I shall vote for it because I feel that I can defend this legislation and the standpoint of this legislation on the platteland, and I shall do that. But I would say this to the Indians, they are the cause of the difficulty that has obliged the Prime Minister to come with legislation of this character because in the past they have ignored and broken all agreements, because they went in for further penetration, because they trespassed where they had no right. They said they would not do it in the future but they did it. We have sections among the Indians in South Africa. We have the Hindus, who are absolutely satisfied with this Bill and with the laws that the Government wishes to make, as well as with the agreement that the Government made with the Indian community in South Africa. The section who are not satisfied and who will never be satisfied, and who have now made an appeal to India and to other foreign powers, is comprised of Mohammedans who came to the Union illegally years ago and who were not brought into the country. I do not say this about all of them, but at least 60 per cent. of them have entered the country illegally, and after all sorts of difficulties had arisen reconciliation was affected with them and they were allowed to stay here. If they will now cast their minds back to that time, they ought to appreciate the action of the Government of the Union and they ought to drop this agitation and this international appeal. They must admit that their treatment was exceptionally good.

I turn now to the arguments that were advanced by members on the other side. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), and I am sorry he is not here at present. He said they also stood for representation of minorities, but not for representation in the sense in which it is now granted to the Indians in this Bill. He does not want representation of the Indians as a group in this House, nor does he want the representatives of the natives here. In the Senate they are quite free to be represented. We thus have the position that that hon. member does not wish to give representation to those people in the Lower House, but in the Higher House they may indeed be represented. An interjection was made from this side, and thereupon the hon. member for Stellenbosch said that they did not vote for the legislation that gave this representation to the natives. He flatly denied that. He said that, and quite a number of our friends behind him also denied it. Do they know that the Bill adopted in 1936 was a Nationalist Party Bill? It was their hobby ever since they came into power, and there were combined sittings in 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929 and 1930, and all on the same question. I should like to return to the repudiation made by my hon. friend. He said they did not vote for the Native Bills of 1936.

We wanted Bill No. 1.

If my hon. friend will exercise a little patience, he will learn a great deal before we have finished with this Bill. I have the Hansard report before me of the Joint Sitting at which the Bill was adopted at that time. Here we have the persons who voted for the Bill and those who voted against it. The figures for the division were 168 for the Bill and 11 against. Amongst those who voted for the Bill I find the following: Karl Bremer, F C. Erasmus, J. J. Haywood—I am only mentioning those who are still here—J. C. Kemp, S. P. le Roux, P. J. H. Luttig, D. F Malan, P. O. Sauer, G. P. Steyn, J. G. Strydom, J. F. T. Naudé and L. J. Vosloo.

What is the argument?

How, then, can our friends on the other side deny that they voted for the Bill? I repeat that this was their pet topic in. 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929 and 1930, when it was under discussion in the Joint Sitting. They went further. They did not want only three representatives in this House. They were more liberal, and they themselves proposed that there should be seven native representatives in this House. Let my hon. friends deny that. Then we want to point out what the position was at that time. I recall that in 1935 another Select Committee was appointed to enquire, and there are members sitting on the opposite benches today who were members of that Select Committee, and for what did they vote on that Select Committee?

What has that got to do with this matter?

In a minute I shall read out the Hansard report of 20th February, 1929 (column 162), from the speech of Mr. P. W. le Roux van Niekerk, to show what they voted for. He was a champion of the natives and a member of the Nationalist Party at that time. He is now in the Senate. Then my hon. friends will understand what the policy of the old Sap Party was and also what our friends on the other side voted for. Seeing that my hon. friends approved that sort of thing in connection with the natives, they must preserve that attitude today, because it is legislation that they forced on the people when they were in power. I read from the Hansard report—

This was an agreement that Gen. Hertzog as Leader of the Nationalist Party made with the present Prime Minister, who at that time was Leader of the South African Party Opposition. I read further—

This was the old South African Party—

What does the hon. member say now? If my unfortunate friend still doubts, I shall buy him a copy of Hansard and give it to him, and he can frame it so that his children’s children may read it. This was the Nationalist Party, the great champions of European civilisation, and now they wish to criticise our Prime Minister.

To what party did you belong?

I shall say this for the umpteenth time. It was my misfortune at that time to be a member of the Nationalist Party and because this was the sort of policy they followed, and because they somersaulted time and again I said I would not be a turncoat and I would go to a party that was consistent, and that is why I stand behind the Prime Minister, and I shall vote for this Bill because I feel that since the commencement of Union he has always been consistent on this matter. Now I hope the hon. member knows it.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I cannot help it if people who are vulnerable are hurt. If they are vulnerable they should wait until they are hurt, and if hon. members lay themselves open as a result of their policy in the past they must expect to be hit. I am sorry for them, but I cannot help it. I read further—

This is one of their big noises who is still in the Senate. I hope that hon. members are now convinced that the policy they followed was much worse that what is now being followed or that will be followed in the future. But I wish to go a little further. In connection with the Indian problem, which is today a burning question, I want to say frankly and without reserve that the party on the other side and the Leader of the Opposition by their policy of the past are the cause of our being landed with our present difficulties. They cannot get away from that.

You know that that is not so.

The hon. member is still at school, he is still young. He will improve. I shall have many things to tell him before this Parliament is dissolved, and I shall still quote a good deal to him, and then I hope he will return to his voters and tell them that he never had such a school as this Parliament, and that he never acquired as much experience of what his party had done in the past. He must hear the truth. I now return to the uplift policy of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Indians. I have in mind the Cape Town “Gentleman’s Agreement”. I should like again to read out something the hon. member should endeavour to remember. You will recall that in 1924 when the old South African Party went out of office and a general election occurred the present Prime Minister was engaged in pushing the Class Areas Bill through Parliament. With the dissolution of Parliament the Bill was left in abeyance and it was hoped that the incoming government that was formed by the Nationalist Party in 1924 would go on with it. Here I should just like to read out what occurred in connection with the Class Areas Bill—

The new Minister of the Interior was the present Leader of the Opposition. I am reading this passage in reply to the accusation against the Prime Minister that throughout his life he has followed a policy of postponement and procrastination. At that time who was the person who delayed? Now our Prime Minister comes with the Bill and the Leader of the Opposition moves an amendment to postpone this matter for two years in order that it may be given further consideration. It is a matter that has engaged the attention of statesmen in the Union ever since 1907. As if hon. members on the other side have not had enough time to study the matter and to decide what course they will take! I read further—

The South African representatives acted for the government of the day and did not accept that resolution, but now it is stated that the Prime Minister of today and the old Sap Party were not logical and ran away from their responsibility. Let me read further—

Now hon. members should say where the inconsistency of the Prime Minister comes in. They are pretending they are not listening, but they will have to hear.

We do not listen to nonsense (kaf).

I come to the Cape Town “Gentleman’s Agreement”, paragraph 6. I should like the hon. member to absorb this “kaf” (chaff). It is good for people who are not used to better food. It says—

1. (6) In the expectation that the difficulties with which the Union has been confronted will be materially lessened by the agreement which has now happily been reached between the two Governments, and in order that the agreement may come into operation under the most favourable auspices and have a fair trial, the Government of the Union of South Africa have decided not to proceed further with the Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill.
2. (7) The two Governments have agreed to watch the working of the agreement now reached and to exchange views from time to time as to any changes that experience may suggest.

I am now showing what the Leader of the Opposition did at that time as Minister of the Interior. In spite of the Pegging Act, in spite of the breaking of the Pegging Act by hundreds of members of that community, what did the Leader of the Opposition do? He procrastinated and procrastinated in order to see how the agreement would work. But today when our Prime Minister comes with a Bill to dispose of this unpleasant matter once and for all they come and say that the Prime Minister wishes to press the measure through the House and they propose that it should be postponed for two years. The further penetration can take place, it does not matter now. I maintain that it is a policy of that sort that is the cause of the difficulties we are faced with today, and when I say this I do not wish to blame the Indian community alone for the penetration and the infringements that have occurred, because Europeans have been just as guilty as the Indian community. I should like to see this Bill go through as it is, but if there is one amendment I should like to see it is that for infringements of this sort, penetration, not only should the Indian be punished but also the Europeans who have assisted him to break the law. Then we shall do right towards the Indians. Many Indians have penetrated into areas with the assistance of Europeans, and the Europeans have been in most instances persons who are opposing the Prime Minister today because they feel that they will no longer be able to make the profits from such infractions of the law that they are making today. I think it will be a good thing if the Europeans were pulled up just as much as the Indians. But we go further. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemo) made threats and he issued a challenge that he would tell our constituents how we voted in connection with the Bill. I accept the challenge and invite the hon. member to my constituency to tell my voters how I voted. He is welcome. But I feel I must lay down certain conditions. When the hon. member accepts the invitation there are certain conditions. I am sorry that the hon. member pretends he is not listening.

Come to Lichtenburg.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) is welcome to assist the hon. member for Wolmaransstad but there are certain conditions. He must also tell the voters — this great superAfrikaner, who thinks no one else but himself can be an Afrikaner — he must tell the voters what he did in connection with the importation of Chinese in 1907. He pretends that he does not hear. I wish to tell the House and the country today that this great super-Afrikaner, the Boer general from 1899 to 1902, and later the great rebel of 1914, hired a National Scout in 1907, a traitor to the Boer nation …

I do not think this has anything to do with the debate.

Then I shall not mention that person any further. But I refer to the problem of the Chinese because to a large extent I put it on the same footing as the problem of the Indians, and seeing hon. members on the other side are making such a fuss about this problem I will just say that that person had petitions signed for Chinese to come into the country, and for that purpose he not only appointed that person to obtain petitions but he received money from certain mining magnates to do this.

You know that is untrue.

I say that he should also tell the voters that story.

The hon. member knows that is not true.

I cannot hear what the hon. member says.

He says that you lie.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) says that I lie. Well, that does not matter. Today everything that is true and right is stigmatised as a lie, but that does not make it any the less the truth. I say that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad gave 1s. a name for petitions to retain the Chinese in the Union. He received 5s. a name. I should like to know what became of the other 4s.

I have already said that what the hon. member has stated is untrue. Let him repeat it outside without the privilege of the House.

I must ask the hon. member to return to the Bill.

I shall leave that point. I only mentioned it on account of their objections to the colour problem today. I should like us to be consistent when we discuss this matter. I return to the gentlemen’s agreement of 1926. Today they say that the Prime Minister is acting hastily and is proposing something which is not acceptable. The Prime Minister is acting consistently, in conformity with his past policy, and this Bill will be one of the most popular measures ever accepted by the House.

The battle for South Africa goes on. It is the battle of the non-Europeans and the Europeans are fighting a losing battle. The hon. member who has just sat down, made a contribution to this debate which certainly does not redound to the credit of this House. Not a single other member on the other side or this side of the House has made use of that kind of argument.

He spoke the truth.

We expect that people will be serious about this matter. It is a vital question we are dealing with and it demands the attention of every white South African to whatever party he may belong. We will not solve this problem unless we realise our responsibility as Europeans For that reason I shall not go further into that kind of argument. I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister: India has a status, but we know that it is not a Dominion status. I should like to know what the status of India is. Is it a Crown colony, or does India enjoy a status which in some respects is higher than that of a Crown colony? I should like to know that. And why do I want to know that? Because the Indians are threatening us with economic sanctions and we are a Dominion, we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and according to the interpretation of the Status Acts given by the Prime Minister, the Crown is indivisible. By that we understand that if any nation takes steps against one of the members of the Commonwealth, it affects the other members too. India has a Viceroy who represents the King there. I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether he knows or is prepared to tell us whether that Viceroy has informed the King of England of the British Government that India intends to apply sanctions against the Union? We ask that because we are becoming suspicious. The matter is not quite clear to us, seeing that we do not hear anything about the attitude of the British Government in this matter. We should like to have clarity on this point. I want to dwell on a few other points before I come to the Bill itself. I am glad that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) is in his seat. The other day the hon. member told the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss): Look here, you as a Freestater should not interfere with matters pertaining to Natal. Well, we in the Free State are interested in Natal. Some of us are more entitled to be interested in it than the hon. member is. I want to know whether any of his forefathers are buried in Natal, whether they shed their blood for Natal. We did. My forefathers shed their blood for Natal. My great-grandfather fell at the capital of Dingaan. Some of my forefathers fought at Bloedrivier. Today some of my family are living in Natal. I want to leave it at that. Every citizen of this country is interested in Natal because we form one great union. We, the Europeans, are one great family, and we dare not say to one another: You have no interests here and you have no business there.

Who has ever said that?

You said that to the hon. member for Harrismith.

I did not.

There are certain things which alarm us Freestaters. We are upset because the franchise may be extended to the north. The Free State is being encircled. What is the position of the Free State? Fortunately our wise ancestors passed a law preventing the Asiatics from coming to the Free State.

Not your ancestors. They were in the Cape in those days.

My ancestors were not in the Cape in those days; they were in the Free State. But seeing that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is so obstreperous, I want to tell him something. The other day he said that our ancestors came from working class stock.

Shame.

I did not intend discussing this matter, but I just want to tell him that my forefathers were the Beggars and the Huguenots.

Your ancestors were Germans.

My ancestors belonged to the nobility of Europe. That is the reason why they were immune to degeneration in South Africa. I shall be glad if the hon. member will afterwards get an opportunity to say what he wants to say.

You cannot teach me the history of South Africa.

I must ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to stop his interjections.

It looks as if the hon. member for Hospital thinks he possesses a monopoly of speaking, but when he had to fight for the Free State he went into hiding. Then he never took up arms.

That is not true.

The hon. member should rather leave personal remarks alone.

It takes all the patience one has when one is interrupted by a member such as the hon. member for Hospital, but I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member should not allow himself to be distracted by interjections.

I repeat that there is anxiety in the Free State, because we are being encircled by this franchise which is being extended to the north. We have legislation protecting us against Asiatic infiltration, but we should remember that in the Free State we have 18,000 coloureds and in the Transvaal there are 56,000 coloureds and in Natal 20,000. The Transvaal has only 28,000 Indians, i.e. a minority group, and today under this legislative measure before us representation is to be granted to this minority. What alarms us is the following. If those coloureds of the Transvaal and Natal and the Free State start an uprising and demand representation in this Parliament, what should we tell them? What is the attitude which the Prime Minister will take up when one day that demand is made? I repeat that we are perturbed about these matters.

Then there is a further matter which alarms us. We had the statement here by the Minister of Finance, and that also means the removal of the colour bar. He is a responsible person; he is the Chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand. There are people looking to him for guidance and leadership. The University of Cape Town, as we all know, is a sister university of the one on the Witwatersrand, and I have here before me a pamphlet entitled “Socialists and the Colour Bar.” It has been published by the Students’ Socialist Party. I just want to show you what their attitude is and how dangerous is the proposition which the Minister of Finance has laid down for the future generations in South Africa. The future population’s leaders come from those universities, and if this guidance continues we have every reason to be alarmed about the future. I just want to read here what they say in this pamphlet—

I wonder who wrote that?

The author does not believe that himself.

I suppose it comes out of the Kruithoring.

When you smell powder (kruit) you get frightened.

No, this did not appear in the “Kruithoring”. We want to put the following question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance has now laid down that proposition. In 1912 General Hertzog also laid down a policy at De Wild, where he said: South Africa first and thereafter the British Empire. That proposition of the late General Hertzog he afterwards interpreted as meaning that the mastery of the white races in South Africa should be maintained. In that Cabinet the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also held a seat. Today the Minister of Finance comes along and says: Down with the colour bar, remove it from our Constitution. I maintain that this is the policy which is being laid down. That proposition has not yet been repudiated by a single member on the other side.

I suppose you were not in the House.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in agreement with the proposition put forward by the Minister of Finance as his personal opinion. We should like to know that. We should like to know what the considered opinion of the Cabinet is in regard to the proposition put forward by the Minister of Finance. We should very much like to hear that, because the Minister of Finance finds himself in the position that when the Prime Minister should resign or withdraw from public life, he would take over the leadership, and we should like to know what the Prime Minister thinks about this matter, because we want to fight that proposition. We cannot allow it here. I am positive that there are certain friends on the other side who are one with us in our views on this question.

I now want to come to another matter and I want to say that we feel that something else is taking place here which disturbs us to some extent. In 1911 the position in India was rather confused but a war was in the offing and that confused position in India had to be straightened out and in what way was that done? Part of the population in India were called extremists. The slogan of those extremists was “India for the Indians” and their numbers grew continually. What had to be done to get the Indian people once more united behind the Imperial government? The then King and Queen were sent to India. I read the following in the book “India, the Right of Self Government”—

What book is that?

I already said it was called “India, the Right of Self Government”.

Who wrote it?

Definitely not you.

John Coltman.

Don’t answer him.

We know that the position in South Africa is also becoming more and more critical for the Prime Minister. The ground is beginning to give way from under his feet. This Indian question is a question which will have far-reaching repercussions. The English-speaking section in Natal feels oppressed and this legislation cannot be called anything else but a contaminated outcast. Everybody is afraid. Some come and advocate this, but there is4 always a “but” attached to it. The King and Queen are to come to South Africa next year and the ultra-loyalists will see that a mass loyalist demonstration will be staged before the Royal Family on that occasion. There are English-speaking friends who are gradually turning away from the United Party. There are English-speaking friends who now already state that South Africa is their home and that their loyalty lies here. Those friends must now be brought back into the fold and what is the best way of catching them? The best way is to bring the King here.

They are going to catch you.

The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

I am pointing out now that just as in the case of India things are being done in South Africa with the same purpose because this difficult position has arisen in regard to this Bill. But I shall come back to the Bill now. The first part of the Bill deals with the acquisition of land. I now want to ask the Prime Minister: We do not have in our possession all the information about the free areas of which we were told. We received maps; we looked at them but we were not told what the extent, in terms of morgen, of these free areas would be. We were not told how many Europeans are living in those free areas and how many natives are living there. Those are the things we want to know. The hon. member for Hospital said here that the Indians made Natal. I say that this is an insult to the Europeans in Natal. The Europeans made Natal, but what the Indian did do is that he exploited and robbed the poor natives. That we know who have been living there. We say that the native must enjoy the same protection in those free areas as the European. I am convinced that even today, whilst this legislation is before this House, the land values in those areas which are supposed to become free areas, are dropping. The Europeans living there today will not want to stay in those free areas. There will be very few who will stay there. They will leave and this has been proved; they also asked this in connection with the Pegging Act. They do not want to stay together with the Indians in Durban.

That is the sole object of this Bill.

But are the Europeans being protected against losses? Those land values are going to fall. What protection do these people receive? Has the Government taken any precautionary measures to see that those European persons will receive a justifiable market value for their land when they want to move? Has provision been made for the natives now living in those areas, if they want to leave? Where can they go to? We say that we are concerned about these natives, for they assisted in building up Natal. I have never seen an Indian take a whip in his hand to lead a team of oxen; he is incapable of doing it. We say that we are concerned about this matter because large numbers of them are affected. We do not know what the numbers are. We cannot but appeal to the Prime Minister and tell him that we should like provision to be made for those Europeans, so that they will not suffer great losses by having to leave those areas. We should like to see him make provision for the natives living in those areas if they want to leave those free areas.

I now come to the second part of the Bill dealing with the granting of the franchise. On principle, we have always objected to the franchise being extended to the north, and, as I have pointed out, the franchise is now to be given to a minority group in the Transvaal, namely, 28,000 Indians, and there is a large coloured population in the Transvaal, and we feel that they will also afterwards come and demand the franchise. Finally, I just want to say that I am convinced that if the amendment proposed by my leader, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), would be accepted, the right kind of Bill would result. Surely there is nobody here who is not anxious that this question should be solved once and for all. We should find a way out of the difficulty. This proposal offers the assistance of this side of the House by asking for a Select Committee of both Houses. On such a committee it will be possible to get together the best brains of Parliament. Everybody feels that this question must be solved. Everybody feels that all must receive a square deal, and the Europeans in the first place. For that reason I wish to support this amendment wholeheartedly. I consider it to be a sound proposal which is now indicated to solve this difficult position and to obtain the best Bill possible.

It is peculiar to hear the excuses of my hon. friends on the other side. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) feels very nervous that everything will go wrong, yet he still asks that we should postpone the Bill. Until what day must we postpone it? How long did it take to solve the native question? Do hon. members on the other side want us to allow the Indian difficulty to continue for another two years? After my hon. friends on the other side made the promise in 1924 that the Indians would be driven into the sea, they still want the Bill to be postponed now, and that we should again experience what we experienced in 1924. Is it the expectation of the Opposition perhaps that they will be in power within two years, and that they will then be able to introduce a Bill? It is a vain hope. We are all very pleased that the Free State is protected, and the Free State ought to be grateful that the other provinces are also inclined to continue to protect them. If we want to seek salvation in the rest of the Union, if we want to seek salvation in Natal, then it is my opinion that we should tackle the matter today, because the circumstances which exist demand legislation. The son of a soldier returned to the Union the other day from Mauritius. He told me that he could not obtain any work there. The Indians give all the work to their own people. Mauritius did not always have Indians, and still less did Natal always have Indians. Why should we allow Natal to go the same way as Mauritius has gone? The time has arrived when we should put a stop to the Indian penetration. A great deal has been said in this House about what the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance was supposed to have said in Johannesburg, but I think the House can satisfy itself as to what the intention of this legislation is. It is a clear expression of the opinion of the Cabinet and of this party. Any person is free to express his personal opinion outside, and especially on an occasion such as Graduation Day. This Bill, however, gives expression to the belief of this side of the House, and no purpose is served by trying to draw all kinds of conclusions from the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance at Johannesburg. The hon. member for Frankfort stated further that they see that this legislation is going to have far-reaching effects, and he spoke of the rising might of India and the power of the U.N.O. and all that type of thing. I have, however, just returned from the Transvaal, and everywhere I asked: What is the impression that this Bill has made on you? Everyone with whom I spoke said: “Thank the Lord that the only person who has the will and the strength to put through this legislation is still living.” They refer to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to see what would have happened if the Leader of the Opposition had to justify this matter before the U.N.O. I should have liked to see what position he would have held, and what value would have been placed on his point of view if he had to appear before the United Nations.

What have the United Nations to do with this?

I am not speaking of that; the accusation came from that side.

We did not speak about the United Nations.

The hon. member for Frankfort has just spoken about it, and I am just replying to it. In any case, even if the matter does not go before the U.N.O., what must we expect from the person who will have to deal with this matter in the future? It is impossible to think that anyone other than our Prime Minister could tackle this matter and solve it in a satisfactory manner. The people of the Transvaal are naturally concerned about the fact that the Indians are going to obtain more rights. They are concerned about it, but it is a matter of negotiation, and there must therefore be a measure of indulgence, and having regard to the fact that we are going to receive the greatest benefit for ourselves, by far the greatest, it is by far the best to support this matter. So far as my constituency is concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that we support the Prime Minister and I will vote for this Bill. We are referring now to what the Leader of the Opposition did in regard to this matter. Naturally, to a great extent we can look to their past to see what they did. The hon. member for North Rand (Mr. van Onselen) stated a short while ago what the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition was in the past.

It was absolutely distorted.

We frequently hear of distortions. According to our experience in the past, distortions have not usually been made by this side of the House, but I want to quote what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said when he was Minister of the Interior. We must remember that in 1924 the Indians were to be driven into the sea. I had a good old man with me then, a former member of the Transvaal Parliament. He travelled right through the country in connection with the Indian question. He held meetings opposing the Indians. He also had considerable influence, but I will never forget the expression on his face when I ran across him accidentally one day in the main street of my town. The street was bedecked with flags from one side to the other. It was the occasion when Mr. Sastri arrived here as the representative of the Government of India. I asked the old man at the time, he was a very virtuous man: What is the position today?

Who put up all the flags there? It was your S.A.P. town council.

If the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) wants to insult someone let him do it. It was not my town council.

I am not insulting anyone. I am only stating the fact that it was your S.A.P. town council that put the flags there and that you cannot deny. The people who put the flags there were the town council of Potchefstroom.

That is not true. The fact remains that those flags were hung there. Those flags would not have been there if Mr. Sastri, the High Commissioner for India, had not arrived there and the question is who brought him there? It was the Leader of the Opposition.

Was your leader opposed to it?

I then asked the old man — he is now deceased — what he thought of it and he said this is now what has happened as a result of all the endeavours they made in order to drive the Indians into the sea. This is what the Leader of the Opposition as Minister of the Interior stated—

That is what he said on 16th March, 1927, according to Hansard column 1709. It seems to me that the Opposition now want to tell the public the same story; if they only had the power they would have done it in spite of the fear which the hon. member for Frankfort has of international developments; but what did the Leader of the Opposition say in his speech in the House of Assembly on 16th March, 1927? He was prepared to meet the Indian to the extent of granting trade licences and this is the thorniest problem on the platteland, this question of trade licences. He came into power and the first thing that he said was that he refused to do anything to limit the granting of trade licences to Indians and he sheltered behind the fact that it was a matter which rests with the provincial administrations. But I go further. In his legislation of 1932 he made provision to legalise unlawful occupation of ground by Indians in certain circumstances, to legalise unlawfully obtained rights by Indians, to perpetuate the evasion of the law in regard to land tenure by allowing the Indians to substitute a European guardian on his demise by another European guardian.

Was your Leader opposed to that legislation? This is a reasonable question.

I am talking of what the Leader of the Opposition did.

The question I put to you was a reasonable one.

My hon. Leader was not the Minister, nor was he in the Cabinet.

Was he opposed to it?

You can ask him that yourself.

There he sits; he can tell you immediately.

I say that he legalised the unlawful occupation by Indians in certain circumstances. Are there any other questions?

It does not help asking you because you have not got the coinage to reply.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition did. Is it not now the purpose of this Bill to rectify those matters? Is not the reason for the introduction of this Bill to rectify those things? My hon. friends on the other side want to tell us that something else is intended by the introduction of this Bill. My opinion of the Segregation Act has always been that it is a question of separation. I did not think that anyone of us would ever ask that the non-Europeans should be removed hundreds of miles away from the European because we require them and if we do not start with a policy of separation we will be lost. The position in Natal is gradually becoming impossible and that is why I am so pleased that this Bill has been introduced. Naturally there are many European owners in Natal who will be affected by this legislation but if something is not done in Natal then we know what will happen. We see today that the same thing is already happening in the Transvaal and that is why definite steps must be taken at some time or other and the sooner the better. The matter is urgent. If the matter is referred to a Select Committee it will take a few years before legislation will be placed on the Statute Book. One hon. member stated that the Indians must be given an opportunity of giving evidence before a Select Committee. Those things leave us cold. This is the opinion of the people of the Transvaal: It is our concern, as stated by the Prime Minister, and we must act ourselves according to our own convictions. There is no need for us to call in other opinions and the sooner we ourselves tackle the matter the better it will be for South Africa. We know that there are various members who have taken action against the Indians both here in Parliament and outside and said many things against them but we also know that those same members often had the support of the Indians in doing certain things, lawful and unlawful, and the sooner we dispose of these things and the sooner we follow the policy laid down in this Bill, the better. The members on the other side do not only want the Indian problem dealt with in this one Bill but also the whole coloured problem as well as the native problem. That is of course impossible. The Prime Minister in this Bill has given us a lead for the future and the Prime Minister is going in that direction. South Africa will be disposed in the future to follow that lead and then we will solve those other difficulties. We have our native legislation and this Bill in connection with the Indians goes more or less in the same direction. It cannot be said that a new system is now being introduced into South Africa by this Bill on the strength of which we will act in the future. I am very pleased that this House will be accepting this legislation in a few days’ time. I am hoping for just one thing and that is that the members of the Opposition will form a better opinion so that we can vote together or that we will attain a large measure of agreement when we come to the details of the Bill so that we can remove the danger as quickly as possible which is threatening us. The world today is not in the fortunate position in which it was previously. The whole population and the country expects that we will solve this matter because the sooner we can dispose of these things the better and before we are confronted again with other important matters which will be of great importance for the future of South Africa.

I do not wish to reply to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) has just said, but I may perhaps call attention to one or two little points. Apparently he was not sure of the attitude of his own leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, about the coming of Mr. Sastri. Let me tell the hon. member at once that he need have no doubt about the matter. The Prime Minister was 100 per cent. in favour of it.

He knows it very well.

The Prime Minister welcomed him. He wished to have him here, and he welcomed him. The hon. member just tried to get away from the matter. I also just wish to tell the hon. member in this connection that as a result of the agreement made at the time by the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister concerned, more than 17,000 Indians left the country. That is a considerable number.

Some returned again.

Some may have returned, but many nevertheless left.

One member spoke of 5,000.

No, the number is 17,000. But whatever the number may have been that left as a result of it, it was a considerable number, and much gratitude is due to the Leader of the Opposition for what he did. It is strange to me that the hon. member for Potchefstroom is in such a good mood this afternoon. He told us about the flags hung out in Potchefstroom to welcome Mr. Sastri. Who hung out those flags? It was not the Nationalists, and if it was not the Nationalists, then it was his own people, the supporters of the United Party. He did not also tell us that it was the Union Jack that they hung out. Unfortunately it was the position that they did so. I only mention it by the way. I have merely called attention to these few things said by the hon. member, and I do not wish to dwell on his speech any longer.

I wish to return to a matter that I have just mentioned, because one feels that this is now the third important debate that we have had in this session, and that there has been a pleasing feature in connection with all the discussions. We have had the debate on the motion of no confidence that took a few days, and that was fully discussed, we have had the discussion about the proposal to go into Committee of Supply, and now we again have this important discussion, and I must say that it is pleasing and that we are all very happy about it that this very important debate has been carried on in the spirit in which it has been done so far. The discussion was on a fairly high level. Matters were dealt with on their merits, without any personal or political bitterness. We naturally find exceptions such as the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns). I do not blame him in the least. If one is born like that, then you cannot help yourself. He, however, was one of the exceptions, and one might just as well forget them. It is pleasing, I say, that we could carry on this discussion in such a spirit, and that in view of the importance of the matter there was no personal and political bitterness. It is a happy spirit as far as this matter is concerned. We are thankful for it. Let us try to maintain this spirit. Where this spirit exists in the House at the moment, one feels the more that the Prime Minister should not have considered this matter from the party point of view, but that in the interests of the nation he should have considered it on a wide basis. I regret it that the Prime Minister did not make use of this spirit and this opportunity to deal with the matter in a different way than he did. Why did he not deal with this great and important matter—it is called the Indian problem, but it is not merely an Indian problem but actually the whole colour problem, because you cannot deal with the Indian problem separately, since it forms part of the great colour problem—why did he not deal with this great problem facing South Africa at this time in a different way as a great national problem, instead of making it merely a party matter, and making use of his majority to put it through; why did he not rather approach the problem in a different way as a great national matter and try to obtain collaboration? He could so easily have done so. That is what we expected of him and that is what the nation expected of him—he could have approached the Leader of the Opposition and said to him: Look, I intend introducing this legislation, and let us discuss the matter. I feel convinced that hon. members will not differ with me when I say that if there are two men in the country who are fully informed in connection with the Indian problem, then the Leader of the Opposition comes first, who conducted all the negotiations at the time, not only with the Indians in South Africa, but also with the Government of India; it was he who held the discussions, and we know that at the time he invited the Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, to send his representatives, with the result that Sir Patrick Duncan and Mr. Heaton Nicholls were present at the discussions held with the Government of India. Why did the Prime Minister not do the same? The person best informed on this problem is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He had to go into the matter up to the knottiest details in the consultations that were held, and they came to an agreement that for a time in any case was fairly satisfactory and as a result of which a considerable number of Indians left the country, as I have already indicated. The Prime Minister is also fully informed on this matter, and I do not think that two men can be found in the country who are more suited and competent than the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to solve this problem in the interests of South Africa. Why does the Prime Minister not make use of this opportunity? I understand —I do not know whether it is a secret—but I understand that the Prime Minister summoned the Leader of the Opposition and told him that he was going to introduce this legislation, and that he explained the provisions of the legislation to him, but that is all. It was a bare communication. As he went so far, why did he not go further and say: Look, let us have a discussion, let us try to understand one another’s point of view and see whether we cannot come to an agreement; let us see how far we can progress.

What was the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition?

It is not a question of what his reaction was. It was merely a communication to him, and it was not for him to do anything. The only person to whom it was left to propose anything further was the Prime Minister. It is much to be regretted that the Prime Minister did not make use of the opportunity to say: Look, let us try to find a solution to the matter. I feel convinced that if this matter is referred to a Select Committee or something of the sort before the Second Reading—call it a conference—on which all the parties are properly represented, the spirit prevailing in this debate would also have prevailed there, and that the matter would not have been considered as a party measure, and that a serious effort would have been made to find a sound solution. Members should have been left free to give their views on the Bill as their consciences dictated. I say that I am convinced that members would have dealt with the matter ’ in this way, and under the guidance of these two Leaders who are well informed, I feel convinced that we would have reached a solution that may perhaps not have given 100 per cent. satisfaction, but that would certainly have given a greater degree of satisfaction than there is today with this Bill. I remember that in 1936 we were faced with almost precisely the same difficulties in connection with the native legislation. For years—the hon. member for Potchefstroom has stated how long it will take if we now follow the course that we on this side propose—for years we held consultations there, and even if it takes some time, we must bear in mind that we are busy with the whole fate and future of South Africa. Even if it takes a long time to go properly into the matter, we shall nevertheless have the benefit of it just as we had in the case of the native législation. The hon. member also stated that in 1936 we were faced with practically the same difficulty in connection with the vote. We tackled the native problem at that time, but what the hon. member for Potchefstroom and other hon. members on the other side forget is that at that time we had to deal with the native vote that existed here in the Cape, where the native had the right to vote on the same list with the white man. That is a fact that they must not forget. They read out here that the Nationalist Party in the beginning proposed that four, five or six representatives should have been granted. Those hon. members are perhaps not aware of the circumstances at that time, but they must realise that they had to have a majority of two-thirds to take the vote away from the native in the Cape. We simply had to give way. We could not help doing it. At that time we were prepared to stand together; fortunately we were sensible enough to have discussions. The Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, the late General Hertzog and the representatives of all parties met in a combined Select Committee, and all these matters were thoroughly discussed, and the happy result was that we came to the House with a measure—fortunately or unfortunately, I was a member of that Select Committee—with a measure that was not perfect, but that nevertheless partially solved the matter. We were compelled to give way because we needed a majority of two-thirds to take away the native’s vote on the common voters’ list. We then gave the natives three representatives in Parliament. It was not as if we had a free choice. We had to do it, otherwise we could not get the majority of two-thirds. I tremble today, and I think that all the members tremble with me when they think what the position would have been if we had not taken the native’s vote away on the common voters’ list. What would the position have been if the tens of thousands of natives who today can comply with the trifling requirements were today on the common voters’ list with the Europeans in the Cape; just think what the position would have been. But at that time we looked upon it as a national matter. It was a great problem in the country, and I feel convinced that also on this occasion we should have made a national matter of this matter. It can only be ascribed to the fact that we on that Select Committee for a few years, not merely for a few months could bring the matter so far, that we could solve the matter in this way.

Why cannot it be done here now?

There is one convert already. I hope I shall get his support. I wish to appeal to the Prime Minister, and if he accepts our suggestion, then I feel that it will not only have the approval of us on this side, but also the approval of the majority of the members in this House. I do not think that anyone will be so foolish as to be opposed to it. Surely the Prime Minister wishes to have the approval of all and not only the approval of the members of this House, but of the country outside? In this connection I also wish to call attention to another matter. If we can really treat this problem as a national problem here, then I feel convinced that it will bring the public outside in a better mood towards Parliament, and that the public will again develop greater respect and regard for Parliament. Because I am sorry to say, but I am afraid that it is so, that there are many people outside this House, and their numbers are unfortunately not small, and their numbers are beginning to increase, who do not exactly have a high opinion of Parliament as it is now constituted. During the war years we had the position that the Government to a great extent ignored Parliament; the Government was a dictatorial government, and consequently there was not that respect for Parliament that the nation should have for Parliament. It is necessary that we should act in such a way that the nation will again regain that confidence in and respect for Parliament. It is decidedly necessary that the nation should have respect and regard for Parliament. It should be the attitude of members here to bring the nation under the impression that this House, that this Parliament, does not only vote according to instructions, but that we can deal with a matter here as a national matter. This should be our aim at the present moment, and I say that there was an excellent opportunity to do it in connection with this problem. If we could have approached this matter, not from a party political attitude, but as a serious national matter, then we can again regain the confidence of the nation.

Let us now look back at what happened in this House in connection with this Bill. So far not a single member has stood up here and said that he accepted the measure 100 per cent. Take in the first place the hon. members on the other side. Everyone of them had a “but” in his speech. It began with the Minister of Finance. He told us honestly what his attitude is. He accepts the Bill only because, as was also stated by the hon. member for the Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) and other members, it is thé thin edge of the wedge. It is an instalment and later they are sure of obtaining more for the Indians. They accept it as an instalment, and that is where the danger comes in. It is the thin edge of the wedge, and that is why we realise the danger of it. They say that they are going to vote for the measure, but they are not satisfied with it. At the other extreme again we have the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo). He is a Transvaal farmer and he says that he detests the whole Bill. He said that more rights are granted to the Indians than to the natives, but again, as a loyal party member, although he is opposed to the Bill, he is still going to vote for it. It is an unsound state of affairs that this should be the position, that all the members on the other side are not in favour of the Bill, but are prepared to vote for this measure only as a result of their loyalty to their party. Look at the position that we have in the Government party. The Government party is deeply divided over the Bill. The Nationalist Party has put it attitude clearly. We do not vote for the second reading of the Bill. We accept the apartness in the first part of the Bill, but there are also dangers connected with it. We are definitely opposed to the second part of the Bill. Then we come to the Labour Party. It is an extraordinary position that we see in the Labour Party lately. In connection with practically anything of importance that is discussed here, they talk till they are blue in the face against the measure, but when it comes to the vote they vote for it. We can really no longer take them seriously. We cannot take them seriously, because although they have spoken against this measure, they are nevertheless again going to vote for it. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) the other day told us here that although they spoke strongly against the Bill, they are still going to vote for the second reading. In other words, they are going to accept the principle of it. The Dominion Party is in precisely the same position. The Leader of the Dominion Party spoke strongly against the Bill. At times he almost spoke like a Nationalist, but still they are going to vote for the Bill. Then we come to the representatives for the natives—three in number. We have just the same position here. We should have expected it from them. They have shown clearly that they are not acting here as representatives of the natives, but as the representatives of the Indians. They do not look upon the matter from the point of view of the Europeans, but only from the point of view of the Indians and the nonEuropeans. This is an indication to us of the trouble that we are going to have in the future. To us it is really a warning. If we are now going to give this representation to the Indians, it will simply mean that the three representatives of the Indians will range themselves on the side of the representatives of the natives, and this will therefore mean that the natives will have six representatives on the one hand, and that the Indians will also have six representatives on the other hand. They are going to form a bloc of six representing the vote of the coloureds, a bloc of representatives against the European population. This is where the great trouble is going to arise in the future. No, I say again, nobody is satisfied with this Bill. Even the Prime Minister does not feel very happy about it. After this discussion that has taken place, he also does not feel sure about the Bill. But take now the people in whose interests the Bill was introduced. The Indians are the most dissatisfied with the Bill. They rejected the Bill with contempt. They are not satisfied with it, land they go so far as to say that they are going to boycott the Bill and that they are not going to make use of the rights granted to them in it. Would that it may be the case that they may not be able to send representatives to this House. But I am afraid that it will nevertheless happen. The position is that the Prime Minister, when he goes overseas, would like to be armed with this measure so that he can go there with this Bill and say: Look, the Indian problem in South Africa is solved and the European population as a whole supports the solution. I am afraid that this hope of his has unfortunately been frustrated. There is not a measure of unanimity. I feel for him in his unfortunate position, and that is why I should like to see him agree to the appeal that we are making to him. I call upon the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) to support us. We ask the Prime Minister, now that such an excellent spirit is prevailing here, to make use of the opportunity; let the Prime Minister show that he is a great national figure, and not merely a party leader; let him even at this late hour and stage say: Good, I shall act from a national point of view and not merely from a party point of view; I shall allow the matter to be discussed at a committee or conference where all the representatives of the nation will have the opportuuity to make their contribution towards solving this matter in a satisfactory manner. Allow me to give him the assurance, and I am convinced that the Leader of the Opposition will support me, that we shall not make use of it to say that he gave way before the criticism of the Nationalist Party. We shall accept it as a concession and a spirit of accommodation. We know that he has the majority behind him who will vote precisely as he tells them to vote. They cannot do otherwise. Although he can push the Bill through, I wish to appeal to him not to do it in this way, but to give the nation the opportunity to consider the Bill so that some degree of unanimity may be obtained about it, so that we can rouse a feeling in the country that will be satisfied with the Bill. If we can get the opportunity to deal with the measure in this way, and if members of the other side can get the opportunity of also expressing their feelings, then we shall be able to pass a measure here that will not be a party measure, but a measure with which the Prime Minister can go overseas and can say that it is the attitude of the whole European population in South Africa. He can then say that it is the decision of the people of South Africa. Think how his hands will then be strengthened. I hope that this suggestion will even now be found acceptable to him. I am afraid, however, that this is not going to be the case, and I therefore wish to draw attention to a few further aspects on the Bill. If this Bill had been referred to a conference or a Select Committee, I am convinced that the few points that I am now briefly going to raise would not have appeared in the Bill in this form. It shows that they are matters that perhaps did not receive the attention that would have been given to such matters in a Select Committee that deals with such a matter from all points of view. In the first place, there are the regions that are set aside for Indian occupation, and where there may also be European occupation with them. Europeans may go and buy there and live there, and Indians may also go and buy and go and live in the areas set aside. But the danger of it is this. Allow me to say at once that I realise that the argument may be advanced that we have the same position under the Native Bills. In them we also find that provision is made so that Europeans and natives may buy in certain areas. But there is nevertheless a very great difference. We must bear in mind that in such regions individual natives cannot buy alone. There is the Native Trust to which millions of pounds have been made available, that is going to buy land there for the natives. We know that the Native Trust has also already bought a great deal of land. Not only they— and we must remember that they can also expropriate land—but also the native tribes can buy ground there. But what now is the position in connection with the Indians? The Indians and the Europeans can buy there together. The Indians are now already saying that they are going to boycott the Bill and that they are not going to buy in those areas. This may happen, and what then is the danger that arises there and that, in my opinion, is going to be a real danger? In the first place, we do not have a trust that is going to buy land there for the Indians such as in the case of the natives. There is also no tribe that is going to buy land there for itself. It is only the individual Indians who can buy, and they say that they are not going to buy there. What now is going to be the result if the Indians boycott those areas? The land will lie there and it will fall in value, and the result is going to be that the poor class of white man is going to buy land there. The result will be that instead of our getting separteness, we are going to get the position that the poor class of white man will go and live with the Indians in the parts set aside, because they have the opportunity of obtaining land there cheaply. Instead of getting segregation, we shall get a mixture of races. I am afraid that this is going to be the result.

Then I come to the political rights, which I can almost say are being thrust upon the Indians. They do not wish to have those political rights. They definitely refuse to accept the political rights that are now being granted to them. Here again the argument is used that the Indians, just like the natives, are getting representatives in Parliament. But the people who advance the argument forget that the position also differs here. As far as the natives are concerned, we were faced at that time with a position that the natives already had the vote here in the Cape. The natives had the vote, and it was only as an extreme measure, because we could not do otherwise, that we made the concessions and allowed three representatives of the natives to take a seat here in Parliament. We simply had to give way in order in this way to obtain a majority of two-thirds in order to remove the native vote from the common list where it was such a danger to us. There were already 17 or more constituencies in which the natives had a say, and we can realise what the position would have been today if they still had that vote. We had to get two-thirds of Parliament to agree to it in order to take that vote away from them. It was not our aim that they should be here. We desired that they should be represented in the Senate. Discussions took place and, as I said, we could not get the support of the members on the other side unless we were willing to concede that the natives should get three representatives in Parliament. It was an experiment to which we agreed, but allow me to say here that that experiment has not been a brilliant success. Has it helped to create good relations between the native representatives who have to act here on behalf of the natives, and the representatives of the European part of the population? I am afraid that it has had the opposite effect There is already a strong feeling that native representation in Parliament should be abolished. One feels that there is much to be said for it, and if it does happen it will be those hon. members alone that will be responsible for it. We cannot now use the argument that because we have given the natives representatives in Parliament we should now also give the Indians representatives. They are in an entirely different position. They have no political rights in the country. They are being deprived of no political rights so that we have to give them something else in its place such as is proposed in this Bill. Let us now assume that, if these three representatives of the Indians come to Parliament it will give greater satisfaction and build up a better racial feeling between the Europeans and the Indians; will that be the position? Shall we get satisfaction among the Indians? I think that it is clear that we shall not get satisfaction as far as the Indians are concerned. Even now they are not willing to accept it. We have now already seen in the House what the position is with the native representatives, and in future it will not only be they who will act, but there will also be the three representatives of the Indians who will act as agitators to see whether they cannot obtain greater rights. We see now what the native representatives are busy doing, and we can be sure of it that these three representatives of the Indians will range themselves on the side of the native representatives to agitate for full equality with the Europeans in the country. They make no secret of it. That is what they are aiming at. And when they have that position, and the danger is that it will be almost impossible for us to get rid of it. It is very difficult to bring about a change in such a matter. Once such a thing has been done, we must realise that it is going to be very difficult ever to recall it again. If we wish to make a change one day, it will be extremely difficult, and that is why we should think well now before we take such a step. I wish to make a strong appeal to the Prime Minister. Let him agree to our trying to find a solution that will give satisfaction not only to this House, but also to the nation outside, and I am convinced that we can also bring about a greater degree of satisfaction among the Indians if we explain the matter to them. We accept the part of the Bill dealing with segregation, because it contains that principle, although changes will have to be made. I am glad that the Prime Minister now also accepts that principle. There was a time when one began to doubt whether it was still the policy of the Prime Minister, and I am glad that he has again adopted that attitude in connection with this Bill, because it is high time that we should now make the Indians understand that the European population will never allow Indians and Europeans to live together. They must grasp and understand this, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has in any case taken that step and that he has made it clear to them that he will not be influenced by threats. Now I should also like to address a few words to the Indians. They are certainly not advancing their case and it is certainly not a sensible attitude to send such insulting telegrams and such provocative telegrams to members of Parliament as they have done. The telegrams have already been read out, and I just wish to read them out again to show their insulting tone. The first telegram on 26th March reads—

What do you say to that?

Yes, we are just as opposed to the Bill as the Indians, but for quite different reasons. They are opposed to the Bill because they desire more rights, we are opposed to it because the rights in the Bill are granted to them. There was a second telegram and it will explain what the attitude of the Indians is. Hon. members must just listen to it. It shows that if you vote for the Bill you will merely encourage them in the wrong. The second telegram reads— reads—

It is an extremely reprehensible tone that is adopted, but you still get members who wish to support those people, the organised Indians in our country. I think that it is time that the Indians are warned that they must not use threats, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has also stated that he will not be deterred by their threats, and by threats of the Government of India. They threaten us with a boycott and other retaliatory measures they wish to apply. Let me just point out that it may work like a boomerang. What will happen if the Indians in the Transvaal—I am now speaking of the Transvaal because I know the conditions there—are paid in the same coin? The Indians in the Transvaal at least are a hundred per cent. dependent on European support, and not only a political party, but also other organisations may be used if they wish to apply the same counter-measures and to boycott them. They will be able to put out guards and allow nobody to buy from the Indians. I wonder how soon they will be broken. I do not advocate it, but if the Indians go on in this way and use such stupid threats and attempt to frighten the Europeans, then it is time to warn them. We shall not allow them to frighten us. At Pietersburg we have many decent Indians of the old type, good inhabitants, and I feel convinced that they do not agree with the insulting language of the telegrams, but if the Indians act as an organised body, then it is time that the other Indians should repudiate that organised body. I just wish to say something in connection with one incident of which perhaps few hon. members are aware and of which the nation also does not know. During the war a large number of engineers were sent to India, engineers of the Allies, in connection with important war work that they had to go and do there. Roads had to be measured out and engineering work had to be done. Among them there were South Africans. I think there were four of them, officers of high standing. There were Canadians, Australians, Englishmen and Americans, and then the Indian Government said that the four South Africans could not work there, and that they would not allow them to operate there, and they were compelled to return. That is what the Government of India did. They said that they would not allow the South Africans to work there with the other engineers in India. Just think of the insult offered to those South African officers. They had to go to the Australians and Canadians and others and say that they had to return because the Indian Government would not allow the South Africans to work there. That is the spirit of bitterness that characterises the actions of the Government of India. I hope that a better spirit will arise, but if they act in that way, then South Africa will also have to insist on its rights and act. May I then just make this further appeal to the Prime Minister: This is the first legislation in connection with the colour problem after the war. May I ask him, if a colour problem again comes up for discussion and he intends introducing such new legislation, to attempt to obtain collaboration with the different parties and with the different groups so that we can treat these great matters as national matters and not as party matters, especially where it deals with the colour problem. The future of South Africa and of European civilisation depends on the treatment of the colour problem, and he must not treat that matter as a party matter. Then the nation will also develop greater respect for Parliament. I think that the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has already pointed out that we also hope that if representation has to be given to Indians—I am not in favour of it, but if it must happen then I hope that it will be laid down that the representatives of the Indian population may present their case as well as they can in the interests of the Indians, but that they will not be able to vote. Because what would it mean if they could vote? The three will not be able to put a measure through this House, but will only be able to use their vote when a difference exists between one part of the Europeans and the other part. In this way they will possess a power that they would otherwise never have had. If they have to come here, let us give them the right to talk and to act here, but not the right to vote in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: I would invite the attention of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to Section XI of the Act, which reads as follows—

Who are the Syrians? I think that if we go through the trading classes in the Transvaal, and if we examine a large portion of the trading classes in Natal, we will find that a large number of these traders are Syrians or near Syrians, people who have never seen India. They come from the Gulf of Basra and from the Red Sea; they come from the slave traders of East Africa; they come from Palestine, from Syria and from Turkey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is wise that the House should know who these Syrians are, and in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” there is a definition I would like to quote—

It is easy to deduce from this that Syrians are actually Asiatics, and the fact of the matter is that we are admitting a large number of admittedly Asiatics to be considered as Europeans, for the purposes of the first part of the Bill. When we consider a little further what the government of Syria is, we find the following—

This concerns Natal vitally; it concerns the Transvaal vitally, and may I say that every provision of the Bill which is before us can be avoided by persons claiming Syrian origin.

How many Syrians are there in Natal?

Possibly the Census may show that. I cannot give the figures, but I do know that in times past these traders insisted that they should not be called Indians, but Arabs. Moreover, they were referred to generally throughout Natal 40 years ago as Sulemans. If that is not an Asiatic appellation, I leave it to the House to judge. Now I consider that this is a vital definition, and I would ask the Prime Minister seriously to consider this matter of the inclusion of Syrians amongst Europeans for the purpose of this Bill, and I am asking him to consider whether he will accept an amendment, to omit the word “Syrian” in the Committee stage. That is the reason I have drawn attention to the fact that the object of the Bill would be largely upset if this definition is embodied as framed. And still on this question of Syrians, I would ask the House to consider where the agitators at present agitating against the Bill originate. We find from the telegrams we are receiving that there is a United Indian or Asiatic Association in the Transvaal. I wonder, if we could get hold of these people, whether it would be satisfactorily proved that even oné of them had ever been to India in their lives, except as a visitor. They were not originally Indian born, but want to be considered as Indians as far as the representation part of this Bill is concerned, but as Syrians for the purposes of occupation of property and residence.

The point is that they were born in South Africa.

I will come to that. I suppose that of all the Natal members I am the only one who has received an invitation to visit Natal recently in connection with this Bill because the Bill was only issued last Wednesday week, and it could only reach Natal last Monday morning, and if anyone else has visited Natal since then, I would have known about it.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) went there.

That was before the Bill was printed. Let that pass. I may inform members that it has been said in Natal that the only people who have consulted them are the Nationalists. I was not invited, but practically ordered to attend a special meeting of the Natal South Coast Voters’ Association, which has twenty-six branches in my constituency. They convened a meeting by telegram and telephone, and advertisement, and invited representatives from every local authority on the coast. There were eighty delegates at the meeting, representing practically every part of my constituency. I was required to explain the implications of the Bill, and I did so, so far as I could. Everyone will admit that the Bill is very very difficult to dissect and to analyse. It is not in plain language. One needs a whole pile of law books alongside of one in order to understand it, and to get the proper implication of some of the clauses one has to pass from one to the other and by the time one has finished, one has forgotten what one started out to find. Now, the main impression I got at the meeting I received from resolutions submitted to the meeting by a young ex-volunteer in which he called upon me to throw out the Bill and to ask the Prime Minister to come to Natal and hear what they have to say before he brings the Bill into Parliament. Of course that was done through inexperience. I explained that I could not throw out the Bill [Laughter], and that the Prime Minister’s leadership of a party which outnumbered every other party in the House, and which would give him their undivided support, resulted in only the Prime Minister himself being able to throw out the Bill. They then submitted a much milder resolution, and with some opposition to a simple phrase in it, they passed a resolution which was communicated to the Prime Minister by telegraph, in which they approved of the Bill in certain respects, but had strong objection to the composition of the board and recommended that the board. shall consist of five members, with alternates, and that the quorum should be five. They had no confidence in a board of five members and a quorum of three, of whom two might be Asiatics. And one can see the danger of that. Presuming that on an occasion the only members present are the chairman, a legal man, and two Asiatics, does one imagine that the European is going to get justice from a board of that sort? And that is what is laid down in the Bill. And I do not think they have a very high appreciation of the Minister of the Interior. They look back upon his administration of the Pegging Act and recall that there were sixteen applications from local authorities for an ad hoc commission to enquire into particular allegations, but that he did not appoint one such commission; but he has issued permits, and they damned these permits from the ceiling to the floor at the meeting I attended.

Is that the only thing they have against the Bill?

No, it is not. May I again mention the fact that although the Prime Minister has said that this Indian problem is due to a historical mistake, there was another historical mistake which was much more serious than the introduction of Indians into South Africa. I refer to Act 17 of 1895, clause 6, where every indentured Indian who after the expiry of his indenture refused to return to India was obliged to take out a licence to remain in the colony for which he had to pay the yearly sum of £3. That ensured that every Indian in Natal was a temporary resident and that every one of them could be expelled from Natal if he did not pay his licence. Then the Solomon Commission in 1912 or 1913 made certain recommendations as to the yearly licence of £3, recommending that it should be remitted, and by an Act of the Union Government, at that time under the premiership of Gen. Botha, assisted by the present Prime Minister, who introduced the Bill, it was remitted, and these Indians apparently became Union nationals, because they were no longer temporary residents in Natal residing there by virtue of a licence. So the bigger of the historical mistakes was made by the Union Government in 1914. I hope we shall not hear too much more about Natal being responsible for the present Indian — I cannot call it a problem — but position.

And menace.

Yes, it is a menace also. We find that the people of Natal, and the Durban Joint Wards Committee, having now seen copies of the Bill and digested some of its contents, and realised the implications, are changing their opinions in regard to the Bill. At first they were wholly in favour of it. That was before the Bill was printed. On March 23rd the Durban Joint Wards Committee in full session unanimously recommended as follows—

On 30th March, when they had had time to see the Bill, they said—

Not the Minister, but the approval of Parliament. I hope the Prime Minister will seriously consider that recommendation, because this Durban Joint Wards Committee is not an unimportant body. It practically represents the whole European population of Durban. As further evidence of the fact that the people of Natal are waking up to the implications of the Bill, may I read a telegram I received this morning—

They are waking up.

Who signed that?

The chairman.

How could he sell his property to an Indian?

A fortnight ago the town clerk of Harding sent me a wire to support the Bill in its entirety. I told them that was premature because we did not know the contents of the Bill, and the reply by telegram which reached me at Scottburgh was—

Who signed it?

The Town Clerk of Harding signed it. I have quoted these telegrams as an idea is prevalent that Natal has been consulted. Natal has not been consulted. Natal is being offered as a burnt sacrifice on the altar of expediency. That is what has happened. The Minister smiles, but I think he knows what I am referring to, and owing to an injunction laid upon me I am not permitted to relate it.

What is the sacrifice?

Let me come to the Bill itself. I refer first of all to Clause 10, subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), which seem to me to be the crux of the whole question of land occupation and tenure.

What does the Town Clerk of Harding say about that?

Clause 10 (1) reads—

Then Clause 8 (3) reads—

Contrast that with Clause 9 (4)—

Where are we? In the one section the Minister “shall not grant any permit,” where there is the anti-Asiatic clause in title deeds, but in the next section “no provision discriminating against any race or racial group shall be inserted in the title deed …” Where are we? I am putting that question to the Prime Minister. Where are we?

Ask the Town Clerk of Harding.

If anybody can read sense into these clauses after an hour-and-a-half I shall be surprised; I give it best. Clause 4 states—

What does it mean? I wonder whether the Minister of the Interior could inform us what it means? [Laughter.] You people may laugh but please recollect for the time being Natal is vitally interested in this matter. It is not a subject for levity or rude remarks. This in a matter which affects every man, woman and child in Natal, and in the words of one of the ex-soldiers last Thursday at Scottburgh: “The elderly men are making these laws which will affect us when they are dead and gone; we shall bear the brunt of all this when they have passed to oblivion”. That is happening and that is what will happen, so I ask you to deal with this matter without levity and with all the seriousness it demands.

Do you want the Indians to be consulted or only the Europeans?

The Indians have been consulted time and again by the Prime Minister through their Congress. There is another aspect of the first part of the Bill to which I would draw attention. Clause 12 states—

1. (a) every application for a permit required under sections two, four or five;
2. (b) every determination to be made under sub-section (2) of section six;
3. (c) the desirability or otherwise of declaring any area under section nine to be an area in respect of which the provisions of sections two, three and four shall not apply;
4. (d) the desirability or otherwise of assigning any area under paragraph (d) of section two of Law No. 3 of 1885 of the Transvaal; or of the alienation to Asiatics of land situate in an area set apart under section ten of the Municipal Amending Ordinance, 1905 (Ordinance No. 17 of 1905) of the Transvaal.

That refers to Vryheid and Utrecht. But we find on page 14 of the Bill clause 20, which states—

That proclamation applied to Vryheid and Utrecht. The provisions applied to the whole of the Transvaal, and after these districts were incorporated into Natal, after the Anglo-Boer War — this proclamation was issued. Now it is repealed. Yet this board which has to be set up and nominated by the Minister of the Interior is to “enquire into and advise the Minister” whether properties in those areas may be acquired by Asiatics. Do you think Vryheid and Utrecht will put up with such a thing? They will not. They want to know whether their present position will be maintained. At present no one there knows whether this precious board is going to recommend some of their land to be alienated to Asiatics. They have been safe since 1885. From 1946 they will not be safe, and that is what I want the House to realise. I should like to stress the significance of clause 49 in regard to the election of members of the Provincial Council of Natal. It states—

That means that Indians may be elected to the Provincial Council of Natal. That is what it means in plain language, and that is what the people of Natal are going to object to and object to with every ounce of strength they have. Moreover, it is implied in this that the Natal Provincial Council can pass an ordinance which will have the effect of enabling Indians to be elected to Municipal Councils, Town Councils, Town Boards, Health Committees, Malaria Committees and any other local authority in Natal. And the people of Natal are waking up to the fact, and they say: “We will not have it.”

How are they going to stop it?

The Prime Minister is reasonable, and we in Natal are relying on the Prime Minister to see we are not saddled with this sort of thing

The United Municipal Executives are behind us.

Oh, you are Indian-minded.

Order, order. Will the hon. member address the Chair?

I am sorry, Sir. We rely on the Prime Minister to see Natal is not saddled with Indian representatives in these local councils or in the Provincial Council or in Parliament.

But your leader said he was prepared to have them in the Senate.

That is not so bad. But, personally, I feel that having Indian representatives in the Senate or in this House and as members of local authorities is a dangerous thing. If the proposal is agreed to in this House, a sectional interest will be set up, and the creation of sectional interests will militate against the proper consideration of matters brought before this House. It is all going to have tremendous repercussions, because it opens the door to their political equality, and in that connection I will refer to the speech that was made by the Minister of Finance. I will say that he has nailed his flag to the mast. He is out for the representation of the Indian, and of every coloured person in the whole country, on the common roll. If he gets his way and if ever he is in a position to command the majority of members in this House and impress his ideals upon them, we may look forward to the Prime Minister’s bench being occupied by one similar to Abdul the Damned, but instead of a bench there will probably be a divan with cushions and a Turkish pipe. That is the logical outcome of the attitude of the Minister of Finance. If it comes to a Parliamentary mixture of that sort, God forbid that I should be a member of this House.

In conclusion, may I say we in Natal rely on the Prime Minister’s sense of fitness, fairness and justice to see that the heritage of the Europeans of Natal will not be menaced by these parasites, and in that category I do not include those people who are descended from the indentured Indians, but I particularly refer to the trading class, which is battening on every section of the community in the Cape, Natal and the Transvaal—thank God, the Free State was wise enough to exclude them in their day; but I do ask that the Prime Minister will extend to the Europeans of Natal the protection they deserve.

The only thing we want to say in reference to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) is just this. We want to remind him that he represents a Natal constituency and that it is largely a Natal difficulty that gave rise to this legislation. We therefore expected a little more gratitude from a Natal representative. Apparently they want to assume for themselves all the advantages of any legislation, but they definitely refuse to accept any responsibility in that connection. I want to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). Unfortunately he is not here. I want to congratulate him, however, in his absence, on the calm and collected and nice way in which he dealt with this Bill. There are a few points, however, that we must refute. He replied to the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) in connection with the arrival and the reception accorded to Mr. Sastri as Agent-General of India. We want to remind him that it is his leader who allowed Mr. Sastri to come here. We do not want to go deeply into the history of this matter, but let us take as a starting point the Imperial Conference of 1923. At that Imperial Conference the present Prime Minister was present, and he very clearly gave the delegates of India to understand that a High Commissioner from India would not be welcomed in South Africa and that we simply did not want him here. Unfortunately for this matter his Government resigned in 1924 and the Nationalist Party Government came into power. They then made an effort to re-introduce the legislation which had been introduced in 1923 by the previous Government, but India opposed it and the hon. Leader of the Opposition heeded that opposition. We know what the outcome of it was—the Cape Town Agreement. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. members on the other side to criticise us in this respect.

There is another matter which the hon. member touched upon, and that we must also refute. I fully agree with him, and we all realise that this is an important and serious Bill, and to the best of our ability we want to give every possible attention to it. The hon. member naturally supported the motion of his leader, and advocated that this legislation be postponed and referred to a Select Committee. But this matter has been referred to commissions repeatedly for investigation, and we have repeatedly had reports from commissions in that regard. I think all the facts in connection with this matter are at the disposal of the Government, and not only at the disposal of the Government, but both sides of the House are in possession of all the facts relating to this matter.

Furthermore, in the course of this debate which has been conducted here during the past few days, all these arguments have been repeated and all the facts which can be revealed have already been revealed to the country and to this House. How could we at this stage collect any further facts and further information if we were again to refer this matter to a Select Committee? But I want to say again to the hon. member for Pietersburg…

We did not refer to a commission.

Although this matter was not referred to a Select Committee, there were other committees which examined this matter just as thoroughly.

Not the question of the franchise.

I just want to say that the position in Natal does not permit of further postponement. When we talk to people in Natal who suffer because of this problem, they emphasise this aspect of the matter that a state of confusion and of dislocation has arisen in the whole life of Natal, and that this matter must be solved at the first possible opportunity. The hon. member for Pietersburg stated that they support the first part of the Bill. Since there is no difference of opinion as far as the first part is concerned, let us once again emphasise that the first part of the Bill, in broad outline, follows the same lines as the legislation introduced in 1923 by the old South African Party Government. That is the Bill, the passage of which was interrupted by the intervention of the Nationalist Party Government in 1924, and which is now being proceeded with by this Government. Apparently, therefore, we are all agreed on the first part.

Now we come to the second part of the Bill. What is the real difference? The difference is based on the fact that hon. members on the other side say that they, and with them the whole country, are entitled to regard the Indian population as a temporary population in South Africa. We, on the other hand, say that we are compelled of necessity to regard the Indian population as part of the permanent population, mainly as a result of action adopted at that time by the Leader of the Opposition as the responsible Minister. Let us go into it briefly. Under the Cape Town Agreement we had voluntary repatriation, and it must be noted that it was voluntary repatriation. Then we had the so-called “uplift clause.” This clause was for the benefit of the Indian population which did not want to be voluntarily repatriated to India. Upliftment means that they must be uplifted in terms of the Cape Town Agreêment—that they will be uplifted to the standard of Western civilisation. If they were to remain a temporary part of the population, what would the uplift clause mean? If we want to uplift them, and if we want to uplift them to the level of Western civilisation on a permanent basis, surely the motive is to make them more qualified to form part of the community in South Africa. The Eastern civilisation and the Western civilisation differ very widely. If we want to uplift them to the level of Western civilisation surely we do not want to qualify them to return to the misery, poverty and starvation which obtains in their country of origin. In fact, they tried to escape that misery by coming to South Africa, and if we say that we are going to force them to return to India and we then proceed to uplift them to the level of Western civilisation, we are certainly not qualifying them to fit into the population of India. No, that uplift clause was the first admission that they are a permanent part of the population, and hon. members on the other side were prepared to incorporate that in the agreement. The hon. member for Potchefstroom quoted what the Leader of the Opposition said, and I should like to repeat it—

Is that not an admission that they form a permanent part of the population? And that established right to which the hon. member refers is a right which they obtained unlawfully; but he went so far as to say that although they obtained this right in conflict with the laws of the country, we must allow the Indians to retain those rights. In 1932 he went further and introduced the Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Act which legalised the occupation of land by Indians, especially in the proclaimed areas of the Witwatersrand and allowed them to transfer their rights, even if it meant substituting a European guardian by someone else. No, I am afraid that that argument cannot be reconciled with the facts. That is the great difference between us today. If we are compelled to accept the Indian population as a permanent part of the population, what is the solution of the matter? The Minister of Finance has replied to the Opposition critics effectively. I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). No one would cast any doubt on his capabilities. He is a capable lawyer, and he is qualified to explain the law in all its finer details; but there is one great defect in all his arguments, and that was clearly set out by the Minister of Finance. We cannot regard the Indian population as a temporaty part of the population, and I say that fully conscious of the great seriousness of the matter, and not with a view to making political capital out of it. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was no doubt sincere. He undoubtedly studied the interests of the country. In taking the action he did he meant well and believed it to be in the interests of the country and of the nation, but unfortunately he complicated the issue and during the time he was the responsible Minister he practically paved the way for the future and bound this Parliament. It is no use speculating now what would have happened if the Government had not resigned in 1924. If the Prime Minister had not resigned at the time but had remained in power, he would have found a solution along the lines of the 1923 Bill. But there was a change of Government. The Nationalist Party came into power and adopted a different course, a course which the Primp Minister strenuously opposed. He did not want the Agent-General here; and we say therefore that today we are heirs to the policy of the Leader of the Opposition while he was the responsible Minister. We are accused of favouring the natives and of being liberalists. But when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of the Interior he was very much more liberalistic than even the Minister of Finance at the present time.

Do you believe what you are saying?

Yes. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) read to the House those letters which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Indians. We know what his colour policy was and what his attitude was towards the colour problem. We also know what his attitude was towards the Indian question. Hon. members on the other side were very liberal while they bore the responsibility of Government. At that time they were extremely liberal. In the words of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter), they were ultra-liberal, but as soon as they were no longer in power they abandoned that liberalistic policy and now they are using it as a weapon to attack us. But with the best intentions in the world they approached these problems and tried to dispose of them as they existed at the time, and today we are the joint heirs of what has transpired in the meantime, and we must try to find some solution. What is the solution? All sides of the House subscribe to the first portion of the Bill. It is only in connection with the second part that there is a serious clash, a serious difference of opinion. The first criticism which has been raised is that we are now introducing a new trend in our political life, namely, the question of group representation. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) poved very clearly from the minutes of the joint sitting that the question of group representation arose in the Government of which the hon. Leader of the Opposition was a member at the time.

He misquoted everything from beginning to end.

He was not a Minister in 1936, it is true, but it took ten years to pilot these Native Acts through the House. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition went even further in introducing those Bills. Unfortunately, I only have the English text here, but when the then Prime Minister, the late ’ Gen. Hertzog, moved a motion to the effect that the Bill be read for the first time, the hon. Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment, and what was the amendment? Not only to have the natives in this House represented by a group, but to have even the coloureds represented in this House by a group. He proposed that we should have three groups in the House, one representing the Europeans, one representing the natives, and one representing the coloureds, and the words he used at the time in support of his amendment are quite important. Let me quote them—

He went on to say that we should not close our eyes to what is happening in other countries. He pointed to Kenya as an example. He also said: “Take New Zealand, for example.” Hon. members know that in Kenya there is group representation not only in respect of Europeans by Europeans, but of Indians by Indians, and of natives by natives. In New Zealand there is group representation of the Maoris, and this is what the hon. member said at the time—

I should like my friends on the other side to listen to this—

Who said that?

This was said by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. If, therefore, we had followed the liberal policy as set out by him in that joint debate, we would today have had native representatives and Indian representatives in this House.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes. He stated: “We must not be blind to what is happening in the rest of the world; see what happens in other parts of the world and follow their good example.” And he particularly emphasised the example set by New Zealand. My hon. friends can read it for themselves. We are today being described as liberalists, but we are not going as far as my hon. friend asked us to go at that time. We say we are prepared to give the Indians representation in this House, but through Europeans. We are not following the example of Kenya and New Zealand, although that is the example which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated at the time. But that policy of group representation is still inherent in their outlook; it is still part of their political principles, because in the proceedings last year, when the Electoral Laws (Amendment Act) was referred to a Select Committee, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) introduced the following motion—

Are you against that?

That is quite correct.

What becomes of their argument that the Prime Minister is traversing new ground, that we are traversing new political fields?

In this Bill you are giving the franchise to people who have not had the vote in the past.

Throughout their arguments they emphasised this aspect that we are now going to have groups in Parliament; that we are going to have a group here and that we are going to have a group there, and that the time will come when we will have five or six groups.

The coloured person has the vote.

I shall deal with that in a moment.

He suppresses that.

I am now dealing only with the principles which are bound up with group representation, and the argument which has been advanced by them in this House in the course of this debate is that group representation is dangerous, that it threatens the European civilisation in South Africa, and that it will lead to the downfall of European civilisation. But the third reading of the Natives’ Representation Bill was passed at the time with 11 votes against it; and those 11 dissentients are not to be found in the ranks of the Nationalist Party. Of those 11 members, six are still in the House, and not a single one of those six members is to be found in the ranks of the Nationalist Party. I want to ask those hon. members whether they are in earnest when they make the statement here that this group representation of a quarter of a million Indians in South Africa must inevitably lead to the downfall of European civilisation, when in 1936 they wholeheartedly granted group representation to eight million non-Europeans, 32 times the numerical strength of the Indian popoulation in South Africa?

You know that you are distorting the facts. The coloured people had the vote.

We are now dealing with the principle of group representation because member after member got up and was unable to resist the temptation to use this position as a battle cry and to say: “Look what the United Party is doing now; the United Party has now for ever doomed European civilisation in South Africa to destruction.” We are just as colour-conscious as any member on the other side, and I am as opposed to any racial mixture as the most ardent Nationalist on that side could possibly be, but my hon. friends must advance arguments which are in consonance with the facts. Let me again quote what the hon. member for Middelburg said. In this Joint Select Committee in connection with the Natives’ Representation Bill, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) voted for the amendment of Mr. Heaton Nicholls, our present High Commissioner in London, that natives be given a seat in the Senate. Hon. members say it is only the Senate, but the Senate is the highest legislative body we have in this country, and if it is good enough for the Senate, my hon. friends must be consistent. And if we were again to have a joint sitting, who would sit next to those natives—the people who proposed that they be given a seat in the Senate? We fully realise the seriousness of this matter, but we must find a solution. I said a moment ago that this matter does not permit of further postponement, and the Prime Minister has taken his courage in both hands and has tried to find a solution. Now that the hon. member for Pietersburg is back in his seat, he says: “Yes, but the Prime Minister welcomed Mr. Sastri in this country.” There we have the true democrat, and it is an example that we would commend to all sides of the House as worthy of emulation. The Prime Minister did not want to bring Mr. Sastri here.

He co-operated in bringing him here.

He stated at the Imperial Conference in 1923 that he did not want to have any Agent-General from India in this country, but once he was here—even though he was brought here by a Government in which the Prime Minister had no part—he subjected himself to the majority decision of Parliament and treated the ambassador of another country with all the respect to which his high position entitled him. I repeat that we do not want to have any racial mixture. We wholeheartedly agree with hon. members on the other side that we should do everything in our power to keep the various races separate. But we are faced with this problem today: we have an Indian population here as part of our permanent population, and if Opposition members also want to adopt the attitude that we are obliged to recognise them as a permanent part of our population, then I would ask them what solution they suggest. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated at the time that it is the duty of every civilised nation to grant certain elementary rights to every part of the civilian population. Well, is it not necessary then to give them a certain amount of representation as well? If we had had any alternative, we would have preferred to follow a different course, but I do not see how we can do it today, especially after the course adopted by the Leader of the Opposition at the time as the responsible Minister. He gave these people to understand clearly by means of his action that they would be regarded as a permanent part of the population, and that as such they would enjoy certain rights in this country. But I do not go so far as to say that those rights should be expanded. I am wholeheartedly in favour of our maintaining our position as Europeans in this country, whatever may happen, so that we may protect our European civilisation for the future, so that European civilisation will not be imperilled in any way. We are not going to give the Indians three representatives today and five tomorrow and ten the day after tomorrow. I say we must give them group representation but in such a way that although they will be able to air their grievances in the House, they will not obtain a position of power which will enable them to endanger European civilisation in South Africa.

As far as the Indians are concerned, I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Pietersburg said. There is not a single Indian in South Africa today whose lot is not 100 per cent. or perhaps 1,000 per cent. better than it was in India. Whether or not the Indians oppose this Bill, it will make no difference to us, but this strenuous opposition on the part of the Indians to this Bill should, in fact, satisfy my hon. friends on the other side. If the Indians were of the opinion that this Bill gives them the power to be the dominant race in South Africa eventually, they would have accepted this Bill with open arms; but they realise that we are not relinquishing our European guardianship in South Africa by means of this Bill, and that is why they are opposing it so strongly and so strenuously. I feel that in the circumstances—and I say it with all due deference and with all due respect—the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had no alternative, and we are going to support him. We are going to do our best to make a success of this difficult matter, and we are going to do our best to find a solution so that on the one hand we will have an Indian population and on the other hand a native population and a European population, where each section can develop according to the light it has received from Providence.

