Before calling upon the Minister of Transport to move the next motion of which he has given notice, I wish to remind hon. members that on the motion for the House to go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as well as on later stages, debate must be confined to the subjects contained in the Estimates and the reasons for the increase of expenditure. Discussion should not re-open the question of policy involved in the original grant.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have noticed from the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds, which have already been tabled, that provision has been made for additional expenditure amounting to R362,816 to be incurred during the current financial year. Savings are, however, anticipated and in consequence no additional funds will require to be voted. The original Estimates provided for an amount of R410,230,400, but, together with the First Additional Estimates presented to Parliament during May last year and the Additional Estimates now to be voted, the total comes to R410,632,366. As indicated in the printed Estimates, savings to the extent of R5,500,966 are anticipated, bringing the total revised Estimates to R405,131,400.

The increase of R196,114 under Head No. 24 (Interest on Capital—Harbours) is due mainly to recoveries from new construction work in respect of harbour assets used on such work being less than anticipated, and increased interest charges as a result of cranes for Port Elizabeth harbour having been delivered during the current financial year instead of during 1961-2.

In regard to Head No. 29 (Interest on Capital—Airways), the position is that during the financial year 1959-60 the actual Loan Fund drawings exceeded the amount provided for and in consequence the interest charges for the current financial year are higher than anticipated when the original Estimates were prepared.

The amount of R36,048 reflected under Head No. 30 (Miscellaneous Expenditure, Net Revenue Account, Airways) is made up of R10,094 in respect of increased cost-of-living allowance payments resulting from changes in Airways personnel and an amount of R25,954 mainly in respect of trade claims against the former German Reich. The facts in connection with the latter item are, briefly, that certain Junkers aircraft as well as locomotive spares were ordered from Germany before the outbreak of the last war, but not delivered. Since the war the matter was followed up through diplomatic channels, but the claims in this respect had ultimately to be abandoned in consequence of legal and other indications consequent upon the occupation of Germany. The outstanding amount has accordingly been written off as a charge to Bad Debts and Sundry Items.

In regard to Capital and Betterment Estimates, provision has been made in the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for an amount of R5,679,650, which requires to be appropriated to meet expenditure under various heads. It will not be necessary, however, to obtain additional loan funds to meet this expenditure, as sufficient savings are available for this purpose.

The additional amount of R4,383,000 reflected under Head No. 2 (New Works on Open Lines) is required mainly to cover belated debits on works originally anticipated to be completed by the end of the previous financial year and items authorized for the Unforeseen Works Vote, when it was too late to make financial provision in the original Estimates for any expenditure to be incurred during the current financial year. I should like to deal briefly with some of the more important items included under this head.

In order to facilitate the even flow of traffic from the Postmasburg line, it became necessary to make an immediate commencement with the doubling of the line between Beaconsfield and Spytfontein, as well as the avoiding line between Kamfersdam and Beaconsfield, and to put in hand certain alterations and additions to the marshalling yard at Beaconsfield. An amount of R1,021,500 will be spent on these works during the current year. An amount of £864,000 is required for financing the construction of a concrete slab deck over the new passenger station at Cape Town arising from representations by the Cape Town Foreshore Board and the City Council. This amount is recoverable from the authorities mentioned. Consequent upon a decision of the Department of Water Affairs to construct a dam in the vicinity of Stomptdrift station, it became necessary to deviate portion of the railway track for approximately six miles on the section Klipplaat-Oudtshoorn in order to locate the formation of the line above maximum flood level. The anticipated expenditure on this work during the present financial year is R90,000 which is recoverable from the Department of Water Affairs. Hon. members are aware of the fact that legislation was passed last session for the establishment of a fund to finance, wholly or in part, the costs involved in the elimination of level crossings. Provision is also made under Head No. 2 for an amount of R140,000 to be expended from the Fund so established on works to be commenced during the current year.

The additional provision under heads 3, 4 and 7, totalling approximately R324,000 arises mainly in respect of the items omitted from the original estimates as it was expected that these items would have been computed by 31 March 1960.

Cranes ordered for Port Elizabeth harbour were delivered earlier than originally anticipated and this is largely responsible for the necessity to include the amount of R461,900 under Head No. 5 (Harbours).

Provision is made for an additional amount of R510,000 under Head No. 8 (Working Capital) for the House Ownership Fund. It was deemed expedient to divert a portion of the funds provided for departmental quarters in the estimates for the current financial year to this Fund in order to assist a greater number of staff to acquire their own properties. In effect, 147 houses at 11 of the larger centres which were to have been provided as departmental quarters, were made available to the staff under the House Ownership Scheme. Parliamentary sanction is now sought to regularize the diversion of the amount involved from the Vote for Departmental Quarters to the House Ownership Fund.

Hon. members will recall that parliamentary sanction was obtained during the last session for the proposed widening of the entrance to the Duncan Dock, Table Bay Harbour, and that provision was made for the amount of R300,000 to be financed from Loan Funds during the current year. This expenditure can now be met from savings under other heads of the 1960-I programme and there is, therefore, no necessity to obtain additional loans funds for this purpose. A special clause to regularize the matter has been included in the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill, 1961.

I intend to present the Main Estimates for the ensuing financial year during next week and in the circumstances I trust that the Additional Estimates will not take up too much of the time of the House.

I second.

The Minister was kind enough to send over to me a copy of the speech which he has just made, which was most helpful in following what he said. I thank him for the explanations and details on certain items which he has given to this House. Of particular interest is the fact that housing is being properly attended to; that is a most important item in the railwayman’s welfare. Sir, no doubt the hon. members for Port Elizabeth feel that an undue proportion of these Additional Estimates is being allocated to what is, compared with Cape Town, a secondary port of the Union. Perhaps they will have something to say on that matter themselves. I am glad that savings have been found for the development of the Duncan Dock, to widen its entrance. I hope that, as a result of this widening, there will be a partial if not a complete solution to the “range” problem which has always worried shipping people and created hazards in this most important harbour.

Look out for the “Natal Stand”.

Order! That matter is not under discussion now.

I know, Sir, you will not permit us to widen the debate, but I hope the Minister will sufficiently widen the mouth of the Duncan Dock. You will excuse my enthusiasm for that particular subject, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister is asking for an Additional Vote of R5,500,000 on Capital and Betterment Works and an appropriation of some R360,000 from Revenue Funds. Although he has given us a fairly detailed explanation, and although it is not customary to range far and wide in this debate, I must remark on an unusual and a noteworthy feature of these Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure. I refer to the so-called “savings”, both available and not available, to meet excess expenditure. They total some R40,000,000. Keeping in mind the so-called “savings” and knowing that the Minister may well receive an unbudgeted surplus of some R20,000,000 on this year’s workings, one realizes that he is making no gracious or, to use his own words, “considerable concessions to railwaymen” when he announces at long last that they are to get the well-deserved reward for their sweat and hard labour by way of fully consolidated cost-of-living allowances, which will bring increased pension rights, too. These are not “concessions” as you, Mr. Speaker, being an old railwayman, know only too well. It is what the workers have earned by the sweat of their brow, by their efforts to prune waste and increase efficiency. It is no less than what they are entitled to …

Order! That is not under discussion.

Sir, one would almost think there was a general election in the offing. I know that other occasions will arise very soon on which we shall be able to discuss the proper reward that railwaymen should get in addition to these benefits. The Minister has said, when he has savings, when he has profits, the railwaymen should benefit. I hope he will see that they benefit to the extent they should by way of increased pay and emoluments.

I wish to make a few more general remarks about these Additional Estimates. I will come back to the so-called “savings”. On Revenue Account, under the headings “Savings not required to cover excesses” there is an item of over R2,000,000. Last year under this heading there was no provision whatsoever—it did not have to be made, and in the previous year too—and the amount under that heading was nil. There is also an amount of R2,500,000 for savings on interest and capital. These are called “savings”. I wonder whether they are not really the result of over-provision. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in his reply whether in fact this saving is due to the fact that necessary work could not be completed because the “available capital” was not called upon. Could it be that these so-called “savings” resulted because the necessary capital works could not be completed as a result of a shortage of labour due to the wholesale sacking of people in the economy drive in the last two years? The Minister will, I hope, explain to us more closely than he has already done how he can make a saving of R30,000,000 on capital and a saving of R2,500,000 in interest. Sir, when we turn to the Loan Account, the expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, we see that the so-called “savings” there total some R30,000,000.

The question of savings is not under consideration at the moment. I have given guidance to hon. members as to what they may discuss and I hope the hon. member will follow my guidance.

I will indeed, but I thought I would be well within my rights in this matter to discuss the principle of savings and how they are arrived at.

No, I have told the House and I have told the hon. member what he can discuss under the various heads. He cannot go beyond that. He will have another opportunity to discuss the matter that he now wishes to raise. He can only discuss the reasons for the additional expenditure.

I would like your guidance on these matters, Sir. There has been under-expenditure on approved items. These two Bills deal with that.

The Bills only deal with additional expenditure, not under-expenditure.

But the Minister in his explanation dealt with under-expenditure; he dealt with savings.

Merely in passing.

Well, I am only really dealing in passing with the same item. I will not go beyond your ruling, Sir, but I want to say that the items described in this Additional Appropriation of Savings are not really savings. They are the result of bad budgeting, of inefficient estimation, of overprovision …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Having made that point sufficiently, I think, I will conclude by saying that the Minister’s explanations have not fully satisfied us. They do not give us all that we want to know in connection with these additional appropriations and we will at the proper time, when we go into Committee, discuss the various headings in greater detail. No doubt other members on both sides will make their contribution to this debate and examine the Minister on the particular headings and items which interest.

The hon. member will have a full opportunity in the course of the Budget debate to obtain all the necessary information in regard to the savings which have been effected both on Capital and Betterment Works and on expenditure from Revenue, and I will be only too pleased to give the hon. member that information because it will be an indication of the continually increasing efficiency of the South African Railways and Harbours.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

The Committee has to consider the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds during the year ending 31 March 1961 and the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for the year ending 31 March 1961.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

On Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Railways”, R15,200.

Sir, this is a new item. I want to refer to Item 534 (a), “Contribution towards research work in connection with sands for foundry purposes” in particular. Here we are being asked to approve of expenditure for research work in relation to the foundries of the Administration, and I wish to discuss certain matters arising from this new item. The hon. the Minister will recall that facilities were placed at the disposal of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee during the last recess to carry out certain inspections at the Kuduspoort workshops, amongst others. There we were shown the work that was proposed in the development of the foundry there, and it was explained to us by the engineer in charge that eventually the policy that the Administration proposed was that certain foundries would disappear and that they would all be centralized at Kuduspoort.

That has nothing to do with this item. This has to do with sand research.

I am dealing with research work in connection with sands. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is this: Is the reason for the removal of these other foundries the inability to find suitable sand …

May I give the hon. member the information? This will possibly curtail the debate. During 1957 …

On a point of order, there is such a row that we cannot hear a word the Minister is saying.

Order, order!

During 1957 the Administration was approached by the president of the Institute of British Foundrymen (South Africa) with a view to forming a co-operative body to investigate the question of suitable sands for foundry purposes. He asked provisionally for an annual grant for a period of three years. The Administration, however, approver of an annual contribution of R600 for two years, for 1958 and 1959, but the research work into the quality of the sand has nothing to do with the foundry or the building of the foundry. The research work is progressing satisfactorily, and as the final report will be of great value to the Administration, it has been decided to make a further grant of R600, merely for research in regard to the quality of the particular sand to be used in Railway foundries wherever they may be situated.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 24.—"Interest on Capital— Harbours”, R196,114,

I hope the hon. the Minister will inform us on what the additional capital involved was expended because although the hon. gentleman has told us that we will have an opportunity to discuss surpluses at a later date it does seem that here we are spending on the roundabouts what has been made on the swings. In other words this item R196,114 is being used, and the money has seemingly come from savings under Head 14. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain the position.

The additional amount is required to cover increased interest charges occasioned by less interest recoveries due mainly to new works at East London harbour having been opened earlier than anticipated and to meet increased requirements as a result of cranes for Port Elizabeth harbour being delivered during the current financial year instead of 1961-2.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 29.—"Interest on Capital—Airways”, R115,454, put and agreed to.

Head No. 30.—"Miscellaneous Expenditure —Airways”, R36,048, put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Bettermant Works.

On Head No. I.—“Construction of Railways”, R450,

I wonder if the hon. the Minister will give us some explanation of how the addition has been incurred on Item 2, “Additional amount required R17,964”.

This new connecting line from Newcastle station to a point on the Utrecht line is necessary due to the doubling of the Glencoe-Newcastle line. An additional amount is required to cover expenditure not anticipated when the original estimates were prepared.

May I ask the hon. the Minister for a little more information in connection with this line. In a note under Head 2 the following explanation appears: “Although no additional funds are required, it is necessary to obtain approval to increase the total estimated cost of the work.” Can the Minister tell me whether they are still busy with the construction of that line, or is my information wrong if I am left under the impression that that line has been in use for a long time already?

Yes, it has been built already.

I take it that these replacements of bridges on the Natal system refer mainly to those that were destroyed in the floods last year. Would it be out of order if I complimented the railwaymen on the speed with which they restored the bridges and put the railway line in working order again.

Although there is no item in that regard, I accept the compliment with considerable appreciation.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 2.—"New Works on Open Lines”, R4,383,000,

I refer to Item 119, level crossings, on page 13. This is a new item where the Committee is called upon to vote an additional sum of R22,000 for level crossings. The Committee will recall that a Level Crossings Bill was passed by this House during the last session of Parliament. I would like to know from the Minister whether this money which we are now being called upon to vote here, is to give effect to the first recommendation of the Committee that was set up under this new legislation and, if so, what is the programme that was envisaged.

May I compliment the hon. the Minister on having completely bilingual estimates before us this time. My estimates start in English and end in Afrikaans. What, however, I really want to ask the hon. the Minister is this. In respect of items 15, 16 and 30 where a substantial amount of money is required, there a Governor-General’s special warrant was issued and presumably the work is in progress and the appropriation is now being confirmed. There are two other items to which I wish to direct attention. The one is Item 119 on page 13 when R140,000 is required and the other is Item 136 on page 14 where R864,000 is being appropriated. I would like to ask the Minister whether sums of this magnitude can be expended within the next 30 days. Sir, I draw this comparison with the earlier one because there a Governor-General’s special warrant was issued and the work has been in progress for some time, but here two substantial sums of money are being asked for and there is less than 30 days left within which to apply the money. I would like to know from the Minister whether in practice it will be possible to carry out the work which is being authorized under these items.

While the Minister is considering that question I want to say a few words too about Item 136. The footnote there says that “a portion of this amount is recoverable from outside sources”. The total sum is approximately R3,000,000. Of the additional sum we are being called upon to vote to-day, namely R864,000, can the Minister tell me what proportion is recoverable from outside sources, and also what proportion of the total amount is going to be recovered. Then on Item 119 could he give us some idea as to how the elimination of level crossings is progressing. Is the Act working effectively? If possible, could he also give us some particulars of the list which is referred to here, the level crossings listed by the Permanent Level Crossings Committee and, add to that the order of priority fixed for tackling the work of eliminating level crossings.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) referred to Items 15, 16 and 30. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would give us a fuller account of the reasons why it has been found necessary to double the avoiding line between Kamfersdam and Beaconsfield, and also to extend it to Spytfontein. This avoiding line was built in 1955 for the purpose of by-passing Kimberley. As far as my recollection goes, I believe that within a year or two of the completion of that line further moneys were spent on re-grading the line. Can the Minister tell us why it is now necessary to double the whole of that line and to continue the doubling as far as Spytfontein?

My second question is in connection with Item 153. “Durban Harbour: Reclamation of Swamp Area at Bay Head”, R20,000. Will the total amount allocated, R33,500, provide for the whole of the reclamation of the proposed marine engineering area adjoining the marine engineering ship repair base, or is this only a portion of the area that is designed for ultimate occupation by the engineering industry?

On page 17, Item 177, I find there is an item “Clairwood: Hostel”. The first comment I want to make is that if it is the hostel at Montclair, then I can understand the item.

It is the Montclair hostel; it is the new hostel which has just been completed.

I think the Minister should have this item amended to read “Montclair”. “Clairwood” is misleading. The question I want to put to him is what the reason is for the additional amount of R40,000 which is to be voted. The hostel has been opened for quite a while.

No, I am sorry, this is not the Montclair hostel. This is the Clairwood hostel.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us where this Clairwood hostel is. I know of only one hostel there, and that is at Montclair. I think it is called the Carney hostel.

You cannot have two hostels both costing R678,000.

I think this is the new hostel at Montclair, and if the hon. the Minister can tell us what the additional amount of R40,000 is required for, it might help to solve the problem that we are faced with in regard to the increase.

I would like to direct the hon. Minister’s attention to Item 115 on page 13: “Boughton-Tetelegu: Subway.” An additional amount of R14,762 has to be voted. What is the reason for that additional amount? Then I would also like to direct his attention to the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says “portion of this amount is recoverable from outside sources”. Would he tell the House what those outside sources are?

Before the Minister replies, I should like to come back again to this Item 119, because I would like further enlightenment in connection with the manner in which this item is presented to the Committee for information. The hon. Minister will notice that it says that the estimated total cost was R1,500,000, which is allocated here in terms of Act 41 of 1960. But the Level-Crossings Elimination Fund, which was established in 1960, provides that there shall be equal contributions from the Railways and Harbours Fund, the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and one-third to be paid by the National Road Fund. Here is shown an amount of R1,500,000. Are we to take it that the estimated total cost will be the total contribution of the Administration for this financial year, or is it the total amount that the Administration is going to contribute to the fund as a whole? Is the amount part of the total contribution? I should like to have some information, because we will be called upon in future years to vote sums of money for this particular item, and, unless we know where we stand in respect of the matter, I think we will be very confused on this issue.

The hon. member must confine himself to the item.

Yes, Sir, I am asking the hon. the Minister for an explanation as to how this amount is shown as the “estimated total cost” in terms of the Level-Crossing Act of 1960. We are only called upon now to vote R140,000. Is that considered as a part contribution of the whole of the Administration’s contribution to the fund in terms of the provisions of Act 41 of 1960? Would the hon. the Minister please, in his reply, clarify the position?

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to Item 127. There is an additional expenditure of R7,044. Would the hon. the Minister tell us how, with the erection of these colour-light signals, there can be such a large additional expenditure. Why was there such an under-estimate of the expenditure?

I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to Item 21, the doubling of the railway line and the improvement of curves between Mooi-rivier and Estcourt. I was under the impression that the doubling of the line there had already been completed, and I would like to know from the Minister whether there are still curves which have not yet been straightened, but will now be straightened, which would justify this additional amount. I particularly ask this question because, in that section, the doubling of the railway line has already caused the farmers tremendous inconvenience and much loss of land. Will they have to lose more land as the result of the further doubling of the line?

