I give notice to move—

Perhaps I may be allowed to ask my hon. friend when he is going to bring forward Committee of Ways and Means on the tariff? This delay is causing a good deal of inconvenience.

Tomorrow.

I move as an unopposed motion—

My reason is simply this, that I want to bring the Dutch and English text more in harmony than it is at the present time. The adoption of this course will save a good deal of time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

In this motion leave is asked to refer a proposal with reference to a certain agreement to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and report. The government on the 9t,h May, 1913, entered into a contract with the Meyer and Charlton Gold Mining Company, whereby the company obtained certain bewaarplaatsen, and under which it had to pay to the government a certain percentage of all the profits of its entire undertaking. Since that time the Meyer and Charlton Company has obtained possession of the mineral rights of the mining area which formerly belonged to the old City and Suburban Company. It is an almost worked out area. The question now is what should be paid by the company to the government for the joint business. As it is very difficult to calculate what the new area will yield, the government mining engineer and also the leases board in connection with mineral rights, and also the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, have recommended that instead of a problematically calculated amount the company should pay to the government in the future a fixed sum instead of increasing the percentage. The board of leases has gone into the matter, and reports on the 5th March, inter alia—

Now the matter is being referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts in order to go into it to consider the matter and to report. I do not think that it will be necessary for the House to give any further time to it now. It is a pure formality, and the matter can be considered when the committee has reported.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Before we take the third reading of this Bill, I should like to make a few remarks on the Bill generally. I do not want, in any way, to hold up the passing of the Bill through the House, as, so far as I am concerned, and the railwaymen generally, we want it made law as early as possible. But in regard to the Bill being the railwaymen’s charter, I may say that the average railwayman regards it only as an instalment, and we are hoping that, later on, we will have a railwaymen’s charter in the proper sense of the term. I see the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) smiles, and that just shows that there is a good deal in what I have said. The average railwayman regards it as a substantial advance, but not the last word in solving the problem. I want to prove that in some respects the Bill does not solve the problem of providing the present day railwayman, who is well on in years, with the pension to which we think he is entitled. We did not realize this properly until the Bill came before the select committee, when we had some remarkable evidence placed before us by the witnesses, especially from the daily-paid staff. So far as the staff is concerned, it is quite true that under this Bill a young man who joins the service today and remains till he is 60 years of age, does undoubtedly secure an adequate pension; but for the railway servant who joined the service at 30 years of age, and over, who are to-day in the service, and many of whom will be shortly going on pension, this Bill does not solve the problem. The average daily-paid man gets about 12s. 6d. to 15s. a day, and his pension would be £8, £9 or £12 a month at 60 years of age. If a railway servant obtains promotion, and during the last seven years of his service, has risen to be an assistant superintendent or an assistant general manager, he will receive more than an adequate pension, but for the average daily-paid servant, this Bill does not solve the problem altogether. The reason we have not moved in this direction is that we considered anything was better than the old scheme—half a loaf is better than no bread—and we wanted something done to meet the men, and another important factor was that we could not get beyond the actuaries. The Minister knows what that means. When the Bill was before the select committee we were confronted with the spectre that the actuary said it would cost so much and could not be done. We realize the position of the Minister. He is, for the time being, the head of his department, but he has to be guided by his executive officers. The Minister has gone further than the ex-Minister, but he has to be guided by his officers. The average daily-paid railwayman generally does not get beyond a uniform wage, and never gets beyond £250 and £300 a year, and the salaried staff from £400 to £500. But these people are the backbone of the railway service, and the great bulk of these men will not receive what we can regard as an adequate pension, and I am certain that we will still have the spectacle of large numbers of railway pensioners coming to the House for relief. No private member can move