Unfortunately I cannot agree with the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). He accuses the Nationalist Party of being responsible for the fact that we have three native representatives in this House. I just want to remind him that Bill No. 1 was the Bill which the Nationalist Party wanted to pass, and in that event there would not have been a single native representative in this House, but only a few in the Senate. I hope hon. members on the other side will not repeat that accusation. The fact that Bill No. 2 was passed simply means that this side was obliged to accept the lesser of the two evils, and that is to take the franchise away from the natives in the Cape Province and in exchange for that to give them three representatives in this House. If that had not happened, we can imagine how many natives would have had the franchise in the Cape Province today. They would have been the deciding factor in every election. I think the hon. member for Ermelo will agree that although it is undesirable to have native representatives in this House, it is better than to give the franchise to the natives, who would then be the deciding factor in 20 constituencies in the Cape Province, and I hope that the day will arrive when even the native representatives will be eliminated from this House and when they will no longer have a say in the legislative body of this country. As far as the Indians are concerned, it has been urged that we should protect their rights. But the question immediately arises, who are these Indians who are dealt with in this new legislation, which is before the House, namely, the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Bill? These Indians are workers who were imported into this country to work here. They came here under contract in 1860, but they were remunerated for the work they did in Natal. They had the fullest right to return to India after the expiry of the five-year contract, and what is more, not only did they have the right to return but subsequently there were negotiations between the Indian Government and our Government, which permitted of their repatriation. The State agreed to pay for it. They obtained free passages and they were free to go back. Only 17,000 Indians availed themselves of that right, and the fact that the others remained in this country does not mean that there is an obligation upon us today to grant these rights to those who remained behind. It does not justify the claim on their part to be regarded as permanent inhabitants. It is very inconsistent to argue on those lines, as the hon. member for Ermelo did. If we were to adopt that policy in the case of every racial group which comes to this country, it would create an insoluble problem for us. No, we on this side of the House do not regard it in that light. We regard the matter in the same light as India regards it. They still regard the Indians in this country as part of their population. After these Indians have been in this country for 85 years, India still wants full authority over them. Why then should we be concerned about them? We ought to send them back. We are faced in this country with the colour problem; we have the native problem which remains to be solved, and we are Still saddled with the problem of our own countrymen, namely, the poor whites, and we are now creating problems for ourselves which are going to cause unnecessary trouble for us. Just as little as the natives who leave the protectorates to take up employment in the mines are entitled to demand the franchise and the right of owning fixed property on the Witwatersrand, so little are the Indians entitled to demand those rights. That is the position, notwithstanding the fact that the native, after all, is an inhabitant of this country. If there is one section which has the right to demand this, it is the natives rather than the Indians. The Indians are foreigners. They were not born in this country. We must agree on this matter. By means of this legislation we are going to create a great problem which we shall not be able to solve easily. As I have already said, the Indians were offered an opportunity to leave this country and they did not avail themselves of it. Our responsibility towards the Indians therefore falls away. They had the fullest opportunity to avail themselves of this resolution, but they preferred not to do so. The Indians who are in this country today must abide by any decision which is taken by the Government with regard to them, and they must not make a hullabaloo, as they are doing at present, in appealing to England and in appealing to Russia, and even to the natives and the coloureds of this country. That goes to show how impudent they are becoming and to what lengths their impudence goes. They think we are under an obligation to take care of them, but they go even further. They want to have rights in this country which the coloureds and the natives have not even got. Is that not far-reaching? Since the Indian problem has therefore become a danger to European civilisation in South Africa, it is the duty of the Union Government to take steps to ensure the safety of the Europeans. This penetration on the part of the Indians into European residential areas, the purchase of fixed property in European residential areas, and the conquest of the trade of the Europeans, are dangers which are today threatening the European population. The standard of living of the Indian in this country is such that he is able successfully to compete with the Europeans in the economic sphere, so that the European cannot make a living. We know that the majority of them live in crowded conditions in a few rooms. One finds a whole family or a few families in those rooms, and there they breed like rabbits. This is a problem which is endangering our safety as à result of the increase in the Indian population. Furthermore, they usually live on their trading sites, and consequently they are able to compete on a very cheap basis, and this is a source of danger to the other inhabitants of this country. Europeans as well as non-Europeans. In other words, the Indian is nothing but a parasite living on the population of this country. He lives on the permanent population of this country, because he is able to live on a low standard with which the other sections of the population cannot associate themselves. Some solution must be found. When we talk about a solution, the Indian shows his true colours. In other words, he shows his teeth. He makes an appeal even to the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation, as we have seen in the newspapers, and he makes an appeal to India and Russia. In other words, he opposes the action of the Government in applying certain measures for this country’s protection. But they go even further. They are prepared to leave everything, and even to abandon the sanctions which they want to apply to us, if we go so far as to give them the franchise. Just imagine. Let us ask ourselves who these Indians are who are asking for the franchise. When one goes to India one finds that the great masses of Indians live on the lowest level, even lower than the blackest natives in this country. It will still take centuries for those Indians to attain the level of European civilisation, and notwitstanding this fact, they have the impudence to demand the franchise and equal rights with the European, and that is something we have to face; it is a threat on the part of India against this country. In other words, India is holding a pistol at our heads and telling us that if we do not grant these rights to the Indians, she will apply sanctions against us, and the sooner we act in this matter and find a solution the better, and the solution is for the Government to buy all fixed property belonging to the Indians. They must be repatriated to India, and that is the only way in which we can solve the problem. We know that there was a time in the past when large numbers of Chinese were imported to work in the mines, and they also became a problem, but we did not peg specific areas for them and give them the franchise. We sent them back. We can thank the late Gen. Botha for that. If we had not done this at the time, we would have had a Chinese problem in this country, too. It is therefore the duty of the Government, since a joint committee cannot be established today, a fact which we very much regret, to solve this problem on permanent basis. It is no use doing patchwork. We must do the right thing and that is to repatriate them. If that is done,. India must also do her duty. We brought back to this country countrymen of ours from the Argentine and Angola, and we did not leave it to those countries to bear the sole responsibility. We contributed our share, and since it is necessary to repatriate the Indians it is not only the duty of this country but it is also the duty of India to contribute her share, because India admits that the Indians are still her people and not our subjects. These Indians are foreigners, but they are only foreigners when if affects economic questions when it suits them. For the rest they do not want to have anything to do with us. The Indian is an Asiatic and must therefore be treated as such, and we must see to it that in this respect we are protected and that we are no longer exploited. It is a greaty pity that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister could not arrange for a consultation between both sides of the House with a view to solving this difficult problem. If that could have been arranged, the Indian problem and the native problem as well as the coloured problem could have been tackled at the same time, and we as a European race could have found a solution for this problem, at the same time doing justice towards the non-European races. But unfortunately that road is no longer open, and for that reason we want to adopt the only other course which remains. This Bill is dangerous; it is very much like an atom bomb threatening the European civilisation. It may explode at any time and destroy European civilisation. By means of this legislation, we are going to recognise the Indians as a permanent part of the population, and we are going tó give them the franchise and a measure of say in this country, which they do not recognise at all as their home. If this Bill is accepted in this form, 250,000 Indians will be given a say through the medium of the votes they will have in this House. How does that compare with the conditions of the other non-European races? The Indian will be given the right to have three representatives in the House. If we take the coloured population at approximately 800,000 and the natives at 8,000,000 and the Europeans at 2,000,000, and if we were to give all sections representation on the same scale as in the case of the Indians, what would our position be in this country? The position would be that the Indians would have three representatives, the coloureds would be given nine representatives, the natives 96 as against 24 in the case of the Europeans, that is, if we were to give equal rights to the non-European population. What would then become of us? We would then be wiped off this earth. If we give this representation to the Indians, do you think the eight million natives would be satisfied with only three representatives in this House, while these foreign Indians also have three representatives? And would the coloured people, be satisfied in view of the fact that they have not even got a single representative here? By means of this step we are taking here we are creating a most dangerous problem. For that reason I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to see, even at this eleventh hour, whether some means cannot be found of solving this difficult problem by means of co-operation. We must take into account our duty towards the coloureds as well as the natives, and we must realise that in taking this step in respect of the Indians, we cannot ignore the claims of the other groups, but that we must see that justice is done and we must do the right thing. I hope that the Prime Minister will still accept this view before we vote on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the Minister of Finance was in my opinion a complete vindication of his attitude to this Bill. He weighed its merits and demerits in the balance and made his decision accordingly. Such a scrupulous operation was apparently above the comprehension of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He treated it with derision. This will not disconcert the Minister, for it is a mark of an inferior mind to deride what it cannot aspire to. The hon. member accused the Minister of swallowing his principles. Sir, I readily concede that the hon. member is incapable of such an act of deglutition. If the hon. member for Beaufort West had to live by swallowing his principles, he would die of inanition. The hon. member tried, to the best of what he believes to be his ability, to prove that the Minister ought to resign. Sir, there is no greater service that the Minister could render the reactionary forces than to resign. His resignation would split the progressive forces and ensure a triumph for reaction. The Minister has proved more than once that he is incapable of betraying the cause of liberalism. He proved it on a previous occasion by resigning. He proves it on this occasion by not resigning. On both occasions he takes his stand on the high ground of principle.

Throughout this debate, it seems to me, there has been a reluctance to face up to the international implications of this question. These implications may be very far-reaching. From the international point of view, it is not the liberal element which is embarrassing this country. It is those who insist on treating the whole problem as if it could be divorced from its international implications. With the notable exception of the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) every speaker has repeated the same theme— the Indian problem is entirely a domestic matter to be settled by the Parliament of South Africa. The course which the Indian Congress is pursuing is a challenge to the Government of this country, and a denial of our sovereignty; if the Indians try to induce outside powers to interevene, they will do their cause no good; they will merely forfeit their right to be regarded as good citizens. So runs the theme; but the very force and frequency with which it is repeated, is, in effect, a recognition of the fact that the dispute has already gone beyond the scope of a domestic issue. Let us face that fact. As long as the Indians in this country feel themselves to be aggrieved and affronted and have no constitutional means of obtaining redress, nothing will prevent them from appealing to India and seeking her intervention; and India has made it plain both by word and deed that she will not renounce her concern for the Indian community in this country.

And how does that concern us?

I will explain. India will not renounce her concern until their rights and dignities have been established on an acceptable basis. Thus we find ourselves face to face with India on this issue. Whether the hon. member likes it or not, the dispute has been lifted out of the domestic arena onto the international plane. It is on that plane that we shall have to deal with it. That polished diplomat, the hon. member for Beaufort-West (Mr. Louw) says that we should tell India not to poke her nose into our domestic affairs. I have a feeling that India will not be intimidated by such crude phrases. We are all conscious of the destiny and growing power of India. India is on the threshold of an independent development. With her vast manpower, her resources and strategic position, she will undoubtedly emerge as the first power in Asia and a great world power. That is a factor we cannot ignore. It is vital to the safety of South Africa that India should remain within the Commonwealth. There are undoubtedly strong forces working to keep India within the Commonwealth; but there are also strong forces working in the opposite direction. Leaders like Nehru make no secret of their ambitions. They believe that India’s natural affinity is with Russia and China. By our handling of the Indian problem, are we not strengthening the hands of leaders like Nehru, who would lead India out of the Commonwealth and into the Russian orbit? I need not enlarge on the tremendous consequence of such a reorientation of power. It would profoundly alter the balance of world forces. The secession of India from the Commonwealth would leave a great gap in our strategic chain. New Zealand and Australia would be isolated in the far Pacific. Britain would not longer be a first class power; and South Africa would be in the most precarious position of all, a lonely, friendless outpost, exposed to dangers to some extent of our own making. Surely the collective wisdom and statesmanship of the Commonwealth should be brought to bear upon our relations with India. The British Government is playing its part. Today we have in Britain a Government which is genuinely anxious to work out a constructive and enlightened policy for India, and to set her on the road to full Dominion’ status. That task is not an easy one. There is much bitterness to overcome, the bitterness of a militent nationalism struggling to be free and independent. But Indian nationalism in the day of its triumph, may be more ready to recognise what Britain has done for India. Whatever its sins of commission and ommission, when everything has been weighed in the balance, I think it will turn decisively in Britain’s favour. After all, if India has acquired experience in the working of representative institutions, if India has mastered the arts of democratic government, if India is better equipped to face an independent future than any other country in Asia, this is due chiefly to British rule. If any Government is capable of keeping India within the Commonwealth, it is’ the present British Government. But are we playing our part? Are we not dissipating the fund of goodwill which the British Government is building up? Dare we shut our eyes to the fact that India may reject a Commonwealth arrangement which would involve her in some sort of partnership with South Africa? I fear that we must be a source of embarrassment to the British Government. Mark you, we have not heard one word of complaint from the British Government. There has been no hint of interference. The Opposition may note that, as far as the British Government is concerned, our sovereignty is being scrupulously respected. But that does not free us from the obligation of acting with wisdom and circumspection in our handling of the Indian problem. Britain’s correct attitude is not a sign of indifference but of forbearance. It shows a respect for our sovereignty, but it is also a tribute to our political maturity. The respect for our sovereignty we are entitled to. The tribute to our political maturity we have still to deserve. We shall only deserve it if we pursue a policy which will not estrange India from the commonwealth, which will not lead to the weakening and disruption of the Commonwealth but will lead to its strengthening and consolidation, a policy which is as much in our interests as in the interest of Britain.

I would like to address myself to the Dominion Party. I listened with very close attention to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I admired his eloquence although I deplore his attitude. Indeed, I was so captivated by his old-world charm that I imagined myself back in the 18th century. I saw before me a statesman of the reign of George III, a statesman who argued with the same force and eloquence against the principle of “no taxation without representation”, and in consequence lost the American colonies to the British Crown. Now, is the hon. gentleman not, in effect, arguing against the selfsame principle today, and is he not perhaps rendering a similar disservice to the Crown? It is impossible to reconcile the attitude of the Dominion Party to the Indian question with the high principles they profess. They have constituted themselves the custodians of the Crown. They who were so eager to defend its indi visibility are now ready to shatter its integritv. In this respect the Nationalist Opposition are far more logical. An illiberal approach to the Indian problem commends itself to them on its own grounds, but if in addition it has the effect of weakening or disrupting the Commonwealth, it requires even greater merit in their eyes. The Dominion Party, by their political maladroitness, are playing into the bands of the very forces they set up to fight. I make no apology for upholding the Commonwealth point of view. I venture to believe that it represents a considerable body of enlightened opinion. I believe that South Africa can best work out its destiny within the Commonwealth. As a small State outside the Commonwealth, we should be completely at the mercy of external forces which we could neither influence nor modify. Inside the Commonwealth, we are an effective political force We can help to shape and even motivate a common Imperial policy. I believe that the attitude of progressive-minded people towards the Empire should be governed by two principles. In the first place, the Empire, whatever its defects, represents a unified system; and in the present anarchy of international relations we should cling steadfastly to any unitv we have already achieved; we should certainly not seek to increase the number of so-called independent states. We should encourage every tendency towards cohesion and resist every tendency towards separatism. The second consideration is still more important. We must recognise a change in the character of British Imperialism. British Imperialism as an aggressive force has ceased to exist. It has outlined its epoch of expansionism. It is no longer dynamic, predatory and over-bearing. The Empire is coming to an end by a process which is turning it into something which is not an Empire at all. This process of de-imperialisation has been in progress for some time, and although it is far more important and significant than attempts at increasing the Empire, it is a process less noted and understood by the world at large. Yet it is of the utmost importance, for it gives hone for a solution of the problem of imperialism. This transformation of an Empire into a Commonwealth is a process to which South Africa, under the leadership of General Botha, General Hertzog and our Prime Minister, has made an invaluable contribution. This process can continue only if the member states consciously work together towards that end and maintain sufficient unity to present a common front against external aggression. Given this fundamental unity and a common purpose, I see no reason why the Commonwealth should not undergo a further process of decentralising evolution. It has not yet reached its final form. I am not thinking in terms of paper constitutions and doctrinaire formulas. There is a tendency, when discussing the future of the Commonwealth to lose ourselves in legalistic disputes about such things as the indivisibility of the Crown, the right of secession, etc. Such disputes have only an academic value; they will not determine the real shape of things. The Statute of Westminster for example, did not lay the foundations of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It merely registered certain relationships which had already evolved, and which it was desirable to place on permanent record. I see no reason why the Commonwealth should not continue to develop on these lines. The pressure of progressive forces within, the need to adapt itself to a changing world without, will determine its final shape. We shall then find the formulas to fit it. It seems to me that the next stage in its development is a sort of regionalism, a regionalism advocated by the Prime Minister, whereby the Dominions will assume a far greater share of responsibility for the progess and welfare of their more backward neighbours in the Empire. South Africa should gather inspiration from its own historical experience. As a country which has itself envolved from the inferior position of a colonial dependency to full Dominion status, it should be ready to champion the cause of the more backward peoples of the Empire, and help them to develop on similar lines. Therein South Africa can rise to real greatness, and assume a role of leadership on the African continent. That seems to me a far more inspiring prospect than a narrow isolationism which would reduce South Africa to a negligible role on the continent of Africa. We must, remember, above all, that the Commonwealth is not only an international but an inter-racial structure. If we are to quality for a role of leadership and pre-eminence, we must first show that we can solve the problem of race relations within our own boundaries. We must show a capacity for statemanship in framing a society which will enable the various racial groups to live together in peace and contentment and make their maximum contribution to the common welfare. We shall not bring this about by a policy of segregation without consent and representation with a colour bar. We talk a great deal about preserving western civilisation. I am as anxious as anyone in this House to preserve western civilisation; but I believe that western civilisation, if it is to be true to its own genius, has a higher mission than merely to be on the defensive. I believe that the more it diffuses its benefits, the more it will enlarge the area of its own safety and ascendancy. But the more it puts up barriers for its own protection, the more it will be threatened by the growing forces it excludes from its benefits. Unless we recognise this great and simple truth and bring it into our legislation, we shall be an increasingly unhappy society—white and coloured, divided but inseparable, locked in perpetual conflict, the dominating and the dominated, moving towards inevitable disaster.

I shall not dwell on the arguments of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman). At the outset I shall confine myself to the statements that have been made by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns). He stood up here and, although I rather doubt whether it is worth while referring to his speech, said certain things which touch me so closely and which touch the Afrikaner people so closely that I cannot refrain from dealing with them. He tried to belittle the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and to make certain allegations against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, a member whom the Afrikaner people regarded with pride as a young Boer general who fought in the second War of Freedom for Afrikanerdom. For the hon. member for North-East Rand to stand up here and make false accusations against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is a scandal, nothing less than a scandal. The hon. member for North-East Rand is himself a man who rebelled in 1914 in order to try and win back for the Afrikaner what was once their love and their pride. He rebelled with and followed the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, but now he comes and makes allegations in regard to what was done in 1905, things that were entirely untrue, and I repeat it is a disgrace.

Did he not circularise petitions for the Chinese?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad stood up here and said it was untrue, and I shall not go further into the matter. Now I come to the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). When we are trying to secure co-operation and to find a slution the hon. member comes and says that we have argued so long on these matters that in Select Committee we could get nothing that we cannot obtain by our present arguments. Is it logical for a Government frontbencher to employ such an argument? It has frequently happened in the past that legislation of a much less important character has first been considered by a Select Committee. We have time enough to do that. That argument of the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) falls absolutely flat. He says further that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) stated that we entirely agree with the first part of the Bill, which is also not true. The hon. member stated very clearly that we agreed in principle provided certain alterations could be effected. As it stands here we do not accept it. He further asserted that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister of the Interior arranged for the Indian Agent-General to be brought here. What are the real circumstances of the case? We got the Agent-General here with the approval of the Prime Minister, but with what object? That he should try to exert his influence on the Indians so that they could give effect to the legislation of the Leader of the Opposition, so that as many Indians as possible could be repatriated. It was not a question of an appointment for the promotion of Indian interests. It was for the sake of Indian co-operation in the repatriation plan that we got the Agent-General here. The hon. member for Pietersburg explained the matter so well in connection with the distortion of the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) regarding the native franchise in 1936 that I did not think it would be necessary to go into it. But the hon. member for Ermelo again tried to give out that the party on this side wanted to go still further than the legislation eventually went. We know what the circumstances were. There was the first Bill in which representation was only given in the Senate to the natives. I and other members who at that time belonged to the Fusion Party were obliged to let that Bill drop and to accept Bill No. 2 which gave representation to the natives in the Assembly. He says now that the Nationalist section accepted that proposal. It is quite correct that we eventually adopted that legislation, but we must not forget that the natives, as far as the franchise is concerned, had an equal say with the Europeans in the Cape constituencies of the Assembly. We wanted to alter the franchise and we succeeded in so far that they got representation in a different way. Now we are told that on that account we should also adopt this legislation. We are dealing here with legislation which gives the franchise to the Indian community. They are getting representation in Parliament, though they did not have it previously. This is an entirely different matter, so why do we get such a distortion of the facts from members on the other side?

This legislation that has been introduced is, I think we will all admit, legislation in regard to which there is no semblance of unanimity. As far as my knowledge of Parliament goes there has never been legislation before this House on which less unanimity has existed. Posterity will look back and admit that this was the case. In the past we have differed on legislation in respect of language and economics. But here we have to deal with a matter where all Opposition parties absolutely and definitely oppose the measure. We even find the admission of members on the other side that they do not fully support the Bill. We as members of the Nationalist Party oppose the Bill. Unfortunately we are comprised mainly today only of Afrikaans-speaking people. The Dominion Party is comprised solely of English-speaking people, and the Labour Party is comprised of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. But we find nevertheless that all these parties oppose the Bill. It is very clear to me that all these parties are not opposing the Government on the ground of race or language difficulties. They are differing from the Government party on a much broader principle.

The Labour Party are going to support the Bill.

They are fighting the measure. As the hon. member for Pietersburg has said, they oppose the measure, but then they have not the courage to vote against it. Nevertheless we shall find that when it comes to a division on this Bill several of the Labourites will be absent. There is no language difference or race difference over the Bill, so why was there not consultation? The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) rose here and asked what contribution the Opposition had furnished in connection with the Bill. Apparently he has not yet read our party’s amendment. If he had read it he would have found out what we on this side propose, and perhaps it would have been acceptable to them. We shall show on our side absolute preparedness to go further into the matter and perhaps then we shall be able to draft something which will be acceptable to all. As a party however, they are strong enough. They can rely on their own strength to push the Bill through Parliament. They can do so violently, but that will not find approval with the public because the public will recall what took place in 1927 when the Leader of the Opposition, as Minister of the Interior tackled the Indian problem by consultation with the other parties in the House. Although he did not succeed completely in his efforts he nevertheless achieved considerable success. As the hon. member for Pietersburg has said if there is anyone who is conversant with the Indian problem it is the Leader of the Opposition. But he is ignored. Still, he proposed this amendment and the Prime Minister ought to make some use of it. We do not wish to be provincial, but we cannot get away from it that the people in the Free State must feel very hurt over legislation of this sort. Up to the present they have succeeded in keeping the Free State free of Asiatics, and now the Government comes with legislation which will give the Asiatics some say in the Free State.

That is not so.

This Bill gives the Asiatics the right to elect three representatives in the Assembly, and they will have the same right as other members to vote and to speak on any matter. This is where the tragedy comes in. In the Free State the Government has only one representative out of 14 members, that is the Minister of Labour. This implies, consequently, that the Prime Minister has not consulted the other thirteen constituencies. As things are now the Bill will go through, and what we regret is that one member of the Free State, the son of one of our great Afrikaners, namely President Steyn, allows legislation of this sort to be adopted which will also have an effect on the Free State. It is a tragedy, and if the Minister of Labour did not think of his country and of his people he should have thought of the role his father filled. It would have grieved his father to see what is going on here now. The population of the Free State may be limited but its strength is certainly greater than that of the number of Indians in the country. The Indians are now getting the franchise and the Free State has not been consulted by the Prime Minister.

Then I wish to say something in regard to the form in which the measure has been presented. The Prime Minister has linked together two separate parts of the Bill. With certain amendments the one part is acceptable to this side, and to the Dominion Party and perhaps also to the Labour Party. But a tail is tacked on, a second part, and that part is not acceptable to us, and members on the other side also find it difficult to swallow that second part. Everyone who stands up on the other side concentrates his attention mainly on the good points of the Bill, on the first part, but when they come to the second part they flounder all over the place in an endeavour to set up a defence. It is clear that those members do not feel happy over the second part. When it comes to a division they have no choice between the first part and the tailpiece of the Bill. In that way the Prime Minister is compelling them to vote for the tailpiece as well.

After listening to the Minister of Finance it is very clear to us that the Prime Minister in order to retain the Minister of Finance in the Cabinet gave in to his opinion. He has now declared unequivocally that he stands for absolutely equal political rights for Europeans and non-Europeans in the country. According to him there ought to be no dividing line between European and non-European in the political sphere. The Prime Minister has had experience of the Minister of Finance. I was a member of the Fusion Party in 1939 when the late Mr. A. J. P. Fourie was appointed to the Senate to represent the natives. The Minister of Finance did not agree with that, and he and the present Minister of Transport resigned from the Cabinet. He went further. The first Pegging Act came. He did not see his way to agree to it and he and Mr. Blackwell left the caucus. I can understand the Prime Minister being a little afraid of the attitude of the Minister of Finance. He had to pay the price by bringing in the second part of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Finance is not completely satisfied with it. Still he succeeded in his purpose, because he now has the opportunity to extend those rights in the future.

Then I come to members on the other side. There I must give the Prime Minister credit that it is only by virtue of his strong personality that many of these members were influenced to accept the second part of the Bill. At first they were opposed to it, but the strong personality of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister brought them to the point of accepting the second part of the Bill. I maintain, without any disrespect to the other members of the Cabinet, that no one else on the other side could have influenced those members to vote for this Bill. But the question is whether their constituents are satisfied with the attitude they have taken up here. I am convinced that dissatisfaction will be prevalent amongst them. I want to say plainly to the Prime Minister that this concession he has made to the hon. Minister of Finance, to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) and a few others, will dig the grave of the United Party. I do not mind him having done that, but what I am worried about is that in doing so he is undermining the position of white civilisation in this country. On that account I am concerned.

Now I turn to the Minister of Finance. He stated clearly here that he is opposed to any colour bar in connection with oplitical rights. To that he added that the Opposition could now go round the country and try to make political capital out of it. It is not always our motive to make political capital, but a duty rests on us when such a definite statement is made, and that too from someone who will become the Leader of the United Party should the Prime Minister retire. When we go round the country it is not that we want to make political capital but we regard it as our duty to make the country thoroughly conversant with the attitude of the Minister of Finance. Every good parent strives to make provision for his children and his descendants. When we have legislation of this nature we cannot, as parents, do otherwise than be filled with apprehension and distress over what is coming in the near future. Parental alarm is easy to understand. But without casting any reproach on the Minister of Finance I would just say that he as an unmarried man does not know what that parental alarm is. I do not want to reproach him for not having a family. But I do not believe that he is able to feel like the parent with children to follow him. We can read about the parental feeling in books, but it is only the parent with children who can get the genuine feeling of the parent in his heart concerning his child. It is very clear to us, as things are shaping, that the legislation that has been introduced here will be placed on the Statute Book, and it is only the beginning. It appears to us it is going to produce great danger in the country. European civilisation is being menaced. Now I want to ask the powerful Indian people in India whether when we can clearly see our future is threatened we should concede everything they demand? Is it reasonable that they should insist on these concessions? As things are going now it is more or less clear to all of us that the people of India will shortly have absolute freedom. It looks as if things are moving that way. Seeing they are getting that freedom in India is it right that they should present all sorts of demands to South Africa on behalf of the Indians in South Africa, although it may imply our downfall. No, it is not right. The South Afrcan Indian population is lucky to this degree, that perhaps as a result of their religion, or perhaps as the result of their mode of living they have remained a pure race. When they think about India, which is going to obtain its freedom, they can find a home there. So why should they master the Europeans with their great numerical strength? It is not right. In my constituency I have Indians who have gone ahead with the support of Europeans, and I feel that they will not press for these various things we hear of. I have respect for such Indians and I am convinced that that class will understand our position and will appreciate our concern. I hope that that section of the Indians will try to use their influence and move the others to modify their demands. The representation of the Asiatics by theree members in this Assembly is dangerous. We have gained experience with the three representatives of the natives who are sitting here. The Minister of Native Affairs himself realised that he has to warn these members that if they continue along these lines they become nothing else but agitators, and that thereby they will be injuring the interests of the natives. Now three Asiatic representatives will be added to them, and we can realise what agitation will be set up for certain colour groups in the country. If it was a case of their confining themselves to specific Asiatic affairs or native affairs we could understand it. But the position is now that they can take part in any debate and they have the same privileges and the same say as other members. As things are going we shall in a short time have two parties in this country of almost equal strength. The Nationalist Party is growing in strength. The party on the other side is waning in strength, as the Minister of Native Affairs himself admitted, as a result of the Caledon election. They are slipping back and in a very short time the two parties will be very close to each other. Then we shall have these six representatives of the natives and the Asiatics, and what power will they not be able to exercise in the House?

And three Communists as well.

I would not accuse those three members of the Labour Party of being Communists. I fear, however, that they are sailing very near the wind, but the hon. member will agree with me that when we have two parties here who are virtually of equal strength, and when we have these six representatives of the natives and the Asiatics on the cross benches—they may have the balance in their hands—they will be able to exercise a tremendous influence here.

Now I come to the composition of the board. I see that these people can be appointed for five years, and after the five years they may be re-elected or the vacancies can be filled. But it is laid down in the Bill that before the end of the five years they can be retired on various grounds. They can be retired, for instance, if they are guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment without the option of a fine. If they are absent without leave from three consecutive meetings of the board, or if they are guilty of misbehaviour, the Minister can deprive them of membership of the board. It appears that the appointment of members of the board is going to be done in a rather off-hand manner when provision has been made for all these sort of disqualifications. But when one thinks of the powers this board has you ask yourself whether it is not a wrong principle. I would rather see the power to delimit areas left in the hands of the Government, or of the department, subject to approval of Parhament. Portions of land may be demarcated which may have belonged to families for a long time. We have seen that the Minister of Lands is engaged in expropriating land in Dongola, but he has to bring it before Parliament and Parliament has the final decision. I do not think that powers of this description should be in the hands of a board composed as this one is, and on which two representatives of the Asiatics are sitting, and two other members appointed by the Government besides the chairman, who will be appointed by the Government. I can see clearly that when it comes to demarcations we shall have instances where land that has been inherited for generations and to which great sentiment is attached may be demarcated under the Bill. This board is acquiring the powers to do that, and a heritage of this kind may be made available as a mixed area. This can only have the result of the sentiment of the heirs being absolutely wounded. This must also have the result of depreciating the value of those areas and it is very obvious to me that in these circumstances this should not be left in the hands of a board but it should be left to the decision of this Parliament.

There is only one small point I should still like to bring in, perhaps it is rather untimely but I cannot let the opportunity slip. We have heard from hon. members on the other side, especially members such as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) that they are worried about the rights of Asiatics. They want to give equal rights to Asiatics. Then I would advise them to give that advice as well to those of their own race in Palestine. Difficulties exist today there between the Arabs and the Jews. Let them also be broadminded there and give equal rights to the Arabs. Why make trouble, give these people equal rights and eliminate the trouble in that way. They want to preach certain things to us which they are themselves not prepared to practise. I do not think it is reasonable of those members to put these demands to the Afrikaner people.

In conclusion, I would say that we have to deal with a matter of such extreme importance, the results of which will be of great significance to European civilisation, I would again appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to bring about unity. The people are yearning for unity, and here is a golden opportunity to attain a large measure of unity which will lead in the future to a definite upliftment of the Afrikaner people and as a result of which English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people will live together happily in the future.

It has been obvious from the speeches in this debate that the members on the Government benches were very anxious to find out particularly and precisely what the Labour Party point of view on this Bill is. I do not know whether they are satisfied or not. It seemed to me that they wanted us to indicate how crystal clear our ideas were, presumably in order that they may follow us when we have demonstrated that crystal clearness. But it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes when gazing into the crystal, the crystal clouds and the vision is not discernible, and so we have not been able in this party of ten people to give that advice and guidance to the cohorts of the United Party that they evidently sought, and so, as our original speaker said, this is still a United Party Bill. It is still something that the United Party must not only claim responsibility for, but must take full responsibility for, because as was said by another speaker, there has been no indication as yet of any suggestion of deferring the Bill to further consideration before presenting it to the House. By the prolongation of the debate we are apparently to take it for granted that the Bill is going through, and I suppose we can readily take it for granted that, except where the Minister will be graciously pleased to indicate an amendment of bis own wisdom, it will go through Committee merely, by virtue of the fact that there are enough people to see that it does. Now, we have no quarrel with that procedure. That apparently is the procedure recognised by Parliament, and if we had a quarrel, it would not make any difference. But, I think personally that enough has been said both from the Government benches and from the other benches to prove conclusively to any reasonable person that there is very good ground for reconsideration of the things involved in the problem before the House, before a cut and dried Bill is presented to us, which can be claimed to solve the problem. I want to refer for a moment to a very definite statement at the beginning of the White Paper which was issued to us on the Bill—

I want, to emphasise that word “permanently”; it is not for a time, not for a long time, but permanently—

Now, the only people who want ultimate wisdom apparently in this connection are the Dominion Party. Perhaps the Nationalists do too, I am not quite sure of this, but certainly the Dominion Party want ultimate wisdom now. They want that problem settled so satisfactorily from their point of view, and so permanently, that there will not be any Indians left when the problem is settled. That is their cast iron attitude in the matter. The Nationalist Party should find cause some alarm in this word “permanently”, because they are most concerned apparently as one of the biggest parties in this House that something different should be done than the Government intends, and they have indicated in their approach to the matter that they want the whole of the coloured question in all its aspects on the basis of separation, including the Indian and native Questions, cleared up and they propose to do it by way of a Joint Committee of the Houses, which will bring in the Bill or Bills necessary. They should be very alarmed at the word “permanent” here in this White Paper, and there are other people who should be verv alarmed too, and one is the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance. He should be very alarmed at the use of the word “permanent” because in effect on his own argument he is voting for some permanent thing that he proposes at some time if he is able, to alter. That is not very logical. But if he were logical he would perhaps no longer keep his post as Minister of Finance. Not that I think that South Africa would suffer overmuch if that were so. No one believes that he was sent from God to be our Minister of Finance, and in passing, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation of the manner in which the member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) replied to the Minister of Finance, and dispersed any illusions he may have entertained at the time of making his speech. I have no great sympathy with the view of any of our Nationalist friends, but I certainly think that the member for Beaufort West did the country a great service when he so ably dealt with the Minister of Finance. He deprived him of any illusion that he might feel inclined to hang on to and exposed him, and I think rightly so, in his attitude to this Bill, and disposed of his claim to be the thorough Christian gentleman that he wanted to be inferred when making the speech.

Do you mind if I say “nonsense” to that?

Well, you may say it, but I will not give you a medal for it. Having said that, I want to say this, that the bringing of religion into what after all is a matter of fair play is overdone. My colleague rightly said that the people who are supposed to carry out the injunctions of the Master they profess to serve are more often bringing up the rear than in the van, and he said a very true thing, because if you apply in this modern year of 1946 all that has been said about this problem by Christians through the 2.000 years, that have passed there would not be any problem left. I do not make this as a rash assertion on my own authority. One could go on quoting forever and a day from authorities recognised by Christians the world over in support of that fact. We hear constant references to God and the brotherhood of man, but when we try to get a little matter of fair play on to the Statute Book we have to listen to the kind of speeches we have heard in the past few days on this debate. Not one of our friends on the Government benches really spoke in defence of this Bill. From those benches the Indian has been bully-ragged and blackguarded, and members have suggested that both in the rich one and in the poor one you have a most unsatisfactory citizen. They have said the Indian is no good, and will never be any good. But nevertheless they conclude that the Indian must have the vote, not as we have the vote, but we must give them the vote in the way suggested in the Bill. Then, having descended to a level of hooliganism in their characterisation of the victims, they propose to shackle the victims permanently with the kind of franchise that is proposed in the Bill, and the only argument that stands out in support of a very unsatisfactory position, is the one of expediency.

Is your leader voting against the Bill?

My Leader has not told me whether he is voting against the Bill. I have not asked him. Why are Members so anxious to know what the Labour Party is prepared to do in this or that? Are we really so important after all? If we are, for all our importance and for all our value, I have still to plead that we are only human, making this qualification, that if we find ourselves in a difficult position, we do not try to hide the fact nor do we try to deceive people. We have had the most childish exhibition from the Government benches for the last three or four days. They have been trying to kid somebody that they really believe something. They do not believe anything at all. Therefore, in a foolish kind of way they are trying to put this Bill on the Statute Book, first of all to quieten their own consciences and secondly to take credit for doing something for the Indian. Now, Sir, I take the point of view that it is not reasonable in a world of reality, once you have agreed that people in any country shall vote for their representatives on public bodies, to discriminate between the people concerned. If a person is a citizen of South Africa by virtue of the fact that he or she was born here, the logical conclusion to come to is that he or she should have the vote. There should be no doubt about that. I think this, too, that having agreed that that is the position, then the people that have the vote should have the right to select their representatives, not only when they vote for them, but when candidates are selected. I am not believing something that is outrageous, something that the world does not accept as truth, it has world-wide acceptance. And only in South Africa is exception taken. Because of this United Party members are only doing something they are compelled to do, and will see to it that they do no more than they are compelled to. The question of expediency one knows plays a very big part in human arrangements, but that does not absolve people from standing out when it is their duty to stand out, and speaking when it is their duty to speak, and put their point of view from what may be called the platform of truth. The claim is not made that one speaking from these benches is the only person that speaks the truth. But the challenge is made to the House that you know the truth, and do not follow it. That challenge has been made before. It was made in the early days of the Christian church when the Apostles said: “You know the truth, but you do not follow it.” The same challenge is made today, and it is not implied that I am the only one who sees the truth. I do want to say that the drawback suffered by the Labour Party in the matter is lack of public opinion. The United Party, however, has ample public opinion, but the United Party has not consulted that public opinion.

Do you?

I have just said we have very little public opinion.

I agree with you.

The United Party has not listened to its public opinion and will put this Bill through as a party measure, as I said in the beginning, never once faltering. Now, Sir, for myself I am going to be expedient. I am going to vote for this darned thing, because, though grudgingly, the United Party have been compelled to do something that is at least a little step towards the ideal. They are doing it as grudgingly as they can, and I am going to see that no vote of mine stops it from going through. But if they think I am doing it from aný other motive than expediency, they think wrong. And if other members of the Labour Party are not expedient, let the members of the United Party look into their own hearts, and then agree that there may be reasons why they should not be. If some of them vote against the Bill, so would some of the Government members, if it were not for the nature of the discipline exercised, which I admit one cannot quite understand. On their own showing, I think a lot of them have not spoken what they feel. That has been apparent from this debate. There is hardly one of them that believes in this Bill. The Deputy-Prime Minister does not believe in it. I do not think the Minister of the Interior believes in it. I am not so sure the Minister of Native Affairs believes in it, and yet they will vote for it. They will have done something which is desperately expedient, and I will have been a party to it, because I believe that in passing even this Bill at least some little thing will be accomplished in the way of progress.

Unfortunately I cannot say what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. He said: “I shall vote for this darn thing.” If he calls it a “darn thing” I wonder what the people in the country think about it, and consequently as a Freestater I feel that it is my duty to raise my voice in protest since the Minister of the Interior is remaining quiet. He does not say a word about the difficulty with which we are faced at present and he is the responsible Minister. He does not say a word, but I do not hold it against him because only a short while ago when there was trouble in Johannesburg the Minister of Labour was also as silent as the grave. I say that I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just sat down. He said: “I will vote for this darn thing.” I cannot vote for it. I as a Freestater cannot vote for this legislation in any form. The danger is just this, that we are deeply convinced that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge. Concessions are being made here which will eventually have dangerous consequences. We in the Free State are fortunate in that we are not faced with this problem there, but as border representatives we run the risk that there may easily be an overflow as a result of all these concessions and, as a result of the liberality of the Minister of the Interior who has the right to issue permits to Indians to open businesses all over the place. We feel that once these concessions are made it will eventually lead to this result that the Free State will also suffer as a result of the introduction of this Bill.

You need not be concerned about that.

We are called upon in this country as the guardians of the inheritance of those who succeed us to protest against this measure. We realise this danger, and the worst of all is this, that some of the members of the Labour Party who make a hullabaloo here and who talk against the Bill are prepared to vote for it. They oppose the Bill, and the Dominion Party is doing the same thing. When they talk to us in the Lobby they tell us that the English-speaking people in Natal are up in arms and that they are dissatisfied and bitterly dissatisfied for this reason; they ask why provision is being made in this Bill, especially in the second part of the Bill, to give the Indians direct representation in the Provincial Council of Natal. They themselves realise the danger, and not only we on this side of the House, that eventually this Bill will result in the Indians gaining the upper-hand over the European civilisation in Natal. What have been the consequences up to the present? Why have the Indians succeeded in obtaining the best sites everywhere in the midst of Europeans? It has been told to me as the truth that these capitalistic Indians in the country are the people who are insisting that the Indians be given the franchise, and as soon as they have the franchise they will insist on more and more rights. The ordinary Indian in Natal is highly satisfied and content with the existing conditions. But what are these people doing? They buy properties from Europeans and they themselves do not live in those houses. They pay enormous prices in one of the best parts of Natal, and then they send an ordinary Indian to live in the house, and as soon as they get there they start ’ kicking up a din—“Chook-a-look-a-chook”—and eventually the Europeans are forced to leave that area, and in this way they drive the Europeans out of that area in increasing numbers. I have been in Durban myself. I have relatives living there, and I told them that I would not live in that area for any money in the world. I would be the most unhappy person in the world if I had to live in that area. And what is the Government doing today? Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity they now have to peg certain areas where Indians only may live, they go so far as to allow Europeans to live amongst the Indians. We are called upon to do upliftment work in this country, and there lies the great danger that I visualise in this Bill. We are faced with a tremendous problem in the poor white problem. Where are those poor people going to get a piece of land today where they can put up a home for themselves, if they are unable to buy land in the cheapest parts? And what is the Government doing? They are forcing the poor white population in South Africa into the mire instead of uplifting those people and giving them a civilised standard of living. No-, they have to be forced down into the mire; they have to live amongst the Asiatics. I feel therefore that I could never vote for that part of the Bill, and I cannot join my hon. friend on the Labour benches in saying that I will vote for this “darn thing”. I cannot vote for it. The danger lies in the direct representation which is being given to the Indians in Natal. Who has a greater claim to direct representation —the natives in this country or the coloured persons who are natives of this country, or the Indians? But this so-called insipid Government of today, under the leadership, inter alia, of the Minister of Finance has to do something to satisfy the Indians. The baby started to become naughty and had to be given candy. In that way the Government wants to relieve the pain in the baby’s stomach. That is why they are prepared to give the Indians direct representation. It is the thin end of the wedge. The native has a greater claim than the Indian in this country and the same applies to the coloured person. But the Government is giving the Indians that privilege although the natives and the coloured people have a greater claim to it, and in the not too distant future, if this Bill goes through; they will also demand this privilege. And when dealing with a dangerous man like the Minister of Finance, who may possibly become the leader of the party on the other side, a man who is the greatest liberalist that South Africa has ever known, who even stated in the course of his speech that he would welcome it if the Indians were to sit in these benches amongst us, we must remember that he would also be in favour of giving the natives and the coloured persons a seat in the House, and when that day arrives, I say with the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss): “Give me a machine gun and bring them before me and I shall mow them down as fast as they come.” That is how the people feel, and not only the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people but the English-speaking people as well, all people who have the interests of this country at heart. This legislation is the most serious and the most far-reaching legislation that has ever been introduced, and if we are going to reveal that spirit of concession, I am afraid we are toying with the interests of the State. Take the Minister of Native Affairs, for example. I thought a great deal of him and I still think a great deal of him, but he is also beginning to make too many concessions. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) said that the Minister had stated that if the representatives of the natives carry on in this way, he will be compelled to do his best to take drastic action against them. Unfortunately the Minister of Native Affairs has in recent times revealed a spirit which gives me cause for concern. He is no longer the strong man he was when he first occupied this portfolio. Here we are dealing with people who are supporting the claims of the Indians. They were brought here to deal with native affairs in this House, and more particularly on behalf of the Cape. But today these people are moving amendments in regard to this legislation. They are trying to get this House to pass legislation which suits them so that when the Indians are given representation in this House they will occupy a stronger position. That is the great danger we foresee. As soon as those Indian representatives come to the House they will have the decisive vote, so that eventually the Indians will have to be admitted to the Free State to crowd out the European population there as they have done elsewhere. I say that the English-speaking people are dissatisfied. My hon. friend on the other side who is Afrikaans-speaking and who may be a descendant of the Voortrekkers, who also made sacrifices for the maintenance of European civilisation in this country, wants to vote blindly for this Bill, but if he does his descendants will dishonour his grave. We cannot blindly vote for legislation which we are convinced will be to the detriment of European civilisation in this country. For that reason we object to this Bill. I should have liked the Minister of the Interior to say whether he holds the same views as the Minister of Finance. We are interested to know what he thinks. I say the Indians have gone so far that they have not the slightest respect for this House. One need only read the telegrams which have come from them and to which reference has been made. They do not talk about “Dr. Malan” or “Gen. Smuts”. They talk about “Malan” and “Smuts”. I have never addressed the Prime Minister as “Smuts”. I address him as “Oom Jan” or “Generaal”. What we take exception to is that they think they can force us, and if I had been the Prime Minister of the State, I would have shown them a thing or two; I would have shown them that they ought to have more respect for the Europeans in this country, and particularly for a man like the Prime Minister. They want to intimidate us by threatening to break off trade relations with us. Let them do so. It will then be the duty of the Prime Minister to tear up this Bill immediately and to throw it into the flames. They will then realise that they have to go down on their knees and beg, if they feel that an injustice has been done to them. But the capitalistic Indian in this country who is imbued with the spirit of communism is the agitator in this country today. They want to dominate us and dictate to us. I want to make an appeal to my friends. The time for quarrels and disputes is past when we are, called upon to deal with such an important matter. I make an appeal to all organisations in the country. If you really have the interest of the State at heart, it is your sacred duty to abandon party political interests. Let us deal with this matter on its merits and be honest towards ourselves and towards those who will succeed us.

The last speaker here attempted to imitate the sounds made by the Indians with a Chuka-la-chukala-chuck. He should rather have attributed that noise to himself. He repeated the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition such as “serious”, “far-reaching”, “urgent” and similar words: all these are the words used by the Leader of the Opposition and now he Chuka-la-chuka-la-chuck’s just like the Indians. But the criticism which is levelled against us is that we are driving in the thin end of the wedge. With all respect to the Opposition I want to say that the viewpoint put forward by the Minister of Finance concerns us all to a very great extent. He does not blame the Leader of the Opposition. He merely states what should happen. But long before that time the thin end of the wedge was already driven in.

Rather tell us of how you fight in the Caucus.

I consider that remark of the Junior Whip of the Opposition as undignified. I saw no one with a blue eye emerging from our Caucus. But I do not want to waste my time. I merely want to concentrate on Clause 3 of the agreement which drove in the thin end of the wedge. The thin end of the wedge lies in Clause 3 and not in this Bill. As one who has dealt with this matter for years as a member of the City Council of Johannesburg, I can not do otherwise than to associate myself with the view expressed earlier in this debate by the hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Heyns) when he complimented the Prime Minister on the courage showed by him in tackling this problem. For that matter, I wish to go further and say that it was only a Smuts who could have tackled this matter, either now or in the next ten years. It is a difficult matter and a matter which is complex and to tackle it demands moral courage, perseverance and determination, particularly to tackle the matter at this moment. In the past this matter was always referred to a round table. There was always a lack of courage, perseverance and determination. There is no doubt that the question of minority groups in the various countries will be pertinently and prominently discussed at the Peace Conference. We are concerned in the matter. Our reaction to this problem will be discussed at the Peace Conference and I repeat that this Conference will place the question of minority groups in the various countries, Europe and Britain, most prominently in the foreground. The question before the House this evening is thus—are we going to send the Prime Minister as South Africa’s representative to the Peace Conference with a matter left unsettled, or are we going to send him with a clean slate? Are we going to send him with a stone round his neck? Are we going to make it more difficult for him? South Africa has its native problem and it also has this problem which must be solved. South Africa’s contribution to the peace of the world will depend to a large extent on the solution of her own national problems and to what extent she succeeds. This legislation is an attempt to solve a problem. It is an attempt to solve a racial problem in South Africa. Although we would very much like the Opposition to show responsibility and would like them to view national matters seriously, we find that they are of no help to us. We ask them to make an attempt by means of this experiment to obtain a satisfactory solution because this experiment will be keenly watched by the world.

But is it not a solution?

The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) is interrupting me. I ask him: What has his party done? What has his Leader done to help us? Nothing. But it is so easy to make political propaganda all the time. And because he is this evening the only representative of his party from the Rand, it is very easy for him to mislead his party regarding the state of affairs prevailing there. As a matter of fact he would be surprised, after this strike on the Rand, to discover that his party is 50 per cent. nearer to our standpoint as regards this question, than it was last year. To come back to the Indian problem, what is the position today? Two sides are opposed to the Bill. The one objection comes from the Opposition and the other from the Indians themselves. As far as the Opposition is concerned, they object to the franchise. Their point of view is: We do not want to give any right to vote to the Indians.

That was also your viewpoint.

May I remind hon. members that they raised no objection to the granting of the franchise to the natives? If we look at the names of the members on that side who did not vote for that principle at the time, we will find very few. Now they remain silent. They voted in favour of that.

Who gave it to them?

At that time you voted for it and put yourselves in the position of guardianship over the less privileged.

Where were you at that time?

At that time I fought in the Cape. The fact of the matter is that hon. members on the opposite side adopted that principle. Now one can, and the country can, but ask the Opposition: Why do you exploit the position now for political reasons, after having adopted the principle of guardianship over the less privileged? This is the same principle. In what manner can it help to exploit it now for political purposes? No, in so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, this country knows that in 1927, as far as the Indians are concerned, as far as Clause 3 of the agreement is concerned, the Opposition should raise no objection to placing themselves in the position of guardianship over the Indians. Where the native was deprived of certain rights, of fundamental rights, the “rights of man”, the Opposition agreed that he should receive other rights. The same principle applies in respect of this legislation. Here the Indian is deprived of his right to freedom of movement and in its place another right is substituted. Can the Opposition be so inconsistent as to oppose that?

Of what rights are the Indians deprived?

The rights which were granted to them in terms of the agreement of 1927. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) threatened to visit our constituencies and to intimidate us. The whole House and the country know the threats used by that hon. member. Even when he was still a Minister, he made threats. We will face these threats. I and the hon. member for North Rand are prepared to face them. But any Christian Afrikaner will disagree with that and what they today consider to be an important election cry, will meet with just as little success as when in 1938 they shouted against mixed marriages. I say that it is a matter which should be presented to the voters in the correct light and then they will not Pass judgment on it. But the fundamental cause of the misunderstanding between European and non-European today is that this matter is always exploited in elections. The time is not so very distant when we will exploit this matter for elections. The time is at hand, and I say that we should rather join forces to establish a united front. We shall be judged by those who will later suffer on account of our mistakes. We must be sensible. What is the position of the Opposition? They object only to the second part of the Bill. They do not want to say anything about the first part. At the beginning of the debate they indicated that they agreed to the first part. The country may appreciate that but why not, at the same time, attempt to tell the country about the advantages of the second part? Why remain silent as regards that? The hon. member for Westdene, whose constituency includes places like Newlands, must admit that his European voters in those parts are very pleased today, particularly in so far as the first part of the Bill is concerned. I want to leave it at that and “let them flourish in their own folly”. As far as the Indians are concerned, they are opposing the Bill and making a lot of noise. They are opposed to it for two reasons, firstly because the representatives will be Europeans, and secondly because of the communal franchise. Let us say to the Indians: We have made successful experiments in the country as regards the matter. We have made the experiment of having representation of natives by the present native representatives. The Opposition says it was a failure. Do they want to agree with the Indians? That gives me the idea that there are grounds for the telegram from the Indians which says that they agree with Dr. Malan. Why do they change over so quickly. No, they can leave that matter. We have here tonight an example of communal voting by European representatives. On this point we must unfortunately clash with the native representatives. They opposed the Bill on the grounds that communal representation by Europeans is not the correct thing. If that is so, why do they not resign? If they want to be honest, they must admit that they have to a large extent assisted in improving the position of the native in many respects by their representations in this House. Or should we expect that the Indians will not send good men to this House? If we should think that, we must have a very poor opinion of the Indians There should be no reason for the Indians to take up that attitude and especially the native representatives are the last people to say that it is the wrong thing, because their experiment has been successful. No, I see no reason why they should be so pessimistic about the matter. But let us challenge them. When the Bill has been passed, when the areas are demarcated, let us say to them: you were opposed to the Bill and to representation by Europeans on a communal voters’ roll. Do not send representatives to the House but allow your seats to remain vacant. Then we will se how many of the Indians who are making so much propaganda today and who want to plead their case overseas, will be satisfied. I would like to tell the people who have made representations to countries overseas and even to U.N.O. that they should in the first place take into consideration the general spiritual and religious position in our country. In the second place I think that if they make investigations they will find that the Indians in our country are not in such a bad position economically and otherwise as has been represented and that the propaganda overseas is quite incorrect and based on a lack of knowledge of conditions in our country. Thirdly, I want them to take into consideration, and this is important, that this agitation organised amongst the Indian community is propaganda with which a large percentage, perhaps 75 per cent. of the Indians in South Africa are not in agreement. The working class Indian sees an opportunity, in this to establish himself once and for all. Take the case of Johannesburg. The City Council there would have solved the question of the separation of Indians long ago had it not been for the struggle between the more wealthy Indians and the poorer class Indians. The wealthy Indian tries to make a political question of the problem of separation and allocation of land, while the poorer Indian is glad to get a place in which to live. I hope that those to whom the representations have been made will not allow themselves to be misled. It is, as a matter of fact, a good sign that even while this debate is still in progress there have already been indications in the newspapers on Saturday that U.N.O. did not consider this question as being within its scope and that they agreed with the standpoint of South Africa that it is a South African domestic affair. Now there is another important matter and I cannot recall any member of the Opposition having dealt with it. Only one member of the Dominion Party mentioned it so far, but even so it is the main principle of the Bill as far as European South Africa is concerned. The basic principle is the delimitation of the areas which are allocated under the Bill and in this regard I want to appeal to the Prime Minister and I hope that it will be taken into consideration in the committee stage. In the first place, provision is made in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 for a board which will advise the Minister regarding areas to be set aside. My first objection to this board is that boards which are constituted by legislation unfortunately show a tendency to become independent bodies which sometimes introduce and uphold a policy in direct conflict with the current Government policy. In other words one finds bodies which although they are subject to the authority of this House still develops into Parliamentary bodies with the same power as this House and I feel therefore that any decision made by that body should be subject to the approval of this House or at any rate that they should be responsible to this House for any decision taken by them. Secondly, provision is made in the second part of the Bill for representatives of the Indians in this House. Is it not reasonable to expect that the people representing the Indians here should be au fait with the conditions of the people they represent? Thirdly we come to the delimitation of the areas under Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Bill. I do not want to talk about Durban because I have not studied the position there but I am talking on behalf of Johannesburg. I have already pointed out the difficulties with which Johannesburg was faced in trying to find a solution. Nowhere in this Bill is any provision made, as far as I can see, for representation of local authorities and nowhere are any means provided for local authorities to make representations. That means, in other words, that when it comes to delimitation of areas the people who will have a say will perhaps be people who know nothing of the conditions and who do not understand the problem. And who would then become the natural intermediaries through whom representations could be made by local authorities, particularly by the larger municipalities? Obviously the members of this House. They will have to do the work. In a city such as Johannesburg the various representatives of Johannesburg would be approached and objections to delimitations would be pointed out to them. This is an important administrative aspect and I hope that it will receive due consideration. Then, last but not least, this board will consist of five members. I am fairly au fait with this matter and I feel that such a board would be too small. It would easily lend itself to malpractices and financial pressure and for that reason it is necessary that the final decision in regard to these matters should vest in a higher authority, a more comprehensive authority.

There are members of the Opposition who made interjections in an effort to belittle me. Let me return to them. When we listened the other day to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition and when we listened to the standpoint of the Government and of the Opposition in the course of this debate, one fact emerged very clearly and that was that on the one side there is a responsible Prime Minister and a responsible Government and on the other side an Opposition which need have no responsibility while it is an Opposition. Their policy is to view matters merely against our local background and to gain temporary popularity in the country. But let me draw their attention to the fact that in taking up a similar attitude in the past they also gained temporary popularity. But what was the result? When the Leader of the Opposition took his stand against the war in 1939 he was perhaps the most popular man in the country. But what happened? The very same people who shouted “Hosanna,” rejected him at a later stage. Be careful that the same people who shout “Hosanna” today do not reject you again in 1948.

We heard something interesting here tonight. In the course of the debate a few interesting statements were made. One was made by the Minister of Finance, but tonight we heard two contradictory statements. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) showed us how solidly he supports the idea of the Empire and Imperialism, as he calls it. Then the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) let the cat out of the bag saying: “We cannot let the Prime Minister go overseas to the Conference without first passing this legislation. He must be able to go there and say: ‘That is what we have done’ ”. This side of the House accuses the Prime Minister of at this stage trying to rush through legislation at all costs because he is in a hurry to go overseas. But in the same breath the same hon. member says: “Why do you ask for an extension of time? It is an experiment.” We oppose this measure just because it is an experiment. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment which is not an experiment. We do not want to make experiments. The hon. member refers to what happened in 1927 and the legislation then adopted. He refers to the native legislation which was adopted by a joint session of both Houses of Parliament. Let us be very clear about this. The experiments he refers to were experiments because the same elements now operating obstructed Gen. Hertzog, who was at the time the leader of the Nationalist Party, from putting into practice his original ideas with regard to native legislation at that time. He had to compromise, contrary to the ideas he originally had in regard to legislation intended to saféguard the European civilisation in South Africa. He looked to the future, but the same element which is now operated was then active, and the present Prime Minister, who at that time was the Leader of the Opposition, is the person who made it impossible for General Hertzog to pass legislation in accordance with his original ideas. Now there are hon. members who say that we as Free Staters have no interest in this debate. As an Afrikaner, a plattelander and a Free Stater, I have the greatest interest in this debate. The principle maintained by the Free State and which we inherited from our forefathers, is today in jeopardy here, and therefore I take an interest in the debate. It is easy to say that we have no Indian problem. Why is that so? Because the Free State maintained that great ideal of segregation to safeguard European civilisation.

Do you then wish to blame President Kruger?

That hon. member who is trying to lead me from my course should rather keep quiet. After the manner in which he participated in the debate and the attitude he adopted, he should rather keep quiet. The Minister of Finance made another very important statement in this House. There is an old proverb to the effect that he who makes his bed must lie on it. The Minister of Finance declared himself as the leader of the liberal group in South Africa. He is today recognised as such, and will be recognised as such in future. There are people who say that it is his Christian convictions which drive the Minister to that decision. I readily want to acknowledge that, but there is something even greater in my conception of Christianity, namely to preserve what has been entrusted to one. I say that my conviction is that I cannot do anything knowing that I am committing murder towards my nation and posterity. One cannot shield behind that. Every human being has been endowed with sense and reason and a capacity to judge, and has to act according to that. When one listens to the Minister of Finance it is clear that he is in favour of discarding the principle of segregation even in this Parliament. Let us have regard to the practical effect of that. It has already been stated here that there will be a group of six representatives of natives and Indians who eventually will drive in a wedge and will decide on matters affecting the country. Six votes between the Government and the Opposition are appreciable, and they will try to work themselves into such a position where by their voting power they will be able to demand from the Government rights and privileges which they would not else have received. But let us for a moment imagine three Indians and three natives sitting in the House, as the Minister of Finance wants the position to be. One must take it that they will have full privileges, just as other members. What will be the practical effect? They will not only vote about matters affecting Europeans and which do not affect them, but what will be the position in the lobbies and in the tea room? Will they be able to enjoy the privileges of other members? God save South Africa and the Afrikaner nation from the day when in the highest legislative council of the country Indians and natives will sit with Europeans on an equal basis. As a Free Stater I can only say that we will fight this legislation for as long as it is in our power to do so. But those will be the practical effects of the views held by the Minister of Finance. He wants to abolish all colour bars. It is said that the Free State will not be affected by this measure, but we also have a coloured population. The great principle of the maintenance of European civilisation is applied in the Free State in letter and in spirit, and our natives are satisfied. We have no internal division in the Free State, but what will happen in future? The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is destined to make possible consultation, calmly and truly, between all groups, to discuss the matter. It aims at the continued existence of a white South Africa. If in 1923 and in 1924 and in 1927 and at similar periods we had always consulted together calmly and coolly, and if the elements which today again are operative had not interfered, then we would have laid down a policy for the future which would have made it unnecessary today to split hairs here about policy. The longer we wait and continue with patchwork without taking the whole problem into review, the more difficult it will be to solve those problems.

And you still want to wait two more years?

If you had not stood back when Gen. Hertzog wanted to solve the problem we would today have had a more fortunate state of affairs. We, as Freestaters, are anxious. We do not only think of the present Prime Minister, but of the future Prime Minister, the man who was selected by the Prime Minister as his successor. He is a man who has a philosophy of life which is of the greatest danger to the country. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, on whose shoulders the cloak of the Prime Minister must one day fall, has no children. If he finds things too difficult, he will disappear, but we who have children to leave behind to receive this heritage, are anxious. In this Bill a little bit of segregation is introduced as a sop. We do not quibble about that, because it is in accordance with our policy. But there is the other great ideal of segregation, of complete segregation even as regards the vote, and here the Prime Minister, urged to this step by the pressure and coercion exercised on him from within his own party, proposes to give to the Asiatics that which they have never possessed, and to which they have no claims, and he says that in return for a little segregation, he will give them the vote. I hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter, and give us an opportunity to pass legislation which will definitely lay down for the future a policy which will inform the coloureds and natives and Indians and Europeans in South Africa as to where they stand.

I support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. We as an Opposition feel that we have to defend the rights of white Afrikanerdom. Before I go further I just want to reply to what was said by the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns). He said that he thanks the Prime Minister for what he has done and that he will vote for the Bill. Did not that hon. member receive the telegram which was sent to him and to me and to the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Native Affairs, by certain voters? The telegram reads—

It was a meeting of people who do not belong to the same political party, but a meeting of members of a general body—

The hon. member took no notice of it, but we as Afrikaners must fight for the rights of our European population and civilisation. The Prime Minister used words to the effect that in the war we had fought for a new world. I now ask whether this is the new world we are receiving, that we should give the vote to Indians to vote for persons who will come and represent them in this House. Is this the new world we were to receive, is it part of this new world that Indians should have equal rights with us? We put that question to the Prime Minister. We all know that the Indian constitutes a threat to us in South Africa, not only in the economic sphere, but also morally. We as representatives of the nation may not permit the rights of the nation to be abandoned in this manner. We feel that we should gird our loins to fight for the rights we inherited from our forefathers. If you want to give Indians certain rights, why not let them go to a part of the world which they can develop and live in? Now, rights are being given to them to come to areas which have already been developed, and where they can enjoy the privileges and the benefits of what has been built by our forefathers. We feel that we should oppose this Bill, and we ask the Prime Minister not to be in too much of a hurry, but to grant an extension of time in accordance with the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, so that the Bill can be thoroughly examined by a Select Committee. That is what we are striving for. I hope and trust that the Prime Minister will still accede to this request. Already we have allowed the Indians to penetrate too far in the Transvaal, and there are parts, in the cities and even in small towns, where they have already dug themselves in as the biggest traders, and where they are oppressing the European population, and also other sections of the population. We feel that we cannot permit this state of affairs to continue. If the Indian community are to receive the same rights as Europeans, give them a limited area for themselves where they can prepare themselves, and fit themselves for such rights. But do not allow them to live amongst the white people in European areas, and on top of that still to have a vote. I received a telegram from my constituency, a copy of which was also sent to the Prime Minister, which I should like to read—

A similar telegram was also sent to the Prime Minister, and I expect him to lend an ear to the electors of Marico. It is various political parties and not only one, who took this resolution. They feel that it is time to act and to prevent this matter from going too far. It is the point of the wedge which is being driven in, and it will be driven in deeper and deeper, and the result will be that the European civilisa tion will suffer. It is not only we who will suffer through it, but especially future generations. I appeal to the Prime Minister and even to the Minister of Finance to see whether a change cannot be made in the Bill to provide for a postponement such as asked for in the amendment moved by this side of the House, in order that proper legislation may be framed. In the form in which it is at present before the House, it is impossible for us to vote for it, and for that reason we should like to tell our colleagues opposite—and there I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg—that we should try to keep politics out of this matter. Let there be a meeting of the leaders of the various parties, and not only an interview with one or other leader, but bring the various leaders together, so that they can frame the Bill properly, and so that it will not only make provision for the Indians, but also for the natives and the coloureds, so that we can pass a Bill which will solve the whole coloured problem in South Africa. That is my request. I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg that something of that nature should be done. I want to express my thanks to the Free State members for sympathising with us in our attempt to keep that class of person out of the country, although we shall not succeed in eliminating them altogether, because they are already in our midst. We must try not to give them this opportunity of becoming still stronger in the Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity of coming into this debate, because I think to those of us who have liberal views, it is the most important issue that has arisen in this country since the war. I am one of those who quite frankly, like the Minister of Finance, do not feel quite happy about this Bill, but nevertheless, despite the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), I propose to support it, because I feel that if this Government and this Party does not deal with this Indian problem a much worse fate may yet befall the country and the Indians, because what worse fate can befall the Indians at any rate than that hon. members opposite should take command of the situation. Well, Sir, I frankly am not too happy about the Bill, because, as far as I am aware, a communal franchise has never been a great success in any country, and I feel moreover that the particular communal franchise proposed by this Bill is too heavily loaded. I for one would have preferred to see a Standard IV limit, so that more of the middle-aged elements among the Indians would be able to come on to the roll, and I would also have liked to see the amount of qualifying income halved, so that it would be £60 instead of £120. I do feel the Government might well consider that point, and consider making the initial roll on a Standard IV basis, and after the initial roll any fresh rolls that are made could stipulate a basis of Standard VI for any new entrants. In that way we could include all the middle-aged elements of the Indians, with a gradually rising educational qualification.

But in the main I support this Bill because I am hoping that it will rid Natal of the bugbear, one might almost say the nightmare, of fear that exists there at the moment. Just at present the fear is exaggerated in Natal, but I think there is a reasonable and justifiable fear there that the Europeans will be swamped by the Indians, and I am hoping that this Bill will rid the Natalians of that fear, and induce them to look upon this matter in a more equable frame of mind.

I do feel this, moreover, that I do not agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) when she told us that the native communal franchise has failed. She is herself the living proof that she is wrong, because the fact remains that the native communal franchise in this country has been of infinite value to the native. It has given him a platform in the councils of the country, and a voice from which to make heard in the highest court of the land his reasonable needs and his reasonable aspirations, and there is no doubt that it has succeeded, because the country is today, after ten years of the native communal franchise, far more aware than it ever has been of the native’s desires, his needs and aspirations, his hopes and his fears, and that is what I personally expect and hope for from the Indian representation. I feel that this country is far too compartmented. We of the Transvaal know little, and certainly those of the Free State know much less, of the Indian’s desires and hopes. Three “Indian” representatives will alter that again. I am supporting this Bill because I feel that the communal franchise, even while it is not all that we of the more liberal element would have desired, will at least give the Indians a voice in a court where their desires will be brought to the notice of the Government, who can assist in fulfilling them. That, too, is why I am supporting this Bill.

Meanwhile there is another factor. I am supporting it as an interim measure. I hope that Natal fears will be allayed, but I realise perfectly well that it is only an interim measure. I disagree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern when she says that the Prime Minister in his speech laid this communal franchise down as a permanent pattern of our society. I do not believe that he meant to do that for a moment. He recently stated, and I agree with him and have always felt, that our society is too dynamic to be put into any permanent mould of that kind. It must change with the changing needs and the changing circumstances of the country. I do not believe for a moment that this communal franchise is permanent. I believe that the time will come when it will change, and, Sir, I look forward to that day. But meanwhile I do feel that the best practical way to hasten it would be to open the doors to immigration. If we in this country had 5,000,000 whites instead of 2,000,000, then there would be no need for what is termed the fear of the rising tide of colour. I am perfectly satisfied that the answer to the fear of being swamped, whether by native votes or by Indian votes, is to open the doors to immigration, and I hope that once this Indian question is solved for the time being, the Government will seriously consider an immigration policy that will open the doors of this country to the many millions from overseas who seek to come out and people our empty spaces. That seems to me to be a policy that is in the interests of South Africa.

Do you think they should go to Rhodesia and fill those empty spaces?

That is something I am not prepared to answer, because I know nothing about the immigration figures in Rhodesia, and unlike members opposite, I do not like to speak on matters of which I know nothing. But the point is this, that when it comes to either streaming into Southern Rhodesia or streaming into South Africa, I think the place should be South Africa, because South Africa aspires to be the leader in Africa. It aspires to the hegemony of Southern Africa, and its claims are well founded. It is a country that has been longer established and with a far longer history than any other country in Southern Africa, and therefore it is only right that immigrants should be more attracted hére. So, as I say, I support this Bill, though I would frankly, like the Minister of Finance, have preferred a loaded franchise. I am hoping though, as I have said, that when it comes to the Committee stage the Government will consider halving the qualifications for entrants on to the communal roll, because I feel this, that the communal roll will be too small on the present qualifications. On the present qualifications it has been estimated that no more than 2,500 or 3,000 will be able to vote for three members. Three members to 3,000 Indians! It takes 10,000 Europeans to put one member into this House. So I am hoping that the Government will see fit at the Committee stage to consider halving the qualifications for the communal franchise, and making them a little less difficult. After all, it will not mean that any more members will be returned to the House, but it will mean that the communal franchise Will be dispersed more widely, and that, I think, will be better.

There is one other point which I hope the Government will reconsider. In terms of the Bill as at present drafted, it is suggested that the non-Asiatic wives of Indians shall not be allowed to hold land or property rights. I do hope the Government will reconsider that decision, because a good many of these women have property in their own rights, and I do believe that they should be allowed to continue to own property. It is a protection for them against the mishaps that marriage may perhaps bring them, and I hope the Government will accept some suggestions for deleting that section from the Bill.

Well, Sir, as I have said, I am not altogether happy about this Bill, but I do feel that under the present circumstances it is the best kind of Bill that this country could have. I am reminded of a question that was put to the great Greek law giver, Solon. One of his students asked Solon what were the best laws that he knew of. The great Solon answered: “For what people, at what time?” Well, that is a remark that is very pertinent to this country at this time. The Bill is not ideal. Those of us who have more liberal views would have liked to have gone a little further than the Government has done. But the Government must accept the practical limitations of the time; quite obviously, to judge by the expressions of opinion opposite, it has also done what all good governments should do. It has gone a little ahead of public opinion, and for that reason I am supporting the Government and this Bill.

To deal in a few words with the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) she stated that she is “not so happy”. There is only one state of affairs which will make that hon. member happy, namely the elimination of colour bars in every sphere and if there is free association between the various races in South Africa in every respect. Then she will be happy. I will go so far as to say that that is the only thing which will make her happy. But in order to state clearly what we on this side of the House want, I wish to move a further amendment. We had intended moving that amendment in the Committee Stage at the appropriate time, but this Bill is so complicated that we re-examined the position and discovered that we would not be able to do so in the Committee Stage. Therefore in order to state very clearly what our position on this side is in regard to this Bill, I wish to move the further amendment about which that hon. member will not be happy. The amendment is as follows—

Then we will have total segregation. We all agree unanimously on one point in this House, namely that this debate is of the very greatest importance. A great thinker once made the statement that there are moments in the life of a man which are not only the grave of the past but the cradle of the future. As a Netherlands philosopher once put it: “The present is born out of the past; the future is born in the present.” There is an undeniable link between what was, what is and what will be. We have to regard this Bill in that light. It is the link between what was, what is and what will be in the future, and now in connection with this important measure, we have seen the greatest public fiasco, on the opposite side of this House, which we have known in recent years in this House. There they sit, and not one of them is completely happy. They sit there and make us think of the old Boer who travelled with another old Boer on the train between Pretoria and Delagoa Bay.

We know that story.

I am glad that that hon. member interjected, because I should like to apply it to him. After the two old fellows had travelled for a little distance, one said to the other: Is this not wonderful; here we are sitting together and in a little while you will get out at Pretoria and I in Delagoa Bay. That is their conception of this Bill. The one goes to Pretoria and the other to Delagoa Bay, but they are both sitting in the same train. But I want to divide members opposite into four portions. The first lot are those who keep silent about the Bill. The second are those who rose here and passionately make excuses for the Bill, but who are eventually going to vote for it. I want to give credit to the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) for being one of those who rose and passionately tried to apologise for eventually voting for it. How does he do that? He does it in a misleading manner. He rises in the House and makes the statement that in the Select Committee which at the time dealt with the native legislation the Nationalist Party proposed through Mr. Wessels that there should be non-European senators in the Senate. Then he reads certain resolutions. Allow me once again briefly to tell what happened, and then we will see what a misleading statement of the case has been made by the hon. member. On the Select Committee Mr. Heaton Nicholls proposed the following. I read section (5) which laid down that the native senators could be of non-European descent. To that Senator Langenhoven proposed as an amendment on page 16—

Why did the hon. member not read that also? I now go further. General Hertzog moved—

When this motion was put to the vote, who were the people who voted against it? It was the Prime Minister and all the people sitting opposite, with the exception of Mr. Nicholls, Colonel Stallard and another member. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were members of the Select Committee and voted against the motion that there should be separation. We now go further. Mr. Nicholls proposed that those people, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and those supporting him, should be properly tested to see whether they are serious in not wanting to give this separate representation. Mr. Nicholls made the suggestion and Mr. Wessels put the motion as a test, and that is the motion read by the hon. member. That motion was made as a test, as I said here, but he did not put clearly the condition connected with it. That was to the following effect—

I did read that.

I can understand the hon. member’s difficulty. He sits in the trap with all four feet. I said that that was the test. Unanimity was not arrived at and on 14th May, 1930, Mr. Wessels moved—

Now, who voted for that, and who voted against it? We find that those who voted agains† Mr. Wessels’s motion were Senator F. S. Malan, Mr. Hofmeyr, Mr. Joel Krige, Mr. A. O. B. Payn, Major G. B. van Zyl and a few other members of the S.A. Party. Then the hon. member for Middelburg still comes here with his distorted arguments in order to salve his own soul by making excuses. Why did the hon. member not tell the House that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) in connection with the representation of natives in the Provincial Council moved that the representatives in the Cape Province should be Europeans and not non-Europeans? The Nationalist Party voted for that, but the S.A. Party voted against it. Why does he not tell that to the House? I think that is enough about that hon. member. I do not think his speech deserves more attention than this. I do not think it is worth anything more. Then there is the other section of members opposite. They are the people who bitterly attacked the Bill, but they attack it bitterly because it is not liberal enough. They are in favour of complete equality. They are those who follow the Minister of Finance. That group wants complete racial equality in South Africa. They are the hon. member who a moment ago said that she is not happy, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg)— they are the members who together with the Minister of Finance strive to attain total racial equality in the country. Let me now come to two important figures in this debate. They are the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister again played the role here which he has played in South Africa for so long—at one moment to blow hot and the next moment to blow cold. He is in a difficulty about this Bill. He had to satisfy his own caucus. He had to say something here which would appear in Hansard so that every element in his party would find something in it to read to his constituents in order to satisfy them. That is the reason why at one moment he blew hot and at the next moment cold. He felt unhappy about this Bill; he was anxious about it. It brings European civilisation into danger. He knew that many in his own party were dissatisfied with the Bill, and in order to satisfy them he said something to everyone. On the one hand he had to satisfy the Minister of Finance and the liberals, and on the other had he had to satisfy members like the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) who has not the least conception of what is going on, who cannot understand the implications of the Bill. So what does the Prime Minister do in the beginning of his speech? He rises in this House and like Pilate, he washes his hands in innocence. He made a speech here about the history of this problem—a historical mistake has been made and we are dealing with its results—

There he sits in his grey age. For thirty years he had the opportunity to raise his voice about our complex community and about dividing them into separate spheres in order to safeguard the future of the Europeans in South Africa. In all those thirty years he never did anything. Not once in thirty years did he make a single attempt to safeguard European civilisation, and to separate European and non-European. On the contrary, he did everything in his power to oppose any movement in that direction. He himself did nothing, but he and his allies tried to negative every attempt made in that direction; and now he has the audacity to wash his hands in innocence and to say: “We are the innocent victims.” Just let me deal with the hon. the Prime Minister a little further. In what manner is he now playing his old role of trying to satisfy everyone on his side? He makes statements in the House which are not true, examples of which I have already mentioned. Among other things he says—

He knows that that is not so. He knows that in native legislation there is a fundamental difference. He knows that that legislation aims at and provides for separate residential areas, but he says that this Bill is based on the same principle as that, and where, I ask, are those separate residential areas? He goes further and says—

But that is not so. The right of the natives to own land is limited, but the natives received no extension of the franchise in return for that. Let him rise, or let any man rise and tell me where the native received an extension of the franchise or where he received an extension of the franchise in the north, because of this right to own land which he received. It is not so. The communal vote was given to them in this native legislation. The communal vote was given to them in lieu of the usual vote, in lieu of the ordinary franchise. But now he goes further, and he has to try to satisfy the other side, and he says—

He is now following chronologically the process of development of this legislation in recent years, and eventually he comes to the Pretoria Agreement of 1944, and says the following—

I should like to lay stress on this—

That was the recommendation of the Pretoria Agreement, but he says this—

And what happened now? Because the Indians objected, because they were not satisfied, he abandoned this whole principle of the Pretoria Agreement, and today he is mixing them up in the same old way. The Indians object and gained their point. He says—

I should now like to pass on to a comparison between those two speeches. Let me compare the speech of the Minister of Finance with that of the Prime Minister in order to show the House, the country and the world outside that a sad rôle is being played in regard to the highest interests of the nation in taking such a serious decision as that with which we are now faced. Let us make a dialogue between what is said by the Prime Minister on the one hand, and by the Minister of Finance on the other. That dialogue will read as follows: The Prime Minister—

That is the Prime Minister, and now the Minister of Finance replies and says—

I just want to lay stress on this. The Prime Minister says that Indians are Union Nationals, and now the Minister of Finance says—

They are in direct contradiction to each other, but my allegation is this, and I say it with emphasis: They have agreed that the one should speak in this way to satisfy a certain portion of the population, and the other will speak differently to satisfy another portion of the public in order to put into effect this important “first step.” And now the Prime Minister says—

That is what he says. The Minister of Finance replies—

The one wants to lecture them, and the other says it is not for us to lecture them. But the Prime Minister goes further and says—

To which the Minister of Finance replies—

Now that is the position in connection with this dialogue, an absolute fiasco and ridiculous arguments such as one can never again hope to find on the part of two responsible people, members of the same Government, in connection with such an important measure. Just let me say this: Either they differ from each other, or they do not differ. If they differ—and it is for them to say whether they do and not for us —if they differ about the “fixed sure principle,” what right has the Prime Minister to keep the Minister of Finance in his Cabinet for one minute longer? But it is a matter for them to decide as to whether they differ or not. My contention is that they do not differ. What policy was the Minister of Finance aiming at in the speech he delivered here? I take it point for point. In the first place the Minister of Finance aims at this: He visualises a full franchise for the Indian in Natal, and when once he has achieved that there, why not apply it to the Indian in other places? And when once he has achieved it in Natal, why not in the Cape Province; and when once the Indian has received the vote, why not the coloured, and why not the native? That is his point of view, and that is his goal and his ambition for the future firstly. And secondly—the Minister repeated it again in his speech—this communal vote now being given to the Indian is only the first step. It is only the first step in the eventual goal of equality which he aims at. That is his second chief aim, and the Prime Minister agrees with me, or else he must put him out of the Cabinet. The third point is this. The Minister of Finance says—

And in 1936 he fought for it that the natives should not receive the communal vote, but the ordinary franchise; but he says—

What does that mean? He is still adopting the same standpoint that he adopted in 1936. The only difference is this. Today he sees no chance of fighting all out for it, but the very day he sees a chance to plead for it and fight for it, he will want to give the native a full franchise just as today he wants to give it to the Indian. He states—

The Minister of Finance further strives— I am making a very serious statement here at a very serious moment—there the Ministers and members opposite are sitting, and there are many of them who sit there today by virtue of the decisive effect of the nonEuropean vote. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Delport) who came into this House the other day is sitting there, thanks to the non-European vote. If it were not for the Hottentot vote we would never have seen the hon. member for Caledon in this House. And what do they want to do? They want to retain the non-European vote, and to extend it in order to ensure their seats in this House. But what does the Minister of Finance want to do further? He wants to see to it that those people come into Parliament. People like the native representatives, people like those I mentioned who do not feel completely happy, as many as possible of them are to come here to help him to abolish the colour bar, and for that reason he says that even in the constitution he wants to break the colour bar. He wants to break it there and he ’wants to see Europeans and non-Europeans sitting together in this House, and he is making provision for them to sit there in order to support him.

That is a distortion.

Let me put the position this way. In the beginning of my speech I said that there is an eternal link between what we were and are and will be, and that link between what we were and are and will be, as far as it effects the policy of equality in South Africa, I wish to illustrate by means of personalities, the link which was is Rhodes; the one which is is J. C. Smuts, the present Prime Minister; and the one of the future is the present Minister of Finance.

Hear, hear.

Hon. members are ad idem as regards this question, and they say “hear, hear”. The one is the successor to the other. The Prime Minister is the successor to Rhodes, and there sits his successor, the Minister of Finance. And what is their plan, what is their policy in connection with this important question of equality of races, or non-equality? Let me take the first of the three, namely Rhodes. In the year 1900 Rhodes wrote the following words—

That is the question Rhodes asks—

That is a civilised man, and Rhodes’s motto is—

Chuck him out.