I want to refer to two items which are linked and are intended for the same service, that is Item 213: Improvements to 2,200-volt supply line for automatic signals, Cape Town-Bellville, Salt River-Simonstown and Maitland-Heathfield, on which provision is made for an additional amount of R7,432. The original estimate was R49,400, the expenditure to 31 March 1960 was R37,566 and the revised estimate now is R7,432. And then there is Item 221, again dealing with electrification in respect of the section Cape Town-Simonstown: Replacement of 1,500-volt sub stations at Milnerton, False Bay, Deep River and Glencairn, on which the total estimated cost was R838,200, of which R836,536 was spent up to 31 March 1960, and an additional amount of R2,940 is being asked now. The work apparently must be very near completion, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether these additional amounts are sufficient to cover the completion of the work, and whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether, as a result of this additional expenditure, the Administration now will be in a position of effecting improvements and to speed up the railway service on the southern end of the Peninsula.

I will be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give some further information in regard to Item 150: Durban: Alterations to Local Accountant’s Office, where an additional amount of R5,434 has to be voted. The reason why I am asking for further information is that the new Oswald Pirow Building was only opened in Durban last year, and an amount of over R1,000,000 was spent there, and it will be interesting to know what alterations are now being required so soon after the completion of the new building. Then, under 151: Durban Harbour: Improvement of Electric Lighting, Maydon Wharf, an amount of R3,668, I should like the hon. the Minister to give further information as to what this amount entails, and whether the whole area of Maydon Wharf, which extends for about one and a half miles, will now have sufficient lighting, and whether that will complete the amount that was provided for on the original estimates. May I also refer to the item mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, namely the amount of R40,000 under Item 177 in respect of a railway hostel in Durban. Is the provision of this amount for the equipment of the hostel, and has the equipment of the hostel received the attention the Minister promised us it would receive?

May I direct the Minister’s attention to Item No. 201: Cape Western System: Pipeline from Voëlvlei? I take it the hon. the Minister is asking us to spend an additional amount of R11,716 on this pipeline because he is convinced that this is the cheapest, best and most modern method of transporting a liquid commodity from one place to another, and I want to ask him whether he will apply the same criterion to the transport of liquid automotive fuel from Durban to Johannesburg?

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Before the hon. the Minister rises, may I direct his attention to Item 225: Kazerne: Radio Control. The estimated total cost was R17,300 and expenditure up to date is R5,456, and we are asked to vote an additional amount of R4,690. May I ask the hon. the Minister if this additional amount is for the further extension of this system of radio control at Kazeme. The hon. Minister knows that there is considerable satisfaction with the introduction of this system. It seems to have expedited deliveries considerably in the Johannesburg area, and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could give some further information in this regard.

May I refer to Item 113. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the work undertaken there has already been completed, or whether he anticipates the completion at an early date. I am referring to the overhead road bridge at Grahamstown Road, Port Elizabeth.

Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the Minister’s attention to Item 154: Estcourt: Additions to station building. An additional amount of R3,846 has to be voted. May I ask the hon. the Minister what this amount is for, is it for improvements to the new station building, or for further additions?

The hon. member for Turffontein and several other hon. members want some information in regard to Item 119. As hon. members know, the Railway Administration makes a contribution to the Level-Crossings Elimination Fund from Revenue. Now this amount here has nothing to do with the contribution of the Administration to be voted from Revenue. This is the actual expenditure from that Fund. The Fund receives contributions in terms of the Act from the National Road Fund, the Provinces and from the Railway Administration.

The Department of Railways administers the Fund?

Yes. Consequently Parliament must vote on these Estimates expenditure from that Fund, but the actual contribution to that Fund is made from Revenue, and that is voted by Parliament in the ordinary course of events when the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure come before the House.

The R1,500,000 is the value then of the total Fund, after the contributions of the other two elements? Is the R80,000 the contribution of the Railways?

The R80,000 is the amount that the Railway Administration was allotted for 1960-I, and the total amount in the Fund, after the different contributions have been received, is R1,500,000. Now Parliament has to vote the expenditure of R140,000, the additional amount, for this year.

Mr. DURRANT What is the programme?

If the hon. member puts a question on the Order Paper, I can give him the particulars. I have not got them with me at the moment. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) wants information in regard to Item 136: Cape Town: Deck over station platforms. Obviously if the amount is required to be voted for the current financial year, it will be expended. The total amount is recoverable, one-third from the City Council and two-thirds from the Foreshore Board. In other words the Administration is not responsible for any of this expenditure.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) wanted to know about Items 15, 16 and 30, that is the Beaconsfield-Spytfontein, doubling of line, and the Kamfersdam-Beaconsfield doubling of avoiding line and alterations and additions to the marshalling yards. Traffic is increasing considerably from the Postmasburg section. The hon. member will recollect that some years ago we doubled from Pauwpan to Belmont to meet the increase in traffic on the Cape main line. That alleviated the position for a certain time, but it was felt that with the increasing manganese traffic, and especially now that the new line is being built from Sishen to Hotazel for the purpose of opening new manganese deposits, and the additional requirements of Iscor which have gone in for a very big extension programme, the line’s capacity is overloaded and that these lines cannot cope with the traffic even offering at the present time. This is only part of the improvements to increase the carrying capacity. We are doubling now to Spytfontein, doubling the avoiding line between Beaconsfield and Kamfersdam, etc. I don’t know whether the hon. member is aware that we also introduced C.T.C. from Postmasburg to Kamfersdam and that will come into operation within the next month or two. But further improvements are contemplated, improvements from Midway to Bank to Potchefstroom, and from Potchefstroom to Klerksdorp and from Klerksdorp to Warrenton. We have to meet the demands of Iscor and a very large additional amount of traffic will have to be conveyed over that line. This is only part of the improvements and there are still further improvements which are being investigated at the present moment and which in due course will be decided upon. The hon. member wanted to know something more about Item 153. This amount is merely to prevent mosquito breeding in the swampy areas. That is why the reclamation is taking place in the bay-head area. It was authorized under the 1959-60 Unforeseen Works Vote, but the work was not completed by 31 March 1960.

Not for the destruction of “(g)nats”?

No, we don’t exterminate “(g)nats”.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. Shearer) wanted some information in regard to Item 115. The information is that the Administration bears 70 per cent of the total cost of the elimination of the Sweet Waters Road Level-Crossing. The additional amount is due to increased costs as a result of a landslide. The work was carried out jointly by the Administration and the Pietermaritzburg City Council and could not be completed by 31 March 1960. In regard to Item 177, I am informed that this is the new Montclair Hostel, but this is merely a belated debit payment.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) wanted information in regard to Item 127: Colour Light Signals. The reason for this increase is that the work could not be completed by 31 March 1960, due to the late delivery of material. Consequently this amount must be voted for the current year.

The hon. member for Drakensberg referred to Item No. 21. Of course the doubling of the Mooi River-Estcourt Line was to meet increased traffic, but the progress there was greater than anticipated.

Is it completed?

Yes, but you usually get belated debits after the work has been completed, and this is one of those debits.

The hon. member for Simonstown wanted information in regard to Item 213. The information is that this amount is necessary to minimize faults in the supply of current to signals and to obviate dislocation of the train service. The work could not be completed by 31 March 1960, due to a shortage of staff. As the work went over into the current financial year, this amount has to be voted. Then in regard to Item 221, the conversion of I,500-volt to 3,000-volt traction supply. It is also belated expenditure.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) desires information in regard to Item 115. This work could also not be completed by 31 March 1960. The same applies to Item 151.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) wanted information in regard to Item 201. The position there is that the present water supply is inadequate, and it is a belated material debit. I am afraid I cannot discuss the matter of pipelines now.

The hon. member for Turffontein referred to Item 225: Kazerne: Radio Control. This is also belated expenditure. The hon. member has rightly said that we have introduced radio control on our cartage vehicles and it has proved to be a boon both to the Railways and the public. Where necessary, we will extend it, but I think we have provided where necessary the cartage vehicles with radio control.

Not all.

It can be extended where necessary.

It has given considerable satisfaction.

I think the Railways as a whole are giving considerable satisfaction to the public.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) wanted information in regard to Item 113. This is the Administration’s 60 per cent share of the total cost. It is also a belated material debit.

The hon. member for Drakensberg wanted to know something about Item 154. This is also a belated material debit. It is not new work that is being done now. The work has been done and the debit came in late.

Would the hon. Minister kindly give me some information on two further items here, the one affecting Johannesburg Station and the cafeteria facilities at that station, as reflected by Item 160. A further expenditure is asked here of R3,026. Does this item refer to the non-European cafeteria that is being installed there,. at the South Station building? Which cafeteria does this refer to? Then there is one item that appears rather peculiar, Item 169. It refers to a fruit shelter at Messina. There the estimated total cost was R9,600 and, according to the figures here, expenditure to-day has been R10,144, and we are now being asked to vote an additional R3,200, which makes the cost of the shelter to date some R13,344 as against the original estimate of R9,600. Could the hon. the Minister give us some information in regard to that big jump above the original estimated cost of these works?

In regard to Items 213 and 221, is it estimated that these additional amounts will complete those two items, and will they result in some improvement in the Peninsula service?

We are continually making efforts to improve the service, not only the Peninsula service, but all the services in the country, and any new work will contribute to the efficiency of the service so that an improvement is always something to be welcomed. During the Budget debate I can give the hon. member the necessary information as to what is being done to improve the suburban passenger service. But I am afraid the Chairman will not allow me to give that information now.

The hon. member for Turffontein wanted information in regard to Items 160 and 169. As far as Item 160 is concerned, progress was slower than anticipated. This refers to the cafeteria at South Station building. It is the European cafeteria, not the non-European cafeteria.

These facilities are being highly appreciated by the public.

I must say I appreciate all the kudos that is being handed out. Then in regard to Item 169, the Messina fruit shelter, this is belated expenditure. It very often happens that an estimate is made a considerable time before the work is actually commenced and by the time the work is undertaken, costs have gone up, consequently the costs of a work are often very much higher than at first estimated. Hon. members must not be carried away too much by these astronomical figures in rand. They must divide it by two and then they will find that, when it comes to pounds, these are comparatively small amounts.

In connection with Item 179, I should just like to ask the Minister why this additional amount is required for the building of houses at Kazerne. The total expenditure involved will amount to R351,000. Does this perhaps refer to the Native housing programme of the Railways?

Order! The hon. member may only ask the reasons for the increase.

Here we are also dealing with delayed expenditure. In other words, the money has already been spent and often a debit comes in too late and then provision has to be made for it the next year.

Is it for Native housing?

No, for White housing.

My attention has been drawn to Item 137: Beaufort West: Purchase of School Grounds and Buildings. What is that for? And then Item 146: Humewood Road: Additions to S.A.R. Recreation Club.

In regard to the last-mentioned item, that is a delayed contract payment, which makes this additional amount necessary. In regard to Item 137, that is for the provision of office space which at the moment is insufficient, and it is also a delayed debit for material.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3—"Rolling Stock”, R241,300,

I want to ask for certain information under this head. There are fourteen items, 227 to 240. The note at the bottom of the page gives part of the explanation, that is that these items exceed the statutory limit of R2,000 and are therefore submitted in terms of the Select Committee Report of 1949. That is the resolution which makes it necessary to obtain parliamentary approval for these over expenditures. If I may stray for a moment, may I say it is a very good sign to find these items are on the Vote in this manner. Amongst these items are Nos. 230 and 234. There are other items of a similar category but possibly the explanation for all of them will be covered by the explanation on these items. My question covers Items 230, 234 and 235. Item 230 provides for 332 official’s coaches of type A.X.B. at an estimated total cost of R6,640,000, of which, up to 31 March, R1,909,840 had been expended. The Minister is now asking for an increase of an additional amount of R36,386. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, as in relation to the total expenditure budgeted for, this amount is relatively small, would he tell this Committee what that amount covers? Does it merely cover provision for the additional expenditure to be incurred during the year 1960 to 1961 or not? In other words, is it only the additional amount for the one year and not the total expenditure figure? How far does this figure go towards meeting the amount voted for the 332 coaches and what has given rise to that expenditure on this particular sub-head?

As I have said, a similar thing occurs in connection with No. 234, 9 vehicles for steamheating of trains worked by diesel locomotives. There is now an amount of R39,000 asked for which again tallies with the amount to be expended in this financial year. How far has the work advanced …

Order, order! The hon. member must confine his questions to the additional amount required.

That is what I am doing, Mr. Chairman.

No, the hon. member is talking about the original amount, the estimated total cost, but that is not under discussion in this Committee.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I am quoting the additional amount necessary to be voted, in relation to the increased amount now asked for. I am asking the hon. the Minister if he can tell us what is actually covered by the additional amount now asked for. Has there been some revision in the total cost so that with this additional amount it will now cover the item?

On a point of order Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member not ask whether the additional amount is sufficient to complete the operation for which the original amount was quoted?

Order! The hon. member can only ask what the reasons are for the additional amount.

Are the reasons for the additional amount so that the original work can be completed?

Order! That is not under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, may I take a point of order with you?

Certainly.

The ruling given by Mr. Speaker before the commencement of this discussion referred to items on which additional expenditure was required, that additional expenditure being required on items already approved by this House in the original Estimates. We are now dealing with Head No. 3, Items 227 to 240, which items have not yet been sanctioned by this House. In terms of a ruling by the Select Committee, when the Railways spent certain amounts in excess of R2,000, those amounts have to be brought to this Committee for sanction.

They have already been voted in the previous year.

These items therefore come up as new items.

No, they have already been voted in the previous year.

Order, order! Hon. members must confine themselves to the additional amounts.

May I explain to the hon. member. If he will look in column 2, he will see the expenditure to 31 March 1960. All of these amounts were on the Estimates for the year 1959-60, and the original amounts were voted by the House. Now some expenditure has been incurred in the present financial year and this is the additional expenditure required, to be voted for the present financial year. But the original amounts were actually voted in 1959-60.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, what the hon. the Minister has now said is not quite correct. The amounts shown here are expenditure to 31 March 1960, but those amounts are not necessarily expended. For example I refer the hon. the Minister to Item 236 which has been the subject of discussion in the Select Committee only recently. That is coming up in the present Estimates, the question of unauthorized expenditure as items not yet approved. The expenditure for those items has been undertaken by the Railways Administration but the items have not been before this House before under the original Estimates. Surely if there are new items on the Estimates we are entitled to discuss whether that expenditure is justified or not? The fact that it shows expenditure does not mean to say that that expenditure has been approved by the House.

If there are new items, yes.

Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the hon. member that if he will look at the Brown Book he will find that all these items have already been voted by the House, including this particular Item No. 236 to which he referred. That was included in the Unforeseen Works Vote. But the actual items which have been voted in previous years are shown in the previous Brown Books for the years 1959-60 and earlier. All of these items have been voted. All that is required this year is the expenditure in regard to those original items which were voted for the current financial year.

Mr. Chairman, may I draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to Item 236. There was not sufficient money in the Unforeseen Works Vote to do this item. There was no money there. It could not be voted. The money was expended under Unforeseen Works …

But that is not under discussion now.

The point is that no money has been voted for this particular item, none at all. That is why we raised this question. This is the first time we have had an opportunity of discussing this item.

No.

If the hon. the Minister would refer to the Unauthorized Expenditures he will find that in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General there is reference to this item. There was no money available to meet this item.

Order, order! That is not now under discussion. Only the R8,844 is now under discussion, and the hon. member must confine himself to that.

We are now dealing, with respect, Sir, with the additional expenditure to be voted, but latitude is always granted when it is a new item. This is an item which has not yet been before this Committee. That is the point I wish to make.

The position is that this amount was voted out of the Unforeseen Works Vote of 1959-60. The matter can be discussed when the Bill in regard to Unauthorized Expenditure is before the House, if the hon. member wishes to discuss it. But Parliament actually voted the money as a lump sum for Unforeseen Works for 1956-60, and that appears in the Brown Book. All that we can now discuss is the additional amount of R8,844 required to cover the current financial year.

I must ask hon. members now to confine themselves to the additional amounts.

May I please come back to Item 230 under Head No. 3 on page 21 and again ask the hon. the Minister my original question. An additional amount of R36,386 is now being asked for. Does that amount cover the completed job or will there be any further additional estimates still to come? In other words, does the amount we are now being asked to approve cover the completion of the work or is it merely to cover the portion of over-expenditure during the current year?

Order! The hon. member can ask the hon. the Minister what the reasons are for this additional expenditure.

Very well, Sir, I will put it in your terms: Can the hon. the Minister tell me the reason for this over-expenditure and what does it cover?

The progress of the work was greater than anticipated and provision was required for this capital expenditure during the current year. It is quite obvious that further expenditure will be involved. The original amount voted by the House was R6,640,000 and only R1,909,840 has been expended. Obviously the balance has still to be expended. This is the actual amount required for the current financial year, the amount required to be voted.

On Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, R461,900,

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give us the reason for the increased costs in respect of Item 246. The increase there is almost half as much again as the original estimate. Would the hon. the Minister tell us whether that is on account of increased costs of construction or increased costs of these cranes? Are these cranes imported in their entirety and assembled in the Union or what is the position? And the same question applies to Item 248, the increased costs of the crane at Walvis Bay, although the increase in cost is not as proportionately great as that under Item 246.

I refer to Item 247 on page 23 “Durban Harbour: Special Plant for Maintenance of Harbour Assets”. This is a new item. No provision was made for it in former years. The information here to the effect that it is special plant for the maintenance of harbour assets indicates that this is something quite out of the ordinary. At the bottom of the page, in the footnote, it says “Urgent works to be commenced during the financial year 1960-1. I therefore assume that the work has already been commenced, but there is no indication of what these urgent works are, except that it is special plant for the maintenance of harbour assets. Would the hon. the Minister please tell us what it is all about?

With regard to Item 246, the delivery of the wharf cranes was earlier than expected. That is why the expenditure has occurred in the current financial year. The delivery was expected only in the following financial year.

In regard to Item 248, this work could not be completed by 31 March 1960 due to delays in contract work. That has reference to one 4-ton wharf crane at Walvis Bay Harbour.

On Item 247, the information is that the initial equipment ordered for Wharfs I and 4 at Maydon Wharf, the work is now complete but the plant is to be retained for future maintenance of the work. The plant was taken over from construction work and we have to bring it into capital account.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 7.—"Airways”, R16,900,

Mr. Chairman, this is a completely new item, these estimates to replace seats in DC4 aircraft at a total estimated cost of R60,000. The Committee is now called upon to vote R16,900. It says in the footnote that this amount is required to cover expenditure on work, the progress of which was greater than anticipated.

This raises the whole question of the capacity of these aircraft. Are we to understand that, with the alterations now being made in this type of aircraft, the DC4, it is intended that they should work on the basis of an increased passenger load, and that further use is to be made of this type of aircraft? In view of the fact that this is a completely new item opening up the whole question of the seating capacity of this type of aircraft, I think that the hon. the Minister should make a statement on the matter, and I trust that he will do so.

The expenditure is required to convert the aircraft to the skycoach configuration. The progress of the work was greater than anticipated, and provision is required for betterment expenditure.

Is that what these aircraft are now going to be used for?

