I move—

Mr. RAUBENHEIMER seconded.

I cannot let this pass without a word of protest from this side of the House. The position is, indeed, extraordinary. The very first day we meet here in a new Parliament the Prime Minister rises and gives notice that the days usually set aside for private members to discuss private business are to be appropriated by the Government, and in the following motion he proposes that the 11 o’clock rule shall be automatically suspended, and he threatens us on the first day of the session with all-night sittings. We are also threatened in another motion that from next week there will be night sittings all through. I have never heard of such a state of affairs. No member on this side, and no private member apart from members of the Government, will have the opportunity or the right to bring forward any private business in this Parliament. It is a most extraordinary circumstance. The King’s speech introducing this session declared no policy whatever. The only statement in that speech was that our relations with foreign powers “are most cordial.” I admit that is a most momentous fact, but surely it was not worth while calling Parliament together and making all that ceremonial at the opening of Parliament merely for the purpose of making that momentous declaration. We know absolutely nothing. This Parliament has been called together without knowing what the policy of the Government is. In this first session we are absolutely in the dark about the policy of the Government, and now our voices are closed, and we are deprived of the opportunity of free and unfettered discussion. I think this is extraordinary. I think it is quite without precedent in the history of Parliament, and I do not know what we are coming to. Are we living under a dictatorship? We certainly seem to be drifting into a state of affairs which, from the point of view of free parliamentary institutions, is quite unintelligible. I wish to enter my strong protest against the way in which the Government is dealing with this House. They are threatening to keep our noses to the grindstone day by day, and night by night, until they have done their own sweet will with us. I do not think that is a fair way of dealing with this Parliament, and I protest most solemnly against it.

I wish to say for the benefit of new members that in the form in which the Prime Minister introduced this motion he was true to his past record. He did not deign to utter one single word of explanation of the circumstances which, in his opinion, have made a motion such as this necessary. I beg to submit that the Government in this sixth Parliament is making a bad start. Whatever opinion the Government may have of members on this side of the House, it is quite obvious from the way this motion was introduced that it has the very poorest opinion of its followers behind it. Here they come fresh from their success at the recent election, no doubt intending to bring forward motions for the benefit of their constituents, and they are told without a word of explanation: “We do not intend to let private members have any rights whatever in this session.” There never has been a Government in the parliamentary history of this country which has shown so little regard for the rights of private members as the present administration. I have looked at their record for the past two years. In 1927, the session, which began on October the 14th, they took private members’ days as follows: Fridays, from October 21st, and Tuesdays, from November 8th. In 1928 the session started on January 25th, and they took Tuesdays and Fridays from April 17th. This year, at the beginning of the session of 1929, they took Fridays and Tuesdays, all private members’ days, from February 26th, and the session started on January 25th, and now they propose right at the beginning of the session to take up the whole of private members’ time. The effect will be that in 1929 virtually no private member will have had a private audience on the floor of this House. The Government monopolised the whole of the time in the earlier session of this year, and they propose to do it again this session. Those who drew up the rules of procedure never conceived such a state of affairs as this. Now we have just been through a general election, and there are 50 odd hon. members new to this House, and nearly another 100 hon. members have come back with mandates from their constituents, who want certain points of view brought forward, but they are entirely muzzled by the Government, which has brought forward this resolution. I see the good burghers of Brits have brought forward that good measure of social reform, a State lottery, and I see another hon. member wants premium bonds, while another wants to draw the attention of this House to a matter which was very prominently before the electorate at the last election—the question of war pensions—but he has not a chance of doing so now. Evidently the Government think it of more importance to get their financial measures through than to get members of the Parliament of this Union, freshly after a general election, to express the views of their constituents. There is no necessity for this course which the Government want to adopt. They could have had a session of the ordinary length, and given an opportunity to hon. members of placing the views of their constituents before this House. Then there is the other resolution, the proposed suspension of the 11 o’clock rule—one of the most vexatious proposals that can be introduced—so that the Government can steam-roller through their financial measures. I agree with what my right hon. leader has said. Private members seem to be having less and less opportunity of expressing their views and the views of their constituents. I protest in the strongest possible terms against the motion.