And what is the point of view of the Prime Minister? In 1928—and he has never yet changed his point of view—he expressed himself as follows, and this is reported in “Die Volkstem”, his own newspaper—

That is the policy of the Prime Minister. Here he has followed step for step the policy enunciated by Rhodes. He goes further and says—

Now hon. members opposite say: Yes, but that was in 1928. For their own edification I should like to read to them what their present policy is. I quote from this pamphlet, “ ’n Politieke Handleiding vir Jonk en Oud”, which includes everyone. It was issued in 1945, and contains their policy. The heading is “Our attitude towards the coloured races”. It was issued by their secretary, Mr. O. A. Oosthuizen, their general secretary, and this is what he says—

He goes further—

And then follows the pith of the whole argument—

The policy of each and every one of them sitting over there—

Irrespective of class, irrespective of smell and irrespective of colour, that is their policy. It is very clearly and explicitly put in their own pamphlet. I wish to deal with this question by reference to a question put by one of our poets when he was putting a very serious question, a question which was of great interest and one which influenced the past of our nation, which is of importance today, and which will be of importance in future. One of our poets, in thinking of the past, the present and the future of our nation, put the question in the following words—

He rejects completely the idea of the sovereignty of the white man in South Africa. Returning to this Bill I want to say this again; I make this very serious statement, and I say that of the two million Europeans in South Africa, there are 1¾ million Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people who want segregation. I wonder whether a single person opposite would dare deny that? But they do not get it. They get everything except segregation in this Bill. But let me put the contrary: the quarter of a million Indians do not want segregation. They want to be amongst the white people and they get what they want; their wishes are fulfilled. That is being provided for in this Bill. Let me put it differently: One and three-quarter million of the population in this country, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, desire no extension of the franchise to the non-Europeans, much less in thg northern provinces. When they are being asked outside, they say that they do not want it. But here the Indians are getting that extension of the franchise in the north. 250,000 Indians want the franchise. They get it and are asking for more, and if the Minister of Finance and his supporters are responsible for the government of the country, they will receive more, and since this debate started until the present moment, not a single member opposite has answered this question: Give it to the Indian today, and what will be your reaction when the coloured man asks for it; give it to the coloured tomorrow, and how will you be able to refuse it to the native from the Cape to the Limpopo? To that serious question affecting the future of our communal life in South Africa, not one single member on that side of the House has given any reply. Then hon. members say: But in this Bill we are providing a quid pro quo; we concede something, and the Indians concede something. As the Prime Minister put it, each side is making a contribution. The two areas which have been dealt with in this Bill are the red area and the white area. The red areas remain a mixture. The European can buy ground there, the Indian can buy and the native can buy. As regards the white areas, the European may not buy from the Indian. I put the provision as it is put in the Bill. In that white area the Indian may not buy from the European, and the European may not buy from the Indian, and they remain together. Where is any expression given to the desire of the white man, of white civilisation in Natal which wants a dividing line? Where is that done? Today, in this serious debate, we are entering upon a new era of our national history. There has been a process during recent years in South Africa for non-Europeans to penetrate into the sphere of the white man. Previously in our history we had the phenomenon of the European moving northwards, to areas where he could have space to develop the philosophy of the European and live as a representative of western civilisation, but today there is no more room for him to go to, and there is a process on the part of the non-Europeans to penetrate into every form of activity of the European. What will be the result of that penetration? When that penetration takes place there can be one of two results. There is either unhealthy contact resulting in association and intermingling, or there is friction which leads to clashes, and clashes which lead to the spilling of blood; and this Bill, and especially the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance, is a declaration of war to white South Africa, a declaration of war which deprives white South Africa of the right to resist that penetration which has systematically and steadily been going on in recent years in the sphere of the white man; and the question which every member of this House has to decide is; In this declaration of war for total equality or the elimination of the European population, or for the preservation of European civilisation, in this important decision, on which side are you? Just let me tell the hon. Minister of Finance this: He is asking here for certain rights for the Asiatics. Does the Asiatic enjoy those rights in his own fatherland? No, he does not. I have a very important work here written by Louise Ouwerkerk. She is British born and grew up in India where she lived for many years, and she alleges the following, that in India there is racial segregation. I read in this book that there is a theory that in India there are also two colours, one lighter and one darker. These are her words—

In India today a very small proportion of the population have the vote. You have segregation in India today. She states in this book—

There is absolute residential segregation in India, but in South Africa the Indians want to force their wishes and their will on us, and here they do not want that segregation. The author proceeds further to prove that in India there is absolute segregation also as regards residential areas. She says—

In India it is their religion that they should live apart. In South Africa, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, and others of his followers opposite, it is according to religion that they should not live apart. No, here they must be thrown together for reason of humane and religious principles, but in India the opposite position obtains. She writes—

He remains what he is—

He is socially segregated and must remain there. There is no prospect of his escaping segregation in India, but in South Africa they demand the right to live amongst white people. The author further states—

even in the factories—

Here one has the great principle of that dividing line in India, between Indian and Indian, but here in South Africa they want to come and prescribe to us and say what we should do for them in South Africa which they have not got in India. In the beginning I said that we are faced with a momentous decision, a decision which does not solve this problem today, but one which is pregnant with possibilities for the course of development of the future, but here the Minister of Finance has delivered this declaration of war to white South Africa, and he is the man who will assume the cloak of the Prime Minister, and the day he wears that cloak what will he do with his power? No, he wants to destroy civilisation in South Africa. Let me tell him, as the poet has stated: The struggle begun by our fathers will be fought by us until our death or until we attain victory. That is the struggle of the Nationalist Party.

I shall commence at once with the Bill, and after what has been said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat I would only like to point out that the policy of equality has already really been taken up in this Bilk I take Section 10. A Board is established that is called the Land Tenure Advisory Board, and it is composed of five members appointed by the Minister, two of whom may be Asiatics. You at once have two Asiatics out of five members; nor does this mean that the other three will be Europeans. One may be a coloured person, another may be a native, and the third may be a European. It is not stated at all what the other three should be, but two may be Asiatics. In the first instance I wish to emphasise this principle strongly. Why should there be two Asiatics out of a strength of five? Why must it be 40 per cent. Asiatic, though there are only 250,000 Asiatics in the country? If we take the coloureds, the natives,’ the Europeans and the Asiatics combined, the Asiatics represent actually only 2 per cent. of the population. But this is not the worst feature of the Board. This Board has even the right to appoint an Asiatic, a coloured person or a native as chairman. The Minister appoints the chairman. The Minister may appoint either a native or a coloured person. Under this Bill he gets that right. There is no provision obliging him to designate a European as chairman. It is clear that the equality policy is being introduced into the Bill here, but I go further. Let us glance at the last part of Clause 10. If there are three persons present, two of them Asiatics, those three can choose their chairman. It is self-evident that where two of three members are Asiatics, an Asiatic chairman will be elected. We at once obtain in this Bill the principle of equality between the four sections, coloureds, natives, Asiatics and Europeans. What more do we want? Here we have the aim of the Minister of Finance introduced clearly in the Bill and, falling as it does under the Minister of the Interior, knowing him as we do, we know what will happen. He does not bother much about a colour dividing line. He will easily manage to appoint coloureds to this Board. In the same clause on the following page we find that officials may be appointed to serve under that Board. Here we have a Board composed or coloured people. Two members are Asiatics, and the others may be all coloureds or natives, and European officials must work under them. What more do you want than this Bill to establish equality? It is incorporated in the Bill, and I hope that the Prime Minister will during the Committee stage state clearly what his policy will be. We shall assuredly have to propose amendments there. How can we place this dangerous weapon that I have indicated in the hands of the Minister of Finance, who may be the next Prime Minister? What are the functions of this Board? They are described in Clause 12—

1. (a) every application for a permit.…

When applications are made for permits for purchase by natives or Asiatics, or whoever it may be, this Board will have to advise the Minister as to who should be granted a permit and who not. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) should tell us whether he feels safe under the permit system. Is he prepared to place this in the hands of the Minister of Finance? This Board can have a preponderating number of coloureds and Asiatics, and they have to refer the permits to the Minister for approval.

Read the Bill.

There is nothing to protect the hon. member. Where is there protection for Vryheid?

There is protection. I repeat that.

All the decisions go through this Board. The Board has further to advise the Minister in respect of—

These are all things that the Board has to deal with. But the same Board assigns the new areas. Suppose more areas are required, more red spots as indicated on the plan. Suppose, for instance, that a part of Vryheid is also made a red area, and that this Board composed mainly of Asiatics, coloureds and natives exists and gives advice to the Minister of Finance when one day he is Prime Minister, they can declare any area in Vryheid or Utrecht as a red area where Asiatics, coloureds, natives and Europeans can purchase land. Under such a Board there would be no guarantee of security with such a Prime Minister as we may have, and such a Minister of the Interior. It is one of the cardinal points of the Bill, and it is a dangerous weapon, and we cannot leave it in the hands of a Government such as we now have. These red spots on the chart, or you can call them red blots or scarlet stains, will probably be preponderatingly Asiatic at the moment. A stigma is immediately thrown on the Europeans, an odour will immediately attach to all the buildings, and the land will in consequence at once depreciate in value. The Europeans will have to sell the land at once, or otherwise they will later be encircled by Asiatics, because where Asiatics move in or are present in a majority, especially if such an area is proclaimed by the Government as an Asiatic area, the properties will immediately drop in value. The Europeans will sell out and there will be more and more Asiatics there. This is one of the objects. But what injustice occurs there to the Europeans? Many of the poor people will not sell out, and the result will be that a sort of slum will be created where there will be Asiatics and poor whites. We also know that amongst the Asiatics infectious diseases often break out, and these will spread to the Europeans. The Asiatics are not always clean in their areas. Thus a sort of slum will immediately be created. How can we tolerate such spots in our country? If the matter were not so serious I should like to move a further amendment, namely, that all the members on the other side or those who vote for the Bill should have to live in one of those red spots for a couple of years. You may not force on others what you do not consider good enough for yourself. Let them go and live there. Let the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) open up a little shop there for lemons. Why should other people be placed in a position in which you do not wish to be placed yourself? Or otherwise let the areas where they have their home be incorporated in such red spots. Will they be satisfied? What moral right have you to saddle other people with things you do not want yourself? It is one of the first ethical principles that we may not do that. Whether as men or as Christians we cannot allow it. These red spot areas can be extended by the permit system. The Minister can grant more permits and make further areas Asiatic, and presently they will fall under the board as areas which are free for the purposes of purchase and sale. But this is not the only dangerous feature of the Bill. A danger exists not only in relation to what is found in the Bill but also in respect of what is not contained in the Bill or protected by it. Take Asiatic trade. Why is Asiatic trade not made subject to restriction? The extension of Asiatic trade is one of the great evils. Have the Asiatics any right to it? No. They did not come here as traders but as workers in the sugar plantations, to work in industries. They have no claim to that. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) has pointed out how, in his town, Middelburg, virtually all the streets have been appropriated by Asiatic traders. There are numbers of such towns in the Transvaal, and it is also starting strongly in the Cape Province, while in Natal it is exceptionally bad in respect of Indian traders more and more gaining the upper hand. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Neate) affirmed that all the trade from Volksrust to Durban along the national road was in the hands of the Asiatics—all the trade licences. Why is it not limited? There is a clause in the Bill in connection with trade, but it simply says that an Asiatic who lives in premises where he carries on trade will not be regarded as the owner of the place and he will not be entitled to live there permanently, but he has the right to live there so long as he carries on trade. Consequently there is no restriction on trade. This point is very important.

The business methods practised by Asiatics were divulged in the Lange Report, paragraph 108. It is stated there that the Asiatic sends his money out of the country instead of spending it where he has earned it. The Asiatic is not a South African. The two things, race and nationality, must not be confused. The Indians remain members of the Indian race. They have an age-old culture behind them, and they will never be anything else than Indians, they will never be Afrikaners. As far as nationality is concerned they can never be assimilated. In the second place it is stated in the report that they are a source of danger to national health. I have already pointed out how Indians are frequently the cause of the breaking out of diseases. In the third place it is stated that they depreciate the value of fixed property. Every hon. member knows that if an Indian buys land alongside you, your property immediately depreciates in value. Why should it be allowed that under the permit system this can be extended? It is further stated that their living standard is lower than that of the Europeans. Whole groups of them live in the one building. All the clerks that help them in the business live together there. Then their trade standard and their business methods differ from those of the Europeans. They utilise inferior buildings as shops and pay less rent. As far as insolvencies are concerned, they and the Jews run pretty close together. This is one of the reasons why they prosper. I therefore regret that this Bill does not curtail their trade. Moreover they pay then* shop assistants lower wages, they evade the laws, they contravene the regulations in connection with the adulteration of foodstuffs. They frequently sell short weight, and in this way they can sell more cheaply than the Europeans. They carry on business that should be carried on by Europeans, and in that way they limit the openings for European employment. They produce nothing in the Transvaal, and they do not use the products of the country, but they import their necessities from India. Usually they live on curry and rice that is not produced here. These are all things that emerged in the Lange enquiry. They form rings to eliminate European competitors, just as the Jews form monopolies. The one helps the other, and in that way they can exclude Europeans. Their presence exercises a bad influence on the natives, who are jealous of the rights and privileges they enjoy as non-Europeans. Their religion, their manners, their morals and their language differ from those of the Europeans. They are not susceptible to assimilation and their presence is a danger to European authority. I have enumerated these things that were divulged in that report, because these dangers are being perpetuated and expanded by this Bill.

In conclusion, I wish to say that there are three solutions to the Asiatic problem. It is worth while reflecting on them. The first is the solution of general equality which is taken up to a certain extent in this Bill. Today we are convinced, as things are going, that this policy is going to be followed by the Government sitting there today. The Indians are already admitted in the universities, on the trains and on aircraft; they can drink in the same bar, and in many spheres there is equality between Indians and Europeans. And now we have this Board to which I have referred and which will possess such great powers and be able to exercise so much influence. The equality solution is apparently the solution for which this Government is striving, especially under the guidance of the Minister of Finance. The second solution is that of class division. Classes would be placed permanently in separate areas. In this connection there may be two factors. Working on a provincial basis, you can collect them into certain large areas where they will be entirely apart. You can have a big reserve in Natal and a big reserve in the Transvaal. Then you will have the smaller spots, a series of spots in the Transvaal and in Natal. This is the solution of division of classes. This Bill goes to a certain extent in this direction, and, to judge from certain members on the opposite benches, they envisage that the red spots will eventually be Asiatic spots entirely. The Prime Minister stated that he was now pegging the position, but it will not remain at that, and this is not a solution that is justified. The third solution is that of repatriation. I must admit this is a difficult matter, but still it deserves thorough consideration. England has in a certain measure an obligation to assist, because it is under the English and through the English that the Indians were brought into the Transvaal, not by Oom Paul. The English said that they were English subjects, and under the Convention Oom Paul had no right to exclude them, so that the Boer Republic had to admit Indians. The English Government has some obligation to assist in solving the matter, and the English Government ought to help in carrying out repatriation. The repatriation can be back to India. It is stated that India is already over-populated. But if India becomes a republic free from England, so that England no longer can bleed India, then India will have its own industries, its own shipping, and a great number of Indians could be absorbed. That is the solution of repatriation. It is difficult, and we will of course be put to considerable expense in that connection. But the expense will not be so terribly high, because the properties of the Indians can be purchased by Europeans, and in that way we shall get the money back. Then it will only be necessary to pay their passages and perhaps to give them a little capital. But it is not necessary to repatriate them exclusively to India. In co-operation with England, another territory can be designated—Uganda, Tanganyika or Nyasaland. In those territories they already have the Indians. Let us get the Europeans here and send the Indians there. There are possibilities in that direction. This should be a final solution as against the half-baked solution we now have, and which constitutes a danger to the future and can lead to war and to disaster. If mighty India can be consolidated, it may be a danger for South Africa. In this connection I disapprove of members of Parliament going round and exploiting this matter to catch votes, as was done in Caledon. The hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), for instance, a so-called scientist, said at Bot River: Beware, India has more money in one street than the whole of South Africa has; beware, two million Indians are ready to attack South Africa! If these things are stated by a member of this House as well as by a Senator and the new member for Caledon (Mr. Delport) then I say it is a disgrace. I would, however, state that this Bill is going to accomplish the destruction of the United Party, despite all their challenges. I shall welcome that, but I regret it will also entail disaster to South Africa if this Bill is adopted. Observe the disquiet there is in the country today. No one is satisfied with the Bill. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) is not satisfied. We have seen how the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) has felt unhappy. He started right back at Slagtersnek and approached under cover to Bloukrans, and finally ended up in the Transvaal. All the time he spoke in a frightened way because his conscience troubled him, but he wound up by saying that he would vote for the Bill. And what about the Natal members? The hon. member for Vryheid gave the impression of an old man struggling up a hill and every now and again stopping to draw breath and rest awhile, with a pack on his back, but eventually he got his words out. It appears to me that the hon. member is now used regularly to pilot the Prime Minister’s motions through the backbenches. In connection with the dual medium proposal he had to second; last year in connection with the Consolidating Native Bill he had to speak at once, and today he was again the first speaker on the other side in connection with this Bill. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) reminded me of the character who, when he tried to shear a pig, found “much cry but little wool.” The hon. members on the other side spoke very portentously, but in many respects it reminded me of their swan songs. I believe that many of them will not see this House again, after the next election. In truth the members on the other side really have no moral right to pass judgment on this Bill. They were elected in a khaki election as a war administration. What right have they to judge on this big measure? Some 1,750,000 Europeans are opposed to this measure, and if you held a referendum in South Africa today I am convinced 90 per cent. of the Europeans would vote against the Bill, while the Indians also would not want it. The country does not want it.

As far as the franchise is concerned I am to a certain extent in agreement with the hon. member for Jeppes. Why Standard VI? Why the qualifications of £120 as far as earnings are concerned, why £250 as a property qualification? Why these high requirements? Are the same requirements demanded of the natives? Why the communal franchise in this way? Is it not to appease the rich Indians a little bit? I should like to know from the Prime Minister how many Indians are going to have the franchise with these high qualifications? Why is this franchise denied to less educated and the poorer sections of the Indian community?

If there is one big principle that humanity has always felt very strongly it is that of self-preservation, and this is the reason why the tension has existed between the Indians and the Europeans on this Bill. It is a matter of self-preservation for the Indians on the one side and self-preservation for the Europeans on the other side, and this tension is not eliminated by this measure. Selfpreservation can only be assured to the two sections if there is a proper division, or otherwise repatriation. Unless this happens the tension will increase and become worse. If the Minister of Finance gets his way with the idea of equality there will in the following election be about 112 natives in this House, 25 Europeans, 10 coloureds and three Indians. This will be the right proportion according to the ideas of the Minister of Finance. No, there is no justification for this Bill. I should like to refer to the fact that many distinguished persons in the past have already expressed their views on this matter. There is, for instance, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, who said—

Reference has already been made to Mr. Heaton Nicholls, who in 1921 voiced this view—

I quote this to show the danger if we accept the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance. He says that the municipal franchise should be granted to the Indians. What has occurred in Stanger? There the Indians are in the majority, and if the municipal franchise is granted there will be more towns and areas with Indian mayors and with an Indian majority in the town council. Consequently, we must apply the principle of separation to them. Let them keep apart, and let them exercise the uplift clause of which the Minister of Finance spoke. There they can have their castes, their universities and even their harems if they want them. Let them live there according to their own mode of life, and let the Europeans on the other hand live happily in their own way. As the Indians are very likely to exercise control in the municipal councils, it is a dangerous development for South Africa. It simply must not happen. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) said it looked very much as if an attempt will be made to ensure that members will come to this House who will be opposed to the republican goal of the Nationalist Party. The three native representatives will never vote for it. If the Indians comport themselves on the lines followed in their own country, then they ought to be in favour of a republic. But the native representatives have already bound the representatives of the Indians in order to incite them. As I have stated, eventually the Indians would secure the franchise, also the coloured people in the north. It will be extended in every direction, and in this way they will gain more and more seats. I will go so far as to say if they can gain a few more supporters, they will not stop at the coloured vote, but they will try to give the vote back to’ the natives. The Minister of Finance, who is so exercised over the republican aims, over the new order that is supposed to be created and the revolution that is to be brought about, and all that sort of nonsense, will do anything to stop our republican aspirations. I have mentioned the three solutions, and I will in conclusion give another quotation from the Prime Minister’s speech in 1923 on a similar measure. According to the Year Book, he employed these words—

Further, he went on to say that it is a question of an economic conflict, and that it was not a question of race or colour, and then he said—

Namely, the economic problem. I have indicated the danger to the country as a whole. When one gains a general impression of this whole Bill, you cannot do otherwise than observe that more rights are given to the Indians. With all diffidence, I would say this is what is occurring here. Many concessions are given to the Indians. There is the question of the permits that may be issued. [Time limit.]

I have listened to the speeches that have been delivered by the members of the Government party. This is a very important measure, and only five members of the United Party are present on the other side. [Quorum.] The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) intimated here that Transvaal Indians are assisted by Europeans, and that if it was not for the Europeans the Indians could not enrich themselves as they do. The hon. member’s knowledge is very limited as far as this is concerned. The Government is supporting the Indians. Just note how the mealie quotas were apportioned, and you will see how the Indians have been accorded the opportunity to exploit the people. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) let the cat out of the bag. He said that this legislation was introduced, not because it was so necessary, but to allow the Prime Minister to distinguish himself when he went to the U.N.O.” This is what we felt in the first instance, that this legislation is not so necessary, but that the Prime Minister wants an opportunity to go to UNO and say: This is what I did in South Africa to give their rightful dues to the Indians. Not only this, but we feel that in the first instance this legislation was not necessary because the Indians never asked the Government to give them their franchise. They were absolutely silent and satisfied, and now the Government makes a concession to the Indians which was absolutely unnecessary. We find in Clause 5 provision is made that there is no restriction on Indians who own businesses. They can simply continue with thosé businesses, which can only be taken over by Indians. These are the rights which under this legislation are being granted to Indians. We can observe nothing in this legislation of that segregation that was referred to by members on the opposite benches. They will still live together with the Europeans in the towns. In Volksrust there are Indians living amongst the whites, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this sort of thing. So they can continue to live amongst the white people. It is not stipulated that those living amongst the white people should be bought out and vice versa. This is the policy of this side. We maintain that when an Indian lives amongst the whites he must be bought out and he must go to an Indian location. The Government refuses to do that, and the Indians can continue to remain where they are now.

Then we come to the franchise provisions. As far as Natal is concerned, and also as far as the Transvaal is concerned, the Indians are now receiving the franchise because they can elect three members to the Assembly. This is a crime towards the white inhabitants of the Transvaal and Natal. We can only stigmatise this as a crime against white civilisation. Then there is the provision that the Indians will be entitled to sit as members of the Provincial Council of Natal. They will have that right to make laws governing the European’s child in that province. They can make laws in connection with roads and similar matters. We feel this is an injustice towards the European inhabitants of that province. I would like to give an assurance to the Prime Minister that this legislation that gives the Indians the right to legislate in respect of the education of our children, and hospitals and roads in that province, is an injustice to the Europeans. Then I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). We have felt that two provisions are made in this legislation, or should be made, in regard to the delimitation of areas, namely, that compensation must be paid for the land that is expropriated by the State to place these people in the position to find a better haven elsewhere. Tn the present circumstances where demarcation has already occurred, the land has declined 50 per cent. in value. The people cannot sell the land at a profit. We observe that under the present provisions of the Bill there is no segregation, because in the demarcated areas both Europeans and Indians and even natives can buy land. We feel that the Government must produce a measure wherein will be specified that certain areas will be reserved exclusively for Indians, and I hope that no Europeans or natives will come in there. This should be legislation that one could take into consideration, but in this case we have still this higgledy-piggledy living, and therefore we feel that amendments will be necessary, and we have proposed this amendment. In the second place we feel there should be a valuation of the land and that these people should be paid out according to the full valuation as made by an impartial commission. I go further and I say that I feel that the composition of the board mentioned in the Bill is not satisfactory. We do not know what sort of people we are going to get on that board, and it is the board that is responsible for the issue of permits. If we get people on it like the Minister of Finance then we can be assured that permits will be issued from time to time. He will not even ask for what purpose the Indian wants the land. He will give him the right to obtain a permit for any place, even though the Indian wants to carry on business. The board is comprised of two Indians and two Europeans, with a chairman. He may be a negrophilist, and then nothing else but chaos will be created. In regard to the trading rights of the Indians we find that their businesses have been spread throughout the Transvaal. They are carrying on business everywhere, and no one else can open up a business. There are businesses on farms that have been leased to the Indians, and now by this law there will actually be a servitude in perpetuity on the farmer because that trading right can only be leased to Indians. I wish the Prime Minister would give his attention to this and introduce a modification of the Bill. At the moment no curtailment has been made, and we must not give the Indian the right to carry on business anywhere, and, as it were, give him a servitude. He can carry on as before, and there is nothing in the law to stop him. We feel there are clauses in the Bill which are aimed against the Transvaal Province. When we come to the Indian franchise the position is that we in the Transvaal have always had the idea that the non-Europeans there must have the franchise, but by this legislation the Indians are now getting the franchise, and they are in this respect being placed on an equal footing with Europeans in the Transvaal. The franchise of the Europeans is being encroached upon. Furthermore, as I have already stated, the Indians can carry on with their trading activities and with the exploitation not only of the European population, but also of the native population. I have instances in my constituency where the Indians have abused the rights that were given them, and where they have demanded much higher prices than those that were fixed, because they knew there were no inspectors. They have asked 200 per cent. and 300 per cent. more than the fixed price. Mealie prices were fixed, but they asked 4s. 6d. for 25 lb., which is 1s. more than the fixed price. It is that exploitation that places the Indian in the position to enrich himself and to qualify for the franchise in the Transvaal. There is nothing in the Bill to bring about any curtailment. They can simply carry on with this exploitation for their own enrichment and to acquire businesses, and they have already done this on a big scale. We have instances in the Transvaal where nearly all the businesses in the town are in the hands of Indians. Take a place like Leslie; there you have seven Indian businesses, and not a single European business. They have monopolised business, and we have the disastrous case there of an Indian marrying a white girl. This is the position we get. If there is a curtailment of permits, this evil would not take place. Under this Bill the Indians will retain their rights to continue in this monopolising of businesses. They get the financial power in their hands, and thereby they are better enabled to undermine the position of the white man. Consequently, we feel that this legislation does not go far enough and does nothing to prevent these things in the future. Accordingly, in the Committee stage we must amend these clauses in order to see whether we cannot improve the Bill. But it seems to me that the United Party believes that this Bill must be pushed through at everyone’s expense so long as the Indian gets his franchise and can run riot here in South Africa.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) tried to prove this afternoon that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had negotiated with India and that he had admitted that India had some say in the internal affairs of South Africa. He stated tha† Mr. Sastri had come to this country from India as Agent-General for that purpose. I just want to say that the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the South African Party of those days welcomed the arrival of Mr. Sastri in this country. At that time the Indian Government offered to co-operate with the Government in South Africa in an effort to repatriate the Indians from South Africa back to India or to some other part of the British Empire. For that reason the Leader of the Opposition co-operated and allowed Mr. Sastri to come here as Agent-General to assist in that scheme. As I have said, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the whole South African Party co-operated in this matter and welcomed this step. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) tried to prove this afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of group representation in this House, and he quoted passages from speeches of the Leader of the Opposition indicating what his attitude is. Apparently the hon. member does not understand what the position was at that time. He was not in this House, and apparently he does not understand what the position was on that occasion. At that time the position was that the coloureds and the natives had the franchise on an equal basis with the Europeans. The Leader of the Opposition adopted the attitude that they should have been given separate representation. As far as the natives are concerned, the Nationalist Party was not in favour of giving them representation in this House, but it was in favour of giving representation to the coloureds. That is why there were two Bills. The first Bill, moved by the late Gen. Hertzog, provided that they would not have representation in this House. And the second Bill proposed to give them three representatives in the House. It will be seen that the Leader of the Opposition moved that the first Bill be passed. In other words, he, together with his whole party, was not ’ in favour of giving the franchise or group representation to the natives in this House. The hon. member bases his argument on the fact that we voted for group representation for the natives, and that therefore we are in favour of giving all sections group representation. That is altogether wrong. We had to choose between two evils, and we chose the lesser of the two, namely, to remove the natives from the European voters’ roll and rather to give them group representation. A two-thirds majority was required to put this legislatian through the House, and the best we could do was to give them group representation. That was our attitude at that time.

This Bill is of the greatest importance, not only to this House, but to the whole nation. It is of general importance to the European civilisation in South Africa. The members on the Government benches, the members of this party, the members of the Labour Party, and on all sides of the House, realise that this Bill is of the utmost importance to the European population. It is a measure which may have far-reaching consequences and which has implications, the_ full significance of which we may not realise today. The Asiatic question is part and parcel of the colour question in South Africa. When dealing with the colour question in South Africa, of which the Asiatic question is part and parcel, the European population as a whole should express its views. It affects the whole European population and the whole country. In the Transvaal and in Natal this Asiatic question has become acute, and it must therefore be tackled and solved. In the Transvaal and in Natal both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking persons belonging to both political parties are agreed that this problem must be solved. The solution advocated by them is the solution that we on this side advocate. There is no difference on this point in those two provinces. One would have expected the Prime Minister to deal with this problem from a national point of view. It is one of those problems which threatens the European civilisation in South Africa, and it should be dealt with from a national point of view, from a broad national standpoint and not from a narrow political standpoint as it is being dealt with in this Bill.

The Prime Minister caused this question to be investigated by committees and commissions years ago. He knows what the problem is. He raised the matter in his party caucus and it took him weeks and weeks to obtain a majority there for this measure. It took him a longer time to get a majority in his party caucus than this House was given to put the Bill through. After obtaining that majority he bound his caucus through party loyalty to vote for this measure. Certain members got up in this House and admitted that they were opposed to the Bill. They were permitted by the Prime Minister to speak against the Bill, but not to vote against it.

That is wrong.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said that as well as other members. They were allowed to speak against the Bill, but party loyalty bound them to vote for the Bill against their will. In that way they can have their speeches recorded in Hansard to console their consciences, and to make use of them in their constituencies, so that they will be able to say to their voters: “You will notice that we spoke against the Bill.” They do that because they know that the majority of the voters are definitely and inexorably opposed to this Bill which seeks to give the franchise to the Indians. The Prime Minister is a statesman with years of experience of political life in South Africa. He is a leader of the nation. Here he is dealing with a measure which is so vitally important to the country, and yet he introduces a Bill of this kind and avails himself of the steam-roller and of the party machine to push this measure through the House against the wishes of the European population of South Africa I am convinced, and I think hon. members on the Government benches know, that the vast majority of the European population in South Africa is opposed to giving the franchise to the Asiatics in the Transvaal and in Natal, and whatever this House may decide it is clear that at the next election hon. members on that side will have to give an account to their voters of the attitude they adopted as a result of party pressure exercised upon them. They will have to give an account to the voters to explain why they pushed this measure through the House against the will of the nation. There are certain national questions affecting the nation as a whole in respect of which the people expect us in this House to act on a broad national basis and not to approach the matter from a narrow political party point of view; we are expected to set aside all party considerations and to act in the interests of the European civilisation of South Africa, and this measure deals with such a question, one which should be above party political discipline and in respect of which everyone should act in the interests of the European civilisation of South Africa. This Bill represents the thin end of the wedge. On the Government benches, under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, we have a liberal group, and the Minister of Finance stated in this House in unambiguous terms and in a no uncertain manner that he regards this measure as a compromise, as the first step in the fulfilment of his policy. He regards it as the first instalment in the direction of a liberal policy in South Africa, as a first step in the fulfilment of the policy advocated by him, namely, a policy of equality between white and black in South Africa, and there is not a single member on the other side who denies that. We all know what attitude the Minister of Finance adopts. He makes no secret of it; he is very clear in that regard. He stated clearly that he is in favour of absolutely equal rights.

That is the policy of the Nationalist Party. What do the Indians say about this?

The hon. member ought to know the policy of the Nationalist Party. Our policy is to draw a line between white and black in South Africa, and we advocate a policy of separatism. That policy of equality emanates from the Minister of Finance, and he does not hesitate to say in this House that that is his policy. My hon. friends on the other side were forced through party discipline and party loyalty to make the highest and the greatest sacrifices for the sake of party discipline and party loyalty. The hon. Minister of Finance is not a back-bencher. He is one of the most influential Ministers in the Cabinet, but he is also the future leader of the party on the other side, and hon. members on the Government benches subscribe to the policy of the Minister of Finance. They chose him at their caucus as their future leader, as their future Prime Minister. That statement has been made in the Government’s own papers, that the Minister of Finance is going to succeed the Prime Minister.

No.

Do hon. members deny it?

We do not choose our leader at the caucus.

Hon. members on the other side now deny that the Minister of Finance has been nominated as the successor to the Prime Minister.

But they said that some time ago.

Do hon. members deny it? I should very much like to know.

We have our leader.

Do hon. members on the Governmentbenches deny that the Minister of Finance has been nominated as the successor to the Prime Milnister? I should like to know whether they deny it. They are absolutely silent now. I must take it, therefore, that he has been accepted as the future Prime Minister of South Africa by hon. mebers on that side. In other words, they subscribe to his policy of equality in South Africa. They cannot deny it.

You are saying that.

That is utter nonsense.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) says it is utter nonsense that the Minister of Finance has been nominated to succeed the Prime Minister.

What does the Minister of Lands say?

Order, order.

Apparently they are now ashamed to admit that the Minister of Finance will be their next leader. They do not want to deny it outright. The Minister of Finance is not only the future leader of that party, but he also has a powerful liberalistic Press in this country supporting him, and that is the attitude adopted by the Minister of Finance. A few years ago we moved an amendment in this House to the effect that non-Europeans shall not adopt European children. We deliberately moved that. What was the attitude of the Minister of Finance? He stated that he did not want racial discrimination. In other words, he was in favour of non-Europeans adopting European children, because he did not want to discriminate between the various races. We proposed that there should be separate residential areas. I recall a deputation which came to see us here and asked us to put forward such a proposal. The Minister of Finance did not want it because he was not in favour of separatism. He is not in favour of racial discrimination in this country. While he was Minister of Labour we proposed that there should be separate trade unions. He admitted that there were certain trade unions to which both Europeans and non-Europeans belonged. He admitted that, but he did not want to accept our proposal, because he did not want to discriminate between white and black. Hon. members on the other side subscribe to his policy, and he is their future leader.

Trade unions cannot be registered.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) says that trade unions cannot be registered. I would ask him to read the reply of the Minister of Finance in Hansard, where he stated that there were 14 trade unions to which both Europeans and non-Europeans belonged. The hon. member does not even know that. He is a member of that party; he supports the policy of the Minister of Finance, and yet he does not know that. I can understand why he belongs to the party on the other side.

You are talking nonsense.

We proposed that there should be separate spheres of employment for Europeans and non-Europeans. The Minister of Finance was opposed to it. He favours a policy of equality and no racial discrimination. The logical consequence of a policy such as that advocated by the Minister is that it must lead to absolute equality between white and black in South Africa, and it must lead to the downfall of European civilisation in South Africa. It is of no avail for hon. members to pay lip-service to a policy of maintaining European civilisation in South Africa if in practice they adopt measures which are calculated to undermine and to wipe out European civilisation in South Africa. That is what they are doing in practice. On the platteland they pay lip-service to European civilisation, but in practice they are deliberately wiping out and destroying European civilisation in this country. The hon. Minister of Finance stated that he welcomed this measure, because it is an instalment in the direction of equality in South Africa, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) also stated that she welcomed it for that reason, that this is an important step in the direction of equality in South Africa; in other words, the liberalists in this Parliament advocate a positive policy of equality in South Africa, and my hon. friends on the Government benches who ought to feel as I do and as this side of the House feels, lack the courage to act and to say firmly that they are not going to follow that road. Here they are taking the first step, and they will take the second and the third steps in that direction. The Prime Minister stated that the Asiatics in Natal will be represented, by Asiatics in the Provincial Council. But in the Transvaal the Asiatic population is too small, and for that reason they will not be given representation in the Transvaal. Let me put this to hon. members on the Government benches, especially those who represent the Transvaal: If the Asiatic population in the Transvaal increase to such an extent within a few years that they will be entitled according to the statement of the Prime Minister, to representation in the Provincial Council, what argument could they advance as to why the Indians in the Transvaal should not be given direct representation in the Provincial Council? In that event hon. members on the other side would be obliged to vote for it. We on this side who have consistently opposed the granting of direct representation to the Indian on the Provincial Council would be able to vote against it, but they would have to vote for it in order to be consistent. I want to put this further question to them: If you give the franchise to the Indian in the Provincial Council, what right will you have to refuse to give the franchise to the Asiatic in the city councils? If the Asiatic is allowed to sit in the Provincial Council, what moral right have you to deny the Asiatic the right to sit in the municipalities of the Transvaal or Natal, if you want to be consistent? If you take this first step, the time will come, sooner or later, when you will have to take the second step, and that is to allow them to sit in the municipalities of the Transvaal and Natal, and my hon. friends know that that is the case; but nevertheless they are going to vote for this Bill. There is such a thing as a law of self-preservation, and I say that the European population in South Africa, which numbers 2,000,000 as against 8,000,000 non-Europeans, has the right to introduce legislation and to take steps to protect itself against the vast majority of the non-Europeans. We have the right to do it. We find in Europe today that the Germans are being driven out of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. We find thousands of Germans dying on the road of hunger and misery, but they are being driven out. Why are they being driven out? Because those nations do not want them there. They are being forced to leave those countries. We do not hear a word of protest about it; hon. members do not complain about that. Every nation has a right to self-preservation, and the European population in South Africa also has the right of self-preservation, to protect its own interests and its own traditions, to maintain its own ideals in South Africa.

Who denies it?

A number of Afrikaners went to the Argentine and to Portuguese territory and we brought them back to South Africa at State expense because those countries were not treating them well. We paid for it. Now the Minister of Finance says the Indians in South Africa are being treated badly and he hopes that better conditions will be created for them in South Africa as a result of this legislation. In the same breath the Prime Minister says that the Indians who returned to India found that the conditions there were miserable and that they were treated so badly that they advised the Indians who had remained in South Africa not to leave this country, because living conditions were so miserable in India. But nevertheless the Minister of Finance and other members tell us it is a disgrace that we treat the Indians in this fashion. The Minister of Finance is very concerned about the interests of the Indians in South Africa. I do not know what the conditions are in Natal, but I want to say that for years in this House I have been urging that a slightly enhanced pension should be paid to our needy old people, but the Minister of Finance hardened his heart. He stubbornly refused to give those people an increased pension, although he knew that they were starving, and yet here he proposes to give the Indians further rights. I say that the policy which is being adopted by my hon. friends on the other side, and especially hon. members representing the Transvaal and Natal, will lead to the suicide of South Africa. We are in process of undermining our own European civilisation in South Africa. These people want to see to it that the franchise is given to the Indians. But why has England not given the franchise to the natives in Basutoland? Why has England not given the natives in Bechuanaland and Swaziland the franchise; why not? Why is Rhodesia not giving the franchise to the natives? It is because they realise that if they give the franchise to the natives, the European population will be driven out and the natives will be the dominant race. These hon. members who are so concerned and who are so loyal do not say a single word because the natives in those territories are not being given the franchise, but they have continually agitated that the franchise be given to the natives, and now they are agitating that the franchise be given to the Indians. The Prime Minister is giving the franchise to the Indians, and the Indians themselves are rejecting it with contempt. They are ridiculing it; they do not want it. The Government Party is forcing upon the Indians something which they do not want. Telegrams were quoted in this House this afternoon to show that the Indians are refusing to avail themselves of this concession, but nevertheless the Government Party is thrusting the franchise upon them. I cannot understand how members like the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) and the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and a large number of others can vote for this measure, knowing that this measure, according to the Minister of Finance, is the first step in the direction of complete equality between white and black in South Africa in the political and economic spheres. They know that the Minister of Finance is their future leader, and knowing that they still tamely vote for this measure.

Is that the reason why the Asiatics do not want it?

The hon. member for Vryheid finds consolation in the fact that thé Indians do not want it. The Minister of Finance has replied to that. He stated that he hoped that his friends, the Asiatics, would accept this as the first instalment.

And that is why they do not want it.

He consoled them with that thought.

But your leader wanted to give the franchise to coloured women.

Your Prime Minister wanted to give it to the natives.

That is a lie.

Who said it is a lie?

I do.

What are you prepared to bet?

I am prepared to bet him £100.

The Hon. Minister refers to the franchise to coloured women. Let me just say this: Both the Leader of the Opposition and the late Gen. Hertzog felt at one stage that we should give the franchise to both the coloureds and the Malays, but what did the Prime Minister do? He stated that he was prepared to give the franchise to the natives. Do my hon. friends deny that?

That is correct; he stated that on 17th February.

A certain evening at Bloemfontein I asked the Prime Minister whether he was in favour of giving the franchise to the natives.

They can read it in Hansard, column 1031.

At one stage the Prime Minister stated that he was in favour of giving the franchise to the natives, both male and female. I do not say that he is still prepared to do it; I hope not. I hope hon. members who are going to vote for this Bill will consult their own consciences and realise that this is an important step and that eventually it will lead to equality between white and black in South Africa and that they are leaving European civilisation in South Africa in the lurch.

I move—

I second.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 2nd April.

I move—

I trust that this motion is one which will commend itself to the whole House. The motion has a twofold nature in that I have asked the Government to take control or ownership of all our mountain ranges in this country, and secondly also to assume control over our public rivers; and as my motion is prefaced with the words “all with a view to combating soil erosion”, I feel that when we are talking about soil erosion I am on a good wicket, because there is no doubt that during the last few years our country has become much more soil erosion conscious than they ever were before. We have come to realise the tremendous dangers to our country from the erosion which is taking place. We have had that matter touched upon at various times in, this House. In the Bill introduced by the Hon. the Minister of Lands for the amendment of the Irrigation Act there is also a slight touching on the subject, and I feel that something has to be done about it. We have had experts giving their opinions. We have had men like Mr. van Rensburg doing an inestimable amount of good work in this country and bringing home to the people the dangers of soil erosion, and we had the privilege of seeing his pictures in this House. But I do feel that in tackling this problem we should go to the root of the fault and start at the source.

I would urge that we should give attention to our mountains as they are practically the source of all our main rivers and watersheds; all these originate high up in the mountains. We know that water is brought down from the mountains through the kloofs to our main rivers, and we have witnessed these tremendous veld fires taking place year by year in the dry season, right throughout the country, but more particularly in the Western Province and south-western districts which have always been well watered and well wooded. There is this indiscriminate burning of the veld, particularly on the mountains, resulting in some of our finest flora being destroyed. The kloofs which were well wooded to give protection to the water courses are now denuded of growth with the result that erosion takes place, that fountains dry up and that the mountain sources of water have become weaker, all as a result of the kloofs being denuded of undergrowth as the result of fires. Thousands of tons of soil have been washed down to the sea. This soil erosion is a national problem, and even the Government with all its efforts will not succeed in bringing about the desired improvement, unless they have the sympathy and co-operation of all the people and particularly land owners; and unless the country becomes more conscious of this danger to their future, and the people are prepared to co-operate in any Government scheme, notwithstanding any Acts which may be passed by this House, the Government will fail in its efforts. Now, we who have witnessed some of these disastrous fires in our mountain ranges, have often been astonished by the fact that the fire seems to start very high up in the mountains and one wondered how that took place. The only conclusion is that they have been deliberately set alight by irresponsible people or vagrants, or by somebody who is doing it to attain some imagined personal benefit. It has often been said in the Western Province that these fires are started by wood gatherers, irresponsible people. There is still prevalent among land owners the idea which their fathers had of burning portion of the veld every year. To a certain extent they may be right, but if you have this veld burning indiscriminately, especially in mountain ranges, without any control, and that state of affairs goes on as it has for the last twenty years, desolation will result, and eventually the ’ population will suffer. That is why I suggest that the Government should take control, and perhaps, where necessary, should acquire ownership of our mountain ranges, because with very few exceptions the mountain ranges are not cultivated. They are practically of no use to the farmer. We know that in years gone by portions of our mountains have afforded grazing, especially in the Western Province, where farmers had to keep many cattle for the manure, but those days have passed. With the present state of development of artificial fertilisers, farmers do not find it necessary to keep so many cattle, and to have grazing for these animals. In asking the Government to take control of the mountains, I feel that there may be exceptions. On top of the Piketberg Mountain the soil has been cultivated for years, and there are very valuable farms, and I do not include such areas in my request, but unless we control these mountains and there is authority for the Government to prevent trespass and indiscriminate burning, further destruction will take place more and more. I submit that action should be taken. The position is very serious, and does not brook of any delay. We are opening up the country by building scenic roads. In the Paarl district we have the Du Toits Kloof road going over the mountain to Worcester and the north. That is high up in the mountain. Fine scenic roads are for the benefit of the country, but thousands of motor cars carrying holiday picnickers right to the top of these mountains, may be expected, and we know what the result will be. For every thinking and careful person there are six who are careless, and unless there is some method of prohibiting fires on mountain ranges, these picnickers will cause a tremendous number of fires. That is why I say the Government should take action. The whole idea is that we should protect the ranges, and see that indiscriminate burning of veld ceases so as to stop erosion and destruction of some of our most valuable areas, and if the Government does take control over and ownership of the mountains, naturally the Government can put vast mountain areas under afforestation. That is in regard to the mountain ranges.

The other point of my motion deals with our public rivers, and I feel the Government should assume the control of our public rivers. I have in mind particularly streams in the Western Province, such as the Berg River and the Breede River. In the winter, during the rainy season, these rivers get into flood with the result that there is a tremendous lot of washaways and silting; rubble and stones are brought down, forming islands in the river, and frequently the river changes its course, causing havoc to surrounding property and grave damage to valuable farming land. Riparian owners have spent hundreds and hundreds of pounds in their efforts to secure protection. They have tried time and again to prevent the washing away of the banks. Another factor making for these washaways is the palmiet and other flora in the river beds. But experience over many years has taught us that the protection of the river banks, the clearing of the river bed and the maintenance of the flow of the stream are tasks beyond the means and capacity of the private individual, and are indeed properly a matter for combined action, for united effort, and for Government control. The energetic farmer does his best. He observes what is occurring and reasons: Some of these obstructions must be taken away from here, this is what is impeding the flow of the river. Perhaps he removes part of an island causing the water to come down, but what happens? The water is thrown up against a neighbour’s property, causing him tremendous damage. It is the work of engineers; it is required that they should make a proper survey of the river, take a proper line and lay down a well-considered scheme for the strengthening of the banks and preventing these washaways. There are various ways of tackling the job. The Government should assume complete control and undertake the work of clearing the river bed.

What do you mean by taking control?

I shall try to explain what I mean by taking control. They must have the say as to what should be done. There should be a law to enable them to instruct a private owner along these lines. They will tell him: You are tackling in a patchwork way, you are doing this and that, you are not doing so; we will send an engineer along who will make an accurate survey and plan what should be done. Working through its experts the Government should evolve a combined scheme for action, not merely to cover a few hundred yards of river but a few miles, and the riparian owners must give their co-operation. Naturally the Government must present the plan and the work must be carried out under their experts. I am sure the farmers will welcome such a scheme. Let me mention the case of Wemmershoek, a tributary of the Berg River. Six years ago it overflowed its banks, causing the farmers irreparable damage. One farmer repaired the damage, as he thought, but next year his work was undone and the banks were washed away again. He tried again and again, but he cannot afford to continue with that work. It is beyond his means. But I do feel he went the wrong way about it. He tackled it like a layman. He saw an opening and thought that he must close it up at once, but when the Government engineer came down to make an inspection he found the cause of the trouble was lower down the river where it had become silted up and overgrown, and the moment that was cleared and opened up there was a great improvement. As I say, this is no longer work for individuals. To stop rivers being silted up requires concerted action by riparian owners with Government control and assistance.

Will this not be interfering with the rights of riparian owners?

The rights of riparian owners would be respected. They would never find their rights would be infringed or prejudiced for the reason that when the river banks are stabilised the flow is not diminished. Their rights are protected under the common law. I do not mean to imply that we have to override riparian rights.

You have to give the Government the power.

We give the Government the control and the power, but we do not give them the right to infringe or to take away the riparian rights.

What do you mean by riparian rights?

You know what it means; the right to take water out of the river. But where a water court has made an apportionment of water to the riparian owner giving him a certain user, that user must stand. I do not see how my motion will affect riparian rights. All we ask is that when the river is inclined to change its course it should be kept to its course.

A river board can be formed, the Government is now amending the law.

Yes, the Government Bill coincides with my bringing up this motion. When I put my motion on the Order Paper the Bill had not been laid on the Table of the House. What the Government is doing now is a step in the right direction. So I think my motion is not ill-founded. My motion refers to mountain fires which cause erosion and diminish the water supply of our land. The mountain streams, when they are exposed to the rays of the sun, are subject to heavy evaporation, and owing to their banks not being protected erosion occurs. Then the river silts up and when there is not proper clearing of the growth and deposits the river overflows the banks and again the result is very serious erosion.

I associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). I think his amendment practically flows from my motion, and the two are not antagonistic. The Government must realise the seriousness of the problem and, as the amendment indicates, funds must be provided as required. I do feel that the soil erosion question is a national question and we do not sufficiently realise the enormous losses our country has suffered and will suffer unless the matter is tackled at once. I hope, therefore, my motion will commend itself to the Government.

I should like to support the motion of the hon. member. I think the time has arrived that we should not only ask the Government, where necessary, to take possession of the mountain ranges, but we should decide that all mountain ranges should be taken possession of and that it should be prevented that mountain fires diminish the water supplies still further. But it is of no use taking a decision and passing legislation here if the Government does not go further. And when once we have decided that the mountain ranges should be acquired, or if necessary be expropriated, provision must also be made for proper supervision. My idea is that if the mountain ranges are in the possession of the State, there should be a European ranger every ten or fifteen miles with a few coloureds or natives under him to prevent the outbreak and spread of fires. One has the position that the rivers all originate high up in the mountains, and when one has these mountain fires the water dries up or gets weaker and I think one can say that in nine out of ten cases these fires are started intentionally. In many cases they are caused by picnickers. I think especially now of the Magaliesberg near Pretoria and the Rand. On Sundays one finds a stream of picnickers going to those mountains, and many of the fires are caused by their carelessness. I will go so far as to say that as far as veld fires are concerned, the penalties should be made so severe as to enable a guilty man to be sent to prison without the option of a fine. He must learn to help to protect his country. If there are rangers, they can prevent these things to a large extent. When once we have gone so far, it is essential to start water and veld conservation works at the origin of these rivers by making small dams to prevent these rivers from causing erosion. If we begin with the damming of public streams, I do not think we shall be depriving private riparian owners of any rights. The only object is to protect the erf itself. One would not be taking away any rights from the owners. When one starts at the top, and reclaims an area, it is essential that the Government should be able to have supervision by means of legislation and see to it that the private owners will not once more let the land be neglected. Today one has cases along the rivers where people are making increasing use of pumping plants to pump water for irrigation purposes, and where they cultivate the ground right to the bank of the river, with the result that when there is a flood, not only do they lose their crops, but also the soil. In five years it has happened twice in my district.

Is it your plan to prevent people from ploughing on the banks?

Yes, they must keep a certain distance away from the banks as regards cultivation, otherwise one cannot attain one’s object, unless one can exercise control by legislation. A man may say that he is the owner of his ground and that he will plough right up to the edge of the river, but then the floods come and wash away his ground, and he then applies to the Government for relief. I feel that when action is taken, it will not be a matter only for the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation and the Agricultural Department. We have two other Departments in the country who are perhaps the greatest sinners in connecton with soil erosion, namely, the Department of Railways and the National Roads Department. They make water furrows and loosen the soil and scrape it, thereby creating the opportunity for the water to run away on a large scale after the first rain. The co-operation of the two Departments is essential, and they should also be placed under the same stringent regulations applicable to the ordinary man who neglects his ground. Otherwise, there will be no end to the trouble. In the first place, we must protect our ground against veld fires, in the second place we should build small dams from the origin of the rivers and lower down to prevent the washing away of soil on the banks of the rivers. In conclusion, I wish to say that I find no fault with the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). His amendment is aimed at improving and speeding up the matter. I therefore hope that the amendment will also be adopted, so that we will be able to support the matter unanimously and to show the Government that the farmers to the last man are in favour of such methods.

I wish to express my regret that the Minister of Agriculture cannot be present owing to ill health. I understand that the Minister of Lands is acting on his behalf. Seeing that I wish to move an amendment, I should like to ask the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) whether he will not delete three words from his motion, namely, “and possession of”. For the rest, I have no objection to the motion as far as I can see the position. I move my amendment—

1. “ (3) to make available forthwith a liberal amount for combating soil erosion;
2. (4) to supply fencing material under the erosion subsidy schemes legislation where required for the division of farms into camps and to erect fences;
3. (5) to suspend the limitations on the amounts which may be spent on improvements on farms for the purpose of combating soil erosion; and
4. (6) to increase the amount of the subsidy to not less than 50 per cent. of the expenditure.”

The mountains in the Western Province and in the South-Western Districts, and perhaps also in the eastern parts of the Cape Province, have no grazing value, but the mountains in the interior have tremendous grazing value for cattle. I think of a district like Cradock, of the mountain ranges in the north-west, for example, the Kareeberge, which comprise the best ’ grazing obtainable in any part of the country. Therefore, if one takes control merely in order to prevent mountain fires, it sufficiently covers the aims of the hon. member. My amendment asks for four things. In the first place, it asks that the State should make available sufficient funds for the tackling of soil erosion. The position is disturbing, and one cannot just vote small amounts each year, and expect soil erosion to be combated in that manner. Soil erosion is a national problem. I think nobody, whether city dweller or country dweller, will deny that it is a national problem which should be tackled on a grand scale. We must regard soil erosion as a war against the economic prosperity of the nation, and the State should follow a policy of resisting this attack with all its strength. It is a cancer gnawing at our national existence, and sufficient funds should be made available. The second portion of my amendment asks that fencing material and the erection thereof should be included in the soil erosion scheme. I shall pause to expand upon that in a moment. The third thing asked for in my amendment, is that the limitation which there is today in regard to the subsidies for soil erosion works, namely £400 per farm, should be amended. Today the State can only give a subsidy of one-third in respect of an amount of £400 spent on a farm. One finds farms where £100 is enough to combat soil erosion, but on other farms, it cannot be done with £1,000. It is therefore inequitable. A man is confined to £400 as the maximum amount upon which he can receive a subsidy, and perhaps that amount is not half sufficient to complete the work. I therefore want to press for a larger subsidy, i.e. on a larger amount; and fourthly, I am pressing for a larger percentage of subsidy than 33⅓ per cent. There are people who through negligence allow their soil to be eroded, but there are also other people who acquire ground after erosion on a large scale has taken place. These people are perhaps not financially able to spend such a large amount of money that they can negative the evil by receiving a one-third subsidy from the State. I should like to refer to one of the best reports we have had in connection with soil erosion, namely the report of the Drought Investigation Commission of 1923-’24. That Commission at that time already warned us as to what the results would be of soil erosion. On page 13, in paragraph 109, they state—

Then they say in paragraph 117—

That is a clear and unequivocal statement by the Drought Commission. It was a Commission appointed to investigate the causes of drought and of losses of cattle, and as long as 23 years ago, the position was already so serious that they warned us that we would be faced with a problem which is today facing us. On page 6, paragraph 29, they state—

This report was published 23 years ago, and then they already stated what position was awaiting us and how a state of famine could exist and the impoverishment of the agricultural population as a result of the soil erosion problem. I also wish to refer to a speech I made on 16th April, 1934—

Then already I made the same plea I am making today, but at that time we had the difficulty that the Department of Agriculture did not recognise the seriousness of the matter as we did. Year after year agricultural congresses pleaded with the Government to include fencing under soil erosion schemes. We are glad to hear that the Department of Agriculture today is sharing the point of view which we held at that time. Dr. Fick, an official of the Forestry Department, at the congress of the North-Western Agricultural Union, the latest congress to be opened by him, devoted his whole speech to soil erosion and stated that the primary measure against soil erosion is jackal-proof fencing, camping and rotation. That, according to him, is the chief measure with which to combat soil erosion. The Committee for the Reconstruction of Agriculture in its report also unequivocally stated that the best means of combating soil erosion is the application of rotation and camps, dividing the grazing into camps. But I think that the most serious shock we received was when Dr. Bennett came here and submitted a report to show what dimensions soil erosion had already assumed. He stated that already 25 per cent. of our best soil had been washed away in many portions óf the country, and according to him we have been impoverished and that it will take many years to restore the havoc created by soil erosion, but after submitting his report in the beginning of 1945 Dr. Bennett stated further that he regrets that even now, while we know what the position is, we exhibit a measure of indifference in connection with combating soil erosion. According to a Sapa report Dr. Bennett made the following statement in Washington three weeks ago—

It is true that the situation is not unknown to us, but we make no use of our knowledge. I should like to return to the Drought Investigation Commission’s report and show how the commission time after time stated what losses were due to droughts. We find that on page 4 of the report. In parenthesis I may say that this commission was appointed especially to investigate the causes of drought and the losses of cattle. They had no mandate to report about soil erosion, but notwithstanding that they specifically devoted attention to soil erosion. They pointed out that in the drought of 1919 losses of cattle in South Africa amounted to no less than £16 million. I should like to know what the losses were in 1933 and what losses were suffered by the farmers from 1942 to 1945.

In 1933 the direct losses amounted to £21 million.

They state here—

Then the commission on page 12, amongst its recommendations, states—

But I should like to read the final conclusion to which the commission came. We find that in paragraphs 126 to 132, on pages 14 and 15, but I will only read paragraph 129—

Their influence will be felt for a long time. Then they come to page 21 and under paragraphs 202 and 203—

I am reading only a few extracts, but the whole of this report amounts to this, that in the cattle districts there is nothing else causing more soil erosion than the herding and kraaling of cattle. I am glad that the Minister of Lands is a practical farmer. He knows the circumstances. I go so far as to Say that soil erosion in the sheep districts has only been half tackled if those farms are not also divided into jackal-proof camps and inner camps. Now, it will be stated that a large portion of the farming population camped their farms without a sudsidy from the State. That is so, but these people camped at a time when fencing was cheap. They are people whose farms are not far distant from the railway, but especially in the north-western areas there are people who are 100 to 150 milés from the rail head, and the price of fencing is today double the prewar price if it is not more than 100 per cent. higher than it was before the war. But the costs of transport by rail and the costs of transport by the bus are tremendous and amount to a terrific expenditure for the farmer.

Fencing costs almost three times as much now as before the war.

I say that the State could never spend money better than by including the erection of fencing and of inner camps under the soil erosion laws. We should beware of taking up the point of view adopted by the Land Bank today, that fencing is too expensive and that one should not fence. I wish to ask my hon. friends who are acquainted with Graaff-Reinet to go to the farms of Mr. Murray and the Vermeulens. Ask them what jackal-proof fencing cost them. It cost them £130 per thousand yards. They fenced during the war years, in 1916, 1917 and 1918, and that saved them. Today they are prosperous farmers, and when one can fence at approximately £80 per thousand yards, I say that is economically better, not only for the farmer, but also for the State. I will go so far as to say that if in the north-western districts where we had enormous losses as the result of droughts, we had proper fencing and inner camps, the little rain which fell there would have soaked into the soil, and we could have prevented the cattle treading out paths., and our losses would have been much less than they are today. I regard this matter as being wholly a national one, and I want the Government also to regard it from a national point of view. Whether one is a city dweller or a town dweller, every one of us has an interest in the soil of South Africa, and its preservation, and for that reason I direct a very earnest appeal to the Government to make available ample funds for these people who are not able to fence, and also for the sake of combating of soil erosion to bring jackal-proof fencing and inner camps under the soil erosion scheme.

Like the other members, I do not wish to be very long, because I believe that as far as the House and the country as a whole are concerned, it is no longer necessary to plead that the Government should recognise that the combating of soil erosion is essential. I think the nation as a whole has now become conscious of the importance of combating soil erosion, because eventually the prosperity of everybody depends on whether South Africa will wash away to the sea or not. For that reason it is no longer necessary to deliver pleas in connection with soil erosion measures. The Department of Lands has made several attempts in this direction. For example, in 1929 already a conference was held, and in 1930, as a result of the conference, an advisory board as regards soil erosion was instituted under that Department. In 1933, however, that advisory board in regard to soil conservation became extinct, but in 1939 the Division of Soil and Veld Conservation was called into existence, the chief object of which was to prevent soil erosion. Between the year 1933 and the outbreak of war they continued with erosion schemes, but I wish to state this morning that although they continued with those schemes and had a certain measure of success, I do not believe that people who are interested in soil erosion are definitely of the opinion now that the way we tackled the problem from 1933 has given us the best results. If we want to be honest I do not think that we can be satisfied with it. We only touched the fringe of that great problem, and it is perhaps just as well for us to listen to what was said by Dr. Ross, who is chief of the Department of Soil and Veld Conservation. In 1945 in a speech he held before the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of South Africa, he confessed the following. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) spoke here about the findings of the Drought Investigation Commission, namely that South Africa is changing into desert. Already in 1922 it was stated that South Africa would become a desert if we did not tackle the problem. Now in 1945 Dr. Ross stated the following—

I stated that the attempts made by the Government, well-intentioned though they were, did not have the desired results. The head of that Department now tells us in 1945 that the position was much worse than when the Drought Investigation Commission reported, and already in the year 1922 we were faced by catastrophe. The present is an age of machinery, radio and all those things, and the farm has to pay for all that. I read with interest some time ago what was written in the “Farmers’ Weekly” by a certain Mr. McKenzie. He was dealing with this position, and said the following—

We can really put it that way. Already in 1933 we started building weirs, and just in passing, before I come to another important point with which I want to deal especially this morning, I just wish to say in connection with the building of dams that after the experience we have had, we have failed there also, and when the hon. member states here that he would like the subsidy increased from 33⅓ per cent. to 50 per cent. I agree with him completely. But we also know what experience has taught us. It has become a practical impossibility for the farmer on his farm with two or three or four spans of oxen to work at making a dam for two or three years. Most of the farmers have such high mortgages that it is a practical impossibility to keep three or four spans of oxen on the farm for a number of years. The oxen are used, and when drought comes, the farmer loses them. I am one of those people who attach much value to practical knowledge, and for that reason I also very often differ from the Agricultural Department, because I believe that the really good official is one who has had practical experience, who can then apply his theoretical knowledge. I believe that that is the man who can speak with authority. I received three letters this morning from my constituency, asking that I should bring it to the attention of the Department that to make dams with oxen and dam scrapers is something of the past. We know that in Burgersdorp there is now a certain system of having the scrapers drawn by tractors. I know of one farmer who worked for seven years to build a dam. He then acquired a tractor to draw the scrapers and finished the dam within three or four months. I know of another dam where the farmer estimated that with three or four teams of oxen he would work for approximately two or three years. He used that machinery and within three months had completed the dam costing £600. I now wish to bring it to the attention of the Department in the absence of the Minister that we think that provision should be made in the new Act which is being introduced that, for the country to be divided into certain areas, machinery should be made available, and that people will then be able to make use of that machinery. For the farmer it has become practically impossible to make larger dams if he cannot use machinery.

But I really wish to deal with something else this morning, namely the surface erosion of which the hon. member for Calvinia has spoken. And when I speak about surface erosion I wish to speak especially as one who was born in the north-western area and who has had experience of this evil and its results, and I think that in the new erosion Act which is to be introduced, the Department has not yet got it inside its head that it should provide cheaper fencing or else adopt measures to subsidise people to fence their farms to stop soil erosion by those means. In my younger days I had the privilege personally to herd sheep, and therefore I wish to talk this morning as one who has had practical experience of it, and if the House would exercise a little patience I should like to draw a picture here of what happens in the great north-west, which is one of the areas most suitable for grazing sheep in South Africa. One has a dam or a windmill on one’s farm. The person herding the sheep is compelled to be near the water with his flock, and it is self-evident that the sheep denude the veld of grazing in the immediate vicinity of the water. A time arises when the veld has been grazed off for a distance of two or three miles around the water. Now one must remember that at night the sheep stand still and in the day they must graze, and everyone who has herded sheep knows that in summer from about 10 in the morning until 3 p.m. sheep do not graze, but lie and sleep. And if the veld round the windmill or dam has been grazed off, one has to start early in the morning and trek with the sheep so that when day dawns they can graze, and by the time one reaches the grazing it is almost 10 o’clock, and the sheep no longer want to graze. In the north-west one then has to wait until three in the afternoon, when the wind comes up. Anyone who has any knowledge of sheep knows that when the wind comes up the sheep start grazing. Now one has to wait until the sheep have grazed a little, and late in the afternoon, towards night, one must drive those sheep back over this denuded veld for three miles, so that they can drink. Now, what are the evils of this system? I do not even speak about the bad effects it has on the sheep themselves. Hon. members can imagine how the veld for miles round the windmill is trodden out into footpaths. Now, the first rains come. When it rains in these parts, the wind blows, and the footpaths become sand dunes. But when the rain comes, and especially if there are thunderstorms, these footpaths become small sloots, and the soil is eroded. That is surface erosion; the best parts of the soil are washed away. The surface has been so impoverished that today one no longer sees the growth one saw in the past. It no longer grows so luxuriantly. The water no longer remains in the ground, because there is no vegetation to absorb it. One no longer today sees water oozing out of the ground as in the past. The soil is just moist when the water soaks in, as one saw in Aliwal North, where the water came out of the ground. Today one no longer sees it. The water rushes away to the sea. In these areas of which I have spoken, it is not only important that the ground is eroded near the windmill or dam, but you will now see a bush growing there which the animals do not want to eat. I refer to the yellow bush in the north-west. In the areas where the Minister of Lands lives, the yellow bush is not so bad.

The January bush; the “besembos”?

No, the “kraalbos”.

In any case, one now sees that type of bush growing. If one sits on a high point of the farm, one’s heart becomes sore when one sees how the good grazing is destroyed, and not only washed away, but is replaced by this bush which no animal wants to eat. And now I wish to put the question: Has the Department been warned Yes, as early as 1922 it was warned. I do not want to repeat here what the hon. member for Calvinia said about the kraaling system, but I can quote long reports wherein it is stated that surface erosion is the most dangerous form of erosion in South Africa, and that it is the duty of the State to make camps, to provide jackal-proof camps so that the sheep can graze at liberty, and not tread out footpaths, so that little groups of 20 or 30 sheep can come to water leisurely, and so that they can graze at night. In those reports we have a full description of this, and I want to tell the Department of Agriculture this: They are not the people to talk about surface erosion. Neither the Department nor the Minister can rise this morning and say that the Department moved a finger to arrest this dangerous form of erosion. What has the Land Bank, for example, done? There is the hon. member for Calvinia. Did the Land Bank in the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, when one could erect jackal-proof fencing for £35 a thousand yards, in any way encourage the farmers? In those days they said: No, you can only receive money for boundary fences. But they were difficult years. We had struggled through the depression, and at that time fencing was cheap. The mortgage burdens of the farmer rose higher the more farm was trodden out, and they did not give the least concession to the farmer. The only thing that became higher was the mortgages. Now, they come in war time and state that fencing is too expensive. It has become expensive. I personally am today fencing my farm at £80 per thousand yards, but I have to take my mortgage away from the Land Bank; they do not want to grant a fencing loan. If there are people who dare not talk about soil erosion, it is the Land Bank. They are the cause of many people losing their farms through this miserable system. Farmers have retrogressed very much. The hon. member for Calvinia will confirm it when I say that people who had 1,000 sheep, today have only 400, and have had to sell portion of their farms. When one asks the Land Bank to give more assistance to these people, they tell you that a drought is approaching, and they must be careful because they are afraid that they will lose their money. Every farmer with practical experience knows that it is a better investment for the Land Bank to give a farmer who already has a bond of £2,000 another £1,000 so that he will be enabled to erect jackal-proof fencing. I say every farmer will agree that it is a better investment to give such a man £1,000 extra to make inner camps so that his animals will not perish in the drought. Therefore, the Land Bank should not talk about soil erosion. They stand immovable like a stone and like a mule; you cannot move them; they just want to kick. As regards the economic aspect of the Land Bank, they have done much good for the farmer. They are very reasonable, but they follow a short-sighted policy. The whole difficulty is that the directors of the Land Bank are not practical farmers, The men in the key positions cannot understand these things when you talk to ‘ them, and in that lies the difficulty. I myself have spoken to officials of the Land Bank to ask whether loans cannot be granted to farmers to enable them to fence their farms, but the reply always is: No, they are terribly sorry, but fencing is too expensive. But the fencing is not as expensive as the sheep one loses every year. It is pure nonsense, but they refuse to grant a loan. When one wants to fence one’s farm, one must go to a private moneylender, because the unfortunate part of it is that when one deals with the Land Bank, they will flourish, but one will go under. I understand that a new erosion Bill will be submitted in future. I now want to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and his department especially to this recommendation made by the Drought Investigation Coinmission 24 years ago. It is a recommendation which bears greater force now than it did 24 years ago. In 1922 they referred to the kraaling system. They said that it was a catastrophic system. I do not wish to enter upon it now, but their conclusion is that they recommend the following principles, inter alia—

If these recommendations were of force in 1922, seeing that Dr. Ross now says that the present position is much worse than it was 24 years ago, they are even more applicable now. I hope that the Land Bank and the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agriculture will assist the farmers, when we talk about conserving the soil of South Africa, and that they will make it possible for the farmer to fence his farm in order to prevent South Africa washing away to the sea.

Everyone realises the necessity of this motion, as already advocated by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). I do not want to cover the same ground, but I want to emphasise what those two members have already said. I think everyone on both sides of the House can endorse it most strongly. There is another necessity which I want to point out and which I want to urge, and that is to separate our water sources as well as catchment areas from Forestry and to transfer them to Irrigation. I think we all realise the value of the work which has already been done by Forestry, and we can say that up to the present they have very successfully coped with the planting of trees, but the fact remains that their first function is afforestation, the planting of trees, and since the greatest percentage—I might almost say at least 90 per cent.—of all our water sources and catchment areas today fall under the Department of Forestry, and since the first duty of that department is to plant trees, it stands to reason that they have concentrated largely on the planting of trees in those areas—trees which, I think, it has been sufficiently proved are water-absorbing. Well, I think there is sufficient land left for the Department of Forestry to expand their plantations and to do so for many years in the future. But if the catchment areas, with their natural vegetation, can be left in that condition and if no trees are planted in those catchment areas or in the immediate vicinity, if water-absorbing trees like pine trees and blue-gum types are not planted, I think we would protect our water sources much better. It is not an unknown fact today that our water sources are becoming much weaker. There are many factors which are responsible for making them weaker, but there is also abundant evidence to show that where the natural vegetation is removed from the ravines and replaced by other trees, it is one of the main reasons why many of our water sources are becoming so much weaker. This is not a very far-reaching measure as far as these two departments are concerned. I think administratively it is quite possible, and I feel that it will enable us—I do not want to say to protect our water sources better in the future because we must admit that the Department of Forestry has done everything in its power to protect the water sources—but I do think that this falls more appropriately under the Department of Irrigation; the areas could then be defined and it could be stipulated what distance the trees must be planted from the water-carrying ravines. That is all I ask, and I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to it and bring it to the notice of the Government.

I want to express my agreement with the point raised by the last speaker, namely, that soil erosion should be placed under the Minister of Irrigation. The Irrigation Act (No. 8 of 1912) makes provision for it, and the Irrigation Commission was actually appointed with an instruction to investigate what steps should be taken to prevent soil erosion. You find it in the Act, and I cannot understand why this matter was transferred to the Minister of Agriculture. It should resort under the Minister of Irrigation, and if he wants to make use of the Department of Forestry in connection with soil erosion or if he wants to take other steps, it does not matter to me, but I feel that it comes within his province and should be part of his work. As far as the mountains are concerned, it seems to me that the mover of this motion does not actually know what the motion contains. In 1941 an Act was passed which authorises the Government to expropriate land, and the procedure to be followed in such cases can also be found in the Act. I want to assume that the owner appoints an arbitrator, the people making the application do the same and the magistrate of the district acts as chairman, and they determine the price which the Government ought to pay. The difficulty, however, appears to be now that the Government waits for the persons affected by the erosion making a complaint before it takes steps. Take, for instance, the Langeberg Mountains which stretch as far as the Outeniqua Mountains. The one side of the mountain range is well covered by vegetation and is fairly moist. The people who are the owners of the land every year burn the veld to obtain young grasses, but the fire does not remain there, it simply spreads and afterwards moves over the mountain, and on the other side the mountain range is already in such a condition that one only finds rocks there and no vegetation. The people there really need the water, but their water sources in those dry areas have to all intents and purposes been destroyed. Now they have to ask the Government to buy up the land on the other side of the mountain. The farmers of Barrydale held a meeting and invited me to be present at that meeting. They also called a meeting to meet the farmers from the other side of the mountain in order to make an application to the Government to take over the mountain. Zuurbraak is situated on the other side of the mountain. But the owners on this side of the mountain simply declared that they burn their side of the mountain to obtain grass for their cattle. Only some farmers make a fire-break and burn the mountain in the proper way and at the right time, but for one of them there are half a dozen farmers who do not care. Every year the mountain is burnt completely, and every year the water supply becomes less. The result is that the dry side of the mountain will ultimately become a desert. The people on the other side require the water, but on this side the mountain is sour veld and they do not irrigate. The Government ought to intervene and have a survey made of the mountains and the soil there. At Robertson one does not find any mountain rivers. The land is so expensive there that the people there no longer farm with ordinary cattle. They farm with pedigree Frieslands and Jerseys, and if these animals go roaming on the mountain side after they have been accustomed to lucerne, it takes only a few days before they are suffering from sore claws and then they die. There are no fences there and one does not know what becomes of the cattle. In spite of that the mountain is burnt every year.

I should like to tell the Government what is in my mind. It will not help at all just to buy up the land. The Government should take actual steps. At reasonable distances outlooks should be posted who have to watch out for erosion and the burning of the mountains. The Minister of Lands should tackle this matter. In the past the Minister of Irrigation did not devote much attention to this matter, but if the Minister is prepared to take drastic and effective steps, he may achieve something useful. It will not help one iota if the Government merely buys the land. I can give him the assurance that as many fires and perhaps more occur on Government land. Such a guard in the mountains will have to see that fire-breaks are constructed, and so on. We may have good rains for two or three years, and the trees and other vegetation will grow well and luxuriantly; then we experience a dry year and everything gets shrivelled up. When you put a match to it the mountain will burn for weeks on end. The mountainside should be divided by means of fire-breaks so that when one part catches fire it will be possible to keep the fire under control. Those guards will not catch all the culprits, but they may catch nine out of every dozen. The Department of Forestry has got guards posted in the mountains near Swellendam, and they do catch these culprits. I was in Swellendam when a case against one of them was heard in the magistrate’s court. The guard was sitting not even one hundred yards away from that person when the latter set fire to the mountain. He even came to court with an attorney. The attorney was his employer, who had ordered him to set fire to the mountain. Fortunately the magistrate took a serious view of the matter, and imposed a heavy fine. If we do not guard our mountains it will be no use buying up the land. A coloured boy may go to get some honey and make a fire; another one starts a fire in order to obtain young grass on his land, and we will always find people on the mountainside going there to do mischief. The Government has the power and merely must use that power, and it should consider this problem to be a national problem. The longer we postpone matters the greater will be the damage, and the less will be our chances to preserve our water supplies. I want the Minister to understand that the erosion in our mountains is a very serious matter, and that steps should be taken to expropriate the land there. I do not say that the Minister should take away the farmers’ land and not pay for it. Arbitrators can be appointed to determine a reasonable price, so that the man concerned can make provision for himself elsewhere, but something has to be done. It does not help to pass a Bill here and thereafter to sit quiet and do nothing about it.

I should like to say a few words about river erosion. Most of our rivers, of fair size, and especially the mountain streams change their channels. At Worcester, for instance, we find that the Hex River has side-streams over a length of six miles. Years ago I happened during a court case to come across the fact that in 1883 the court declared riparian land to be non-riparian, because the river had changed its course. Now the river has once more changed its course, and it has again become riparian land. What the legal position will be I do not know for the court has stated that it is not riparian land. In the days when cattle were kept along the river banks the erosion did not do much damage, but now our agriculture has developed, we find cultivated land, vineyards, and orchards along the river banks and when a flood occurs it means considerable damage to the land. In Paarl they had a flood and I understand that some owners of land there demanded £1,000 per morgen compensation from other riparian owners. The Irrigation Act also makes provision for the diversion of water and for the construction of river weirs. This has resulted in the creation of totally different circumstances in such a river. Erosion is the result. Where the land is fairly level, and the river flows slowly the position is not so dangerous. A river like the Breede River flows slowly. Weirs have been constructed there of three and four feet high in the river bed, that is to say above the normal flow of the water. Stones and sand get lodged against the concrete and small islands are formed above such a weir. The water thereafter takes its course to one or the other side of such an island and thereafter the river erodes the land of the owners there.

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

When business was suspended I had just finished discussing the first part of the motion, and I was dealing with the silting up of rivers and indicating how much damage is caused thereby and how the course of rivers becomes changed and the soil, valuable soil, becomes eroded. It has become an absolute necessity that the Government should intervene. It may be asked why the Government should intervene, and why the Government should make provision for the channel of the river being cleaned and the course being straightened? The position is that one often finds an obstruction in the river channel at some place or another but that the flooding which is caused thereby takes place somewhere else, away from the place of obstruction. That obstruction may be a legal obstruction according to the law of the country, but the flooding takes place somewhere else. In addition the flow of the water is today much stronger as a result of mountain fires. The quantity of water which comes down is greater, the rivers are fuller and this causes damage and difficulties. Something on a large scale should be done about it. It may be said that the farmers have their own river board, that there are river boards along the entire length of the river, whose duty it is to see that the channel is clean and is kept clean and that the distribution of the water is done in a fair manner. Why is no use being made of it? From experience I can tell you that we have a river board which has to control the Breede River and whose duty it is to remove obstructions and to keep the river clean. You will understand that if a river has not flooded its banks for one or two years in succession grass and trees will have commenced growing inside the banks and islands will have been formed, with the result that when the river comes down in flood damage is caused and that could have been expected. The farmers along the river banks are not in a position to keep the river in its channel. One also frequently finds that there are parts of the river where the people living along the banks do not make use of the water and therefore do not pay levies. The result is that the farmers who do make use of the water and are compelled to pay levies, then have to bear the entire burden. I am glad that the Government has introduced legislation, part of which has already been dealt with in the Committee stage, and by virtue of which the Government obtains the power to intervene and to have the work done at the expense of the State or otherwise as it thinks fit, and we are grateful, because the matter has grown entirely beyond the control of the farmers themselves. The removal of stones and sand from a river channel is an expensive job. It cannot be washed out because the stones would remain behind. Therefore it is beyond the powers of the farmers to do the work and it has become necessary to amend our legislation in order to provide for this matter. The Government has introduced this legislation and I hope that the Government will make use of the powers which it will obtain under the amending legislation, and will bring the rivers back into the channels in which they flowed before. I think this is something which the whole House should welcome and at the same time steps should be taken for the prevention of mountain fires. In connection with erosion there is another matter which I feel strongly about. Our people are drilling and sinking boreholes to draw water from the soil, but there is no control of boreholes. The water level becomes lower every year and at some future date there will be no water left for man or animal. There is no control over boreholes. Farmers make boreholes too close to one another and they make more boreholes than is necessary, and the result is that afterwards they start using that water for other farming operations. I do not begrudge the Karoo farmer his flower garden and his vegetable garden, but I have visited places where they have been irrigating large trees and gardens by means of this water. The farmers should realise that they must choose between two things. Either there must be water control so that there will be sufficient for man and animal, or if they continue without control and sink boreholes and lead water, the water will afterwards become less and less and in the end there will not even be sufficient for the most urgent needs. I think that as far as erosion is concerned this matter should be put under control. At their congresses the farmers should decide what they want. They should arrange themselves for the control of such matters. They should realise what the position is and regulate the position themselves so that it will not be necessary for a future government to intervene in the same Planner as intervention is now taking place in regard to the rivers and similar matters. They should realise that if they continue in the way they are going on today the water level will fall more and more. As far as jackal-proof fencing is concerned I fully agree with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). In our area the position is not so serious, although we are making use of jackal-proof fencing. I have, however, noticed at some places that the grass cover is disappearing completely, whereas if you fence the land and protect it, the grass cover once more appears on the land. That should be done. As far as the erosion question is concerned I want to point out that, as in the case of irrigation, before a commencement is made with a scheme, it will be necessary to survey the whole river from beginning to end. This is a national problem, and I am grateful to notice that the people, city dwellers as well as rural folk, have woken up to the danger of erosion. One of the hon. members here quoted from a report of 1923, but this matter was discussed long before that time. Nobody has, however, at any time been able to give guidance in respect of the steps which should be taken to prevent the soil from drying up. In the Karoo one often comes across names such as “Rietvlei”, or “Blomvlei”, but when you come there today you will not find a vlei there. The old people then will tell you that there used to be a vlei there, but that the soil has been eroded, that the kloofs and vleis have been eroded, and the position today is that when rain does fall the rivers become such torrents that even more damage is caused. We are at present gambling with the life blood of the Union. I am grateful that the people have woken up, and I do hope that the Government will now come forward without delay with a large national plan. Otherwise our country will ultimately become a desert. It is of little use to do some work here and there. It is quite useless if you have a river stretch of five miles and you find that in the centre two or three farmers are doing erosion work, whereas the rest of that stretch of river is neglected. They should tackle area after area of our country, and put forward schemes for every area, which then can be put into operation in such area. We must put a stop to what is happening in this country, for one day it may be too late and then we shall have the position that the matter has gone so far that nothing can be done about it any longer.