Yes, for skycoaches. That is a good configuration, as the hon. member may know. I do not know whether he has travelled in a skycoach, but there is additional seating.

How many are being converted?

The Skymasters are being converted, and then the DC7Bs are being converted into first and tourist class skycoaches. But the Skymasters will have the skycoach configuration throughout.

I raise the question of this expenditure because, as we understand it, the skycoach services have not in themselves been paying. The question arises as to whether the Committee should approve of such expenditure without a satisfactory explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why these aircraft are being converted for that particular service. This is a completely new item.

Order, order! The question of whether that service is an economic undertaking or not is not under discussion.

But surely, Mr. Chairman, before the Committee can be called upon to approve of an expenditure on the part of the Administration, we are entitled to some explanation from the Minister as to why this particular type of aircraft has to be converted to a skycoach service? That means that they are being converted to virtually tourist seats. These skycoach services have not been paying. …

How does the hon. member know that?

According to the last figures that I saw, they have not been paying, and, if I recall correctly, according to the hon. the Minister’s last Budget statement, they have not been paying. Is it intended that there should be a non-European service with these DC4s? Special services were introduced on a tourist basis for the non-Europeans, with this type of seating, but I think the hon. the Minister should enlarge a little further on this question.

Could the hon. the Minister tell us how many aircraft are involved in this change-over, this re-seating, and is it his intention to carry on with that particular policy?

Sky-coaches were introduced at lower fares and without all the conveniences which our usual aircraft have. The idea was primarily to make our people more airminded; in other words, to bring air travel within the means of people in the lower income groups. I think that this has proved a success, because, once people become airminded, you have more passengers for the other services as well. Even if the skycoach services did not pay initially, I am quite confident in my own mind that eventually they will, because they are becoming more and more popular. I think it is an excellent innovation, and that is why we have extended the skycoach service to include the DC7 with the mixed class; that is, the ordinary economy class and the first class fares. The hon. member must realize that, in order to build up air traffic, the fares must be brought within the means of people who could not otherwise afford to travel by air. I think we are rendering a service to the travelling public by doing this. We are not using all the DC4s; there are still one or two of them on the service to South West Africa, but there are now a number being used as skycoaches in addition to the DC7Bs.

The non-European service is confined to a Dakota service between Johannesburg and Durban. That experiment has proved most disappointing up to the present. We have practically no support for that service, and I am afraid that, if support is not forthcoming, I shall have to withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister did not answer my question. Can he tell us how many aircraft are involved in this expenditure?

I do not know how many aircraft are involved.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Working Capital”, R510,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds reported, without amendment, and the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, reported without amendment.

Report considered and the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works adopted.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure adopted by the House.

I move—

In regard to the Bill now before us for its third reading and the consequences that will flow from it, I think I would not be going too far if I say that it is a Bill which will give parliamentary authority not only to extend, but also, in time of peace, for the first time, in the history of the Union, to use the far-reaching and important powers of the Defence Act as now being amended, for the defence of the Union not only against external aggression in time of war but also for the prevention of internal disorders in peace-time. I think one could best sum up the provisions of this Bill by saying that the Bill now before us for its third reading provides the legal authority to permit the Government’s declared policy for the defence organization of South Africa to be used for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in time of peace.

A direct consequence of this Bill must inevitably be that, having regard to the Union’s maximum capacity in terms of manpower, finance and all the other relevant resources that are necessary for defence purposes, the capacity of the country for efficiently and effectively undertaking the defence of the Union against external aggression would now virtually cease to exist. One of the most important consequences of the Bill now before us would be very largely to subordinate that important aspect of defence policy in order to introduce the principle of, to a large extent, converting the country’s defence organization into an internal security force. I am not discussing the necessity for that action. That has been dealt with in previous debates. But that is a fact that we will have to accept as a result of this Bill. It is no good our refusing to accept that this is a far-reaching consequence of this Bill. Parliament has decided on this and, if adopted in this third reading, we shall be accepting both the context and the consequences of this Bill. As a result of that acceptance and of these new conditions, the entire organization, the training and the equipment of the armed forces for their new responsibilities must be accepted as being widely divergent from its original basis. One can already see the effect of that in the fact, that already the Defence Department has effected the sale of very important portions of armament which would have been necessary had the Defence Force retained its original character with its main function being defence against external aggression. I do not propose to follow that line, but I do think it is necessary for Parliament and the country, in the acceptance of the measure now before us, to understand that that is one of the most important consequences which flow from this piece of legislation. No matter how we may theorize that we can use the Defence Force for both purposes, we have to face the practical reality that this country is not big enough, nor powerful enough, nor wealthy enough, nor possessing sufficient resources to undertake both responsibilities at the same time. To a very large extent, therefore, one will be sacrificed in order to secure the other.

It is true that, in terms of the Defence Act, as amended, we will still have certain striking forces in the air and on the sea, but that is to a limited extent and is not the general position. The amending Bill now before us applies to times of peace the drastic powers of commandeering, control and various other aspects such as control over civilian life and property which, hitherto, have only been applicable under the rigid conditions laid down in the Defence Act. We have eased those restricted conditions and expanded them considerably.

Another important consequence of the Bill before us is that it relaxes and abolishes certain well-established safeguards and controls which formed a basic and fundamental portion of the original Defence Act. We dealt with those changes at considerable length in the Committee Stage and it is not my intention to enlarge on them now. Certain controls hitherto exercised by Parliament through the Governor-General have now been scrapped and the Minister of Defence, as a member of the Cabinet, has been given very extensive powers. It cannot be gainsaid that one of the important consequences of the Bill before this House is to extend fairly widely the military power of control over a number of important features of the every-day civilian life of all racial groups in the country.

Other than these features, the Bill before us will impart into the Defence Force organization a number of administrative powers found to be necessary as a result of experiences gained during the past emergency and in the administration of the Defence Force over the period which has elapsed since the Defence Act was originally passed. This was found particularly necessary under the field conditions which existed during the emergency period. There I think the Bill moves in the right direction. It has introduced practical methods, no doubt advocated by practical and experienced officers. Flaws which existed in the parent Act will now be remedied by the Bill we are asked to pass.

Amongst other provisions is included the streamlining of certain pay procedures. One of the consequences of this Bill—and I think this is the intention—will be to cut down the very lengthy and irritating delays which have sometimes taken place in pay adjustments as a result of what, to some extent, was dual control between the Department of Defence and the Public Service Commission. As a result of the adjustments in this Bill, the intention, and, I believe the effect, will largely be to eliminate that source of irritation and make for smoother working in that Department. That will eliminate the cause of grievance of serving men and also a source of irritation which is not conducive to good morale in the services.

Another important consequence of this Bill is its action to legalize the use of defence transport of various types, air, land or sea, on what has become known as mercy services. This applies generally to the removal of urgent cases and the utilization of the only means of transport available. The Bill now legalizes a practice which has hitherto been accepted as a custom but which incurred a certain amount of delay as a result of the red tape and formality involved. All that has now been eliminated. Therefore in general it is a good move, with the reservation that we have voiced, that we feel that in some cases the Government has gone too far in protecting the State against damages resulting from certain accidents which may occur. We feel that the Bill is a little harsh on individuals who, through no fault of their own, are compelled to use these defence services and may be involved in an accident over which they have no control. But there again, the matter has been debated at length and we are not prepared to labour the point at this stage. It still stands that in certain of these cases, should they arise, we hope that the Minister will give much more sympathetic consideration to it.

In its more military provisions, as apart from the other aspects, the Bill takes long overdue cognizance of the more important role in defence to be played by the commando unit. It completes the stepping up of the commandos, which was carried out some time ago, to lift them on to the same level as the A.C.F. The Bill now provides the next stage by also bringing the commando units when mobilized under the same military discipline as that which applies to the A.C.F. and the Permanent Force. There again I think it is as the result of experience gained during the emergency when it was found that the military control over commando units was very nebulous in many cases. There also it is a step in the right direction and one which will assist in building up amongst the commandos the spirit of service which undoubtedly is there, and can now perhaps be better controlled and directed into channels where it can give the most efficient service.

One of the consequences of the Bill which will meet with widespread approval is the restoration of the position of the Defence Reserve to the position which existed before 1957. There again, it was a matter which was contested by this side rather strongly at the time when certain privileges and status were taken away from the reserves. The original position has largely been restored and the same code will now be applied to them as when they served previously. I think that is something which will redound to the improvement of the force and it will certainly give satisfaction to the experienced men and officers on the reserve who are available for service to the country.

In the earlier stages of the discussion of the Bill, the hon. the Minister asked for co-operation in regard to defence matters and felt that the times we live in warranted it. I merely want to repeat the assurances which this party gave the Minister and his predecessor. It is not only in times of emergency that this party is prepared to regard defence as a national responsibility and give its fullest co-operation, but at any time in the discussion of matters dealing with defence this party has been prepared to give its utmost co-operation in all such matters as we are satisfied are in the interest of the defence and security of the Union, just as we are prepared to oppose any suggestion which we consider is detrimental to our military defence and national security. The Bill before us gives the Minister powers never before held in time of peace. The Bill also contains, as the result of granting those powers, the placing on the Minister of a very heavy responsibility to see that the powers conferred upon him are utilized only when it is imperative for the security of the nation to do so, and even then that they should be utilized most carefully and that every consideration should be given to the effect of their use. It is also an added responsibility on the Minister that he should exercise the greatest discretion in the choice and control of such senior officers to whom it will obviously be necessary for him to delegate certain of the powers granted in this Bill. It is quite obvious that no one man can hope to cope with all these powers, and therefore there will have to be that delegation of authority, but the overall responsibility remains with the Minister, and we ask that the greatest discretion be used. I know it has become almost a parliamentary tradition that in dealing with such widespread power as this, one says: Well, we know that the present Minister will not do such a thing, but we do not know what his successor will do. Well, I do not subscribe to that pious platitude. The Minister is a member of the Cabinet and has to conform to the policy and the decisions taken by the Cabinet. Therefore the Minister is not a free individual in many respects. I say that when we give these responsibilities we are really dealing with the Government, and in making the request that the powers granted under the Bill be used with the greatest discretion, we are passing on that request also to the Government and to a Cabinet which, to put it in the most polite form, has certainly given the country very little confidence that the powers granted to them will not be used foolishly.

A large part of the Bill deals with the Government’s policy to prevent internal disturbance rather than to suppress it after it has occurred, and I think there are few people who would quarrel with that. It is much better to prevent trouble rather than to deal with it after it has occurred. But I want to conclude on this note, and I speak for my party when I say this, that we have gone a long way in the interest of the security of the country to meet the Minister and the Government in agreeing to some of the provisions of the Bill which apply controls that we do not like and which must be used with great discretion. We have done that because we accept the policy that the Government is the ultimate authority on whom the responsibility for the security and safety of the nation must rest. But having said that, I want to say again that the use of power, of guns and weapons, is not the answer to many of the situations which the Bill is providing for. The Minister himself, in the course of the debate, referred on a number of occasions, as his justification for asking for these powers, to the situation which existed in Rhodesia. In passing I would just like to say that the situation there is quite different from ours. The use of the Defence Force in Rhodesia recently was an example to the whole of Africa of the spirit of co-operation. When they were called out they worked in the closest harmony with the African races they were called upon to control, and by so doing they won their confidence. I think that is what we have to aim at, not to break down confidence but to win and restore confidence. The only lasting answer to the problem this Bill deals with is a policy which will restore full mutual confidence in the minds of all the people and do away with the causes which result in the unrest. If we can do that, and if we can restore that confidence and root out the difficulties which create unrest and provide a fertile ground for the agitator to stir up trouble, then without any doubt there will be no necessity to apply some of the more stringent powers contained in the Bill. The Minister also stressed the importance of the time factor in dealing with matters of this kind. We fully agree that the time factor is most important, but just as it is important in helping to prevent unrest, so the time factor is important in getting to a state of affairs in the country which would make it unnecessary for any state of unrest to develop.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has pointed out very clearly the effect of the large additional powers being given to the Minister and the Government by this Bill. He has made it quite clear that as the result of these additional powers the whole character of the Defence Force will be changed. As he put it, the Defence Force as a result has not retained its original character, viz. that of a force to resist aggression, but it is now being given powers never before held in time of peace and therefore it has become virtually a supernumerary of the Police Force. That is the effect of this Bill. Those powers are contained in Clauses 16, 17 and 18. Clause 16 deals with commandeering, Clause 17 deals with the taking over of rail services, and Clause 18 deals with the power to remove persons from a certain place and to order them to assemble in a given place. In passing, I would remark that it is curious that the Minister is seeking powers to authorize the Government to assume control over any railway service or air service, without seeking power to take control of the harbour system. Nothing is mentioned in the original section about taking control over the harbour system. It seems to me that the very fact that the original Section 102 is not amended to enable the Government to take over control of the harbour system gives point to the argument of the hon. member for Simonstown that the main purpose of these amendments is not to streamline the Defence Force for purposes of a shooting war against some invading power, but rather to enable the Minister to use the forces for the purpose of maintaining internal order and to deal with any events which might arise; to suppress internal disorder and to deal with whatever other sombre events the Minister may contemplate. I mention the question of harbours because one knows that in the last war the control of harbours became very important from the security point of view. We all remember the injunction not to talk about ships and shipping, and the tight control that was exercised in regard to the movement of ships. Apparently the Minister has not felt it necessary to assume powers to control the harbours. Sir, it is the words “prevention of internal disorder” which cause me concern. Those words have now been imported into the Bill.

May I put a question to you? Why does the hon. member in all his speeches draw such a vast distinction between the existing provision which says “in time of internal disorder” as against “the prevention of disorder”?

I thought I had dealt with this question of prevention. If I have not answered the hon. member, he can put another question to me. But I have been leading up to this very point he has raised. I say it is the words “prevention of internal disorder” which cause me concern, because the principal Act in Section 100 talks about a time of war and internal disorder. Indeed, if one refers to Section 13 of the Act, it will be found that the Permanent Force may be at all times employed on service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Union. Those are the words used, and Section 28 of the Act places a similar liability on the A.C.F. So the Defence Act of 1957 spoke about the Permanent Force being used for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder. When that Act was passed, we had not as yet endured the difficulties of a statutory period of emergency in South Africa. At that stage we had not experienced in practice what happened during that emergency when, as the Minister knows, there was considerable criticism from the Opposition as to the use or the alleged abuse of powers at that time. It is quite clear that under the existing powers which are conferred on the Minister, if a situation has arisen in which internal order has to be preserved then in my submission we have already reached the stage at which an emergency is there. That disorder should be suppressed is common cause. It is not suggested for a moment by this side of the House that we would like to see chaos prevail.

I would like to see disorder prevented, but I want to know when and at what period does it become necessary to act to prevent disorder in such a manner as to involve the calling out of the Defence Force and the use of these extraordinary powers which the hon. member for Simonstown himself admits have never before been invoked.

In other words, you want things to develop first?

No, but if things have developed to such a stage that it is clear there will be unrest, then the Minister can step in. But he can do that to-day without this Bill. No reasonable citizen of this country is going to criticize the Minister of Defence who, in a moment of emergency, calls out his forces and exercises extraordinary powers if it becomes quite clear that it was necessary to do so for the purpose of maintaining law and order. But if you give these extraordinary powers in advance and say to the Government that they can be exercised, then they have carte blanche; and experience has shown that if you give these powers in advance, those who exercise them are not as cautious in exercising those powers as they might otherwise be if they knew that they had to justify the use of the powers afterwards. The hon. member for Simonstown has said that he discards the argument that we trust this Minister. He said, very rightly, that it is the Government which has to take responsibility, and the hon. member went further and said that it was common cause that the Government does not carry the confidence of the country. That is the very reason why I am anxious about these powers, because whether it is the Minister or not, they are powers given to the Government, a Government which many people in this country believe to be trigger-happy, as the hon. member for Simonstown rightly says, and one which could abuse these powers.

On a point of personal explanation, I never used the phrase “trigger-happy I said they might act foolishly.

I accept that at once. Therefore the hon. member feels that it is not a question of a genial or tolerant Minister, but a question of giving powers to a Government which does not carry the confidence of the country Therefore I want to suggest that as far as any shooting war is concerned, the Minister is completely able to do what is necessary. He has powers to call out the forces under the existing Act. He can do certain things in time of war, which is defined in the Defence Act as meaning any time during which an actual state of war exists or may in the opinion of the Governor-General be anticipated. In other words, if the Minister is dealing with positive aggression from outside, he need not wait for the actual declaration of a state of war, but he can act when in the opinion of the Governor-General war may be anticipated. So he is completely covered as far as external aggression is concerned. But the hon. gentleman has put this question to me: “Do you not know that a cold war is being carried on in the world? Why did you ever pass the Defence Act? Did you expect a war at the time?” Of course I know that there is a cold war which has been going on ever since the end of the last war, and of course I know about the Berlin blockade and what happens in other parts of the world like Formosa, Laos and even at UNO. There a cold war is being carried on, but it is not a shooting war; it is a war of ideologies. In the cold war it is the ballot and not the bullet which counts. The Minister now says he wants to take extraordinary powers to deal with the cold war in time of peace. Sir, if you want to suppress something, then it seems to me that in the cold war it is far better to prevent something than to wait until you have to suppress something. Surely it would be much better if the Government realizes that the best protection for South Africa is not to rely on the suppression of internal disorder which may flow from the cold war, but to take such steps as to ensure that the climate of opinion and conditions in the country are such that the cold war can never penetrate to the masses of the people, particularly the non-Whites who may be affected. That is what should be done. I take up the challenge thrown out by the Minister in regard to the cold war and I say there is a cold war, but that this is not the way to fight it. This is either a policy of unnecessary fear on the part of the Government, or of strong-arm tactics which can so easily be abused by a Government which is intoxicated by power. Of course the cold war may develop into a shooting war. It did so in Korea, but if such a situation arises obviously then there is war and the Minister must have unlimited powers and no one will expect to restrict him from using them. What in fact the Minister is contemplating is an emergency. He is asking in advance for carte blanche. For the very reasons given by the hon. member for Simonstown I feel that it would be dangerous to vote for this third reading. This Bill applies to peace-time the drastic powers of commandeering, etc., which previously obtained only in time of war. The hon. member for Simonstown says it relaxes certain safeguards and controls. The Minister says that the House has voted on this matter and that it is over. Sir, in my view this matter is not over. We have done our best in the earlier stages of the Bill to improve it. In the Committee Stage members of the Opposition moved amendments; attempts were made to improve the Bill, but those attemps were turned down by the Government, not by the Opposition. It is not the Opposition ranks which have refused to remove what one regards as objectionable in the Bill. It is the Government. And in those circumstances the Government must not expect me to give my approval to the third reading of the Bill. I propose to vote against it.