The right hon. the leader of the Opposition has protested against a resolution taking away the rights of private members, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), whom we all congratulate on attaining the position he now occupies, has joined in that protest; but one weakness of those protests is that these hon. members are speaking on behalf of the official Opposition, and we know that it does not practise what it preaches—when it is in office. So obviously the protests which have been made are not likely to be as effective as the humble protest of a very humble member of a very humble group. We are usually more interested in the rights of private members than the big powers of the Opposition party. But I want to say to the Prime Minister that it is a pity that the first act of the Government, which has received the confidence of the people, and of the country, should be to take away the rights of private members, because, after all, a large number of the electors, while they support the general policy of the present administration, feel they have other rights and ideas which are not party matters, but which deserve the attention of this hon. House and ventilation in it. It is a pity that by a resolution of the Prime Minister these rights should be entirely done away with. I do not agree with the right hon. gentleman when he spoke of the two other resolutions, because I feel we all desire to assist the Government in the despatch of business as soon as possible. But I feel it is wrong for the Government to take away the rights of private members. I hope the Prime Minister will give us a certain amount of extra facilities. In the session of 1924, when we met in July, and when the circumstances were somewhat similar as they are to-day, the Prime Minister did not take away all the rights of private members, but proposed on July 28th of that year, as from the 8th August, Government business take precedence, and he took away only one private members’ day—Fridays. I think he would do well to have something similar now. I realise that there are special circumstances which make it necessary to get through the business as rapidly as possible, in connection with the dissolution of another place which has to take place by a certain date, and the business of this House has to be completed before a certain date; but that is no reason why this House should be called upon to take away the rights of private members. I think that the requirements of the rights of the public as a whole demand that private members should be allowed to ventilate their opinions in this House—in which the public is generally interested. I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter.

I suppose that on an occasion like this one expects something to be said, and I hope my hon. friends who were so eloquent about the injury done them through taking away private members’ days will now feel that they have said enough. But I want to point out a few things. The reasons why hon. members were so angry are in the first place that private members’ days were being taken; and further, that they will not now have sufficient opportunities of speaking. It is a strange argument, I think, that they will not have sufficient time for talking, because we are hoping, as hon. members will see, from a motion lower down on the agenda, to give them much more time. But the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is apparently not pleased with it. He clearly wants to avoid sitting at nights whilst other members want more time for speaking. Then I want to point out that the Government is aiming at dealing as far as possible in this session with nothing but financial matters, as was shown in the speech from the Throne, and just because we want—although naturally we cannot dictate to Parliament what is to be done—to proceed as soon as possible with the financial measures I have introduced these three motions. As to the complaint that there will not be sufficient opportunity for debate, I want to point out that members will have to the 28th August to open their hearts, and to talk as much as they like, day and night. They will have five days in which they can talk to their hearts’ desire, and about any matters, lotteries, sweepstakes, etc. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand the grievance. We want at once to propose to give them the nights as well. I think hon. members will see that their complaint against me is not well grounded, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will have to acknowledge that he and his party colleagues will have sufficient opportunity during the four or five weeks of the session to debate all the subjects they wish to. I certainly think that they will let no opportunity pass of putting their business before Parliament and the people. One hon. member said that the House was making him ridiculous in the eyes of the people, and that the standard of the House would sink lower. Just imagine! The level of the House will drop because hon. members cannot talk as much as they want to! Well I must say that hon. members cannot complain about that. They had six weeks during the election campaign of talking and complaining about us and I know they did complain about us and of my autocratic actions. I think that they ought now to accept the verdict of the people. The people are satisfied, and members ought to be satisfied. Let me say this quite seriously, that if we want this House to rise in the estimation of the public it is not necessary to talk more, but less, and more to the point. If they will give effect to that, the House will rise, instead of fall, in the esteem of the public.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—69.

Alberts, S. F.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bekker, J. F. v. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

De Souza, E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, M. S. W.

Du Toit, P. P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jansen, E. G.

Lamprecht, H. A.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Potgieter, C. S. H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roberts, F. J.

Robertson, G. T.

Rood, K.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sauer, P. O.

Shaw, F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, G. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strijdom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe. N. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg. J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Visser, W. J. M.

Vorster, W. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, L. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: Naudé, J. F. T.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—54.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Borlase, H. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Buirski, E.

Chiappini, A. J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Eaton, A. H. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Friend, A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, R. H.

Hockly, R. A.

Humphreys, W. B.

Kentridge, M.

Kotze, R. N.

Lawrence, H. G.

MacCallum, A. J.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Nathan, E.

Nicoll, V. L.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Roper, E. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williamson. J.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Struben, R. H.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

Mr. ROUX seconded.