I have been asking myself under whom this question of soil erosion should fall, and it seems to me to be unpractical to place it under the Department of Agriculture. I think the time has arrived when we should inspan every ox next to its team-mate. We must place this matter under the correct department, i.e. the Department of Lands and Irrigation. Soil conservation, just as irrigation, should be under the Department of Lands. It is all linked up with irrigation and for that reason we should connect it with irrigation under the same department. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). He suggested that we should move the riparian owners some distance from the banks of the rivers so that we shall not have erosion on the banks of the rivers. I do not know whether that is the right thing. In the Transvaal we have some of our most fertile soil on the banks of the rivers. The people have their lands there, and I do not know whether we can move them away from the river. We should rather make some other plan by means of irrigation. I hope that the Minister will take these things to heart and give effect to them. But this motion, in my opinion, embraces another matter, and that is the disappearance of our shrubs. In the Transvaal, for example, the position is that our shrubs are sometimes destroyed and ill-treated in a disgraceful way. We have the protea, for example. It is a plant which makes good firewood, which grows rapidly and can be handled easily. The natives are today chopping down these proteas. The first thing the native buys is a small axe and he then proceeds to chop down the bushes. I remember that years ago near Pretoria there was a patch of proteas in which a whole commando of 100 men could take cover for days without being observed by the British, and at the moment it is as bare as this floor.

Is that why you sing: “Suikerbossie, ek wil jou hê”?

Yes, we were in distress and we hid in that patch. When the proteas were in bloom it was a beautiful sight, but today they have been chopped down and destroyed. If we carry on in this way, these shrubs will disappear one after another. The biggest culprits in destroying these plants are the natives. The first thing the native does is to buy a small axe and then he gets a dog. With this small axe he destroys everything; he chops down everything, whether he needs it or not, and whether it serves any purpose or not.

And what does he do with the dog?

That is for the small goats. The native chops down the bushes, and the dog is there to catch the small goats. The time has arrived when we should regard these things in a national light. We shall never get those plants back again. This generation will not see proteas as I saw them. I go further. There are many people who do not care a scrap what they do with their grazing. This year many people in the Transvaal lost stock because they had burnt down their grass. In many cases it is done by the piccanin. He is caught and the magistrate gives him three cuts with the cane, but the farmer may have lost thirty head of cattle. I agree with the hon. member for Rustenburg that these people should be punished more severely. These piccanins play with fire. They destroy our shrubs, and they are responsible for the burning down of the grass, with the result that the farmers lose their stock, and even if they receive three cuts, the fact remains that they have done great damage to the country. There are many other shrubs to which I could refer, but I mention this one merely as an example.

The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) quite correctly spoke of fencing. He should only have added that we must not have one watering place only. If the stock all drink at the same watering place, they tramp out the veld. We must fence’ our farms and erect internal camps, and at the same time we must insist on having more than one watering place, so that the veld will not be tramped out. Last year the Minister spoke about bores for Boers. I welcomed that, but now I want to tell the Minister that there are cases where people buy 10 or 12 morgen. They can never really start farming operations there. They may plant just a few grenadilla trees, but nevertheless they apply for a boring machine. The machine remains there for two months, or until it has drilled two boreholes successfully, and the real farmers have to wait, although they urgently require the boring machine to get water for their stock and to combat erosion in that way.

There is also over-grazing.

That is quite true. That is one of the greatest evils. People become too greedy. Where they previously farmed with 1,000 head of cattle, they now want to farm with 5,000, or where they farmed with 100 they now want to farm with 500 or 600, because cattle farming is a payable proposition at present. Over-grazing is a great evil.

Reference has also been made here to national roads in connection with erosion. I advised the farmers in my constituency to co-operate with the National Roads Board and to try to obviate soil erosion. I know that the Provincial Administration is also meeting the farmers. I know of a case where the Provincial Administration made a furrow of 500 or 600 yards for a farmer to keep the water off his lands, where the water had previously flowed over his lands. The farmers must co-operate with the National Roads Board and with the Provincial Administrations, and they will then be assisted. Then I come to the question of mountain fires and veld fires. There are people who say that the grass should be burnt down in order to keep the veld in a good condition for their stock. I farm in the Transvaal, and I challenge anyone to tell me that it is necessary to burn down the veld. If one wants to improve the veld, it can be done without burning down the veld. They talk about the bush-tick being destroyed in that way. I know of farmers who have not burnt the veld for five years, and yet they have nothing like the number of bush-ticks on their stock as farmers who have been burning the veld regularly. They combat the bush-tick evil by dipping. We must combat the bush-tick evil in that way; we must not burn down the grass in order to get rid of bush-ticks. I think this is one of the most important things requiring our attention if we want to improve our country and build up our stock of cattle and create a future for our country and nation. We should place this matter under the appropriate Department, and we must then expect that Department to do its duty. In connection with this matter, we cannot throw the onus on the owner of the land, as happened in connection with the extermination of weeds. That was done in the Transvaal. I have never heard of a single case where someone was brought before the Court because he did not exterminate weeds, in spite of the fact that weeds grow profusely on his farm. We want to deal with this matter as a national matter; we do not want to be niggardly. During the past six years we have seen what we can do if we have to do it, and I hope that in connection with this matter, too we shall do it.

The discussion in connection with this motion before the House is most interesting, and when the public outside read the reports about it they are bound to agree with all the things that have been said here. I feel, however, convinced that inevitably they will also ask themselves why these matters have repeatedly been discussed here during the past forty or fifty years, and why nothing has been done about it. As far as this matter is concerned, motion after motion has been proposed in this House. These motions have been referred to commissions, the commissions have reported, and on the findings of those commissions even legislation has been passed, but in spite of that, if we ask ourselves what has actually been done to prevent soil erosion, we must admit that precious little has been done. That shows you that so far we have only been talking and have done precious little. No wonder that the people outside refer to Parliament as the talking house, where people are only talking and doing nothing. Seeing that this matter is being discussed again today, I hope that the result will be that the Government will decide not only to talk, but also to act. This matter is so serious that the time is overdue when we should do something about it, for we are losing more and more of our soil. It has frequently been said that South Africa is not rich in agricultural soil, but in spite of that we allow the little we have to be taken away and to be washed down to the sea. I therefore hope that we will succeed by means of this motion to urge the Government into action and that we will hear from the Government that in future we will not only talk about it, but will also act about it.

It has been suggested here today that veld and soil conservation, which at the moment fall under the Department of Agriculture, should be placed under another department. To me it is a matter of little concern whether it comes under Agriculture or under Irrigation and Lands. All we want is that the Minister under whose supervision it will come, will take steps and that he will no longer allow matters to drift as they have been doing up till now. Nothing has been done about it. We have here three kinds of soil erosion. In the first place we have mountain erosion, secondly river erosion and thirdly surface erosion. Steps have to be taken to combat those three types of erosion. As far as mountain erosion is concerned it has been rightly said here that steps should be taken to put an end to the mountain fires which are occurring so frequently. How much has already been said about mountain fires, how many suggestions have already been made, but nevertheless year after year we notice here around Cape Town, where Parliaments come together, that mountain fires blaze up. We see the fires flare up in the direction of Stellenbosch, Paarl and the Langeberg Mountains as far as the Swartberg Mountains, and every year those mountains are being devastated. Decisions have been taken and the matter has been discussed here ad nauseam, but the evil simply goes on; today we want to repeat once more that the time has now definitely come to take steps for putting a stop to that kind of vandalism. We have legislation, which enables us to punish the people who start these mountain fires. In spite of that mountain fires take place. Drastic steps should be taken against persons whó by negligence or deliberately cause these mountain fires. But we will not be able to catch them—they are very cunning—unless we appoint mountain guards, so that the people who start the fires may be caught. On a previous occasion I put forward the proposal that we should have mountain fire clubs here just as we have jackal clubs. If the Government were to appoint mountain guards and would make provision for them to be able to call for assistance in extinguishing fires, mountain fires would no longer occur. If that were done nobody would derive any advantage from lighting a fire, because he would immediately be called upon to assist in extinguishing it. Something of that nature should be done. There should be an active organisation for extinguishing any fire when the first signs of smoke appear, and to stop it before it can do much damage.

One of the hon. members said this morning that the vegetation in our mountains should be preserved. If we allow mountain fires to continue, the natural vegetation will be ruined, and to my mind the natural vegetation is the best means of keeping the moisture in the mountain soil. A suggestion has been made that trees should be planted for that purpose. In my opinion that will not be quite the correct thing. I imagine—I do not know whether it can be based on scientific facts—but according to my superficial observation it appears to me that some kinds of trees which are planted do not form a kind of sponge near the surface, but form a hard crust which causes the water to flow away when it rains. Take, for instance, the pine tree. My impression is that the pine tree causes such a hard crust which the water cannot penetrate, and I therefore feel that if we want to protect our mountain sides, we must protect our natural vegetation there, the ferns and the grasses, for they are the most suitable plants to catch the water, and to form a natural sponge near the surface. When the mountain fires are allowed to continue, that natural sponge will be destroyed, and it should be our aim to restore that sponge so that the water can be absorbed and make useful irrigation possible. The Minister knows that the greater part of our irrigation, especially in the south-western parts of the Cape Province, does not take place from storage dams but from the mountain streams. The mountains form the storage dam and that natural storage dam which we find in our mountain ranges is being ruined year after year by mountain fires to such an extent that the existing water supplies are drying up completely. I therefore hope that the Government will cause a detailed scheme to be drafted in order to put a stop once and for all to the devastation resulting from mountain fires.

As far as the river beds are concerned, I am glad that the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) has raised this matter. The Minister has introduced a Bill in which he obtains powers to control the flow of public streams. That is useful legislation, and we hope that once it has been passed the Minister will use his powers not only to have certain works constructed in regard to watèr supply but that he will also draw up schemes to improve water conservation and to stop the erosion caused in our rivers. There are two ways of controlling the river channels in such a way that the least damage is done by flood waters. The first one is to mark out the course of the river and to canalise it and thereafter to strengthen the banks so that the river will flow as far as possible in a straight line. I agree with my hon. friend that that work cannot be undertaken by an individual. It is too expensive for an individual, and therefore he should receive assistance from the Government. There is, however, other work which could be done in regard to the river beds. We find that after heavy rains the water in our rivers comes down very strongly because the mountain sides have been denuded by fires. There is no sponge to absorb the water and the mountain sides are more like a corrugated iron roof and the flood causes the rivers to erode. No longer do we find large pools in the rivers; no longer do we have subterranean seepage water and the rivers have been so much eroded that they cannot hold any water. In many cases that state of affairs may be remedied by constructing cross weirs so that the river channels can fill up again and form a kind of subterranean storage dam. That is another way of improving our river channels. If that is done there will be more seepage water in our rivers long after the flood has subsided and the normal flow of the river will be supplemented thereby. That is the manner in which the Minister should tackle this problem under his proposed new legislation.

We come now to the ordinary surface erosion. I want to express my agreement with many of the suggestions which have been put forward. We have been doing erosion work here in South Africa for quite a number of years, but how much of that work has or is being maintained? A lot of money has been spent on it, but everything shows that so far we have not tackled this problem seriously enough, and that we have not had the proper guidance. Even yesterday I noticed that banks which had been constructed had afterwards been trampled out and become quite useless. If we undertake work of this nature we must do it in such a way that it can be maintained. Works in connection with surface erosion should be undertaken after proper consideration of all the circumstances and under the supervision of experts so that it will be done in the proper way and it will be possible to maintain them. That has not been the case with many of the works which have been constructed in the past. Also in this case the owner of the farm cannot be left to his own devices. He must receive the support and guidance of the Government and its officials. The fact that works which so far have been constructed were not maintained was mainly due to farmers not possessing the proper and efficient machinery for doing the work. Proper machinery must be provided. The individual is not always able to afford such machinery, and for that reason we feel that assistance should be given on the part of the Government. I do not mean that the owner of the farm should be exempted from taking part in and contributing to such works; he can contribute quite a lot. But what I should like to see is that he be supported and assisted to perform the work efficiently and I therefore would like the Government to establish well equipped and trained teams of workers in every district in order to carry out erosion works in a proper manner in collaboration with the farmer. They should in consultation with the farmer decide how the work can be done in the best and most efficient way. I feel convinced that most farmers will be only too willing to contribute if the State tackles the work in this manner.

Quite a lot has been said already about fencing. That is a very urgent matter. No delay should be allowed in connection with this problem. If there is one good Bill which this Parliament agreed to in the past, it is the Bill in connection with compulsory fencing. As a result of it we have already to a large extent prevented the evil of the trampling out of our veld in the sheep farming districts. Where in the past the sheep had to be put in kraals the veld was trampled out. Fencing has made it possible to let the sheep roam. There are, however, still parts of the country where the farmers have to kraal their sheep. The position today is that farmers are unable to afford the expenditure in connection with fencing their farms with jackal-proof wire. I feel that a very strong case can be made out for such persons being accorded the necessary assistance. The Minister will agree that it is a fair request to ask that any person who wants to fence his farm shall be supported to the extent of the expenditure which would have to be incurred before the outbreak of war. That certainly is not an unfair suggestion to make. No objection can be raised against the fact that people who fenced their farms in the past did not receive assistance whereas the person who goes in for fencing today does receive assistance. The least the Government should be willing to do is to subsidise the difference between the expenditure of fencing now and that before the war. I hope that the Minister will give serious attention to this matter. But not only is support required in connection with fencing, but more support is also required in regard to making provision for drinking places for cattle. One of the principal causes of surface erosion is the fact that cattle have to walk a long distance to their water holes. In many parts of the country, however, it is very expensive to make provision for water supplies; we know, however, that it is not in the best interests of the country that cattle should walk long distances to their water supply under conditions of continual grazing, and the only way of preventing this is to provide as much water as possible. One water hole in a camp of thousands of morgen is too little, and the farmers should receive more support for providing water holes, which will result in combating the evil of erosion. While we are suggesting all these matters—these are matters which have repeatedly been suggested for many years— we want to point out that so far it has never gone further than good intentions and wishes, and that no action was taken, and we do express the hope that the time has now arrived when we will no longer merely talk but will actually take the necessary steps. Fortunately the people of South Africa, as we have noticed, have lately become aware of the danger of soil erosion; not only the farmers in the rural areas, but even the people in the towns and cities are now willing to contribute their share to the combating of soil erosion. Especially during the war when the townspeople began to realise how dependent they are upon the countryside for their food, they began to notice that the soil which has to provide that food is gradually being ruined, and this made them realise that something should be done about it. We are glad that the people as a whole have become erosion minded and are now prepared to make sacrifices and to contribute towards the solving of this problem. We should not allow this erosion psychosis which exists today to dwindle, but should make use of it for taking the necessary steps. I hope that this discussion will have the beneficial result of causing the Minister to adopt a progressive policy and that the necessary erosion works, which are of such importance to the country, will be taken in hand.

I would like to congratulate the mover on having introduced a subject which is of very considerable general interest, and I think we have had a very useful debate on this question. I am very pleased indeed to see that the country is beginning to realise how necessary it is to conserve water, and I think the idea that a start should be made with the mountains is the best and most practicable suggestion. In the past we have allowed many of the mountain slopes to be overstocked and tramped out; this caused water to run off very quickly, creating problems all over the country. In my opinion one of the absolute necessities for South Africa is very considerably to increase afforestation. We require thousands of morgen planted with trees, and this in itself will help in preventing the quick run-off of water, in holding our soils and providing valuable timber for the future. In this respect I find that there is an urgent need for co-ordination between the different Government departments.

We find on the one hand the Forestry Department and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry requiring land for planting. We find a large amount of land in the possession of the Lands Department. There are various other departments who also have land, and I think it is necessary to bring these departments together, in order to carry out this afforestation scheme. In my part of the country there is a lot of land in the possession of the Lands Department, and also farms belonging to the Railways. The Railways originally bought these farms to ensure a water supply for their engines, and these farms have now been leased for many years, and have not been improved. I think it is necessary that this land which is no longer necessary for Railway purposes should be planted with trees wherever possible. Then we find that throughout South Africa we are today trying to do everything possible to assist industrial development. Industrial development and the increase of the population, which we hope will accompany it, are entirely dependent on water supplies. I think one of the lessons of the recent drought is that we simply cannot afford to allow our land to be overstocked and our soil destroyed. We have to conserve water and soil in order to be able to supply water for our industries and towns.

The mover, in his resolution, asks that the Government should assume control over the mountains and rivers. That, I think, is rather a vague statement, and I would be happier, before we ask the Government to assume control over all mountains, if we were convinced that we have the men and machinery necessary to make a better job than we are doing at present. We have many mountains in South Africa, and if the Government is to take control of all of them they will have a big job on hand. I think we have to tackle another aspect of this question, namely, before we launch out on legislation, or any big schemes of water conservation, or anything like that, we have to improve the conditions of service of people employed by the Government, before we can have any success. We need technical men and the best brains in the world to plan these schemes, and first-class men to carry them out. At present I feel that the Agricultural Department and most of the other Departments are very short-staffed, and that their conditions of employment are so unsatisfactory that they cannot do these things properly, and therefore one of the first problems to tackle is to remedy that. Coming down to more details, there is one aspect which I have noticed very clearly in my own part of the country, and that is the need for more advice with regard to the rivers and watercourses and the planting of trees along the rivers. Many of our farmers have planted willow trees along rivers, and I know of several stretches of excellent soil which were ruined in consequence of that. I know of hundreds of acres of first-class soil which are periodically waterlogged merely because willow trees planted there have grown, and the banks have silted up, so that with a little rain the whole area is flooded. This indicates that advice and supervision are required in regard to planting trees along rivers. In the first place, it is necessary to have a local committee to work with the Departments, to assist and advise the owners in preventing these difficulties, and in remedying them in acute cases.

I want to support the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) in his plea for the provision of machines for use in prevention of erosion. The ordinary farmer has not the means of doing the big work which is necessary, and I think it is essential that the Government should providè a number of tractor outfits with the best machinery for making contour furrows in order to assist farmers in stopping further erosion.

There is one point which I also feel should be tackled, namely, the large amount of unused land in the hands of the Native Affairs Department. In my part of the country the Department bought thousands of morgen of land for the Native Trust, a great deal of which is unsuitable for native settlement, but it was considered to be good land for afforestation. The Native Affairs Department insisted on keeping the land for themselves. They wanted to plant trees themselves, which was a big mistake. Up to the present they have done practically nothing in that direction, and I say that the most suitable Department for taking over ground for afforestation is the Forestry Department, who have the skilled staff, and who have done excellent work so far as they have gone. I think that instead of having several Departments tackling the problem of afforestation on mountain slopes, it should be left to the Forestry Department alone.

There has been a rather general idea that the burning of mountains must always be detrimental. I think that is absolutely wrong, and this has been proved by numerous experiments of burning at the right time of the year, and in suitable conditions, which show that no harm was done to the veld. Much excellent work has been done by Mr. Hunt Holley in Natal. He has been writing in the Press for many years, giving the benefit of his experiments. He has done excellent work in burning lightly, and has found a method of improving grazing by doing so. In sour veld areas, it is necessary to burn the surplus grass at certain times. I think the result of such experiments should be investigated by the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture. I would like to emphasise that if a programme of this kind is launched, we should have the fullest consultation with the local people concerned. I do not think it is in the best interests of the country to rely entirely upon Government experts to plan the whole of this work. There are many excellent experts, but I think the practical advice which many farmers could give would be valuable, and I strongly recommend having a conservation committee in every district to assist the Government experts in carrying out these plans.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) on having introduced this motion. I think he has performed a public service in getting this House and the country to focus attention on this important subject. In actual fact I think we have now accepted this as a matter of national importance. Whether one belongs to the farming community or not, it is essentially a problem for every thinking person in this country. It is very interesting to study the various opinions and to hear the various members who spoke, the people who have put their views before us here. They have pointed out the difficulties which are innumerable but not insuperable. They can be overcome. The Government will have to assist liberally. But in actual fact it seems to me that the matter is not one which can be dealt with by any one of the existing departments, because as various speakers have shown many departments are involved. So many departments are concerned, that in order to co-ordinate the efforts the only thing to do is to set up a central controlling body which would deal with all the aspects of this problem. The amendment to the motion deals with certain specific difficulties, but I am sure that this position can only be properly dealt with by such a co-ordinating authority. I think the Minister probably is aware that the National Veld Trust has issued what they call a model bill dealing with this all-important subject. There are many sound suggestions in this model bill. I have no doubt that the Government and the Ministers concerned may find that it is not 100 per cent. applicable, but nevertheless it contains a very valuable foundation for the drafting of sound legislation to cover this important matter. I was rather interested in a book just published called “New World to Win”, by C. J. J. van Rensburg, M.Sc., and E. M. Palmer. I think both these men are well known. In the first chapter it says this—

Another thing I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, which is very urgent and important is the question of fencing. Fencing is a very important part of the general scheme for soil conservation. I am told that there are tremendous quantities of wire fencing in the hands of the Defence Department.

You are wrong.

I am told that I am wrong, but that was the information passed on to me. I am afraid that that fencing will get into the hands of the merchants.

That has happened already.

Then my information comes too late. I was requested to ask the Minister to stop selling fencing to merchants because when it has changed hands a few times, the people who have ultimately to use it pay many times its price. It is unfortunate that this has already happened.

Another important question is that of native reserves and native farming generally. Whatever scheme is adopted, it will be necessary to have special men to teach the natives the necessity of conserving their land and use the best methods, methods which they do not now understand. If you show a native a donga, he says it was there, and he cannot do anything about it, but with a little education we can do a great deal to make them understand that to apply better methods is in their own interests. Whatever line is taken I hope that the Government will not delay in bringing in a consolidating measure for the purpose of applying all the requirements to make this a successful thing. It is heartbreaking to see how the land is now wasted, and how little it is understood that a lost spring can be recovered by increasing the growth of plants in the area. The same applies to the conservation of land by bordering it with shrubs, which results not only in the saving of soil, but in conserving water in the soil, so that it can stand drought for longer periods. There are so many things that have to be done. We know it will cost money, but I believe that every man and woman in this country, when they realise the danger in which we are, will wholeheartedly support any action the Government may take to consolidate combined efforts in securing our heritage for our children, so that we can leave them more than we received.

I think that it is time for me to say something on this matter now. I am very sorry that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, owing to indisposition, cannot be here today to deal with the matter himself. Nevertheless, I am very glad that I have the opportunity of saying something on this important motion now before the House. The question of fires and erosion and rivers is one of the utmost importance. The rivers are overflowing to a greater extent in recent years as a result of the fires, and are causing much damage. I am very glad that I am able to discuss this matter because my interest is in it heart and soul. I hope in any case that I will not do anything which will compromise my colleague and that I will not go further than he and his Department would wish to go. As far as the policy of the Government is concerned, I want, to state that the policy is that this is a question which should be tackled with all our energy. Soil erosion, mountain fires and control of rivers are regarded as three great evils as far as the farming industry is concerned, and it is the policy of the Government to spend money in order to tackle these questions on a national basis. Let me say at once that my colleague is preparing a Bill which will be introduced during the current session in connection with this matter. This Bill is more far-reaching and comprehensive than anything of this kind which has ever been proposed in South Africa in connection with these questions. Various speakers have said that the people have become conscious of the great dangers and that the time has arrived for the matter to be dealt with on a national basis. That is the policy of the Government. I was glad to notice the unanimity in the House with regard to these questions. We are all wholeheartedly in agreement that if we wish to save South Africa, and to save our soil, and if we want to keep the farming community on the land, then we have to tackle this problem irrespective of what it may cost. Let me add this, that there is at present on the Estimates for 1946-’47 an amount of £1,400,000 for veld fires, erosion and the control of rivers, that is, £900,000 more than in the previous year. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said that we talked and talked but that nothing was done. That is not so. I want to point out, particularly to the mover of this motion, that certain things are asked for in the motion in respect of which we have powers under existing laws. Under the Forest and Veld Conservation Act of 1941 the Minister concerned has all the powers, the only thing that is lacking is that we find that the provisions do not go far enough, and for that reason, as I have said, my colleague intends to introduce a Bill during the present session which will be more comprehensive and which will make more money available for combating these evils. The Act of 1941 confers all the powers, and that Act was practically the result of a motion which was introduced in this House in 1934, a similar motion to the one we are discussing today. And for that reason the Bill he intends to introduce is much more comprehensive and it will tighten up all these powers and afford him the opportunity of taking more steps to combat these evils. These powers, I say, we have, and this Act of 1941 which confers the powers was the result of a similar motion introduced in this House in 1934, and as a result of that motion the Act of 1941 which gave all the powers to the Minister was introduced. That, I say, is a great step forward. As a result of the shortage of manpower they have perhaps not been in the position during the war years to make as much progress as they would otherwise have done, and we admit quite frankly, therefore, that during recent years they have not done as much as they could have done. But the war is over now, and my hon. colleague is now coming along with this comprehensive Bill under which he will be able to combat these evils. It is not merely a matter of putting an Act on the statute books and declaring that you are going to apply that Act. The farmers should also be made aware of the fact that they have certain duties in connection with the combating of these evils. There is not the least doubt that many of these evils, the evils of soil erosion, have increased during the years when we as farmers in the beginning did not take proper action as we should have done. We should have combated this evil on our farms at the initial stage, but we did not do so. We did nothing.

We did not have the money.

Afterwards the matter got out of control and today it is quite beyond the means of the farmer to combat this evil without assistance, and for that reason the Government has to step in now. But the farmers should also feel that they have certain duties in this respect. I am now talking as a farmer myself. We should realise that we have certain duties, and while the Government is assisting us on such a large scale financially and otherwise, we also have certain duties to fulfil in order to make a success of the matter if we wish to combat these evils successfully. One of the officials told me a story this morning which I would like to tell the House to illustrate my point. He says that as a result of jackal-proof fencing the rock rabbits have increased considerably. One of the farmers complained to him and took him to a place where the veld was eaten bare. He said that it was the rock rabbits which destroyed the vegetation, and he said that if the Government did not take steps now to help him to destroy the rock rabbits he would be compelled to acquire a few dogs. I am mentioning this to point out that we also have certain duties to perform. The hon. member said that while the Department intends to combat these evils, especially soil erosion, it should take steps to ensure that the measures taken are practical and that it has the implements and the manpower and the trained staff for that purpose. The Bill which my colleague intends introducing provides for that. They are already training people so that when the time comes for this work to be proceeded with they will have trained men.

Where are these people trained?

The department itself is doing that. I cannot give my hon. friend the finer details, but large numbers of them are being trained today to do that work. I said that it was really not necessary to have introduced this motion today as the powers already exist, but nevertheless I am glad that the motion has been discussed here today and that we have had an opportunity of expressing our views. I welcome the unanimity which has been evident here today and it gives me hope, in view of the Government’s intention to take active steps to combat the great evils threatening the farming industry, that we will have unanimity in Parliament without having to make any political capital out of the matter and that we will also find unanimity amongst the people outside so that we will be able to deal with this matter successfully.

Mention has been made of the question of veld fires. Veld fires are a terrible evil. My hon. friend over there made reference to the fact that here at the Cape gangs are employed and a considerable amount of money is spent in order to put cut veld fires the moment they are discovered. But one cannot stop it. The slopes of the moun tain are thickly wooded and these fires start without any warning. Before these gangs know where they are, they see the smoke rising into the air. How can one get hold of the people who cause the fires? If you managed to do that, it would be pure luck and I believe that in many instances the veld is wilfully set afire, but even for that provision has been made by my colleague. Today they have people stationed at certain points to watch the slopes of the mountain in order to try and prevent fires from starting and to try and get hold of the persons who set fire to the wood. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) spoke of the mountain ranges at Swellendam and he said that there should be mountain watchers. Provision has already been made for that, but under this new Bill of my colleague the question will be considerably tightened up. He will make provision for the appointment of committees at various centres throughout the country and especially where there are mountain ranges. There is provision for that in the law at present, but it will be extended and tightened up and steps will be taken which will be more effective. Even at Swellendam goodwork has been done by the local people, bur, as the hon. member for Swellendam has said, it is not adequate and under the Bill which my colleague intends introducing, he will provide for the tightening up of the existing machinery and for taking adequate precautions to try and prevent the terrible evil of these mountain fires. Then my hon. friend talks of the control of the mountain ranges and mountain slopes in the catchment areas of our water sources. Even in that respect much progress has been made by the department. The department has today a million morgen which have been proclaimed for the combating of soil erosion. They have no less than a million morgen of mountain ranges and mountain slopes from which our water and our rivers come. I am not suggesting that that is adequate, but today they already have over a million morgen. They have made a proper survey of all the mountains in the parts which are still Crown land today. Even there they are going to take steps to see that precautionary measures are taken. That is already a great step forward in the direction in which my hon. friend is thinking today. I think those are the most important points, namely, soil erosion, mountain fires and mountain ranges, which are contained in this motion.

In the proposed measure which my hon. colleague intends introducing, he contemplates proclaiming areas in which erosion is taking place on a very large scale and also mountain ranges. He is taking powers to proclaim such areas and then to reclaim them. That will be on the basis of regional planning. I mention, for instance, one area, the area near Cradock at Vlekpoort where the department has already proclaimed the area and where they intend trying to reclaim it. On the other farms where the problem is not of such a large and comprehensive nature, it will also be tackled on the various farms.

I now come to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). He asks that a large amount should be made available for combating soil erosion. He asks, to use his own words—

I think I have already given the information, that if the amount provided is not adequate, once we have the personnel and once we return to normal times—and normal times are approaching fast—the amount will, if necessary, be increased, but the idea is to tackle the problem on a national basis if we wish to save South Africa for the agricultural industry. Secondly my hon. friend asks—

One of the main causes of soil erosion and over-grazing is the lack of fencing in the verious parts of our country. It is one of the first measures which should be taken for combating erosion. If we wish to combat soil erosion successfully, we have to erect fences, and in the sheep-farming areas we have to erect jackal-proof fencing. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) saying that the Land Bank refused point blank to grant money for this purpose during the bad times and that they said that in certain parts of the country the land was not worth it.

They are still just as obstinate.

I want to tell my farmer friends this: I regard myself practically as one of the pioneers of jackalproof fencing in this country, and I want to make this statement now, that there is not an inch of land in South Africa on which it is possible to go in for sheep-farming where it is not worth while having jackalproof fencing. I want to say very definitely now that if they offer me a farm in those parts which are unfenced, and if I had to farm there with herdsmen, I would refuse it, even if they offered the land to me as a present. The Americans say “Lucerne is a mortgage lifter”, and where one farms with sheep in this country, and you want to redeem your mortgage, you must have jackal proof fencing. And it is not so expensive. The people just do not understand it. The average farm costs £1,000 or £1,500 to be fenced in by jackal-proof fencing. Say it costs £1,500. One could borrow money from the Land Bank at 5 per cent. or 4½ per cent. I am not sure of the rate of interest, but let us take it at 5 per cent.

They do not want to do that any more.

If you take it at £1,500, then the interest is £75 per annum which the farmer has to pay. The Land Bank refuses to advance the money, and the result is that the farmer has to employ two or three shepherds, and each shepherd costs him at the very least £50 per year. If he has three shepherds, it costs him £150, and those three shepherds are responsible for the soil erosion in this country. In the morning the sheep are driven out into the veld and in the evening they are driven back, and they are driven to the water, and they tread out the soil; and erosion is the result, and the farmer suffers large losses. The jackals are still killing sheep today. I say that the losses suffered by the farmers as a result of droughts and as a result of jackals are enormous. The man has not an inch of ground to spare, and the result is that when the drought comes his whole veld is eaten bare because he had no fences to enable him to set aside certain parts of his farm for times of drought. Let me just give the House a few figures to show what the losses are: these are figures supplied to me by the Department of Agriculture. In 1933 the losses were as follows: 750,000 large stock — cattle and horses — 700,000 goats and 6,750,000 sheep. These were the losses during the drought in 1933. The direct loss is estimated at £21 million, and they say that the direct loss during the previous drought was £35,000,000.

That was in 1926-’27.

That is only the direct loss as a result of droughts. It is much more if one takes the indirect loss into account. If a man loses all his sheep, he loses his entire income for a few years

You are talking very easily today.

I will bring this matter to the attention of my hon. colleague when he is back again, and I want to submit to him the suggestion that we should not only proclaim certain areas under the Fencing Act if a certain number of farmers ask for it. One has the unfortunate position in most of the districts: there is one farmer, perhaps, who owns half of the district, and he is opposed to compulsory fencing. He does not want it to be made compulsory. There are other people who do not know about it, and who do not understand it, and they oppose it. The result is that the’ losses continue. The soil is trampled and ravaged in a most terrible fashion, and I say I will bring this to the attention of my colleague that he should make it compulsory in this Bill which he intends introducing. In Calvinia and Namaqualand it is more necessary than in any other part,

Calvinia has already been proclaimed.

Then Namaqualand must still be proclaimed. I am not in favour of a subsidy being granted to farmers. Our farmers should not accomplish everything by means of subsidies. I am not in favour of subsidies, but I would like to see the Government compelled to give money to the farmers for these purposes, and the Land Bank should not say that a farmer’s mortgage is already too high if he applies for an additional £1,000 to fence in his farm. The Land Bank should realise that fencing is the salvation of South Africa. And it should know that if the farmer did not fence his farm he would suffer tremendous losses. I would like to see the Land Bank making available money at a reasonable rate of interest, but that should be part of its scheme for combating soil erosion, that those areas should be proclaimed and the money should be made available by the Land Bank at a reasonable rate of interest. They have more than enough security, and the assets of the country on the whole are so great that there should be no question of refusing to grant loans for the purchase of fencing material.

I just want to add this. Do you know what my experience has been? My experience is this: Take a part such as Namaqualand, where the price of land has been relatively low until shortly before the war. If anybody fenced in his land there, he must necessarily also put fences along the roads and do you know that in those parts where the land was so inexpensive the farmers fenced in the roads in such a manner that one can hardly pass through with a motor car. They have made the roads so narrow that when the sheep farmer has to trek with his sheep for 50 or 70 or even a 100 miles then one finds that by the time the farmers’ sheep arrive at the train they are completely exhausted and the farmer often loses sheep in this manner. The farmers should accept it as a principle that the roads should be fenced in in such a manner that a flock of sheep could be driven along that road to the market in a reasonable manner. I just want to express this word of warning to the farmers because I have had experience in this connection. It is not only a question of jackal-proof fencing and enclosed camps. One must also have water sources.

How wide must the road be?

I think the hon. member for Swellendam stated here that they should not use those waters for gardening and for irrigation purposes. For that I have already made provision. Very shortly we are commencing with the boring schemes we have in the north-western parts. They stretch from Calvinia, Namaqualand, Gordonia, Vryburg up to Marico and they include the northern part of the Zoutpansberg up to the Limpopo. We are going to assist the farmers in those areas and if we do not find water, the farmer does not pay. It has in many instances been the ruination of the farmer in the past in that it costs him sometimes £200 or £300 or £400 to have boreholes sunk and then he may not find any water or he finds very weak water. Now we are going to sink boreholes on the understanding that if we do not find water, the farmer will not pay anything. The Department is going to appoint water diviners and we are not going to make boreholes unless these people indicate the sites to us. We have already put this plan into operation and it is very successful. The Department is going to advance money to the people in these areas if they cannot pay, for the boreholes, for windmills, for the accessories and not only the accessories, but the farmer must also have a concrete dam. Those earth dams are no good. One finds that the windmills have to pump from January to December and the water for the cattle is polluted. We are going to grant loans to the farmer, if necessary, to enable him to build a concrete dam and a concrete trough and he must use the water only for his livestock and for domestic purposes. If these measures are taken and we advance the money to them and we give them the boreholes, then I think that the farmers will have a good future and that they can be satisfied.

You will agree that the water without fencing will not be of much use.

I realise that and that is not what I am suggesting. We will help the farmers with water. We cannot of course do it at once in respect of all the farmers, but where possible farmers will be assisted.

What is the Minister’s objection to the fencing material being subsidised.

Because I think that it is so inexpensive. If a man could borrow a thousand pounds for the purchase of wire and standards and fencing material, then it costs him only about £50 per annum in respect of interest on the loan whereas it would cost him £150 if he had to employ three shepherds. Why should we therefore give the farmer his subsidy. I am not saying that the Minister does not have in mind the granting of a subsidy also. Fencing wire is expensive today. I myself am not fencing at the moment because it is not economical, but I want to give my hon. friends the assurance that to the best of my knowledge the price of fencing wire will be normal once again very much sooner than most of us think and then we will be able to undertake that work. I have now dealt with the question of fencing material. Then the hon. member for Calvinia asks—

My hon. colleague gives a subsidy today for combating erosion. The maximum per farm is £400. He gives a subsidy of 33⅓ per cent. If the farmer spends £400 he receives £133 by way of subsidy. On the second farm my colleague also gives the maximum of £400. If a farmer therefore has a second and a third farm, he also receives the subsidy on the second and the third farm but he does not get it on the fourth and fifth and sixth farm. The request was made to my colleague that he should make the subsidy 50 per cent. instead of 33⅓ per cent. That question will be taken into consideration when the new Bill is introduced. My hon. friend will then have an opportunity of discussing the question whether it should be 33⅓ per cent. or 50 per cent. I want to put this question to my hon. friends: There are many people who have more than three farms. There are areas in which the farmer is compelled to have two or three farms in order to make a reasonable living and it is no use trying to combat soil erosion on a national scale if certain areas are omitted. That is another point which I will bring to the notice of my colleague. I would like to see the subsidy granted on the farm and not to the person.

The reconstruction committee also recommends that it should be granted per morgen.

I said that it should be on the farm. I think it should be per farm and I will suggest that when I discuss the matter with my colleague.

It all depends where you give the most.

There should be no limitations.

Then I come to the last point in the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia. He asks—

I have already dealt with that. I say that I am glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing these matters. I have dealt with the question of drilling machines and I think that I have now dealt with all the points. I hope that I have given the hon. friend who moved the motion all the information. I hope that my hon. friends will now be satisfied, that they can expect more in future under the new Act. My colleague intends introducing the legislation in the course of this Session.

The question of soil erosion and the combating of soil erosion is something which is relatively new in South Africa. It is only during the past twenty years that we have become aware of it. When the department has tried to devise schemes for combating soil erosion, the difficulty has always been to know what the most practical method of doing it would be and mostly we have, of course, started off by way of experimenting; but the department has learnt a lot. The department responsible has learnt a lot and I hope that in future we will be able to take much more practical steps when my colleague introduces his new legislation, so that we will be able to do something really practical to conserve for our progeny the precious soil which is today washed out to sea. I said that we should help ourselves. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) is unfortunately not here now. He is one of my neighbours. We live on adjoining farms. I have only been in that area for two years now, but in those two years I have discovered a pest and an evil there which I have never heard a single member mention here. I refer to the ant menace. I counted 400 antheaps on one morgen and do you know that the ants destroyed the veld to such an extent that during the drought there was not a mouthful of food for the animals. I want to bring that to the attention of my hon. friends. It is a matter which they should tackle in their farmers’ groups and they should bring it to the notice of the Minister. In this instance again, if we had noticed this evil in good time, the farmer himself could have destroyed the ants. The value of the land is 25 per cent. less today owing to the increase of the ants. It is an important matter as far as the food and the grazing of one’s stock are concerned. The ants carry away everything. There is one matter which should receive our attention. Somebody mentioned the kraalbos. The kraalbos is not such a great evil, however.

It causes the sheep to blow up.

It is encroaching on more and more land.

I admit that. But does the hon. member know that there are certain parts, especially in the Free State—and it is as a result of over-grazing and treading out of the soil— where one finds the so-ocalled Januariebos which is not eaten by any animal. There are parts in the Southern Free State and here also, where a third of the farms have already been overrun by this shrub; nothing will eat it. It has a taproot and can easily be dug out. We did not pay attention to it in good enough time and now this shrub is overrunning the whole place. That is another question we will have to deal with. We have these shrubs and vegetation which are of no value and where they grow nothing else grows. These are all matters we have to deal with. It is necessary for South Africa that we should pay attention to these matters which have been discussed in this House today. The prospects of the farmingindustry are not bright if we are going to allow matters to continue in the same way. There is no question whatsoever that during the past 20 or 30 years, with the recurring droughts we have had, the soil has not recovered after each drought to its former condition. The water runs off quickly owing to the barreness of the soil. Sluits are formed by the running water and even if abundant rains fall after a drought, the soil deteriorates year after year and is worthless to the farming community. We never took into account the harm done to the country. Why do we have all the washaways nowadays which wash our vegetable earth into the sea? It is because our land has become barren and cannot retain the water. Normally only 6 per cent. of the rainfall runs away to the sea. I do not know whether hon. members know that 94 per cent. of the rainfall is absorbed by the soil. But here in our country that is not the case any more. It has changed. Instead of 6 per cent. of the water running away to the sea more water is running away year by year and less is retained by the earth. It is a matter which has to be tackled. We must stop our water from running away. Now I want to deal briefly with our river beds. Hon. members know that I have introduced an amending Bill to the Irrigation Act to provide for control in connection with the protection of river beds in order to prevent our precious soil being carried away by floodwater. This matter has already been discussed here. We cannot leave this matter in the hands of the riparian owners. In the first place it is far beyond the means of the individual riparian owner to undertake this work. What is more, even although individual persons could do it on their own farms, we are faced with the position that he may perhaps take measures to prevent washaways on his own farm, but then he may affect the position of the riparian owners above him or below him. He cannot do it and for that reason, the Government has regarded this matter as a national question and we will deal with it on that basis. Under the Bill which I have introduced the Minister of Irrigation takes powers to assume control of a river and the work will be done by the Government. As far as that is concerned, we should not delay. I think I have now given all the information and if the motion is withdrawn, we can proceed to the next business.

I have always known that there are two persons in the same individual, one is the Minister of Lands, the other the farmer, and when the farmer speaks we can all listen. Today the Minister spoke as a farmer, and we must congratulate him on his splendid speech. With it he has done as much good in the House as anyone ever has done in the past. We thank him for the farmer we see on that side. I wish to agree with him that there are two sides to the erosion problem—the economic side and the technical side. I do not want to enlarge on the economic side at present; I would only say that we know why we have had so much soil erosion. The farmers had to be satisfied with an uneconomic price for their products, and consequently they had to take more out of the soil than they put into it. We hope that this Government and any future government will see to it that that evil can be eliminated so that we may live on such a footing that we will be able to put back something into the soil, something that will make for our prosperity in the future. I hope in future that will be our destiny, and consequently we support the control boards in order to give us that stability for which we are seeking.

Now we come to the practical side. The practical side always comes first with me. I think the Minister will admit that the practical farmers have demonstrated that only by the use of fencing can they accomplish their salvation. The Minister has already told this House that this is one of the principal considerations in our farming. We must fence our farms properly, make proper camps and provide water in the camps, and should we fail to do this we shall have the erosion in its worst form such as we have seen already at Vlekpoort and in the Drakensberg. We can also observe what practical farmers have already done to combat erosion, and if the Government will do likewise it will save many years of experimenting. My opinion is that parts of our country have already been washed away to such an extent that the farmer himself can do nothing with it. The Government will have to proclaim those areas for the combating of soil erosion and work will have to be done along the lines taken in Vlekpoort. There you have a very good scheme for accomplishing big work. In Vlekpoort they are now building certain works which they describe as “vasskopplekke.” From those they work back to the slopes, and the smaller works are later brought to the slopes. The farmer can do the work himself if he is assisted. We feel with the Minister that we should not place any limit on what a farmer can spend to carry out these works. It may cost £100 or it may cost £1,000. But if the work is tackled a success must be made of it. In the past we have done too much patchwork. We scraped out brak dams on the slopes, the water ran out, and instead of our improving the position we had three sluits in place of one. We feel that this system must be changed and that we must set about things in a more practical manner. I agree with the Minister that in every area where land is proclaimed under a scheme we must have a committee of practical men to work with the department’s technical officers. Such a committee will look to the practical side, and with them we have the technical officials. We have such a committee at Vlekpoort and they are doing very fine work. I should like some of our friends to visit Vlekpoort in order to observe what has been accomplished in a short period. I remember that I took the previous Secretary for Agriculture there, and when he got to Uilhoek he said there was nothing more that could be done, and with systematic plans and proper work that valley is now beginning to be put right again. Much remains to be done.

What does it cost per morgen?

I would only say that in this connection we must not count the cost. These are experiments that are being carried out today. Some experiments will be failures, but in that way it is being ascertained what are the best and cheapest methods to combat erosion. For example, a sort of dam was constructed at a cost of £24,000. Now another kind, which is nearly as efficient, is being made at a cost of £400 or £500, a figure that is almost within the resources of the ordinary farmer. Practical work has been done to see what methods can be applied by, the farmers with the support of the Government. The object is not to say that it costs so much a morgen. Even if it cost £100 per morgen to get that area right we shall have had the benefit of having decided how we should set to work.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th April.

: The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I regret that I was not present last night at the conclusion of this long debate, the longest in my memory in this House on any Bill. I attended and listened with interest to the remainder of the debate. I must say, Mr. Speaker, the debate was not only long and protracted but it covered a wide field, far beyond the scope of the Bill. Not only the Indian question but the whole colour question was discussed in its various aspects, and there was added a considerable measure of party politics in which I do not propose to take any part today. I regard this subject and the treatment of it as a very serious matter, and I wish to keep clear of all party questions or party aspects of it and to confine myself strictly to the Bill, a Bill which I am convinced deserves the impartial attention of every member of this House. I must say that I have not changed my attitude. The long debate has changed neither my own view nor the attitude the Government originally took up. It is not obstinacy, but the longer the debate lasted the clearer it became to me that the course taken by the Government in this Bill is the only course to arrive at a solution of this urgent and thorny problem. At this stage I would say at once that it is not the intention of the Government to accept these amendments which ask for a further postponement in dealing with the Bill. I shall turn to the amendments presently and discuss them. I would only point out that to us this matter is pressing and urgent and that the postponement of a decision in this House may have very detrimental results to the country. Postponement can only aggravate the matter. It has been pending all these years, and the longer it has lasted the more difficult has the solution become, so that today we are faced with a crisis. The time and the moment have arrived for taking action, and not to have any further postponement, or to look for some pretext for shelving the matter and perhaps later spoiling the whole issue. To me the question of time is of supreme importance in connection with this Bill. Time is an essential factor in the decision on this question, and we now have the opportunity with a Government that feels its responsibility, and assumes the responsibility to bring this question before the House and attempts to put it through, and I say that this opportunity ought to be utilised by us to get the matter through in the permanent interests of the country. I say this in all seriousness. It was not recklessness on our part in taking up this Bill and which has moved this Government to introduce it. We know it is a difficult matter, we know that there is no party advantage to be gained by this side or by any party on this question. It is a national question which profoundly affects the interests of South Africa, and it is in that spirit of earnestness regarding what is in the interests of the country that we have taken up this matter, and in which I ask it should be dealt with. There must be no dilly-dallying in finding a solution. The longer we wait the greater becomes the difficulty.

I personally have a special reason of my own to proceed with the Bill now. As hon. members are aware I shall, in a few weeks’ time, be on my way to conferences which are not only of world importance but which may very possibly deeply affect the interests of South Africa. I shall not be here and I think that in the case of such a Bill and the handling of it it is necessary that the member of the Government who carries the greatest responsibility, should discharge his responsibility, and should take part in the discussion of the matter. I hope thus that it will be possible before my departure at Easter to see this Bill through the House and on its way to the Statute Book. The only safe place for it is on the Statue Book. Any other place can have its consequences not only in this House but also overseas. It is a question which not only attracts the attention of South Africa, but it has also attracted the attention of the whole world. The sooner we can see this thing through and the Bill on the Statute Book the better it will be for the permanent interests of South Africa.

I come now to the amendments. Several amendments have been proposed. Some of them propose further consideration by a Select Committee or a further process of enquiry. Three of them propose that there should be further postponement and investigation. One amendment rejects the Bill entirely in principle, and I shall revert to that amendment later. Let me start by dealing with the two amendments that ask that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. These are the amendments of the Dominion Party and of the Labour Party. I wish to say at once that in my humble opinion there is no case whatever for such a step and I shall give my reasons for saying that. The Bill deals particularly with two matters. The first is the question of land tenure in Natal and in the Transvaal, and the second is the question of political rights of Indians in those two provinces. Those are the two subjects covered by the Bill. In regard to the first, the question of land tenure, there is really no far-reaching difference in this House, with the exception of the members who represent the natives. We are all agreed, and there are no further facts to find. Some minor points have been broached, and some of these can readily be disposed of in the Committee stage; no enquiry is needed. We agree.,

Who do you mean agree?

The whole House.

We do not agree.

I am going by what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, that on the broad features the Opposition agree over the land question as laid down in Chapter I I do not think an enquiry is necessary in reference to the first chapter, in regard to the question of land tenure of Asiatics as dealt with here. The special points that have been brought up can be discussed by us, and I do not believe it will take up much time. To refer the Bill to a Select Committee for further enquiry in regard to the question of land tenure is, I think, unnecessary. It will only be a waste of time, though time is very valuable in the treatment of this Bill.

Take now the other question, the grant of political rights to the Indians. This is not a question for investigation by a Select Committee, it is a matter of principle. It is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion in this House and in the country, on the basic principle. It is not a question on which a Select Committee can decide, and the deliberations of a Select Committee will in this connection carry us no further. It is a question of fundamental opinions and of differences between parties. The knot must be severed. The Gordian knot must be cut through; we are either for that or against that.

Was that not also so in connection with the Native Bills?

No, it was not so. There was a compromise. In this matter we have not the slightest chance of a compromise, and when I go into the matter further you will see what I mean. There is not the slightest chance of that. We are here dealing with a difference of principle in the House, and we cannot solve that by means of a Select Committee. That will not help us. It will be a waste of time, and we shall get no further. The enquiry or deliberations of the Select Committee will help us not at all. We shall have to see it through in this House. We cannot by means of a Select Committee, or any evasion of that sort, solve the matter. It will have to be disposed of by this House, by the parties in this House. So much for the two proposals to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Do you regard this thing as a party measure?

It is just as you wish to take it. The hon. member can take it up as a party measure. I take it up as something on which there is a deep-rooted difference here in this House, a difference that cannot be solved by a Select Committee. It is a question for the House itself, and the whole House will have to vote on it. It is only frittering away time to send it to a Select Committee.

Now I turn to the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He asks for a rather broader investigation which will occupy much more time, a joint enquiry such as we had on the occasion of the Hertzog Bills in connection with the natives. He asks that we in the interim, as long as this enquiry is in progress, an enquiry that possibly might last years, should extend the Pegging Act with the necessary adjustments. The first question that arises in my mind is this: What is going to happen in the meantime in regard to the Indian question? We have reached a crisis in connection with this question. Three years ago we approached this crisis, and we averted it by adopting the Pegging Act. The question now is how the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition will assist us to effect a solution of this question. As he has put the matter, it will be a very long enquiry, perhaps one that will last for years, and after this period has passed we may be exactly where we are now. The question will not have been solved, and we will have spent all that long time in enquiry and lost much time, and in all probability the position will have become much worse, much more complicated and insoluble, and then we would have to begin afresh with a solution. It seems to me, when we take up this matter seriously, and perceive how necessary it is, when we realise how urgently necessary it is, and realise that we are virtually in a crisis in South Africa, we must not postpone the matter further by instituting further enquiries, we must not start on an enquiry that may last for years, with no one knowing what the situation will then be and whether the question may not then be insoluble. No, we must tackle the matter now and solve it while we have the opportunity. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that we should in the meantime extend the Pegging Act with the necessary amendments in order that it should apply to the position today, because that would be necessary. The Pegging Act is a limited measure which only applies to Durban. This Bill now before the House refers to the whole of Natal and also to the question in the Transvaal. We would have to remodel and extend the Pegging Act on a basis very similar to that of the Bill now before us. The amendment of that Act that the Leader of the Opposition now proposes will be so comprehensive that it virtually will be equivalent to the present Bill. The result will be that we shall again pass a temporary measure for two years and at the end of that period we shall still not have a solution but only a temporary expedient. We will have the greatest difficulty in this House to pass an altered and amplified Act of that description and subsequently we would only be in the same position as we are now. It will take considerable time to get an amending Pegging Act through the House and when we did get it through we should only be where we are now and where we were three years ago. We should still have the whole fight over the Indian question, and when the Pegging Act expired we should have to resume the struggle, and that perhaps at a juncture which would be far more inconvenient to us than is the case today. My appeal to the House is this: Tackle this matter, the moment has come, tackle it now. Do not let us talk any more about Pegging Acts. The Indians would be just as much opposed to the extension of the Pegging Act that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has proposed, amongst the public there would be just as much controversy, and amongst ourselves there would be just as much contention over the Pegging Act as over this Bill itself. Therefore let us see the thing through. Do not let us talk any further about Pegging Acts, now is the time, the crisis is there, the moment has come, turn it to account and put this measure through. I am strengthened in my opinion by the basis on which the Leader of the Opposition has argued for a further enquiry. He wishes to refer the matter—

The enquiry must traverse the biggest problem in the country, the most difficult problem which goes to the foundations of our social fabric in South Africa, the whole problem in its full compass.

Will you wait for that until another crisis has arisen?

I ask the House this, I ask myself this: How long will it take to see such an enquiry through? What time will it occupy? It will not be disposed of in the two years suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I doubt whether it will be completed in a generation. I am afraid that this prolonged enquiry into the whole colour problem in all its bearings will only end in one thing, namely, that the actual matter we have before us now, the Indian problem, will be shelved indefinitely and that our difficulties after such an enquiry will be much greater than they are today. So I say let us tackle the matter now. I question whether in a generation you will arrive at a solution of the entire problem that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to have an enquiry on. We change in our views from time to time. It is clear to me that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the whole of the party behind him have already changed a great deal in the course of the ten years since we dealt with the Hertzog Bills. What the views of South Africa will be in connection with this big problem in five or ten years’ time is difficult to predict today in view of all the changes that are going on. I maintain that this is not a matter that you can solve today. In my opinion the matter has been so formulated by the Leader of the Opposition that the basis on which he wants an enquiry to take place is an impossible basis, an enquiry into the whole of this comprehensive problem, something for which we are not ready, and which you cannot at present solve in its entirety.

But your policy is a policy of despair.

It is not a policy of despair, but of acting with common sense. It is not a policy of bits and pieces, but of step by step. To me it is clear that if we tackle this subject in all its bearings and ramifications in South Africa we are going to bite off more than we can chew. We shall be undertaking a task for which public opinion and experience and development in South Africa are not ready. It will be too big. We shall simply have to go forward step by step and act according to our best knowledge and the light we have, and according to our conscience. The amendment can lead to one result only, and that is to leave the matter unsolved, to leave unsolved the Indian problem that is at present before us.

What is the intention of the Leader of the Opposition with his amendment? I have listened with attention to his speech and other speeches, especially from front benches on the other side. To me it is clear that what is intended by the basis proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is that in the future we should have a European Parliament in South Africa, and that the other race groups in the country should be excluded from Parliament. It will no longer be a question of separation in Parliament but a question of subordinate bodies where the representatives of the other races will be. This is the sense in which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke, it is the spirit in which the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) spoke, and it is the spirit that was reflected in all the speeches from the other side. This would imply a complete political revolution in the form of the franchise for the various groups in South Africa. They themselves wish to get rid of the Hertzog legislation of separation representation in Parliament.

Yes, of course.

The forward step that was taken ten years ago will be reversed.

It was a failure.

There is a motion by a member of your own party in that sense on the agenda.

The background of the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is a total political revolution in South Africa, the rejection of what has been achieved, and an attempt to institute a completely new system.

That is what you proposed at the Empire Conference.

I ask what chance is there of that? Investigate the Indian problem that is before us, deal with the problem which is before us now.

Your plan is to give representation here to various race groups; is that not a new political system?

My object is to solve the Indian problem step by step. Ten years ago we had the native problem before us. That was the course we adopted, and we must deal with each case as it comes up step by step. That is the only possible method of treatment for South Africa. The native problem was tackled by way of an agreement ten years ago after a prolonged enquiry in which the various parties took part. We set our course, and with few exceptions we have all kept to that course. Today we have another problem before us, the Indian problem. This has a more menacing form than the native problem, because the native problem was per se an African problem, a problem of our own country, but the Indian problem has its ramifications far beyond our continent. It is a dangerous problem, it is a problem over which public opinion in the world is much more stirred than public opinion was aroused ten or fifteen years ago when we were dealing with the native problem. The object of the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, the background of that amendment, seems to me to be the wrong road for us to take; if we move in that direction we would wander about and get lost, and solve neither the Indian problem nor any other colour problem.

A wrong road? Your way is a false track.

I do not see why we should take such a course of despair. The native problem is, of course, a difficult and complicated problem. At that time we dealt with it and disposed of it, and it is working today. There may be a difference of opinion on what was done, but I agree with what was stated by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn), who was for many years a representative of the Transkei in this Parliament, when he said that although he voted against the Hertzog legislation, it appeared in practice to have been a step towards improvement, and a step that has led to native interests being dealt with better in this House today and in Parliament as a whole than in the old days. I think there is much to be said for that, and the hon. member for Tembuland is not the only one who holds this opinion.

What he says in the morning and what he says in the evening do not always coincide.

I do not see what progress we shall make on the road indicated by the amendment. I believe it will be a false track, a road of despair. Not only would it not solve the Indian problem but it would solve not a single other problem, and seeing we have already set our course it would cause complete confusion, and you would set up a labyrinth in the politics of South Africa.

Did you not say the same about the Hertzog plan?

We have this practical problem before us, and I ask myself what light the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party can see in the course that they propose, what practical solution of the Indian problem they will find on the road? Various opinions have been expressed, but the only ray of light they see, it boils down to that, is repatriation. The only solution they see to the Indian problem is repatriation. Well, Mr. Speaker, what can one say about that? Here you have a plan that has already been tried, an effort was made with it by the Nationalist Party Government in 1927. It had a good start but after two years it was dead, and when it was revived later in 1932 it transpired that it was completely impossible—neither in India nor in any other part of the world were there openings for Indian emigrants from South Africa.

What about the Young Commission’s report?

That is not a matter about which we need argue. A practical effort was made and when tried it proved a complete failure. I think hon. members will agree that if the attempt was repeated today the difficulties would be still greater than in 1927.

Because the Indians do not want their own people there.

Because India is already over-populated. There is no country in the world that is so over-populated as India, and India simply will not have these people there. There is another difficulty in inducing the Indians to return to India. At that time many of them still thought that a return to their mother country would not be a bad thing, especially with the money that they got. But they gained experience and those that did go were bitterly disappointed and sent back reports tbout their disappointment, and today you will find many more difficulties in the road than ever before. At that time it was a hopeless effort and it would be a still more hopeless effort now. To talk about repatriation, to imagine that salvation will be found along that road is looking at a rainbow in the sky, it is an illusion. It is true that you have repatriation today in Europe, but it is occurring there as a result of the biggest war in the history of the world. There you have repatriation under compulsion in exceptional circumstances, but to imagine that voluntary repatriation of Indians from this El Dorado to India or to any other part of the world will succeed is folly.

You now talk about an El Dorado but the Minister of Finance said we were treating the Indians so badly.

No, this is our own problem, and we must find a solution of it ourselves, and the solution so far as the Government can see it lies along this road opened up by the Bill that is before the House today. The Leader of the Opposition asks me why I am in such a hurry, why I do not follow the wise course adopted by the late Gen. Hertzog of first having a prolonged enquiry into the whole problem. My answer to that is clear. The work has been done. Gen. Hertzog instituted an enquiry and at that time they discovered the solution and today we still see a solution in that. You do not need to make this enquiry all over again, no new enquiry is necessary into the question of whether you will give a separate franchise or a common franchise to these people to whom you must of course give political rights. The Hertzog Joint Committee represented all these policies. All these matters were thrashed out and as the result of discussions and enquiry we adopted the course that we have followed in connection with the native problems, and a further enquiry is not necessary. The foundations have been laid. We are building on them. It would only be a waste of time to do all that work over again.

The Select Committee did not suggest this proposal in connection with the Indians.

The proposal in connection with the Indians as far as political representation is concerned is basically the same.

But in the north the natives have not the franchise as they have in the south.

The hon. member says that the natives had the franchise in the south and they were deprived of it, and that a different franchise was given to them. What do hon. members on the other side now wish to do? They want to take away that substitute from the natives.

I am speaking now about the Indians.

I am speaking now about the natives, because the hon. member asked me the question.

You say you are not taking anything away from the Indians. You are only giving them something. It is, a different case to that of the natives.

What I am pointing out is that the hon. member and his party now wish to deprive the natives of this substitute franchise. As far as the Indians are concerned, the position is clear. We have here an Indian population who were born in the country. They form the permanent section of our population. In the Cape Town Agreement it was admitted that those who did not wish to leave but who wished to stay here would be uplifted as a portion of the permanent population. When that is the position the deduction is, of course, clear that you must give them at least the same rights that you give to other sections of the permanent population.

Good, but then will you also give natives in the Transvaal representation, seeing you are giving it to Indians in the Transvaal?

The natives in the Transvaal have their representatives.

Who?

Why are the three native representatives sitting here then?

Do they sit here for the Transvaal? You apparently do not know the law.

The hon. member can jump about as much as he likes. They want to go back on what they voted for ten years ago. That is the whole intention of the enquiry that is proposed in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition; they want to go back on the work that was done at that time, and I maintain that this would land us in a labyrinth, that it is a hopeless effort. We shall never solve the problem on that basis.

It is now being stated that a danger exists that a bloc will be formed in Parliament in consequence of this Bill. The Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on the other side are afraid that a bloc will be formed. Well, the bloc is there. It was created by this Hertzog legislation. It is now being increased. Instead of three there will be six. Six out of 156, six against 150. I maintain that if European Afrikanerdom is so stupid, so foolish and so blind that the 150 European representatives of South Africa will allow themselves to be outdone by a bloc of six on the other side, then South Africa is hopelessly lost. It is an act of despair.

Your argument is an argument of despair.

Not only do they despair of themselves, but they despair also of the future. Let us leave this matter to the future. Why should we distrust Afrikanerdom of the future? Why should we suppose that the generation that follows us will give away the rights of South Africa and surrender the position of the white man? Let us leave this matter to the generation that follows. These are questions of the future, and not urgent today. No these are bogys. Let us leave these matters to the future, and not despair over the Afrikanerdom that will follow after us Every day has enough of its own troubles. We have enough difficulties with the problems that are in front of us. I do not think there is a country in the world, certainly not a young country, that has greater difficulties as far as races are concerned, affecting the composition of its population, than we in South Africa have. If you try to solve everything in a mathematical way, you will be making the biggest blunder and you will have the biggest failure that it is possible to have. Step by step, every case on its own, acting according to your conscience and according to the best of your lights, do the best for yourself and your fellow-men. From time to time opinions in South Africa will change, but they will come through. We have a practical, a concrete problem in front of us. Let us keep to it and not get scared over imaginary difficulties. That business about a bloc—there is nothing in it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks about the time when the natives will say: But look, the Indians have so many representatives, our numbers are much greater, we want 12 or 20 representatives.

They are saying it now.

Let them say it.

That is not the point. We know that Swaziland and Basutoland and those territories will be incorporated and they will also desire representation. What will be the position then?

They will be incorporated and I shall leave it to Parliament, which has to approve the incorporation, to make a decision on that. I trust in Afrikanerdom that will have to decide on the matter, just as today we are deciding on the Indian problem. No, I believe there is nothing in that.

Do not draw a red herring across the trail for us and yourself.

I think there is no justification for the inquiry the Leader of the Opposition wants. It would be a dangerous course to adopt and goodness only knows what it will land us in. It may make not only the Indian problem but also our other big problems much more difficult.

Let me in conclusion say a few words on the amendment proposed by the native representatives. I respect the opinion of those members and they are entitled to express their opinion. No one can find fault with them for that. But I put this question to myself: Is this a practical course that you can take? Is it possible or imaginable that you could get through a Parliament such as our Parliament of South Africa today a motion for a common franchise to natives, Indians and Europeans? You simply would not get it through. You may have your ideals over human rights. You may have exalted views about the equality of human beings, which we all pay homage to, but then you come to the practical application …

Tell Hofmeyr that.

You come to the practical application and you feel you cannot get that across. In politics — everyone knows it and I do not need to say it — you must put the question: What is possible in practice? You may have a beautiful ideal, you may debate something theoretically, but the question is what is possible in practice? What we are proposing is the only practical measure and even this can only be put through with difficulty. This is my measuring rod. When you come to a practical problem you must ask whether it is possible in practice. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said she was alarmed to hear what I said about the structure of our South African society. But my attitude is simply this, that I ask what is possible in practice? What is possible? She spoke about the future, about a change in affairs that will be accompanied by a change in public opinion. To me the question as a practical man with the responsibility of making this proposal is, what is the best I can do in the circumstances? There is no doubt that the best we can do both for the natives and the Indians is the proposal that is now in front of us. I have not spoken about the coloured vote. That is a settled matter. The coloured vote exists here in the Cape. I accept that, and the matter was disposed of in the past. This is a system that I hope will be perpetuated for the coloureds for many years in South Africa. In connection with the natives and the Indians I speak of what is practical, and the only practical step we can take is the step we are taking here. References have continually been made to my friend the Minister of Finance, but hon. members forget that he gives his approval to this Bill, he gives his approval to this step.

As a first step.

He is a practical man. He knows that without giving up your ideals and principles you may be faced with difficulties which you have to take into account. He is doing this and we accord him all honour for it.

I think I have now discussed the main points of the debate, but there is one point I made in my original introductory speech which I should like to return to, and with that I also revert to a remark that was made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. Years ago I made a speech here in Cape Town in which I spoke about the dispute in connection with equal rights. I said that the emphasis that is laid in South Africa on equal rights diverted our attention from the condition and the treatment of the real interests of our natives and our coloured people. There is so much worrying over the question of equal rights that one forgets there are other questions that are far more pressing than equal rights. These are the social questions of the upliftment of the natives and the coloured people, of the less privileged in South Africa; questions of housing, of nutrition, of health and many other similar questions which are of greater practical importance. They are of great importance because we have to lay the foundation for the future by social improvement, instituting higher standards of living and improving the living conditions of these people. These are the practical steps that lie before us. In my introductory speech I stated it is the intention of the Government, as far as the Indians are concerned, to create machinery for the carrying out of such a policy and to ensure that it is carried into effect in South Africa for the Indians. It is not only a land question and a franchise question that are of importance. Other questions are of far greater practical importance to the Indian. There has been negligence in Natal and also in other parts which we must stop. We live in another world with a public opinion which is very sensitive in regard to questions of social uplift and progress. Apart from this Bill we are now putting through we have to deal with the practical side of social uplift in order to improve and assure the standards of Indians. Some years ago I proclaimed the same doctrine in Cape Town in regard to the coloureds and the natives. We must feel that it is not only the question of differences on abstract political questions but that there are also practical questions of importance for those sections of our population, and that it is our duty to give our attention to those questions. The other minor points that were touched on in the debate I shall not deal with at the moment. The Committee stage is the appropriate place to deal with those points and I will therefore leave them over for the Committee stage.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—80:

Abbott, C. B. M. Abrahamson, H. Acutt, F. H. Alien, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman. H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stevn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—55:

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers:* J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—86:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman. H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Aioli, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rober son, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

S evn. C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—49:

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I do not want to raise any objection to the Prime Minister’s motion that we should take the Committee Stage tomorrow, but I should like on that occasion to move an instruction, of which notice must be given, to the Committee of the Whole House. If Mr. Speaker will allow me to read my motion now and accept that as adequate notice, then I agree to the Committee Stage being taken tomorrow.

The hon. member may give notice of his motion for an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House after it has been decided when the Committee Stage will be taken. In the circumstances, notice of motion immediately after the date for the Committee Stage has been decided upon is permissible and I shall have no hesitation in accepting it.

I hope that the Prime Minister will give a longer time than this. The position is that a very large number of people in this country who are very much affected by this Bill, by the rights which have been taken away, by the difficult position in which they are being placed by the various sections of the Bill, are only just now beginning to find out how they are affected. I wish to put it to the Prime Minister a sufficient opportunity should be given to us, some of us who represent a number of these people, to go and explain what the provisions of the Bill are. There are some people who do not know how they are going to be affected, and particularly does this question arise over the schedule of the areas. That needs to be explained, and I hope the Prime Minister, after we have accepted the second reading of this Bill, under the circumstances which I have explained when I spoke on the second reading, will give sufficient time for information as to the details of this Bill to be brought home to those affected by it. I ask the Prime Minister to give us say a fortnight. [Laughter.] What is the urgency? Why not a fortnight. Why this ridiculous laughter? Is there a plot on the other side to get this Bill rushed through? I am only replying to this laughter. I ask the Prime Minister to give as much time as he possibly can between this time and the Committee Stage.

I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend. What he asks for now is such a postponement of this measure that the business of the House will be very seriously disordered. I think we might accept the motion for the Committee Stage today. I understand the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) wants to move an instruction to the Committee which can be disposed of tomorrow, and if that is disposed of I do not propose to go on with the Committee Stage immediately thereafter. It may stand over till the next day. And, considering that the hon. member and his friends have had now a whole week of debate on the second reading, during which they could have prepared any amendments they have in view, I do not think a longer postponement is necessary than that. When this motion of the hon. member for Piketberg has been disposed of tomorrow we may pass on to other business and resume the Committee Stage the following day.

Motion put and agreed to.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 3rd April.

I have before me a Press report which appeared two or three days ago from which it appears that a meeting of the League of Nations will take place at Geneva on April 8th. According to this Press repor† Mr. Egeland will represent the Union, and the following also appears in this report—

A very important matter is brought up here. As hon. members know, this matter has already been very fully discussed when, on behalf of this side of the House a few weeks ago, a motion was introduced and discussed on the question of the future of South-West Africa. Inter alia the standpoint was taken up in that motion that the League of Nations had ceased to exist; in the second place it was argued there that there is nothing in Article 22 of the Treaty that gives the League of Nations the right to transfer its rights and functions in respect of mandated territories to another world organisation. As I indicated at that time, there is not even provision in Article 22 that the League of Nations can allot to another mandatory a mandated territory that has already been allotted. The reason for that is clear, as indeed the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister admitted in his reply to the debate, namely, that the mandates were allotted at that time by the Supreme Council of the Associated and Allied Powers. The League of Nations indeed functioned as an agent of the Supreme Council of the Associated and Allied Powers. In the first place, therefore, there is the interesting question that the Prime Minister did not touch on in his reply to my motion, namely, in how far the League of Nations still exists, because according to the statements of the Prime Minister himself in public speeches and elsewhere he, as well as others, intimated that with the establishment of U.N.O. the League of Nations had ceased to exist. At that time, speaking figuratively I said that just as you cannot have two governments contemporaneously in the country, and just as you cannot have two parliaments so you cannot have two world organisations. Of more importance, however, is the other question. The Prime Minister said at that time in his reply to my South-West Africa motion that we should leave the juridical question on one side. I could not then agree to that, and the fact that we cannot leave it on one side now seems clear. It appears that you will indeed have to take the juridical question into account, because here a meeting is being held of the old League of Nations, and the question arises whether it was really a meeting of the League of Nations or whether it was not, as I put it, a meeting of the executors in the estate who have to decide what is to be done with the assets of the old League of Nations—its premises and its cash assets. Personally I believe that is the only object of that meeting. In the second place there is the question of transfer of functions. The question is of such extreme importance that I am entitled to mention it here today and to ask that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister should satisfy us that nothing will be done or said by the Union representative in Geneva that will create the impression that the Union agrees that the League of Nations has the right to transfer its functions to another organisation. I make bold to say that if this matter was submitted to international jurists they would also be of opinion that according to the interpretation of Article 22 the League of Nations is not qualified to do this. The danger for us is this, that if there should be a proposal before the meeting that the League of Nations should formally transfer its mandate territories and its functions in respect of the mandate to Ú.N.O., and should that come to a vote, and should the South African representatives also take part in that voting, this would be viewed as an admission on our part that the League of Nations has indeed the right to transfer these mandate territories to U.N.O. I maintain it would be fatal if our representative acted in this way. We have great interest in South-West Africa, and from the Prime Minister’s speech it appeared he largely feels with us that the Union, as he put it, should annex South-West Africa. We should be giving up our position if Mr. Egeland, the Union representative, intimated at this meeting by supporting such a motion that the League of Nations has the right to transfer the mandate territories to U.N.O. as also its authority in respect of the so-called mandate territories. We on this side of the House who came with a motion in which certain principles were laid down regard this matter as one of supreme importance, and I sincerely trust that the Prime Minister Will be able to satisfy us that his representative will not take up such a standpoint. If he permits this it means that the Prime Minister when he goes to New York to put South Africa’s standpoint will have weakened his position in advance. I hope consequently that the Prime Minister will not do this and that he will ensure that our representative in Geneva will not compromise the Union in advance.

The hon. member has brought up two questions, the one is in how far the League of Nations still exists. Technically the League of Nations still exists. To all intents and purposes it is dead but technically, juridically, the organisation has not been dissolved and it still exists, and the meeting of the League of Nations on April 8th has been convened to make final arrangements to finish the agony.

Is it not a case of the estate?

No, it is not a question of the estate. The question of the estate has been disposed of, or has at least been provisionally disposed of. A commission of U.N.O. met a commission of the League of Nations to negotiate about the transfer of the estate—the properties of the League of Nations and the arrangement of all these matters, the temporary provisions that will be necessary when the League of Nations disappears. There are the buildings in Geneva and there are the accounts. It is a very complicated estate, as my hon. friend will know. It must all be brought in order, and so far as I am aware these matters were all arranged by the last gathering of the U.N.O. in London.

With whom?

With a supervisory commission of the League of Nations.

But the League of Nations has no power to do this.

The League of Nations left a supervisory commission at its last meeting before the war, and it negotiated with the commission of the U.N.O.

What about the mandate territories; are these included?

No, this has nothing to do with the mandate territories. Only the property was dealt with. I believe juridically I am so far correct, but technically the League of Nations still exists and it must be wound up, and the object of the meeting at Geneva on 8th April is to effect its termination. It is a very complicated legal question how this must be done, and what resolutions must be taken, but it still exists. That is the reply to the question of the hon. member, the intention is now to wind it up.

But can two world organisations exist simultaneously?

Yes, they can, but of course the League of Nations does not exist in reality. Juridically it can exist, but of course actually it is a ridiculous position that two world organisations exist and this must now be put right.

The other question put by the hon. member is in how far the League of Nations can transfer the mandate territories. In my humble opinion they have not the powers and they cannot do it, and the Union delegate there has been advised that our position is this; our position is that the League of Nations has no powers and no right to transfer the mandates. We are bound by only one thing and that is under Article 80 of the Charter, which says that until a new agreement is made, whatever it may be, with U.N.O., the obligations we have under the mandate continue to exist and we are only bound under that article of the Charter that until the matter has been arranged as far as the future is concerned we shall preserve the rights and status we held under the mandate. That is the position that has been explained to our representative, and he will have to keep to that, and we do not agree that the League of Nations has power to effect such a transfer and that it can carry it into effect. It is very possible that an attempt will be made at Geneva at the meeting there because there are various quarters that interpret these matters quite differently. To me it is clear that the League of Nations has not the power to make such a transfer and our representative will act in that spirit, but it is very possible that other proposals will be made and we shall see what the result will be.

I should like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give his attention to one aspect of the internment question, and that is the question of policy. The Government has, in its wisdom, thought fit to intern people during the war years and to detain them, some of them officials. I do not need to argue that point. No evidence has been brought up before any court that all these people, or any of them, have been guilty of any offence. Thus regarded from a legal standpoint there is nothing against these people; there is absolutely nothing against them because they have never had an opportunity to defend themselves in court. We know that many of these people are actually innocent. Some of them were discharged precisely because the Government later came to the conclusion themselves there was nothing against them, that the charges brought against them were false. I am convinced that many of the people that the Government perhaps today as a result of biased information regard as guilty are in fact innocent. That some of them have been culpable in regard to violations of the law is also possible, but I maintain that no proof has been adduced that these people have made themselves guilty of any offence. Therefore, apart from their detention in internment camps, they should not be punished from a financial point of view unless the Government proves that they have been guilty of one offence or another, and that proof can only be presented either before one of the courts of the country or before a departmental committee. Those are the only two ways in which the Government can provide that proof. Bearing that in mind I wish to make this reasonable request to the Minister that officials who have no opportunity to defend themselves in court or before a departmental committee must be compensated. The Prime Minister will know what the regulation is in this connection, but I should like to read it out as it stands here. I have before me a copy which the Minister of Finance kindly sent me. Regulation No. 29 reads—

Now I come to the proviso—

What is the date of the proclamation?

It is Proclamation No. 201 of 1939. We have now in the first instance to deal with officials in the service of the Government, that is to say, State officials or railway officials or officials in any other branch who are under the control of the Government. I maintain that if these people have not been accorded an opportunity and will not get one now to prove their innocence, or—let me put it the other way round—if the Government does not bring these men before a court or a departmental committee to prove their guilt, it is fair that they should receive their salaries in respect of the period they were detained contrary to the ordinary laws of the country in internment camps or in gaol. I am now only referring to the ordinary laws of the land, and not the emergency regulations. If the Government can prove that these people have rendered themselves culpable in respect of one offence or another, the Government would be entitled to hold back their salaries. The Minister of Finance can approve certain payments in his discretion. But now we come to officials of the Provincial Administration who have never been charged by the Provincial Administration, who have never been brought by the Provincial Administration before a departmental committee of enquiry—in the Education Department, for instance—who have been interned, for example, by the Union Government and who later have been released. In this connection the Provincial Administration itself has taken no steps; they have done nothing against these people; it is the Union Government who intern them under these emergency regulations. Now the standpoint that the Minister of Finance has adopted is that in these cases he can do nothing unless the Provincial Administrations make certain recommendations. If the Provincial Administrations do not make certain recommendations—and remember the Provincial Administrations have nothing to do with the internments—these people will go without salary. They suffer all this loss for the period they have been in the camps. I want to take an instance; I am prepared to furnish the name; I have already given it to the Minister of Finance. It is here a question of Government policy. If what I now ask is going to be done, it is a question of Government policy. I have here the case of a teacher. I will just read out what he writes. He says—

He mentions the name of the town—

Note this well—

Here you have the case of a teacher where he writes that an investigation was made by the Education Department after the Union Government interned him, and the Department found him innocent; and that man during the 26 months he was in the internment camp received nothing at all with the exception, perhaps, of the allowance that was paid to his wife. I assume an allowance was paid to his wife.