Sir, I do not want to keep the House long. The attitude of this side of the House has been very adequately and capably expressed by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). We are supporting this measure because undoubtedly certain concessions have been made by the Minister. There are certain powers that he is taking about which we had our doubts. We tried to give the necessary protection to the public by putting forward amendments in the Committee stage, but quite clearly the Bill, with the exception of Clause 18 where the Minister seeks powers of evacuation and concentration, does not go very much further;, than to bring about improvements to the original Act that was passed in 1957. I hope you will permit me in the circumstances, Sir, to show in what respect the attitude of this party differs from that of the Progressive Party. While the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was addressing the House I put a question to him. I asked him to try to distinguish between the words “internal disorder” as used in the original Act and those used in this amending Bill which is the substitution “during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder”. In other words a much narrowed interpretation. The hon. member for Salt River, like other members of the Progressive Party who have dealt with this measure, have run away from this distinction all the time, and the reason is perfectly clear, as I will indicate now. Having evolved a preconceived political plan of creating public opposition to this measure through the newspapers, they got caught up in their own net, and now they have not been able to follow a line which is in accordance with a true interpretation of this Bill, because they had committed themselves publicly in the newspapers, as a politicarstunt, to oppose this measure, and now they have to carry their attitude to its natural conclusion in an attempt to give some basis of logic to the approach that they have adopted throughout these discussions. The hon. member for Salt River has based his entire argument this afternoon on the fact that according to him a new principle is enshrined in this Bill, the principle that the forces of this country—the Citizen Force, the Permanent Force, the Commandos and the Reserves—are for the first time being used for the prevention and suppression of disorders in the country, with far-reaching powers in the hands of the Minister.

That is what the hon. member for Simonstown said.

No, that is what the hon. member said this afternoon.

I was quoting the hon. member for Simonstown.

With respect, Sir, the hon. member for Salt River tried to place an interpretation upon the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown which he never intended. You see, Sir, he has attempted, with his art of supreme advocacy for which the hon. member is well known, to give this colour to the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown. He has attempted to use the eminence of his position as a well-known lawyer to place an interpretation upon words as they stand in the original Act which was never intended at all. I challenge the hon. member and I challenge any member of the Progressive Party to prove that there is any new principle enshrined in this Bill; that the forces of our country may now be used for the purpose of suppressing internal disorder, with wide powers in the hands of the Minister in that regard. I challenge him to prove that this is an entirely new principle. The hon. member for Salt River forgets that in 1957 when the original Act was passed, he voted for Section 13 and he voted for Section 28 of the original Act. And what does it say there? In Section 13 the purposes for which the Permanent Force, just one arm of our forces, may be used, are set out very clearly—

The hon. member for Salt River and other members of the Progressive Party behind him voted for and supported this provision in the original Act and the justification which the hon. member gave to our party at that time when the matter was considered, was that he was a member of General Smuts’ Cabinet who had first introduced this principle during the last war. And now the hon. member views it as a disastrous thing that the Minister is taking these powers.

The hon. member must not put words into my mouth; I do not think I ever discussed this matter. Let the hon. member quote where I said that.

Sir, the hon. member for Salt River now finds that his political manoeuvre is being exploded, so he conveniently forgets what he once supported when he sat on these benches as a member of the United Party.

I supported the Bill but you must not put words into my mouth.

Sir, the hon. member does not only speak in the House. As I recall, he has a great deal to say outside this House on occasions. It is perfectly clear from this that the principle of being able to use the forces of our country for maintaining law and order is not a new principle. It is provided for in the original Act. It is not something new that is being inserted in this Bill, an impression which the hon. member tried to create in the minds of the public in his Press statements before the matter was discussed here. As far as the Citizen Force is concerned, the hon. member for Salt River regards it as a terrible thing that voluntary forces can be used for the suppression of internal disorder. But if he turns to Section 38, which he supported in 1957, he will find …

Quote what I said.

Yes, I will. Sir, if the hon. member, before moving the type of amendment which he moved in the Committee Stage, had given proper consideration to the original Act before adopting the standpoint which he has adopted in the course of these discussions, he would have found that this principle is already enshrined in the Act. Section 28 says clearly that—

And what does paragraph (b) of Section 13 (1) say? It says—

And now we have to hear that the hon. member bases all his arguments on the allegedly wider powers taken in Clauses 16, 17 and 18 of this Bill. Clause 16 merely gives the power to the Minister during operations for the suppression of internal disorder to commandeer materials, as is now stated in terms of Section 100 of the original Act. Clause 17 merely gives the forces, not the Minister, additional powers which are necessary in the suppression of internal disorder to commandeer or take over transportation services. Clause 18 provides for the new power, to which we objected and in regard to which we succeeded in extracting certain concessions from the Minister, introducing certain limitations. However, we were not yet quite satisfied and we showed our disapproval by voting against the clause when it was put in the Committee Stage. But the mere inclusion of that power to evacuate and concentrate people in time of internal disorder is not in itself a factor which entitles any responsible member of this House to vote against this whole measure. In other words, the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Salt River to-day is being adopted by him not with a view to maintaining law and order in our country or with a view to ensuring that our forces can be used in the proper way, in a responsible manner, to preserve law and order, but simply to justify a false political picture, in respect of a comparatively simple measure, that they attempted, for political ends, to create in the minds of the public of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, I also had objections to some of these clauses. If one now listens to the fuss which was made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, one becomes suspicious that there is something which he now wants to rectify because they made certain mistakes. I leave the matter there.

Nobody objects to the Defence Force being used to suppress internal disorder. I think we are all at one there. But the danger lies in using the Defence Forces to prevent internal disorder.

But that is already the law.

If it is already the law, why then should it be inserted here?

I am merely asking for a few additional powers, but that is what the law says to-day. That has been the law for the last few years already.

But why then have this Bill?

Did you read the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, one really sometimes has to feel sorry for those hon. members. My objection is this: I say that there is really only one method by which the Minister can prevent internal disorder by the use of the Defence Force, and that is by an exhibition of superior force, and if he feels that there is a threat of disorder in the country, in this way to deter any person who seeks to incite disorder. But look at the powers he takes here. He takes the power to commandeer the Railways, to compel people to evacuate certain areas, to compel them te assemble in some building …

But I thought your objection was that we were going to use the Defence Force for that.

I say that it is no use calling out the Defence Force in order to prevent internal disorder. If the Minister has to call out the Defence Force, I repeat that a state of emergency already exists. Then it is not a question of preventing a state of emergency; it is a question of suppressing such a state of emergency. The prevention of internal disorder in a multi-racial country like South Africa is something which is no easy task, and I make bold to say that the Defence Force in fact cannot prevent internal disorder. The causes for such disorders are so deep-rooted that the Defence Force cannot deal with them.

But precisely the same applies in connection with war. There are also underlying deep causes for that.

If there is war, there is no question about it; then the Minister must have unlimited powers, but we are dealing here with peace-time. The hon. the Minister wants to try to prevent disorder in peace-time, and he takes powers which will be used in circumstances which practically amount to the fact that a state of emergency already exists. The hon. the Minister thinks that he is doing a good thing, but I repeat that in terms of these clauses he is declaring South Africa actually to be in a permanent state of emergency.

But then it is the 1957 Act which did that.

If it has already been done, why then have this Bill? I want to repeat what I said the other day: This sort of thing is going to give the outside world a completely wrong impression of what the actual position is in this country. I do not believe that, whilst we have other means at our disposal, we should declare a disguised state of emergency in terms of these powers. I again say that if the Defence Force is called out there is already a state of emergency, and then we should have the right to tell the world that there is a state of emergency in South Africa and that the Defence Forces have been called out for that reason, but to call out the Defence Forces and to pretend that no state of emergency exists gives the outside world, and also our own people, a false impression.

I want to comment very briefly on the somewhat strange intrusion into the debate of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). I wish to comment on the fact that, in trying to attack the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), he was repudiating his colleague, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I do not believe that the hon. member for Salt River in his speech to-day went out of his way to disagree or intended to disagree with anything that the hon. member for Simonstown had said, other than the final conclusion on which we differ.

Sir, this is the nature of what the hon. member for Simonstown said and of the corroborative statements made by the hon. member for Salt River. First of all, the consequence of this Bill was that the character of our Defence Force had been changed. I think he used those precise words. He indicated that the character of the Defence Force had been changed, that one of the prime functions of the Defence Force now was no longer to defend South Africa against external aggression, but to deal with the internal situation within South Africa. On this point the hon. member for Salt River agreed 100 per cent with the hon. member for Simonstown and both of them disagree with the hon. member for Turffontein. Secondly, the hon. members for Simonstown and Salt River said that powers which were unheard of in times of peace were now being given to the Minister; that the powers which he was seeking to exercise in terms of this Bill, were powers which were normally only exercised in times of disturbance or in times of war. Once again, without quibbling about the exact words, the hon. member for Salt River was supporting the hon. member for Simonstown in this contention. Both of them were repudiated by the hon. member for Turffontein.

You are twisting my words out of their contents now.

Thirdly, the hon. member for Simonstown said that, while these powers were being exercised through the Minister, he did not subscribe to the attitude that this Minister might be a benevolent person and that he would not use these powers excessively. He drew the attention of the House to the fact that, while it was the Minister who would give the operative order, it was the Government collectively which would be responsible for the exercise of these powers. He went on to say that, to put it at its best, this Government, of which the hon. the Minister is a member, was not a Government which had the confidence of South Africa in the exercise of such power. The hon. member for Salt River agreed with the hon. member for Simonstown.

Then why are you voting against the Bill?

For the three reasons put forward by the hon. gentlemen. For the reason first of all, that this Bill was evidence of a fundamental change in the character of our Defence Force; for the reason that powers were being given to the Minister which were never previously heard of other than in times of war, and thirdly, because we agree with the hon. member for Simonstown that that Government sitting on the other side of the House does not have the confidence of the people of South Africa in the exercise of these powers. The hon. member for Salt River, in agreeing with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Simonstown said “for these very reasons we believe we should oppose the Bill”. The hon. member is quite at liberty to say that in spite of these reasons he agrees with this Bill, but why the hon. member for Turffontein should now try to drive a wedge into what I though was a fairly solid front as far as the arguments advanced against the Bill by the hon. members for Salt River and Simonstown are concerned, I simply cannot understand.

Sir, let me say this that the hon. member for Turffontein was obviously not listening very carefully to this debate, because there are very real differences between the times and the occasions on which the Minister could use the powers under the old Act and the times and the occasions on which he can use the powers under the new Bill. Indeed, that is what the member for Simonstown was saying and indeed it is what the Minister has asked for. Let us look at a few of these powers which have been altered or the circumstances under which the powers may be used have been altered. Clause 16 which amends the original Section 100 deals with the commandeering of private property. In the past property could only be commandeered when there was internal disorder, in other words, for the suppression of an existing state of disorder. Now, Sir, the right to commandeer is being extended not to where there is clearly internal disorder, but to any time in the history of our country when the Minister in his complete discretion assumed that internal disorder might arise; in his complete discretion, without reporting to Parliament, he may take preventive measures. So, Sir, we have no clear definition of when the internal disorder is presumed to have commenced. The Minister in his discretion can decide when to use these powers.

Mr. Speaker, the next clause on which discussion took place was Clause 17 which amends Section 102. I think that even the hon. member for Turffontein can very clearly see the differences in the powers given to the Minister in terms of the new Clause 17, because in terms of the original Section 102, it was only in times of war that he could commandeer the railways or transport facilities. In terms of this Bill, not only in times of internal disorder but at any time, no matter how peaceful the circumstances may be, if the Minister considers it desirable to prevent something which he thinks might happen, he will be entitled to commandeer the railways. This is clearly a fundamental departure in the circumstances under which these powers may be used. Then finally we come to Clause 18 where once again provision is made for the assembly of people, etc. In the past such powers could clearly be used only in times of war; now it is not only in times of war but in times of peace; not only in times of internal disorder but in anticipation of a period of internal disorder that the Minister may in his complete and sole discretion use these powers. Let me say further that in the original Section 103, not only had a state of war to be proclaimed but the Minister, acting under regulations, was responsible to report to Parliament, and within 14 days. If Parliament was in session, he had to lay upon the Table of the House the regulations under which he was acting. The House could then survey what he was doing and members could criticize him or withhold their approval. Now we suddenly find that not only can the Minister act but he is no longer responsible to Parliament; he is no longer required to report to this House; this House is not required to consider either the regulations or the actions of the Minister in terms of the new Clause 103bis. Mr. Speaker, if one supports this measure one departs from the fundamental approach on which all members of the Opposition have previously been agreed, that when one takes fundamental powers of this sort, they can only be taken, if they must be taken, under the supervision and control of Parliament. That was clearly stated in the original Section 103, and it has been specifically excluded from Clause 103bis. Sir, we believe that very sound arguments have been advanced by two speakers on this side of the House, the hon. members for Simonstown and Salt River, as to why the effects of this Bill are damaging.

You are being funny now.

I do not know if the hon. member has been listening. If anybody in this House is looking funny at the moment, it is that hon. gentleman. Sir, I endorse the attitude taken by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie). The impression which is being given is that this Government believes that the way to prevent disorder is to call out the Army. Sir, let us look at the series of disorders which have taken place in South Africa. Let us look at the disorders which took place in March and April of last year. Would it have been wise if long before those disorders took place, the Minister in his sole discretion had mobilized the Army and used these new powers? No, Sir, if you want to prevent disorders—and we all want to do so—then you take remedial action; you look for the root causes of the grievances; you consult with the people concerned and see whether they have legitimate complaints. You do not merely sit back and say that you are going to call out the Army. Sir, this is indicative of an attitude which is growing up in the minds of hon. members on the other side of the House. Instead of realizing that South Africa is moving into a period where disorders are likely to take place because of the conditions which exist in South Africa, this Government and hon. members opposite seem to think that the remedy of our troubles lies in mobilizing the Army. Finally let me say that there are times when action must be taken by the Government. Let me say that I hope that those times will be confined and that to the greatest possible extent the Police Force will be used, and not the Army. I think that those of us who served in an Army realize what a grave state exists when people who are not professional soldiers are taken out of civilian life and brought into the service of their country. I would regret it very much indeed if the Minister adopted the attitude that now we must look upon all the civilians of South Africa as part of an army to prevent and suppress internal disorders within South Africa. I hope the Minister despite the powers which may be given to him if this Bill is passed, will not concentrate the activities of the Army on the suppression of internal disorder but that he will rather use his persuasive powers within his own Government to create conditions under which disorders are unlikely to take place, and that he will not call up civilians or the Army unless it is absolutely necessary in times of war or in times of real internal disorder.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) will immediately begin to realize that he was slightly off the beam when I say that I intend to agree with him on one or two points. The first point in respect of which I wish to agree with him is when he said that there were certain points on which the hon. members for Salt River and Simonstown were in agreement—that is quite correct. There were certain issues on which they agreed. They were in agreement that a situation had arisen in South Africa where the Government were asking for powers in order to maintain law and order. The difference between them was that this side of the House is prepared to grant those powers when it is necessary for the security of the State, and the hon. member for Salt River and his party are not prepared to grant those powers. We agree that it is unfortunate that these circumstances should exist in South Africa. We agree entirely— and that agreement was made quite clear in the speeches this afternoon—that it is to be hoped that the use of these powers will not be necessary, and that if they have to be used they will be applied in a decent way. But once the hon. member for Salt River had reached the stage where he had agreed that a situation existed in South Africa where it might be necessary to use such powers the point of difference became quite clear. The hon. member for Salt River and the Progressive Party insist that a state of emergency should then be declared and that is where his party and our party differ; that is the parting of the ways, because we accept it as basic that the security of the State is part of an ordered and civilized life, and that it is the responsibility of the State to guarantee the security of its citizens. We are not prepared to stand in the way of steps and actions which are necessary to guarantee the security of the citizen, steps to protect him from trouble or danger, and we are not prepared to see the security of the State threatened. The hon. members for Salt River and Pinelands both referred to Section 13 of the existing Defence Act. The hon. member said that the hon. member for Salt River had read that out.

I referred to Section 101.

The hon. member for Salt River quoted Section 13 and when an interjection came from the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), the member for Pinelands said “he has read it”.

No, I said it.

The point is that it was quoted, and it was accepted by the Progressive Party that the Permanent Force under Clause 13 and the Citizen Force, in terms of Clause 28, may be called out on service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Union. They accept that; they agree that the Permanent Force or the Citizen Force may be employed in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder—the words which the hon. member for Salt River said were the crux of his objection. He started his speech by saying “my concern is over the words ‘prevention of internal disorder ’”. Yet here they are agreed and they accept that the Permanent Force and the Defence Force may be used in the prevention of internal disorder. They accept that. Yet they are not prepared to accept the corollary which has arisen in practice through the application of Clause 13 (b) in time of emergency. They are prepared to allow the hon. the Minister to use the Defence Force, to employ the Citizen Force and the Permanent Force, but when he asks for powers to apply that usage, the power to transport forces for instance, and the other powers under Clauses 16, 17 and 18, then they object. I want to make it quite clear for the simple reason that politics have been played in this measure by the Progressive Party, that this party which has put up such a hullabaloo about our voting with the Government on this Bill, accepts the principle of Clause 13 that the Permanent Force and the Citizen Force may be employed to prevent disorder. They object now to the exercise of that employment. In the exercise of the employment of the Permanent Force, they object to those powers which are a corollary to that employment. They are prepared to allow the forces to be used, but they are not prepared in the use of those forces, for instance, that those same forces should clear women and children out of a danger area. Clause 18 permits the Forces being employed in the prevention of disorder, and the Progressive Party accepts that—they agreed with it and voted for it. They are agreed that if there is a danger, the Permanent Force, or the Citizen Force may be used, but they object if the use of those Forces should require the clearing of women and children from a danger area. They refuse to give that power. It is essential that this should be absolutely clear.

Then you should get somebody else to make it clear.

I might reply to that, Mr. Speaker, that the Progressive Party should find a better second battalion reserve of the “Green Point Light Horse” than the hon. member for Germiston (District). In their retreat from Green Point, they have tried to follow a line which has landed them in difficulties. We want to make it absolutely clear at the third reading, when we deal with the Bill as it is now before us, that this principle which we are supporting is a principle which we are supporting is a principle which we have always supported, a principle which is essential in any democratic state, that the state should have the power to preserve itself and its security. We accept that principle, we have always done so and the Progressive Party have also done so, and it is necessary that the people should know that our consistent attitude on this matter is. based on our acceptance of that fundamental fact that law and order must be preserved and that the security of the State is paramount; I want to place on record, and I challenge any member there to deny it, that the Progressive Party also accept that fundamental principle. They have accepted it by their support of the use of forces not for the suppression, but for the prevention, or suppression, of internal disorder. They stated that they support that, and the position they have now fallen into is one from which they cannot extricate themselves. Much as they may wish to retreat from Green Point, they will find that they will be called to order by the people of South Africa for playing politics with the safety of the State and the security of its citizens.

I really cannot understand the mentality of the hon. members for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) and Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie).

Do not even try.