in a matter which involves expenditure, and, but for that, some of us would probably have tried to get the terms under this Bill made a little more liberal. We have accumulated funds in the pension funds of £5,000.000. and possibly in ten years’ time the amount will have risen to £10,000,000, and in face of this huge sum the actuary has informed the Minister that from the actuarial point of view—and we have to accept that opinion as being absolutely correct—there is a huge deficiency in the funds; but many railwaymen do not believe that, and I am sure you never will convince them that there is this large deficiency which the actuary makes out. Hon. members may be interested to know that evidence was led before the select committee to the effect that in regard to the daily-paid staff generally, including artizans and running staff, quite a small percentage of the men actually reach retiring age. The actuary himself, before the committee, stated that out of 10,000 men joining the railways at 18 years of age, probably only about 30 per cent. will reach the retiring age of 60. That is one in three. Of course if death takes place before the pensionable age is reached, the contributions are refunded to the next of kin, and provision is also made for voluntary retirement, etc., but so far as pension goes we are doing something, not for 100 per cent. of the railway men but only 33 per cent. I am perfectly certain that when the railway men know the full facts regarding the Bill they will want Clause 18 amended. The pension is calculated on the basis of l-60th for every year of service, but those who receive the higher salaries in the last seven years of their service obtain an undue share of the pension fund, and it would be much fairer if the l-50th basis had been adopted. In years to come that anomaly will have to be removed. The average pay of the daily-paid staff is probably about £250 per year, and a member who draws that pay and is pensioned off at age 60, after thirty years’ service, will receive somewhere between £120 and £150 a year as pension. The basis of the pensions will have to be remodelled in times to come so as to do justice to the lower-paid officers and employees. I want to put in a word for the old servants, numbers of whom have just recently gone on pension or will go on pension before the Bill becomes law. This is not a comic Bill, and if hon. members want to grin they should go to the Tivoli. If, however, hon. members can stop their loud-speaking for five minutes, perhaps they will give me an opportunity of making myself heard. I never was any good in a shouting competition, and I think it is unfair that a member should not get ordinary decent common courtesy. I am trying to put in a word for the old men in the railway service. I wish to make a final appeal to the Minister to do something for these old men by retaining them in the service until the Bill becomes law. Railway servants are supposed to go on pension at age 60, but I ask the Minister to issue instructions that the men be not retired until it becomes law. This concession will be very much appreciated by hon. members of the House and the railway staff generally, because an opportunity will thus be given to right a very great wrong, it not being their fault that the old superannuation fund is in an unsound financial position. They were told that it was a sound scheme and joined as members in a bona-fide manner. The old railway servants will appreciate this. These men may have been forty years in the service and they will have to pay their share, and it cannot be said that they will be getting the increased pension for nothing. That is all I am asking for. The Minister said the other day that he was not able to do that, but that they could have recourse to Parliament. The Minister knows what that means. It means we have the farcical spectacle of old railway servants coming to this House with petitions, and the presentation being recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, and after going to the pensions committee as a rule nothing whatever is done. I do not think it is fair for a man to have to come before Parliament in two or three years’ time and plead poverty and find then that no relief is given. From the date this Bill was introduced into this House every railway servant should have the opportunity of coming under the Bill. I suggest that every railway servant of sixty years of age should be retained in the service for a few months in order to give him the opportunity of coming under this Bill. Some day under this Bill you will have to make provision for what is known as occupational diseases and industrial fatigue. The drivers and firemen for instance live a strenuous life, and large numbers of the men in the workshop are working all day before huge fires and breathing noxious fumes, and they will have to receive consideration as their working lives are shortened. This Bill does not entirely solve the problem of providing adequate pensions. The Minister has done his Best according to his ideas, but I can only say if the Minister had been prepared to go a little further the Bill would have been more acceptable to the railway servants.