Yes.

In any case he did not receive his salary in the ordinary sense of the term, and he sustained this loss; and he was not the only one. There Were several officials to whom this injustice was done. The war is over. It is a question of Government policy. It is not a question for the Provincial Administrations. They did not intern the man. But, apart from the officials of the Provincial Administrations, I commenced my speech by first inviting attention to the officials of the Government Itself, many of whom are in precisely similar circumstances. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister to give his attention to this side of the matter to do the big thing, the fair thing, and that is to pay their salaries to these people who were wrongly dealt by, Unless the Government can show they are guilty, and this would have to be done in a court or before a commission of enquiry. I appeal to him to pay them their salaries if they are found innocent, and also to see that these people are not unjustly treated in respect of the increments they would have received if the Government had not placed them in internment camps contrary to the laws of the land. I am not dealing now with the Emergency Regulations. I hope that the Prime Minister will give his attention to this.

Many members in this House feel embarrassed in accepting the increased allowance which has been allotted to them. At any rate, they will be embarrassed until a great wrong is righted, and that is the cost of living allowance to the pensioners of the service. Knowing the interest that the Prime Minister takes in the Service I want to stress his point that there is no other country in the Commonwealth that treats its pensioners as badly as we do. In England the pensioners are not subjected to the means test. In England they are advised that they will receive a pension plus a cost of living allowance.

Since when?

I have that in writing.

Originally it was refused.

Well they now get a cost of living allowance. I have the information. Unfortunately I did not bring it along.

I think it would be better if the hon. member raised this matter under the Treasury Vote.

This cost of living allowance affects the position of many members in this House who feel embarrassed in accepting this increased allowance—at any rate those who have a conscience.

This question has already been disposed of under Vote 3. The Committee is now dealing with the Prime Minister’s Vote. This matter will come up later under a Bill and I suggest to the hon. member that he raises it under the Treasury Vote.

May I say that there are two new factors which I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, which has come to light since this matter has been raised in the House, and one of the principal factors is that when the depression comes …

Order, order! I hope the hon. member will accept my ruling.

We have made representations to the Prime Minister in connection with certain internment matters and he has not yet favoured us with a reply. When the debate on this matter was concluded he did not have an opportunity to reply. Various matters of considerable importance were raised and although the Minister of Justice referred to the question of Union Germans the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has not yet replied in regard to the general question of German internees. We referred certain matters to him personally. Even my Hon. Leader referred to those matters, and we shall appreciate it very much if he will be good enough to give us a reply now. We shall then know whether to follow up this matter or whether we should leave it. Then I just want to draw his attention, while I am on my feet, to the fact that the vast majority of the recognised Nazi representatives and Nazi leaders in the community of the South-West Germans have already been repatriated. They are no longer in South Africa. I received an official list of those people who were under suspicion and I checked their names. I know these people personally and I say that 95 per cent. of them have already been repatriated. They are no longer in this country. It strikes one as strange that more than a thousand South-West Germans are still being detained, while those people who caused the trouble have all been sent out of the country. I want to say again that in many cases the Germans who are being detained have been detained under a misapprehension. They were not members of the Nazi Party and never wanted to be members.

These cases will now be examined by the Commission.

But why are they still being detained? The war has been over for almost a year. In South-West there is a very serious drought and these people are being ruined. I know of one man who has already lost 3,000 Karakul sheep and he has only 2,000 left. Those 3,000 sheep represent a capital of £12,000 or £15,000. Another German-speaking person has already lost more than 1,000 head of cattle, and his wife has been on the farm for more than six years without assistance, and a very serious drought prevails at the moment. They have to trek, but this woman cannot do so, and they are at their wits’ ends. Many of these people have been regarded as harmless for a long time. They were released from the camps, but they are not allowed to return to their homes; they have to roam about in the Union. There are many of these people here and some in Johannesburg and some in Pretoria. They are occupying houses which we need urgently. Why cannot they be allowed to return to South-West Africa to look after their affairs there? If you do not want to allow them to return permanently, give them three or four months to attend to their affairs. Many of these people were interned under a misapprehension. Their names do not appear on the Nazi list; they were not members, but nevertheless they were locked up in the internment camp. It is argued that these people did not want to enlist for active service or that their children did not want to enlist. I know of families where one child enlisted for active service while the father and the other children were interned. The Germans cannot understand the Government’s policy, and I cannot blame them. But what is more, I want to remind the Prime Minister of the London Agreement which clearly lays down that Germans will not be expected to do military service against Germany.

For thirty years.

Yes, clause 11 of the London Agreement, which the Prime Minister himself signed, lays down that “Germans in South-West Africa and their children, at any rate, will be exempted from military service against the German Reich for a period of thirty years.” That was the explicit International Agreement, and the Prime Minister himself signed it.

It did not say that they would be free to take up training in order to fight for Germany, as many of them did.

I am not talking about active hostility, but there are many who were not members of the Nazi party and who never supported the Nazi ideology, and there are still many of them in the camps. I have drawn the Prime Minister’s attention to certain cases. The strongest pressure was brought to bear on some of these people, but they would not sign in favour of repatriation. Pressure was brought to bear upon them by us and by the Nazis in the camps, so seriously that some of them were nearly killed. One had to receive thirteen stitches in his face as a result of a beating, and he spent two months in hospital because he did not want to sign in favour of repatriation. He said: “I am a South African and have never been a Nazi.” Surely these are clear cases where it is not necessary to detain these people any longer. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that there is a strong movement amongst the Germans in the camp to ask as a community that South-West Africa be incorporated in the Union. I notice from a newspaper which supports the Prime Minister’s policy, namely, “Die Suiderstem,” that in a long leading article on 30th March, they wrote that a petition was being circulated in the camp asking the Government to forget the past. They admit that in certain respects they erred, but they ask to be accepted as citizens and for an opportunity to record their vote in favour of incorporation into the Union. I feel that this should receive a certain measure of encouragement from the Government side. Before I proceed with this matter I should like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to reply to our representations in this connection.

When last he spoke the hon. member put to me the question which he has now repeated, and the position is simply that as far as the German internees of South-West Africa are concerned —the others in the Union have all been released—there are approximately a thousand or a little more who are still interned. The hon. member says there are cases where innocent people were interned merely because they refused to do military service and that there are others who are altogether innocent. He says some of them are roaming about the Union and that their interests in South-West Africa are being neglected. As far as I know the reply to that is simply that I, of course, am not the official applying the regulations; I am only the Prime Minister. That means that I only keep a general supervision over the matter and I am not acquainted with these particular cases. If anyone asks me whether A was guilty and B not guilty and whether C was interned because he refused to do military service, those are questions to which I cannot reply. I can only reply in general terms and say that as far as the return of the Germans to South-West Africa is concerned, the Administration of South-West Africa requested us not to send these people to that territory for the present. The request is that if they are to be released, if the Government wants to release them from the internment camps, they should be released in the Union. That is the request.

But what is the reason?

This request comes from the Administration, from responsible persons.

But surely they must give their reasons?

They advanced no reasons and I did not ask what the reasons were. This request came from South-West Africa and that is the reason why those who were released are in the Union and not in South-West Africa.

How long is this to continue?

The Government has appointed a judicial commission which will investigate these cases. It is impossible for me or my colleagues to go into these cases. There must be an impartial investigation to determine whether these people are not guilty, and this matter must now be brought to a close.

And if they are found not guilty, will they be allowed to return?

That depends on the finding of the commission. If they are not guilty there is no reason why they should not return, but as long as they are under suspicion and there is evidence against them, documentary or other proof, they will not be able to return.

Have the terms of reference of the commission been laid on the Table?

They were published; I do not know whether they were laid on the Table.

It has not been officially published as yet. It falls under the Minister of the Interior, but the terms of reference have not yet been officially published.

The difficulty is that these questions are put to me as Prime Minister. I have nothing to do with the administration. I am fully occupied with other matters, but as far as my knowledge extends I am replying in regard to the general circumstances. I know that a request came from the Administration not to send the Germans back until such time as they had been exonerated and had a clean record.

But surely no Government commission is given a free hand to act as it deems fit. There must surely be terms of reference.

There are such terms of reference. I was under the impression that they had already been published in the Government Gazette and laid before the House. If that has not been done yet, the terms of reference can be laid on the Table. I am replying as far as I can, and if my reply is incomplete, it is because these questions are being put to the wrong person. I do not administer this matter. There are thousands of people against whom there is evidence, documentary or perhaps other evidence, and they are in the internment camps. They must be released and we have decided to appoint a commission to investigate whether or not they should be allowed to remain in this country. The commission will deal with these matters in a judicial way.

I want to associate myself with the reasonable request of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) in connection with certain teachers who were dismissed.

I am sorry that I did not reply to that point. The hon. member referred to a number of officials who were interned. He referred to a few teachers who fell under the Provincial Administration. All I know is that a war measure was promulgated under which officials against whom there were accusations in connection with the public safety were interned. They lost their salaries during the period of their internment. But, of course, I do not know anything about the particular cases.

The request is that this money should be refunded to them if they are found not guilty. Surely that is a reasonable request.

I do not want to say at this stage what the Government is going to do. I only know that there was a war measure which provided that during the period of their internment or absence from duty, because some of them were released but were not re-employed in the service, they, would not be paid. What the final decision will be I do not know. This war regulation has been carried out, but I cannot say that that will end the matter.

Since a war measure was promulgated which, as the Prime Minister stated, was not unreasonable, the request of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is surely a reasonable one. In the event of a man being found not guilty at the enquiry, it is surely reasonable, where he was dismissed and detained in an internment camp for 26 months, to pay him his salary if it now appears that he is not guilty. Surely it is fair and just. But, apart from the case of the teachers, there are various cases of police officials. They were placed in an internment camp, and subsequently it was found that there was no case against them, and they were released, but they were not taken back into the police service. The Prime Minister said the other day that we ought to be forgiving and adopt a new course. Let the Prime Minister set an example by adopting a new course in the future. The war came to an end almost a year ago, and today there are still people who are being punished under war measures. Does the Prime Minister not feel, if he wants to be forgiving, that the time has arrived for a general amnesty? Why should these people still be persecuted a year after the war? Is this the Christianity for which you fought? I hope the Prime Minister will now repeal these war measures. The sooner he abandons the war measures the better. But, apart from these cases there are cases where people enlisted for military service and saw active service. They returned on leave, and, owing to illness or other difficulties, because they could not get further leave, they did not return again. Today they are still regarded as deserters. There are only a few cases. Is it not possible to be merciful towards those people?

Let them appear and present their cases. They are still deserters.

They are afraid that if they return they will be imprisoned.

Give these people the good advice to return.

If the Prime Minister will be of assistance in this respect, I shall be pleased. With regard to the Germans who are still in the internment camps, many of them are married to Afrikaans women; their children were born in this country. Why must they be returned to Germany to die a starvation death? Is that Christian-like and human? I hope the prison doors will be opened now, and that there will be a general amnesty so that we may have rest and peace.

There must be an investigation.

Then I also want to say a few words in connection with the Broadcasting Corporation. I shall raise this matter later under the vote of the Ministers concerned, but during the war the Broadcasting Station was practically commandeered by the Government to make propaganda for the Government. Under war circumstances it may be possible to defend that action. But today the Broadcasting Corporation is still purely a propaganda machine for the Government. Whatever is done and said by the Government side is broadcast, and it is only stated here and there what the Opposition does and says. It was never the intention that the Broadcasting Corporation should be a political body. It must do justice to all sections of the population, but the Government is still using it after the war to make propaganda. The Corporation broadcasts what is said by two or three members on the Government side, and there may also be a brief reference to one member on our side. Let them broadcast these things as they should do it, as it appears in Hansard. I hope the Prime Minister will go into this.

I should like to Put & question to the Prime Minister in connection with a case which has not yet been mentioned here. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) referred to certain Germans who were interned and later repatriated. Many of them agreed to be exchanged because they were treated very badly in the internment camps. I have just had a case at Lichtenburg of a Union subject of German descent. He was naturalised and married to an Afrikaans girl.

I think the hon. member should address that question to the Minister of the Interior. The Prime Minister stated that he has no knowledge of the details.

May I just say that I welcomed the reply of the Prime Minister in regard to the instructions he issued to our representative in Geneva in connection with the mandate question. There is another matter of importance I raised during the debate which has just been concluded, in regard to the Indian legislation. I have no other opportunity to raise it, and I am obliged, therefore, to do so here. I cannot raise it in the Committee stage of the Bill because it would then be out of order. I refer to certain resolutions passed by the Indian Parliament in connection with the application of sanctions against South Africa and the breaking off of trade relations between the two countries. I raised this matter in the course of the debate, but the Prime Minister did not reply to it. Perhaps this is a more appropriate occasion to raise it. In the first place I should like to know whether India, constitutionally, is in the same position as South Africa? We are in the dark in regard to the true position of India. Is the Viceroy of India obliged before approving any resolution or act of the Indian Parliament to refer it to England? Has he the same powers as the Governor-general of South Africa in respect of the approval of legislation or resolutions of Parliament? If not, I should like to know from the Prime Minister what the position is. I think this is of importance because this matter may have further repercussions. We have repeatedly been told that there is regular, mutual consultation between the Union Gov ernment and the Dominion Affairs Office in London. Was the British Government consulted by the Viceroy of India? Did the British King have to give his consent to this resolution? If so, was the Prime Minister of the Union consulted in that regard by the British Government, and, if so, what was his attitude in connection with this matter?

I want to reply to that at once. I am sorry I did not do so earlier. The position of India is not clear. The Government of India consists almost entirely of Indians. I believe there are only a few Britishers today in the Government of India. It consists of Indians and the position is not clear at all. The position is not the same as that of the Commonwealth which has an independent status. India is not in this position, but it is also far removed from the Crown Colony system under which the British Government is responsible for the territory. It is an intermediary system, the details of which I am not fully acquainted with, but I can tell the hon. member that I was never notified and I did not hear anything from the British Government in regard to England’s attitude as far as sanctions are concerned.

Is the Viceroy entitled to approve of anything of this kind, as in the case of our Governor-General, or is he obliged to refer it to England first?

I think he approves of it on his own.

But India is not a Dominion.

Nor is India a Crown Colony. India has its own High Commissioner here: it has its own Government; it has its Viceroy whose relationship to the British Government I am not fully acquainted with. I do not quite know what the constitutional position is.

But even in this country even after we obtained Dominion status, our legislation in certain cases still had to be approved of by the King.

I do not think there was ever anything of that kind even before Dominion status was granted. I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension.

Will you make enquiries?

Certainly not. The British Government has not approached me and I am satisfied with the position. The British Government is satisfied to keep out of the trouble and I am satisfied with the position as it is. If India wants to talk to us, it can do so through its High Commissioner in this country; and India can talk to us direct. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that the British Government has not interfered in this matter at all, it has regarded it as a matter between two separate States so to speak. There is no question of British interference. India is represented in UNO and is independent in that respect. It has its own Government; it has a Viceroy, but to a large extent it leaves matters in the hands of the Government, and the difficulty we have with India in regard to sanctions or otherwise, is a matter for the two Governments to decide and the British Government does not enter it at all. That is the position as it now stands.

I should like to raise a matter which was started by the Prime Minister, and I feel therefore that he is the responsible person. I refer to the “People of Britain” Fund. Certain circulars were sent to the police offices which placed upon them an obligation to collect money. As we know there were strong protests, and I am pleased that that instruction was later repealed. But I am now faced with this difficulty that since the Prime Minister started this fund, a certain measure of pressure is still being brought to bear on people and we cannot approve of that: I have letters here from certain people indicating that they are practically being forced to contribute to the fund. The cost of living is continually rising. We are faced with food shortages, and I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether he approves of a person who earns £5 or £6 per week and who has to support his family, being compelled to make a contribution to this fund. The Prime Minister will reply that this is a voluntary fund. He may regard it in that light, but the fact is that people who are employees are instructed to contribute, or the request is put to them by their employers in such a way that if they are not prepared to contribute they run the risk of being victimised. I have before me a stop order form and for the information of the Prime Minister, let me say that it was signed on 25th March, just a few days ago—

I know that this person cannot keep body and soul together. I am not going to mention his name here, but I am prepared to give his name to the Prime Minister. This fund is supposed to be a voluntary fund, but pressure is being brought to bear on people in this way. A person who is placed in this position knows that if he does not contribute he is hard pressed. He has a wife and children and they have to go short if he contributes. The circumstances in which we live, having regard to the food shortages and the rising cost of living, make it necessary for the Prime Minister to put a stop to this sort of thing. He started this fund and I think it is his responsibility to see to it that no pressure is brought to bear on people in this way to contribute to the fund. I shall be very glad if the Prime Minister will be prepared to issue instructions that people are not to be forced in this way to make contributions. I hope the Prime Minister will not tell me that this fund is a voluntary fund. It is no longer voluntary if he allows people to make an appeal in this way to workers, practically forcing them to contribute. Those people know that they will be victimised. I should like to hear what the Prime Minister thinks of the manner in which money is being collected for this fund.

I should like to mention just two points. The first was brought up by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in connection with broadcasting. It is a matter that I wish to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, although it actually does not fall under him. I wish to ask him whether he will now drop the war use of the wireless in South Africa. Either we are in a state of war or we have peace. We cannot have both at the same time. In connection with the broadcasting it is really remarkable that we are still in a state of war. It is not right that the United Party should continue to use the wireless for its own purposes.

Is that correct?

Let me put it to the Prime Minister this way. He should investigate the matter. But it is causing talk all round that the wireless is being abused by giving preference to the one party as against the other. The Government of the day is a party government. During the war one had to endure it, however much it stuck in your gullet, but the Government of the day used the wireless for propaganda purposes. Now that peace has returned we must come back to normal circumstances. If the Prime Minister is not aware of it let him institute an enquiry and he will find that preference is given to the Government for Government matters.

Public affairs.

Public affairs!

Matters such as the price of mealies.

No, that is not all; it is don in a very subtle way.

. But sometimes it is just crude.

If matters have to be presented for the Government, propaganda is always turned in that direction. One can listen to it practically every night.

Give an instance.

Do not let us go into details now. When we come to the vote of Interior we can go into it. The hon. member asks me for an instance, however, and I ask him just to listen to the reports on what is happening in this House.

It is a scandal.

This is news to me.

A summary is given of the proceedings here in Parliament of what hon. members on the other side say and of what members on this side say. I should like the Prime Minister to listen to what has been said about his side, how it is put over and then again how it is put over in regard to what members on this side say about matters. A high broadcasting official is overseas making enquiries as to how far the proceedings of Parliament can be broadcast. I am not one of those who is in favour of it, but I prefer that a hundred times to the way it is now done. If the proceedings are broadcast the public can hear everything that takes place. But to give a partial and a party impression to the public—rather stop it altogether instead of doing this.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 3rd April.

I move—

The hon. member was good enough to give me notice this morning of his intention to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing this matter, and I informed him that I did not consider that it was one contemplated by Standing Order No. 33.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. May I ask you whether it will be possible to raise this matter under the Prime Minister’s vote?

Yes, the hon. member will have full opportunity to discuss this matter at quite an early date.

May I discuss it under the Prime Minister’s vote?

That will depend on the Chairman of Committees, as the House is then under his discretion.

Well, if he does not allow me to discuss it, there will be a devil of a row.

I move—

The object is to make the first part of the Bill and the second part of the Bill separate Bills, so that each one of the two parts may be dealt with as a separate Bill and so that each part may be voted upon separately. These two parts of the Bill, which by this time are well known to all hon. members, have been linked together by the Prime Minister, and in introducing the Bill he indicated that as far as the Government was concerned thé two parts were inseparable. Let me say at once that it is altogether unusual to link together two parts of a Bill which differ so widely and which are of the particular character of these two parts. Because it is unusual we must look for a reason; we must look for a motive. I say that this linking together is unusual. Both parts of the Bill, it is true, deal with Indians, but having said that we have said everything that can be said in connection with the linking together of these parts. In all other respects the two parts of the Bill are totally different. Let me also say this: When we go into the political history of South Africa over the whole lengthy period in which legislation in connection with matters of this nature was before Parliament, both pre-Union Parliament and the present Union Parliament, we cannot find any example where there was a similar coupling together of differing legislation. It has happened more than once in the course of this debate that a comparison has been made with legislation that was passed in this House ten years ago, in 1936, in connection with the native problem. On that occasion legislation was passed in connection with both matters appearing in this Bill in regard to Indians. Legislation was passed in connection with the occupation of land by natives, where they may buy and occupy land and where they may not do so, and simultaneously legislation was passed in connection with the representation of the native population, but those two subjects were not coupled together in one and the same Bill. On that occasion two separate Bills were placed before the legislative body, and each one of those Bills could be discussed on its own merits. As the matter now stands in connection with the legislation which is before this House, it becomes impossible for the House, since these two matters are being coupled together, to discuss each one of the two parts on its own merits and to vote on the particular merits of each one of those parts. I say there is no precedent in our political history where a similar course was adopted in connection with a measure of this kind. It may be said, and it is said, that we are dealing here with a curtailment of the rights of the Indians. There is Indian penetration, particularly in Natal, into European areas, and because their rights are being curtailed, it is only right, on the other hand, that they be compensated by giving them representation in Parliament. But even if it were true that their rights are being curtailed, I say that even then there is no precedent in our history for the procedure of giving political compensation for the application of the segregation principle in one and the same Bill. Take the Transvaal, for example. In that Province the Act of 1885 did not remain unaltered throughout the years. There were openings under that Act to acquire land in the Transvaal. They were denied the right to acquire land individuaily, but there were openings for the Indians to form combinations, to form companies in which they had the greatest or the controlling share, so as to acquire land in that way. That may not have been the intention under the Act of 1885, but in any event they possessed that right. That right was taken away, but when it was taken away from the Indians in the Transvaal there was never any idea that the Indians should be given a quid pro quo politically. In the Cape Province, too, after the establishment of Union, the rights of Indians to buy land just where they pleased, as in the case of Europeans, were curtailed. That was amended by legislation of this Parliament as far back as 1913, and since that date natives have not been able to buy land in the Cape Province at all. A commission was appointed to delimitate areas where they were allowed to buy and which would be set aside as native territory where they would have the right to buy land, but when that right of the natives was curtailed there was no idea at all to give the natives in the Cape Province a quid pro quo by giving them political representation. In the days when the Natal Province was still a separate colony there was a curtailment of rights in that Province. There was a time when the Indians in Natal had the franchise, on an equal basis with the Europeans, in respect of the Natal Parliament. That right was taken away. They had a municipal franchise and that was also taken away, but although there was a curtailment of their rights, because the Government of the country deemed it necessary on the merits, it was not decided in this Parliament to give them a legislative quid pro quo by giving them political representation in this House in the same Act which took away those rights. I say, therefore, that what is happening here is quite unusual, namely, to couple these two parts together, to couple the second part, which is unacceptable to the people, to a large section on both sides of the House, to the first part which is more acceptable, with the object of getting the second part through the House. The question I want to put is this: What is the Government’s reason for combining these two separate matters in one Bill and saying in this House that the two parts are inseparably linked together? If the object was—and that may have been the Prime Minister’s original idea —to reconcile the Indian population to the establishment of the principle of separatism and segregation in Natal, he has failed in his object from the very commencement. In that case this Bill, from the point of view of coupling one part to the other, is a hopeless failure. If the object was to satisfy the Indians in that way, then we have the position that the Indians are so little satisfied with it that they have taken it upon themselves, knowing full well that it was the wrong step to take, to appeal to the Government of India, to appeal even to U.N.O. and to foreign countries like Russia and China. There is even some talk in their own ranks of adopting a course of passive resistance, and the three representatives they have in Parliament, the three native representatives who have taken it upon themselvts to act on behalf of the Indians in this House, have rejected this quid pro quo, if it was intended as a quid pro quo. Yesterday they voted against the Bill, and therefore against the offer of the quid pro quo, just as the Indian population in this country has rejected it. If, in coupling the second part to the first part, the object was to satisfy the Indians, then I say it has appeared to be a hopeless failure from the very commencement.

I want to know why this coupling together was resorted to. An opinion was expressed here—and I think it was also confirmed by the Prime Minister—that we must take into account overseas opinion in South Africa. Overseas opinion must be satisfied with what is taking place in South Africa. When I speak of overseas opinion, I refer in the first place to the views of India, and the Prime Minister himself replied to that when he introduced the Bill. He stated that he would not pay any attention to the dissatisfaction in India, to the threats which came from that quarter and, moreover, to the threat to breaking off trade relations with South Africa. This matter is a South African domestic affair. He regards it in that light and that is his reply in regard to the dissatisfaction and the threats of India. What overseas opinion must he take into account, in regard to which he is so sensitive? He tells us that he will be proceeding overseas in the near future and that he will be attending important conferences, inter alia, a meeting of U.N.O., and there he will have to take into account the opinion of U.N.O., because what we do in South Africa in connection with the Indian question is noted there, and what he is doing here he is doing in all probability to satisfy overseas opinion. He wants to arm himself by giving the Indians this quid pro quo, this compensation, for the application of the segregation principle to the Indians in Natal. There is yet another overseas opinion—I do not know whether we should regard it as an overseas opinion—but I refer to the opinion of England and the British Empire. England is being confronted today with a movement of independence in India. India wants to secede from the British Empire, and it is a very useful weapon for the Indians in India who are in favour of secession from the British Empire to be able to tell the Indians that in some parts of the Empire British subjects cannot obtain equality; that it serves no purpose to be British subjects because when they come to South Africa they are treated on the basis of separatism, and they want nothing less than a basis of equality. This is a weapon, and a strong weapon, in the hands of the Indians in their movement for independence, and I can well understand that the Imperialists in this country, the Prime Minister included, are just as concerned and more concerned about England’s interests in India than they are about the interests of South Africa in connection with the solution of the Indian question and the difficult and urgent colour problem. One can understand the Imperialists taking into account overseas opinion, but I cannot understand it on the part of U.N.O. or on the part of any other country.

It is dangerous, Mr. Speaker, for us to adopt this attitude in South Africa. It is a dangerous attitude to adopt to say that we should solve the colour problem in this or that way because we must take into account opinion overseas or the opinion of U.N.O. It means, in the first place, an admission on our part that the solution of the colour problem, including the Indian question, is not purely a domestic question to be decided by ourselves. It is an admission that it is not our own domestic affair with which countries overseas must not interfere. Moreover, if he yields to foreign opinion in connection with the solution of this problem, then I say it is not only an admission that they can interfere with our domestic affairs, but it is an invitation to them to intervene in the domestic affairs of this country, and that will be the result. If we cannot solve the coloured problem in South Africa other than by taking into account overseas opinion, we have the right to ask: Where are we going to stop eventually? Today they may interfere or bring direct pressure to bear on us in connection with the Indian question, and tomorrow it will be the broad colour problem—the question of the 8,000,000 natives of South Africa who for the greater part are not represented in this House. No, I think it is a dangerous attitude to adopt that we have to study overseas opinion and that we have to act accordingly. The solution of the colour problem in South Africa is our affair and our affair only. South Africa has almost 300 years of experience of the colour problem in South Africa and the best way of solving it, and South Africa need not be ashamed of what it has done in connection with the colour problem during these 300 years, either in its own circle or before the world.

May I remind the hon. member of Rule 79 which lays down that the debate in regard to an instruction must be strictly limited to the contents of such an instruction. It seems to me the hon. member is going somewhat beyond the scope of his motion.

I shall bear your ruling in mind, Mr. Speaker. I was only dealing with a reason advanced by some members on the other side as to why these two things should be coupled together, and I am trying to refute it. I shall deal later with the actual reason why these two parts of the Bill are being coupled together by the Prime Minister. But, first of all, I want to advance reasons why these two parts should not be linked together. My first reason is this. It is a wrong principle to force through the House a measure which the people do not want by coupling it to a measure which the people do want. This Bill consists of two separate parts. As far as the first part of the Bill is concerned, we have an entrenched right today to apply segregation. It is an accepted principle in this country, and it is only a question of the consequential application of it to a lesser or greater degree. The first part was an accepted principle in the Transvaal as long ago as 1885, and a new application has been applied to that segregation principle from time to time. We also have the principle of separatism in Natal where it is an accepted principle, and we therefore have the right to apply it in a new way. It is a principle which was accepted not only by the old Republican Governments which called it into being, but thereafter it was also accepted by the Imperial Milner Government. The principle has already been accepted in Natal as far as the Indians are concerned. What else does the Pegging Act mean? It was passed as a basis for action in order to curtail the penetration of Indians as far as the acquisition of land is concerned. It was necessary to establish more effective separatism and this House accepted that principle as far back as 1943, and placed it on the Statute Book. The temporary character of that Act was only intended to give this House an opportunity to apply that principle in the best possible way. It is an accepted principle and the further and more effective application of it is a matter within our rights because it is a matter in regard to which this House has already decided. But the second part of the Bill contains ‘a brand-new principle, and because it contains a brand-new principle, it should not be coupled to something that has already been accepted in principle, and in respect of which we are merely seeking a more effective application. In those circumstances, we dare not deal with the first part which we are entitled to expand and to apply in conjunction with the second part or make it dependent upon the acceptance of the second part. One does not buy one’s own property. I apply that remark to the first part. One does not barter one’s own horse in exchange for one’s own cow. We cannot buy the application of the first part of the bill with something else,-namely, the domination of the Europeans; we cannot buy the first part at the price of relinquishing the domination of the Europeans. A new principle is contained in the second part, a principle which we cannot couple with the first part. We must consider it upon its own merits and come to a decision. The second part contains the new principle that it is now proposed for the first time to give a section, at any rate, of the non-European population in the northern provinces representation in Parliament. With the establishment of Union a compromise was affected. The North regarded and still regards the system of the Cape Province as a dangerous principle which should not be extended to the north. The South Africa Act did not give the non-Europeans in the northern provinces the franchise. It was regarded as their protection. Now it is proposed to give the non-Europeans in the northern provinces the franchise, and, moreover, this section of the non-Europeans who were the last arrivals in South Africa and who had the least right to it, less right than the natives or the coloured people. It is the thin end of the wedge. This is the first of a series of steps which the Prime Minister visualised yesterday. Since that is the case I say it must be dealt with on its merits and it must not be coupled to something else which the greatest portion of this House and the country desire. There is another new principle which should also be dealt with on its own merits and which should not be coupled to something else, and that is that now for the first time non-European members will sit in the Provincial Council of Natal together with Europeans. This is a matter on which the northern provinces have laid great emphasis in the past. They held the view that as soon as this principle is abandoned and Europeans and nonEuropeans sit together in the legislative body of this country, the whole cause of the European race will be sacrificed. This is nothing but the thin end of the wedge; but here we have this new principle which is laid down for the European population, and it is a dangerous principle. The third new principle with which I dealt during the course of the second reading debate on the Bill is that by means of this Bill our entire parliamentary institutions as bodies representative of the people are being undermined.

I am sorry, but the hon. member is now quite of order. He must confine himself to the motion.

I shall not enlarge on that, but I just want to point Out how far-reaching and new one of these two parts is. We cannot limit the House by saying: “If you reject the second part you will not get the first part which you want.” My second reason for saying that the second part should not be coupled to the first is because, as I have said by implication, it smothers the true convictions of this House and the voice of the people as far as this matter is concerned. We have had the second reading debate and it must have struck everyone that even members who voted for this Bill in its entirety at the second reading, declared themselves in favour of the first part, but they did not have anything to say in favour of the second part, and some members on the other side went even further and declared themselves solidly opposed to it. By linking the one part to the other it simply means that the true convictions of members are being smothered, and the voice of the people whom they are called upon to represent in this House is being smothered.

You did not even vote for the first part.

There are numbers of members in this House who are prepared to swallow the second part of the Bill, and they said that quite frankly, for the sake of the first part. In other words, the second part is a bitter pill to them; it is diametrically opposed to their convictions, but the first part is coupled with it in the form of a sugar-coated pill to make it possible for them to swallow the bitter pill. Since that is the case I say it is tantamount to the exertion of pressure, improper pressure, on members to sacrifice their true convictions of what they regard as being in the interests of the country. It is an act of political sabotage; it is nothing but political gangsterdom—I can describe it in no other language. It says in other words: You will have no segregation in Natal unless you are prepared to swallow this bitter pill, and give the Indians a seat on your Provincial Council and give them political representation in this House. It is a case of “your money or your life”. That is the method followed by the Government. In my opinion the true reason why the Prime Minister is taking this extraordinary step of coupling the two together is that if we strip it of the decorations and trimmings with which he covered the real reason, if we see it in its nakedness, we find that the true reason is nothing but political expediency. To gain that end, the true national interests must be sacrificed. Let us look at the historical position for a moment. This danger developed in Natal. There was penetration on the part of Indians into European areas. Natal urged the Prime Minister at all times to protect them against this danger. The Prime Minister dawdled. As far as this matter is concerned, Natal almost revolted against the Government. They even made the following appeal to the Free State: “Please, throw in your weight with us, you who have no Indians, and give us your assistance.” For a long time the Prime Minister would not take any action. Why not? Because in the ranks of his own party there is a liberal group led by the Minister of Finance and he could not spare this group; in the face of their opposition he could not put through legislation, and he was in a difficult position, particularly because he had already nominated the Minister of Finance as his successor. Natal was in revolt. He had to keep Natal and at the same time he had to keep this liberal group within the ranks of his own party. It is party political considerations which counted and nothing else. What did he then do? The Pegging Act was passed. The liberal group was opposed to it. They almost left the party, but he stated that it was a temporary measure. In that way he satisfied them. By implication he sought to get away from the Pegging Act, and the Pretoria Agreement was then entered into with the Indians. That satisfied the Indians and it satisfied the liberal group in his party, but unfortunately for him it did not satisfy Natal, and then he again fell back on the Pegging Act, on the delimitation of areas as far as the acquisition of land and occupation were concerned. But again he had to satisfy his liberal group as well, and in order to do that he sweetened the bitter pill for the Minister of Finance to enable him to swallow it. And the Minister of Finance did swallow it. The sugar with which he coated the pill was representation for the Indians and the coupling together of the two parts of this Bill. For that reason—we understand it very well now—the Prime Minister could not accept any proposal to keep this matter above and outside party politics. That is why he could not act in this matter as we had acted in connection with the native problem. This was a matter which he had to rectify within his own party and he lost sight of the national interests. I just want to say this; this attempt on my part to rid hon. members, who feel that the second part is against the interests of South Africa, of the tyranny under which they have been placed and to enable them to act in the national interests and not in the interests of the party, represents the last opportunity they will have to free themselves and to study the national interests. If they allow this opportunity to pass they will be responsible for placing South Africa’s future at stake.

As I am seconding the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to say at the outset that in the whole of our Parliamentary history in South Africa there is no precedent for what is being done here by the Prime Minister. There is no precedent for subjects of such a divergent character being coupled with each other. There is no precedent for subjects so different in nature, in essence and in character being piloted through the House in this way. Precedent, indeed, is all the other way. There was the example of similar Bills, legislation that was comprised of two distinct parts, and those parts differed in respect of their nature, their essence and their character in the same way as the measures which are contained in the Bill now before us. On that occasion after due consideration and after the subject had been before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament for a considerable time, and after it had been presented to a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament, the opposite precedent was laid down in this instance, namely, that this class of legislation must be laid before the House in separate parts. I refer here to the Native Bills that were brought before the House. There was the Native Trust and Land Bill, then there was the Natives (Urban Areas) Bill, and thirdly, entirely apart, there was the Representation of Natives Bill.

The Leader of the Opposition has said that already.

I understand that the Minister of Native Affairs is nettled. He cannot look after the interests of his own Department, and now he wants to meddle with this. The Minister will get the opportunity, should he risk doing so, of controverting these arguments. I predict that he will not do so. He only dares to make interjections, and in that way to use a foolish argument. My argument is that there is no precedent. In British Parliamentary history you have a whole series of examples which are recorded in May’s Parliamentary Practice. There you find examples of Bills which, on account of their radical differences, were separated beforehand, and you have examples of a Bill which was later split into two because it appeared that these parts of the Bill concerned subjects which differed entirely from each other. I maintain an injustice has been done to members of this House in linking together such completely divergent measures. Not only is it bad for any Parliament and for the democratic system, but it is urgently necessary to separate the two measures. I challenge hon. members on the other side to mention any precedent in our Parliamentary history where anything of this sort has been done. But, what is more, there is no substantial argument to join the measures together. The Prime Minister, in his explanation, gave no well-founded argument why the two measures should be tacked together. He presented a pistol at the head of the House and his own members, and said that he demanded that the one part should not be adopted without the other. He employed no arguments. Neither the Minister of Native Affairs, nor the whole Cabinet sitting there, nor any of the members on the other side, not one of them has adduced any argument to indicate the necessity for this coupling. The only arguments though you cannot really call it an argument, the only ostensible argument that the Prime Minister employed is that he said that he was going on the same lines as in the past in the case of the native laws: “Just as it was necessary at that time to give the natives a political status in the form of a franchise, so is it necessary now in the case of the Indians in Natal”—that is what he said. This is no argument. It is a phantom argument because it rests on a false foundation. What is this false foundation? It is that at that time land tenure rights were given to the natives in exchange for something that was taken away from them. That also rests on a false foundation: that the natives at that time, as is now the case with the Asiatics, got the franchise for the first time. There is absolutely no resemblance between the two cases. The natives had the ordinary franchise in the Cape, and it was not all the natives who then ’got the franchise, but those who had it in the Cape got the communal franchise. There is absolutely no analogy with the instance we are now dealing with. If you wish to carry this argument of the Prime Minister’s further, that because certain rights were taken from the Indians in Natal we must give them the franchise, then you will land South Africa in a very dangerous position. Then you will have to apply the doctrine in connection with coloureds and Indians and natives to give them the franchise in exchange for something else.

I wish to remind the hon. member of Rule 79; the hon. member is now making a second reading speech.

I am advancing the reasons why I maintain the Prime Minister is not entitled to lump these measures together.

The hon. member is going further than that.

I just wish to explain that the Prime Minister in coupling these two subjects is making the one a means of exchange for the other part. Thus he has no right to couple the two and then to make an article of barter of the franchise. We in South Africa hold a very high opinion of our franchise. We wish to fulfil our civic rights with our franchise. There is a very nice way in which we put that in Afrikaans. We say that the voice of the people is the voice of the King. This is the foundation of democracy. As the voice of the people is the voice of the King you may not couple the franchise to anything else which directly or indirectly or by implication makes that franchise a medium of exchange for something else. You may not do so. The Prime Minister makes this threat: If you will not accept the second part you cannot get the first part. Thereby he is violating a fundamental principle of our electoral law and he is entering on dangerous ground. What must be the inevitable consequences of such a step? If we accept this false argument of the Prime Minister then in no time it is going to have serious results. Tomorrow or the day after when legislation is again brought up affecting any rights of the Indians or the coloured or the natives in any part of the country they will hold up today’s precedent to us and say that in exchange for the taking away of vested rights they want the franchise. And how will we be able to refuse that? The Prime Minister is engaged on a highly dangerous precedent, it is dangerous for European civilisation. The Prime Minister has a long life behind him, he may still live ten or twenty years, but today he is writing his political testament. This thing that he is doing today and this coupling of these two subjects will yet be used in the future as a precedent for other things, developments that endanger the survival of European civilisation. This is the corollary. I would ask the Prime Minister why he should at this period of his life lay down this dangerous precedent for posterity. The procedure of the Prime Minister is not in keeping with the spirit of the National Convention and of the Constitution. I do not believe any hon. member will deny that it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and of the National Convention. What was the position at the commencement of Union? The Cape Province said: At present we have the non-European vote and we will not surrender it. The North stated that they would not have the non-European franchise;

The hon. member is again going too far. He must confine his arguments to the motion.

I do not wish to transgress your ruling, but I would merely ask whether I may refer to the dangers of this coupling.

The hon. member is now engaged in discussing the whole franchise question, including the natives.

I merely wish to allude to the dangers in the future in regard to this coupling. It is a violation of the agreement at Union, because the North did not want any non-European franchise, and the South wished to retain it, and the agreement was that the Cape Province should just carry on but that under no circumstances would there be any extension to the North. This was the spirit of the National Convention and the Constitution. In this measure violence is done to the spirit of the Constitution. I wish to bring forward another argument. At the outset I stated there was no precedent in our parliamentary history for anything of this sort, and I wish to assert that right through our history from 1910 to 1946 there is no precedent. The question of the franchise, which has come up for discussion repeatedly in Parliament, has always been dealt with on a separate basis, and not in a single instance has any legislation in reference to franchise been tacked on to anything else, not once. I am speaking now of the principle contained in the second part of the Bill which deals with the electoral law, and I maintain you have not a single example in the whole of our history of the question of the franchise having been linked up with something different, and if this has been the case right through our history it was because it is with the highest respect that we deal with anything affecting the franchise of the people as a democratic State. And why now should this be done? Why should this be done without any solid argument being adduced in favour of it? I do not wish to repeat what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, but I wish to put this proposition very strongly. The Prime Minister is sitting over there. It was not before he introduced this measure into the House that he advised the country of it and also about this combination. No, the public did not know a single thing about it, nor did this side of the House. He acted in consul tation with his own people, and now sitting on the other side of the House are members such as the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp)—and I must be careful now how I classify them—you have members sitting there like the hon. member for Vryheid and other hon. members who feel very sore at heart over this extension of the franchise to the Indians in the northern provinces. You can waken up the hon. member for Vryheid at midnight, slap him on the shoulder and ask: Do you want the Indians to get the franchise? And I think he will say “No”.

In the northern provinces?

I say in the northern provinces, in Natal and the Transvaal. I will give him every chance. I ask the hon. member for Vryheid whether he is at all in favour of the grant of the franchise to the Indians in Natal.

Order, order. The hon. member is out of order.

I only want to give the hon. member an opportunity. I do not wish to infringe your ruling but yet I hope that he will give a reply to that question. He has a chance to speak, but what is more I want to give the hon. member for Vryheid a chance to vote.

There is no need for you to give me a chance.

I want to stir him if I can, and if I cannot it does not matter. I want now to shake him up. Either he must vote for the procedure the Prime Minister is now following—an incorrect procedure —and either he must vote for it and swallow that Indian franchise as a bitter pill with its sugar coating represented by the other part, or he must refrain from voting. There are some members missing from the other side of the House today because they cannot see their way to swallow this thing. There is a motion on the Order Paper. I refer to the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). He is not here because he has a motion on the Order Paper.

He is in hospital.

He is not present and if he was here with a motion on the Order Paper such as he has he would have to say that he would not allow the second part of the Bill to go through. There you have the one type, and the other type is those members who agree with us. You are here dealing with two vital subjects affecting land tenure in the first place, and in the second place you are dealing with a matter affecting the franchise of the people, and when you are dealing with these two important subjects there is no justification for combining them. You must divide them. But the procedure being followed here by the Prime Minister is a contribution of the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance’s object with this Bill—and that is why he is following this procedure—is the mobilisation of all liberal sections in South Africa inside Parliament and outside for the fulfilment of the ideals which he keeps before him as a liberal. We have heard that the Hon. Minister of Finance is a practical man.

Please keep to the motion.

We have heard the Prime Minister state that the Minister of Finance is a practical man, and this is just my argument. Because he is a practical man he is now accepting this method, and he accepts this method of coupling because it serves the object he has before him, and with that object before him we are not in agreement. The object is to mobilise the liberal elements in South Africa and not only to guide his first step, as he calls it, but incidentally also to pilot through the resultant “steps” to destroy white civilisation in South Africa and to replace it by his ideal.

Do you believe all that?

I maintain that the Minister of Finance, and with him the Prime Minister, see no prospect of ruling South Africa any longer unless they design methods by which they can extend the franchise to non-Europeans in the north.

Order, order. The hon. member is now out of order.

I submit to your ruling. I maintain that right throughout this debate no argument has been employed why it should be necessary to link these questions together, and here was the standpoint that we lay down; when a member is elected to this House he comes here to function as the mouthpiece of his constituents, and that enfranchised section of the public who send us here have never yet mixed up these two things. They have always regarded them as two separate things, and what right have we then to combine them in such a way as this? And what right has the Prime Minister to present hon. members on his side of the House and members on all sides of the House with such an alternative while he holds a pistol at their heads: You must accept all of it or none.

No pistol is held at our heads.

As far as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is concerned, I am not surprised at the interjections that he makes and no one is surprised at them, but what does surprise every one is how anyone like him got into Parliament. I shall round off the proposition that I have submitted here, and I say that the procedure the Prime Minister has followed was to issue an order to members of his side of the House. It was an S.O.S. It was a distress signal to his side of the House to reconcile the divergent elements who held conflicting opinions. I say that this measure is a distress signal. It is an act of despair on the part of the Prime Minister to reconcile the divergent groups on his side and to keep them together. It is an S.O.S., and it is a case, to put it quite clearly, of “It is your soul or your seat.”

And now my last argument, and I am prepared to defend my contentions. Members are sitting on the other side of the House whose convictions are in favour of this —and I give them a good deal of credit— that they should be able to vote for this thing separately; but if they dared to vote separately, they could never again stand as members for that side of the House, and they would lose their seats. This is so, and they cannot deny it. I would only say that the way in which the Prime Minister has proceeded with this measure reduces a measure of this sort to the level of a rubbishbin. It is a very important measure, a measure that affects two important aspects of our national life, namely, land tenure and the franchise, and I say the manner in which the Prime Minister has presented it to the House and is forcing it through lowers it to the level of a rubbish-bin.

It is just as well that I should also speak at this stage, so that the Rt. Hon. gentleman may reply to me, too. I propose to support this motion on an instruction of the Commitee to divide the two portions of the Bill each from the other, and in voicing my support for that I hope to avoid, and I shall certainly endeavour to avoid, breaking any rules or transgressing your ruling. I propose, as far as I possibly can, to devote my remarks to enunciating the reasons why we should divide the two. May I at the outset appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister? I ask him to give this House the opportunity of discussing the two portions of the Bill, which are by no means related, separately. I ask him to give us an opportunity of discussing, considering and voting upon the two separate portions of the Bill, each without relation to the other, and I want also to let every member of the House, in view of the importance of the measure on the future of the country, have an opportunity of calmly considering it without whip cracking.

Hear, hear.

Now, Sir, my first reason for dividing them is this, that in the rules of the House the two portions of the Bill being counted each separately as a principle of the Bill, you ruled—and I presume quite correctly, Sir, and I bow to your ruling— that in Committee we cannot throw out any one portion of the Bill. We can amend the language; we can improve or disimprove, as the case may be, the various portions of the Bill or certain portions of the Bill, but we are precluded from rejecting one or the other in the Committee stage. Therefore, what is hurled at us is the obligation to accept the whole or nothing. Now, Sir, that is an embargo that is placed upon us that should not be placed upon us. Every member should have the right to consider each on its merits without each being complicated by the effect of the other. I urge that, Sir, on the Prime Minister most anxiously, and I do it for several reasons. First of all, I have the right to suspect, and I agree that I am suspecting correctly, that this is a question of party expedience, and the domestic affairs of the Government party, just as indeed the domestic affairs of the official Opposition and the domestic affairs of my own party, are matters for our own internal discussion; but no one party has the right to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to compose any party’s domestic differences, and that is what is happening.

Hear, hear.

We are asked to accept the franchise side of this as a sort of “makeway” for an obligation in order that we might get the other, or vice versa. I ask the Prime Minister to abandon that attitude. I ask the Prime Minister to allow this House free rein. Why do I do it? Because. Sir, never has there been a piece of legislation put before this House so fraught with consequences in the future. The economic, the social and the political life of the country are all three involved. Our social life, our economic life and our political life; and whatever way any individual or any group of individuals or any large group of individuals may view either the one or the other, this must be conceded, that it is fraught with great consequences upon the future life of South Africa. That being so, I enter a caveat first against the way in which this measure is being rushed through. I enter that most emphatically. Then I do appeal to all hon. members to try to realise that upon each and every one’s shoulders devolves the responsibility of the future of South Africa in relation to this. This is a matter of serious moment and is deserving of the gravest consideration in all details. That being so, what right has anybody to impose upon the House the condition that unless you take this you cannot have that. That is wrong, Sir. That is wrong in its very inception and it is very painful in its carrying out.

It is immoral too.

Yes, it may be immoral too, and I will say this that we are before the bar of public opinion, however much that public opinion may be educated or not, however it may or may not give meticulous consideration to this question, the fact remains that we are in the public eye today and it behoves us to remember that fact. It behoves us to remember that. We all have our opinions. We hold them more or less strongly. I am satisfied, Sir—and I can be contradicted perhaps if it is not true—but I am satisfied in my own mind that a very large number of members in this House who support the Bill in toto are very anxious to see one portion or the other thrown out. I am satisfied of it and I am equally satisfied that it is only the crack of the Whip that is getting all these members to support the whole of the Bill. That is one reason why I want to divide the two portions. I want to be able to ask this House, and I do ask this House, to focus its careful attention upon both important details, both important matters of principle, because on our vote depends either the progression or the retrogression of South Africa. I want to give an opportunity to every member of this House, according to his or her conception of the position, to give expression to that, both by voice and by vote. And, Sir, surely one should not have to make such an appeal as that upon a matter of such vast importance as this? Surely it should go without saying and I am prepared to be consistent in my observation in action. Now, Sir, if the two sections of the Bill are separated, each from the other, and each not dependent upon the other, then all those members who want any one particular portion by itself can vote for it. Those who want the other by itself can vote for it, and those who want both can vote for them. They are free and untrammelled in their choice of their own decision, and that is what I am appealing for. That is what I am begging of the Prime Minister to do, not to go away from this country, as he proposes doing in a very short time—on 12th April, I understand the Rt. Hon. gentleman wishes to go away—I do not want him to go away leaving this country in the throes of what must inevitably be a public outcry from one side or the other as the case may be. It should not be done, and I know this; I have sufficient knowledge extending through all these years of the Rt. Hon. gentleman’s character to believe that he does not want to do that. He would rather stay here and face the music. What is of importance in his consideration of this matter? Surely that of remaining here, giving us time to discuss this Bill, masticate it, as it were, and coming to conclusions based upon a calm application of our judgment or the implications thereof.

There is another big potent reason, very potent indeed, for separating these two, the consideration of which I wish to put before hon. members of this House. I think it has not been referred to before, but it is a positive fact that at the moment there is a British Mission in India. That British Mission is there with the object of endeavouring to bring about agreement in India, first of all as to the terms of its independence, its self-government, and secondly its relation to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Now, Sir, the indications are— and those who run may read, and I am one of them—that India having got its independence, for one reason or another, not only has it no desire to remain in the British Commonwealth of Nations, but it is determined to go out of it.

Order, order. I am afraid the hon. member is going right beyond the ruling which says that the hon. member must strictly confine himself in the matter to such instruction.

I submit to you most respectfully that I am bringing in an international reason why we should not be in a hurry to decide on this question of the franchise particularly.

The principle has already been accepted at the second reading and the hon. member must now confine himself purely to the motion.

Yes, but Mr. Speaker, in my judgment I am confining myself to the motion, but you have ruled otherwise, unfortunately for the case that I want to make and you are precluding me from doing that. But understand this, that the fundamental objection to having the two parts together is this, that in Committee we cannot throw out the one or the other, and in considering the question of franchise—I am not going into the merits or details of it—we have to consider this, that if as a result of the lumping of these parts together, the whole House wanting the zoning system and the majority not wanting the franchise system, the nett result is that you may have India outside the Commonwealth of Nations and you will have given some members of their race the vote in this country, people who by association and tradition are associated particularly with the country outside the Commonwealth of Nations. That is the point I want to make. [Interjections.] The very fact that hon. members are in that unthinking way interrupting me in the point that I am trying to make demonstrates most conclusively the necessity for us to be able to consider these things separately, one from the other. They are consoling their consciences and salving their souls by sneering at the point I am making, but that is one of the most important reasons why we should separate those two.

Where do the Irishmen come in?

Where does the Port Elizabeth Idiot come in? Is it not time that these foolish interjections were stopped when we are dealing with such a serious subject? I contend that that transcends all other reasons — the one that I have just indicated to the House. It transcends all other reasons why we should separate these two and why we should be very careful in examining meticulously every aspect of the Bill that is before the House.

Do you want the Union nationals to be all of one race?

Mr. MADELEY In order to meet the hon. member’s objection I will say that in the British race there are English, Scotch, Irish, Welsh and a few others.

And the member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean).

I doubt very much whether the hon. member can prove that he is Scotch, but that is by the way.

That is very much by the way.

I said at the outset I will endeavour to confine myself to the reasons why we should divide these two. Why the Committee should be permitted to throw out any one section and keep the other. The hon. gentleman by his motion is giving the way and I am showing the way under which every member of this House can devote his single-minded attention to the problems that confront us as envisaged in this Bill, and quite calmly and carefully decide what shall be his or her attitude, as the case may be, upon each and every section of the Bill.

It is a consolidating Bill.

It is not a consolidating measure; it is a dividing measure. There is no consolidation about this. This is a separatist measure, and that is the inevitable consequence of the passage of this Bill, whatever my friend, the political contortionist says about it. It is a fact; the very fact, that on all sides — and I challenge contradiction — on all sides there are differences of opinion upon this question, notably upon the franchise question, shows that this is a dangerous procedure; and the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance himself pointed out one of the consequences of this, that it should not be confined in its franchise proposals to lump representation in this House similar to the representation of the natives, but ultimately having a common roll in the election of any member to this House. I say that is a dangerous procedure. Hon. members may argue as much as they like but I have the right to express my opinion here and I am expressing it as forcefully as I possibly can, and I am not expressing my opinion only, but Sir, I am representing the opinion of the vast majority of the people of this country. I am satisfied of that, and that applies to the British, including the Scotch, and the Afrikaners, of South Afrika.

Hear, hear.

After all, we are the two sections of the population which are mostly to be considered and the effect of this legislation upon those two sections is one which should count in the minds and the vote of every member of this House.

I wish strongly to support the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to express the hope that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and his side of the House will take the seriousness of the subject into consideration, and that they will comply with this reasonable request. I shall be brief. The Prime Minister has already intimated why he is introducing this legislation and why he is tackling these two subjects, the franchise and the land tenure aspect of the matter simultaneously, why they have been combined, and I should like now to go into those reasons. The first reason that the Prime Minister advanced is this, or rather let me commence with this, what gave rise to the introduction of this Bill? Was it an agitation of the Indians to get the franchise? Is this the reason why the Prime Minister introduced this Bill? Was it because he was driven to it by an agitation amongst the Indians to get the franchise in South Africa or in the northern provinces? Of course not. The Prime Minister will not stand up, and no one on his side of the House will stand up here or anywhere and dare to maintain that the Prime Minister has introduced this Bill just because he wished to comply with the demands of the Indians in respect of granting the franchise to them. No, he has been obliged to bring in this Bill as the result of that powerful agitation amongst the Europeans of Natal to stop the further penetration of Indians in their residential areas. This is the reason why this Bill is before the House today, because he must knuckle under to that demand of the Europeans in Natal that the Indians may not buy more land amongst them or live amongst them. I say that is the reason why the Prime Minister has been forced to introduce this Bill, and what is he doing now? The Europeans in the northern provinces, in the Transvaal and Natal are in a state of distress. The Indians have penetrated everywhere amongst them and bought land amongst them and are living amongst them, and they have created a state of affairs that cannot be endured by any decent white man. I am not referring to people who do not mind living mixed up with non-Europeans, who do not mind driving with them, and there are such people, too, in this House. They cannot understand why we are raising these objections to living with non-Europeans and travelling with them. They are sitting on the other side of the House.

Do not be personal.

If I wanted to be personal I would have mentioned the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). I wish to refrain from mentioning names, but it is clear that the hon. member for Paarl took it to heart.

I live in a better neighbourhood than you.

That is possible, but he does not mind living with nonEuropeans and travelling with them.

Will the hon. member return to the motion before the House?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to leave the hon. member for Paarl. Things were indeed black for the Europeans in Natal, and the Prime Minister is capitalising that emergency that has overtaken the European to push his policy of equal rights further. In the course of his speech in introducing the second reading of the Bill he indicated his position as being that we must advance step by step in these matters. Here is one of the forward steps that the Prime Minister has taken with that Rhodes policy of his to give equal rights to all civilised people, no matter what their colour may be.

I think I must remind the hon. member of Rule 79 that he should not now make another second reading speech.

I should like the House to realise why the Prime Minister has combined these two parts of the Bill.

So long as the hon. member does not make a second reading speech.

One of the reasons is that it gives him the opportunity to advance that policy of his a further step forward. In order to obtain clarity in regard to his policy I would again recall how the Prime Minister himself set out his policy in public. He put it this way—

It was another Bill—

This is the Prime Minister’s standpoint, and he has never deviated from that standpoint, and it is that standpoint that he wishes to advance step by step, and this legislation in connection with the Indians represents a further step forward. He is making use of the distress of the European, he is abusing the distress of the European to give effect to that policy in this Bill, and that is why he is linking the two things together. I wish to turn to another reason the Prime Minister mentioned why these two things are amalgamated. He says it is the white man in Natal who brought the Indians there, and now the white man must give certain rights to the Indians. If the white man brought the Indians to Natal and if that is a reason why the first part of the Bill in connection with land tenure must be united with the franchise for Indians then I would ask the Prime Minister: What about the Transvaal? This Bill does not deal with Natal alone; it does not deal with Natal where the supar planters brought in Indians, but it deals also with the Transvaal and in the Transvaal it also gives the franchise to the Indians. Now I shall be glad if I can gain the attention of the Transvaal members in this connection. Is it the white man who brought the Indians in there? Will the Prime Minister dare to say that?

Why do you not keep to the motion?.

For that reason the Prime Minister cannot give the Indians of the Transvaal the franchise. He cannot give them the franchise to compensate them for things which he is supposed to have taken away from them in Natal. The Prime Minister says that we in Natal took away certain things from the Indians, and consequently these two things must be rolled into one. That is his attitude. I maintain that this can have no reference to the Transvaal because the white man did not bring the Indians into the Transvaal. On the contrary the white people in the Transvaal wished to check the Indians, but the Prime Minister’s spiritual affinities in politics, the British imperialists, prevented that.

You dare not say that. He has fought for the Transvaal, and what have you done?

There you have the “hanskakie” speaking again.

Say that outside.

I have done so, and I shall do so again.

The Prime Minister himself, of course, does not regard it as an insult when I say he is a British imperialist. He has the name of being the greatest imperialist of the century. He has accepted the title of the handyman of the Empire and he is proud of it.

The hon. member must return to the motion.

Because the white man did not bring the Indians into the Transvaal, the Prime Minister cannot say that the Indians in the Transvaal must be compensated with the franchise for something that is supposed to have been taken away from them. What are these rights that are alleged to have been taken from the Indians and in return for which they must now receive the franchise? It may possibly be said that in Natal they were deprived of certain rights. The Indians had the right to purchase land anywhere. But can that be said in the case of the Transvaal? No, and therefore I say that in the, Transvaal there is not the slightest justification for this step of the Prime Minister’s of giving the Indians the franchise, because in the Transvaal they were not deprived of anything. Even as long ago as 1885 legislation was adopted in the Transvaal to prevent Indian penetration, and despite all the efforts of the white man the Indian managed to penetrate by his crafty methods. If he did penetrate in that way it cannot now be said that he was deprived of rights, and that he cannot now be compensated for that. He did not have the right to buy land there or to possess land there. I again ask the Prime Minister: What rights were taken from the Indians in the Transvaal that they should now receive the franchise in order to send representatives to this House. The Prime Minister has no leg to stand on when he makes that assertion. Accordingly, I wish again to make an earnest appeal to him to meet our request to divide these two parts of the Bill and to convert them into separate Bills. Just this, in conclusion. The Prime Minister knows very well that if he divides these two parts of the Bill there are precious few people in the northern provinces who will vote for the granting of the franchise to the Indians. He can perhaps try out his own members on that, as to which of them are in favour of the Indians acquiring the franchise, if he does not hold a pistol at their heads in the shape of the part of the Bill referring to land tenure. Therefore I repeat that it is a reprehensible method the Prime Minister has resorted to in holding a pistol not only at the heads of his own party but at the heads of the Europeans in Natal by telling them that unless they accept the second part of the Bill they will not get the first part. This is a discreditable weapon, and it is doubly discreditable as far as the Transvaal is concerned. I would just say this to the Prime Minister, that in the north he will be held to account for this action and every member opposite who votes for the uniting of these two things will be held to account; they will be held to account for this action for giving the franchise to the Indians.

I shall do so.

And that will be the last thing you will ever do in the political world.

I wish in a few words to support the motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I would make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister that if he still has the smallest grain of love for South Africa and if he has the slightest concern over the continuance of our European civilisation, he should accept this motion for splitting the present Bill into two parts. The combining of the two parts, as has been done in the Bill before us, represents one of the most important measures that has ever been introduced into this House since 1910. When we look at the implications of the measure not only for South Africa and not only to Southern Africa but to the whole of Africa, then I say I am not going too far when I maintain it is one of the most dangerous as it is one of the most important Bills that has been introduced into this House since 1910. It is not fair of the Prime Minister to exploit in this way the distress of the people and to push through the second part of the Bill. One cannot help observing that the story of Esau and Jacob is being repeated here. The Prime Minister is playing the role of Jacob in turning to account the distress of the people in order to achieve his purpose. He is bartering away the birthright of the nation. With the first part he can serve the interests of South Africa. With the second part he does not serve the interests of South Africa but the interests of the imperialists. What is more, in this way he will not serve the ideal of racial peace in South Africa. I challenge any person on the other side of the House to give me the slightest proof that if the second part of the Bill is adopted there will be any chance at all to realise the ideal of racial peace in South Africa.

The hon. member must come back to the motion and not discuss the principle of the Bill.

I would only point out the reason why the second part of the Bill must be detached from the first part. I maintain that the distress of the people is being exploited by pushing through the second part as well. When we recall Jacob’s action then it stands out in history as an unethical deed and for more than 4,000 years it has been regarded as unethical. This action of the Prime Minister is just as unsavoury and will ever grow more unsavoury with the public. That second part of the Bill has as little to do with the first part as day with night. It is necessary to make a division between the two. The first part of the Bill relates to a problem which goes back to the history of South Africa because Indians were imported. It has to do with a real problem. The whole history of the problem is bound up in that, namely, that of ownership and occupation of land. The second part bears no relation to that problem. The first problem goes back over a period of 80 years, and we know how the problem of the penetration of the Indian became greater and greater. On the other hand we get practically no instance of where Indians have demonstrated for the franchise. It is an entirely different problem. There has been no large-scale action on the part of the Indians, and not the slightest on the part of the Europeans for the adoption of the second part of the Bill.

The hon. member must not now debate the merits of the Bill.

The amalgamating of the two parts of the Bill is a big thing to us. I do not think I am using too strong language when I say it is an immoral act. If this Bill goes through in this way we are going to affirm a false policy which will be nothing else than a charter for Indian interests in South Africa. I say again that viewed from every angle if the Prime Minister wishes to do service to his people, if he wishes to interpret the feeling of the people he must divide these two sections of the Bill. That is the feeling of the public. It is the feeling of the great majority, even of the nonEuropean population, that the Indians should not get the franchise. If the Prime Minister wishes to do a good deed to South Africa and to interpret the feeling of the nation he must give effect to the motion that has been proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I do not think it is necessary to make a long speech on this matter, but I wish very strongly and emphatically to associate myself with the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter of first-class importance that the first part, Chapter I, of this Bill, amended suitably as I think, should be passed into law as soon as possible; but I know of no such reason for haste for dealing with Chapter II, and, indeed, there are very strong reasons why the subject-matter of Chapter II should not be coupled with the subject-matter of No. I. They are radically different. They are in no wise associated together in the political propaganda which has been put forward by any responsible party I am acquainted with, and, indeed, the subject-matter of No. II has never been submitted to the electorate of this country. May I remind the Prime Minister of the time when his party was in coalition with the party to which I belong and the Labour Party? We appealed to the electorate on war issues, and it was never suggested at all at that time that legislation of this character should be thrust on the country without due consideration. But now the Prime Minister, by tacking the subjectmatter of Chapter II on to the subject-matter of Chapter I, is following a very bad constitutional precedent. I know it has been followed in the English Parliament when there was trouble between the two Houses of Parliament, and the principle of tacking a money Bill on to a difficult measure was adopted in times of stress. Is the Prime Minister thinking of precedents of that character when he is introducing a measure of this kind and resisting the division of these two subjects into two different Bills where they might be considered upon their merits quite’ dispassionately? Deep constitutional issues are at stake in this matter, and I firmly believe if this question was left to the open vote of this House there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of the motion which is now before the House. And I believe, if it was submitted to the country by a referendum, or any other means whatsoever, the same result would be achieved. This is a constitutional method of trying to get round that issue. The Prime Minister has put some of us into a very difficult position indeed. We have either to reject the subject-matter of Chapter I, if we vote against it, or we have to accept the subjectmatter of Chapter II. To me it seems right and proper that those who hold the views I hold, who supported the second reading, should vote for this Instruction to the Committee in order to divide the Bill.

I think that the caucus system has gone too deep and is threatening Parliamentary government. Parliamentary government does not work in most countries, it is only in countries of the British Empire that it has been successfully worked at all, and that has been because there has been great knowledge of the working of the constitution and there has been great restraint in Ministers and restraint in members of the Chambers of all our different Parliaments. Now the precedent which is being set by the Prime Minister in this Bill in coupling up these subjects is a very grave blow to that very happy system which has hitherto prevailed. I press very strongly indeed for the division of this measure into these two parts which will enable the Committee to bring up a report upon these subjects entirely separately, and legislation will follow accordingly. If that is not done, I shall probably on the third reading take some other steps to record our protest.

Is it too late to ask the Prime Minister again to reconsider the very critical step he is taking by tacking Chapter II to Chapter I? He is imposing upon the people of South Africa a piece of third-rate legislation which will be very difficult indeed to reverse without the verdict of the people being taken, and only by what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has called the crack of the whip, and that is by exercising that very strong personal influence he has with members of his own party. It is a grave responsibility. I speak with deep regret in saying the words I have used, but if I refrained from saying them I would be neglecting my duty, and therefore I protest most strongly against the action of the Prime Minister.

The speaker who has just resumed his seat (Col. Stallard) forgets that the second reading of the Bill has been passed and that the principle has already been adopted. The attempt that is now being made to split the Bill to let one part go through and to let the other part come to grief, is in itself in conflict with the second reading that has already been adopted. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has accused me of having expediency as a motive; I have to placate public opinion and I have difficulty in my own party, and this is my solution. I absolutely deny that. The charge of expediency does not apply to me but to the Leader of the Opposittion. I am presenting a comprehensive solution of one of the most difficult questions in the country. We are tackling it and we want to see it through. It is a burning question of an urgent nature that exists in our country. That does not look like expediency on my part. On the other hand the hon. member wishes to postpone it indefinitely.

But that is not what I proposed.

The charge of expediency does not apply to us then but to the hon. member who moved this motion. In introducing the Bill I made it clear that we viewed this solution that we were proposing as a whole. It is a comprehensive solution of a question that has more than one side. The question of land tenure has been taken up in it. The European public in Natal are pressing for a solution of the question of land tenure in that province. In the Transvaal you have the same difficulty. The Indians for their part are equally insistent that the franchise should be granted to them and for it to be placed on an equal basis by a general combined roll both for the Europeans and for the Indian population. The dissension and difficulties were not all on one side. They were on both sides. The one side was concerned over the land question and the other side was equally strongly concerned on the question of franchise on an equal basis. It is not the case, as some members have asserted, that it is only the land question which occasioned difficulty. On the part of the Europeans it was the land question, but on the part of the Indian population it was the question of the franchise. We have two sides and must be satisfied if we wish to have a comprehensive solution of the question. The Government then presented a comprehensive solution. We are dealing not only with the land question but with the franchise question. It is a comprehensive solution of the whole question.

May I just ask …

Let the hon. member give me a chance. I did not interrupt him. The Government proposes a comprehensive solution embracing both parts of the question. That motion was adopted in principle by the House in the second reading, and now the other side comes up and in a cunning and indirect manner an attempt is being made to let one part of the Bill go through and to wreck the other part. I cannot agree to that. The position of the Government has been made clear. The Bill must be dealt with as a whole. We cannot divide it now so that one part may be adopted and the other part rejected. It is clear from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and also from his motion, that he wishes to deal with the second part, so that the one part can go through and the other can come to nought. We want to solve the matter, and you can only get that by proposing a solution as a whole. The object of the Government is not based on expediency but on considerations of tackling this question root and branch in an honest manner and solving it from all angles. I believe also it is a solution that in the course of years will work well and stand on its own legs. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that my object has already miscarried; our purpose in the Second Chapter on the franchise has been repudiated by the Indian population. He states that the Government thought, or I thought, to appease foreign sentiment and to appease Indian opinion and in order to do so I took this step while an internal question on the basis of internal sentiment ought to have been dealt with. I will accept that test. Does the hon. member not believe that the Government desires to do justice towards a great internal problem viewed from an internal standpoint. I am not dealing here only with the pacification of Indians or with the pacification of overseas opinion, but because we have to deal with an internal question which is eating like a cancer into our lives and which we in South Africa must tackle and solve. The Leader of the Opposition goes further and says that it is a wrong principle to couple one subject which is acceptable with another which is unacceptable, and he says it will not be right towards the public and that public opinion is thereby being violated. The Leader of the Labour Party employed the same argument and stated that you cannot accept one part of the Bill and reject the other party by your vote. The hon. member has a misconception of the matter. This House can deal with the Bill, it can adopt Chapter I, and when it comes to Chapter II it can vote on it clause by clause. This Bill is not comprised of two Bills, it is one, and the leader of the Labour Party is entirely wrong when he says that if the one part is adopted the second part must also be adopted.

Can we throw out the second part?

In Committee one clause after the other can be rejected.

What happens then to the title?

The designation of the Bill can then be altered in accordance with the results of its handling in Committee. If necessary the title can be altered in conformity with that. To me the matter is clear. We have adopted the principle of the Bill in regard to both branches, both parts. Now we are going to discuss the Bill in detail, and if hon. members on any side of the House do not agree with the clauses in Chapter II they can vote against those clauses. No one is preventing them. But the standpoint of the Government is that it is a whole and is the solution of a great subject that is important to both sections. It must be adopted altogether in order to obtain a solution and the Government is desirous of both parts being adopted as an indivisible whole.

The Native Bills were dealt with in three parts in three different Bills.

Let it stand at that. The Leader of the Opposition says that there is no precedent for this procedure. If that is so it does not break my heart. We did not go into the matter of precedents, we are continually making new precedents, the world is advancing. We are not dealing here with precedents but with a big subject which must be dealt with and solved on its merits. Do not let us be worried about precedents but let us do what is right and honest and remove this subject from the sphere of difficulties in South Africa. Let us eliminate one of our greatest and most burning and most dangerous problems.

But this does not eliminate it.

On a point of order, in view of what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has said, that when we discuss the Bill in Committee members are free to reject all the clauses in the second part, I think it is necessary that the Speaker should give a ruling in connection with that, because otherwise there will be confusion. What I have in mind I have committed to paper, and I should like to have Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Possibly it may be given later in the debate, but I think it is a matter of importance—

1. (1) Does the adoption of the second reading of the Bill imply that the principle contained in Chapter II has been adopted in the same way as that contained in Chapter I?
2. (2) If so, can the Committee of the Whole House reject the principle contained in the first chapter or the second chapter bearing in mind the provision in the second paragraph of the preamble, which reads—

That is to say that the matters contained in the first and second chapters should be dealt with together—

Indians in the provinces of Natal and Transvaal may be represented—

1. (a) in the Senate, by two senators;
2. (b) in the House of Assembly, by three members; and
3. (c) in the Provincial Council of Natal, by two members.

Clause 40 covers the whole ground and after the principles have been adopted in the second reading in respect of the second part of the Bill as well, may we then reject it as a whole?

The Committee of the Whole House can reject any clause in the Bill, but an instruction is necessary to divide the Bill into two parts.

May I know what has happened so far?

The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) has raised a point of order as to how far the committee of the whole House on this Bill may go in view of the fact that it embraces two distinct matters, referred to in the preamble, both of which have been accepted in principle on the Second Reading. My answer was that it is competent for the committee of the Whole House to reject any or every clause in a Bill referred to it, but that if a committee desires to divide a Bill into two parts, it can only do so by means of an instruction from the House.

Thank you, Sir. As a point of further explanation, does that mean that we can reject all the clauses of a particular Bill dealing with principle, and leave an emasculated Bill?

Yes. [Interjections.]

We have only one Mr. Speaker. May I ask that I be not interrupted while I address the Chair? May we reject every clause and leave no principle at all?

Yes, it is competent for the committee to reject any clause in a Bill, but if the committee wishes to divide a Bill an instruction is necessary.

The first argument of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is that the second reading of the Bill has already been adopted, and this attempt to split the Bill into its natural parts has actually come too late. I think there is no more damning admission of the political immorality of the Government’s action than this admission. Because we see now what happened. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) is 100 per cent. in favour of separating the two. In the second reading, debate he spoke against the franchise part of the Bill, but he was compelled by the action of the Prime Minister to vote for the second reading. If the Prime Minister wishes to advance that as an argument that the second reading has been disposed of, that we have adopted the principles, then I say it is an admission of the political immorality of his action in combining the two parts and in placing the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in that position. Now the Prime Minister comes and says: You have been caught; there is no way of escape open to you now. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a cunning trick of the Leader of the Opposition, but I think if ever there was a cunning trick it was the action of the Prime Minister in joining these two things together. It amounts to nothing less than political extortion. We know what happened in the case of Natal. The great majority in Natal were not and are not in favour of the franchise provisions, but they were told, and if it is not so the Prime Minister can deny it: If you wish to have these provisions in connection with land tenure in Natal you will have to swallow the provisions in connection with the franchise. The pistol was held at their heads, It was nothing else than political extortion. The second reason which the Prime Minister advanced as to why the two should be joined is that we are here dealing with an all embracing solution of the problem. But is that so? Will the Prime Minister seriously assert that this Bill is a comprehensive solution or measure in connection with the matter. Is it in any sense true in respect of the Asiatic problem that is today a burning problem in our country? Are there not other things in connection with the Indians, in respect of which they have been agitating now for twenty or thirty years?

I must again draw the hon. member’s attention to the rules. The hon. member is again going into the merits of the whole matter.

With submission, I am dealing with what the Prime Minister stated. He said that it is a comprehensive solution and I am testing whether the reasons the Prime Minister advanced are good reasons. My contention is that the reasons have no substance because this is not a comprehensive solution. The Prime Minister stated that he refused to accept the instruction because this is a comprehensive measure, and consequently the two parts belong to each other. I wish to show that this is not a comprehensive solution of the matter. It is not only on the problem of the occupation and possession of land and not only on the problem of the franchise that the Indians are concerned. If it has to be a comprehensive measure it should also deal with the question of licences, with trading rights and immigration. Consequently this is not a comprehensive measure, and this can be no reason for arbitrarily throwing the two parts together. There is no logical ground for that. This is the first reason I advance, that it is repugnant to one’s logical sense to join these two things while this is not a comprehensive solution. This one relates to ownership and occupation of land and there is no logical connection between that and the question of franchise to persons. The two things are removed from each other and have nothing in common. This is the logical ground I mentioned, but there is also a psychological reason why I think it is undesirable to link the two, and the first point in this connection is, and I will not dwell long on it because it has already been mentioned, that by this line of conduct the Prime Minister is imposing a restriction on the free and unfettered consideration of these two measures. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has already indicated how it curtails the rights of every member of this House in regard to free consideration and discussion and the right to give free expression to your own opinion. The striking example of that is the position in which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) finds himself. Although he is opposed to the second part and in favour of the separation of the two parts he is obliged to vote for the whole thing because he wants the first part. This is an invasion of the rights of every individual member of the House. This resort to methods of compulsion is a bad phenomenon in this House and consequently we cannot adopt it on psychological grounds, and hon. members on the other side ought, if they are serious and wish to be honest with themselves, also not approve of it for this reason. If they were in opposition and anything of this sort happened they would be the first to raise objections. But I appeal to them as parliamentarians and not as members of the Government party to let their protests be heard against this infringement of their rights. But there is a second reason why I take exception to this on psychological grounds. I do not know if the Prime Minister realises that by joining these two together he to all intents and purposes brakes the silent admission that all our legislation in the past in connection with the ownership and occupation of land was not morally defensible. By saying here, “If you want the one you must add the other”, he makes a tacit admission to the outside world that all our legislation of the past is morally indefensible on this point. It can only be defended if a quid pro quo is given. I do not know whether the Prime Minister realises the ethical implications of his conduct in this connection.

As a third reason I wish to advince the psychological reason why this ought not to happen. The action of the Prime Minister will be regarded outside as far as the community is concerned as nothing less than a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. The Prime Minister spöke about moral courage. The fact that they will not allow the first and second parts of the Bill to stand on their merits reveals moral cowardice. They have not the moral courage to regard the matter on its merits, and I ask the Prime Minister when he says that he has moral courage to let these matters be* brought to a decision singly. If he wishes to demonstrate that he has moral courage he will have to say: Good, I am prepared to have this matter decided on its merits and in the deciding I shall not make use of the assistance of my Whips, and I shall leave it open for hon. members to decide. Then I am certain that the overwhelming majority of the members of this House will wish that the two parts were separated so that they could give an unfettered expression of their opinion to the merits of each of these matters and are not bound and do not conditionally sell themselves. In the third place I object on constitutional grounds. I think that the combining of the two is nothing else than constitutional chicanery, a sort of trick that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has already condemned, a sort of trick which the British Parliament resorted to under exceptional circumstances. If there was difficulty between the two Houses of Parliament then because the Upper House had lesser powers in connection with Supply Bills an important principle having nothing to do with Supply was taken up in a Supply Bill, and in this way an effort was made to eliminate the power of the Upper House. But this is not a sound principle, and I think it is everywhere admitted that from the constitutional angle it cannot be proper. But I say further that we are here dealing with constitutional chicanery. The Prime Minister wishes to impose on the House the decision of his own caucus, and the caucus is again subordinated to the political despotism of the Prime Minister himself. There has been much talk here, especially on the other side, about the despotism of people who want to be Fuhrers, but in the last resort I wonder how often the other side have sinned against the principle that is here condemned, and I wonder how often they have done the same thing. But it brings the whole Parliamentary system into discredit. We are doing no service to the Parliamentary system when we make decisions on such important matters subject to the supreme will of one or two persons in the Government. We stand for the preservation of the Parliamentary system, for popular government, but the people who today utilise Parliamentary procedure in this manner are driving a nail into the coffin of the Parliamentary system, and the tragedy is that the nail has been driven in by people who insist that they are champions of the Parliamentary system in South Africa.