I often attempt the impossible. The hon. member for Salt River, who took the lead in pleading that we should not use the Defence Force before a state of emergency has been declared, surely knows that that is not the principle at stake in this amending Bill. He knows that that is not the principle which is now being embodied in this Bill for the first time. He knows that it is an old principle contained in the Defence Act. All we are asking for now is this: The principal Act allows us to use the Defence Force for the prevention of internal disturbance and now we just ask, seeing we have that Act which allows us to use the Defence Force for the prevention of internal disturbance, that we should also be allowed to commandeer certain things we require if we use the Defence Force for the object provided for in the principal Act. Then we go further and ask in Clause 17 that where it may be necessary to use the Defence Force for the prevention of disorders, we should also have the right to commandeer or to use certain railway materail or transport, or the vehicles of other people, and aircraft, etc. when we want to make use of the Defence Force in terms of the Act. There is nothing new in addition. We have the right to make use of these things in terms of the principal Act. I cannot imagine why the hon. member for Salt River right throughout this debate tried to make the point that we are now asking for powers that we do not already possess. I admit, and I frankly admitted it during the second reading debate, and afterwards, that in Clause 18 we asked for new powers. I did not try to hide that fact. But this principle of using the Defence Force for the prevention of internal disorders is nothing new. The hon. member for Turffontein and other hon. members stated it clearly. It is an old-established right which we possess. In Clause 18 we ask for new rights, viz. the right to be able to evacuate people from an area, also in order to prevent disorder. But I stated clearly why we needed that power. The hon. member for Salt River simply wants me as the Minister to say that South Africa is in a state of unrest and that for this reason I need these powers. I shall never make a statement like that. South Africa is not in a state of unrest. We have a Government which does its duty, a strong Government which accepts its responsibilities. Hitherto we have prevented a state of unrest from arising. Now the hon. members of the Progressive Party say: “You must get to the root causes.” We must investigate and remedy the root causes of the troubles in South Africa. But then the world generally must also investigate the root causes of wars. The world does so, but in the meantime it prepares itself for war in case those root causes cannot be remedied. In the same way we in South Africa must make an attempt to discover the root causes and to remedy them. The two sides of the House differ in regard to how these difficulties should be solved, but if we investigate the underlying causes of the trouble and try to remedy the position it still does not mean that we should not be prepared to prevent disturbances. According to the line taken by the hon. members of the Progressive Party, it means that if we cannot find a solution for the root causes of the trouble, we should simply sit with folded hands if murder and bloodshed take place in our country to-morrow. Because then we must remedy the root causes of the trouble. No, it is our duty to try to remedy the underlying causes of the trouble, but we should also be prepared to take action if we cannot immediately overcome these difficulties. I have before me a pamphlet “The African leaders’ call to the African people of South Africa”. It says that they are going to hold a conference at Pietermaritzburg, and they say—

Mr. Chairman, it will take an exceedingly long time to remedy this root cause of trouble, and in the meantime we should be prepared. They go further and say—

It is easy to say that the cause for all this must be remedied, but the world has not yet found a means of remedying it, nor has Africa as a whole yet found a method of remedying it. But in the meantime should we not prepare ourselves to cope with this trouble if the root cause for it cannot be remedied? Those hon. members just want to sit quietly. I have never yet in my life come across a more irresponsible attitude on the part of a small Opposition Party. I am not going to settle the dispute between the two Opposition parties. It is their affair. I just want to say, however, that I appreciate the attitude adopted by the official Opposition. I asked for their co-operation in the sphere of defence, and the official Opposition, through what was said by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), stated that they would give us their co-operation wherever possible. They said that they were not in favour of the power asked for by me in Clause 18, and they voted against that clause. But right throughout they said that they would give me the opportunity to make South Africa safer, if that were possible. I appreciate that. But I am disappointed with the petty politicking in connection with the defence of our country which we had from the hon. member for Salt River and those who support him.

This is the clause which amends Section 4 of the original Act, and it is the clause which has met with the greatest amount of opposition throughout the country, particularly in the trade union movement, and the fight that we have put up over the years against the splitting of the mixed trade unions, is a fight which we are not prepared to give up at this stage. The amendment contained in Clause 1 makes it easier for the splitting of the last remaining 56 trade unions that are mixed. I want to say right away that on the list of trade unions which the hon. the Minister indicated as still mixed, there are some of the most powerful trade unions in South Africa. I want to say right away that the hon. the Minister in his admiration for the Typographical Trade Union indicated that this was a most efficient trade union, very well organized, a very well run organization, and an organization which was really a model not only as far as South Africa is concerned, but for the whole world. It is a mixed trade union, Sir, one of the 56, and in terms of this amendment which we are now discussing, it will be possible for that very strong trade union, very well organized trade union, this model trade union to be effectively destroyed. Now the hon. the Minister might say that that is not the intention of the Government. We are not concerned here with the intentions of the Government. We are concerned here with the provisions of the Bill, and in terms of these provisions it will be possible for that powerful trade union to be destroyed. In making that statement, I want to make it quite clear at the same time how such a trade union could be destroyed. I am taking the Typographical Trade Union as an example, because I know that this trade union has the admiration of the hon. the Minister, and that may be one of the reasons why he is now not so keen to say that his aim and object is to destroy all the mixed trade unions in so far as their mixed racial membership is concerned. The point that I want to make here is that in terms of this amendment it would well be possible in a municipal area like Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria, if the majority of the White workers in that municipal area who are associated with the printing industry wish to have a separate White union, to gain registration; that is providing they can prove that they have got more than 50 per cent of the members in that area supporting their new venture. And what is the next step which follows? That that new union will apply to the Registrar for registration and the registration of that particular union would go through, confined to the area, say the municipal area of Cape Town, under the conditions which I have outlined. What must the Registrar do immediately he registers that new trade union? He must amend the certificate of registration of the Typographical Union to exclude the municipal area of Cape Town which is now represented by a new trade union. That I think is the Act as it is now. There is no provision in this Bill, the proviso to this new sub-section (c) to prohibit the Registrar from taking action in respect of one municipal area at a time; he can give registration in respect of the Cape Town municipal area; he can then give it in respect of Pretoria, Bloemfontein, etc., until such time as the original certificate of registration of the parent union is no longer a union registration at all. Under those conditions, the White unions which are being created all over could become the most powerful union and the mixed union would then become completely useless—it would only represent Coloured members. That is the intention of the Minister, I know, that is what he wants to achieve. But the point has been made that this proviso will prevent an existing union which is representative of the whole of the country from being destroyed. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that it is not so, that the destruction of such a national registered union can come about by this piece-meal attack. Mr. Speaker, we are not in favour of seeing the mixed unions disappear. We have given our reasons time and time again as to why we favour mixed trade unions. We believe that the welfare of all races is best safeguarded if the whole of the working force of the country is included under the umbrella of one trade union. We can of course not go so far as the Progressive Party. They would like to see the Natives included in such a union as well. We have not gone that far. I say that as far as this section is concerned, this Clause (1), we will vote against it. We cannot see any point in amending it because there is no way in which we can amend it that would give effect to the policy of this party. We shall vote against it, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister when he replies at some later stage, will give this matter his serious thought. I believe that he thinks that the proviso is going to safeguard a union like the Typographical Union, but in my opinion, it does nothing of the sort, and I do hope that when he replies, he will take this matter into serious consideration, because he is now opening the door to make it possible for unions like the Typographical Union to be destroyed.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that in his opinion if we were not to have this clause in the Industrial Conciliation Act, he would be acting in an undemocratic manner. He has made the point that this clause makes it possible for workers in the trade union movement to exercise their democratic freedom, their freedom to say whether they wish to be in a mixed union or whether they wish to be in a racially pure union. My reply to that is that the democracy of the trade union movement is where members of the trade union should be best able to exercise their democratic rights. They have always done so in the past and the rule of majority inside the trade union has always been the effective way of conducting the affairs of such a trade union. But now the hon. the Minister is giving to the dissentients in such a union the right to create a separate branch, a special separate racial branch. That is interfering with the democracy of the trade union movement. It is not giving democracy, it is interfering with the existing democracy of the trade union movement. It is making it possible by this legislative measure for interference to take place in the internal workings of a mixed trade union. It is not a reasonable proposition to put to this Committee. I feel that it is a step backwards. If the Europeans wish to break away from a mixed union, they can do so under the present Act if they can get 50 per cent of the members throughout the country to support them. If they can persuade 50 per cent of the members within that mixed union to form a White union, they can do so.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister knows our objection to this Clause 1 which embodies the principle of the amending Bill now before the Committee. During the second reading we told the House that we object to this clause because it obviously is going to facilitate the splitting of the trade unions, which is something we do not agree with in principle. I would like to place on record the objections which have been written up in a memorandum by the South African Trade Union Council, which does represent thousands of workers and which does have the interests of the workers at heart. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that the South African Trade Union Council, in this memorandum, states that it protests most strongly against the proposal to amend Section 4 of the Industrial Conciliation Act—which is the object of the clause we are now discussing—because such amendments will cause the further splitting of the trade unions and make it easier for dissident and irresponsible elements to establish break-away groups. The memorandum did say “even in the smallest areas”, and the hon. the Minister has amended that to include not the smallest, but less small areas. However, the areas are still much smaller than the whole of the area covering the Union of South Africa; they are areas under the jurisdiction of local authorities, although that is not quite so bad in so far as he has changed the definition of “areas However, the unions object to this. We have expressed our objections in the second reading debate. We do not like the changes which have been introduced in other sub-sections of this clause and we intend to vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I too must join in voicing our protest against the amendment which the hon. the Minister has introduced. We have always regarded it as a cardinal principle of labour legislation that every effort is made to ensure the maintenance of the trade union movement at a very high level, particularly because it gives the opportunity in our democratic society for the employees to band themselves together to look after their interests and to have a proper voice in making representations to employers and to protect the interests of all those who are engaged in an industry.

I also believe that it is vital, in the industrial life of a country, that one should maintain strong trade unions and also maintain the highest possible level for trade unions. As has rightly been pointed out, it is not only an objection from our side of the House to this type of legislation, but we also voice the very strong objection on behalf of the trade unions of this country who have submitted not only memoranda but have publicly and otherwise expressed their protest against this amendment which seeks to continue to divide the trade unions into what will be almost local trade unions and so destroy the effectiveness of trade unions which have been established on a national scale. But there is something even more sinister about this whole thing; something which I do not like. If the hon. the Minister is trying to pursue the policy of apartheid—which, we know, is an ideological policy—then one realizes that he is following the policy of apartheid. But to introduce that into the economic life of the country in a manner which, eventually is going to cause a great deal of unrest in industry, and amongst employees, is, in my opinion, doing something detrimental to the economic interests of our country.

I feel that what will be achieved here is this: Eventually, if the hon. the Minister has his way, he will have trade unions established on a colour basis only. I fear one difficulty —a difficulty he has had before and which he is having to-day in the industries he is attempting to establish on the borders of the reserves and so on. That difficulty is that you will have a differential rate of earning by various colour groups in this country who are associated with the trade unions. You will find in times of difficulty and slackness in a particular industry that, say, the Coloured people in the garment industry will negotiate and agree to a rate of pay which will possibly be lower than something for which the artisans have fought for many years and which they have achieved at the cost of very great difficulty. That is going to be a very serious inroad in this whole principle, a principle which this country had accepted, and which this party particularly stands for, the principle of the rate for the job.

I realize, of course, that it assists the hon. the Minister with the application of job reservation. It makes it very much easier for him, once he has the colours nicely divided, to impose job reservation wherever he finds that he has a problem. But we find for instance, under the Native Building Workers’ Act, an agreement has been arrived at for the artisans who work in the Native townships, to carry out their services at a very much lower rate than has been applied to the building industry generally; you have that difficulty. In fact, the hon. the Minister knows that some of his own people have had some very serious objections to this. They are now able to work at about one-third of the figure that has been laid down in the trade. That may be a far analogy but it certainly does indicate what can happen. I recently saw a factory in Johannesburg, a garment factory employing a considerable number of Coloured people who form an important part of the garment workers’ industry on the Reef. You will find there that that particular industry will be split into two completely different unions. And you will find, as was said by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), an entirely different approach to the whole subject. I believe that that different approach where you are going to get trade unions with an entirely different conception of what they should earn, is going to cause a great deal of disruption in the industry.

I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us how he envisages that, in the pursuit of his policy of apartheid, he will not in any way bring about some unrest in the various industries, particularly when the trade unions follow exactly what the Government has in mind in bringing this amendment about. I think it would help the House if he would enlighten us and tell us how he is going to avoid any criticism from the industrialists of the country when this particular clause goes into full operation in the industrial life of this country.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as well as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) again advanced the argument that this Clause 1 would lead to the splintering of the trade unions. This argument was fully replied to during the second reading debate. The danger they see in this clause has just as little substance as their predictions in 1956 had. Mr. Chairman, if you had sat in this House at that time and could cast your mind back to what those hon. members said at the time in regard to the danger of the splintering of trade unions, it would be difficult for you to believe that in the year 1961 there are still trade unions left in South Africa. At that time they made a great fuss about the matter, but to-day they admit that that splintering did not take place.

In regard to this clause, if the provisions of the 1956 Act could not succeed in causing the splintering of trade unions, having made it so much easier for uni-racial trade unions to hive off, I find it difficult to understand how this clause will succeed in leading to the splintering of trade unions. We have already said, and the hon. the Minister repeatedly told them, that ever since 1956 not a single trade union complained of the fact that there was splintering. I repeat that where the 1956 Act made hiving off much easier, what right have hon. members opposite to allege that this clause will lead to the splintering of trade unions?

Then the hon. member for Umhlatuzana further said that this clause interferes with the democratic rights of trade unionists. But what is happening now, Sir? I prefer to think that if the Minister had not introduced this amendment in the Act, that would really have amounted to interfering with the democratic rights of the members of trade unions. Because the position to-day is that there are traditionally mixed trade unions which do not want their members to form uni-racial trade unions. This makes it impossible for those members who desire to have uni-racial trade unions, because of the existing provisions in the Act, viz. the provision in connection with the requisite majority of the total number of persons engaged in the industry in the whole area. This clause now makes it possible for such members to hive off, in view of the fact that this condition is now being amended to read that a majority of the persons engaged in an industry in a specific area may apply for registration. I feel that this clause now makes it easier for them. And now I want to know this from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana: Why should those workers be denied the right to do so? Unless this clause is put on the Statute Book it will mean that the members of those mixed trade unions will not be able to exercise the right to hive off in their own uni-racial trade unions, as they desire to do. Surely that would be interfering with the democratic rights of those trade unionists. Every worker ought to have the right to elect to what kind of trade union he wants to belong. The worker himself will judge as to what is in his best interest. Every worker surely belongs to a trade union for his own benefit and for no other reason. He is the man best able to judge whether that trade union is able to protect his interests. If he decides that it is in his best interest to belong to a uni-racial trade union—and that is what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana wants to deny as the result of the attitude they adopt here—then the worker should be able to exercise that right. I therefore consider it is the duty of this Committee to remove all obstacles preventing that trade unionist who chooses to belong to a uni-racial trade union from having the right to establish such a uni-racial trade union. Mr. Chairman, what the Opposition is actually fighting for is to entrench the rights of the parent unions. They are less concerned with whether it is in the best interests of the workers. If the workers feel that it is in their own best interests to belong to a uni-racial trade union, that is evidently not a consideration to the Opposition. If the workers feel that the parent unions no longer cater for their interests, or are unable to do so, that does not count with the Opposition; that is no consideration to them. All that counts with them and the only matter to which they give consideration is to protect the parent unions at all costs, even though it has to be done at the cost of the interests of the workers. I say that it is not in the best interests of the workers to adopt such an attitude, and I much prefer allowing the democratic right of the worker to be exercised than to perpetuate the autocracy of the parent union.

But the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also made a very important admission here today. They now find themselves more or less in the position in which we predicted that they would find themselves. The hon. member stated that the United Party was in favour of mixed trade unions. Did I understand the hon. member correctly?

Yes.

That is precisely what I predicted would happen. The United Party is now being taken in tow. In 1956 they were neither opposed to or in favour of mixed trade unions, as was clearly stated by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) on that occasion on behalf of the United Party. But now the United Party has already reached the stage, as the hon. member has admitted here, where they are in favour of mixed unions. The only difference between them and the Progressive Party is that whereas they are in favour of mixed trade unions, the Progressive Party wants to allow Natives also to belong to the mixed unions. This is a very clear and very important admission in connection with this matter. Our predictions have therefore come true, that if once one finds oneself on the road to integration, one eventually lands where the Progressive Party now is …

The hon. member should not expatiate on that, but should confine himself to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I will say no more on that point. I already stated that point very clearly in the second reading, but no sooner had I uttered those words than the hon. member for Umhlatuzana came along and admitted that they had now advanced quite a lot from the standpoint they adopted in 1956.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to traverse the path travelled by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. M. C. G. J. van Rensburg) and his argument dealing with Clause 1 (a). But I think that when he speaks of the autocracy of a central body as against the democratic right of a local body—disregarding, for a moment, the definition of an area—he is over-simplifying the position. For example, if we leave colour out of the question entirely and deal with it just on the principle that we are being asked to approve, then it is argued that a national body shall have no power of veto over decisions by a local body although it may be that the decision of that local body was taken almost on an even vote. After all, it does not follow that in the decision of the local body the voting will be by a two-thirds majority; it can be by one over 50 per cent. However, I do not want to go too deeply into this question. It has been argued sufficiently at the second reading stage, as to whether a federal constitution, though it, may be, gives the greatest diversified rights to individual groups to express their views, gives the strongest body of opinion within a trade union. It is our contention that that is not so. It is not the splitting up of the trade unions so much that we are concerned with here, it is the weakening, ultimately, of the total strength of the trade unions in certain circumstances. The fact that under existing conditions there have been no great complaints is not a proof of the case. However, I do not want to go further into that but I would like to say a word on the modification in Clause 1 (b).

The hon. the Minister and those concerned with him know quite well the meaning of this particular clause, but I do not think it will waste the time of the Committee if I deal, briefly, with the original section that is being amended here. The original Section 4 (4) (b) reads, in effect—

That is the sub-section dealing with objections—

that is the paragraph dealing with lodging an objection—

and that is the closed shop paragraph—

It is now proposed to alter the word “may” to “shall”. In other words, it removes the discretion of the Registrar to decide this matter. We are dealing, in particular, with the case where an objection is lodged by one union against another.