My information does not quite agree with the last speaker, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). My information is the men look on this Bill as a liberal Bill. It is generous, and if there is anything to criticize it is that they have their doubts as to whether it is on a sound basis. They say it is guaranteed by the State, but still they have their doubts as to whether it is on a sound basis. I suggest it was the special duty of the committee to make sure through the actuary that it was on a sound basis. We have had no report from the actuary. When this Bill came before the select committee the privilege was added of increasing the days from 29 to 30, and as a result of this the fund is costing the department an extra fifteen thousand pounds a year. The country and the House must know and be satisfied that this fund is on a sound basis. The Minister knows he has to pay £5,000.000 to make up the deficit on the last fund, but this fund will be on a much bigger basis. Instead of 24 000 men on the fund it will run into over 40,000 members. I think the Minister should give a definite statement to the House and the country so far as the actuary is concerned, so that they may understand that the fund created by this Bill is on a sound basis and there would be no big deficit to make up for later on.

I congratulate the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) on the excellent speech he has made this afternoon. He has the interests of the railway men at heart, and there is a good deal in his contention, but I do not agree with him in regard to future railway mechanics. I hope the Minister will take care in future that we train our own railway men. If the South African youth is given an opportunity I am sure he will be equal to anyone whom we import from overseas. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), on the question of these men who are at present in the service and who will retire before this Act comes into operation. I don’t think there will be many, but they will be found most necessitous cases. With regard to the suggestion made the other day that those recently pensioned will also claim benefits under this measure, I think every fair-minded person will agree that those already retired from the service before this Bill was passed have no real claim. But those in the service during the passing of this Bill. I think, are worthy of every consideration. I do not think it would be a very difficult matter, for as my hon. friend has pointed out, it can be easily arranged departmentally, and should not be a very big thing for the administration to deal with. The Minister, in my opinion, has been very liberal in regard to this Bill. How liberal time alone will show. I feel certain that the Minister would not like to see any of those about to retire before this Bill can become law, leave the service without any means of subsistence. It is a small thing to the administration, but it is a very big and vital thing to those affected.

I wish to a great extent to associate myself with many of the remarks made by the two previous speakers. The first thing I would like to touch on is in reference to the men who have been discharged lately. I desire to mention the case of one man whose petition I have in hand. That man was discharged and got his pension on the 1st May. My hon. friend (Mr. Snow) only asks that the men should come in who have been placed on pension since the 28th May. Why should this unfortunate petitioner be shut out because he got his pension 28 days earlier? I grant that you must have a limit and I would urge that the limit should be 30th April. At the same time I am bound to admit that it is almost impossible to do anything but what has been done under this Bill. My hon. friend remarked that the fund would be £5,000,000 or £10,000,000. The size of the fund is no guarantee of its stability. You may have a fund of £100 which is perfectly sound and a fund of £100.000.000 which is absolutely unsound. As regards this fund it is not very material whether actuarially it is sound or unsound, for the Government have got to foot the bill. The basis taken for pension is two-thirds of salary for the last seven years of service. During the last seven years of his service a man is likely to go to the highest promotion, and if he has been enjoying a salary of £500 or £600 a year he may during the last seven years rise to £1.000 a year, which would give him a pension of about £600. This is bound to be a heavy drag on the pension fund, seeing that the pension is calculated on the salary for the last seven years only. Personally, I would have preferred to take five-eighths of salary, spread over the whole period of service. The average expectation of life of a male at 16 years of age is about 30 years. My hon. friend (Mr. Snow), in his remarks forgot one important factor and that is that every person who contributes to this fund is getting his money back if he retires. In a fund of this kind you have a yearly sum and compound interest going on from year to year that makes the fund. The position is that it practically becomes only the fund of the persons who live. Other persons get their money back, and when their money is returned contributions are no longer made to the fund from that source. I would advise my hon. friend to follow the actuary, who is the expert, the man who is trained to the business, who knows, with the statistics that he has before him of the railway department, what will be required. If my hon. friend accepts the actuary and follows him, he will be quite safe. My hon. friend has made a great cry about the 30,000 men who are to receive pensions benefits. I got up to raise my voice for the 40,000 men who are not getting a penny. What is the position to-day? My hon. friend spoke about his men being the backbone of the service. You have not taken in one of the men engaged with the boats in any of the ports or harbours, because they are daily-paid men, under this scheme. You have not taken in the class of men, mostly coloured, who are doing the hard work on the railways, laying your lines and keeping them in order. Why not a word for them? I hope this is not the last word on the Railway Bill, or any other Bill which provides for men who are discharged at 60 and does not provide for those who have no means of subsistence, who get a gratuity which, I am told, is about equal to the funeral expenses. That is the class that has got to be provided for, and the class that I got up to say a word for. I have no fear as regards the mechanics. Our young men are getting trained, and I have very little doubt that the sons of South Africa are going to fill the mechanical positions on the railways in future. I have no objection to men coming from overseas, but I think our duty is to our kith and kin in this country that they may be trained and fitted for the positions that become available. I think we should train every man for public service that we possibly can. Here I have the papers of a man belonging to the class for which I am advocating. He has a little coloured blood; he has never been put on a pension scheme. Here are his discharge papers. No. I is marked “Very good”; No. 2 is also marked “Very good.” He is a man of fair education. What is the good of sending in a petition? I know the committee might be willing to help him, but what can the committee do? They might give him a little gratuity of £50. I hope, whoever is responsible, that steps will be taken to see if something cannot be done for the coloured employees whom we have left entirely out of this pension fund. I know there is no colour bar in law, but there is a very big colour bar in practice. You do not see many coloured station-masters, do you?