But there are also practical reasons that I should like to mention why there should not be a combining of the two parts. The first part that deals with ownership and occupation of land is a link in the long chain of laws in the various provinces and also of the Union Government. It is the result of costly experience in the past as far as this matter is concerned. There was a series of Commissions that investigated the matter and issued reports. I would only mention the Lange Commission, the Feetham Commission, the Murray Commission and the Broome Commission. They thrashed out the matter thoroughly. That is the one side of the case. The first part of the Bill is a solution, or a measure, that is the fruit of all the legislation of the past and of the results of the enquiry that was instituted by these various Commissions. One thing that transpires from all these enquiries by Commissions is that in a great measure our legislation in the past has been in vain, because evasions have always occurred, and time and again condoning legislation had to be adopted to validate ilegal ownership that had occurred in the past, especially in the Transvaal.

But now I come to the second part that deals with the franchise, and it is not a part of the fruit of a series of legislative measures in the past, it is not the fruit of enquiry by a long series of Commissions, but it is new ground that is broken here in regard to legislation in South Africa during the past 50 years. The last occasion on which any Parliamentary franchise was granted to Indians in the northern provinces was in 1896, 50 years ago. Here now we have to deal with quite a different part. The first part of the Bill is based on experience and reports of Commissions, but the second part is something that has been thrown amongst us for the first time in all possible haste. The Prime Minister did not give us any chance. The old Pegging Act expired on 31st March, and it was only on 20th March that he first placed this measure before us, and it must be completely disposed of before 12th or 17th April. There was no opportunity to consider the second part properly, or to give the general public an opportunity to digest it as they should, or to understand it properly. When the Prime Minister says that the principle of the communal franchise has already been investigated in connection with native legislation. I would point out that this is not the case. The committee that investigated that matter did not recommend the communal franchise in that case. It was first taken up in Bill No. 2, it was not in Bill No. 1, but in any case even if it should be regarded as a precedent, what was our experience in this House and in the country in connection with the principle of a communal franchise? If we are to judge by what happened in connection with the communal franchise of the natives, is this something to imitate? But on another practical ground I wish to condemn the action of the Prime Minister. The first part of the Bill became urgent as a result of the lapsing of the Pegging Act, and the argument of the Prime Minister that there is now a time factor in this connection applies in regard to the first part. The question of whether the Pegging Act should be extended both in regard to its duration and in regard to the nature of its provisions is a matter for haste. But what urgency is there for the second part? The Prime Minister himself admits that there is no urgency for the second part. Curiously enough, although the Prime Minister wants the two parts to be viewed as one, the two parts cannot be brought into effect on the same date. The Prime Minister himself lays down in his own Bill that the first part will be brought into effect on a different date to the second part. According to Clause 56, the second part, the part dealing with the franchise, will not come into operation if the Bill is adopted, as is the case with the first part, but on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by proclamation in the “Government Gazette”. In other words, they bear so little relationship to each other, that the two parts cannot even be brought into effect on the same date. It is an admission in the first place that there is no urgency for the franchise part, and, further, that the first part and the second part have so little bearing on each other that it is not, necessary to bring them both into operation on the same date. For this reason I feel that the answer the Prime Minister gave, the reasons he gave why the two màtters should be separated, are reasons that have no basis and reasons which reflect no credit on him. I do not think that the case that he has put up here is a case that can be viewed on any grounds as a strong case. Although the Prime Minister has already given his decision, I wish to ask him for the sake of the principle I have mentioned here, and the honour of our Parliamentary system, not to persist in his attitude, an attitude that one cannot regard as otherwise than political peddling.

Parliament can naturally do almost anything, and it also does some very strange things. Nevertheless, it seems strange that after being in existence for so many years, the Union Parliament should eventually create a precedent by doing something which it has never done before. The Prime Minister has combined two separate Bills in one Bill. He is able to do so with his majority behind him. But there are certain things which he cannot do and which he dare not do. He could not have put it through his own caucus if he had separated the two sections, and the Bill appears before us in this form as a result of the open discord among the Unit Party. They make no secret of it. The Prime Minister could only get this Bill through his caucus by giving them the choice that if they rejected the first portion, they would not get the second. In order to retain unity within his party, the Prime Minister had to take this atrocious step. The other thing he could not do was that he could not dare to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, or to a Joint Select Committee. This he dared not do, because no Select Committee of this House, or no Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, would, in my opinion, create a precedent of this nature. He knew that; he knew what previous Select Committees had done in connection with matters of this nature. For that reason he dared not accept the proposal to refer this Bill to a Select Committee or to a Joint Select Committee. A Select Committee of this House has never been prepared to create a precedent of this nature for the purposes of expediency. A Select Committee deals with questions from a more objective point of view, and for that reason Select Committees have in the past always adopted the policy that separate questions should be dealt with in separate Bills. There was a striking example of this in 1944 when a question was referred to a Select Committee, namely the Irrigation Adjustment Bill. The Select Committee returned the Bill to this House after they had separated it into two parts. They said that the one part dealt with Riet River and the other with the Breede River, and that the two questions could not be dealt with in the same Bill. Both were similar; both dealt with irrigation, but they were of a separate nature and that is why the Select Committee separated them. I say therefore that the Prime Minister could not dare to send this Bill to a Select Committee, for the Select Committee would not create such a precedent. The Native Bills have already been discussed here. The Prime Minister said in his reply that we should not discuss them. But nevertheless I wish to do so. In that instance we were also dealing with the solution of the whole problem—it is called a solution—but did one member ón any side of the House stand up in 1936 and say that because the three Bills dealt with the solution of the native problem they should all be dealt with in one Bill? No one in this House, neither in the Nationalist Party nor on the other side, adopted that viewpoint. On the contrary, everyone was pleased that they were dealt with in separate Bills. I would like to have heard the Prime Minister in 1936 in this House if a proposal had been made that all three Native Bills should be dealt with in one and the same Bill. He would have called the country as his witness that this would have created a new precedent in the Union Parliament. But now, to save his skin as far as his party is concerned, he has tackled the question in this way and created a precedent of this nature. I may not criticise how this Bill has been dealt with up till now in order to place it before the House. I simply want to point out that everything points to the fact that Bills which deal with separate questions should be split. There is one exception, namely the rule which is followed in the British Parliament, and it is a rule which we also follow here, and there is only one exception to that rule. The rule that separate questions should be dealt with in separate Bills is set out by May in his “Parliamentary Practice” on page 482. There he deals with the principle of separateness in Bills which are introduced in the British Parliament, and then he says that in 1874 an exception was made, namely that in financial Bills which deal with financial matters and taxation, various matters can be dealt with in one and the same Bill. That is the exception which is quoted by May. It seems, therefore, as though the Prime Minister is not only creating a precedent for the Union Parliament, but that it would also be a precedent in the British Parliament. The Canadian Parliament makes the matter perfectly clear. In 1942 it appointed a commission to compile rules for it as to how Bills should be dealt with, and what was adopted by the Canadian Parliament as a result of that commission? It was the Commission on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, 1942. As a result of the report of this commission, certain rules were adopted by the Canadian Parliament in connection with Bills of that nature. I will quote two of those rules—

1. 3 (1) A complex Act should be divided into parts, each part being treated as a simple Act and containing the principle in concise form.
2. 3 (2) An Act should not be divided into parts, unless they are so different that they might be appropriately embodied in separate Acts.

That is the case in this instance. If a Bill like this was introduced in Canada, according to the rules of Parliament the Speaker would be compelled to rule it out of order in its present form Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and although there is no definite rule of this nature in our Parliamentary procedure, it is generally accepted that it is the rule which is followed and that there can only be one single exception, as I have indicated.

Since the white man came to this country he has shown a tendency to protect himself by decreasing the political rights of the nonEuropeans instead of increasing them. This process went on for a long time, until the white man slowly tried to protect himself by curtailing still more the political rights of the non-European. This has been the case during the course of the last few years, and I do not think that one example can be quoted during the last 25 years where a measure has been piloted through Parliament to extend the political powers of the non-Europeans. What was the cause of the European striving so much to protect himself by curtailing the political powers of the coloured races?

I am sorry, but the hon. member is out of order. The hon. member is now discussing a principle which has already been accepted.

I just want to say in passing that my argument is that the Prime Minister could not get the one portion of the Bill passed if it were separated from the other part, and that is the reason why he has introduced the two jointly, and I want him to divide them. He could not have put the one portion through in any other way, and my own feeling is that if he were to divide them he would not get them through. I want to say in passing that this deed of the Prime Minister is something which has not been done for many years in this country. If this attempt of his succeeds, the political rights of the nonEuropeans will be extended, instead of their being curtailed in the interests of the Europeans. I will leave it there. This is the first time since Queen Victoria gave the coloureds in the Cape Province the franchise in 1852 that anyone has introduced a measure —and at that the Prime Minister—to give the non-European race political rights.

The hon. member must not further that argument.

Let me conclude by saying to the Hon. the Prime Minister that this may be a precedent he is creating which he is very fond of, but a precedent which one creates can easily become a boomerang which will ultimately rebound on oneself.

I think it is a matter very germane to the discussion of this subject to remind hon. members that when this House was legislating upon the very important subject of the representation of the natives and upon additional security for their land holdings in the Union, we realised that we were dealing with the interests of the aboriginal inhabitants of this land; and I think we were careful on that occasion to deal with the two subjects in separate divisions. We first of all in this House passed an Act providing for the representation of the natives; that was Act 12 of 1936 which was assented to on 16th April, 1936. The question of their land, Sir, was dealt with at a subsequent stage and a subsequent period of the year. That Act, No. 18 of 1936, was not assented to until 13th June, 1936, and it provided—

It seems to me that that example provides a very good parallel for the proposal to deal with the present subjects in two separate Acts, that in any case it is an example of the care that was observed in this matter to see that the representation of the natives would not in any way be tied up or involved with the question of their land. I will not say that the Representation of Natives Act is in any way perfect — to my mind it is a very imperfect Act which we may in our own good time remedy by a more ample measure—but I am quoting this parallel to show that there is nothing sinister about this proposal at least as far as I am concerned. I cannot think of anything that could be sinister about the proposal. It is to my mind a sensible way of dealing with two separate subjects, and there is no doubt that in the province I come from the separation of these two subjects will be regarded as most essential; and therë will be great disappointment if the proposals that have been debated this afternoon should be rejected by this House. There is to my mind a great need for dealing less hurriedly than we seem to be doing with these important subjects. I should deplore very much if we gave the impression to other countries and those ready to seize on any particular phase of our transactions in this House as an indication of hasty legislation, I should be very sorry if we were to do anything that would minister to that wrong idea abroad. When a number of us visited India as a parliamentary delegation we could see the proneness of the people there responsible for their Press propaganda to make tremendous capital out of whatever small incidents might happen in relation to the Indians in this country.

I am afraid the hon. member is not observing the rule. The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the actual motion before the House.

I shall endeavour to abstain from that line of the debate for the rest of my remarks. I am merely concerned that we should endeavour to deal with this matter with fairness to the people concerned, and I hope that even now at this stage it may be found possible for the proposal that has been made for the separation of these two subjects by the committee to be agreed to.

If there is one person in this House who gave us a crystal-clear reason as to why these two portions of the Bill should not be combined in one Bill, then it is the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister advanced the argument that this Bill need not be referred to a Select Committee because the whole House is in agreement with the first portion of the Bill. In addition he said that as regards the second portion there is such a far-reaching difference of opinion as far as the principle is concerned that he does not think there is a chance of the various sections in the House reaching agreement there anent. The Prime Minister knows that this principle he mentioned is not only a principle on which there is a divergence of opinion between one person and another, but on which there is a large amount of divergence among his own party ranks, and now the Prime Minister wants to link these two sections of the Bill together in order in that way to get the second portion through as well. There cannot be a shadow of doubt as far as that is concerned. We had the case of the leader of the Dominion Party. Yesterday he voted on the other side on the second reading, but he stated clearly that he was not in favour of the second portion. The Prime Minister has pegged his members down on the other side. The leader of the Dominion Party is naturally not in that position, but he also says that he had to vote for the second portion in order to get the first.

That argument has already been advanced by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges).

Then I just want to say that where a difference of principle exists, no person, not the Prime Minister or any other person, has the right to bind his party in this way and then to salve their consciences by telling them that if they vote against the one portion, the other portion will also fall away. As the Prime Minister said, we can reach agreement over the first portion of the Bill, but we must realise that it is now being used to obtain the support of members on the other side for the second portion. The second portion can decide the future of the nation, and it has nothing to do with the first portion. For that reason I want to say that members who sit on the other side must realise what the position is, and that they must see what this Bill can mean for the future of the nation. It is not right for the Prime Minister to bind a group of members on his side to such an extent that they must of necessity vote for the Bill. The Prime Minister advanced various reasons as to why these questions cannot be separated from one another. He said that the difficulty originated in Natal, and that the difficulty was of a twofold nature. I want to ask the Prime Minister, if that is the reason, can he tell us which section of the nation appealed to him to give the franchise to the Indians? We know that there was much agitation afoot for the first section of the Bill. That we all know. In principle we agree on that point, but what the Prime Minister is doing here is that he is misusing the difficulty in Natal by forcing people in Natal to give in to that group of whom the Minister of Finance is the ringleader. They are using the difficulties of property ownership in order to reach their goal of giving the franchise to the Indians. That is no reason why these two pieces of legislation should be linked together. The second reading is through, but I want to say this to the Prime Minister, and he is aware of it, that when his people discuss this matter among themselves, and when they discuss it with us, they express their disappointment that these two portions should be linked together. Everybody says that they are prepared to vote for the first portion, but that they are voting against their own convictions for the second portion. I want to put this challenge to the Prime Minister. If there is no question of fear, then split the two sections, and I guarantee that the Prime Minister will not get the second portion through the House. For that reason I say that this linking together of the two portions of the Bill can have far-reaching consequences, consequences of such a drastic nature for the future of the nation that we cannot allow this to happen. That is why I feel that the Prime Minister must allow his own people to vote in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences and according to what they think is best for the future of the nation, and then we can see the result. The second portion of the Bill is of such a far-reaching nature that personally I am of opinion that the Prime Minister needs a referendum from the nation before he can put the Bill through in its present form. We in Parliament are responsible, and we have no right to vote for a measure which the nation does not want. No, I say that the question is so serious that a far-reaching measure such as this, before it is placed on the Statute Book, needs a referendum from the nation.

The hon. member is completely out of order. He must confine himself to the motion.

I shall do so. I just want to point out that the two portions of the Bill differ so widely from one another that whereas the one portion can easily be put through, the other portion, in my opinion needs a referendum. For that reason I want to express the hope that apart from what the Prime Minister has already said, he will still consider splitting the two sections. His own supporters cannot go to the nation with a clear conscience. They cannot justify their viewpoint if the Prime Minister does not do it. The Prime Minister must be big, and that is why I appeal to him to accept the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. Then we can separate the two portions from each other, and then we will be able to set to work in a way which will enable us to give the general public what they want, and we will be able to congratulate the Prime Minister on this measure; if not, the Bill will only have fatal consequences for cur own future. But there is another reason and the Prime Minister said so here. He said that one of these days he is going overseas and there he will have to give an account when Union affairs come up for discussion at the U.N.O. That is no justification for the Prime Minister’s viewpoint in linking together these two divergent Bills. The Prime Minister says that as far as this matter is concerned, he is paying no heed to influences from abroad. Then there is all the more reason—if this is not the motive of the Prime Minister in putting the Bill through quickly by linking the two sections together, because he cannot get the one through on its own— then I say if this is his real intention, let him accept the amendment of my hon. Leader and split the Bills. I want to make an earnest appeal to each of my English and Afrikaans-speaking friends. We must decide the destiny of the nation. If you know that the two questions must be separated, then we ask you to act in accordance with the dictates of your own conscience, and then you will be able to appear before the tribunal of the nation with a clear conscience. Help us to have the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) accepted, which is the only practical solution.

I suppose that my attitude of mind yesterday was common with that of many members of the House, and would be a very cogent reason for supporting the request which is now being made to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to split this Bill into two sections. My attitude of mind, after hearing arguments and digesting the Bill, was that although I could accept Chapter I with certain amendments, I find myself entirely opposed to Chapter II, and I am backed up in that opinion not only by a representative delegate meeting from all parts of my constituency, which I met last Thursday, but by various letters and telegrams which I have received, which lead me to the conclusion that the people of my constituency, and I believe the people of Natal generally, are opposed to Chapter II of the Bill, the ’ franchise chapter. That being so, and I being a representative of Natal, which is very closely affected by the provisions of this Bill, I have an idea that the Prime Minister should give closer attention now to what I have to say and to what other people of Natal have to say. After all, whose fate is being decided here in this House at the present time? It is not the fate of the Cape; it is not the fate of the Free State; it is not even the fate of the Transvaal, but it is the fate of Natal. What are our boys going to say when they find that the whole of Natal is going to be represented in local authorities….

Order, order. The hon. member is quite out of’ order. He must confine himself to the motion before the House.

That is what I hope to do.

The hon. member ought to know what the motion before the House is.

The motion is that it be an instruction to this Committee to split this Bill into two. Am I correct in that? I am asking the Prime Minister to give close attention to the fact that the majority, I believe, of Natal people are opposed to the second part of the Bill, and that while they are prepared to accept the’ first part of the Bill with certain amendments which will close up certain cracks, the second part of the Bill is rejected in toto by every section of the community. That I believe to be a fact; I believe it to be true, and I do ask the Prime Minister to give the closest consideration to the proposal before the House and to decide that he will allow this instruction to be passed by the Committee.

I would just say to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that if we had to deal here in this Bill with two similar and equivalent principles, we should have no objection to approaching these two principles as a whole in this Bill. But here we have to deal with two principles which are dissimilar and distinctive, and now my question to the Prime Minister is this: If these two principles are dissimilar and divergent, what reason has he to demand of us that we should take the one principle as the standard to judge the second principle? I am certain that the Prime Minister will agree that he is embarrassing us considerably in our choice, but I cannot see how it can be expected of me to approve or disapprove of the two principles in one Bill. I do not disapprove of a principle on the grounds that I approve or disapprove of another principle. I approve of a principle because either I approve or disapprove of a principle as such. Consequently, it is to me an entirely unethical approach to this Bill. The way in which we have to set to work to come to a conclusion and to make a proper and impartial choice, I say that our task is embarrassed thereby, because here we are asked to act in an illogical and unethical manner. The Bill reminds one of arithmetic. Involuntarily one thinks of a numerator and a denominator. The latter part of the Bill must outbalance the earlier part, or rather the latter part must cancel out the first part, and I say that this is where we cannot agree, and that is the reason why we ask the Prime Minister to split the Bill into two so that we may make a reasonable choice and draw an honest conclusion.

When one looks at the proposals which are being coupled together in this Bill it is, in my opinion, more or less a coupling together of South Africa and England. The people of South Africa are anxious to restrict or totally to eliminate the acquisition of land by Asiatics. England, on the other hand, or the British Commonwealth together with India, are anxious to give the franchise to the Indians. I have a good reason for saying that. I have before me the official year book of 1939, No. 20, and I just want to quote from it briefly. It is stated here—

I just want to point out that this Bill is a Bill which affects Imperial interests, and the coupling together of these two parts of the Bill practically represents a coupling together of two parts of the British Empire. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) stated that commission after commission had sat in England and that there the question of the acquisition of land was dealt with but never the question of the franchise; and now these two matters are being coupled together. If you look at the official year book you will see that conference after conference sat in England in connection with this matter. Conferences were held in 1917, 1918, 1921 and 1923 and these two matters were not coupled together at any one of these conferences. I just want to quote a brief passage in connection with one of these conferences. The position of the Indians in the British Empire was discussed at the Imperial Conference of 1921, and it is stated in this year book—

In other words, the British Commonwealth is in favour of regarding the Indian as a British citizen. I should like to point out what the views of the Prime Minister were in those days.

What has that to do with the motion?

Order, order. I think the hon. member is wandering very far from the motion.

I regard it practically as a coupling together of the interests of England and the interests of South Africa.

Order, order. That is very far-reaching.

It is stated here specifically. Let me read it again—

Order, order. I must remind the hon. member that the second part of the Bill has already been accepted. The hon. member cannot now discuss the principles of the Bill.

I bow to your ruling, but I do feel that if one regards it in this light, then we are not dealing here with purely South African interests.

The hon. member has already advanced that argument.

I just want to point out that at that conference the Prime Minister opposed the granting of the franchise to the Indians, but nevertheless he links up this question with the other part of the Bill. I just want to say in conclusion that throughout the Transvaal British interests have always opposed the granting of the franchise to the Indians. We have always opposed Indian occupation. Why are these two matters now being coupled together?

I just want to point out that the Prime Minister has not yet given any convincing reason why the two parts of the Bill cannot be separated. We on this side fully realise the difficulty and we are also convinced that his attitude is: “You can talk and say what you like, but once and for all I have adopted this standpoint and I am going to maintain it”. We believe that the Prime Minister’s difficuly is this, that in his party he has the Minister of Finance who is in favour of extending the franchise to the Indians. On the other hand he has a large section in his party which is in favour of pegging the red spots on the map. He then had to effect a compromise in order to avoid the disintegration of his party, and the only way he saw of avoiding it was to couple those two extremes together in one Bill. In my opinion that is the only reason why the Prime Minister is placing the Bill before the House in this form, and I want to say that I am afraid that in the future South Africa will have to pay a price for that action on the part of the Prime Minister for the sake of the unity of his party, a price which is far too high for South Africa to pay for the unity of the Prime Minister’s party.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—51:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Christie, J.

Christopher. P M.

Döhne, j. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Le Roux. J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, J. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H.J.L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Motion accordingly negatived.

After the somewhat protracted count which has just taken place, I would like to move the second of the two motions before the House, the one that stands in my name on the Order Paper. I might just read it to the House—

We must have clarity on this. Clause 2 is the clause which deals with the restriction on certain agreement relating to fixed property in Natal. The clause says—

Then the second sub-clause reads—

1. (3) Any agreement entered into in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be null and void.

And then it is stated—

I may say that as far as the application of this clause to the Cape Province is concerned, we are not tied down by the question of 21st January, 1946. As hon. members will remember, it was on that day that it was stated in the Governor-General’s speech that legislation was going to be introduced with regard to this matter as far as it affected Natal, and it was therefore necessary that a fixed date should be laid down after which no transactions would be legal under this Act. If that had not been done, transactions would have taken place at a very enhanced pace. The people would have tried to avail themselves of the opportunity of circumventing the provisions of the Bill which was to come before Parliament, and consequently the date was fixed as 21st January, 1946. It will not be necessary to fix that date in the case of the Cape Province as the provisions of this clause, if they were to be applied to the Cape Province, would probably only come into force on the day this Bill is passed by Parliament. Moreover there is no great haste in applying the provisions of this Act to the Cape, as is the case in Natal, where we already have a state of crisis existing. The great advantage we are enjoying in the Cape Province is that this matter can be tackled in a much calmer atmosphere. It can be tackled before any crisis occurs. We can make provision in the Cape Province to avoid a crisis such as that which exists in Natal, and in the other provinces at the present time. In a calm atmosphere and having seen what is occurring in the northern provinces we should make the necessary arrangements here and prevent that disruption which to a large extent is being caused in Natal at the present moment. The third clause—I shall not read the whole of it —deals with restrictions on the holding of fixed property in Natal by certain companies. This is a clause which is almost of greater importance to the Cape Province than it is to Natal because of the influx of capital into the Cape Province which we may expect after the restrictions which have been laid down come into operation in Natal. We can expect an enormous influx of capital into the Cape Province, and in most cases the purchases which will be made in the Cape Province, will be made by companies. I notice that it is now practically six o’clock and I will resume after six.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

The object of my instruction is to make the provisions of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill applicable to the Cape Province. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill are those which deal with segregation, as regards ownership, and occupation. We feel that it is necessary, especially as a result of the restrictions which we can expect from this legislation, in the north, that protection should be given to the Cape Province, and that if protection is not given to the Cape, we will find conditions in the Cape within a very short time similar to those in the Transvaal and Natal today. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his second reading speech uttered a word of warning to the Indians, that if they create conditions in the Cape Province similar to those they created in Natal and the Transvaal it would be necessary to introduce legislation on similar lines to the Bill we are introducing today. He said that he hoped that this warning which he was giving to the Indians in the Cape would be sufficient. I and everybody else very much doubt whether that warning will be sufficient. In his second reading speech the Prime Minister referred to the fact that he had on previous occasions given warnings to the Indians in the northern provinces, which warnings had gone unheeded. He also stated that the Indians consistently made attempts to get round the laws as they exist today in the northern provinces, and that one of the objects of the Bill before the House was to tighten up the laws and to make it impossible for Indians to get round them. Well, if the warning failed in the northern provinces, and it did, what effect will it have in the Cape Province? Does the Prime Minister really think that his word of warning as regards the Cape is going to be heeded by the Indians? They did not heed it in the Transvaal or Natal. What is that warning worth? We feel that the warning is worth very little indeed, and that we should take the necessary steps now in the Cape to prevent an acute position as we find it in Natal.

Before I go any further, let me review the position in the Cape as we find it today. In the Cape we have today about 13,000 Indians, i.e. half as many as we have in the Transvaal, but we must remember that there is a very great difference between the Indians in the Cape and those in the Transvaal, in this respect that penetration by Indians as far as ownership is concerned or occupation, is not limited. The Indians can occupy property in any part of the Cape Province. They can buy property in any part of the Cape Province. There is no limit to it whatever. And we must also remember this, that as a result of the damming up of investment by Indians in the northern provinces as a result of this Bill, there will be a large amount of Indian capital seeking investment, and they can consequently find unlimited and unrestricted scope for investment for that capital in the Cape; and it is perfectly obvious and proved by facts that that capital is already being diverted from the north to the Cape Province. An enormous increase in land transactions in which Indians are concerned is already taking place in the Cape and will so continue unless stopped.

What is your proof of that statement?

I will come to the proof now. I take the amount of land transactions in which Indians are concerned in the area covered by the Deeds Registry in Cape Town. That does not apply to the whole of the Cape Province, but only to the south. The northwestern districts fall under Kimberley, and the eastern districts under Kingwilliamstown. I am only dealing with the area covered by the Deeds Registry in Cape Town now. In 1943 an average of 30 acquisitions of property per month by Indians took place. I compare 1943 with 1945. Last year there was an increase from 30 to 48 acquisitions a month. In other words, during the whole of 1943 360 properties in the Cape Province were acquired by Indians, and by 1945 it had increased to 585, only in the area covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry.

Did you follow up occupation?

I will come to that later. This is ownership. These transactions had increased by 55 per cent. in two years, which is very serious. It is so serious that you must realise that there is some factor behind this, which is diverting capital from the northern provinces to the Cape. The value of the property acquired by the Indians in 1945 in this area amounted to just under £¾ million.

Now, the first fact that one sees in this is this tremendous increase between 1943 and 1945, an increase in the number of properties acquired of between 50 and 60 per cent. That definitely shows that the trend in the Cape Province is a trend in the direction of the acquisition of property by Indians on a scale which we did not have before, that the repercussions which we will have as a result of this Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, are that we can reasonably expect that the acquisitions of property by Indians in the Cape Province will be on an increased scale for the reason I have already stated, that we are diverting Indian capital from the north to the only province in South Africa, except the Free State, where they have unlimited and unrestricted opportunities for investment. Another disquieting factor in regard to this acquisition of property by Indians is that in the area covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry Office no less than 336 properties were acquired last year by Indians from non-Indians. Someone made a remark to the effect the other day: Why do Europeans sell to Indians? That does not help us. The point is that they do it, and of these 585 properties acquired by Indians in this area of the Cape Town Deeds Registry last year, no less than 336 were acquired from non-Indians, which definitely shows that the trend or direction is for Indians more and more to acquire property in this area from non-Indians. In other words, property belonging to Indians is increasing at what, I think no one living in the Cape can deny, is an alarming rate.

Let us analyse these transactions a little further. Eighty-three per cent. of these transactions were passed in Cape Town. An average of 40 properties per month, or 480 during 1945, were acquired in the Cape Peninsula by Indians.

Are these Indians from Natal?

I will come to that. Four hundred and eighty properties were acquired by Indians in the Peninsula last year. In 1945 in Port Elizabeth, which is a considerably smaller town than Cape Town, no less than 50 properties were acquired. As regards Cape Town, the chief Indian penetration took place in the suburbs of Goodwood, Parow, Maitland, in the constituency of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Salt River, and Woodstock. I myself am perfectly satisfied that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) view this Indian penetration in their constituencies with great alarm. Many other districts in the Cape Province also suffer from Indian penetration, chiefly Stellenbosch, Malmesbury, Paarl, Cradock, Graaff-Reinet, Albany, Britstown, Uitenhage, Worcester, Queenstown, Somerset East, Fort Beaufort, Cookhouse, Aliwal North Tulbagh, Laingsburg and Knysna. These are the areas not covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry. In the area of Kimberley and Vryburg, the north-western districts of the Cape, property transfers are covered by the Registry Office of Kimberley, and I think it is a known fact that there has been a large amount of Indian penetration in Kimberley in the last few years, and we know that in Vryburg the position has become so acute that a meeting of protest was held a few weeks ago in Vryburg, not only protesting against Indian penetration there, but asking the Government to take the necessary steps to put a stop to it. It is therefore not only the area covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry where this penetration on a large scale is taking place, but also in the northwestern districts, and especially in Vryburg it has taken place on an even more alarming scale than in the Western Province

What is the percentage of Indian registrations?

That is no argument. The fact is that Indian penetration increased in two years by between 50 and 60 per cent. That is alarming. If there is an outbreak of some serious disease, does it help to say what is the proportion of the population suffering from that disease? No, the disease must be stamped out. That is the crux of the matter

That’s what Mr. Hofmeyr calls a specious argument.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) asked me this question: How many of these Indians come from Natal, and how many are Cape Indians? That is very difficult to find out. In the registration of properties, there is no indication as to whether an Indian lives in Natal or whether he is domiciled in the Cape Province. We also find this extremely disturbing fact, that an Indian who is a prohibited immigrant in the Cape Province, and is not allowed to reside in the Cape, can still own property in the Cape, and many Indians who reside in Natal and who are not allowed to reside in the Cape can send their capital to the Cape to acquire property. That is an extremely important factor. Where we are getting Indian penetration in the Cape Province as far as ownership is concerned, that penetration may be through and by prohibited immigrants in the Cape.

Now I want to compare the conditions that we find in Cape Town today with the conditions in Durban when the Government wisely introduced the Pegging Act. Durban has 100,000 Indians, and in 1941 in Durban, a town nearly the size of Cape Town, Indians bought property to the value of £136,000. In 1942 the value of the property had increased from £136,000 to £334,000, and as a result of that increase the Government decided to introduce the Pegging Act in Natal and to prohibit the acquisition of further property by Indians except in certain areas. The position became acute in Natal, and it became acute as a result of the fact that acquisition of property in Durban by Indians had increased from £136,000 to £334,000 in one year.

That was due to fluctuation in price.

It does not matter what the cause was. The position was acute because Indians bought property to the value of £334,000 in 1942 in Durban, and as a result the Government wisely ’ introduced the Pegging Act. Do you know what the position was in Cape Town last year? The Indians did not acquire £334,000 worth of property, they acquired property to the value of £600,000, practically twice as much as was acquired in Durban in 1942, and in 1942 the amount of property acquired by Indians in Natal was considered so excessive that a Pegging Act was introduced to put a stop to it. All I can say is this: that if it was necessary in Durban to introduce a Pegging Act when 100,000 Indians acquired £⅓ million worth of property, then it is doubly necessary to introduce a Pegging Act in the Cape Province, when in Cape Town the Indians acquired £600,000 of property in twelve months. I think that these figures which I have given have shown that there is a very great danger in the Cape Province with regard to Indian penetration. Indian penetration as far as ownership is concerned is on a greater scale than it was in Natal when the Pegging Act had to be introduced to put a stop to it. We feel that the Cape needs protection, and the object of the instruction which I have moved tonight is to give that protection to the Cape. What protection have we in the Cape? The only protection the Cape has is the pious warning the Prime Minister gave in the second reading when he warned the Indians that if they went on buying property in the Cape Province, some day something would have to be done to put a stop to it. There is nothing to prevent Indians in the Cape acquiring property, and there is nothing even to prevent Indians who are not allowed to live in the Cape from acquiring property. The Prime Minister in his second reading speech said: We are solving the Indian question. Those were his words. He might think he is solving the problem as far as Natal and the Transvaal are concerned. Opinions may differ, but there are many people who may think now that he is solving the question in Natal and the Transvaal, but I say this that even if the Prime Minister is solving the Indian question in the Transvaal and Natal, he is creating a new Indian question in the Cape Province, and if we are going to solve the Indian question, we must solve it not only as far as Natal and the Transvaal are concerned, but in the Cape Province as well What we ask is that in this Bill before Parliament the necessary steps must be taken to protect the Cape Province against Indian penetration, and the difficulties which have resulted from Indian penetration. Things should not be allowed to deteriorate until we reach the stage of acute crisis in the Cape as we have today in the Transvaal and Natal. If it is right to introduce the Pegging Act in Natal, and if it is right to compensate the Indian in Natal by giving him representation in Parliament, then why should it be wrong to introduce those measures in the Cape Province? At present the Indian in the Cape has the vote. In Natal we are giving him the vote. If he is getting the vote in Natal as the price of a Pegging Act, why can we not have a Pegging Act in the Cape Province where he has the vote? If it is right and proper and just, and it is in the interests of the white population in Natal, that we should have demarcated areas in which Indians can live, and in which Europeans can live, why is it wrong to have those areas in the Cape Province as well? In this case what is sauce for the goose of Natal is sauce for the gander of the Cape Province. If hon. members think logically, they cannot get away from the fact that if we are justified in protecting the European in Natal from Indian penetration, we are justified in protecting the European in the Cape Province from Indian penetration. Would the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who represents Vasco, like to see Indian penetration in Vasco as we have had Indian penetration in parts of Natal? Would the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) like to see Indian penetration in Woodstock? Would the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), would the Minister of Finance, would the Minister of Justice in their constituencies, would the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. de Kock)—excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say would he like to see Indian penetration in Vryburg, but is he satisfied with the Indian penetration in Vryburg today? I may be wrong, but I think the hon. members I have referred to feel with regard to Indian penetration exactly as I feel. I am willing to grant most members on the opposite side of the House who are voting for this measure before us today are voting for it because they think to a certain degree it is putting a stop to Indian penetration in Natal, and they are voting for the Bill because they want to put a stop to this Indian penetration. Are they satisfied that Indian penetration should take place in their constituencies? There are hon. members here from Port Elizabeth in which a large amount of penetration is taking place; are they satisfied? Do they think it is in the interests of Port Elizabeth that unrestricted ownership of property by Indians should be allowed? Are they in favour of this, that with a diversion of capital from the northern provinces to the Cape Province this acquisition of property by Indians should take place to a much greater extent than it takes place at present? I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that those hon. members agree with me and feel exactly as I do. Now there is a chance for those hon. members to assist their constituencies and assist the Cape Province to take the necessary protective measures to see that the conditions as we find them today in Natal do not take place here in the Cape Province.

Why do you not practise what you preach; why did you vote against the Bill?

The right hon. the Prime Minister believes in a laissez faire policy. He believes in allowing things to develop. Things have been allowed to develop in the northern provinces. The Indian question has been allowed to develop in Natal, and now we have reached an acute stage, and it is necessary to come to the House and rush through legislation to rectify, to a certain extent, the position as we find it today. Would it not be much wiser to tackle this problem in the Cape Province before it becomes acute as it has become in the northern provinces? We can do it now in the calmer atmosphere of the Cape Province where we see the definite direction in which this difficulty is developing. We can now tackle this problem, Mr. Speaker, and we can make certain now that conditions as they exist in the northern provinces will never exist in the Cape Province. I am absolutely certain of one thing: If nothing is done with regard to the Cape Province, within fifteen or twenty years we shall have a position in the Cape Province just as acute as in Natal, and again we will have to come with hurried legislation. Is it not much better to tackle this question now than to wait for the relentless forces of a crisis to jog the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister into action? That is the trouble we have with him. With regard to all the problems of South Africa we can never get him to tackle the problems before they become acute. Only crises will jog him into action, and our belief is we must not wait till a crisis occurs in the Cape Province, but before that crisis occurs we must take the necessary steps to protect the Cape Province, as today we are trying to protect Natal, and as the Free State is already protected. We must take this step before it is too late, and prevent conditions arising in the Cape Province as we find them in the Province of Natal today.

I second. After having listened for more than eight days during this debate to the speeches in this house, the intelligence of hon. members on the opposite side must appear to be very peculiar. They pleaded here for restrictions to be imposed upon the Indians as far as land tenure is concerned and this evening they are opposing this motion tooth and nail.

You voted against this Bill.

Listen to that bit of lunacy, coming from somebody who should have been in Valkenberg. He says we voted against the Bill yesterday. We now come and we want to apply the provisions of this Bill to the Cape Province. Was the hon. member not here this afternoon when we tried to have this Bill divided into two parts, the question of representation and the question of land tenure? It is impossible to argue with that member and for that reason I will not do so. But it is strange that the people who argued that restriction should be imposed on the Indians with regard to land tenure are this evening opposing this motion tooth and nail. [Interjections.]

Order, order.

I know it is very difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to keep these people in order who have to vote against their own convictions tonight. They know that if they vote for this motion, they have to vote against their own voting herd. The reason why the coolies are restricted in Natal and the Transvaal, is that they have no franchise there but here in the Cape they have the franchise and for that reason, hon. members on the opposite side want to make a joke of this instruction. That is why they are not inclined to listen to the arguments advanced on this side of the House. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has given certain figures here but I want to analyse those figures still further. The hon. member for Humansdorp said here that during the year 1945 transactions in fixed property in the Cape Province amounted to £750,000. These are transactions registered in the Deeds Office in the Cape Province and he further stated that transaction in fixed property to the value of £600,000 were negotiated between Indians in Cape Town alone. Fixed property to the value of £340,000 was acquired by Indians from Europeans. In other words in 1945 the Indians here in Cape Town purchased fixed property from Europeans, as a result of which the Indians have become richer to the value of £340,000 in respect of fixed property.

Shame.

Out of the 585 transactions which took place in Cape Town, there are 336 cases where Indians purchased from Europeans and persons who were not Indians. The hon. member for Humansdorp made a comparison here but I want to make a further comparison. Durban is a city in which there are 100,000 Indians. Here in Cape Town there are only 6,000 Indians. As the hon. member for Humansdorp said: They buy property in the wealthiest parts of the Europeans and in 1942 they purchased properties to the value of £334,000 and the Indians in Cape Town acquired property to the value of £340,000. In Durban there are 100,000 Indians and in Cape Town there are only 6,000. [Interjections.]

Order, order. I must ask hon. members to allow me to hear what the hon. member is saying.

They find it difficult to remain silent after dinner.

I do not know whether it is the after-dinner effects which are still in their heads, but there are other deductions I want to make and that is that you have had to call these members to order three times now because they are so frivolous as to be making jokes about the penetration of Indians here into Cape Town. It is not drink which has gone to their heads.

Order, order.

I said it was not drink which had gone to their heads. I did not say it was drink.

Order, order. The hon. member must withdraw that. The insinuation is there.

I have withdrawn it. I said it was not drink.

He said it was not drink.

I am prepared to withdraw what I said, that it was not drink which had gone to their heads and I have withdrawn that.

But then it is drink.

Now I do not want to say what they have in their heads because then you will call me to order again.

You are judging others by yourself but you will not find anybody like yourself.

No, that hon. member is in the position that in his constituency the Indians also buy land and he has not the courage to vote for this motion. The hon. member has the courage to vote for restrictions to be imposed on the Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal where the Indian does not have the franchise but in his own constituency in Hottentots-Holland where the Indians have the franchise, he does not have the courage to vote for these instructions. He is the very last man who should talk about courage, even although he may have that thing in his head which I may not call by its name. I want it to appear in Hansard that you, Mr. Speaker, have had to call hon. members on that side of the House to order three times because they were making a joke of this serious question of Indian penetration in the Cape Province and especially in Cape Town, and because they are so noisy that you and others in the House cannot hear me. But now I want to continue with these figures. One might imagine that the Indians who have bought land in Cape. Town have done so on a very small scale, but out of the 336 land transactions made here in 1945 there were eighty in respect of which the value of the property was more than £2,000 each. There were two of the Indians who bought property in 1945 for £12,000 each here in Cape Town. Hon. members asked here where the Indians were coming from. They tried to suggest that the Indians were from Cape Town. No, that is not so. They can investigate the position themselves in the Deeds Office and they will find that a certain Indian who came from Natal bought property here for £13,000. He bought houses and shops and a few flats. He bought 22 houses for an amount of £485 each and he also bought flats and shops. Then there are other Indians who come from Johannesburg. One of them bought property here to the value of £10,000.

What are their names?

My hon. friend can get their names from the Deeds Office.

But I would like to hear it from you.

Now the hon. member asks me what the names of these Indians are. These names were looked up in the Deeds Office and the person who obtained the information investigated the position very carefully.

Who is he?

Why do my hon. friends not go to the Deeds Office and then come along and repudiate these figures?

Figures are most long suffering.

It is because they have a guilty conscience that they are suggesting that the figures quoted by the hon. member for Humansdorp are not true.

No, we can believe him.

The hon. members are trying to suggest that the figures that I have quoted here are not correct. Let them go to the Deeds Office and make enquiries and let them bring the figures here. The onus is on the other side of the House if they do not want to take our word for it. Let them give us figures of the amount of property bought in Cape Town by Indians during the year 1945. But we are not the only people who want to know this. We are not the only people who are worried. Go to any person in Cape Town, English or Afrikaansspeaking, and he will tell you that he is worried. I sat in the tram today next to two English-speaking persons who told me that they were worried because although the Indian penetration is being stopped in the Transvaal and in Natal, they will now come here to buy property.

They cannot buy it here.

How can people come and tell me that the Indian cannot buy property here? Do you mean to tell me that all the things that the hon. member for Humansdorp has said are untrue? Do you know that a prohibited immigrant can come and buy here?

He cannot come here from Natal and buy property.

Of course he can.

The man is talking nonsense.

Does that expert on the law not know how the Indians do business? Does he know that although the Indian does not put down his own name, he gets other people to buy property for him; but does he not know how the Indians in Johannesburg carry on trade under the names of other people? Does he not know how the Indians in the Transvaal use other names? Let the hon. member get up and show me the law which prohibits an Indian from Natal to come and buy property here.

That is the position.

That is not the position. The members on the opposite side are getting rather uproarious.

Order, order.

That hon. member can make a speech when I sit down and then he will have enough time to refute what I am saying. But I want to go further, and I want to say that during the month of July, 1945, there were 63 land transactions by Indians in Cape Town. In the month of July the largest number of land transactions took place in Cape Town, but in the month of March there were 55 land transactions and Indians bought land to the value of £89,000. You are free to go over to the Deeds Office and to examine the position and then you will be able to see whether it is so or not.

Paul, can you do no better than that?

And now the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) wants to know whether they are the best Indians. He knows that it is the best Indians who have bought property in Natal. It is the wealthiest Indians who are also coming to Cape Town.

Do you extract their teeth?

I just want to say this: That hon. member wants to know whether I pull their teeth. If I were to pull his teeth then he would lose the bad taste in his mouth and then he would be a decent person.

Order, order. I hope that these personal reflections which do not do the House credit will be stopped.

It is a shame.

Do the Indians who buy property at the Cape live in those houses?

If you could get these people to keep quiet, I will continue.

Order, order.

One cannot even put a reasonable question to you.

Now I would like to put the following question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. You have come here now and you have uttered a warning to the Indians in Cape Town that they should not penetrate into this area. Do you expect in any way that the Indians will take any notice of that warning if your followers who are sitting behind you tonight treat the whole question of Indian penetration in the Cape Province in such a frivolous manner and make it so ridiculous? Not only do they consider the question of penetration in the Cape Province in a frivolous manner but they are putting up their own leader to ridicule. Through their behaviour they are showing that they have no respect for their Prime Minister and leader, and that is why the Prime Minister is sitting there with his head bowed in shame for his followers. He feels ashamed of their conduct. He is ashamed of the manner in which they are carrying on in the presence of the people who are sitting in the gallery. He is ashamed of the manner in which they are making a joke of this matter in the presence of the public. They are practically giving him a slap in the face.

Order, order. The hon. member must come back to the motion.

And now I want to go further, and since hon. members want to deny that Indians are allowed to buy property in Cape Town, I just want to tell them that they can go to the Deeds Office and there they will find out that even a prohibited immigrant may buy property here. There is no law forbidding a prohibited immigrant from doing that. He can buy land here. Well, here in Cape Town we will leave it to the electorate to deal with persons like the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland. But I want to come to another point. According to the available statistics the Indians are buying at Malmesbury, Paarl …

And in Burgersdorp.

Yes, and in Burgersdorp. During the past year Indians negotiated eleven property transactions there, and that is why I am talking on this question tonight. I was one of those who came to Burgersdorp and tried to prevent Indians from obtaining licences there, but as the law stands today there is no reason why they cannot obtain a licence. One cannot make a legal issue of it and on the strength of that refuse to grant a licence to an Indian because of the fact that he is an Indian. The Indians are penetrating into Burgersdorp, Paarl, Malmesbury, Cape Town and Stellenbosch.

Not from Natal.

And one can do nothing about it, and that is why I am asking the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) personally whether he is satisfied with the fact that the Indians are further penetrating into Malmesbury.

They are not penetrating there; it is very slight.

Now listen to what the hon. member says. He says they are not penetrating there but only very slightly. What is the standpoint of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) and the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. de Kock)? No, the position has come to this: When the Prime Minister says that he has solved the Indian question, then I can only say tonight that the question has not been solved. There has been a temporary respite in the Transvaal and in Natal, but the Cape Province will become the victim as a result of this respite in the Transvaal and in Natal. The Indian who is now prohibited from buying in the Transvaal and in Natal will now invest his money here in the Cape Province. The hon. member for Humansdorp said that the Prime Minister believed in allowing things to develop, but one of these days he will not be here any longer, but the Minister of Finance will be here and he will be the leader of the United Party, and as the position is in the Cape Province today, so the Minister of Finance would want it to be, and it would not worry him for one moment; and that is why we on this side of the House are so concerned about the prevailing conditions, and for that reason I hope that the Prime Minister will accept this motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am entirely unconvinced by the case which has been put up by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), entirely unconvinced.

Hard heart.

The position at the Cape is essentially different from that of Natal and also largely from the position in the Transvaal.

It is a matter of degree only.

You must take that into account, too. A matter of degree is very important. We are not dealing with trifling matters. We are dealing with serious matters.

Your own people do not think it is serious.

Order, order.

I am waiting for the hon. member to give me a chance. He does not rise, but he sits and speaks.

Your own people do not regard it as serious: Judging by their attitude tonight, they do not.

The position, I say, is entirely different here. Look at the population situation. Look at the European population of the Cape Province and the European population of a place like Natal, or of Durban. The population of the Indians at the Cape is 13,000.

How many?

Thirteen thousand

And how many in the Transvaal?

Double that. In Natal the Indian population is the same as the European population, and therefore the position is essentially quite different. After all, I have heard of this so-called Indian penetration at the Cape only during this debate.

That I quite believe.

Yes.

Your trouble is you only hear of these things too late.

It is entirely a different situation. It is only now this question is tackled in Parliament

If you only heard of it now….

If you would listen to me; I have listened to you.

If you only heard it….

Order, order.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to sit down if I cannot get a hearing. I have listened to the hon. member for half an hour, and then I cannot get a hearing.

It is a fair question.

What is the question?

If you only heard of it in the debate, why did you warn the Indians of the Cape in your speech?

I heard it here.

You were the first to speak.

It was because of what I heard here. I thought it necessary to issue a warning. It is common cause at the Cape, and there has been no crisis. There has been scarcely any talk about it, and we are asked to put this Cape case on the same footing as that in Natal. It is absurd. It lis quite absurd. Figures are quoted to us as to transactions here. But I attach no importance to these figures unless they are properly investigated. In Durban a proper judicial enquiry was held. These figures were dissected. They were proved to be penetrations. There were proved to be Indian penetrations into settled white areas at Durban, and the figures were properly investigated, dissected and enquired into. Nothing of the kind has happened here. A lot of figures are promiscuously flung at us. We do not know where they come from or whether they are correct, whether they are local Indians or Indians from abroad, whether it is penetration or whether it may be quite innocent purchases and not penetration at all.

It might be Malays.

You have to dissect these cases properly……

Cannot you find a better argument?

…. and it is a case where proper enquiry has to be made. Suppose an Indian from Natal were to buy property here, under the law of the land he cannot come and live here, he cannot come and trade here. What is the use of him buying here? The case is entirely different from that of Natal, and therefore no case whatever has been made out for action here. If it becomes acute in future, let action be taken then. I issued my warning. I hope it will be heeded. I hope no Indian penetration will take place here as elsewhere. But as the situation is today, I am quite clear that we would be premature in taking action now, and would be acting in a spirit of alarm and taking unjustified and unnecessary action, and we would only be stultifying ourselves. I do not think that action of this kind ought to be taken anywhere without proper enquiry. Figures are flung across this House, but there is absolutely nothing to substantiate the figures.

Will you authorise an enquiry now?

Why should I?

We have proved that there is a prima facie case.

Do not let us jabber about prima facie cases here. Have you ever heard such a thing! We are asked to change the law of the land because some members opposite have made out a prima facie case.

There is such a thing as a prima facie case in law.

No, we would be making ourselves utterly ridiculous, and this party certainly will not take any action like that in a spirit of panic and on such a slender basis, without any proper investigation or facts to go on. I cannot accept this amendment.

I have frequently listened to the Prime Minister, but I have never heard him speak with less conviction than this evening. The Prime Minister must excuse me, and you, Mr. Speaker, must excuse me for commenting now on the attitude he took up to a polite question we put to him from this side. He took umbrage at members and he regarded it as discourtesy towards him. But while a previous member on this side was speaking the noise on the other side of the House was so great that it made one think of a place where the people are not sober. The Prime Minister did not make any objection to that conduct of members on his own side, so it does not befit him to take up such an attitude when polite questions are put to him. It does not suit hon. members on the other side to conduct themselves in that way if they expect that we should show respect for the Prime Minister, as we would like to show it to him.

We respect your leader.

We are prepared to give the Prime Minister the respect that is his due, but then it is not fitting that hon. members on the other side should kick up such a dreadful row, a row that is a disgrace to this House. The Prime Minister attempted to make this motion ridiculous. His first assertion was that it was in this debate he heard for the first time that Indians were buying land on a big scale in the Cape Province. Thereupon the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) rightly pointed out to him that he was the first person to mention it during this debate, and so much importance did he attach to it that he sounded a warning about it in his speech. Now the Prime Minister pretends that the first time he heard of it was in this debate, and that he got frightened of the bogey we held up. One would like to accord the Prime Minister the respect that he deserves, but then he should not come along with that sort of stuff. He is the man who in all seriousness pointed the finger of warning at the Indians, and told them that if they continued to buy land here in the Cape they would also occasion a crisis here and steps would also then be taken against them. The position is that the Prime Minister knows about the penetration in the Cape Peninsula. This is not the first time that he has heard of that for the simple reason that the newspapers for week on end were full of it.

Which?

The English newspapers like the “Cape Argus” and the “Cape Times”, and every member could see it. When we are dealing with a serious matter like this it is not seemly to say such things here.

I turn to another matter before I come to the merits of the case. The Prime Minister’s excuse for not applying the Act to the Cape Province is that there are only 13,000 Indians in the Cape and the number is so limited that it is not worth while to give them attention. I immediately asked how many Indians there are in the Transvaal and he had to admit that there are 25,000 in the Transvaal. The Transvaal has a much bigger European population than the Cape, and if the 25,000 Indians are such a menace there that the Prime Minister wishes to apply this legislation then it does not become him to say that 13,000 in the Cape Province are such a small number that we do not need to worry about them. Apart from these figures that have been mentioned here I want to ask the Prime Minister and the Cape members, in view of my own observations of the Indian problem in the Cape, whether the position in the Cape Province is not equally as serious as it is in the Transvaal. While in the Transvaal the 25,000 Indians are really spread over the whole country, throughout the platteland as well as in Johannesburg, the 13,000 in the Cape Province are concentrated for the most part in the Cape Peninsula.

The hon. member said that there were Indians in Burgersdorp as well.

When one is dealing with a matter of that sort and hears an interjection of that description one wonders whether another doctor should not come to the assistance of that doctor. For all practical purposes the Indians are concentrated here in the Cape Peninsula, and consequently the problem is serious here. From my own observations in Claremont and Wynberg —I live in that vicinity—I want to say that in the Main Street there are numbers and numbers of shops belonging to Indians. Members will be surprised to see what percentage of those shops belong to Indians— not to Malays.

How do you know that?

One knows them by their language, and people who have grown up here can tell at once whether a man is an Indian or a Malay. The Indians speak English and Afrikaans different to the Malays. The younger generation who have been born here are in a different position, and in the future it will be more difficult to distinguish between them, but we have never any difficulty in distinguishing adults and members know it. I speak as one who comes from the north and knows what the position is in the Transvaal. On the other side we see the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo). Let him testify about his own town. It is the same with many other platteland towns in the Transvaal; when you enter them you imagine you are in Bombay and not in South Africa. That is the position there, and my hon. friend admits it is so. Take Ventersdorp; in the centre of the town there are coolie businesses. That is the position there and we fear that the same problem will arise here in the Cape. It will come here just as certainly as the sun is in the heavens. In the course of his second reading speech the Prime Minister pointed a reproachful finger at our forefathers and said we had landed in this state of affairs as a result of their mistakes. Now the Prime Minister states it is our duty to prevent the position in Cape Town developing into a festering sore as in other parts of the country.

Why are you voting against the Bill then?

It is very difficult to talk to anyone like the hon. member for Hospitall (Mr. Barlow) who simply cannot see a principle squarely. We are voting against this Bill because it seeks to extirpate one evil by instituting a greater evil. We are inexorably opposed to the Indians getting the franchise.

I think that the hon. member must return to the motion.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I am arguing that this Bill should be applied to Cape Town and the argument directed against me is that I may not advocate that because I voted against the Bill on other grounds. I can reply to that argument and refute it. I desire that this Bill, bad as it is, should also be made to apply to Cape Town because we wish to check Indian penetration in order to prevent a repetition here of the tragic state of affairs we have already experienced in both the Transvaal and Natal.

And that is why you voted against the Bill.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) would be entirely satisfied in voting for every coolie in the Transvaal receiving the franchise if the Prime Minister merely ordered him to do so. To please the Prime Minister he would sell his soul and not stir a finger to save the white race.

He is not looking for the leadership of the United Party.

I entirely agree. I do not think that anyone could ever accuse the hon. member for Rustenburg of that. For the reasons I have mentioned I support the motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp, and I would ask the Prime Minister to accept it in view of the fact that quite spontaneously, and without our influencing him at all, he warned the Indians against penetration in the Cape Province. He did say it was from us he heard for the first time about this penetration. We did not mention it to the Prime Minister before he introduced the Bill. The hon. member for Humansdorp has now mentioned the figures. The Prime Minister is aware of the position and I ask him to do what the hon. member for Humansdorp has requested, and thereby prevent us having the same sorry state of affairs in the Cape Province as we already have in the Transvaal. If the Cape members are not prepared to save the Cape Province from this menace; if the Cape members are not prepared to take steps to save the Cape Province from this danger, then I wish to make an appeal to the Transvaal members, who know what the significance of this matter is, to exert their influence in the interests of a white South Africa to prevent the deplorable conditions prevailing in the Transvaal and Natal arising here in the Cape Province.

I listened with great disappointment to the Prime Minister. He admits that there are 13,000 Indians in the Cape Province, while there are 25,000 in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal and in Natal the Indians will in the future be prohibited from freely buying land, except in certain fixed areas. In the Free State the Indians, may not buy land, nor have they got the franchise. Our forefathers passed laws many years ago to keep the Indians out of the Free State. They looked to the future, and if they had not passed those laws we would have had the same position today in the Free State as we have in the Cape Province and elsewhere. In the Transvaal, laws were also passed in an effort to limit the Indians to certain areas. Now I want to put a fair question to the Prime Minister. If it is in the interest of the Transvaal and of the Free State not to allow Indians to buy land freely there, why is it not in the interest of the Cape Province to have a similar prohibition here? Surely it is easier to do it now while we have only 13,000Indians. If we wait until there are 50,000 or 100,000 Indians in the future, it is going to be very much more difficult to check them. The Prime Minister says the position in the Cape Province has not yet been investigated, while in Natal commissions of investigation have been appointed from time to time, and that the reports of those commissions indicate what the position in Natal is, and on the strength of those reports, the Government deems fit to introduce this legislation. I want to ask him whether the idea of introducing this Indian legislation occurred to him yesterday or the day before yesterday. No, he thought of it a month ago and perhaps a year ago. Does he not think that in the interests of the Cape Province he should have caused an investigation to be made into the position in this province? The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) stated very clearly that when he spoke for the first time the Prime Minister issued a warning that if the Indians continued to buy land in the Cape Province he would also take steps as far as the Cape Province is concerned. When he uttered that warning he must have believed that the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory. I ask any person with commonsense, if the Indians are no longer allowed to buy in Natal and in the Transvaal, and if they cannot buy in the Free State and we do not prevent them from buying in the Cape Province, is it not natural that they will buy in the Cape Province on an increasing scale? I want to say to the Prime Minister with all due respect that it is a hundred times better to prevent this influx while it is still taking place on a small scale, because if we allow it to develop and to assume greater proportions, it will become increasingly difficult, and many more people will become dissatisfied. In Natal we now have a couple of hundred thousand Indians who are dissatisfied and who are demanding the same rights as the Europeans to buy and to occupy land. If we rectify’ this matter at this stage we shall have 13,000 Indians here who will be dissatisfied, but as time goes on the numbers will become increasingly greater. It is better to solve this problem now, but I am afraid the Prime Minister is inclined to let things develop and to leave to posterity problems which it will be more difficult to solve then than it would have been if he had checked these things in time. The Free State checked this influx timeously. If the Cape Province checks this problem in its initial stages it will be much better than to postpone it for years and years. I cannot see what objection there can be to the acceptance of the motion moved by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). We are asking the Prime Minister to do no more than he is doing in Natal and in the Transvaal. Why should we allow the Coolies to flock to the Cape Province to buy properties here? We must think of the future when it is going to be very difficult to solve this problem, and if posterity is saddled with this difficult problem, there will be one person only who will be blamed, and that is the present Prime Minister.

I can well understand that the Prime Minister is irritable. I have not seen him so irritable for a long time. He was irritable in the first place because of the strong case presented here for the motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). He is also irritable because he knows that the Cape members are seriously concerned about the position. Let him allow the members for Port Elizabeth to get up here tonight and to tell us whether they are satisfied with the position in Port Elizabeth. I challenge him to allow those two or three members to tell us what the position is there. I want to tell the Prime Minister that I had a talk with somebody this morning who stopped me in the street and who knows me. Formerly he was a well-known teacher in Port Elizabeth and he is now in East London. He told me that he hoped that we will also give attention to the penetration of Indians into the Cape Province. He sat here in the House for three days to listen to the debate in which he is interested. He is concerned over the position and he says that the people in East London are concerned because in the past months several transactions have taken place in East London between Europeans and Indians. I hope that the Prime Minister will not also tell me, as he told the hon. member for Humansdorp, that he did not believe him.

No, I did not.

I am not prepared to mention this gentleman’s name here but I am prepared to give his name to the Prime Minister. But just let him allow members from his own ranks to give vent to their feelings and he will know what the position is. The standpoint of the Prime Minister is—he has stated so repeatedly—“The position is entirely different”. The position is entirely different in Natal. In what way is it different? It is surely a question of degree. The same tendency and exactly the same process which took place in Natal, and is now taking place in the Cape Province. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has ever been in Vryburg. It is a part of the Cape Province just as Cape Town is part of it. Let the Prime Minister ask the member for Vryburg what the position is there. There are rows and rows of Indian shops in the main street of Vryburg. There is no difference between the Cape Province and Natal, except in a question of degree. That is the only difference between the two.

Now I come to another point. The hon. member for Humansdorp built up his whole case very largely on the figures which he quoted here, and the Prime Minister based his whole case on two arguments. The first was that the position was entirely different from what it is in Natal and I have shown that it was only a question of degree. The second is that he attached no value to the figures quoted by the hon. member for Humansdorp. These are figures obtained from the Deeds Office in Cape Town but the Prime Minister says that these figures of the hon. member for Humansdorp are not correct. He attaches no value to them.

I said that the figrues have not been investigated.

The Prime Minister built up his whole case on the fact that these figures are not correct. Will he be prepared to have an investigation made? Since we have to deal here with an increasingly serious mattér, will the Prime Minister be prepared to have these figures quoted by the hon. member for Humansdorp investigated? Of course not, because if investigation is made we will find out what the position is and then the Prime Minister will realise that there are grounds for this motion moved by us. The Prime Minister is a man of experience and any person with common sense knows that if the opportunity to invest is checked at one place, it must find an outlet somewhere else. We find that in trade; we find that in export; and it is the same with capital investment. Why should it then be different in the case of the Indians? Here we have a Bill now which, if it is passed and it will be passed in view of the majority which the Prime Minister has behind him, will have the direct consequence that the wealthy Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal will to a large extent not have any opportunity there for the investment of capital. They will be obliged, just as it happens as in commerce and also in industry, to look for new outlets for capital investment and for that reason the capital will come to the Cape Province where there is no restriction against their buying property. That is the natural tendency. It must happen. But we have again the old policy of the Prime Minister to allow things to develop and that notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister in his opening speech uttered a word of warning. Now he is running away from his own warning. Now that he is being hemmed in, just as the Indians in Natal are hemmed in, with figures quoted here by the hon. member for Humansdorp, he is running away from his own warning which he gave in his opening speech in this debate. Members on the opposite side are also running away and they know it. I say that he was the first to utter a warning and he should not come here now and ask us where we get hold of this. We quoted certain figures here and the Prime Minister must not come and ask us where we got hold of these figures. The Prime Minister knows that there is general concern in the Cape Province and he should have these figures investigated. Should he find that they are substantially correct, then there is only one thing the Prime Minister can do and that is to apply the same measures in the Cape Province which he is now applying in the northern provinces and for exactly the same reasons.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has given certain figures regarding the acquisition of property by Indians in the Cape, and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his reply stated that the position in the Cape is not comparable with that in Natal, since there are only 13,000 Indians in the Cape Province. But what about Indians in Natal and Transvaal purchasing land here?

They cannot come and live here.

If the hon. the Minister of Finance wants to convey that they cannot buy property here I may remind him that there are apparently many ways of evading the law. It was suggested they cannot even purchase here. Even if they cannot purchase here my point is there are still many ways of evading the law. Either these purchases are made by Indians outside the Cape, or if it is suggested nobody can purchase land in the Cape who is a prohibited immigrant as far as the Cape Province is concerned, then the purchases must have been made by the 13,000 Cape Indians. That suggestion has been made, and I think it is probably based on Section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1913. Is that what the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) is referring to?

I will find it now.

If he is certain of that, it is a complete answer to the Minister of Finance. It is then quite clear that all the property that has been purchased in the Cape Province has been purchased by the 13,000 Indians here, and they, Mr. Speaker, have purchased twice as much in one year as the 200,000 Indians in Natal purchased in 1942. You may say the position is not comparable; perhaps it is not comparable, but not in the sense the Prime Minister meant it. On the contrary, if these figures are anything like correct, even if they are 1,000 per cent. out, i.e. even if only one-tenth of the purchases were made, the position in the Cape is as bad as it was in Natal in the peak year of 1942. Let us see what was the position there before the peak year; we do not know whether we have reached the peak year as far as the Cape Province is concerned. If those figures are not correct I say it is within the power of the Prime Minister to control them. After all, these are figures which anyone can get at the Registrar of Deeds’ Office. But if they are not correct at any rate let me ask the Prime Minister this: On what figures did he base his warning in the second reading debate? I cannot accept that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will come here and in all seriousness issue a warning of that nature unless he had some sure ground for that. I want to ask him what was that ground; where did he get it? Why issue this serious warning to the Indians at the Cape unless in his mind there was an alarming penetration of Indians and purchase of property by Indians in the Cape. You cannot have it both ways. It is a simple problem in logic. If he had information sufficient to justify the seriousness of his warning, the figures cannot be far out. Even if they are out they must still be very high. But the point I want to make here is that, assuming these figures are alarming as the Prime Minister indicated in his second reading speech, in introducing the debate, if it is as serious as that—even assuming it is not as serious as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) pointed out—then I say that the fact that the Cape has only one-fifteenth of the Indian population that Natal has shows that pro rata the purchase of land by Indians in the Cape is very much more serious than it was in Natal in its peak year.

Did not the Prime Minister follow on an interruption on your side?

I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member’s estimate of the Prime Minister, that he could be induced to give a serious warning of that nature merely on an interruption from this side. I credit the Prime Minister with a greater sense of responsibility than to admit even such a soft impeachment as that. What was the position before the peak year in Natal? I find in the thirteen years from 1927 to 1939 the purchases by the 100,000 Indians in Durban amounted to £750,000, which is the figure in one year now for the Cape. Then I find that there is an increase in 1940, 1941 and 1942; 1942 is the peak year that we have the figures for; it was £336,000, half of the figure for 1945 in the Cape with its 13,000 Indians.

Are these official figures, or are you guessing?

No, these are official figures. How did the Broome Commission regard these figures, which I think everybody must admit are not one-tenth as alarming as the figures for the Cape? They said in their latest report—I have the Afrikaans version here, and I will translate it as I go on—

That is the considered judgment of the Broome Commission in regard to these Natal figures. The Cape figures that have been given by the hon. member for Humansdorp may not, on being checked, be quite as alarming as suggested, but, taking it at its low-water mark, taking it that the figures are so alarming that they justified the Prime Minister in sounding that warning, then, if we want to save the Cape Province, if we want to prevent a recurrence here of the position that has arisen in Natal, it is the negation of policy to sit here and to say that this is a matter of no importance. These facts, Mr. Speaker, are of such a nature that, even if the Prime Minister has not those figures, he will wait with this part of the Bill and see to it those figures are made available before this Bill is passed into law. It is not so difficult to control that. You need not have a Commission to go into all that. The Prime Minister must have some information of his own. In any case, my submission is the facts which the Prime Minister has in his possession are sufficent to warrant the motion which has been proposed by the hon. member for Humansdorp, and I say it would be culpable negligence on the part of this Government and on the part of this House to allow this opportunity to pass by without seeking to prevent the evil in the Cape that has reared its head in Natal and which the Government is trying to scotch in this Bill. I think the facts call for action, and I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister has sought to dispose of this matter in such a cavalier way. I do not think he has done justice to his position or taken account of the grave consequences which may result if one does not take action at this stage. I would impress upon him that, if there is any real need for the first part of the Bill in the northern provinces, if the outlet for purchase is closed there and you have all that capital unable to find a reasonable outlet in the northern provinces, it must necessarily flow down to the Cape Province, and then we will, in a few years, have the position we have had in Natal for the last couple of years. The Prime Minister has said this is an attempt to solve this question on a grand scale, to solve it in one measure. How can he say that if it has only a partial application? How can he say that when, as far as these provisions are concerned, there is no attempt to include the Cape Province?

There is another aspect to which I want to draw attention, and that is that where an Indian purchases property in a white area it immediately depreciates all the surrounding property. I was recently consulted —not professionally—but somebody asked me, not a member of my party, an Englishman, what protection his mother-in-law had….

Do not Englishmen belong to your party?

This one did not happen to belong.

There are no Englishmen in your party.

I say that this one was not a member of my party. But I cannot allow this slur on Englishmen to pass by unchallenged—that they are so devoid of intelligence that they refuse to belong to the only party which is able to work for the salvation of South Africa. That I cannot allow to pass. I have too many English-speaking friends for that. But the point is, he asked me what protection Europeans had in the Cape Province against an Indian coming and purchasing the next-door plot, with resultant depreciation in the price of their own property. I had to tell him there was no protection. I said: If you want protection, we will try and give it to you, but it will ultimately depend on the Prime Minister; he is the only one who will be able to do it.

Did you tell them you had voted against the Bill for their protection?

I think they have sufficient intelligence….

More intelligence than he has.

That does not say a lot. I wonder, if the Prime Minister had given the franchise on the common roll, coupled with these provisions in regard to ownership and occupation of land, how many people on the other side would have been able to swallow it? And if they were not prepared to swallow it, would it have been said: You have voted against the part that deals with land ownership and occupation. The debate this afternoon was, after all, to give members of this House a fair opportunity of expressing their convictions on this matter without this political blackmail of saying you must swallow the whole, you cannot get the part you like. It is political blackmail and no argument. It is not an argument, at any rate, which shows any sign of intelligence to say we voted against the Bill while we are trying to give protection in the Cape Province. It is quite clear it is not only a question of occupation of land. The Minister of Finance has said that people from other provinces cannot obtain occupation in this province. Natal has shown very clearly it is not a question only of occupation, but also a question of ownership. The Prime Minister himself knows that all the attempts to confine this limitation only to occupation have proved fruitless. Unless you tackle this matter on the basis of both ownership and occupation you will never be able to settle it satisfactorily.

There are many towns in this province which feel acutely the position of Indians purchasing property among the Europeans. I would like to ask the hon. member for the constituency represented by Mr. Jimmy McLean, are they satisfied with this Indian penetration in the European areas in Port Elizabeth, with these purchases which are included in the £750,000?

Jimmy has been zipped, he may not speak.

It is significant that on this very important point which vitally affects the whole of the Cape Province not a single member from the Cape Province on the other side has had the courage, or the permission, to stand up and speak. It is also significant, and I do not think it has escaped the notice of persons in the galleries, how very active the Whips on the other side have been. I say again, if the Prime Minister wants to do a service to the Cape Province, if what he has said here regarding the urgency of the first part of the Bill, if that is seriously meant, he has to implement it by including in it provisions which will allow the Government to deal adequately with the position in the Cape Province and save a recurrence of the trouble which has exercised our minds and the minds of the people of Natal in the last couple of years.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see how the Opposition are able to judge what our Whips are doing and how they are going about things. We have heard that no one on this side is allowed to speak or has had the courage to do so. I should like to reply to certain points that have been raised this evening, particularly by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), the mover of this motion, and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). The whole point made by the hon. member for Humansdorp is that when this Bill comes into operation there will be a large amount of money available for investment by Natal Indians in the Cape. I pointed out when the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) was speaking, that there is a law that prevents these transactions taking place, and I now propose to refer to that particular Act, Act No. 22 of 1913, the Immigrants’ Regulation Act, which states in Section 8 (1) and 8 (2)—

1. (1) No prohibited immigrant shall be entitled to obtain a licence to carry on any trade or calling in the Union or (as the case may be) in any province wherein his residence is unlawful or to acquire therein any interest in land, whether leasehold or freehold, or in any other immovable property.
2. (2) Any such licence (if obtained by a prohibited immigrant) or any contract, deed or other document by which any such interest is acquired in contravention of this section, shall as from the date that the holder of the licence or interest is dealt with as a prohibited immigrant under this Act, be null and void.

What machinery have you in the Cape Administration to control that; what about companies?

They have the same control in the deeds office as they have in regard to all property sold.

Does that prevent a company formed by Indians owning land?

Does the hon. member think this particular clause can be got over?

Easily.

The hon. member, with his legal knowledge, should have moved some amendment to this Act previously.

We now move.

We know that in the case of every law that is passed people will find some loophole, but I submit in the main this clause is effective. One or two people may get away with things, but in the main the law will be carried out and there will not be many evading it. I take leave to doubt the figures the hon. member for Humansdorp gave us tonight, not the numbers, but I doubt their authenticity, particularly whether they are all Indians who bought the properties. I know for a fact many of these properties have been bought by Malays, not Indians at all; in many cases their names are similar to the Indian names. I also know many of these Indians and Malays sold properties; whilst the boom was on in Cape Town they have been offered tempting prices. As the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg said, prices went as high as £2,000; in fact, that was nothing for a property which in pre-war days was worth only £600, and therefore the Indian or. Malay who bought property for which he paid £2,000 got something which was worth only £600. I am satisfied the transactions cover both Indians and Malays and not Indians alone.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member wishes to know whether I read into this clause that an Indian is prevented from lending money for the purchase of property, but surely if he lends money he acquires an interest in that property. I am not a legal man, but that is how I view the matter. The point I want to get at is this: When these properties have been sold naturally the people who have sold them have had to acquire other properties in which to reside or carry on their businesses, and I therefore say that the so-called menace of Indian penetration in the Cape just does not exist. It is extraordinary that we have to get members of Parliament from outside the Peninsula to come and tell us what takes place here, as if we would not be alive to what is going on. I have never heard of a meeting of protest being held asking us to take the matter to the Prime Minister. I agree entirely that the only right and proper course is to let the matter rest where it is for the time being. Should anything happen in the future, should there be sufficient evidence forthcoming that can be substantiated by a proper commission of enquiry, it will then be time enough to take action. But as things are at the moment there is no need for it at all. This is only a move on the part of the Opposition to try to jeopardise the passing of the Bill. They have been beaten hopelessly in the first round and now they are trying to sabotage the second round. I congratulate the Right Hon. the Prime Minister on the stand he has taken, and I am sure that from every member on this side he will have the fullest support.

I would like to give the Prime Minister a few more figures, and this time he cannot say that these figures were just taken from some office or other, because they have appeared in official books. I just want to go back to the census of 1875, on page 3. There it is stated that at that time there was an insignificant number of non-European foreigners. In 1891 another census was taken and there were then 1,453 Indians in the Cape, namely, 1,065 males and 388 females, 915 of whom lived in the Kimberley district. That was in 1891 when the diamond mines were opened. At that time already there were nearly 1,000 Indians in Kimberley. In 1904, the date of the next census, there were 8,489 Indians of whom 7,648 were males and 841 females. In 1911, according to the census, there were 6,606 Indians, of whom 5,590 were males and a little more than 1,000 females. There were slightly fewer Indians and I shall say in a moment why there was a slight decrease. In 1920 there was another census and there were then 7,696 Indians, of whom 5,724 were males and 1,972 females. In 1936, the date of the last census, there were 10,508 Indians, together with a fair number of Chinese who are also Asiatics; of that number 6,777 were male and 3,831 were females. We have heard that in 1945 there were already 13,000 Indians. In other words, in the short period from 1875 up to the present, the number has increased to 13,000. Because the position developed in this way the Cape became perturbed, but no steps were taken. In 1902 an Immigration Act was passed and the definition of an immigrant was that an immigrant is a person who must be able to write in the characters of one of the European languages. He had to be able to write in the characters of a European language. It was clear that the Act was aimed at the Asiatics, including the Indians in Natal. But subsequently, as a result of evasions of the law, further legislation was introduced. Unfortunately for South Africa, but fortunately for the Jewish race, it was then laid down in the Act of 1906 that Yiddish, the characters of which were not European either, would also be accepted as a European language. That was to enable the Jews to be admitted. It is almost a pity because this is another problem which we shall have to deal with in the near future. At the same time an Act was also passed in the Cape, the Chinese Exclusion Act, No. 37 of 1904. The Chinese entered this country in fairly large numbers, and at the time this Act was passed there were already 1,380 in the Cape Colony. Eventually it restricted the entry of Chinese into this country to some extent. I mention that because they are Asiatics and they also fall under this Bill. A distinction has been drawn between these two classes of Asiatics. The Indian Asiatic enjoyed the protection of the British Government because he was a British subject. The Chinese Asiatic did not have that protection, and I just want to make the point that the reason why we find so many Indians here is because we are coupled with the British Empire and the Indians are protected as British subjects. The same thing happened in the Transvaal and is still happening here. They are protected as British subjects. Unfortunately or fortunately the Chinese did not have that protection. I want to ask the Prime Minister now whether he still adheres to the words he once used, namely that “they have no case”? I have the census figures here. It will be noted that during all these years the number steadily increased. I just want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to that. A case has already been made out here, and notwithstanding the fact that the Indians in this province have to contend with competition from Malays, their numbers have grown. The Malay is a fairly keen competitor of the Indian, and notwithstanding that competition the Indian population in this province has increased considerably. The coloured people are also fairly keen competitors of the Indians and notwithstanding that there are still so many Indians. I just wanted to bring these further figures to the notice of the Prime Minister for his consideration.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) attempted to twit me into speaking tonight by the remarks he made, but I had decided to say something about this matter long before any member of the Opposition or long before any member of my own side thought otherwise. I want to say that that so far as I am concerned, I have not been told by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, as the Opposition appears to think, that I must not do this or that and that I must vote as he tells me.

What about the Whips?

I have never been told by them either and I am so Scotch that if I were told, very likely I will not do it. Anyway, I want to say definitely that a great deal of what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said, is true in regard to the penetration of Indians and in regard to the penetration of Indians in Port Elizabeth. I am not satisfied, because of the vote of the Opposition, in the first instance, that this is not an attack on the Prime Minister and the Bill and a method of destroying the Bill in toto. That I cannot agree with at all. But I want to say this in regard to the position in the Cape Province. I have said this before with regard to the position in the Cape Province, as compared with other provinces, and I cannot understand, since we have had the Act of Union, why there should be this piece-meal legislation, because it is piece-meal legisation. I would like to give the details but I know I will be pulled up by Mr. Speaker if I give the details in regard to such questions as housing, licences, and health in the Cape Province, as compared with other provinces.

Order, order.

Yes, I knew I would be pulled up. Anyway I will leave it at that. But I do say this, that we must not wait until a crisis occurs. There is almost a crisis in Port Elizabeth now, not because the Indians are buying property only—and they are buying property—but because of other things, in leading unintelligent people in the way they ought not to go from the municipal point of view. I hope that our leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, will in the near future see to it that we must of necessity bring the Cape Colony into line with other parts of the country in respect of Indian penetration.

But why wait?

I am prepared to wait because the Prime Minister is a much more experienced man in this respect than I am. I was going to say that he is a much more experienced politician, but I do not want to be a politician. I am prepared to follow him. He is a statesman and the best statesman South Africa has ever had to my mind. But I want to say that what the Opposition has said, has only proved to me that while in some respects they are correct, their main object in dealing with this matter, as they are dealing with it tonight, is an attempt to kill the Bill. But they won’t succeed,

It is remarkable to witness the conduct of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean), who has just sat down. Here we have an hon. member representing a constituency in the Cape Province.

He could no longer contain himself.