My opinion is that this does—I will not say interfere with the closed shop provision— it does make the position of the closed shop slightly weaker. There the Registrar could have a discretion and, after all, the Registrar is the man with the knowledge of these matters and should in most cases be able to decide wisely. In other words this is another provision which makes it easier for those who wish to have separate unions to have them, and in so doing it does weaken an existing position—I do not say strongly, but it does weaken it. In other words, if we look at this apart from this particular principle and said that the Registrar might take a similar action in the case of a closed shop situation with regard to some other provisions than this one then, the Government themselves, who are strong in their acceptance of the principle of the closed shop, would be strong in their opposition to it. Because, in this instance, it affects the question of union membership as between pure and mixed unions, they are quite agreeable to it. It means, in actual practice, that where two unions are registered simultaneously, the members in or desiring to become members of the new, pure union and compelled by the closed shop principle to belong to an existing union, the Registrar shall disregard their membership of the initial union. I myself think the position on this was better as it was. I think it is the opinion of many trade unions who take the traditional view of trade union structure. If we ourselves object to the encouragement given at every step to the creation of pure unions, rather than the Government either holding absolutely free balance or putting its weight down on that side of the scale which might make for stronger organization, irrespective of the short-term wishes of individual workers—because there is a difference here between the short-term interests of one group which may desire to be pure and the long-term interest of the trade union of which that group is a member—as I say, I think the purpose as evidenced in legislation should either be completely neutral or thrown on the side of the long-term interest of the workers as a whole rather than the short view of the advantage that individual groups take of their position. I think, therefore, that this clause —although to a lesser extent than Clause 1 (a)—can be objected to in the provisions of Clause 1 (b). If, assuming that I am in agreement that Clause 1 (a) should be there, in other words that pure unions is the desired aim, then I would say that if you cannot get them without the provision of (b), leave this modification out anyway.

When my time expired earlier on I was about to deal with the other two provisions of this clause in sub-sections (b) and (c). In respect of (b) the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Williams) has covered the point that I wanted to make so I will not spend any more time on that one. In respect of (c), I think we would have preferred to have (c) remain. We want the Registrar to have the right of discretion in this regard. But the hon. the Minister has made it quite clear that he does not intend to permit the Registrar to have a discretion which can be challenged in a court of law, so we cannot take that any further.

In reply to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. M. C. G. J. van Rensburg) has said, to the effect that we have changed our ground and that we are now quite clearly going a step further …

Order, order! The hon. member should not take that argument any further.

I am just going to reply to it, Mr. Chairman. He says that now we are in favour of mixed unions and we are going a step nearer the Progressive Party. I want to say that our whole opposition to the introduction of those provisions in the original Act was based on the fact that we were opposed to the destruction of the mixed unions. That has been our position all along. We believe that if a mixed union wishes to form itself into separate unions they can easily bring it about. Within their own democracy they can do that. The other point that was made by the hon. member was that because of the way the Act is worded it is not possible for a White union to gain its independence if the mixed union were to object. There again I want to point out that if a mixed union were persuaded by its White members that it would be in the interests of all that they should have a separate trade union, they would then be in the position to apply for registration and, if they had the necessary qualification, there would be no objection from the registrar or the parent union. That would then be exercising the democratic rights within the trade union. That is what we want. But the hon. member does not want that to happen inside the unions. He says that if, inside the unions, the minority cannot get the support of the majority then it is the privilege, it is the right, it is the duty of the Government to interfere and to say we will give you that right, even though you cannot achieve that objective within the ranks of your own trade union. I felt that the hon. member should be acquainted with that point so that he will know what the position really is when we talk about democracy of the trade unions.

I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to some of the points that have been made, and once he has replied I may be in a position to add one or two more arguments, depending upon what he has to say.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not take a lot of the Committee’s time. When discussing this clause in the second reading I was distracted by a small fracas over the question of the rules of the House and I did not conclude my argument. It was on the question of now making it necessary for the Registrar to recognize as members of a new union, which had not yet been properly formed, members who were still members of a closed shop union. I was trying to point out to the hon. the Minister that new unions, when they try to get formed, very often register members without demanding payment of fees and build up a considerable paper membership. It then happens that the new union, perhaps, does not fulfil the early promise that it had, or the workers decide to remain members of the old union, and they do not go through the necessary formalities of resigning from the new union. So the paper membership of the new union remains. Since there has been no financial obligation on the part of the workers, they do not much worry about any of the other obligations either. In terms of this clause, by removing the discretionary right, it means that the Registrar will have to continue to take into consideration those members who are still paper members of the new union even though they might have gone back to their original union.

I think that that is something to which the hon. the Minister has not given sufficient attention when removing the discretionary right as he does in Clause 1 (b). That is the one point that I did not complete when we were discussing this in the second reading stage. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how he proposes to make allowances for the circumstances which I have just mentioned.

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I was not at all disturbed or surprised by the objections raised by the other side, the joint Opposition, on this clause. It was very apparent during the discussions in the second reading debate that the Opposition were against this clause in principle. I do not blame them, and I hope that they will not blame me if I cannot agree with them. We have made it quite clear since before 1956 that we do not like mixed trade unions. We would like to facilitate, in every way, the separation of members of mixed trade unions, on racial grounds. Then we would like them to form their own trade unions. We have never made a secret of that principle, we came out in the open with it, and we still maintain that it is the only way in which to handle this matter. In reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) let me say that we do not expect unrest, so it is no use asking us how we are going to avoid unrest if we have these mixed trade unions broken up. We have had that experience during the last few years. We told this House that of 113 mixed trade unions we only have 56 left, and I sincerely hope that on this voluntary basis the 56 mixed unions will break up too, but we are not going to force them to do it, as I said time and again, and we are not forcing them with this legislation, but we are opening the way for them to do it. Where the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) goes wrong is by suggesting that with the registration of a new union the registration form of the existing union is varied. But the registration form is not varied at all when a new union is being registered. Take his example of the Typographical Union. In the Western Province the Coloureds would like to form a new union, and hive off from the mother union. They must have in the local area of Cape Town more than 50 per cent— 50 per cent plus one. The rest of the Coloureds will remain in the mixed union, and the registration form of the mixed union is not varied at all. You have this position, e.g. in the Transvaal where in the building trade there are five unions, the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers, the Blanke Bouwerkersvakbond, the Lichtenburg Bouwerkers Industriële Vereniging, the Operative Plasterers’ Trade Union and the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, all in one industry. The same thing can happen in the printing industry. There is nothing to prevent the Typographical Union remaining a mixed trade union registered for the whole of the Union of South Africa. The only thing that we endeavour to do here is that if the members of the union in a certain area feel that a new union will serve their interests better than their old union, for several reasons, on racial grounds or any other grounds, and if they feel they want to form a new union, this legislation will put them in the position to do so. That is all. But the rest will remain. You are not going to destroy the Typographical Union. I join the hon. member in his admiration for the Typographical Union, and the work they have done, and I still believe that as long as the members of the existing union feel that they are served by their union they will remain members and there is no necessity for them to hive off and to form a new union. Why paint this dark picture as if everything will fall to pieces now? There is nothing like that. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on this principle any longer. We have a difference in principle and it is no use discussing it. I am afraid that we have shown now in practice, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) pointed out, that that is our record and our record stands. There is no difficulty. Let us make another bargain. Let us see what happens in four years’ time. Only I am afraid the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) will not be here, else I would lay her a wager that nothing detrimental will happen. That is the first point.

The hon. member for Houghton pointed out, in connection with Clause 1 (b) that whenever a member, even under a closed shop agreement, is taken into account, he need not pay fees. But the Acts says he must be a member in good standing. No member is taken into account if he is not in good standing. I think that will solve her problem. The new unions will not accept a member if he is not in good standing.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the Minister is not prepared to take any notice of the arguments we put forward from the joint Opposition, as he calls it.

I do not think that is fair. I do take notice of your arguments, even if I do not agree with them.

But you do not say that the argument is not sound, and you just say that because of the policy of your party, you cannot agree with it. Let us accept that position. Now perhaps the Minister will be prepared to listen to the arguments of the trade union which has the admiration of us both, the Typographical Union.

I have read it.

When this editorial was written, I must say in fairness to the Minister, it was in respect of the original Clause 1 (a) as it was first published, and the effect is not as severe now as when it was when this article was written, but the editorial still stands good.

May I just say that it was because of that editorial that I amended the Bill.

But I am sure the Minister cannot say that the amendment meets with the approval of that Union. This is what the union says—

Then this is the important point—

That is what the trade unions think about it, and this very responsible and model union has this opinion as to why this amendment was introduced even in its modified form. They believe that it is to compel them on a voluntary basis to agree to the Union being separated into European and Coloured unions.

Let us leave it to the responsible members of the union.

The difficulty is whether we can do that with this compulsion.

There is no compulsion.

The Minister has made it quite clear that the policy of his party is to see separate trade unions. Are we to believe that this Minister will not pursue that policy if it means that the Typographical Union will be destroyed? Does it mean that the Minister, if he finds that this provision brings about what this union thinks it will, he will make an amendment because he wants that union to carry on as it is? We cannot accept the wishes of the Minister in this regard; we are now dealing with the law. I said earlier, and the Typographical Union has said so, and also other unions, that this provision will make it possible for the mixed unions to disappear. I say to the Minister that this is a serious matter when a well-organized trade union is faced with either agreeing voluntarily with the wishes of the Minister in terms of Government policy, or else has to wait until such time as compulsion is brought to bear. I do not think the Minister is in the position to say that if the whole of the membership of the Typographical Union wishes to remain as they are, he will make no change. I do not think the Minister will make that statement in the House, because his own party would haul him over the coals for it, and that is the test. If the Minister, under pressure from his party, is forced to take further action to bring about the destruction of all the mixed unions, we would not be surprised. That is what we expect. That is why I say that an amendment of this sort makes possible the destruction which the Typographical Union foresees, and all the good intentions of the Minister cannot affect the law once it is passed. I say again that if the Minister will make a statement this afternoon that, provided the members of the mixed union are happy to remain as they are, he will not take steps to bring about their separation, it will relieve the worry not only of the Opposition, but of all the other mixed unions. I think the Minister should take up this challenge, because, in terms of the article I have read and the policy of his party, there can be no rest for him until such time as there are no mixed unions left, whether it is done by the free will of the members of the unions themselves or whether it is done by legal action on the part of the Minister. I cannot put it to the Minister more clearly. Will the Minister say that?

That is a very easy challenge to accept. What the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said amounted to this, that we do not like mixed unions, and we are making it as easy as possible for trade unionists who are in a mixed union to form new separate racial groups. That is the only reason why we introduced this amendment, to make it easy for them, but we are not going to force them. I do not agree with that editorial that it is voluntary compulsion. It is a voluntary act and if the majority of members want to form a separate union they can do so. So it is very easy to accept the challenge and I think the hon. member should rest assured that we have no sinister intentions.

I thank the hon. the Minister for that statement because what it amounts to is this, that as long as the mixed unions can persuade their members that it is in their interest to remain a mixed union they will be allowed to remain mixed.

Yes.

I wish to move the following amendment—

In doing so, I want to indicate what it means, because it will not convey much to hon. members. The Minister has amended Section 16 of the principal Act, which deals with appeals from the decision of the Registrar, and this Bill, in Clause 3, amends sub-section (2) (a), which reads as follows—

The Minister has now extended this to 30 days—

Now my amendment is in respect of sub-section (1) of Section 16, and it will have this effect, that any person hereinafter referred to as the appellant who feels aggrieved by any decision, etc., of the Registrar may within 30 days of the date of such decision apply to the Registrar for a statement of his reasons and may appeal either to the Minister or to the Tribunal. All of these clauses deal with very important matters, and it is to obtain from the Registrar reasons for his decision in matters such as the registration of trade unions and employers’ organizations, the division of assets in trade unions in certain circumstances, the variation and the scope of registration of trade unions or employers’ organizations, or the constitution of trade unions, etc. These are all very important issues and the present Act lays down that they have to lodge their appeal within 14 days. In practice it has been found that 14 days is too short, particularly over the Christmas and New Year holidays when many trade unions close down. The South African Trade Union Council has made representations in this regard as well. They feel that it will make for the smoother working of the Act if they have 30 days in which to lodge their appeals.

I will accept that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee I wish to move the contingent Notice of Motion standing in my name, namely—

The request contained in this notice, Sir, has reference to Clauses 29 and 30 of this Bill. Those clauses prescribe the procedure to be followed by a marriage officer in the solemnization of a marriage and the marriage formula. It also has reference to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee forbidding marriage by proxy.

The history of this contingent notice will be found on pages 12 and 13 of the report of the Select Committee of which I was a member and which considered the Bill after the second reading. In the Select Committee, Sir, I moved amendments that were designed to provide a formula in cases of marriage by proxy. The chairman of the Select Committee, being in doubt as to whether these amendments were competent after the second reading, referred the matter to the Speaker. Mr. Speaker ruled that in as much as Clause 29 of the Bill provided that a marriage must be solemnized in the presence of the parties themselves, my amendments would have the effect of introducing a new principle into the Bill, a principle which would be in conflict with the principle contained in Clause 29 and that they were out of order.

I then moved that the Chairman report specially to the House requesting leave to consider the advisability of extending the scope of the Bill so as to include a provision for the solemnization of marriages by proxy. Upon this the Committee divided and my opinion was negatived. The voting was on non-party lines. Those in favour of the motion were the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and myself; and those against were the chairman, the hon. members for Bellville (Mr. Haak), Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) and Prinshof (Mr. J. H. Visse). After that the chairman of the Committee moved the amendment contained in the sub-clause (3) of Clause 29 of the present Bill, the effect of which is to prohibit specifically marriage by proxy. On a division this amendment was carried by four to three, the voting being on the same lines. Sir, if the request contained in my contingent notice is granted, then I shall move the following amendments—

These amendments, Sir, are designed to preserve our common law and to give effect to the decisions in two cases heard in the Supreme Court of Johannesburg in 1946 and 1947 when the Judges granted orders requiring the Magistrate of Johannesburg to solemnize two marriages by proxy. In these circumstances, Sir, I submit that the matter is of sufficient public importance to receive further consideration by the Committee and that it should not be brushed aside by the negative amendment suggested by a narrow majority of the Select Committee.

This question of marriage by proxy was raised by me during the course of the second reading debate. I submit with all due respect that it was not fully argued and did not receive the consideration that it deserved. There are many of us who believe that marriage according to the religious sanctions of the church, with both parties in attendance in person, contributes to the spiritual welfare of the parties and puts the marriage on a higher plane than a civil marriage at a magistrate’s court. But, Sir, this sacramental idea of marriage as an essential element of the contract has unfortunately long been abandoned and is not in law necessary to the validity of the marriage. Marriage before a secular official has been recognized in our law in South Africa for many years and it is sanctioned by this Bill without the sanctities of religion being required.

Professor Lee in his Introduction to Roman Dutch Law, on page 62, stated that the later Dutch law—the law that our forefathers brought with them to South Africa—following the example of the French, made a civil marriage indispensable, a religious ceremony being left to the option of the parties. He quotes as his authority two eminent Dutch writers, van der Keessel and van der Linden. Van der Keessel says this on page 23 of his theses—

This principle has been repeated in Clause 33 of this Bill which says that after a marriage has been solemnized by a marriage officer a minister of religion may bless such marriage according to the religious rites of his religious denomination. The essential element, therefore, being the formula contained in Clause 30 of this Bill.

I submit, Sir, that in the case of these civil marriages the marriage becomes a purely civil contract, a form of marriage that is entered into by a great many people to-day. All that is required in these civil marriages is that the marriage officer, usually a magistrate, should see to it that the pre-requisites are complied with, that the statutory formula is administered and that the contract is registered in the manner prescribed by law for all the world to see. As a magistrate I solemnized hundreds of these marriages myself—marriages that are shorn of any semblance of the religious sanctions that many of us would wish to see. In these circumstances it becomes, as I have said, a purely civil contract. If this view is accepted there seems to be no reason whatsoever why it should not be contracted by proxy through a duly authorized agent or attorney as was done in the two cases decided by the Supreme Court in Johannesburg.

This point of view was very ably put by Mr. A. A. Roberts, a former Government law adviser. He is an eminent advocate who has since acted on various occasions as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal. In an article that was published in the South African Law Journal, Vol. 60, at page 260, Mr. Roberts states his views on this matter. A contrary view was subsequently expressed by another contributor in an article published under the nom de plume of Aquilias. This contrary view was published in Vol. 63 of the same journal at page 345. Mr. Roberts’ view was, however, confirmed by the Johannesburg Supreme Court in the two cases to which I have already referred. I think I had better read to the House a summary of these two cases for the information of hon. members. The first of the two cases was Davidson v. Plewman.

Oh!

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) was the respondent in this case.

Not the co-respondent!

He refused to perform the marriage by proxy in that case. The case is reported in 1946 W.L.D. at page 196—

In the latter case the magistrate cited the article in the S.A. Law Journal written under the nom de plume of Aquilias in support of his objection. The Supreme Court did not follow it and granted the order. Sir, I remember the case of a soldier who was a prisoner of war in Italy. I handled the case myself. This man escaped from prison and took refuge with an Italian family. He fell in love with one of the daughters and had a baby by her. He was then repatriated without any marriage ceremony taking place. He wanted to marry the daughter but he had great difficulty in bringing her and the child to South Africa. Eventually the Government stepped in and helped him to bring her out with the child. But I submit, Sir, that that was eminently a case in which marriage by proxy would have been the most sensible thing to do.

Sir, I say that these two Johannesburg decisions are in accordance with the principles of our Roman Dutch law. In support of this assertion may I direct the attention of the House to a passage from van der Keessel. As hon. members may perhaps know, van der Keessel was a very eminent professor of law at the University of Leyden from 1770 until 1808. He was one of the most eminent writers of our Dutch Jurisprudence. I read from paragraph 87 on page 24 of his Select Theses of the Laws of Holland and Zeeland. This is what he says—

“…which may be done even by procuration”, thus recognizing the law of proxy. That, Sir, is the law of Holland to this day, a procedure which is frequently recognized where either of the parties is not in the country. According to the law of Holland a person in this country may send his power of attorney to Holland or to any other country where similar laws are in operation, to be married there by proxy. Clause 29 of this Bill does not prevent this procedure. It has been said that if marriage by proxy is recognized it may result in an influx of undesirable immigrants into this country, particularly Asiatics. Sir, there is no substance in that argument. Under Section 4 of the Immigrants Regulation Act, No. 22 of 1913, the Minister of the Interior has deemed all Asiatics to be unsuited to the requirements of the Union and they are, therefore, prohibited immigrants. The wives and children —under the earlier law—under sixteen, of Asiatics domiciled in South Africa were exempted; but Act 43 of 1953 did away with this exemption and to-day the wife or child of an Asiatic may only be admitted to the Union subject to the approval of the Minister of the Interior. The Government has that aspect of the matter entirely in its own hands. I submit, Sir, that in view of all these facts, the House should approve of my motion.

I second. I would like to say that the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) has presented such a comprehensive case on the merits of the situation that I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything. Sir, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Bill which is before us at the moment has been the subject of considerable study. This Bill is apparently now to be put on the Statute Book after it first saw light of day in the year 1911. That was when the Bill was originally published.