Do you want them?

Yes, I am quite willing to have them, and I think my hon. friend would be, too. If he were as old as I am and if he had had as much experience as I have had. I do not suggest, for a moment, that they should have the highest positions, but I do think they should have a chance of filling positions for which they are fitted. I ask the Minister to take into consideration some fund of some kind for them, a less pretentious fund than this. His men may be the backbone of the service, but I make bold to say that these men are the bone and sinew. I thank the Minister for the Bill as far as it goes; I think it will be beneficial; but no Bill can be equitable that leaves a large proportion of employees out in the cold. No Bill can be representative of this or any other country that leaves out 40,000 men simply because they are in a more humble position, because they are hewers of wood and carriers of water, because they are doing the heavy, hard, laborious work of the railway. No provision is made for them, and when they reach the retiring age the only place open to them is the cemetery.

It is very late in the day to come here with proposals to give more concessions to the railwaymen. I am very sorry that I did not have the opportunity on a previous occasion to talk about this matter, and I would like to say at this stage that one of the requests of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) seemed to me to be very reasonable. If the Minister grants the request it will be a great concession to the older members of the staff who are due to retire on pension before the Bill comes into operation. The hon. member has requested that the old members of the staff who are due to retire before the Bill comes into force shall have the opportunity of continuing their service until such time as the Bill will apply to them. As a supporter of the Government. I think that this request is fair, and I have already heard the evidence about the matter. I do not wish the Minister to go and alter the Bill, but it is, perhaps, possible, by means of regulations, to meet the request. As regards the request that the whole pension system shall be altered from the basis of one-sixtieth to one-fiftieth, I wish to say that I have much sympathy with it. But we are at the end of the session, and there is still much work before the House, so that such an alteration might mean that the Bill will have to be postponed until next year. I am much in favour of the request, but I should also like to know whether the hon. friend who made it has ever thought of the expenditure it will mean, and that it is chiefly the inhabitants of the interior who will have to pay it in the form of higher rates. The matter has two sides. We must remember that it will make a difference of £100,000 per annum, and our friends, who sit there in Cape Town, do not think of what it will mean to the inhabitants of the interior. I have much sympathy with the hon. member’s request, because I have always said that I feel that the railwaymen, who have served the country, do not get adequate pensions. We have, however, further benefits for the workers in this Bill. Let us pass it, and see whether the land can stand it. If we then have a surplus on the railways, we can see what more can be done for the workers, but we must look after the people that use the railway for the carriage of their produce, and if there is a surplus we must see that we make it easier for them as well. The railway officials ought to be thankful for what the Minister has done for them in the Bill, e.g., by permitting them to contribute for 29 days instead of 26. Although we wish to help them more, we must understand that those who have to use the railways for the carriage of their produce should also have their share. I live in a district where a large quantity of maize is produced. Much has to be paid for the transport of those products, and we must try to give these people a chance to grow. If the railways then pay we can make further provision for additional pensions. The Minister will think it strange that I am now co-operating with my hon. friend over there, but I want to make an appeal to him to extend the period of service of those who have to go on pension after the introduction of this Bill, and before its coming into operation, so that they can enjoy the benefits of the new proposals. If this is not done, we shall only be having petitions from them next year. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) is unable to get through the petitions as it is. He already has his hand in his hair, and if we do not do this, he will have a few hundred more next year. It will be much better if the Minister can meet the people in the way indicated.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has stated, and to support his plea, on behalf of the men who fall to be retired, possibly before this Bill becomes law, and also in regard to those who have only recently been retired. I would like to urge on the Minister that he should make this Bill take effect as from the date of the first reading, which I think would be a fair solution of the difficulty. If the Minister is unable to do that, I would like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Salt River, that he should discontinue retiring men until the Bill becomes law. The Minister will remember the figures I gave him, on the second reading of the Bill, in regard to old Natal men who were retired, and who are to-day receiving pensions of £4 or £5 a month, after twenty or thirty years’ service. There is no doubt that those who fall to be retired before the Bill comes into force, unless something is done, will retire with pensions quite inadequate to keep them in comfort for the rest of their days. I would like to repeat what I said on the second reading of the Bill, that this is exercising the minds of a large number of the men. I have had letters from some of them, and I hope the Minister will do something for those men whose retiring age is reached before this Bill becomes law.

Representing, as I do, a constituency that has a large number of railway servants, workshop staff artizans, running staff, salaried staff, divisional superintendent’s staff and harbours staff, I want to express, on behalf of these men, grateful thanks to the Minister for all he has done in this pension scheme. The best tribute to the satisfaction of my constituents is that they have made no representations to me on this measure. They appear to be entirely satisfied. I am extremely satisfied that one deserving class of men, who have raised themselves in this public work, are to have their pensions calculated on the seven last years of their service. I do not agree with all that was stated by the hon. member for Salt River; but I am one of the minority who listened to every word he spoke, and I agree in the main with what he said. I think he has asked too much—that is a common human failing—but I think the railwaymen in general will be pleased at the most considerate, even generous, provision that has been made for their future, in the Bill now before us.

I do not propose covering the very wide field which has been covered in the discussion this afternoon. Many of these points were thoroughly thrashed out in the select committee, and again in the committee of the whole House. There are, however, a number of points which I wish to refer to, and which were raised by the hon. member for Salt River. I wish to deal with the point he repeatedly made, namely, that possibly the Minister might have been more sympathetic, but that the executive officers were not so sympathetic. I want to say at once that I take full responsibility for the terms of the Bill, and I think it is rather unfair for the hon. member to suggest that the officers are responsible for some of the things which have been declined. The officers have put up recommendations to the Government and Minister and they have been dealt with on their merits, and any responsibility which attaches to the Bill, and its not being as liberal as my hon. friend thinks it should be, attaches to the Minister and to the Government. The officers have given very loyal co-operation in regard to the provisions of the Bill.

I did not suggest that.