He says he wanted to talk about this subject before anyone had talked about it or had decided to talk about it. He got up and stated that the conditions were serious as far as the Cape Province was concerned. Not only is the position serious as far as the penetration of Indians is concerned, but also the position with regard to the purchase of land by Indians; and he referred particularly to his own constituency, the main town of his own constituency, namely Port Elizabeth. When he expresses the conviction that a serious position has already been created in the Cape Province and particularly in his constituency, he does not speak as a representative from whom his constituents can expect that he will adhere consistently to his convictions, if he does not support this proposal of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), which begs the Prime Minister to avail himself of this golden opportunity, since legislation of this nature is under discussion; he does not say that he supports us and that he will accept this motion with a view to helping us to solve his own difficulties for him. It also inexplicable to think that this step which the Prime Minister and his Government and his party have taken, this step to introduce legislation in order to put a stop to the penetration of Indians and to deal with the ancillary matters which are dealt with in this Bill, as framed, is an idea which occurred to the Prime Minister all of a sudden. This is not an idea which occurred to the Prime Minister at a moment’s notice. This step was taken after a long period of agitation, of concern and anxiety on the part of the Europeans in those parts of the Transvaal and particularly in Natal. I say it is upon their insistence that the Government was compelled to introduce legislation, and I want to express my agreement with hon. members and with the Government that the conditions have become almost untenable in certain provinces with regard to the penetration of Indians and the purchase of land by Indians. On that point this side of the House, in the circumstances set out by us, are prepared to assist the Prime Minister and his Government as far as possible to put a stop to that evil and, if possible, to exterminate it. But I want to put this question to hon. members of Natal as well as of the Transvaal; as a matter of fact, I want to put it to all hon. members on the other side who support the Government: If they are deeply convinced that there is a danger in Natal and in the Transvaal, as far as this penetration is concerned, if they want the Government to do something in connection with this matter, why are the members on that side of the House silent this evening, and why do they not support the justifiable request which is made by this side of the House to the Government that the same steps be taken in the Cape Province, where these undesirable conditions exist, possibly not to the same degree as in other provinces, but where the same conditions do exist; why do those hon. members not concern themselves about the fate of their own European brothers and sisters, and why do they not assist us to obviate the possible state of disorder and chaos which may come into existence here? We have reason to ask hon. members on that side what prevents them; why are they afraid to let the Government intervene in this province?

I want to come back to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and deal with what he said at the second reading of this Bill. He spoke in English, and I wrote down in this little book that portion of his speech which deals with the position in Natal, in the very words he used. At the back of his mind was the possibility of penetration and of dangers which may also be created in the Cape Province, dangers of the same nature as those which arose in Natal, and this is what he said; speaking in regard to the penetration in the Cape Province, he uttered the following warning—

He sounded this warning note—

There he refers to the Cape Province—

What did the member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) say just before that? Read that, too.

I am reading the exact words used by the Prime Minister. As a rule, you do not take any notice of what other members said. I ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) to pay attention to the actual words used by his Leader in this debate.

As a result of what?

As a result of the possibility of penetration and even as a result of actual penetration on the part of Indians and the purchase of land in the Cape Province by Indians.

As a result of whose interjections? You do not know English.

I say I am quoting the actual words of the Prime Minister. Ask the Prime Minister why he is so concerned about the position here; why did he issue such a serious warning in connection with the possibilities here? He will give that reply if he gives expression to the anxiety in his heart. He stated in English—

Can one describe it more seriously? He says we will have panic in this province.

He added: “If it should happen”.

He says fear will spread in this province.

“If that happens”.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) says, “If it should happen”. It has been proved over and over again that it is happening here.

The Prime Minister said: “If it should happen”.

Has it not happened? Does the hon. member deny that it has happened?

The Prime Minister added: “If it should happen”.

The hon. member does not want to give me a reply. The Prime Minister went on to say that fear will spread in this province and he says that Governments in the future will be placed in this undesirable position in which this Government finds itself today. In what undesirable position does this Government find itself? The undesirable position which has been created in Natal and in the Transvaal is due to the penetration of the Indians and the purchase of land in those provinces by Indians. That is the difficult position in which the Government is placed. And then we had hon. members like the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) saying this evening that the law forbids the purchase of land in the Cape Province by Indians living elsewhere. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the words uttered by the Prime Minister in his second reading speech. He stated that in the provinces of Natal and Transvaal we have had pegging and other laws but nevertheless these things happened there. The Indians themselves have broken those laws, and the Prime Minister turned to his side of the House and said: “And they have succeeded in a very clever and shrewd way in breaking those laws”. If it is true that there is a law in the Cape Province, which, to a certain extent, forbids Indians to buy land, is it not just as easy for that same community to break the law and to evade it in this province as they did in Natal and Transvaal? We find that an Indian marries a Mohammedan women. It is unlawful according to them, but an Indian marries a Mohammedan woman; he may be resident in the Transvaal or in Natal but he marries her and lets her come to Natal or the Transvaal, as the case may be. She may be living in Cape Town for example. She can then buy land for him here with his money in her name. That is the very type of evasion of the law to which the Prime Minister referred and which has been taking place in the past. I am merely mentioning an example to show how easily it can be done, and if that is the case I want to ask the Prime Minister, since he issued a warning in his second reading speech in regard to the dangers and the possibility of danger, why the Government cannot avail itself of this golden opportunity, since it is now putting legislation of this kind through the House, since it has become convinced of the dangers and the difficulties created in other provinces in the past and the possibility of danger of the same nature arising in this province—why, in those circumstances, does he not avail himself of this golden opportunity to avoid those dangers by merely adopting the course suggested by the hon. member for Humansdorp in his motion? I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) is not in the House at the moment. But I just want to quote something to show the Prime Minister what is happening already. In the “Eastern Province Herald” of 26th March, an Eastern Province newspaper, an advertisement appeared in these terms—

Scarcely had these people seen that it was proposed to put a stop to their penetration in Natal and the Transvaal and that legislation to that effect was going to be passed, or immediately they moved in the Cape Province, and at no other place than in Port Elizabeth, and they gave notice of a public meeting to take steps for a specific purpose, as set out in this motion. Is that not an indication to the Prime Minister of the direction in which things are developing even here in the Cape Province? If he does not want to take any notice of that, then I suppose no amount of talking, no figures and no statistics will convince him. In that case he has made up his mind once and for all that he is not going to yield. He is adopting this attitude: “I have gone so far with regard to this great problem, and you will not persuade me to go further, and you will not get my supporters away from me.” The Prime Minister stated that the people of Natal and the Transvaal had made a historical mistake. That is true. He says they made a historical mistake, and he says we have today become the victims of that historical mistake, whether it was by provincial governments or by the Union Government. I want to tell him again that with the responsibility he bears he dare not leave the situation as it is in the Cape Province; he cannot ignore the possibility of difficulties of that nature arising here, without lifting a finger to do anything about it. By merely issuing a warning he will not solve this problem. Warnings will not keep those people away from the Cape Province. He must take strong action. If it is right according to the view of the Prime Minister and according to hon. members on the other side to deprive the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal of so-called rights, why cannot they regard it as right that the same people be treated in this province on the same footing? These are the same people who are doing the same things, and we merely ask that they should be treated here on the same footing. In the Cape Province they already have the franchise, but we do not want them to do those other things which they are doing in the northern provinces, and we want to treat them on the same footing as the Indians in the northern provinces. I want to make an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister to avail himself of this opportunity to put a stop once and for all to this possible evil, if it not an evil already.

I am just rising to do what the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. de Kock) really ought to have done, and that is to bring to the notice of the House the resolution that his town adopted a few days ago at a big public meeting. Apparently the hon. member for Vryburg regards this matter, as far as his constituency is concerned, of so little importance that he will not even attend this debate. In any case it is as well that his constituents know this. I am doing now what he should have done, and that is to bring to the notice of this House the resolution that was taken by his constituents.

But before I do so I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) stated here. He brought this House under the impression that Asiatics from Natal and prohibited immigrants may not purchase land in the Cape Province. I do not know why the hon. member did not make certain of the law before he spoke here: When you read out an Act in this House it is not right to read out merely one part of it and not another part that does not suit you. The hon. member read out Section 8 of Act No. 22 of 1913, which deals with the prohibiting of immigrants from purchasing land in the Cape Province. But for reasons of his own he only read the first part of the section and not the second part. What does the second part say? It reads as follows—

This means that the transactions that have been entered into will be null and void from the moment the person is regarded as a prohibited immigrant; and from what moment will an Indian from Natal be regarded as a prohibited immigrant? He is regarded as a prohibited immigrant from the moment he is in the Cape Province. So long as he is in Natal he is not a prohibited immigrant, and under Section 8 of the Act he is absolutely entitled to purchase land and they are in fact buying it in that way. The hon. member for Cape Flats is not in the House at the moment, but I want to say to him: Do not bring the House under a false impression when you quote the Act here. The fact is that under Section 8 (1 and 2) an Asiatic who is a prohibited immigrant from Natal may buy land in the Cape Province and it can be transferred to his name, but as soon as he comes here he is a prohibited immigrant and only then is the transaction null and void. What happens, of course, is that the Indians in Natal buy land here and allow it to be occupied by someone else. But furthermore, companies are formed and this the Asiatics are doing on a big scale. There is nothing in this Act that prohibits a company from receiving transfer in their name. I would just say this, that anyone who wishes to intimate to the House that a prohibited immigrant from Natal cannot own land in the Cape, let him read Section 8 of the Act.

The resolution that was taken at the public meeting at Vryburg on 15th March, 1946, is the following. I want to read it out here for the simple reason that it seems to me as if the Prime Minister is rather nervous about asking his department to get the figures for him. It is very easy for him to get the figures. He can ask one of the clerks at the Deeds Office to send them across. If other persons can get them he can also get them, but because the Prime Minister hesitates about obtaining the figures it is as well that we should bring to his notice resolutions of this character that the people have been compelled to adopt. I would like to confirm what has been stated here that when you visit certain towns in the Cape Province you cannot really believe you are in the Cape Province; you imagine you are somewhere in the East. Vryburg adopted the following resolutions—

The resolution reads that the meeting had learned with indignation of the following points—

1. 2. That this penetration of Asiatics as landowners has alarmingly increased, even into the most central European business and residential quarters in the heart of the town.
2. 3. That a continuance of Asiatic penetration amongst the white population is regarded as undesirable and cannot be tolerated.

Consequently this meeting protests with all earnestness against this penetration and against the purchase of land by Asiatics in our midst and submits the following request with all diffidence but at the same time in all seriousness:—To the mayor and members of the municipal council, to take effective steps without delay to ward off the danger of Asiatic penetration; and to send immediately to the Prime Minister at Cape Town a strong and influential deputation with instructions that seeing that legislation in regard to Asiatic penetration is being considered in the Assembly to protest with the utmost vigour against such Asiatic penetration and to urge on the Prime Minister that the Indian problem be regarded as a whole and that the Cape Province be added to the northern provinces in this legislation; also to urge for provision in the proposed legislation under which further Asiatic penetration will immediately be prevented with retrospective effect in regard to similar transactions that are pending.

This is the resolution that was adopted at a great public meeting in Vryburg. I assume this is one of the first resolutions of this nature, but I can imagine that in the near future a number of similar resolutions will be received by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister from various towns in the Cape. The people will come to him and complain to him about their distress. It seems to me that they will in an increasing measure complain to him about their plight, and that they will have to get another Government to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. Members on thé opposite side from other towns who apparently are going to vote against this amendment will hear from their towns. They will hear from them here and they will also hear from them when they return home.

I do not think so.

That hon. member will find that out. There is just one more point. The view was expressed that we should wait until the matter was more serious. In this connection I would refer to the report of the Broome Commission to show how suddenly the matter has developed in Natal. Look at that part of Durban where we have had the greatest penetration, and then we will see why the Commission drew attention to the fact that the matter had developed terribly. We can put the matter in this way, that seeing certain restrictions were imposed in Natal and the Transvaal there will be a flow of capital to the Cape Province and purchases will be on a larger scale and more rapid. These people are out to buy land. It is a preconceived plan, organised action. You cannot tell this House that these people have just bought land casually. This action of the Indians in Natal, Transvaal and elsewhere has been organised in recent years. It is their object to acquire as much land as they can. According to the Broome Commission this matter has developed with surprising rapidity. In their report, which is in the possession of this House, they have marked off in blocks how the Asiatics’ purchases have increased. Before 1927 the number of properties they owned in Durban was represented by one block. On the plan there is a black block, and that represents a certain number of properties. Between 1927 and 1940 it increased by 20 blocks. The Commission points out that between 1940 and 1943 the purchases in Durban increased with surprising speed. In those three years the number of blocks increased from 20 to 54. In other words, the position suddenly became acute. In these circumstances it is dangerous to say that one must wait until something also happens here. By the time Parliament assembles next year the Indians may perhaps have purchased on a large scale, and things can move very quickly. It is not right to tell the House we must wait. What surprises me is that the Prime Minister said that a future government must tackle this matter. In other words, there is nothing to expect from him. It makes one despair to hear that from the hon. member. I assume that he will not hold that position much longer, but something must be done, and why be so downhearted then as to say that a future government will have to do this? What the Prime Minister certainly can accept is that when the next government takes office, and one hopes they will come soon, and the people will see to that, the next government will accomplish this. But our point is that this is something that must be done immediately.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—40:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit. A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Clause 1 of the Bill put.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 4th April.

The House will probably remember that I endeavoured by way of moving the adjournment of the House to bring to the attention of the House the very painful situation that has arisen in the country owing to the shortage of bread. If I may be permitted, I want now to take an opportunity to raise the question under the Prime Minister’s vote. Is there a spare half-hour for me?

No, both periods have already been utilised.

First of all I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he purposes to continue the present system of governing this country by Boards. That is a very pertinent question in view of the sitution in which we find ourselves. Board after Board has been set up and controller after controller, and whilst I do not object and I do not think any reasonable member of this House will be prepared to object to the administration of a policy being in the hands, under supervision, of course, of Boards of Controllers; yet I do most strongly object— and I feel that hon. members will support me in that objection—to these Boards establishing a policy of the country. That is what is happening over this particular situation. Here you have the Wheat Control Board. Incidentally, that Board is lopsided in its personnel. The majority of the members of that Board are farmers. A very large proportion of them have several other financial interests, and only one member of the Board, if my information is correct, represents the interests of the consumer. Now, the consumers are the vast mass of the public, and if any preponderance of representation is required at all, it should be that representing the consumers. But that is not so. So I am finding fault with the members of the Board, its composition; and the same applies to the Maize Control Board. Now, we have to admit and admit with pain that there is a shortage of bread. I am one of those who has advocated a tightening of our belts in the interests of world humanity. I am prepared to contribute and to ask others to contribute in kind to the feeding of the rest of the world. But as a result of that, whether that operates or not, we have to admit that there is and must inevitably be, in all the circumstances, a shortage of what we call the staff of life. Now, how does this Board cope with that? I am advocating as strongly as I can a system of rationing. Whatever shortage there may be, or whatever quantity of this commodity there may be available in the country, it is the business of the Government to see that it is evenly distributed to all the mouths in the country, and not to leave us with a complete absence of this food, in the majority of cases, whilst there is a surplus available to others who can afford to buy. Incidentally, I want to mention this, apropos of Boards controlling our policy, and getting a very swollen-headed idea of their own importance.

Hear, hear.

Actually on the day when I endeavoured to move the adjournment of the House, my party’s caucus decided upon a deputation consisting of my hon. friend here, the hon. member for Durban North (Rev. Miles-Cadman), the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne) and myself, together with some experts, the real experts, namely, the chairman and secretary of the Bakers’ Union (I am talking of the employees), who themselves have examined the position very carefully, and who, with all their inside information, had certain considerations to put before the Wheat Board. We asked for an interview with the chairman before they started their meeting, in order to introduce these two gentlemen to them, and to place before them their views as to how this unfortunate situation could be met in the fairest possible way for all concerned. But we were calmly informed that we could not be seen. We, members of Parliament, could not be seen by this august body, the Wheat Board. Tut, tut! Fancy members of Parliament asking ’to be seen by so august a body. We were told that we could be seen next week, but they are deciding within the next day or two a plan of bread economy for the whole Union. Still, they are not prepared to give consideration to all the representations that can be made. That should have been their first duty, but they have not done so. What is the position? If the Press is to be believed, they have already arrived at a decision. They have proposed that there should be one breadless day a week. That means that on one day a week thousands of people in this country—I am not exaggerating—will have nothing to eat, because that is all they get. I am glad hon. members appreciate the enormity of this. Then, as a reinforcing method, they decided that after 5 p.m. there should be no bread consumed anywhere. What a ridiculous suggestion to make. How can you see, in many thousands of families, whether or not they have bread after five o’clock?

You can only do it in the hotels

Yes. On the face of it, without further examination, it is a ridiculous method. Another thing is that in order to encourage increased production of wheat —which incidentally will exhaust our soil— they talk about increasing the price to the farmer substantially. Now, the farmer is getting 37s. 6d. a bag.

That is only for first grade.

We are only dealing with first grade. Call it an average of 35s. Before the war 22s. was regarded as a tremendous price well worth growing wheat for as a paying proposition. Now it is 35s. all round, and the proposal is that they should get more to induce them to grow. These references I am making are only incidental to my argument. I am only endeavouring to show that by reason of the fact that this Board in its wisdom, or lack of it, has decided not to have representations made to it by people who know something about it, they are getting into this unholy mess, and they are not going to provide the people who need bread most with the bread they need from the common pool. I urge upon the Prime Minister that a closer examination should be made, and that the policy shall be set up by the Government itself, who should take responsibility for it, and that the Government should not shelter behind the Board which does not know anything at all about the question.

Another suggestion by this Board is that they shall ration the supply of bread which the bakers may make. But there is no obligation on the bakers to see that it is distributed fairly; and today a black market has already been created. Dealers, retailers, are already offering far beyond the controlled maximum price to the bakers. In fact, a figure has been given to me, that already they have offered 7s. 6d. a dozen, more than the retail price of bread to the consumer. What does that mean? Sooner or later at all events some of the bakers will fall, and sell their bread to the retailers who will give them the highest price, and that still further restricts the possibility of the unfortunate poor man and woman in the country to buy bread at all. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I want very strongly to support the case that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has been making to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and I want to speak in this regard especially about the effects of the present position on the people whom I represent. They are the people who are mainly voiceless. They are the people who have no established relations with traders, particularly in the urban areas, and they have no established control over supplies of food. They are the people who suffer most when the country gets into the sort of position it is in at the present time. When we entered this war, our native population, like all our lower income groups, were remarkable for the high degree of malnutrition which characterised them. That situation has not improved during the war. In many directions it has deteriorated during the war. We have suffered from a number of food crises, particularly in the last two or three years. Every one of these food crises has come back on the non-European population and the poorer Europeans of the community, to aggravate what was already a very serious condition. Last year maize was in short supply in this country. Maize, as we all know, is the basic food of the non-European population, particularly of the African population, and that basic food has gone up in price by practically 100 per cent. in the course of the war. Wages have gone up in nothing like the same proportion. We know what wage rise was given in the mining industry, because that was fixed by Parliament; and we know that there is no cost of living allowance to native miners. But native miners have families, most of whom do not produce their own food supplies in ordinary times, and who have been badly hit by the drought conditions which have been one of the fortuitous misfortunes which we have suffered during the last year or two. In the circumstances, large numbers of native mineworkers and their families have been dependent on the food they can buy, as have been increasing numbers of Africans in urban areas. That food has not only been enormously increased in cost, but it has practically vanished from the native areas—I am talking now of the rural areas—and it is extremely difficult to get in the urban areas. Whenever any commodity is in short supply, these people find difficulty in getting their share. Last year, when I was in the Ciskei, I found that even the people who could afford to buy could not get maize. By some curious set of circumstances there was no maize, a circumstance which I still find difficult to understand, because, in spite of short crops in this country, more maize has been put through trade channels in recent years than before the war. Actually a million bags are being put through these channels every month, yet the natives are not getting the maize; and when they do get it, the price is a very great consideration. This price, fantastically high, is established by the Food Controller on the basis of a price guarantee to the farmers. But the natives are not able to buy at the bag price. They can only buy at the retail price for small quantities, which is a considerably higher price. And I have seen natives who have walked miles to try to get maize hanging round for hours at country stores, and when they get half a bag of maize, it takes them the rest of the day to get back to the kraal; and the maize only lasts a few days, seeing that there is no other food. Last year in the Ciskei there was no sugar available. Today a great many natives who could not get maize last year and the year before owing to droughts were forced back on bread. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) has told me on various occasions, and I presume would be willing to tell the House, that the baking industry has increased enormously in the Transkei. In the towns many natives have gone on a bread diet as an alternative to maize, and more and more have done so since maize became impossible to get. Now these people stand in queues for endless hours, only to find when they reach the counter that there is no bread for them. The two points I want to put to the Prime Minister in regard to the food situation are these: The first is that the cost of food is not only fantastically high, but it is most disastrously high from a nutritional point of view today. Before the war many natives were moving off a maize diet to a more varied diet, but the steady rise in the price of foodstuffs, which I submit the Government has allowed to happen to far too great an extent during the war, has forced the people back on this maize diet, with a very serious aggravation of their nutritional condition. But, secondly, the absence of any analysis of the food needs of this country has meant that when food is in short supply and there has been no rigid rationing, the African people just don’t get food. I want to say to the Prime Minister that this is where I think the most serious gap exists in our present set-up. We have a food control organisation, but we have no food policy in this country, and at the moment we are incapable of making any effective use of any food control policy, because we do not know the needs of the people. In my opinion, the Nutrition Council, which the Minister of Finance referred to the other day as the body which can tell the Government what are the needs of the people, has done an excellent job in the only field that was open to it, the field of research. The Nutrition Council has established two things beyond doubt. One is that we have a very grave problem of malnutrition in this country, and the other is the qualitative diet that should be available as the basis of human efficiency. That is a purely research job. But it is failing to appreciate the rigid limits of the Nutrition Council to suggest in the present set-up they are capable of telling the Government what the present quantitative needs of the population are. They have no machinery to evaluate the quantitative food needs of the native population or of any section of the population. Now that piece of information is what we lack hopelessly; we do not know what food the people need. The result was seen last year, and the year before, when the Maize Board was faced with the problem of spreading out over the year the available supplies of maize. The Food Controller put out a notice that people would not be allowed to buy two bags permit free per person per month. When I first heard that I did not worry, because I knew no native family could afford one bag of maize per person per month. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that here again difficulty has arisen. We quite agree that the Boards which were appointed must remain. We may perhaps differ as regards their composition and the way in which they function. We agree with the consumers that they should perhaps have more representation, but we feel that in this connection we can investigate what other countries have done. They also have Boards in Australia, but their composition is quite different to ours. There they have a producers’ Board and a consumers’ Board, and nobody can say that the consumers are not represented, for they have their own Board. Eventually they get together and the two Boards decide on the prices which must be paid so that the farmers can exist, the middle men can make their profit and so that the consumers are protected. If we can transform our boards in this direction they will be successful. I agree with the hon. member that the man who buys from day to day by no means receives his rightful share of what there is. In the Cradock district there are many poor people and natives who are starving, but what happens? The man who has an account at a shop receives preference. If a little mealie meal or flour arrives, the man who has an account receives preference, but the man who pays cash and buys from day to day has to take a back seat. When one buys in small quantities the prices are still terribly high—enormous profit is being made. It is the man who buys by the bucket who is hardest hit. There is insufficient protection for the man of small means. On that point I heartily agree with the hon. member who has just been seated. It happened in my constituency just before I left that certain quotas of flour were stopped owing to a misunderstanding, and where a certain shopkeeper had to provide for the needs of 500 families, the morning I left he did not have sufficient wheat for 250 families. The poor people had to go without. I am certain that in my constituency there were a large number who went without food. The distribution system as it exists today is not satisfactory. The Boards are not sufficiently interested in distribution; it apparently does not concern them whether everybody gets food and also whether the poorer classes can obtain food. I shall be glad if the Boards will ensure in the future that proper provision is made for the poor people and the natives who live on bread, wheat and mealie meal alone. They cannot afford to buy other things, but in the past they have not always been properly treated. Now we come to the price basis, and I am sorry that it was raised. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that before the war the farmers received 22s. per bag for wheat, and now they are getting 35s., about 50 per cent. more. But I want to ask him to consider the price at which wheat has to be imported today, for then he will see that the farmers in this country are very reasonable to be satisfied with the fixed price. We import mealies at 33s. per bag, but in this country the farmers receive only 19s., and even for 33s. you cannot obtain mealies. I want hon. members to be reasonable towards the producer. He cannot produce under production costs, and if you want everyone to be fed you must ensure that the farmer receives a decent price for his product. I also want to point out to the hon. member for Benoni that there are hundreds of poor farmers who produce 200 or 300 bags of wheat or mealies. The hon. member must not deprive these people of their bread and butter, for they must be able to exist and make a living. That is why we feel that the prices which have been fixed are reasonable. You definitely cannot import wheat under £2 5s. or £2 10s. Why, then, should the producer only receive 35s.? Leave the price basis as it is. Do not expect the farmer in this country under existing conditions to receive so much less than the prices in the world market. Then he will not be able to produce. During the war the farmer played the game and was satisfied with a lower price than he would have received in an open market. If it were possible to import on a cheaper basis, I would still be able to understand it, but it is not possible. Today there is £10 million on the estimates for import subsidies. Let us realise, after all, that if we compensate the farmer for his production costs, everybody in the country will benefit by it, and the shortage will be obviated. But what is necessary is that the big gap must be narrowed between the price obtained by the producer and that which the farmer has to pay. To be able to do this there must be proper machinery to exercise control. The farmers do not want to exploit any section. The farmers realise that if their products are priced too high, then the consumers cannot pay the prices. The consumers and producers must be brought closer together and arrange their affairs. It is the middleman who makes too much profit. I feel, too, as the hon. member said, that people in the lower income groups are exploited. Why should you have to pay 3s. 6d. for a bucket of flour when the shopkeeper only pays 19s. for a bag? There the man who lives from day to day is hardest hit. In this connection, I agree entirely with hon. members, but they must not try to ruin the producers. Under existing circumstances a farmer cannot produce wheat under £2 a bag, and under no circumstances can he produce mealies today under 19s. I am speaking as a practical farmer. I cannot produce mealies under irrigation, for it will not pay me at today’s prices. For that reason I leave it alone. I can also not produce wheat at 35s. per bag under irrigation, because it does not pay me. Thus, I do not do so. But you must protect people who produce wheat, otherwise you will not get the supplies which you need. Unfortunately, we have not yet got efficient control, as they have in other countries; we have not got the stores which are necessary, and our distribution system leaves a lot to be desired. The gap between the producer and the consumer is too big, and we must create efficient machinery to bring about an improvement there.

I hope the Committee will not get its attention concentrated too much on the question of prices. We do not want the main point of view we should apply to this matter to be sidetracked in this fashion. The point the hon. gentleman mentioned about the small men who produced only a few hundred bags brings home to us the necessity for a complete reorganisation of the agricultural side of the question, and we should not leave it to haphazard and hurly-burly, each one working on his own, making a profit out of foodstuffs. They have got it, of course, under our present system, I admit that. But even that is a matter for close investigation. The situation that presents itself now is immediate, and something has to be done. I want to develop the point I was making, and that is that a black market has already been created. It is there, and the retailers are offering higher prices than the retail price of bread to bakers. It is easy to see that before very long a large proportion of the bakers—they are just human and they, too, are profitmakers—will succumb to the blandishments of those who are offering them 7s. 6d. There is no limit at all. It will become an auction. Because there is a certain section of the population who will buy it, however high the price, but it will further restrict the quantity available to the poor, which includes the natives; I do not leave them out of my consideration at all. The native is looking for bread. He loves bread, in the urban districts especially. And that brings me to another point. Is it known to members of this Committee that people who care not how they make their money are grinding the natives still further down? We have seen the reports in the papers, and I take it these are expressions of fact; some people are selling slices of bread to natives, with a little smearing of jam or something else, and they call it a sandwich and charge accordingly. They should be shot.

Natives are doing that.

They learn all the vices of my hon. friend and none of his virtues. There are very few of those. Whoever they may be, whatever the colour of their skin, I want to direct attention to the necessity of rationing bread.

How do you do it?

How did they do it in England, how do they do it anywhere and everywhere where they are rationing? We are the most retrogressive and backward crowd on the face of the earth in this matter. Which is more difficult — starving the people or doing something to give them bread? Are we to dismiss this suggestion of mine because it is difficult?

It is much easier to starve them.

Yes, but that is not right; that is not how we should feel. We have had many difficult problems before us and we have always been prepared to tackle them, and no one is going to convince me we cannot tackle any difficult problem. This is the trouble that overshadows all our difficulties. There is the necessity to supply bread to people who require the bread to live and the quantity we have at our disposal has to be fairly distributed among them all. That is the underlying principle we have to adopt. I would urge on the Prime Minister when he is going overseas with an international reputation—of which I am proud—that that is not his only duty in life; let me lay that flattering unction to his soul. His first duty is to his own people, and his own people are the many thousands of people who in the ordinary way cannot afford to buy enough bread. But we should see they have enough bread at the stores. I urge upon the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that that should be the first consideration in order to relieve the distress of so many thousands of people.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has raised an issue which is undoubtedly exercising the mind of the whole of the country at the present time. It has exercised the mind of the Government for a good many months in the past. As the hon. member has pointed out, we are faced with a shortage during the coming year of wheat and flour, and that shortage is accentuated by the failure of our own maize crop in addition to the shortage of our own wheat crop. Hon. members are aware of it, but there seems to be a number of people in the country who have not yet grasped the fact that it is so, that it is an ineluctable fact we are faced with this shortage and we have to deal with it. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Benoni it is a matter of first importance we should do so. What is the position? May I briefly outline to the Committee what the actual state of affairs is as far as wheat is concerned. Owing to the failure of our wheat crop we had to request the Combined Food Boards to supply us, if possible, with 3½ million bags of wheat to see us through until our next crop came in. I went over to London two months ago on that particular subject. The position now is: Our requests were considered in London and in Washington in conjunction with the requests from many other countries suffering from shortages as great if not greater than ours. There is not enough grain in the world to go round, and as a result we received what we must regard as a very fair allocation of what was available. So far we have been allocated of the 3½ million bags we asked for 1,925,000 bags up to the end of June. Then a further allocation will be made to the world; and if we are allocated on the same basis, as we hope we will be, for the rest of the year, we shall have another 750,000 bags of wheat to come into the country, to be here and available before our next crop.

What is the price?

I am not in a position to give the exact price, but if you add freight and transport from the other end the price is fairly high. In any case the price is not relevant to the argument of the hon. member for Benoni that I am dealing with. Therefore on the assumption we are getting a future allocation on a similar basis as we have had so far we are faced with a shortage of 800,000 bags of wheat for the rest of this year, and that means that the country will have to consume roughly 100,000 bags of wheat less per month for the rest of this year, and that means a cut of roughly 20 per cent. in wheat and wheat products. That is a fact which we all have to face. It is a fact for which nobody can be held responsible. It is due to a combination of circumstances beyond human control. We would like, if it had been possible, to have relieved the wheat position by increasing the maize distribution. We have done all we can to obtain maize from overseas and — again having regard to the general circumstances — we have been successful in obtaining enough maize to see us through until the new crop comes in in June. But we have only just been successful in getting enough, and we are skating on fairly thin ice in maintaining the present consumption through the trade of something over a million bags per month, and therefore it is not possible to ease the wheat situation by increasing the distribution of maize at the present time.

The Government therefore must take what steps it can to bring home to the people the necessity for these economies being made.

You can only do that by rationing.

I will come to the question of rationing in a moment if the hon. member will allow me. The other day as a start we prohibited the making of toast. That sounds a very small and insignificant thing to do; but the reports we are getting from all over the country both from the bakers and the catering trade are to the effect that that small regulation has already resulted in a very substantial saving of bread.

What do you mean by a substantial saving?

I cannot give the exact figure because we cannot get it. The figure given by the Hotelkeepers’ Association shows the amount of bread the hotels are saving. I think one man said it amounted to six dozen loaves a week, that is, in one hotel. There are other steps we intend taking at once. A Government Gazette will be issued in the next few days prohibiting the sifting of flour and meal, and prohibiting the sale of sieves. The hon. member for Benoni asked how it was possible to go into every house and see that nobody has any bread after 5 o’clock. The answer is, of course, that it is not possible, unless we give the police permission to walk into every house at any time of the day; and if we did that the first person to object with hysterical noise would be the hon. member for Benoni. In other words, it cannot be done. My point is in this way it can be done if everybody will realise the seriousness of the position and will conform to the regulations laid down by the Government.

There are the black marketeers.

We will have to deal with the black marketeers, but for one black marketeer there are several hundred householders, and it is the householders I am referring to. We propose further to prohibit the serving of bread or wheaten products between 4 o’clock in the afternoon and 6 o’clock in the morning, and there would be a prohibition on cakes and bread for sale except by registered bakers and manufacturers. We also propose to cut by a further 50 per cent. the making of cakes and biscuits and macaroni. Of course those manufacturers have for some time past been prohibited from using sifted meal at all. They have for some time been using a ration of 80 per cent. unsifted meal, and I am proposing to cut them a further 50 per cent., and to prohibit bread for the brewing of beer or the feeding of animals. The use of meal has for some time been prohibited, except for thé purpose of making bread. We are informed by our officials on the Reef that the sale and purchase of bread for the making of beer has assumed quite considerable proportions, and is consuming a substantial quantity of bread at present. Those restrictions will be put into force at once. They will result in a substantial saving of bread in the various directions which they affect. The Wheat Control Board is meeting today. It is meeting all sections of the trade and discussing the whole question of economies, and it may be that the Board may make further suggestions to the Government which we shall be very ready to consider and act upon if they are considered practical.

What steps are you taking to stop the sale of bread at 3d. a slice?

The hon. member for Benoni made a general attack on control boards, which I do not think I need deal with at the moment, but as far as the Wheat Control Board is concerned, first of all he must remember the Wheat Control Board is undertaking functions at the request of the Government for which it was not originally intended, and on all matters of policy such as fixing of prices and rationing and general questions of distribution, the Board acts on the instructions of the Government.

Will you tell us what the Wheat Board decided? Will they encourage farmers or not?

That is what the Board is meeting for at present. The Government is awaiting the recommendations of the Board. They have not yet reported to the Government. All these restrictions which are being placed on the consumption of bread and wheaten products now by the Government and which the Government will have to endeavour to see enforced only refer to the trade, i.e., to the places where bread is consumed in public, and these people can to a very large extent be supervised and controlled, but I do not think it is generally realised what an enormous proportion of the consumption of meal and flour in the Union takes place in the home, being baked and eaten there. Something like 55 per cent. of the total consumption is still baked in the home and never goes through the bakers’ shops at all. That means that if we are going to save 20 per cent., and if the 80 per cent. which we hope to make available is in fact going to be available to the people, if the bakeries are to have 80 per cent. of their normal supplies, then every housewife in the country will also have to save 20 per cent. of her consumption and baking, and that is pre-eminently a case where the people will simply have to help to save themselves if we are going to get through this pressing period without grievous suffering, particularly to those classes of the population for whom the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has been pleading. [Time limit.]

There is one factor which we must not lose sight of, and it is that there is a real shortage of two of our most important foodstuffs, namely, mealies and wheat. That the Government is responsible to a certain extent for those shortages cannot be disputed, but I do not intend discussing that question now. Under circumstances such as these, where there is a great shortage of those two important foodstuffs, it is self-evident that the question of distribution of the quantities at your disposal will be a very important task. In this connection we now learn that at this stage the Government has called in the help of overseas food experts to advise it. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it was necessary to get somebody from overseas to advise him of the most efficient method of distributing foodstuffs which are in short supply among the nation? The Government has failed in its duty towards the nation. I regard it as quite unnecessary to get somebody from overseas to advise us, and it will not have the desired results, for the persons who come here, whatever their capabilities may be and whatever their experience may be which they have acquired in other countries, are not acquainted with the circumstances in South Africa. I maintain that the circumstances in South Africa are quite different to the circumstances in those countries, and that the people will have to be here a long time to study the circumstances before they will be in a position to furnish a proper report, and by the time they have become acquainted with the circumstances in South Africa the need will be greater and the need of the nation will have become worse. What the Government should have done is that they should have appointed suitable persons in this country to investigate the circumstances and to see what the best method is of distributing our important foodstuffs. It must be remembered that our Marketing Boards who today are saddled with great problems in connection with these shortages were not established in the first instance to deal with shortages of products, but to deal with surpluses. Circumstances have, however, changed so much that there are shortages,’ and now they have to solve this new state of affairs, which is not easy. The Government should have anticipated matters earlier and investigated the position. It seems to me as though these circumstances of today are now being used by certain interested parties and certain influences in the country to attack the control schemes as such and to bring them into disfavour with the nation, and this is what I would like to bring to the attention of the Government. I find, for instance that in this morning’s “Cape Times” a special attempt is being made in that direction. These shortages and difficult circumstances we are experiencing today are being linked with the visit of Sir Henry French who is now coming to South Africa to advise the Government in connection with the distribution of foodstuffs, and that report is so compiled in the paper that simultaneously with the announcement of the visit of Sir Henry French insinuations are being made against the control boards. For example, in this morning’s “Cape Times” it is announced under the same heading that Sir Henry French has arrived here, and in the following paragraph it says—

The “Cape Times” links Sir Henry French’s visit with the activities of the control boards, and it is stated that they are the cause of the shortage. Under the same heading certain findings of Professor Hutt are discussed. He is said to have said in connection with control boards—

And then under the same heading there is a further report given of the resignation of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) who is supposed to have resigned from the Mealie Board because prices were fixed too high. And further on, on the same page under the same heading it is said that the Wheat Control Board is now meeting—

The whole idea is to throw suspicion on the control boards, and I want to warn the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and ask the Government not to allow the visit of Sir Henry French to be used as a background from which attacks will be launched on control boards. The control boards have to function under very difficult circumstances. They have to contend with shortages today. I have just said that they were not established to deal with shortages, but to deal with surpluses, and hon. members in this House and the country in general must know that these people have difficult work to perform, and I want to say that it is not sufficiently realised what the circumstances would have been in the country if those control boards had not functioned and if the control boards had not kept prices low. The fact is that during the war the control boards kept the prices of products under their control low. Take, for example, the price of wheat. During this war the price of wheat never rose beyond £2 per bag, and after the previous war the price of wheat rose to £4 per bag. The control boards keep prices low. I do not want control boards to make use of their powers and rights by forcing up the prices of products too much. I think the farmer in South Africa will be the first man to say that he is not in favour of prices being too high. But at the same time the control boards must ensure, particularly where there are now shortages of important foodstuffs, that production is encouraged. The position today is to a large extent due to the fact that production has not been sufficiently encouraged in the past. There are persons who assert that the control boards only look to the interests of the producers, that the control boards are “pressure groups” which force prices up. Those people quite forget the machinery under which those control boards function. No control board fixes prices. The Minister or the Government fixes prices. The control boards are only advisory bodies; but the Government is advised by more than the control boards.

It is also advised by the Marketing Board, by the Board of Commerce and Industry, and those boards, the Marketing Board and the Board of Commerce and Industry, will not neglect the interests of the consumers. They represent the wide interests of the nation, and it is thus quite wrong of hon. members such as the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and others to accuse and lay the blame at the door of the control boards and to say that they are responsible for the increases in the prices of products. [Time limit.]

As I was saying, this is a case where the people will have to be prepared to help to save themselves as well as supplementing anything the Government tries to do to deal with the position. For some weeks past, we have been preparing a publicity campaign in the Press and in the cinema to bring home to the people the necessity for everyone playing his part in meeting the situation, and that is starting at once.

I come to the question of distribution, which by common consent is the most difficult of all the aspects of this food position In regard to wheaten products, the Wheat Control Board on behalf of the Government does, and for a very long time past has very strictly distributed both wheat and flour and meal to the miller, the baker, and to the trade. I would like to reassure the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) at once on the question of the visit of Sir Henry French to this country, and to give him the positive assurance that he has not been invited here to investigate the functions of our Agricultural Control Boards; and I agree with the hon. member that it would be a very poor recognition of the work which these Boards have done for the country during the war if we were to turn on them now, because even if they have not succeeded 100 per cent. in carrying out duties for which they were never intended, and which they undertook at the urgent request of the Government, we should not blame them now and say they are inefficient. So that the position is that the wheaten products are rationed efficiently, continually and strictly right down to the retail trader. That is the point where rationing ceases as far as the Wheat Board is concerned. It has been suggested again this morning that the way to bridge that gap is to institute some form of consumer rationing. Personally, I have always felt that that presented insuperable difficulties. We have studied this thing for two or three years, and we still feel that, based on a registration which does not exist, rationing by coupon to the consumer is not a practicable proposition in the Union. I had talks with the experts when I was in England, and they agreed with me that, having regard to our conditions in the Union, the system to which everyone looks as an example, the one in existence in Britain during the war, would not be effective in this country. However, we have pursued the matter, and it is for that reason that we now have visiting this country two of the leading experts on food rationing in the world. They have come here to advise the Government without any prejudice at all on how we might improve our distributive methods as regards foodstuffs in short supply, and whether or not a consumer rationing system is possible. I think the hon. member for Oudtshoorn is rather shortsighted in suggesting that we have not done the right thing in getting two people who have had world-wide experience on the whole question to advise us whether we can or cannot apply it here. But, meanwhile, we have to rely on the trader to distribute bread fairly. The distribution of bread should be a simple matter. It is not a thing you can hoard or store. The trader cannot buy large quantities. It is distributed from day to day, and unless the trader is dishonest it should be a simple rnatter for him to ration his 80 per cent. fairly amongst his customers. If we find that the trader is not carrying out his duty, we shall have no hesitation in dealing severely with him. We shall take away his quota and give it to someone else, and put him out of business.

How will you discover it?

One of the ways of finding out is if the public co-operates and reports to the food authorities where a local trader is exploiting the position in favour of himself. If the community does not co-operate, we cannot control them. The same thing applies in regard to the black market. This question of sandwiches is one which has suddenly cropped up, and we shall have to deal with it, but it is not a difficult problem. Therefore, there is no need for the country to panic, and I hope that public men and women will not give the impression that there is a need to panic. I appeal to responsible people, like the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), not to spread alarm or to exaggerate the position. It would be much better for all of us if we would use our influence with the different sections of the community, to impress on the people to use a little self-restraint and to give ordinary consideration to each other, and readiness to co-operate in getting through these times; there will then be enough for everyone, and that is the appeal I would like to make to members of this Committee.

I wish to support what was said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) with reference to the grave situation that confronts the native population. I may say that the hon. member is not exaggerating by a hair’s breadth the grave state of affairs that already exists, and which will be accentuated by the further food restrictions to be imposed. There is one point on which I apprehend a good deal of difficulty. I think the Minister suggested that among the future restrictions it was thought that only bakers would be allowed to deal with the sale of bread. He indicated that the country storekeeper in any case would probably be cut off from the supplies he has relied upon hitherto. I should be very sorry to see any such step taken without advice from the persons concerned. I know that in this time of maize shortage the reliance placed by natives on small quantities of bread made available to them by the country storekeeper is very great, and has gone far to alleviate the distress. A fortnight ago during a visit to Natal I stood in a queue with natives who wanted to get their small quarter loaf and I was tremendously impressed by the satisfaction they derived in obtaining that small ration. That form of rationing should not be made illegal. The distress amongst the natives is very serious indeed. I regret that the Minister of Native Affairs is not here today, because I feel that this question is not getting sufficient consideration, and there is not sufficient anxiety shown by the Department for the native population. That Department is not dealing only with the affairs of a department, but with the affairs of a nation, and there is no doubt that the outcry coming from these people is a very bitter one. Wherever they go, in an endeavour to get relief from the present difficulties confronting them the natives are met officially with complete indifference if not with blank refusal, and when you have reached that stage with the native, you are driving him into an unreasoning frame of mind. I cannot understand why this state of affairs should exist. Those of us who as farmers rationed our natives are now in this position that there is an absolute prohibition, against our selling direct to the natives. We have grown less maize on that account. The strict rule of the Maize Control Board has discouraged farmers from growing maize to keep their own people, which has contributed to their acute distress.

In what way has that been done?

The Maize Control Board promulgated a rule that the producer is not allowed to sell any maize at all except to the Board.

That is still in force, and also applies to wheat.

That is actually the law. Farmers have been told to disregard this, but that does not remove the possibility of their one day being prosecuted for contravening a regulation which carries with it substantion penalties. I am speaking for the moment of the situation that exists at present, which is very grave indeed for the natives. I live in a district in which we see them living in their own kraals in a state of want. We have tried in vain to alleviate the situation. A feeling of want pervades the whole community. The miller gets insufficient supplies from the Maize Control Board. The system of permits for maize may have a good effect in rationing the limited quantities in existence, but it is a very cumbersome method. The storekeeper says that if he wishes to lay in a stock of maize, he must first apply for the necessary permit. Then an argument follows as to whether his request is reasonable, and finally after his permit is granted he must begin to look round for a supplier where his orders can be met. So there is the maximum delay. In regard to the native people we should cut out whatever formalities can be disposed of. At present this method is cumbersome and clumsy, embodying great delaying tactics. I deplore the fact that the hon. member for Cape Eastern is no longer a member of the Maize Control Board. Her devoted services on behalf of the natives are of the utmost value, and I should be very sorry if her services were to be completely lost from the Mealie Control Board. I should like her reasons for having found it impossible to continue under the present arrangement to be made public. There should be attention paid to the urgent need of seeing that there are no hungry people in this country and the slackness and delays of control boards should not be such as to bring the system of distribution into discredit.

This has been a very useful discussion, and I am pleased to find that the Minister has emphasised the fact that the functions of the control boards were never intended to cover the rationing of all these various commodities in short supply. The fact that they have come forward and assisted has laid them open to a certain amount of criticism which they really should not have had to meet. The boards were intended to assist in the production and marketing of food, and in the preamble to the Act, when this was originally passed, this was made perfectly clear. A further function that has been imposed on them is to try and improve the position from the point of view of the consumers. The Marketing Act originally laid down that the Minister should be advised by a Consumers’ Advisory Committee. That committee is still in existence, and it is in my opinion the body that should make representations to the Government and to the boards with regard to these various consumer questions. I am told it has never functioned properly. It may be called together by the Minister, but it may also call meetings on its own account. Three members of the Committee may at any time call a meeting of the Consumers’ Advisory Committee.

Have they ever met?

. They have met, but if this body did not think it necessary to meet to consider these matters it is obvious it is not functioning properly, and I think that question requires consideration by the Government. The fact that a producers’ board declined to meet members of the Labour Party is not something that calls for condemnation of the board. I think members should make use of the functions laid down by the Marketing Act to put their points of view, and if they are unable to do that they should approach the Government direct, but I do not think it is a function of Marketing Boards to receive representations from any party in this House, otherwise they will soon become a political body. It was to obviate that that we have this Consumers’ Advisory Committee. I do feel that members of the Labour Party and members who speak directly for consumers are much more reasonable in their attitude than they were a few years ago as a result of the experience they have gained in the inner working. They are not making the same bitter attacks as they did, on the farmers, some two or three years ago. Giving them the job to do has shown them some of the practical difficulties we are up against, and they do realise in these times of high costs of production it is necessary to pay attractive prices if we are going to get a reasonable quantity of food produced in this country. We have the alternative of imports. It should be emphasised that during the war the farmers produced practically enough food for the people of this country, and at prices very much less than they would have to pay if they had to import that food. This is borne out by the prices we find the Government is having, to pay during these times of extreme shortage.

I want to emphasise a point in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I feel that in the native areas the acute food shortage is past, I think we are over the crisis. The hon. member shakes his head, but I have information from several traders in native areas that they do not require the quota of mealies that has been allocated to them. They have already intimated that the demand has dropped almost to nothing as a result of green mealies being now available. I know that in many cases the sale of bread to these native stores has increased enormously. That undoubtedly is something that will have to be met in the future. The natives have bought bread when mealies were not available, and wherever they can get it they will buy it in increased quantities, and that is a difficulty the Government will have to try to overcome. I would suggest every possible step be taken to encourage the native traders within the next few months to buy all the maize possible. We know how improvident the natives are. If they have two or three bags of mealies they will begin brewing beer. So we should encourage traders to buy maize and store it against lean times. We also know that during the war farmers were prohibited from selling maize direct. When it was found maize was in very short supply the Government had to try to get control and to organise distribution as well as possible. If maize was freely sold by anyone who had it, it would not be distributed in the best way possible; some would get too much and others too little.

My main point is to suggest that the Government should do everything possible to encourage a food production drive. Large numbers of people could help themselves much more than they are doing. In most parts of the country we have ample supplies of meat and potatoes. So people are not going to starve even in these urban areas if they can get meat and potatoes. The Government should encourage the production of more food, and I should like to see greater encouragement given to growing potatoes. Potatoes can be grown in large quantities. In regard to potatoes, however, the Government has in the past imposed a maximum price and no minimum. What encouragement is there to the farmer to grow a risky crop? He knows if he gets a short crop he can only receive a maximum price, and with a big crop he may receive less than for half a crop owing to a drop in the price. That is a policy that has to be put right. If the Government say this is a highly perishable product I think the answer is they must take risks, they must spend money and encourage the production of large quantities of potatoes which can easily be dehydrated and stored for periods of scarcity. A food production drive should have been instituted long ago. I do not think it is yet too late, and I would urge the Government to do something along these lines.

Another point I want to emphasise is this: The farming community is not responsible for the feeding of people who cannot buy food for themselves. The farming community is not responsible for the large number of people who are underfed and underpaid. That is a Government responsibility, and I am very pleased to find the consumers’ representatives are appreciating that more. In the past there has been a lot of criticism, a lot of uninformed criticism, and farmers have often felt resentment over the question of prices. They have felt they were called upon to bear something they were not responsible for. They produce food as a means of earning a livelihood, and they are entitled to every credit for the part they played during the war in producing large quantities of food on a percentage increase in price that is very moderate compared with the increase in the price of clothing and all sorts of other commodities which have gone up very much more.

Statistics do not support that.

Statistics do support that. If you will compare the statistics you will find that farm production has not advanced to anything like the extent of clothing. The increase in respect of Union food products has been very much smaller than the index figures for imported foods. [Time limit.]

Order, order. I should like to point out to the hon. member who has just spoken, and to other members that I have allowed considerable latitude in the discussion of food and the fixation of prices. But there are limits even on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and I cannot allow a general discussion on matters which do not fall under his vote and of which the Prime Minister obviously can have no knowledge.

I shall endeavour to confine myself to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Economic Development used words here which sounded very much like the words which were used by the Government on the eve of the great meat shortage which South Africa experienced. He said to us: “There is no need for a panic”. Similar words were used by the Government when we were confronted with the meat crisis, and I want to say to the Prime Minister that the difficulty we had in connection with the meat shortage cannot be compared with the situation which now confronts South Africa. The Minister of Economic Development said that the consumption of bread will be 20 per cent. less than before. I do not know whether he put the position correctly. I see that in the “Cape Times” of two weeks ago there is a report that many shops in Cape Town have been informed that their supplies will be cut by 25 per cent. That is very much worse than the 20 per cent. mentioned by the Minister. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to make use of this debate in order to make a statement. Rumour has it that the Wheat Board has recommended 45s. per bag as the wheat price, but that the Government will not agree to more than £2. What can be more discouraging to the wheat farmers than such a rumour? I hope it is not true. Sowing time is drawing near. What happens during the course of the next few weeks is of the utmost importance. Everyone in this House and outside this House realises that the wheat farmers will have to sow and sow. They are expected to produce, but what encouragement do they receive? What encouragement have they received in the past, and what encouragement are they receiving now, particularly when rumours like this are doing the rounds? The sooner the Prime Minister makes a statement, the better it will be. The wheat farmers have received nothing but discouragement, and during the war years they have exhausted the land. They could not obtain the necessary fertiliser. There is still a shortage of fertiliser, and the wheat farmer has to run the risk of exhausting his land still more. If he is not encouraged what is going to be the result for South Africa? The wheat farmer must help to solve the food position at his own expense. The result is greater exhaustion of the land. Another discouraging factor is that throughout the whole war period the wheat farmers could not obtain seed-wheat on reasonable terms, and that is still the case today. There is nothing but discouragement. The wheat farmer has to make sacrifices, and there is no encouragement. Three things must be done to give to the wheat farmer what is his due. In the first place fertiliser must be provided, as much as is humanly possible. Secondly seed-wheat must be placed at his disposal at reasonable prices. Thirdly, and this is the important factor, the price must be so fixed as to ensure encouragement for the wheat farmer to produce.

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

I was saying that sowing time is near at hand, and whether the wheat farmers can sow depends on what the Government is going to do in the course of the next few weeks. For that reason I want to urge the Prime Minister to make a reassuring and encouraging statement to the wheat farmers. South Africa’s position is peculiar, for South Africa can save itself and is in a position to produce sufficient wheat, but it finds itself in the regrettable position of having to go and beg abroad for 3½ million bags of wheat. The Government cannot wash its hands of guilt, for it is to a large extent responsible for the position that exists today. Now we have to pay a subsidy on imported wheat. The Minister of Economic Development cannot tell us yet what the price of imported wheat is going to be, but he intimated that the price will be higher than what we are paying here today for wheat. The question I want to ask is this: Would it not be much better, instead of paying a subsidy on imported wheat, to fix the price of wheat in such a way that it will encourage the wheat farmers to sow wheat and to produce sufficient wheat in South Africa? Why can this money not be paid to the wheat farmers so that the money is kept in this country and so that we do not find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to go and beg abroad from time to time for wheat and flour which we ourselves can produce? All that is necessary is sufficient encouragement. During the war years the wheat farmers made the greatest sacrifices because their price was kept low in comparison with what it was during the previous war, and on the other hand the wheat farmer is not encouraged to sow wheat. As far as fertiliser is concerned, he is discouraged. He has had to decrease the value of his land by exhausting the land. Today the position is still the same. Also as far as seed-wheat is concerned, he receives no encouragement and help, and I am speaking of help on the part of the Government. There are three things the farmers need. The first is proper fertiliser, which can be made available.

There is none.

But the Government must make provision. It is the fault of the Government that there is no proper fertiliser, for it is obtainable. Secondly, seed-wheat must be made available at reasonable prices and on easy terms; and thirdly, and this is the most important point, the wheat farmers must be offered a decent price. I understand that the Wheat Control Board wants to offer a decent price, but that the Government of the day is not prepared to go so far. That is why it is necessary for the Prime Minister to make a statement. Don’t expect the wheat farmer to help to solve the food position at his own expense.

I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the Minister of Economic Development. The Minister said that in order to alleviate the wheat position we were hoping to distribute more maize. May I make a suggestion here that there is a very sound principle enunciated there by the Minister, but the present wheat regulations have gone just the other way about. Under the present regulations, the baker is no longer allowed to make sausage rolls, meat pies and the rock buns which were so largely used by the natives. At the moment meat is in fair supply, and it would be saving wheat if we allowed these foods to be made again, i.e., the sausage rolls or the meat pies and the little buns. Now these buns contain valuable food in the form of raisins and sugar. In the past it has been the habit for traders in the native areas to import large numbers of these so-called native buns composed of wheat, raisins and sugar, all very nutritional, but now that has been stopped. They are no more allowed to make up wheat in that form in small quantities. The net result is that today the smallest article in that line one can find is the 2 lb. loaf of bread.

Why cannot you cut that up into sandwiches?

You can cut it up, and sell it at an enormous price, but I do not want to see that done. These people cannot afford to pay tickey a slice just because it has a little jam on it. The present system does not help us to distribute the necessities in small quantities to the people who require them, and we all know that if a large quantity has to be cut up and then handled, there is extra wastage. We also know that the poorest people cannot afford to buy large quantities. Therefore, these are the ones who will not be getting their fair share if we stop the products now being manufactured for them. In Zululand I know that small storekeepers used to get dozens of these little native buns which were retailed at 2d. Today the smallest unit the storekeeper can get is the 2 lb. loaf. These people were getting extra food value. In the large centres today, where there is a fair meat supply, if we introduce a system of rationing, these people could make meat rolls and sell them, and we can control the price, and those who need it most would get it.

I want to refer to one other remark by the Minister. He referred to the fact that we were now rationing wheat to the miller, to the baker and to the storekeeper, and he stated that it would be easy for the baker to distribute it to his customers. It would be an easy matter if every customer were known to the storekeeper, but this is not so. And who is the man to suffer under that system even if the storekeeper tries to distribute honestly? It will be the casual buyer, who will be told: I do not know you, get hence, I am sorry, I have to supply my regular customers. In this way the poor man who has in the past bought casually is going to find he will get nothing at all. The rich man in Parktown who has a regular account will get his share, so will the rich people everywhere, all those with regular accounts will get their share. But the poor man who never knows whether he has sufficient money in his pocket to buy one or two loaves at a particular time for his big family, and who buys when he has cash available, is not going to get anything at all under this system. If on the other hand it is easy for the storekeeper to distribute fairly and equitably surely it cannot be any more difficult for the Government to do so? Why should we say to the storekeeper: Here is a job it is impossible for us to do but it is an easy job for you to do. Is that not absurd? It seems to me the Hon. Minister is not aware of ordinary trading practice; he is assuming every storekeeper knows every customer. Maldistribution is very much less in the rural areas than in the large urban areas for the simple reason that in the rural areas the customers are fairly well known to their traders who supply them. In the large urban areas the customers are not known to them. Therefore it becomes more and more necessary to have a system of distribution to consumers in the large areas. The Minister has given us a figure, that 55 per cent. of the meal that is used is sold today to ordinary householders who make their own bread, and it is only 45 per cent. that can possibly be distributed under a form of rationing via the baker. If we are going to cut down that 55 per cent. to 44 per cent.—which would represent 80 per cent. of 55 per cent.—we will find we will also need a system of distribution to the householder who now buys flour, so as to ensure an equitable distribution. I would suggest again we have a registration system, with every consumer registering at a particular place; and when that registration has been effected we inflict severe penalties on anybody who tries to buy anywhere else, and also severe penalties on any shopkeeper who gives an unfair share to any of his customers. I think the traders are entitled at least to this amount of protection. It could be made law that people must register at a particular place for those particular articles that they want, and that it will be criminal for them to buy at any other place. In that we could, at all events ensure that what is happening now where the storekeeper is trying to distribute fairly, will not happen. What happens now is that a number of storekeepers are genuinely trying to distribute fairly, but they cannot possibly ensure that their customers do not go to other storekeepers as well and get a double share.

How can you stop that without a coupon system?

You can do that perfectly well. The majority of people are intrinsically honest.

I am sorry that this debate today has developed into a discussion on producers’ prices as regards very valuable and scarce articles, such as mealies and wheat. The representatives of the consumers do not seem to realise the difficult position in which the country finds itself. We blamed the Government for the state of affairs existing in the country, but it is not within the reach of any board or person to distribute supplies which it does not possess, and ovér which it has no physical control. The mealie position is simply that the board has not the supplies to distribute.

I hope that the hon. member will adhere to my decision. I cannot allow him to enlarge on that matter.

I just want to make the House realise that while there are shortages and while the boards are sitting now to discuss prices, the representatives of the consumers in this House are bringing pressure to bear on the Government in connection with the fixation of prices.

May I remind the hon. member that that argument has already been repeated ad nauseam.

I will leave it there. I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that, in order to improve the position, he should not allow himself to be influenced or dissuaded from his path. He must ensure that something is really done to encourage the farmers to produce the necessary supplies. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) tried to indicate here this morning that labour costs and the like had not risen.

I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed with that argument.

I just want to put a question to the Prime Minister in connection with this serious question of a wheat shortage. He is aware of the fact that there is a shortage and that there are difficulties in connection with seed-wheat. I am glad that he is taking action in the matter. But as the Minister of Agriculture is sick and it is not yet known when he will be back, and consequently there will be delay in connection with the announcement of help in the form of seed-wheat and on encouraging subsidised selling price, I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will announce the price as soon as it is known. Sowing time is already a few weeks old, and the farmers want to know where they stand.

I hope the Prime Minister will grant me a few moments to raise the question of German internees of South-West once again.

Let me dispose of this question first.

Very well.

Mr. Chairman, before the Committee passes on to other subjects I should like to say a few words about this very important question which we have been discussing this morning. I am speaking under certain handicaps. The Minister who deals with these matters is not here. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture cannot be here and will not be here for some days, and the responsibility is thrown upon us, and we have to deal with it as best we can. My hon. friend the Minister of Economic Development has already given the House a good deal of information, but there are certain points which I think may still further be referred to and should be dealt with by me in such fashion as I can. I do not pretend to be able to throw much light on the question and to be very helpful.

I feel the gravity of the situation. We have had before us now for months a wheat situation which has given us very much trouble both in the country and here in the House. I am afraid that as the situation now develops we are going to face a more difficult situation in regard to wheat and maize. The facts have been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Economic Development. He has given the House the figures. We sent him specially to London to go into these matters and he has told the House the result. The position is bad. It is very bad all over the world; and we are largely affected also by world conditions as we drew our supplies mostly from abroad, all such supplies as we wanted. In addition we had the drought here and we are in a situation of very great gravity in South Africa with which we have to deal.

There are certain matters we ought to rule out at once as not being germane and helpful to the discussion. The one is the reference continually made to the Marketing Board. The marketing system is not really germane to this discussion. Hon. members know how the marketing system was created. It arose after the great depression of more than ten years ago, the depression of 1932-33, when our agriculture was down and out, and special measures had to be taken to keep our farming population afloat. We cast about to see in what way our marketing system could be improved so that the agricultural situation might be saved for the future, because it seemed to be drifting into a desperate situation. We then adopted the marketing control system, which is in force today. It was, as hon. members will recall, copied from the British system which was working well, and it has been working fairly well since then. We adopted it and we are carrying on, and I think it is the system which, with certain reforms and adjustments, might continue to save agriculture in this country and the future of agriculture in this country. I think the arguments used here to drag agricultural organisations into this matter miss the real point. We have a situation created here by the farmer congresses and we have to see that system is carried on, and we are going to do so. That does not say improvements cannot be made in the future. The question of marketing boards is open for discussion and improvement.

I have seen to my great regret my hon. friend the member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has decided to withdraw from the board with which she is associated. I am very sorry to see it. I do not like people to resign in difficulties. I think the situation has to be faced, and nobody is more competent to help from her angle than the hon. member for Cape Eastern. She stands for a great interest. She stands for a strong, good case, and I want her to continue to pull her weight if possible. It may be the consumers’ side of the marketing boards may have to be improved. It may also be we have to make greater use of the Consumers’ Committee which is part of that scheme, and of which we do not seem to have made proper use. I am sure the system properly worked will continue to be a sound foundation for agriculture to build on in future. Farmers find it very difficult to organise. Farming is not like other industries, it is an industry in itself; and unless there is some organisation like we have established in the Marketing Board, agriculture may get into the doldrums, as it did years ago. This is part of the discussion which you have ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I am referring to the arguments used here this morning.

My hon. friend the member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has pressed me, and I think some other hon. members have pressed me to announce as soon as possible the decision of the boards that are sitting now in regard to wheat and maize so they may know where they are, and to announce the fixation of prices for the future. The Wheat Board, which is sitting now and consulting over these matters, has not yet made its decision as far as I am aware. As soon as they have dealt with the matter the Government will give it all the consideration it deserves.

There are rumours it has decided.

It may be so, but it has not come to the Government yet. It is more likely they are still discussing this matter, which is a complex one and related to other issues. But, setting aside that matter of the Agricultural Boards, which I think are inherently good and sound, but may require adjustment to fit them into the developments now taking place, I come to the fact which is now before us, the ineluctable fact, as my friend the Minister of Economic Development called it, the food shortage. There is a food shortage, and it is not a passing crisis like the meat shortage. The meat crisis has passed, but we have here a situation in regard to wheat and maize which will face us at least for the rest of this year. We have the figures before us, and we have been told on figures which cannot be disputed there will have to be a reduction of 20 per cent. in the supplies which we send to the consumer for the rest of this year. That is the figure which the Combined Food Boards have settled, and we must reckon with that. The Government has just started to apply it. Knowing a crisis is coming, the Government has applied it, and at the commencement we are faced with these difficulties we hear from all parts of the country. I anticipated these difficulties, and that is why some weeks ago I made a national broadcast in which I warned people of what was coming and called on everybody to be helpful. It is not merely a matter in which people should look simply to the Government. It is a mistake in the country to look too much to the Government

Especially this one.

Even the best of governments, I think, have a very limited capacity dealing with brute facts such as are facing us here. Everyone will have to pull his weight, and we shall have to cast about in all directions to see how we can deal with this 20 per cent. reduction that has to take place. The Government may take steps and make regulations, but in the end it comes down to each individual consumer. He has to do his duty, and if he does it, as the Government will do its duty, we will weather the storm and the crisis, too.

The cry is now for rationing. The matter of rationing is being explored, as my hon. friend has explained. We have some officials here now to help us, and I hope they will be helpful. They have a very big experience behind them, a very wide experience of working a very difficult system in Great Britain, and they may be helpful to us. We look forward to suggestions and light and guidance from them, but in the end we shall have to help ourselves. What we have done in regard to the matter of rationing so far is this: We have rationing in this country. Hon. members must not be under the impression that nothing has been done at all in regard to this matter. There is rationing now right up to the point before you get to the consumer. Maize and wheat are both rationed right through the wholesale trade to the millers and bakers. They are rationed up to the retail trader. If you get beyond that stage you will have to ration for individuals, and that is a matter of the greatest difficulty and complexity in this country. As hon. members know, we have this situation, that we have an illiterate population, a population it will be most difficult to deal with in regard to ration cards and all that, and that is the last final step in regard to rationing we have not yet adopted. I personally find it very difficult to see any daylight how we are going to ration not only the European population, but the native population and all sections of our community, in view of the stage our development and culture has reached today. It is a very difficult matter. I think we shall have to turn our attention specifically to the case of the natives, the lower-paid groups, and if you cannot ration them—as you cannot— there may be other steps you can take, and I think we should do so. I do not think we are at the end of our resources, and, looking at the crisis ahead of us, looking at what we shall have to face not ’ today or tomorrow only, but the rest of the year, knowing these troubles will increase in magnitude and that the pressure will be felt more and more by the poorer classes of the community, I think we shall be called to institute special investigations to see how we can overcome these difficulties. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has made suggestions, and he speaks with a great deal of practical experience. There may be a great deal in what he says. His point is we have gone too far in eliminating certain forms of producing flour, and he thinks we should not go as far as that. There are many ways of exploring this question. I am not sure we have gone far enough in fixing prices for small measures, not only for small people, but small measures where people like natives and others buy in very small quantities. I am not sure that the way of dealing with these simple people who cannot help themselves and are liable to be fleeced in the trade, I am not sure we have explored every way of meeting their case, because their case calls for special consideration. There is no more law-abiding section of the community than the native and coloured people in this country, and that is one of the great assets of South Africa. We have not a lawless communist community in South Africa. If I may use the term, the “underdog” in this country is an enormous asset to us; he is law-abiding, always prone to obey as far as possible and to do his duty in a simple way. I think we should go all out to study the needs and requirements of that portion of our community; and if we can find ways of meeting their case and their simple requirements in this emergency, the very big emergency which is now developing, we should do so. I hope it will be the task of the Government not to rest on what has been done—in fact we cannot do so—but to make special enquiry and investigation especially when you have to meet that special case. The rest of the community you can deal with by way of rationing which is already in existence; I think that applies to the well-to-do classes in this country. But the case of what I call the “underdog” is not met by the existing measures, and I think we shall have to make special measures and make a special investigation to see that their needs are also met. The Government is conscious of the gravity of the situation. The Government does not want to touch the interests of the farmers. We want to help the farmer in every way, because he is the producer. We want to encourage him, not by fixing unreasonable prices but by seeing that justice is done to him and seeing that agriculture is on a sound basis and the man who produces the food is fairly dealt with.

Can you tell us about seed wheat?

We are helping with seed as much as possible, but even there you have to be careful because the very wheat to be used for food goes for seed. It is like a dog trying to catch its tail. The problem of shortage of food is difficult to overcome. I agree that wherever seed can be given, seed potatoes, seed wheat, whatever can be used for future production should be used. There is no question about it. Let us use it as far as our resources allow. Of course our wheat resources are limited and our resources in other respects as well. Take the question of fertilisers. Nothing would have been more welcome to the Government than to flood the country with fertilisers, but there is a shortage of fertilisers. There has been difficulty in regard to transport bringing things out here. The very crisis that has arisen is due to the delay of some ships with cargoes from North America which, owing to climatic conditions, could not bring the stuff here. We are moving in a world of limitation, restriction and trouble right and left, and we have courageously to see our way in the best way possible through these difficulties. I have no doubt we shall pull through. I am convinced that with goodwill among our people generally and with a spirit of panic being avoided and everybody trying to pull his weight in the honest way we are inclined to do, we shall weather—I will not say the storm—but this very rough passage that lies before us. I think that is about all I want to say on this matter. I am sorry the matter cannot be dealt with more fully and adequately by my colleague who is away, but by the time his estimates come on the matter can be raised in the proper place. I am just giving my small mite.

I would like to say a few words in the interests of the old German population of South-West, and I am addressing myself to the Prime Minister because I think that the policy to be determined as to how those people are to be treated is one which the Prime Minister should not allow out of his hands, and he should also not allow himself to be influenced too much even by the Administration of South-West which may perhaps influence him too much by passing factors. Since the question was last raised in the House, we have perused the notice which appeared in the Government Gazette in which the commission and its terms of reference were made known. It is in the Government Gazette of 1st March. The commission will consist of three members, namely, Judge Hoexter as chairman, with Mr. Meintjes and Mr. Scott as additional members. I would like to say to the Prime Minister that I know these people and I have no objection to them. I think they are a good choice.

All three.

Yes, all three. Mr. Meintjes and Mr. Scott know South-West. They lived there for years, but the advantage is that they knew South-West in the days when conditions were normal. They knew the old German population of South-West before the bitterness originated.

So much the better.

Yes, it is undoubtedly valuable. I just want to express the hope and I hope that the Prime Minister agrees, that the commission will not allow itself to be influenced too much by new motives which have originated in South-West to get rid of the old Germans there. I am speaking not only of political persecution, but there is a desire among certain people to get rid of a large portion of the old South-West population for economical motives.

All the same, that will not influence them.

I hope so. The motive exists there and is very strong in South-West. They want the farms of the old South-West farmers. I know the three men, and am certain that they will not allow themselves to be influenced too strongly thereby, but nevertheless I think it is as well to say a few words on the subject. Now four grounds are advanced for deportation. The first is if you were an active leader of a Nazi organisation, even though it be in a small circle; the second is if you were not a member of such an organisation, but by your actions were known to be pro-Nazi; the third is if you did something which was injurious to the interests of the Union as opposed to, say, Germany or Italy; and the fourth is if you signed an undertaking, if you chose under the exchange system which existed at the commencement of the war, to be repatriated to Germany. I just want to say to the Prime Minister that I find some fault with the sequence. In my view, No. 3 is the most important, where you did something which promoted the interests of a foreign or hostile country to the detriment of the interests of the Union. In my view this ought to be first. It is a deed of sabotage, or something which borders on high treason, and to me it seems as though it can be a very strong ground for deportation, and in my view the emphasis has been laid on the wrong place. Then there is the other ground where a person played an active part as a leader of a Nazi group. I have also no objection to that, because I am convinced that none of the old Germans in South-West took an active part. Just before the war a group of young men arrived who took an active part, but I have in view the interests of the old South-West population in particular, and I do not believe that they were guilty of that. However, I think that the Prime Minister should make it clear what exactly he understands by (b), i.e., persons who did not belong to a Nazi organisation, but who by their actions became known as champions of National Socialistic doctrines. I think the Prime Minister will agree that it is very improbable that anyone who was strongly pro-Nazi did not belong to a Nazi organisation.

Emphasis must be laid on deeds which prove that such a person was hostilely disposed to the country.

I just want to say that I hope the door is not being opened here for malicious gossip.

Emphasis is laid on deeds.

I hope that the deeds will have to be proved before a decision is taken against a person. Then we come to (d) where persons, when they had the chance, chose to be repatriated to Germany. I would like the Prime Minister to take into consideration the circumstances under which the people signed. They had no free choice. There’ were more than a thousand who were locked up, and there was an enormous amount of intimidation and victimisation going on in the camps, and many people were forced to sign the document. They had no free choice.

Such cases can be proved.

I just want to say that in my view most emphasis should be laid on (c) No old inhabitant of South-West will be affected thereby, but I feel that (b) and (d) should not weigh too heavily with the Commission, particularly (d). There was no free choice. Let me just say to the Prime Minister that I know the old German population of South-West. During the war period no one felt normal or thought normally, but I can give this assurance to the Prime Minister, that deep in their hearts those people are good South-West citizens. They love South-West, they love South-West more than Germany, and there is nothing the people desire more than to be allowed to return to their farms and to be happy once again in South-West. Those people are good South-West citizens.

Why did their sons go completely wrong?

All they did was not to encourage their sons to fight against Germany, and let me say that I respect the Germans who did so. I do not think much of Germans who thought so little of their German blood that they were prepared to go and fight against their own nation. I do not think this should be used against them, and the Prime Minister knows that conditions in South-West were normal throughout the war. I do not think much of Germans who took up arms against their own blood. I find no fault with them on that score. The Prime Minister entered into an international contract with the German Government that these people would not be forced to fight against Germany.

Why did they send their sons overseas to become Nazis?

That is also not so. The sons of most Germans received their training in South-West, but it was customary, just as Union citizens in South-West send their sons to the Union to round off their education, to send their sons to Germany to receive a finishing off there. But they love South-West above everything else. I know them, I can mention all their names, they love South-West more than Germany, and I do not want to see these people suffer because of people in South-West who want their farms. [Time limit.]

I just want to make a few comments. I understand that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that as far as bread is concerned, he intends introducing rationing among the distributors. I do not know how the Prime Minister expects to succeed in achieving efficient rationing in this way, for our experience in connection with meat should have taught the Prime Minister that this is the most effective method of making a black market possible. Does the Prime Minister not realise that if you ration the dealers instead of the consumers that some dealers will be tempted from morning till night to collect black market prices? That is one point, but the next question is how are you going to ration? Have you not learnt that by rationing the distributors the one benefits and the other is simply ruined? The bureaucrats will simply be in a position, and that is why it is so dangerous, to make the allocations and they themselves are placed in the dangerous position of also being tempted to corruption from morning till night. What about the man who has black market clients? It is self-evident that he will try to obtain black market officials who will give him greater quantities than his competitor, with the result that you will have a flourishing black market trade, while the honest man will have to say to his clients every day: “I am sorry, but I cannot supply you.” I think we appreciate the Government’s attempt to introduce rationing, but if this is the form the rationing will take it will once again prove a complete failure. I hope that the Prime Minister and his bureaucrats who ought to enlighten him are aware of the fact that large quantities of coarse flour are being wasted today because people use sieves. The Prime Minister can say that it will be made illegal. That is very far reaching. It is looking for trouble if you go so far as to send people into private homes to say that people must burn their sieves. Then you are looking for plenty of trouble. If you want to ration, why not ration the quantity of wheat which may be used, so that people who cannot eat brown bread do not have to violate the law every day and throw away flour, for a large proportion of the flour is lost with the bran when it is sifted. Therefore much waste of wheat takes place among people who have to eat white bread for health reasons. We cannot go too far with some of the methods, and I am afraid that if the Government goes so far as to go into private homes and to say: You may not eat white bread, “alles ver boten,” then you are going too far. There is another efficient method, namely, by rationing the amount of wheat per family according to the size of the family, so that the single person who simply cannot eat brown bread and is forced to violate the law for the sake of his health, need not do so. I think that many doctors and officials have already told the Prime Minister that the health of 80 per cent. of the people suffers as a result of the coarse bread they have to eat. The Prime Minister ought to know that you cannot adulterate white bread as easily as you can coarse bread, and your housewives will tell you today that the coarse bread which is eaten today is not only the product of wheat, but that any ingredients can be added to it, with the result that the health of many people suffers because they do not get the genuine wheat product. Coarse bread can easily be adulterated, not so white bread. I think that the Prime Minister will reach his goal more effectively if he rations wheat and says that those who have to eat white bread can do so. Then the quantity of flour which is today thrown away with the bran will not be wasted. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to go so far as to enter people’s homes. For the last hundred years it has not happened in civilised countries. It may have happened centuries ago in the revolutionary period in Europe, but it will not serve its purpose now. Let the Minister apply the system which I have suggested, for by rationing dealers it can mean that a black market trade will originate. I hope that the Prime Minister will give attention to the matter. We all feel that the need is great. I think that the whole country wants to support the Prime Minister when he applies measures to restrict the consumption of wheat as far as possible, for the position is serious and we are prepared to support the Prime Minister if he applies the right method. Otherwise I fear he will not succeed.

I should like to come back to the Estimates, and more specifically the “External Representation” Vote. I should like to ask the Minister of External Affairs what the position is in connection with our representation in France. We hear of appointments in other countries, in Holland, Belgium and elsewhere, where representation was broken off during the war, but for some reason or other there has been no announcement in connection with the position in France. As the Rt. Hon. the Minister knows, before the war, except for Germany, France was our best client on the Continent of Europe. She was a great buyer of wool, skins and other products. I realise that at the moment the trade between these countries has been dislocated, but in view of the fact that there is a stable Government in France at the moment, and since appointments are being made, it strikes one as strange that no appointment has been made in Paris. I should like to know from the Prime Minister what the reason is.

Then I notice that provision is being made, apparently for the first time, for representation in Greece. I should like to know what the reason for that is. I am in favour of expanding our external service, but on the other hand I feel that we should expand in directions where it is worthwhile. I am not aware of any considerable trade in the past between the Union and Greece, and I should like to know, therefore, what the object is of this representation, especially at this juncture when conditions in Greece are very much dislocated. There is no stable Government in Greece, and the election which has just taken place indicates that half the population did not take part in the election. It is uncertain whether Greece will revert to a monarchy and it strikes me as strange that we should appoint a representative in Greece at this juncture.

Then I also want to say a few words in regard to the United States of America. During the past few years I have drawn the Minister’s attention to the tremendous increase in our expenses in the United States. When I raised this matter on the previous occasion the reply of the Rt. Hon. Minister was that the increased expenditure was caused by purchases and other activities in connection with war requirements, and that special officials were appointed for that purpose. The war is over and nevertheless we find that the expenses in connection with our representation in the United States have again risen and, as far as Washington alone is concerned, our expenses amount to £36,000, and an amount of almost £15,000 is being asked for in respect of New York, a fairly big increase from. £9,400 to £14,900. I am particularly interested in our representation there because I have an intimate knowledge of these two offices. I was there for seven years. I fully realise that there has been an expansion of activities, but I do want to ask whether a staff of 14 in Washington alone is justified. During my term of office, during the years I was there, especially towards the end, we had a great deal of work, but we did not have more than four people on the staff at any time, that is to say, I as Ambassador, the first secretary, the assistant secretary, a typiste and a messenger. That was all, and it seems to me there is an excessive increase in our expenses. In those days the total expenditure amounted to approximately £6,000 or £7,000.

That was thirteen years ago.