Had it not been for the vigilance of the hon. member for East London (City) who wished to see certainty in our law, if he had not raised this point on Clause 29, sub-section (3) would not have been inserted and it would still have been possible to marry by proxy in South Africa. But it was essential that the law should be put beyond any doubt and I think he quite rightly raised the matter in the hope that his view would prevail. I would like to put this plea to the House. This is a matter which was discussed in a Select Committee on non-party lines; there was cross-voting by members of the same side of the House in which there was a division of four to three. There is obviously, therefore, a case to be made out that this matter should be further considered by this House. The hon. member for East London (City) has moved for an instruction. All that that will mean, Sir, is that he will have the opportunity of putting an amendment which will reverse the position as carried by the Select Committee by a majority of one. It will enable this House to take a decision as to whether it is right that a marriage should be allowed by proxy or that it should not be allowed by proxy. I should like to draw attention to the peculiar position which will exist if the Bill is passed in its present form. A South African will then be entitled to marry in another country where marriage by proxy is allowed by granting a proxy to be married in that country. He will, however, not be able to marry in his own country by getting a proxy on behalf of the other party to the marriage. Sir, those are issues on which this House can decide. I take my stand on the fact that where in a non-party measure there is such a small measure of difference of opinion, carried only by the odd casting vote, and hon. members feel that the matter is so important that it should be considered by this House, hon. members should be given that opportunity in order that the respective merits of either permitting or of debarring marriage by proxy should be decided by this House, and decided decisively one way or the other.

My plea, therefore, is, Sir, that this hon. House should give the hon. member who obviously has made a very great study of this subject, the opportunity of putting his case to the House and allow a discussion on the merits of the matter and a decision taken. I hope that this House will be given that opportunity so that once and for all this question can be determined of what is in the best interest of the law of marriage in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to oppose this motion because the Select Committee which considered this Bill, discussed this matter fully and at length. The merits of this proposal were also the merits which that Select Committee discussed.

In the first place I should like to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) in this respect. He has based his argument on the fact that a South African can marry elsewhere by proxy, while he cannot do so in this country. But may I put this to the House: When it is possible for a South African to marry in this way elsewhere, then he is able to do so under the laws of that state or country which we in South Africa have absolutely no competence to discuss or to consider. And such things happen every day of the week. We have the position for example in the Commonwealth that South Africans are citizens of another country while the citizens of that country are not citizens of South Africa. It is not our law which permits that, but it is the law of a foreign country which makes that provision. The hon. member for Springs cannot therefore submit as an argument that we should also do so because he is then arguing in effect that we should incorporate all these other laws into the laws of our country. Therefore, if he had reconsidered the matter carefully, he would have realized that this argument was really—I do not want to say worthless because I should then be unfriendly towards the hon. member for Springs—one which did not hold water, because it is an argument which also applies to many other things we definitely do not want.

As regards marriage by proxy, I should like to point out to the House that it originated during a period which is quite different to the times in which we are living to-day. It originated at the time when a sea trip from Europe to South Africa took three months and longer, and it was introduced not for the benefit of the Cape Province or the Cape Colony or for the refuelling station of Jan van Riebeeck, but it was conceived for the benefit of the Dutch colonies in the East. A journey to those colonies took still longer. If a man had a bride whom he had married in the Netherlands by proxy and he wanted her to come out to the East, there would have been many dangers involved during the journey if she was not married. I can leave it to hon. members’ imagination what the dangers were. If she was not married, there was the danger that her feelings might have changed by the time she arrived in India or South Africa. I am not trying to be funny, Mr. Speaker; I am merely indicating the realism of that era. The result was that they allowed marriages by proxy because the bridegroom in the Cape or Java had a far greater safeguard as far as the journey of his bride was concerned. That is the whole position. But to-day that is definitely no longer required. That was the consideration which prevailed with the majority of the Committee members, namely, that the reasons for this particular institution no longer existed and for that reason the principle was obsolete as well. We all know that principles are like people. They become obsolete, they fall into disfavour, they fall into disservice and they fall into disuse. We on the Select Committee felt that this principle had fallen into disuse.

The other consideration was that we would also be making it possible for certain citizens of this country to import brides who under South African law would be the legal marriage partners of citizens of the Union but whose entry into our country was prohibited for other reasons. What would be the position if we were to allow a person in this country to marry a prohibited immigrant but when that legally married wife arrived in this country, the immigration regulations of the Department of the Interior prevented her landing? Then propaganda would be made that this country has such regulations that it does not even allow a man’s legal wife to land here.

There are also other considerations. The domicilium of a marriage is determined by the domicilium of the husband. Then the property affected by the marriage is governed by our own law and whether such a marriage partner, man or woman, comes to this country or not, the legal consequences of that marriage in respect of the property nevertheless remain. We felt that under all these circumstances (because our country is as it is, with its unique composition, with its regulations which people cannot always understand and which we do not always even want to explain) we should rather avoid embarrassing situations. That is why we took up a stand against this old Roman-Dutch law which provides for marriage by proxy.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) now bases his stand on the fact that he is the great champion of the principles of Roman-Dutch law and says he wishes to retain marriages by proxy for that reason. Allow me to tell him this: These are words which sound very strange coming from the hon. member because he is someone who has great respect for things which are quite foreign to South Africa and the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] He must therefore not blame me …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

The hon. member for East London (City) must not blame me if I consider that this plea of his does not relate to the merits of marriages by proxy but to something else.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the motion of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) most strongly. He as well as his seconder put their case so clearly that it is not necessary for me to go into the legal implications; that would merely be repetition. I want very shortly to deal with the practical side, an aspect which has been brought strongly to my notice as a Member of Parliament during the last ten or 12 years, particularly since the last war. Now that the Government has come to its senses and revived a former Government’s immigration scheme, it is just as well that we discuss this matter of marriage by proxy. That is largely the reason why I am supporting this motion. I know of several cases which have come to my notice of immigrants coming out here leaving their fiancées behind in the land of their birth, somewhere in Europe, and after a test period deciding to establish themselves in South Africa. But they did not want to get married or bring their fiancées out before they had finally decided to live here for the rest of their lives. Having decided that they wanted to take up South African citizenship and that they wanted to be South Africans, they then wish their fiancées to join them in their new country and get married. This is where the trouble arises from several different angles. Let me just give the type of difficulty that I have come across personally. The engaged couple has been separate for a number of years. The man cannot go to his native land to fetch the girl of his choice there for a number of different reasons. Firstly, he has only the means to pay her fare to come out. That is one case I know of. This man could not afford to go over himself, as it would have meant that he would have had to give up his job as well as pay his own fare there and back and that of the girl’s. Secondly, I know of a case where the man was settled in good employment here and he was afraid to jeopardize that job by leaving the country for a lengthy period to go overseas to get married. A third condition which is a very common difficulty. The girl’s parents do not like their daughter to travel unaccompanied to a strange country where she will be amongst strangers and perhaps when she arrives here find that her fiancé has changed his mind and that he does not want to marry her. She will then be stranded here in a strange country without means of returning to her native country. The final case I want to mention—and there are others that have come to my notice—is that the man was not prepared to pay the girl’s fare to South Africa unless he was sure that on arrival here she would marry him. He has had experience of courtship romances on board ship and he was afraid that the girl might arrive here and tell him that she was going to marry somebody else she had met on board ship. That is the position. Well, to overcome these difficulties the only course is for the marriage to be contracted before the man sends the fare over or before the girl decides to come out to join him. As I have said, Sir, I am speaking of cases that I as a Member of Parliament have been called upon to try to clear up.

In conclusion I just want to say this: If this Bill cannot be changed then I feel most strongly that an amendment to Clause 29 (3) of this Bill should be accepted in the Committee Stage when that clause comes up for discussion. An amendment that provides for some authority such as a court or a Judge or a minister to be able to give permission in special cases for marriage by proxy. The case should be dealt with on its merits. We should not close the door for ever and make it impossible for anyone to overcome Clause 29 (3). Surely, Sir, there should be some elasticity in a case like this particularly to meet hard cases. Therefore I support most strongly the motion of the hon. member for East Lon-London (City).

I was one of those who were in the minority when we voted on this matter in the Select Committee but I feel that in view of the fact that the Select Committee have already decided on this issue and have concluded their discussions in every respect, it is not necessary for the whole House to re-open this matter. For that reason I will not vote for the motion of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) at this stage. Furthermore I should like to tell the House why I voted with the minority on the Select Committee. My reason was that I wanted to see an old Roman-Dutch law retained. But on the other hand, I also realize fully that in this modern world in which we are living, there are other considerations to be taken into account, particularly in this respect that our marriage laws may possibly be evaded by people who come into this country on the strength of a marriage by proxy. I realize that there is a great deal of substance in that argument. Those are the reasons why I cannot support the hon. member for East London (City).

I am not speaking with any legal knowledge of this subject. As I understand the position, the Select Committee was divided, not on the question whether we should have these marriages by proxy or not, but on whether we should hear the arguments for and against and have the right to vote on it. I have heard the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) put up a very strong case, I have heard the hon. member for East London (City) put up a strong case. I want to hear the whole case debated, and if we wish to hear the case debated, it should be in Committee of the whole House. Why then can we not accept this motion? I want to hear the legal men on both sides discuss this fully. There are legal men on the other side whom I wish to hear. That the Select Committee had a majority one way, does not preclude me from hearing the arguments. I want to hear the arguments as a member of this House, and therefore I appeal to hon. members, whether they are in favour of marriage by proxy or not, to accept the motion of the hon. member for East London (City). The reasons given for and against at the moment are premature. I think this whole discussion, with great respect, Mr. Speaker—it is necessary perhaps to introduce arguments—has gone too far; it is premature. This discussion should take place after we have accepted the motion.

I do not wish to deal with the legal aspect of this matter either. I am coming into this picture when the Bill is reaching the final stages of its passage, and I have been instructed to handle it from this stage onwards because the second reading of this Bill has already been accepted during a previous session. It seems to me as though hon. members have forgotten what took place during the second reading debate. This matter was fully discussed during the second reading. What the hon. member for Kensington is asking for now was fully discussed at that stage. My predecessor, the former Minister of the Interior, replied fully on that point and gave the reasons why it was not desirable to introduce this new principle into our law. This is something completely new to our legislation. The Select Committee which was entrusted with this matter, and which went very thoroughly into the various Acts which are being repealed and which are mentioned in the schedule to this Bill found that it did not appear in those old Acts; not one of the old provincial ordinances advocated this principle. The principle of marriage by proxy is a new principle, and because it is a new principle there should be very good reasons for its introduction. I wish to refer hon. members, whose memory may not be so good, to the debates which took place on this subject last year, before this matter was referred to a Select Committee. This matter was discussed in this House as long, ago as 1945. It was referred to a Select Committee at that time, evidence was given before that Select Committee, the desirability or otherwise of introducing it was considered and nothing further was done about it. There should be very sound reasons for it. It is not my intention to deal with the legal aspects but I merely want to repeat what the hon. member for Standerton has already mentioned, namely, that our immigration laws are very strict. We are all agreed on it that forbidden immigrants, or immigrants who do not comply with the requirements of this country, should be kept out of this country. We cannot be party to it that after a marriage has been contracted, whether by proxy or otherwise, the second person who was not present at the marriage, is prohibited from entering the country. If we accepted the principle as contained in this Bill we would be placed in a very difficult and untenable position as far as compliance with our existing laws was concerned. What are we going to do, Sir, in the case where a person wants to marry someone who does not in the slightest conform to the requirements for entry into this country, for example if he is a communist or leftist? Will we be entitled to forbid him entry into this country? We cannot do so. On the one hand we allow a marriage contract to be entered into between two persons under our law, and on the other hand we refuse to allow them to carry out the terms of that contract.

May I ask a question? If that is so, is that not the position to-day because we prohibit such a marriage in this country but such a marriage can still take place outside this country and the same reasons apply?

The hon. member for Standerton has already referred to that and the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) should realize that if we allowed that under our law, if we allowed an act to take place, but forbade the next step under another Act, it would be a conflicting attitude, and that is what we want to avoid; that is why we do not want to introduce a new principle at this stage. But as far as I am concerned, the most important reason against it, and I hope the House will consider this, is that marriage is not a cold legal contract between two parties. We forget that so easily. Where will it end if we are already allowing one party to be absent when the marriage takes place? Why not allow both parties to be absent at a later stage? If we allowed one to be absent then we might just as well also allow the other party merely to advise that he intends to marry that person and that, Sir, is not a sacrament according to my religious beliefs. Marriage is something on a higher plane than a mere contract. Once we allow marriage to sink to that level what will happen to the family life of our nation? If a marriage has to take place I have no objection if the parties enter into an ante-nuptial contract, but the contracting of a marriage itself assumes a meaning, as far as I personally am concerned, only when it has been properly blessed in a religious sense and otherwise. That is why I feel that we in this country, with our ideas about Christianity, should be very careful that we do not lower the value which we place on marriage in our legislation. At a time when there is really no longer any necessity for it, we should think twice before introducing a new principle where marriage is regarded as being merely a cold legal contract. We ourselves should not lower marriage to such a level that it no longer assumes the high value which we should like it to assume. That is why I feel we should be very careful and that we should not discuss this matter any further; after all it has already been discussed. The principle was rejected at the second reading and after a very thorough discussion the Select Committee also rejected the principle. No good purpose will be served by reopening this matter.

I would like in the first instance to express my resentment of the remarks of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) which he levelled …

Don’t be so touchy!

I can be as touchy as I like. I don't know whether the hon. member opposite has a different kind of hide, but I personally resent very much the attack on the motives of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) in presenting his argument to the House this evening, because if any person at all certainly bears the stamp of sincerity in what he says, it is the hon. member for East London (City). On the other hand what he has said is of course absolutely correct, and what the hon. member for Standerton has said from his knowlege of the law is not correct, because this type of marriage by proxy was well known not only in Roman-Dutch law, but was well known in many other countries. A very interesting comment in an English case stated this—it can be found in the South African Law Journal, Vol. 64, 1957, where Lord Merriman in the case of Abt v. Abt said—

The point of view expressed by the hon. Minister is that it is against our Christian principles to allow this form of marriage to take place. But as I have pointed out, this form of marriage has been recognized for centuries. It is no new principle, and our law has accepted it in the decided cases to which the hon. member referred.

May I ask the hon. member a question: Is this allowed under the laws of Moses?

I am talking at the moment about South African law. I do not allow anything. I am only concerned about the law in our country. The other point to which the hon. Minister referred was the fact that this country had very strict immigration laws and other difficulties. Of course, many countries in the world have immigration laws. In fact all countries in the world have immigration laws with all sorts of restrictions, and in many senses those immigration laws don’t really differ much. Our immigration law for instance has been based to a large extent on the American Immigration law, and the argument that because we have certain laws, this type of marriage will lead to considerable difficulties, is completely fallacious. It seems to me that for some peculiar reason some other motive has crept into the opposition to the suggestion that the law be clarified with regard to marriages by proxy, because the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has very briefly sought to justify his opposition now to the principle which he accepted as a good lawyer in the Select Committee.

I was quite candid about it.

The hon. member has now changed his mind from the viewpoint that he maintained in the Select Committee when he voted with the hon. member for East London (City) that this amendment should appear in the law. Sir, if the hon. member for Standerton will take the trouble to perhaps do a little more research into this matter, he will find that all the old authorities dealt with this question of marriage by proxy.

I said that it was outmoded.

It is not only not outmoded, but it is recognized to-day in practically all civilized countries in the world. As a matter of fact, the only reason why this appeared in our case law recently was because of the supposed problem that arose, a post-war problem to which the hon. member referred, and which then led to one or two decided cases. It was never abused in this country. That is the extraordinary thing about it. Despite the fact that it was recognized by our common law, we only had two cases in our law reports of recent date which deal with this matter, indicative immediately of the fact that there is no abuse of marriage by proxy. In fact, one always relies on the natural desires of people and the natural observance of people of their own religious outlook, because that is really the brake on marriages by proxy, not the fact that one must pass a law in order to avoid it. The difficulty in regard to all these matters in this House, Mr. Speaker, is …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Yes, Sir, I was trying to answer the criticism from the other side, but I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that we must confine ourselves to the motion and therefore follow the plea of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), namely, that there is no reason why the House should avoid discussing a matter which the Minister has left as an open matter for this House. The arguments that have been put up against the House agreeing to this motion are in my view much more open to criticism than the veiled suggestion made by the hon. member for Standerton with regard to the introducer of this motion.

I did not intend to enter this debate, but I do want to make one thing quite clear. I am not interested one little bit in the legal side of this matter. I want to know where our freedom-loving people in this country are coming to now when there is objection to a motion of this sort. This is interference with the private lives of individuals. There is not a single member here, I think, that would like to be married by proxy, but there are many who may on account of circumstances quite beyond their control be forced to adopt that procedure, and I do feel that …

Order! I have a very high regard for the hon. member’s feelings, but he must come back to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to bring home to the hon. members on the other side the necessity to allow this particular amendment to come before the House. I feel it is one that should be studied very carefully by every member individually. We are freedom-loving people in this country. Now the hon. member raised the question of the Select Committee. I do not think that the Select Committee have the brains and everything else of the whole House. If they only decided by one vote, Mr. Speaker, it is all the more reason why all the members of this House should have the opportunity of voting on the matter as well. That is the appeal, I think, that we from this side of the House make that the time has come when we must stop interfering with the private lives of individuals.

Order!

With those few words, I wish once more to express the hope that the subject matter will be allowed to come before this House.

I move—

8. (1) If a religious denomination or organization changes the name whereby it was known or amalgamates with any other religious denomination or organization, such change in name or amalgamation shall have no effect on the designation of any person as a marriage officer by virtue of his occupying any post or holding any position in any such religious denomination or organization.

1. (2) If a religious denomination or organization in such circumstances as are contemplated in sub-section (1) changes the name whereby it was known or amalgamates with any other religious denomination or organization it shall immediately advise the Minister thereof.

Agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I

move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 28,

I am opposed to the amendment introduced by the majority in the Select Committee on this clause, which I submit touches most immediately the social life of the people, and it will also encourage immorality.

As the clause was originally drafted, marriage with a divorced wife’s sister or divorced husband’s brother was confined to cases where divorce had been granted on the ground that the divorced spouse was incurably insane or serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment as an habitual criminal. I think that goes far enough. The amendments propose to remove these limitations and to permit such a marriage whatever the circumstances may be.

I feel that this change in our law is not in the interest of the public, and that it will constitute a danger to family life. It is likely, moreover, to offend the religious and social susceptibilities of the people.

At the outset I would like to ask whether our churches, including the Jewish fraternity, who hold the key of the nation’s conscience, have been consulted with regard to these amendments. The Bill, as originally drafted, was submitted to them and apparently they did not object, but there is nothing to show that they have been consulted in regard to the radical changes that are now suggested by a majority of the Select Committee. In England similar changes in the law were strenuously opposed by the established Church, and I do not think we should proceed with these amendments until the views of our own religious denominations have been authoritatively obtained. These changes, I may say, will not be welcomed by the women of our country. I have received a message from the Mothers’ Union of South Africa protesting against this amendment. This question was carefully considered by this House on two previous occasions when Acts Nos. 11 of 1920 and 17 of 1921 were passed. Act No. 11 of 1920 made it lawful for a widower to marry the sister of his deceased wife or any female related to him through his deceased wife, except any ancestor or descendant of such deceased wife. Act No. 17 of 1921 contains a similar provision authorizing marriage between a widow and the brother or more remote relation of her deceased husband. But each of these statutes contains a proviso which forbids what is contemplated in the amendments we are now considering. I read from Section 3 of Act No. 11 of 1920. That reads as follows—

And the proviso to Section 3 of Act No. 17 of 1921 is to the same effect in so far as a woman marrying her divorced husband’s brother is concerned. The old Cape Act, No. 40 of 1892, has a similar provision.