Before you put this motion, which is one which will have the effect of depriving private members of saying anything or introducing motions which the country desires, I wish to say that it will have the effect of closing the mouths of members. It is the desire of the Government to conclude its business at the earliest possible stage, a desire in which every member will assist, but I would like to get some assurance from the Prime Minister as to his reason for this motion. I think it is manifestly unjust to try and do the work of the House in this manner, because if members are prevented from bringing forward their ideas and discussing them, it will not be in the interests of the country, because we are here not in the interests of ourselves nor of any government, but of the country. I hope that the Prime Minister will give us some assurance in regard to his object in putting this motion.

In view of the passing of the last motion I do not know any very great reason why the Government should not be satisfied with this, and it seems to me a proper time for the Prime Minister to take the House into his confidence. We do not know the reason why there should be all this hurry. We do not know when the full estimates are being discussed, but what I am particularly anxious to know is how the current business is to be got through this session. The Prime Minister was very considerate on behalf of hon. members opposite, one of them I think being the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz). I could not help noticing, however, how contemptuously the Prime Minister referred to the desire of the people of Pretoria that their representative should have an opportunity of discussing the advisability of the establishment of state lotteries. That being so I am rather alarmed whether on every occasion he is going to say to us “I move—you record.” That, however, we cannot allow. Although I am quite willing to support the motion I do want some opportunity of discussing what the Prime Minister is going to put before the House.

I think hon. members understand why it is necessary for the Budget to be disposed of before the 28th August. Whatever happens, the House must accept it that the Senate will be dissolved before the 28th August. Thus, a choice has to be made between two things: firstly to pass the Budget before the 28th August or alternatively to be prepared to come back after the 28th August—about September—to do so. I do not think that there is any responsible member of the House who wants another session this year.

If we pass the Budget, will there then be another session this year?

No. Hon. members must not forget that we had a long session before the election and that we are now virtually holding an extraordinary session. We want to confine it to the Budget, and private members will lose nothing by that, because when we meet again in January next year they will have a full opportunity. In the circumstances the necessity for our action can be understood. When it is proposed to suspend the rule about the eleven o’clock adjournment, it is not that we wish to sit after eleven o’clock at night. Hon. members know, however, that it often happens that a subject is almost disposed of, and that the eleven o’clock rule causes an adjournment and is responsible for a whole afternoon’s debate in addition. The motions are only intended to expedite the work of the House without encroaching on hon. members’ rights.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. ROUX seconded.

Agreed to.

I move―

I understand that it is not the custom to make a speech on these occasions and I therefore formally move

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—72.

Alberts, S. F.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bekker. J. F. v. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

De Souza, E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. D.

Du Toit, M. S. W.

Du Toit, P. P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jansen, E. G.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Lamprecht, H. A.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Potgieter, C. S. H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roberts, F. J.

Robertson, G. T.

Rood, K.

Rood, W. H.

Sampson, H. W.

Sauer, P. O.

Shaw, F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, G. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strijdom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H.D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Verster, J. D. H.

Visser, W. J. M.

Vorster, W. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, L. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: Naudé, J. F. T.; Roux, J. W. J. W.

Noes—51.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Borlase, H. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Buirski, E.

Chiappini, A. J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Eaton, A. H. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Friend, A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, R. H.

Hockly, R. A.

Humphreys, W. B.

Kotze, r. N.

Lawrence, H. G.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Nathan, E.

Nicoll, V. L.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Roper, E. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williamson, J.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Struben, R. H.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

Dr. VAN BROEKHUIZEN seconded.

Agreed to.

Will not the Minister allow this to stand over till the following day?

Bill to be read a second time on 24th July.

I think the Minister is very wrong in asking for the second reading tomorrow. Here is a matter which interests the country greatly; there are private parties interested which ought to have reasonable notice of legislation affecting them. I ask the Minister to let this matter stand over until next week.

Which date do you suggest?

Next Monday.

Bill to be read a second time on 29th July.

I move—

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. ROUX seconded.

May I ask the Minister is it intended to call the other permanent select committees during the session?

I do not intend the House to appoint them; it would be useless to do so. As far as the Railways and Harbours Committee is concerned, that will not be appointed either. The Select Committee on Pensions will deal with as much work as they possibly can during the time at our disposal.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Dr. VAN BROEKHUIZEN seconded.

Can the Minister give us any information about the state of the hon. member’s health?

We do not quite know the present position. The last letter from him was written some time ago, and it said that he felt a little better and was progressing. But he cannot be back before September, and, therefore, it is necessary to ask for leave.

Motion put and agreed to.