I admit that, but when we compare this with other countries, we find that the expenses in connection with our representation in other countries are still more or less at the same figure. I feel therefore that this increase is unduly great. I do not think the volume of work, particularly since the war is over, has increased to such an extent that this is justified. As far as New York is concerned, there is a Consul-General there at the moment, two Vice-Consuls and two clerical assistants, and a special director of the Government Information Bureau has also been appointed. I have no objection to information, but I just want to point out that this work is undertaken by the Consular officials, as far as the majority of governments overseas are concerned. Here we now have a Consul-General and two Vice-Consuls and I assume that in the near future the Minister of Transport will re-open his publicity office there, and that office could meet this need. I co-operated intimately with the publicity officer and I am acquainted with the valuable work he did. This need is therefore being met to a great extent. I ask myself whether it is necessary at this stage, especially since the war is over, to have this particular office there. The Prime Minister said that during the war it was necessary to keep the people in America informed about South Africa’s war effort. That is now a thing of the past. We have the Trade Commissioner to furnish trade information; we have the Publicity Bureau of the Railways to give information to tourists; we have the Minister and his staff to furnish information of a general nature; and the question arises whether these interests are of such a nature that it is really necessary to have an information bureau there at this stage. I hope the Minister of External Affairs will reply on this point. I feel that this increase in connection with our representation in the United States is excessive, and since the war is over, that the time has arrived to cut down our expenses to some extent and to return to normal conditions.

I want to raise a matter of considerable interest to industrialists and others in the country. During the war a number of contracts were entered into by people in South Africa which were for a limited period. It was within the contemplation of the parties that they should be for the period of the war. These contracts provided for termination in different ways. Some provided that they should end at the conclusion of hostilities, but many actually will only be determined upon a formal declation that the war has ended. Of course, there has as yet been no such formal declaration. Here again the contracting parties in all these cases had in mind that the contract would end within a reasonable period of the actual conclusion of hostilities. But the contracts provided that they would cease when there had been a formal declaration by the Government that the war had in fact ended. There has been no indication as yet that the Government intends within the near future to make any such declaration, with the consequence of course that these contracts are still in force, and I think I am entitled to say that in many cases they are prejudicial to some of the parties involved. I raise the matter to ask whether it would hot be possible for the Government to make such a statement in the Gazette to the effect that the war has in fact ended.

I just want to say a few words in reference to what we have just learned, namely, that it is the intention to announce in the “Government Gazette” next Friday that meal may no longer be sifted. We know that meal and wheat are very scarce, and the position is totally different from the position in connection with meat. If you will allow me to say so, there has never been a shortage of meat. There was meat in the country, but the distribution was hopeless. But we know that wheat is not available. I should like, however, to bring the following point to the notice of the Prime Minister: It must be realised that the poor man lives on bread alone. I may be expressing it a little strongly, but in any event his staple food is bread. Amongst the working classes there are people today who have meat in their homes on Sundays only; for the rest of the week they have porridge in the morning—again a form of meal—they have bread at lunch-time, and in the evening they again have bread. However idealistic the Prime Minister and the Minister of Economic Development may want to be, it is a practical impossibility for the poor man to eliminate bread at any of these three meals and to say that he may not have bread. It is a practical impossibility. But, in addition to that, the sifting of meal is now going to be prohibited. I personally believe that unsifted meal is the best. Fortunately, I have been accustomed to unsifted meal since childhood. We simply crush the wheat and throw it into the horse-drawn mill, where it is milled, and we eat it in the form in which it leaves the mill. I believe that that is the most wholesome form, but unfortunately the poor man does not always believe it. He believes that when he sifts the meal it is a great delicacy. He regards it as a sort of pudding. I just want to sound this warning note, that however idealistic we may want to be, and no matter how often we tell the people that it is wholesome to eat unsifted meal, that is not their opinion. They want the right to sift it, and before this regulation is promulgated, I want to put this to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister: Personally I believe that the people would prefer to take a little less than to be prohibited from sifting meal, and I should like the Prime Minister to bear that in mind.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his speech rather deprecated the appeals which he inferred were increasing unduly to the Government. But, Sir, I think we must all bear in mind that so far as the hungry native is concerned today, there is nobody else to whom he can appeal. We, who are particularly concerned about him and others of the very poor classes, have nobody else to appeal to, either. One does, of course, understand that undeserved and unneeded charity will bring people down rather than lift them up, and we are against that as the Rt. Hon. gentleman himself is, but we stress the point that the present need is not grave, not nearly grave; that the present crisis is not a normal crisis, but that this is a matter of life and death. We appreciate very much the personal sympathy with which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister gave his reply, and I for one sensed in it something that I had missed in the speeches of other Ministers in the Cabinet. It seemed from my point of view too much of an academic question to the Government. For example, the hon. Minister of Economic Development this morning gave one or two suggestions for future policy. He said that the amount of flour made available to the bakers, and therefore to the natives and the other very poor people, would be cut by 20 per cent. He said, moreover, that the time during which bread would be sold would be reduced, that the hours during which bread would be sold per day would be less, and he seemed to me to consider that something had thereby been done. But nothing had really been done or will really be done by that except that the queues will be lengthened; they will be shortened in time but they will be lengthened in space. He does not give any more bread by cutting down the supply to the baker or by lessening the hours in which he may sell bread. That surely is not any sort of solution whatsoever. It is what is called passing the buck to the baker, and it is getting someone else to hold the baby. We do press not only for an agricultural policy, which is absolutely necessary, but also for a national food policy for South Africa, which is something different. The industry of agriculture was the first one in the world, and it will no doubt be the last one to survive also. We know that it is an “unregarded” industry; we know that it is the last one to be thought of in the ordinary way by governments. This is not the only Government which has not had a food policy in the years that are past —not by any means. Farming is an industry in which you can do the most work at most risk with the least return. We from the towns even know that. We know, moreover, that whether the industry is encouraged or otherwise, it remains the pre-condition of other industries; it remains the basis of other industries. Without agriculture the others cannot exist. It does not matter in the last resort what we have to pay for food. Food is a thing that we must have. The farmer must have enough for his product to make it possible, not merely worth his while—I do not think they look at it in that way—for him to produce. And that is what we on these benches wish the Government chiefly to consider. The people must be fed; at the present moment they are not getting food, and that is the purpose of our intervention in this matter on this vote. We say that the condition of a national policy of food production and distribution is absolutely vital and that we should be guilty in every vital way if we do not urge that as the first consideration of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. It is absolutely vital, and nothing that we say can be overemphasised at this minute.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) in an excellent speech, referred, without any wish to be super-sympathetic, to the troubles of the natives living in the kraals. My trouble more than once of late has not been that of natives living in their kraals but of natives literally dying in our houses. Instance after instance has come to my notice in the past few weeks, and I feel that something should be done on a very large scale and done immediately. The hon. Minister of Economic Development also seemed to me to rely very much on a general feeling of goodwill. He said that this was a position in which the conduct of individual citizens would have a great bearing, but if everybody did not do his best we should be in very great trouble for at least the remainder of this year. There never was a time when everybody did his best. Some people will do their best, but it seems to me to be an extraordinary policy to put before this House that we are banking on the thoughtfulness of the one who has or the one who has not. I say that is not politics at all. The man who has been full of eggs and bacon in the past has not shown any consuming anxiety on behalf of the man who has been empty thereof. We have to face things as they are. Why should we expect a better spirit in the immediate future than we have experienced in the immediate past? It is not practical. In pressing for rationing we know that there is a world shortage; we know these things; we know that people overseas are starving. We merely want the best use made of what we have. We feel that we are not getting the best out of the supply we have. My information is that the output of loaves of bread in Johannesburg per day is 300,000. The total population of all races in Johannesburg is 667,000. If there were proper distribution, there is at the present moment—such is my information —enough for all, and yet thousands and tens of thousands are on the verge of starvation.

That is an absolute exaggeration.

If that is an exaggeration, the Committee must allow for the over-enthusiasm of my informer, but I must say at any rate that there are many thousands on the verge of starvation. My point is simply that if there are 300,000 loaves of bread made daily in Johannesburg, and if there are only 667,000 people in Johannesburg, it is possible that there is enough for all provided there is not any waste. There is another reason for our desire that there should be rationing. [Time limit.]

I hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity just to say a few words again in regard to the matter with which we were dealing yesterday. Yesterday he seemed to be somewhat impatient, but I just want to draw his attention to the fact that the matters we raise here are matters that we have already brought to the notice of his Department and we got no satisfaction from the Department. We can only get satisfaction when we bring these matters to his personal notice in the House. The same thing happened in connection with the commission. He told us yesterday that a judicial commission had been appointed to investigate the cases of Germans. This commission was appointed more than six weeks ago and up to the present they have not yet started their sittings. It may not sound a great number but there are more than 1,000 people who are waiting for the commission to commence their sittings. These people are living under extremely difficult conditions today. If they were guilty, we would not say much about it, but I make bold to say that 90 per cent. of those people will eventually be found not guilty and released. The personal interests of those people are such at the moment that they cannot afford to be away from their homes. Their families are practically starving. This matter is urgent, and I hope therefore that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will allow us to raise it here.

I just want to take back his mind for a moment to the letter he wrote to the two emissaries of the German Government in 1923. He wrote—

May I just say that the words the Prime Minister used here are 95 per cent. correct as far as the old Germany community is concerned. I doubt whether after investigation we shall find that 5 per cent. or at most 6 per cent. of the old German community allowed themselves to be mislead, and it says a great deal for a nation such as the German nation in the circumstances in which they found themselves, that so few of them departed from the spirit and the terms of the agreement which the Prime Minister entered into with the German Government; and numbers of those people who are just as innocent as the Prime Minister are today in the internment camp, awaiting the first step on our part. I hope he will issue instructions that the work of that commission is to be expedited. And then I also want to ask whether he will not be good enough to issue instructions that the cases of those people who are innocent should be disposed of first, so that they may return to their homes. This is an important matter. The names have already been sorted out by the Department. The Department knows which cases are serious. They know who will possibly be considered for repatriation, and they know who will not be considered for repatriation. Cannot the cases of those people be disposed of first?

And then I want to ask whether a certain amount of precedence cannot be given to the cases of the old German community and those people who were born in South-West Africa. I want to draw the attention of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to the fact that this will be the last occasion that we shall have the privilege to discuss this matter with him, because the commission will be sitting in the near future, and when the commission reports the Government will have to decide, because the commission will make recommendations in regard to repatriation. But I want to submit to the Prime Minister that even where the Commission makes recommendations, the Government should still review the matter on behalf of this country as a final arbitrator or as a final body of appeal. I trust that no person will be repatriated who may eventually become a greater danger to us beyond our borders than he would be within our borders. We want to repatriate those people who are a danger to us in this country. With that I fully agree, but we must not send people out of this country who may eventually be a greater danger to us beyond our borders as instruments of some other Power, than they would be if they were kept in this country.

Then I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the onerous camp regulations which apply to those who are still being detained cannot be relaxed to a great extent. In actual fact, these people are no longer internees; they are merely being detained. They are in this difficult position, that they are still subject to all these onerous regulations, as far as visits are concerned. Their relatives cannot visit them freely. They do not enjoy that measure of freedom which people in their position should enjoy, and it only needs a single word from the Prime Minister to remove those irksome and annoying and onerous regulations so that these people will be able to breathe more freely and visit their relatives more freely. I want to tell the Prime Minister that the Germans whom he released in the Union have brought great joy to their families; it brought inexpressible joy in the homes of those who were separated from one another for more than six years. Those people are now back in their homes. The Prime Minister brought inexpressible joy to those families, but he should bear in mind that he released people in the Union who came from South-West Africa just before the war to take up employment in the Union. Those people are South-West citizens, but they were released because they were in the Union when the war broke out. But their brothers and parents, as the case may be, who were just over the border when the war broke out, are still being detained in the camps. The son may have come to the Union to seek employment; he obtained employment here and was then interned. He has now been released because he is a Union citizen, but the father just over the border is still in the camp. This is the last opportunity we shall have to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister. He will be proceeding overseas in the near future. He will contend before the United Nations Organisation that South-West Africa forms an integral part of the Union, and in that respect he has our support. He has released the Germans of the Union, but he is still detaining the South-West African Germans, and he is doing that in spite of the fact that we are all agreed that South-West Africa should be an integral part of the Union. We ask that this matter be expedited, and that the Commission should commence its sittings. The Commission was appointed more than six weeks ago, and up to the present they have not yet started their sittings. What is the cause of the delay? This delay is a serious matter. I just want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that those people are costing the State a great deal of money, for no reason whatsoever, and their detention in the internment camp is causing a tremendous dislocation in their families and to the country generally. Let us put a stop to that. [Time limit.]

Let me reply at once to the questions which have been put to me. I start with the hon. member who has just sat down. It is the earnest intention of the Government to expedite the disposal of these cases as much as possible; there has been delay. Quite possibly it is due to the duties of the chairman, who is a judge and who has had to dispose of other work. But the whole intention of the Government is to dispose of this matter as soon as possible; As far as we are concerned, it is just a case of costs and expenses, and it means prolonging something which one is anxious to finalise. This is one of the cases one would like to dispose of as soon as possible, and this matter will be expedited. The question of priority is, of course, a matter for the Commission to determine. We cannot say which cases should have precedence. Numbers of cases are being referred to them to deal with, but I may say that even after the Commission has decided there will be cases which the Government will possibly have to take into consideration. The Government cannot altogether rid itself of responsibility in this matter and quite possibly there will be cases which we shall have to take into consideration. As far as the camo regulations are concerned, I cannot see why there should not be a relaxation; and I want to go further. The Administration in South-West Africa has asked us not to send people to that territory who will cause great difficulties there. But that is no reason why, in the majority of cases, we should not release people in the Union. They can then remain in the Union until their cases have been decided. Perhaps it would be better for them to remain in the Union until their cases have been decided.

On what grounds is South-West Africa asking that they should not be sent to that territory?

No, I do not know. They merely say that it will cause great disturbances and difficulties if these people were to go there.

Is it not a question of economic competition?

No, the hon. member can put that idea out of his head altogether.

I would not say it if I did not have proof.

They have no reason to do it on that ground.

You say they have no reason; how do you know?

Because the property of the internees falls under the Custodian of Enemy Property. It does not fall under South-West Africa. The hon. member may therefore put that idea out of his head. The question of economic pressure or of selfishness will not enter into the picture. It is a question of disturbing public opinion in South-West Africa and we do not want to make the position unnecessarily difficult, and the Government is therefore complying with the request which has been made to us. But as far as the Union is concerned, this request is not applicable and we are prepared to relax the regulations in respect of those people who still have to be detained. I think the vast majority can be released in the Union until their cases have been decided upon and I think it would be better for them to remain here.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) has asked the question whether it is not possible for the Government by declaration to declare the war formally at an end so that certain contracts and other matters dependent on the formal ending of the war, can be resumed. The answer is this. It is a most complicated case. All sorts of cases in the Union and over the world depend on that act, the formal declaration of the end of the war, and the time has not really come to do it. We have all sorts of difficulties. We have just had the difficulty in regard with the strike on the gold mines of the Rand, where a step had to be taken dependent on the declaration of the end of the war.

Is it not the end of hostilities? The hostilities have ended.

That is taken to be the same thing. We have not been able to overcome the difficulty, because you may be helping people in one direction and creating very great difficulties in other directions, and it is a matter also not for the separate consideration of the Union, but for international action, and it is a matter which requires a good deal more discussion before any action can be taken; so I am afraid there will be cases of hardship which will be unavoidable.

*The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has referred to certain questions with regard to our external representation. In the first place he raised the question of our representation in Paris. This matter is now in order. The usual permission has been granted and we hope to appoint a Minister there in the near future. In the meantime I am sending a Chargé d’Affaires to Paris to look after our interests until a Minister is appointed. Relations have now been restored and the formal steps have been taken, and the next step will be the appointment of a Minister. In the meantime the matter is being proceeded with and Mr. Paberton, who is a very suitable person and who spent a great deal of his time in French Equatorial Africa will go to Paris.

The other question in regard to Greece was dealt with in this way: The Government is desirous of establishing relations with the Eastern Mediterranean countries— Italy, Greece and Egypt—all countries with whom we have considerable dealings, and we want to expand out relations with those countries. There is a great demand in Egypt to expand trade and other relations with this country, and the Government has therefore appointed Gen. Theron as our Minister in that zone.

Is that in Italy?

For all three countries. His headquarters will be in Rome but he will also have under his jurisdiction Athens and Cairo. In the meantime a Chargé d’Affaires is being appointed at Athens and Cairo to look after our interests there in the absence of Gen. Theron. I think that is the best procedure. It would be too costly for us to appoint a Minister in each of these countries. It would become an unbearable burden to a small country like South Africa, and we shall have to group together certain parts of the world so as not to make the burden of external representation unduly heavy for us. That has already been done as far as Holland and Belgium are concerned. In Holland and Belgium we are also being represented jointly by one Minister. We are going to apply a similar principle in the Eastern Mediterranean theatre and we are going to group together Italy, Greece and Egypt. That is the plan which is now being put into practice.

And Switzerland?

We have taken no steps in Switzerland as yet.

What is the position there?

We have not yet taken steps there. Our trade relations with Switzerland are not on a very considerable scale and, of course, we must also bear in mind the question of costs. We are on very friendly terms with Switzerland; we are on the best footing with that country. During the war Switzerland looked after our interests when all the other countries were in trouble, and Switzerland represented our external interests. The relations between the Union and Switzerland are of the friendliest.

Our trade in Switzerland has expanded considerably.

It has, and I hope it will continue to expand.

Are we trading at all with Greece?

I do not think we do at the moment, but we may do so in the future. Greece has had a representative in the Union for years. We could not reciprocate, nor was it necessary to do so. We are now grouping together those three countries and we are appointing one person to look after our joint interests. Then the hon. member asked why the expenditure in connection with our representation in the United States has increased so considerably. No one in the House knows better than the hon. member himself how rapidly our relations with the United States are expanding. The United States are rapidly becoming the greatest country in the world, not only with whom South Africa trades, but as far as the political sphere is concerned. The United States are more and more becoming the centre of the diplomatic world. The United Nations Organisation is established in the United States; the majority of the big conferences are held there. The United States are rapidly becoming the hub of general world interests, and our relations with the United States are increasing on a tremendous scale. The financial questions affecting this country and the United States have been expanding on a great scale. Our trade relations have expanded, and the hon. member should not compare the position which obtained years ago when he looked after our interests in the United States, with the present position.

Even so, the expenditure is still high.

These matters are being carefully investigated, because we would like to keep the costs of our external representation as low as possible. In the United States the position is simply that we have no alternative. We must take the steps we are taking. In Nèw York it is largely a question of trade expansion, particularly with regard to the acquisition of supplies. We are buying supplies in the United States on a surprisingly great scale and not so much on the Continent of Europe or in Britain.

Is this not a matter which should be undertaken by the exporters themselves?

No, we have discovered that it is in our interests not to leave interests of this kind in the hands of private interests.

But the costs of the Supply Commission are borne by that Commission— an amount of £200,000.

The war position is coming to an end, and we must place our relations of the future on a firm footing. As far as the Information Bureau under Mr. Moolman is concerned, we regard that as absolute essential. When I was there in connection with the establishment of U.N.O. I satisfied myself of the importance of expanding our information service in the United States. Public opinion in the United States is a mighty factor in the world, and it also affects us in South Africa. Those people are fairly ignorant about South Africa. They do not even know whether there are Europeans in this country.

Those days are past.

No, they are not. It is absolutely essential in our own interests to do our utmost to acquaint America with the conditions in South Africa. Take the native question and similar questions which affect us very closely. This is a question in regard to which they are not only ignorant but they have entirely erroneous information, and it is essential to have a bureau there which will continually enlighten the newspapers and the public and look after our interests in that way. The hon. member can also take it from me that I satisfied myself that it is in our interests to continue with that service in the United States. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) stated that we should act a little leniently as far as the sifting of meal is concerned. The officials concerned have listened to his speech, and I hope they have noted his remarks.

In connection with food wastage, I should like to quote from an authority I am bound to pay deference to. According to the “Cape Argus” of yesterday, Dr. Bok has been speaking on this very important matter, and he alleged on the one hand that natives themselves who did manage to get bread were throwing portions of it away, and others, better placed socially, were using necessary bread for the feeding of pigs. Surely central control would be sufficient to avoid waste of this description.

I want to catch the hon. member’s point, but I do not know what he is objecting to.

What I have said is Dr. Bok has alleged that the very instant we are speaking food is being wasted, bread is being wasted, and my suggestion is that a central control would obviate that waste; at least, we hope so.

What central control?

Any form of Government control or rationing is what I have in mind. There are two other suggestions I would like to put through the Prime Minister to his colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs. It has been stated in this discussion that the illiteracy of the native and the nature of his dwelling makes a rationing scheme impossible. I would suggest that is not so, and rationing could be carried out through the machinery of the officials of the Native Affairs Department. There is one other request I would like to make, and which he may pass on as a direction to his colleague of the Native Affairs Department. We are all agreed that natives are at least on the point of starvation, while some are actually dying from lack of food. Long before the present crisis developed, I wrote to the Minister of Native Affairs calling his attention to the very large supplies of army biscuits we had stored in many parts of South Africa at present. I suggested and resuggested that there is a limit to the period under which army biscuits could remain fit for human food, that there came a time of dissolution, and I suggested that the best use to put these army biscuits to was to supply them to the starving natives. I was told the Government had the matter in mind. I am not now so greatly concerned with what the Government has in its mind, but we are concerned with what the native is going to put in his stomach. The Minister told me the native did not like that sort of food; but a starving man is not particular, surely, to that degree. Anyhow, it is a good food, a balanced form of food….

It was good enough for the army.

It was. I am very glad to have the support of the Prime Minister, who seemed to think that, being good enough for the army, these biscuits are good enough for anybody, even if they were not at the point of starvation. That was the answer I received, it was not the sort of food the native wanted. Perhaps the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister would be willing to place the desirability of some such arrangement before his colleague.

I will take it up with Defence and with Natives.

I apologise to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister for also raising this food issue, but I feel although I like the hon. members of the Labour Party I cannot let them get away with the food issues they raised here. Last Friday there was a debate on the Ministry of Food.

I hope the hon. member will bear in mind the previous ruling given by the Chairman as to the limits of discussion on the Prime Minister’s Vote.

I am not going to discuss it generally, but I felt there was the opportunity to talk objectively on the food issue, and one of the members of the Labour Party asked for an adjournment of the debate for the purpose of going over to a debate on a municipal bank rather than discussing the food problems of the country. Hon. members have endeavoured to indicate that our food policy has reached a very bad stage. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) struck the right note when she indicated it was a culmination of things happening one after the other during a period of years. But I say the Government has tackled the immediate food position in a most commendable way, though I have been one of the sternest critics. In regard to the consumption of maize, the maize consumer has been looked after by the Government to a tremendous degree. First of all, and here I agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern, in ordinary circumstances the price of maize would have gone up so much as to be outside the pocket of the nonEuropean consumer if things had been allowed to develop in that way. Instead of that the Government has subsidised maize to the extent of 5s. a bag. I guarantee that seven or eight years ago no one would have thought that any government could do that as far as the consumer is concerned. In connection with importing supplies it has had to subsidise to the extent of 15s. a bag, and probably £1 a bag, but it has not only imported half the quantity needed, it has given an open chit to the Cabinet Food Committee to import as much as it could. The extent of subsidising of maize alone to the consumer will probably be in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000 this year, and I think that in itself is quite a commendable policy as regards the consumer and the lower income groups. On the wheat issue we have also had a policy of subsidisation. Although 37s. 6d. a bag may be considered by members a very high price the country has only produced 3,000,000 bags of wheat compared with 6,000,000 bags in the past. Climatic conditions were against our food and the producer, but even then this Government has imported tremendous quantities of wheat, and if it was not for the personal intervention of the Prime Minister at a very critical stage in our wheat supplies we would have had famine. There is no doubt that by his own personal efforts the Prime Minister secured an allocation of 1¾ million bags of wheat. One does not know the price, but I expect the subsidy will run to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30s.

[Inaudible.]

Surely the hon. member will admit as a consumers’ representative on the Maize Control Board by allocating maize as they are doing there is an attempt at least to allocate it to the poorer people and the natives.

The allocation is hopelessly inadequate.

I agree that the issue of 1½ lb. per person may not be adequate, but if there was more maize it could be two or three times that. The maize has to be rationed as far as possible, and if there had not been rationing particularly in the rural areas the maize would have been drawn to the cities, and in the Ciskei and the Transkei we would have had starvation and deaths by the thousand. My complaint is that over a period of years this has been allowed to develop, and that is where I agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern. On the Maize Board she was a most excellent consumers’ representative and I am sorry she has left.

No, she will go back.

I understand she left on general principles, because she could get no further, and I say she should have had a little patience and something might have developed. I have been on the board a little longer and have had dealings with it over a period of ten years, and I can assure her tremendous changes have taken place. There is great room for improvement, and if we tackle the problem as the Prime Minister indicated possibly we can solve this food problem, not immediately — that needs drastic action—but build up for the future so that we may not have a recurrence of the position we are faced with at the present moment.

I want to deal with quite a different subject, and this is a very important subject. It affects the department of another Minister. We have made representations in this House from all sides to the Minister concerned, but particularly from this side, and our representations have fallen on deaf ears. We thought it advisable therefore to bring this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. Latterly the Prime Minister has often spoken about the critical times through which the country is passing. Here we are also dealing with a crisis through which we are passing, and although the crisis is upon us and in spite of the fact that we make representations to the Minister of Lands, he pays no attention to us on this side of the House, nor does he care what happens in the country and how the interests of the settlers are affected. For that reason we on this side thought it fit to bring these matters to the notice of the Prime Minister personally. There are two cases. The first is the case of the temporary tenant farmers. We on this side have repeatedly told the Minister of Lands that his instruction that people who have been on holdings for years as temporary tenant farmers must now leave those holdings, has very disastrous consequences. It has always been the rule that if a temporary tenant farmer remains on a holding for a long time, he is eventually given an opportunity to become the owner of the land. We understand that it is the policy of the Government to place returned soldiers on these holdings. We are not opposed to it, but according to the information at our disposal and which has been furnished to this House, it appears that the number of holdings previously occupied temporary tenant farmers who were called upon to leave their holdings, exceeds the number of soldiers who are going to occupy the holdings in question. I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the Minister of Lands refuses to give information to any members of this House concerning the number of tenant farmers who have been given notice to leave their holdings. I am given to understand that there are only five registration offices in the country, but this is being kept secret. In my area, Gordonia and the north-western parts, there are numbers of people who had to leave their land. They had to leave their land in the most deplorable circumstances, and I brought it to the notice of this House that those holdings are being neglected because there is no one to look after the lands and the orchards. I also want to tell the Prime Minister that he knows what the policy has been of all governments in the past, namely, to give the people an opportunity of hiring land and eventually when they have found that they can make a decent living on the land, the Government goes so far as to help them to buy the land. The Minister of Lands now states that that was never the policy of any government, and that it is not the policy of this Government. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give this matter his serious attention. We cannot simply give land to people in a new area and abandon them to their own resources. We must first enable those people gradually to acquire knowledge of the area in question so that they can find out for themselves whether they can make a decent living in that area.

Then I come to another case. We are living in difficult circumstances today. There are certain parts of the country where it is extremely dry. In adjacent areas there may be Crown land where there may be good grazing and where it may have rained. The farmers are in dire need of that grazing, but the Minister of Lands does not want to allow any farmer to send a single animal to those parts by allowing them to hire grazing there. That land is lying idle in spite of the fact that we are experiencing a crisis. I feel that the Prime Minister should view this matter in the light that where there is land which will not be distributed at present nor in the next few years, but which borders on the holdings of farmers who need grazing, he should allow these people to make use of such grazing. In this connection I want to touch upon a letter I received from a farmers’ association in the Kalahari. There are certain parts of the Kalahari and the Kuruman district where there have been good rains and where the grass is fairly high. The farmers are not allowed to make use of the grazing on Crown land. There are settlers who have so much grazing that they feel that they are in a position to help other farmers, but they are not allowed to do so. I want to tell the Prime Minister that this is becoming a serious matter in those parts. This farmers’ association wrote to me to say that many of its members are willing to help others with grazing, because they have had rain, but in terms of this regulation of the Minister of Lands they are not allowed to provide grazing facilities to others. In certain parts there is no grazing, while there is grazing in other parts, and the one person who can meet these people is the Minister of Lands, but he turns a deaf ear to them. One would say that he does not care what becomes of those farmers. It would seem that he has hardened his heart against those people. He does not want to allow the people to help one another. Then there is another matter that we want to bring to the serious notice of the Prime Minister, namely, the restrictions which are imposed on the holdings. We want to ask him to give his attention once again to this matter.

That would require an amendment of the law, and the hon. member cannot discuss it now.

It is a question of policy.

But any change would require an amendment of the law, and it cannot be discussed now.

I have made a note of it.

I hope the Prime Minister will consider these two cases to which I have referred, namely, the position of the temporary tenant farmer and the question of grazing on Crown land, and since the Minister of Lands refuses to allow farmers to make use of grazing on Crown land, the Prime Minister should regard this matter from the point of view of the position which obtains in the country at the moment. The ’ third point is in connection with the settlers who are prepared to provide grazing to others, and who are not allowed to do so. It will be a great concession to people in the severely inflicted areas if the Prime Minister will meet them in this respect.

We have listened with great interest both to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Economic Development in regard to the food position. I do not want to pursue the matter further except to this extent, that I appreciate very much the Prime Minister’s statement with regard to the steps to be taken, and also what the Minister of Economic Development said, but we break down at the final issue, namely, the distribution to the consumer. That is where the trouble starts. Both the Minister and the Prime Minister appealed to the good spirit of the people, but the unfortunate thing is that that is just leaving the position where it was. The Minister himself warned us that during the whole of this year the position will be bad. We have had figures from Sir Ben Smith, the Controller of Food in Britain, who has stated that the minimum requirements for the world for the next period is 18 million tons of wheat, of which they will only have 12 million tons, thereby showing that there is a shortfall of one-third on the minimum requirement. That shows at once that the position is going to get worse. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s warning, and his appeal to good spirit, but I want to tell him that our experience, particularly on the Reef, is that all the good spirit in the world will not give the people food. They are in a difficult position. The poor people have no accounts with the retailers, and are probably not known to the retailer, with the result that they do not get their ration. The Minister also said that if the retailer does not play the game, we will deal with him, but that is exactly the point. The position will then be greatly worse. He says he will deal with the retailers who do not act properly. I do not know how he will do that, but what is going to happen to the customers of those traders if their quota is taken away? They will have to go to other butchers or bakers who cannot even supply their own customers. I appeal to the Prime Minister before he leaves, to leave some instructions to his colleagues to apply the only measure which will save us from disaster, namely, the system of individual rationing to the consumer himself. We know what the difficulties are, but it can be done. It has been suggested that even the Native Affairs Department can assist in that direction. After all, in the Free State and the Transvaal, where you have the pass system, they can ration every native who comes to the Rand with passes, and therefore one presumes they can also ration them with coupon books. I think that can be done, especially in the urban areas. In the country areas they will have to approach the problem from a different aspect, but they have had famines in the country districts before, and food was distributed through the magistrates, and the country was saved. They did it in the Transkei some time ago. Before the war we also had a position of famine. I agree with the Prime Minister that the present position has arisen through no fault of our own, but we appeal to the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that we see grave dangers ahead in regard to the weaker and poorer people, to see to if that at least they will get their fair share. We are all prepared to go on short rations provided the distribution is satisfactory. I want to make a final appeal to the Prime Minister. It is not sufficient to say what the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) said, that the Maize Board has not made sufficient progress in ten years. We cannot wait another ten years. However, I think we can waive aside the absurdities of the hon. member for Orange Grove, and apply ourselves to the problem. No one wishes to obstruct the Government by frightening the people, but it is better that they should be warned, because if they are not warned something worse might happen to them. It is therefore the duty of every member to try his best to make the position as good as possible. I appeal to the Prime Minister not to leave the position as it is, because it is far too serious.

Under this vote I should like to bring up the question of policy; I refer inter alia to the Secretariat and the General Planning Council. The subject I wish to broach in this connection is the whole of our state organisation as it exists today. During the recess I wrote to various Ministers in order to learn from them regarding the various boards constituted under their departments, and in the course of my enquiries I discovered that we have between 45 and 50 of these boards. In addition to that, as hon. members know, we find that in connection with almost every Bill that has been adopted by us provision is being made for a new board, and the result later on will be we shall have an impossible number of boards. I had a motion on the Order Paper directing the attention of the Prime Minister to this matter but unfortunately it did not come up in its turn. It seems to me that one thing is very clear, namely that the whole of our governmental organisation has today become so complicated, and governmental activities have become so expanded that it is virtually an impossible task to have business done through the ordinary machinery of the State, that is to say through Parliament, the ’ provincial councils, the local authorities, and public servants. I brought up this matter before and the Minister of Finance replied to it, and on that occasion I suggested that members of Parliament might serve on this sort of commission and that more use might be made of them. The Minister of Finance stated that you could not do this, because in the first place it would necessitate an alteration in the constitution, and in the second place, he said though it might be made applicable in the case of large municipalities, that it would operate in the interests of the State. As far as the first observation goes I feel, and I think the Prime Minister will agree, that if we have expanded to such an extent that we have practically gone beyond the limits imposed by the constitution….

The hon. member may not advocate an alteration of the law.

I am not asking for that. I am only mentioning the alterations that have been discussed. I would only say this, that I have made enquiries into the American system. There they have committees under Congress, and members of Congress —members of Parliament in our country— serve on them and do good work. But, assuming for a moment that this would not be applicable in our country, I still maintain that our whole governmental system must be so designed that the boards appointed under various departments must carry out Government policy. We must be absolutely certain of that when we adopt legislation. But, and it no doubt has frequently happened in the case of other hon. members, when you get in touch with the secretary of such a board he simply tells you “that is our policy”. He does not talk of the policy of the Government but of their own policy. It is perfectly clear that gradually these bodies are becoming small independent governments within the State. What are we going to do to assure continuity of policy in these various organisations? We adopt an Act and we institute an organisation. When we adopt an Act in this House we have certain objectives before us and we desire that certain things should be carried out in conformity with Government policy, but it appears to me from my study of the subject that no method exists to ensure that such a board, when appointed, will at once carry out the policy of the Government. It has often been said, and there is much truth in it, that some members of boards, especially of agricultural boards, are entirely unsympathetic towards the Government, and governmental policy counts for nothing at all.

The Government appoints them.

Many members are appointed by farmers’ organisations.

Nominated, but not appointed.

It appears to me in any case some sort of liaison should be created between the Government and the various boards, and perhaps one way in which this can be done is for members of this House to be employed on such boards to form a connecting link between Parliament, the Government and the boards. Bearing in mind the fact that the allowances of members have been improved I think it can also be expected that members of Parliament should serve on such boards in an honorary capacity without remuneration. But something must be done to provide a link between the Central Government, this House and those boards. Perhaps the Prime Minister may be able to suggest something. He is an authoritative person in regard to these constitutional matters, and I shall listen with interest to any suggestions that he may offer. But I do feel there should be a link, and perhaps it can be formed by members of this House, from all parties, who really know what is meant by a Bill. When we adopt an Act, it is only the broad framework; the real spirit of the Act is revealed in its administration. In other words, you place the Act in the hands of people who have had nothing to do with the passing of it, and it is the easiest thing in the world for them to destroy the spirit and intention of the Act, and as far as this is concerned, to go very wide of the mark. Unfortunately the Prime Minister has had his hands full. In the war he had to concentrate all his attention on the war effort, and unfortunately he had to give further attention to matters incidental to it. But now the war is over we shall have to pay attention to internal difficulties. There are defects throughout our whole administration, and these defects must be removed. It has been suggested that under-secretaries, ministerial secretaries, can be appointed, as in England, where they have parliamentary secretaries, ministerial secretaries, but apparently this idea does not find much favour in our country. The Prime Minister will agree that his Ministers are overworked, with the result that more and more work must be entrusted to people over whom the voters of the country have no control, and it does not admit of doubt that the public are sometimes very annoyed by these persons and then the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Cabinet are blamed. In the short time which has been available to me I have endeavoured as a plain member of this House to give my impressions, and I wish to express the hope that, perhaps even before the present Parliament comes to an end, some means or other will be found to improve the position in regard to our State organisation.

Far be it from me to endeavour to withhold credit from the Prime Minister and/or his colleagues in the Cabinet. I do not wish to do that for one moment. On the contrary I give them every credit for having made every effort to increase our food supplies, and particularly the grain supplies, and I say that notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). I am also one of those who realise that this is the culmination of long years of neglect, but what I am trying to drive home is that we now have to tackle the position as we find it. We find that we are in short supply as regards food, despite the very laudable efforts of the Cabinet. Taking a bird’s eye view of the whole world, as the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) has stated, our grain supply is one-third short. We therefore have to face the fact that we have only two-thirds of our grain requirements in this country. How can we distribute that two-thirds in the best possible way? The Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of his colleague the Minister of Agriculture—and I sincerely regret the fact that the Minister is not well —and anticipated by the hon. Minister of Economic Development, has given us one method, or two or three odds and ends of methods of making this distribution, and they seem to pin their faith to ration through the retailer. The producer then will be told to deliver so much to the miller and the miller will deliver so much flour to the baker, who will deliver so many loaves to this, that and the other retailer. Our point is that we have had experience of that method of distribution, and it has been a complete failure. Retailers have their favourite customers. I have instanced in this House before my experience with regard to meat, where the person who has an account could get meat, whereas I, who was a cash customer could not get any. When selection is made by the retailer the credit customers have preference. I want to bring this point home to the Prime Minister. We have tried retailer rationing and have found it wanting, and not only was it wanting because there was unfair distribution, but we have the right to expect, as the result of our experience, that the mass of poor people in the country will be deprived of their share altogether; because we have that most inequitable thing, that most cruel thing possible, a black market in bread. We have it already where retailers—I must repeat this for emphasis—are already offering bakers far above the price fixed. The price fixed is 6½d., and they are offering 7½d., which means that when the customer comes in to buy a loaf of bread, he will be told that it has all been sold, whereas in fact it is under the counter, but the trader knows his mark, the man will pay him 8d. or 9d. or a shilling. There will be a subterranean auction sale behind the scenes. Is that right?

The other method suggested by the Minister is that there shall be this one breadless day a week. I say that that means a foodless day a week for many people, and I hope hon. members will realise it and not be prejudiced because I mention it, but look at the merits of the case fairly. The same thing applies to the restriction of bread after 5 p.m. The Prime Minister can appeal with all his strength and eloquence for a good spirit, but when there is famine just as there is a black market, so you will have people who will disregard all appeals to decency. There is only one thing left, official rationing. Several times I have heard it said that you cannot ration, but I have not heard any arguments against rationing. I have not been told why you cannot ration, and I challenge the Minister and the Prime Minister to tell me why you cannot ration. If you say it is difficult I will agree, but please tell me why you cannot ration if every other country does it.

And they ration mealies.

They also have experts now.

Never mind the experts. Let us bring common sense to bear; what are the insuperable difficulties in the way of rationing? I am afraid that the difficulty is largely that they do not want to do it. They will try everything, even some of the things that have proved failures, but not rationing, and I appeal in the interests of the starving population, not those who can buy on the black market, but the large mass of people, white and coloured, who cannot afford to fight the black marketeer.

There is not the slightest doubt that if the Government is going to try rationing, as it did in the case of meat, it may as well leave it. One of the members on the other side who is a trader has explained the position. If you give the retailer only 80 per cent. of his requirements because there is a shortage he will naturally give preference to those people who are his clients. The trader must look to the future when there will no longer be a shortage, and if he wants to retain his clients, he must meet their demands as much as possible. That was the position in connection with meat. The retailer was rationed, and he gave meat to whom he pleased. One goes to a city like Pretoria, perhaps in connection with a meeting, and one finds that some people have meat every day, while others tell one that they have not been able to obtain meat for the past eight or ten days. The trader will first satisfy his regular clients, and he will sell the balance as soon as possible, because it is a perishable product and it cannot be left over. Let me say to the Minister of Economic Development that if he wants to adopt this system he may as well drop the whole thing. Similarly, he can abandon the whole scheme if he is going to rely on the goodwill of the retailers. One cannot say that those people are wilful, but, after all, they are in the trade; and one of his own members has already told him what the position is. I envisage many difficulties in connection with a coupon system, too. The difficulty will not be in connection with the Europeans, but in connection with the natives and the coloured people. The farmers of this country have always helped the country out of difficulty, where they could do so. They will do it again; they will produce sufficient wheat if they are offered a sufficiently attractive price. The Minister will see that in the case of the Langeberg Co-operative Society. The production of tomatoes, vegetables, fruit, etc., increased enormously when these people obtained a decent market for their products, but today the farmers are being expected to produce wheat for 35s. per bag, while the Government is prepared to pay 70s. per bag for imported wheat. It would be much better for the Government to pay our farmers 45s. It would be cheaper than to import, and in that case the subsidy will go to our own farmers and not to the farmers of the United States, Australia and the Argentine. Today the people are quibbling about the question whether production costs have increased or not. We are experiencing the same difficulty in regard to milk. The people in the towns cannot get milk for drinking purposes, and cheese milk has to be imported at 2s. per gallon, while the farmers in this country are getting 1s. per gallon for cheese milk. It will be cheaper for us eventually to make the price attractive so that these commodities can be produced in this country, and, moreover, our own people will then benefit. It has been recommended that the price of first-grade wheat should be 45s. per bag. The Department says that the price was 37s. 6d. last year, and that they cannot make it more than £2 per bag. I want to point out to the Minister that there are many areas where it is not a very payable proposition to produce wheat, and the price must be fairly high, otherwise the people in those areas will not produce. In my constituency the farmers have said that the Government may as well ask someone else to produce barley. They cannot produce it at 12s. 6d„ while the Government is importing at 37s. 6d. Give these people a fair price, and all these difficulties will then be overcome. Then I also want to ask the Minister of. Economic Development and the Prime Minister to try to obtain substitutes for bread. In Ireland bread is being made of potatoes. In this country we could also encourage the cultivation of sweet potatoes. The poorer people use sweet potatoes on a considerable scale, because bread and meat are expensive commodities. If we have not got bread for the shepherd, we can give him a few sweet potatoes, and he would be quite satisfied. Then there is another matter. If the Government is going to fix a breadless day—I do not think it will do so—it will place the poor people in a very difficult position. Many of them live on bread and coffee, and they will simply be forced to buy sufficient bread the previous day to last for a couple of days. A measure of this kind would be workable in the hotels and the boarding houses. Why should these people have bread three times per day with their meals? They could have one or two meals without bread. Then there is a further consideration if a breadless day is instituted or if the time during which bread may be consumed is limited. In the towns the people have their main meal in the evening, whereas the people on the platteland usually have their main meal at midday. That must be taken into consideration when these times are fixed. I want to tell the Government that with the best will in the world it cannot allow rationing to take place through the retail trade. It will not succeed. I do not say that these people are not willing to co-operate, but they are not in a position to do it. I do not think there will be a great black market in bread, because it will be an easy matter to detect black market dealers. One cannot charge a native a shilling for a 6d. loaf of bread. In the first place, he will refuse to buy it, and the man who sells it will be caught easily. We shall only have a black market in the hotels, where the well-to-do people will buy bread. We need not have great fears of a black market, but we cannot expect the retailers to do the rationing for us. Some plan or other will have to be made to overcome the scarcity by obtaining substitutes. The Prime Minister should draw up plans well in advance, and he must not think that he can leave this matter to the goodwill of the retailers. They cannot do this work.

In view of the impending departure of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the probability of his meeting representatives of His Majesty’s Government and of Dominion Governments in London before proceeding to the conference of the United Nations Organisation, I want to refer to the discussion that recently took place in this House on the subject of the High Commission Territories. There was some discussion when the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote was opened this year as to the question of the Union seeking to bring about the transfer of the Protectorates from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of the Union. I think a suggestion was made by the Leader of the Opposition that a petition should go forward to the Government of the United Kingdom requesting that the Protectorates should be transferred to the Union. I dissent entirely from the desirability of any such course of action, and I want to show that the native policy is being carried on in manner which will be bound to destroy the confidence of the natives not only in the Union itself but in the Protectorates. To begin with I wish to refer to the Native Representative Council, a body that was recognised by the Prime Minister in 1936 as one forming a very important part of our machinery of Parliament. In those words he referred to that body at the time it was brought into being, and he pointed out what responsible work was being entrusted to it. What is the position in regard to the treatment of that body by the Native Affairs Department? There is a request in the last abbreviated report of the proceedings of the Native Representative Council to this effect—

There is no reply of any kind recorded in the report from which I am quoting to show that the Department of Native Affairs took the slightest notice of this reasonable request but, as I propose to show later, the report in question affords proof of serious wilful omissions, which go far to vitiate the value of the report itself as a source of fairly recorded public information.

Before I leave the request made by the Native Representative Council may I quote a resolution passed by that Council relating to its gratitude to the services of the Prime Minister. It said—

This Committee will be surprised to hear that so far from the proceedings of this body being placed before Parliament the verbatim report of the proceedings was suppressed. I myself asked questions of the Minister of Native Affairs on 27th March, 1946, desiring to know why and upon whose authority certain reports in which the Native Representative Council had expressed its views very forcibly in regard to the native policy of this country and in regard to the treatment of African tribal natives had been withheld from publication in the report of the Council’s proceedings. The Minister of Native Affairs, if you please, when I asked my questions, referred me to a paragraph which is printed in the report and which reveals how deliberate the suppression of the information in the proceedings was made. He referred to a paragraph in the report which reads—

I appeal to any member of this House, of what value is a statement of that kind when the report itself is completely suppressed? Every word contained in that report is kept back from us, and we are not permitted to know, and when I requested that the information should be supplied the Minister in the House said that “the hon. member will be permitted to see the report” if I went to his office. By what right has the Minister to request I should go to his office to see a report which is the property of this House? Not only was a deliberate request made for that report to be placed before this House by its authors, the representatives of the natives throughout the Union, not only is the request ignored, but the report itself is most carefully suppressed so that it never reaches this House at all and is apparently not to reach the House, even though its deliberate suppression has been commented upon. That report was a most outspoken document. It said, inter alia—

That is a very strong statement, but it seems to be very strongly supported by the facts quoted in the report. The report also refers to the appointment of chiefs and headmen under the Native Administration Act, 1927, and it says—

In a case which I brought before the House myself last year it was proved that where a chief had been superseded without notice, his place had been handed over to another man who had not a shred of justification for his claim. A period of thirteen years elapsed before the injured parties were informed that their tribe was, in the lighthearted language of the Department of Native Affairs, “amalgamated”—the chieftainship being conferred upon one who had no right to govern. If these disclosures by the Natives’ Representative Council represent the measure of the policy of Native Affairs towards Africans, it is a policy that calls for very strong condemnation. Last week again I drew attention to the fact that two Pass Office officials of the Native Affairs Department had been convicted at Johannesburg of an attempt to hang a native in the Pass Office. The Natives’ Representative Council had made this reference to an incident that had taken place in the chief native pass office at Johannesburg, which is controlled by the Department of Native Affairs. The Council said this—

[Time limit.]

I just want to bring a serious question to the attention of the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he realises that the 18,000 mine workers who work underground can take with them no other foodstuff but bread. If he wants to introduce a breadless day, then in their case he will have to make an exception. Those people cannot take any other form of food with them. Either we shall have to expect those people to work without food for one day in the week, or we will have to grant them exemption, or those people will have to violate the regulation. I hope that the Prime Minister will give his attention to this point, for I do not know of any other way out. They may not take cake with them, and we cannot expect 18,000 mine workers to go without food one day in the week when they are underground. It is impracticable. Then there is also the position of school children and of workers who can only take a piece of bread to work with them. Above ground one can perhaps take something else along, but you cannot take a bucket of porridge or the like underground. Only bread can be taken underground, for other food does not keep there. Meat may not be taken underground. It does not keep there. Only bread can be taken, and what are these people going to do? I mention this point to indicate to the Prime Minister that the matter is impracticable, for he will have to grant exemptions one after the other, and it will render the project completely impracticable.

I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to the Polish Consulate and its relationship to the de facto Government in Poland. I understand there is a camp near Outdshoorn in which there are a number of Polish soldiers, refugees, and this camp is under the administration of the Polish Consulate here. I think the Prime Minister will understand the point I am getting at, is this, that the British Government and the United States Government recognise the de facto Government in Poland, whereas the Consulate here, which is administering this camp near Oudtshoorn, is responsible to the London committee. I have had complaints that there is a certain amount of more than persuasion, almost persecution of those people in the camp who favour the present Government in Poland and who are not acceptable, therefore, to the representatives of the London committee. It is a very serious question because complaints have come that they have even endeavoured to deport Polish ex-soldiers from the Union to Fort Jameson in Northern Rhodesia, where there is another camp. They went so far as to have an ex-captain of the Polish Army arrested in Johannesburg. Fortunately the police or the Government department concerned had sufficient sense to take action and he was only under control for half a day. Why was this man arrested? Because he refused to go to Fort Jameson, because he feared if he went there he would be under the control of people who are hostile to his political views. The people controlling that camp represent the London committee and, as the Prime Minister knows, there is a great deal of hostility between the two sections. I would like to know where we stand in regard to the camp, and when we are going to recognise the Government of Poland as it is and come into line with these other countries.

I may tell my hon. friend we have not recognised as yet the Polish Government, the Warsaw Government. The South African Government has not done so; the United Kingdom Government has done it and the United States Government has done it, but we are still deferring the decision. In the meantime we have a camp of Polish children at Oudtshoorn whom we are taking charge of. It is not under any other body; it is run by our Welfare Department, and we are keeping matters in that position until we have finally decided whether we shall recognise the Warsaw Government or not. We are keeping the matter in our own hands. The hon. member need not be afraid we are likely to take a sudden decision which would jeopardise the position of people who have been faithful allies and who have fought for us. We shall give the matter every consideration.

Let me refer to a number of points that have been raised. There is the point mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), the omission of the Native Affairs Department to lay before this House the verbatim proceedings of the Native Representative Council of Pretoria. It is a matter I have no information about. I have not followed the discussions which have taken place to which my hon. friend refers, so I should not like to enter into a discussion on that matter at this stage. No doubt further consideration will be given to it later on. Of the other hon. members a number have referred to the question of rationing. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) has explained that if we introduced legislation to have a breadless day then underground miners on the Rand would have to go without food — a very good reason for not making such a regulation. We are not committed yet, and no doubt the Minister concerned with these matters will give this very careful consideration. We cannot send down 18,000 to 20,000 miners underground without food. It might lead to another strike. [Laughter.] We had enough of the last one. We shall take care of that point.

A number of other hon. members have referred to the question of rationing. The hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), South Rand (Mr. Christie) and Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) have put up a strong plea—at least, two of them, the hon. members for South Rand and Benoni—for individual rationing as the only method likely to succeed, that rationing through retailers or in any other way has failed and will fail again. I can only say this, Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I have already said in the House this afternoon, that the Government is going to investigate these methods of rationing to which I have referred. We have the experts now here. They have arrived, and we ourselves, even apart from the experts, have a good deal of information at our disposal which requires searching investigation. We shall have this problem for the rest of the year on our hands, and we are anxious to find a way out of this tangle. The investigation will go on, and I hope that some way will be found. I know the difficulties to which my hon. friends refer, and we shall have to bear those difficulties in mind and see whether there are not some ways round these difficulties in which we may overcome this question of rationing and of looking after the lower income groups of this country, be they natives or coloured or Europeans. The investigation will take place, and therefore I do not want to pursue the matter further.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) has urged a suggestion that has been previously mentioned by him, namely, that the administration of the country should be conducted more on municipal lines, that is to say, by Boards on which the services of members of Parliament can be used, or by liaison between existing Boards and the Government. It has already been made plain to the hon. member that our constitution has been modelled on different lines, and that this would entail a radical alteration in our constitution, and that we shall not be able to carry out his suggestion as far as the Government of this country is concerned without altering the South Africa Act. I am aware that we have great difficulty in the administration of the country. The administration of the country is continuously expanding, it becomes greater and more arduous, and much of this work is carried out by Commissions and Boards. The difficulty to which my friend refers will be mentioned more and more. We shall have to find a way out of these difficulties. I do not think that his suggestion will help us. It would be a constitutional change accompanied with many difficulties; but we shall nevertheless have to find a way to ensure that closer supervision may be kept over these Boards. Whatever Board it may be, there ought to be a Minister in the House who can be attacked and held responsible, and we shall have to see that this is the position, that there are not Boards in the country that function like miniature governments and follow their own course and their own policy. This is something that cannot be allowed, and we shall have to keep before us the danger mentioned by our hon. friend, and we shall have to see to it that the general policy of the country is carried out, and that there are Ministers in this House under our existing constitution who can be held responsible for those acttions. That is the only way in which the proposal he has made can be carried into effect.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has brought to my notice a certain difficulty in connection with the administration of the Lands Department. There are a number of lessees whose leases have been terminated so that their holdings may be made available for returned soldiers. Crown land has also been leased which the Minister of Lands will not make available in the dry season.

Some of them have not been leased. They are simply lying idle.

The point my hon. friend makes is this, that more holdings are left lying idle than there are returned soldiers to cultivate and occupy them. I can only tell my hon. friend that I shall discuss the question with my colleagues and learn whether there are such cases.

What we desire is this, that Crown land with grazing should be given out to people who have no grazing.

I know that the grazing question arises, especially during the dry season that we are now experiencing. In the meantime, lands are lying idle and not being used.

And the cattle die in the meantime and the barley rots.

The Minister of Lands intended that these lands should be reserved for soldiers who are returning and who may not return in time or who have not returned in sufficient numbers to occupy the land. I shall discuss the question with him. The hon. member will understand that I would be making a mistake if with my limited knowledge of the matter I went into it further. We have now been occupied for a fairly considerable time with this part of my estimates and I trust that all members of the Committee will now agree to our winding up the debate and passing this vote.

I hope, Sir, that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has given consideration to the statement I was making with regard to the neglect of the Minister of Native Affairs to comply with his obvious obligations in regard to certain matters occurring in the Department under his control. The Minister of Native Affairs was asked the following questions by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) on 11th February, 1944—

The reply was—

Then the next question was—

The reply was—

Two years have passed since that matter occurred.

What was the result of the appeal?

The Department is silent about what happened subsequently. The Native Representative Council, as I have said, passed a resolution drawing attention to this case and asking for the dismissal of these officers. There is no information as to what action the Native Affairs Department either took or proposed to take in regard to this resolution passed by a body of natives representative of the natives in South Africa. But in addition to that one finds a series of other matters referred to by the Native Representative Council of a very serious kind. They refer to the methods of administration in the countryside as applying to the natives and they complain in bitter terms of the fact that no sort of relief is granted. This is a body that most of us referred to, when the Act was passed regulating their affairs, as a body which will be regarded as largely advisory in legislation that is brought before this House. But the Council points out, quite truthfully, that during the last year taxation was imposed upon them without any consultation whatsoever and that they had no opportunity whatsoever of voicing their opinion at all. They said—

The present Prime Minister referred in the following terms to the Native Representative-Council when it was brought into being—

There has also been a complaint, respectfully and properly made by this body, that the Provincial Council is permitted to tax them, although the Act of Union vests in the Government of the Union of South Africa the control and administration of native affairs. The Provincial Council should not be permitted to tax the natives, and I think at one time the Government realised that— to levy taxation upon natives whose control is not vested in the Provincial Council, but whose control is vested specially by our constitution in the Government itself. Those are among the grievances that are rife and very strongly held by the Natives’ Representative Council and its members, and may I say that among those who have expressed the views I have quoted are men of education and men of observation and training. You have a professor, Z. Matthews, of Fort Hare Native University College; you have Dr. Moroka and others of similarly good qualifications who take a leading part in the affairs of the Council, and I feel that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will realise that a body of this kind cannot continue to be suppressed and ignored by those who are relied upon to guide the policy of native affairs in this country.

There is another matter to which I want to refer very briefly, and that is the question of the Union’s attitude towards Imperial preference. Some years ago in 1926 on the discussion of a new Customs tariff introduced by the Nationalist Government, the Prime Minister, then in opposition, indicated his dissatisfaction with the sweeping away of so large a number of Imperial preferences by the Bill which was then under discussion, and he said that if ever he returned to power he would regard it as his duty to restore as far as possible the preferences that had been swept away; and I am sure that all of us who have followed this question will agree with the Prime Minister as to the wisdom of the reversal of such a policy which would, had it been further developed, have resulted in injury to this country in the long run.

You are not including me in expressing that view.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) does not wish to be included in that view, and I do not for a moment venture to be so rash.

And all the rest of us here.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) talks about the rest of us here, but his following of antipreference enthusiasts must be very small and ill-informed. The Ottawa Conference was a landmark of the improvement that was brought about in a somewhat lean period of our financial career. At that conference the principle of mutual preference was embodied in a series of inter-dominion agreements. Today if you were to examine the effect of the Ottawa Agreements on our trade in normal times you would find that it has been one of the best instruments we, in South Africa, have had for the marketing of our wool, and if those agreements were cancelled there would be a demand in South Africa for their renewal in toto. There have been a number of discussions on the question of their widely beneficial effect. [Time limit.]

May I just say a word in reply to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I do not object to my hon. friend raising this matter of native administration and the complaints of the Natives’ Representative Council here in this House, but I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the proper place would be when the native estimates are dealt with, when these matters can be thrashed out. One of the points he makes is quite important, and I think it deserves discussion here, and I hope my hon. friend will raise it at the appropriate time. I do not want to enter into it now.

As regards the last point made by the hon. member, namely, the abolition of Imperial preferences, that matter will come up for discussion at one of these early conferences that are going to be held in America. The committee knows that a big international conference is going to be held to deal with the question arising out of lease-lend, and the restoration of free trade all over the world, and in connection with that question all Imperial preferences will be raised and the question of trade barriers. I agree with my hon. friend that we here in South Africa, as in other parts of the Commonwealth, have derived very solid advantages from the preferences which we have enjoyed hitherto, given at Ottawa and elsewhere, and it will be the policy of this Government, as it will be the policy of other governments in other Dominions, to stick to these preferences until we have a distinct and adequate quid pro quo, until American tariffs and other trade barriers are removed to such an extent that these measures of protection for our trade are no longer necessary. We shall naturally watch this matter with the closest attention as it is very vital to our interests, and I do not think the hon. member need be prematurely alarmed about that. I think there will be a very high barrier of defence put up against any attacks. But we do want world trade restored and we do want tariffs lowered. We want world trade restored so that the world may once more sail into calmer seas. On that policy we are all agreed, and we are not going to give up Imperial preferences for nothing. We are certainly not going to do that. That is not the policy of this Government, and if anything is done in this connection, this House will be consulted in advance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, £18,350,000,

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. After six years of war it is agreeable for this House to find that the Defence Vote has been specified as it was before the war, and we can again enquire why large sums have been spent and will be spent. The amount asked for here under Vote 5 is £18,350,000. This is £64 million less than was asked for the vote last year. That is a remarkable decrease. It is, of course, not yet on a peace basis. I assume that a large proportion of the amount will come off in the future. I have looked up the estimates of previous years. I have looked up the estimate when we began with the Defence Force. In the year 1913-T4 the amount asked for Defence was £1,200,000. Immediately before the war the amount asked was £2,200,000, and this year when we again have peace the right hon. member asks for £18 million. I take it his intention is to come next year with a reduction under this vote, that he will come next year with a considerable reduction. It is obvious that as demobilisation progresses the vote will be decreased.

The first point I want to make in connection with this vote is this: I think it is the general desire that we should return as quickly as possible to peace conditions, also in regard to the Defence Force. The outside world is not doing so, the outside world is reverting with great difficulty to peace conditions. When one looks at the defence expenditure in other countries, one fears it can be described more as an armed peace than a true peace. I notice, for instance, that the British Government envisages raising by the end of this year a force of more than a million men—1,100,000. That is big for peace time. I note that America within a few months will have for the three main divisions of its defence some 1,500,000 men. I see in a report that America will within a short while provide for a fleet greater than those of Britain, Russia, France and Italy combined. That does not look like peace. It looks more like armed peace than anything else. It does not look as if the big countries have much faith in the peace. I think we in South Africa want to believe in the peace, and that we all wish to revert as quickly as possible to peace conditions as far as the Defence Force is concerned. There are no very attractive indications of that. But let us live in hope. The signs in this country give rise to the thought that our Defence Force will never revert to its prewar strength, that we shall have to maintain a better and bigger Defence Force, with more modern equipment than before the war I do not wish us to share this idea of an armed peace, but what I wish to say is this —and I can say this on behalf of this side of the House—that as a result of the war and as a result of circumstances that prevail internally today, we shall find it necessary to have a stronger and better equipped Defence Force than before the war. Our military preparations in time of peace have always been made on a very modest scale, at times on such a modest scale that the Department has complained. I recall the days immediately before the war when the Defence Department complained of more than an absence of military policy. In their report to Parliament before the war, they complained more than once that they were in the delicate position of having to manage without a clearly outlined military policy on behalf of the State, and they complained of the deplorable state of our military equipment and about the financial limitations which resulted in the military preparedness and military value of our Defence Force existing only in name. I do not believe one can agree entirely with that description of the position, but the point I wish to emphasise is that our military preparations in peace time were always on a modest scale. These were peace conditions, and no one anticipated the conditions that exist today. South Africa is a poor country; there is a limit to the amount the Union can spend on defence; but in dangerous times such as these it would be insane for South Africa not to bring its military machine to a state of proper efficiency. Take the external position and the internal position. Take first the external. Newspaper reports say that UNO wishes to create an army of two million. Incidentally, I should like to learn from> the right hon. member if it is the intention, when that army of two million—it is really called a police force—has been established, that South Africa, too, should have to make a contribution, or provide men for the land, sea and air forces. The following report appeared a few days ago—

I do not know whether that report is correct or not. It was published the other day in the “Cape Times”. But in reference to this report I wish to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to enlighten the House regarding the matter and to state whether South Africa will also have to provide a part of that force. In spite of this preparation that U.N.O. is making to institute a world police force these countries, and especially the Big Five, are engaged in arming to the teeth. It is a very remarkable and alarming phenomenon

But now I come to our internal position. With the disquieting conditions existing in South Africa in would not be wise to abolish our Defence Force. There is for instance one alarming report. I do not know whether it is correct. The report states that the British Government recently sent a commission to South Africa, to Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, to recruit 10,000 natives in order to institute a defence force for those territories, and the report states that the 10,000 natives they are recruiting will be trained in the use of modern weapons, rifles, bombs, hand grenades and other explosives. And then there is added to the report something that sounds very dangerous. The report states that these 10,000 natives will be trained by the British Government in a military camp in Durban, at Clairwood Camp. But I ask the Rt. Hon. member to enlighten the House in connection with this matter. Is there any truth in it? If this is so South Africa is moving in more dangerous waters than one realises today. If in these British native territories in our midst, Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland, a large military force of 10,000 native soldiers is being created by the British Government, then it is dangerous in itself and still more dangerous when you take our internal native population into consideration; and even more dangerous if facilities are to be created inside the Union for their training.

In these dangerous circumstances it is South Africa’s duty to maintain a military force which, however small, must be well equipped. It must necessarily be small because we are poor. It is indispensable that the force should be equipped with modern weapons so that it ean carry out mobile warfare and, especially as far as internal defence is concerned, that they should not be tied down with the heavy weapons used on overseas battlefields. Before I proceed further I should like to tell the House what is more or less the policy of this side in connection with the matter, and I wish to sum up in a few points what our ideas are on post-war defence. I wish to put it with the realisation that as a result of circumstances new danger signals are to be observed at home and abroad. The first point I want to make is that South Africa needs a clearly defined military policy. That military policy must be elaborated. There was a sort of military policy at the time of the war, but the complaint is frequently heard that before the war—the Minister’s Department complained’ about this itself—there was no military policy and we are now entering a period of peace but hitherto we have been without military policy. We maintain that our military policy must take into consideration South Africa’s sovereign independence, its geographical situation, and its needs for protection such as may arise from time to time. We maintain further that in the dangerous world in which we live neutrality must remain South Africa’s first line of defence, and as far as attacks on South Africa from outside are concerned we must be bound neither directly nor indirectly to take part in any war. That puts in a nutshell the policy of this House as far as regards external defence. As far as considerations of defence affecting us internally are concerned, as well as externally, the Union must obviously be responsible for its own defence; the interests of South Africa must be placed first, and these factors must be studied that have special application to South Africa.

The next point we want to make is that as far as defence is concerned South Africa must not take part in a scheme of imperial defence. I shall return to that later in detail when I have the opportunity. The application of overseas solutions to South African problems is undesirable. In connection with defence it is definitely dangerous. Consequently each department of our national defence must be regarded purely from a South African viewpoint. The Union’s Defence Force on land, in the air and on the sea must be given a purely South African character, it must have a definite South African character it must cease being unilingual, it must be bilingual and it must begin building up in accordance with our own South African traditions. Despite the policy of the Department of Defence, the war has been instrumental in convincing our soldiers who served in the north that our Defence Force should have a South African character. When they come back, we hear from them that in spite of the policy of linking our Defence Force with the British Army our people are beginning to impart a distinctive South African character to the Defence Force. It is our opinion that South Africa must build up its own defence force tradition and not remain as it is today an appendage of the British Army. When we equip our forces it must be with armament that in every respect complies with the modern demands of national defence. It is no use carrying on with antiquated weapons; you must build up in conformity with modern armaments. Then we consider it is an important point that all Union harbours should be equipped, manned and defended by the Union itself. It is necessary to review the Smuts-Churchill agreement as far as Simonstown is concerned. This Parliament never approved the agreement. That Government could not bind its successors for all time as the Smuts Government was bound in 1922 by the Smuts-Churchill agreement.

Another point we wish to put is that the arming of our Defence Force should be planned for Europeans only.

Another point bearing in mind the importance of the Defence Force—which became so important in this war—is that we should enlarge our flying schools, that civilian flying clubs, especially small flying clubs, should be subsidised and that parachute training should be an important feature of any plan in connection with our air force. South Africa must have naval and mercantile services of its own, and their equipment should not be inferior to that of the air force, although the air force will have to be larger than our naval force.

A last point: The training of the South African Police must be tied up with the military training of the permanent force so that co-ordination of all our combatant forces in time of trouble can easily be arranged. In regard to this we must therefore revert to where we stood at the beginning when we instituted our Defence Force. The permanent force was then really supplementary to the Police Force. I read, for instance, in the Year Book this description about the commencement of the permanent force—

At that time we had a modest standing force of 2,500 men. I see from the Press reports that the Minister of Defence intends to have a permanent force—land, sea and air—of about 8,000 men. I want to say that in our opinion that is too modest for these times. The time may arrive in South Africa when the permanent force can be reduced, but in these dangerous times South Africa ought to have a permanent force of between 10,000 and 15,000 men in its three divisions, land, sea and air forces.

To turn to the internal working of the Defence Force I wish to express the hope that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will cease being also Minister of Defence. It has been the custom in South Africa ever since Union that the Prime Minister should not be Minister of Defence as well, except perhaps in time of war. When General Botha was Prime Minister he had his Minister of Defence in the person of General Smuts. At that time General Botha was also Minister of External Affairs, but he was not Minister of Defence. When the present Prime Minister took up that post in 1919 he appointed his own Minister of Defence, the late Col. Mentz. He did not himself remain Minister of Defence. There are reasons for that. When Gen. Hertzog came into power in 1924 he did not assume the portfolio of Defence, but he appointed Col. Creswell. Wheh a new government was formed under Gen. Hertzog in 1933 he again appointed a Minister of Defence, Mr. Pirow. It was only when the war broke out in 1939 that the Prime Minister of today also became Minister of Defence. In time of war this may be right.

Other countries did the same.

But we are reverting to peacetime, and I wish to make an appeal to the Prime Minister in view of the duties with which he is charged, he should drop the portfolio of Defence. As Prime Minister he has his hands full, but in addition to that he is Minister of External Affairs. I do not see how he can also look after the duties of Minister of Defence. I mention this particularly because in the times ahead of us special attention will have to be devoted to the Department of Defence. Things will have to happen in the Department of Defence; better supervision will have to be maintained over the Department, and the Prime Minister cannot bring that about. I hope he will give his attention to this suggestion.

There are some disquieting features in regard to the composition of our Defence Force. I have already stated that I feel the Permanent Force should have a strength of from 10,000 to 15,000 men. In times of unrest you do not want to dislocate normal business and activities when you need men for your first line of defence. You do not want this dislocation unless it is absolutely necessary, and consequently a strong and modernly equipped Permanent Force is necessary which will be available at any time without any dislocation.

Our Citizen Forces, I consider, should also remain as they are. I think it is a sound legislative provision that all citizens of the country between 17 and 25 years af age should undergo a compulsory four-year course. I think that is wise. I also consider it right, as the law lays down, that businesses and other concerns must give these lads leave when they report for training during the four years they serve, without making any deduction from their holidays or any deduction of wages. I think the law is good as far as this is concerned, except that greater discretion should be used to take into careful consideration the various interests of South Africa when the lads are called up.

But, as far as the Citizen Forces are concerned, we had some time ago a disquieting announcement by the Minister of Defence, where he stated that he was going to cut down the Citizen Forces from 140,000 men to 30,000. I do not know whether the report was correct. If it is correct, I hope he will give us an explanation. Why, just at this stage, should the commandos be reduced from 140,000 to 30,000? Furthermore, I think that the National Reserve ought to remain as it is, namely, that all the Europeans in our country between the ages of 17 and 60 should constitute the National Reserve. This was the case, and I think it ought to remain at that.

But what is also disturbing is the statement that appeared recently in the Press that the Permanent Force will be enlarged to its full strength—but how? According to the official announcement published in February this year, it is stated that the recruits for our Permanent Force will in the first place be taken from men who have returned from the war. I do not wish to raise serious objection to that, except to say that we are back to peace time, and the Force ought to be thrown open to all European lads. But what I do object to is the second point in the statement, which says that subsequently the recruiting will be from men who remained at home but who contributed to Defence by signing the Africa general service oath. What has the red oath to do with enrolment in the Defence Force? The red oath was introduced for this war. We criticised it strongly. Now I cannot understand, seeing that we are back to peace, that preference should still be given to people who signed the Africa oath. It is a strange development that the Prime Minister should apply in peace time something that he instituted for the war. In other words, he is going to exclude quite a number of lads in South Africa who, for reasons of their own, very good reasons, would not sign the oath. He is penalising them by excluding them from the Permanent Force. In any case, according to this statement, the others will have preference. I think that the hon. Minister owes an explanation why he made the official statement so late. The red oath was for use during the war. An explanation is consequently necessary. In the statement it is stated that those who held key positions and who consequently could not go to the front and who signed the Africa service oath will be given preference. Many lads who would like to join were not disposed to sign the red oath. Now we suddenly have an official declaration of this sort from Pretoria.

I turn to another matter in connection with the Defence Force, and that is the post of Chief of General Staff. Personally, I have nothing against Sir Pierre van Ryneveld, but it was a disappointment to me in the past few days to learn that the Prime Minister intends to retain Sir Pierre van Ryneveld as head of the General Staff for a further period. There are some reasons why Sir Pierre van Ryneveld should rather stand down for someone else at this stage, seeing that peace is back. I wish to mention three reasons for what I am saying here. The first is that during the years he has been head of the General Staff the Defence Force has been more closely linked than at any other time since Union to the British Army. I do not think that will be denied. Persons in the Defence Force complain: We are a part of the British Army; the sooner we can get away from that the better. During the war this was the case to an even greater extent than perhaps at any other time. The second reason is that the Defence Force during this period was practically a completely unilingual force. Why should an Afrikaans-speaking lad have to ask to have his training in his own language in the Defence Force, whether it is the Air Force or the Navy or the land forces? This is not expected of the English-speaking people. [Time limit.]

I want to refer to the future of the Wentworth Camp. I know it is a matter on which the Prime Minister has already been approached. I think he will gather from the fact that he has been approached more than once on the matter that it is of some concern to Durban. Let me say in the first place that the camp is a magnificent institution, and it served us well during the war. It is a collection of buildings which are really excellent and the equipment there is of a very high order. Altogether it is a credit to the responsible military authorities. The future of the camp is of course the subject matter of a tripartite agreement between the Government, the Admiralty and the Durban Corporation. As I understand the position, in terms of that agreement the Durban Corporation were given certain rights which they could exercise in respect of the camp after the conclusion of hostilities, but on consideration the Corporation finds that it does not suit it to exercise these rights. The question therefore now arises as to the future of this magnificent collection of buildings in which a lot of skill and money has been invested. It would be a great pity if the amenities which have been established there were allowed to go unused. But there is a need which this camp can fulfil, and that is that it should serve for the future as the military headquarters in ‘Durban. From almost every point of view the camp at present could serve that purpose in an ideal manner. All that can be said against it at the moment is that we have headquarters at Snell Parade. But the fact of the matter is that the headquarters at Snell Parade are generally regarded as unsatisfactory from almost every point of view. It was the handiwork of an ex-Minister of Defence, and it is in keeping with the reputation which he now enjoys. It is most unsightly and it is badly placed. It hinders the natural development of the area in which it is situated. In that particular area there would be, but for this unsightly building, in time to come, development in line with what is to be seen higher up on the Beach. That is the natural development of Durban, but it will be obstructed and prevented by the presence of this unsightly building. For that reason the answer to the problem seems to be the transference of headquarters to the Wentworth Camp. It is true that the camp is not in the heart of Durban. It is a matter, I should say, of perhaps 15 or 20 minutes at the most by motor transport from the present headquarters, and with motor transport restored to normal that surely cannot be any problem at all. I hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will find it possible to say that after due consideration it has been decided to meet what I know is the wish of the Corporation of Durban, that this change should be made.

I wish to identify myself entirely with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has said, that while peace has returned it is a peace that causes us anxiety in South Africa. If ever there was a time when our defence system should be placed in a state to afford further protection to South Africa it is today, and I think that the Minister of Defence and the Government should not for a moment flinch from spending large sums of money to enable our defence organisation to be in a state to defend our country properly against any attack that may come. We observe how the pots are already on the boil and the biggest menace I see today is within our own ranks. Although we were not in favour of the war we have on every occasion tried when it has come to a question of the defence of our country to give our best and most loyal support to the Government. That is why we feel today it is our duty to support the Minister of Defence from this side of the House just as it is in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Moorreesburg rightly said that we did not want to model our defence system on any imperial plan of defence, but that we should take what is good out of the past and build on it for the future. The waging of war today is nothing like it was in the old days. The circumstances are entirely different. Even out of this war that has just passed we must look for the best methods and the most efficient system to bring the defence of our country into order. Therefore I say that even out of the imperial defence plan we must take what is best for South Africa. If we annex things without them suffering at all and if it is to the benefit of South Africa it will mean much for us.

I wish to touch further on what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said over the way in which our Defence Force is trained. We feel that we, as Afrikaans-speaking people, have been ’ brushed aside, but the circumstances may have been of such a character that this was difficult to avoid. We trust now, however, that the policy will be changed, and that the training will no longer be given in one language only. That must now come to an end. It must be bilingual training. We are in favour of bilingualism. We admit the rights of the English-speaking people in the country, and as a result of that we feel it is the duty of the Minister of Defence to see to it that we are not neglected. In the past we had the system of Defence Rifle Associations. I know that the Minister of Defence is frightened because he said there was a commandantgeneral with 60,000 men behind him, and that that would be a terribly big danger. I think the Minister of Defence knows what happened in the past. He is also not one of those people who is easily scared or takes fright at a shadow. The injustice that was done to people who did not agree with him in the war was very regrettable. They were disarmed, and with all the alarming crimes that are now occurring in the country we feel that the system should be revived. We must arm the people properly. That is why today I do not take part in shooting competitions when members of Parliament are invited to compete with the navy. It is ages since we last fired a shot, and now we hardly know how to aim. When I was an officer I tried to train my men properly and to make them efficient in musketry. As a result of that, we have never hesitated about taking part in shooting contests, but when we are invited as members of Parliament to take part in these contests we are totally unprepared.

No doubt your eyes are bad.

No, that is not the difficulty. If the Minister of Defence will allow me to use a rifle, we shall see whose eyes are better, that hon. member’s or mine. The point I want to make is that we should revive the Rifle Associations and that we should be subsidised in a better way so that we can train these men properly. The training should include a course with machine-guns. I know that this would involve a tremendous organisation, but it is necessary. We must also train our soldiers on the mechanical side, so that they can handle tanks There ought to be a proper course, and it is possible because we have people of various ages in our Citizen Force and in our Rifle Associations. It is necessary that they should be properly trained today for modern warfare. The horse has had its day, although most certainly we shall never abandon the mounted system entirely in the interior. It is a tradition of which we are very proud. Our wapenshaws are to us something grand, and I know that the Minister of Defence still takes pride in them. But, in addition to that, I feel that we should make use of the Rifle Clubs to train men for modern warfare.

Then there is the Essential Services Protection Corps. We have seen that without that sort of service we could not manage in regard to our internal security. It is a system that we ought to develop. We should not hesitate, as in the past, on account of being afraid to persuade the taxpayer to make provision for his own safety. The security of our white civilisation is at stake. We must be properly equipped and properly trained to be able to defend ourselves within our own borders.

Then I come to another matter that is of supreme importance to us, namely, the strengthening of our Air Force. The atomic bomb is a very dangerous thing, and therefore we must strengthen our Air Force. We must train our men and let them practise, so that they may quickly learn to handle any sort of aircraft. This war has shown that our young men are men of steel, and their achievements have been distinguished. We hope and trust that the Government will not hang back, but give proper training to these men, because our young lads are anxious to take that course.

I wish to associate myself with the request made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) for a reply from the Minister of Finance with regard to the utilisation of the H.M.S. Assegai Camp at Wentworth as the future headquarters in Natal. The camp at Assegai is not only eminently suitable but it is a camp which has cost over £1,000,000, and has come to be regarded by experts as one of the best, if not the best, military camp in all the Dominions. My concern perhaps is not so much with the desirability of these premises being taken over by the Government, but rather from the point of view that the present headquarters are eminently unsuited for this particular work, so much so that I want to put it to the Minister of Defence from this point of view, that in the consideration of a policy for the future defence headquarters of Natal he should seriously consider removing the headquarters from the present site. My reason for making that request is that the present headquarters are holding up the town planning of Durban. I do not want to deal with this site from the point of view of the buildings thereon except to say that I have served in this particular building, and half the walls are propped up with poles. My main concern is not so much with the unsuitability of these present premises but from the point of view of the town planning of Durban as a whole. There can be no doubt in connection with the development of the foreshore and beach in Durban which is taking place this is indeed a blot on the landscape, and I think it would be to the credit of Durban if the Minister could see fit to remove these defence headquarters to some other part of the town, and in that connection it seems use might be made perhaps of H.M.S. Assegai. There is another point I wish to raise. It has been brought to my notice that a number of young men who have been invited to join the Permanent Force have been given application forms; these forms have been sent in, and there is serious complaint from these men that some considerable time elapses before they receive any reply to their communications.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 5th April.