That is the law of this country to-day, both under our Common Law and under the statutes of this Parliament. Those who seek, Sir, to interfere with the law should give sound reasons as to why it should be done. Once we start tampering with these old institutions we never know where it will end, and I submit that no sound reasons were adduced in the Select Committee to justify the amendment put forward by the majority of the members present.

Sir, I have every sympathy for a marriage between a widower and his deceased wife’s sister, or a widow and a deceased husband’s brother. Such marriages have in many cases brought happiness and have been of benefit to any children who may have been born of the first marriage. But this further inroad into our Common Law and our existing Statute Law not only creates a new danger to the family life, but it constitutes another breach in the Christian concept of marriage.

It frequently happens, Sir, that the younger sister makes her home with her married sister, and this is a welcome addition to the family, particularly among members of the lower income groups. The younger sister with her earnings is able to contribute to the family budget, and to lend a hand with the children. And it would be wrong if her introduction into the home should constitute a danger in the family circle.

There may be hard cases, such as have arisen during abnormal war conditions. But to accept them as a reason for changing our Common Law is both unwise and dangerous, and on balance more people will be injured if these amendments go through than would benefit by them.

Such a change, Sir, would tend to undermine the family structure and diminish the bonds of marriage. That is especially the case where the people live under congested conditions. Hon. members who have had experience of the social conditions under which many of our people live, will know that cases, unfortunately, do arise in which a husband falls in love with his wife’s sister who may be living with them as a member of the family and he may even commit adultery with her. The position of the wife then becomes intolerable and she is driven to apply for a divorce. The converse also applies where the husband’s brother lives in the house. I need only refer to a case that happened in Bloemfontein and was tried before the Supreme Court in Bloemfontein last October. A husband caught his wife and his brother, who was living in the house, in compromising circumstances, and he shot them both. The jury found him guilty of murder with extenuating circumstances, and the judge sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. I say that these amendments may encourage a man to seduce his wife’s sister with the intention of marrying her later on, in the hope that his wife will divorce him, if he knows that the law will allow him to get rid of his wife and marry her sister.

Sir, the psychological effect on the minds of the children of the marriage is bound to have unfortunate consequences. To-day there is a rising tide of juvenile delinquency, much of which is caused by broken homes. I am aware that in England and in certain other countries such marriages are permitted, but in England last year, when the law was changed, the Churches were strongly opposed to any such change. I say that our approach should be to make divorce more difficult rather than to remove the restrictions that are a result of centuries of experience, and are intended to prevent immorality in the family circle.

I am very much opposed to these amendments, and I trust that they will not go through.

I should like, very strongly, to support the hon. member for East London (Dr. D. L. Smit) in this matter. I think that this Committee, and particularly some hon. members on the other side of the House, should give more serious consideration to the views expressed by the hon. member. It was rather extraordinary to find the tremendous amusement created when the hon. member referred to the viewpoint of the Churches. It was so very different from a discussion we had not long ago when an appeal was made to this side of the House on the basis of Christian principles, when we were dealing with marriage by proxy.

There is a great deal of merit in what the hon. member for East London (City) has said with regard to the intrusion into the social life of our community. This particular prohibition has actually stood the test of many centuries and, for the edification of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who, I am sure, is very anxious to learn about Mosaic Law, this particular prohibition against the marriage of a man to his divorced wife’s sister, was one of the prohibitions in the table of prohibitions of marriages in the Mosaic Law. It has been accepted as a prohibition by all the faiths that have emerged.

But Jacob actually married two sisters at the same time.

It is quite clear that when you talk on a matter which really has some basis of sincerity, the amusement on the other side is indicative of the lack of courtesy to the very principles on which they say their own party and its politics are based.

The position is that every faith over 20 centuries has accepted this prohibition, and it has been regarded as one of the important foundations, not only of our social life but of the family system. That is one of the very important factors which must be taken into account. The whole of our society, particularly for us in South Africa, is based on the importance of the family system and the family traditions. South Africans, particularly, pay great homage to the importance of the family system. I believe that this particular clause which now seeks to remove this prohibition is not only going to make a further inroad, but an extremely serious inroad into, and lay open almost the whole of family life to suspicion and possible deterioration.

My appeal is this: it is all very well for hon. members of this House to talk of the fact that old laws have become outmoded, but I think it is important to remember that when one touches the family system one touches the foundation of the whole of our structure of modem society. I therefore make a very strong appeal to hon. members, who will obviously deal with this matter as an open question, to support the viewpoint of the hon. member for East London (City), and my own attitude in this matter, in that we should not agree to accept this section of the Bill to remove the age-old and well-established prohibition.

I should like to move—

Committee in paragraph (c), be put.

Amendment put.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have to disagree with the two hon. members who have just spoken, but I feel that this is not a matter which can be decided by a rigid law. Laws may have been in force for many years, in fact, for hundreds or even thousands of years, but that does not necessarily mean that they have always been right. Where there is—as the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) admitted—the possibility of hardship then, surely, it is our duty, if we are to follow the principles of basic humanity, to try to remove hindrances which are admitted even in the arguments against the exclusion of restrictions. Surely it is our duty to remove those hardships.

I do not believe that the mere exclusion by law of certain circumstances with which we all disagree, is going to stop those evils. If evils are going to occur, as has been outlined, if a man is likely to commit adultery with his wife’s sister, then the fact that he is not able to marry her is not going to stop that adultery. The fact that the law prevents him from consummating that union is not going to prevent him from committing the offence. If a marriage has deteriorated to the extent that, within one family, such division exists that that can happen then, surely, we should not by artificial means lay down a restriction which is going to continue that evil state. In a case like that we recognize divorce. I am not in favour of divorce but I recognize it as one of the essential evils of the modern age. I recognize that if it must be it must be. It is one of those things that we have to accept as a reality of this age. If we accept that, then should we so tie that down that we are going to create hardship to people merely in order to continue with a system which has been in existence for 100 or 1,000 years?

I am only sorry that in the debate that has taken place on the two contentious issues of this clause, we could not all have taken a more open approach to the matter than we did on the last clause on which we divided. On this matter, as on the last, I do not believe it is an issue on which we should divide because of any political conviction. It is a matter of what is going to help society and what is going to help those for whom it is our responsibility, as a Parliament, to legislate. In this case I believe that there are hardships created by the prohibition which is now being removed. Therefore, with regret, I cannot agree with those who have spoken for the retention of the prohibition, and I support the clause as it is proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to state what the existing law is, so that we may see this matter in its true perspective. In terms of the existing law a widower may marry his deceased wife’s sister and a widow may marry her deceased husband’s brother. But a divorced man may not marry his wife’s sister and a divorced woman may not marry her divorced husband’s brother—except in the Free State. The law is slightly different there. In the Free State a divorced man may marry his wife’s sister. That is the only province where the position is different from that in the other three provinces. I just want to say to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) that I do not believe that the morals of the people in the Free State have in any way deteriorated because of that freedom which the people in the Free State are allowed. If we want to fight the evils mentioned by him, I do not think this is the right way of doing it; because if we fight it in this way a series of consequences will follow. Those results are that people simply live in sin because they are not allowed to enter into a legal marriage. A whole series of incongruities flows from that position. I want to plead with the hon. members for East London (City) to view this matter in an entirely new light and that we should rather abolish this prohibition on marriages under those circumstances. It is in the interests of the country that we do so.

I am very exercised in my mind with regard to both the arguments put forward. The case put forward by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), would seem, on the face of it, unanswerable. There you have a younger sister coming to live in the house, the man seduces her and then makes life impossible for his wife in order to get rid of her, and she has to clear out so that he can marry the younger sister. That is the one side. But there is another side to it and it is this: suppose that the wife is not the innocent being that she is supposed to be. Suppose she goes off and leaves the man with the children and then an elder or a younger sister comes in, brings those children up and looks after them. Is it not the case, then, that he should be allowed to marry that woman? No adultery or scandal has taken place at all, but he needs someone to look after his children because his wife has bolted and left him, and he wants to, marry the sister. He cannot let her live in his home because of talk although she is acting as a mother to his children. But he cannot marry that woman. That is the other side of the story and I must admit that I am very worried and I have not yet made up my mind which way to vote in this case.

I very seldom differ from the hon. member for East London (City), and he has put his side of the case so convincingly. But he takes it for granted that the man is at fault. But it could possibly be that the woman is at fault and that the man has been left with the family.

He can divorce her.

Yes, he can divorce her, but if her sister has come in and looked after the children and he then wants to marry her in order to give the children a home, he cannot do that. That is the other side, and I find it difficult to decide which one should be supported.

Mr. Chairman, the Select Committee was faced with various points of view when it considered this matter. Firstly, there are churches in our country which do not recognize any divorce at all. Then there are churches in our country which do recognize divorce, but which do not allow the divorced parties to remarry. Then there are churches which allow divorce, but which do not allow a marriage with the brother or the sister, as the case may be. And then there was the belief on the Committee that in this day and age we should see divorce for what it is, and that we should relax the law somewhat. Then, as the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Froneman) has quite correctly pointed out, there was a fourth consideration, namely that this greater freedom already exists in one of the provinces.

The Select Committee had not formed the impression that there had been any deterioration in the morals of the Free State as such, where the greatest freedom in this regard was allowed. That was the first point.

The Committee also took into account that all in all those parts of the world where these particular churches had their counterparts, a fierce struggle was being waged against them, aimed at making divorce easier and simpler. The Committee was further impressed by a further consideration, namely that we cannot use marriage to prohibit or prevent immorality, and that people who try to do so, are really barking up the wrong tree. Those were the considerations which weighed with the Committee. On the Select Committee members of the different parties voted on different sides. The considerations were that in this modern age we should see marriage for what it is, that we should see divorce for what it is, and we should see these presently existing prohibitions as the failures which they also are as regards the purpose for which they are used. That is why this amendment has been moved, and that is why I am very glad that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) supports this proposal. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I hope the Committee will accept the amendments of the Select Committee as they stand.

The question which we are discussing at the moment, namely whether a man should be allowed to marry his deceased wife’s sister or his wife’s sister in the case of a divorced man, has quite an interesting history.

Where does it start?

As far as South Africa is concerned it starts with our original laws which were based on the Canon laws which maintained that a man and wife were of the same blood and flesh and that for that reason if a man married his wife’s sister, no matter under what circumstances, it was incest. It is interesting to note that that was the position right up to 1921 and then certain prominent members in this House whose wives were no longer alive wanted to marry but they found themselves in conflict with the ecclesiastical concept namely that a man could not marry his wife’s sister, whether his wife was dead or still alive, because that would be incest. The law was accordingly changed in 1921 except in the Free State as the hon. member for Heilbron has pointed out because the Free State had already advanced in that respect, it was not necessary to change the law there, because that was already the law in the Free State. I may add in passing that a former Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, was married to his deceased wife’s sister in terms of this Act. The late Senator F. S. Malan was similarly married to his deceased wife’s sister according to the 1921 Act.

I listened to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) who quoted from the Bible. What does the Bible say? I am not referring to the New Testament now. I want to refer the hon. member to Deuteronomy 25, verse 5 …

[Inaudible.]

The Abraham of to-day should listen to what the Abraham of those days said. Verse 5 reads as follows:

I merely mention this because it is interesting to note that we have progressed since the years that the Canon Laws have operated in South Africa, so much so, that this House has decided in the past that it would no longer be incest for a man to marry his wife’s sister under certain circumstances. What has happened since then? I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) and for his integrity, but he should realize that we are living in a new era. During the war I came across cases of soldiers who were on active service, I have in mind particularly the case of a sailor in the South African Navy whose wife deserted the children when they were still small. The wife’s sister cared for the children and was a mother to them in the true sense of the word. They even called her “mother When he returned he had nobody else to care for his children but his wife’s sister. To-day they are anxious to marry. He does not know where his former wife is. He is divorced from her but he is not allowed to marry the sister. He cannot marry the woman who is known to his children as their mother because the law forbids him to do so. I am sure the hon. member for East London (City) will agree that such cases should be put right. I hope that irrespective of the moral objections which the hon. member may have, he will realize that a man can commit adultery with another woman and that the sin in that case is as real as it is when he commits adultery with his wife’s sister. Let me say this to the hon. member that if he continues to object to this Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, he will be standing in the way of various people who should be happily married.

Mr. Chairman, I would definitely not have supported the two clauses in their original form, because I think it is wrong to place an absolute prohibition on the re-marriage of a divorced person to the sister or brother of the other spouse from which he or she is divorced. After the lapse of a certain period of time and, in certain circumstances, I think it is human and right to allow it. But I am less able to accept this amendment than I was to accept the original clause which did not make the necessary concession. In the long run we should not regard this proposed amendment by the Select Committee merely as an amendment to our marriage laws. We must turn our minds to the divorce to which it refers. The relationship between a sister and a sister and between a brother and a brother is, to a certain extent, one of good faith, and if that good faith is violated, such violation cannot immediately be rewarded by an immediate marriage thereafter. Mr. Chairman, the position under our divorce laws as they are to-day, is that a brother or a sister can violate the good faith which exists between himself or herself and his brother or her sister, and then, without paying any penalty, he or she can immediately reap the benefits of his or her dishonourable conduct. The position is absolutely clear to me, and I think we should allow our consciences to dictate to us in this House, and that we should consider the matter very well before we approve of this clause in its present form. I would be prepared to support an amendment to the effect that, say, after a period of three, four or five years after the divorce, such a marriage can take place. But, as the clause stands at the moment, once the divorce is final, whether the cause was adultery or desertion, a re-marriage can take place the day thereafter. I think that idea ought to go against the feeling of decency of every member of this Committee.

I do not agree with those hon. members who are opposed to the motion that I have put. I have listened to their arguments, and I think that I should quote to them the provisions of the old Cape Act which dealt with marriage between a man and his deceased wife’s sister. That matter was very carefully debated in the old Cape House, and there was a good deal of diversity of opinion. But eventually they passed this law, subject to an amendment that was introduced in Committee. I quote from Section 4 of Act No. 40 of 1892, which said this—

The old Cape legislature was very, very concerned about that side of the matter.

Then, I again want to draw attention to what happened in our own Parliament in 1917. There was then an amendment to the law of marriage, and I quote, first of all, Act 11 of 1920. That brought the laws in force in Natal and the Transvaal, relating to marriage, into line with those of the Cape Province. That one contains the same provision—

Now we come to Act 17 of 1921. There the matter was again considered and this Act, let me say, applies to the whole Union and not merely to any one particular province. It says this—

Then Section 3: As I say, this applies to the whole Union and does not merely relate to any particular province—

I do not think we should lightly set aside these provisions that have been passed by this Parliament and by the old Cape Parliament after very careful consideration. Likewise, I do not think that we should over-ride the common law. There is too much tampering with the common law. We should stand by that common law which has been in force for centuries. I am therefore very, very much opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to give one explanation to the Committee. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) also asked this question in his original speech: What do the churches say? I am informed that this proposed amendment by the Select Committee has been submitted to the major churches, to a cross-section of churches in South Africa, and that no comment worth while mentioning has been received from those churches. The attitude which I adopt is not that the churches agree with this, but rather that they argue that they as marriage officers are not obliged to marry people who in the opinion of the church, have made themselves guilty of that. But rather than to allow those people—we all know of cases—to continue to live in sin, there should be an opportunity for them to contract a legal marriage. I am merely telling the House this otherwise that question will have remained unanswered. I have studied the documents in the Department and there has been no criticism worth while mentioning.

I would like to disagree with my hon. friend from East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) and to support the suggestions of the Committee. After all, this is not a problem of genetics, it becomes purely a question of sociology. It has been argued that because it did not happen in the past it should not happen now. We know very well that in regard to marriage the law has changed considerably over the past 50 or 100 years. There are even to-day churches which do not recognize divorce. So that I do not think that this House should be greatly impressed with what has happened in the past. This is purely a sociological problem, and for it to be argued that a mother or sister-in-law is in a specially privileged position is hardly fair. To say that they are accepted into the home is quite true but, Sir, you might as well suggest that a woman cannot marry her lodger after divorcing her husband.

That is very far-fetched.

No, it is not far-fetched. You may suggest that a man should not marry his secretary. After all, a business man’s relations with his secretary are very close. The point is that those days of sociological legislation, legislation which has been overshadowed by the Old Testament and by the early Christian martyrs and those sorts of people have gone. I think that to condemn people to live in sin merely because they happen to be brother-in-law and sister-in-law is hardly fair or just. You cannot make laws for morality. This Government has tried that already in many instances and it has failed.

I really feel that we should take a liberal view of this matter.

Amendment put and a division called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. Bowker, Dr. De Wet, Messrs. E. G. Malan,. Miller, Mitchell, Pelser, Dr. D. L. Smit, Messrs. F. S. Steyn and B. J. Vorster) voted against the amendment, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

Clause, as amended by the Select Committee, put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

On the motion of Maj. van der Byl, the amendment made by the Select Committee was put,

I move as an amendment—

The clause will then read—

That does away with all the arguments we have had from the Minister that a man can marry by proxy a person who is an undesirable immigrant, and, then, if the wife is not allowed to land in South Africa, propaganda is made against us. The Minister has taken great care to go into the whole background and the history of the matter, but unless she is suitable to come here she cannot come, and all the trouble falls away and yet you have that loophole proposed in my amendment which allows of special cases. I do not think that the Minister can have any objection to that, because the decision is left entirely in his hands. But it still leaves a loophole for cases of hardship.

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). Because of the objections which have been raised against it, this whole question of marriage by proxy has been viewed in the wrong light, such objections for example, as the entry of undesirable immigrants into this country. The institution of marriage by proxy is also very necessary in the case of marriages here in this country, because it may happen that a person who is very ill in Johannesburg wishes to marry someone in Cape Town but he cannot be conveyed and it may be essential for him to marry for property right reasons and then he cannot get married. During the last war there were many cases where it became clear that marriage by proxy was necessary. I plead for the acceptance of this amendment because we will then solve all the difficulties of the Minister and other hon. members.

I would like to raise a point of order for your consideration, Sir. When this matter was before the Select Committee it was ruled, and I believe that the ruling was upheld, that marriage by proxy was not contemplated in the Bill as it stood and that the matter could not be considered in the absence of an instruction. The effect of the amendment may be to permit marriages by proxy and it seems to me that in terms of the ruling already given the amendment is not competent.

I am sorry that I am unable to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) as it proposes to allow marriages by proxy in certain circumstances, which would introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time.

Clause, as amended by the Select Committee, put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

I move the amendment as printed—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

I move the amendment as printed—

Agreed to.

On Clause 38,

I move the amendment as printed—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; amendments to be considered on 2 March.

I move—

Agreed to.