Well I understood my hon. friend to suggest that, and I want to make the position quite clear. Then in regard to the point as to the reality of the deficit, I was rather surprised that the hon. member raised that question again. I know of course that there are a large number of servants who believe that, having about £5,000,000 credit balance in the fund, the fund cannot be actuarially insolvent. I thought that by this time this matter had been so thoroughly cleared up that, if the hon. member referred to it at all, it would have been clearly to indicate to the members of the staff that in his opinion, too, the actuary was perfectly correct in stating that the old fund is practically insolvent. It would be an unfortunate position if the railway servants were to harbour the idea that there is not a real deficit. There is a very real deficit, and if the staff want further proof, they need only refer to the position of the pre-Union funds, not only in regard to the railways but also in regard to the public service. To-day the country is reaping the bitter fruits thereof. It would be most unfortunate if the railway servants thought that the Government or Parliament was not playing the game. The employees are not asked to share in the deficit; but are asked to pay increased contributions because the old fund is not actuarially in a sound condition. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) have dealt with the point whether the scheme is actuarially sound. I want to give the unqualified assurance that the actuary is satisfied that the scheme is sound. Provided the additional contributions amounting to about £7,000 are paid and additional provision of about £6,000 is made for the accumulated deficit, the scheme remains actuarially sound even although the 29 days’ month becomes 30 days. If no national disaster overtakes us we shall not have any cause to talk about further deficits. Several hon. members have raised the question of the retirement of men pending the bringing into operation of the Bill. I have very clearly indicated my reasons for not meeting that suggestion. Once we consent to keep men in the service pending the operation of the Bill, it means that all those servants who left the service prior to the Bill taking effect will have a claim for equal consideration. What reply can there be to such a request? The only sound line to take is that if men are retired on inadequate pensions they should come to Parliament.

What a hope.

What hope is there for men who retired during April or May? How far does the hon. member suggest that I should go back? We will bring the Bill into operation as soon as possible, and all those men then in the service will naturally share in the benefits. I don’t agree with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) when he says that this scheme is not fair to the lower paid men. Unfortunately the man who receives a low salary will get a low pension, but you cannot pay all your railway and harbour servants a high salary. Men receiving a low salary or wage when they retire naturally get a comparatively smaller pension, but one cannot help that. It seems to me the scheme is also fair to the lower paid men. I would much regret it if our railway and harbour servants were to receive the impassion that they have not been fairly dealt with under the scheme, because it is my conviction that justice has been done to them. The information I have is that this scheme is appreciated by the whole of the staff who realize that they have had a square deal under the Bill. I trust that the railway and harbour servants will carry on their duties to the country to the best of their ability.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 2 and the omission of paragraph (a) of Clause 4 agreed to.

On the substitution of new paragraph (b) of Clause 4,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New paragraph (a), of Clause 4, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 4, agreed to.

Amendment in lines 7 and 8 of Clause 6 negatived.

Amendment in lines 29 and 30 of Clause 6 agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 8 (Dutch), 12 (Dutch) and 15 agreed to.

On new Clause 18,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Amendments in Clauses 18 and 20 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

What date for third reading?

Now, sir. I move—

seconded.

I want to congratulate the Minister on producing this Bill. It is the first step during the last 30 years under which we are taking in this country control of our own industries.

Have you heard the amendments?

Yes, but instead of having these things determined for us in London we are now going to have them determined in this country. I hope this is a forerunner of many such Bills in which we shall be director of our own fate, instead of being responsible to overseas people. I was glad to see the adoption of the voluntary agreement, because, though I believe in State control, there is no doubt that the voluntary system should be adopted as far as possible. You have now the voluntary system, but the Minister will be able to say whether we are getting a fair deal or not. Hitherto, we have been entirely at the mercy of London. Now, Solly Joel has been displaced and relegated to his proper position, as one who has invested his money in this country but chooses to live out of it. We have seen this industry producing £300,000,000 of diamonds at export value as if it had no South African interests attached to it. It is all the more reasonable to have State control when we see the Premier Mine, in which the people own 60 per cent. interest, and the mines in South-West Africa, where the people own 66 per cent. interest—

It is incorrect.

I am sorry to see that the Minister plenipotentiary of the Government to the Chamber of Mines in Johannesburg, is hoping that there will be no public ownership in regard to our mineral assets, but I would remind him that the people can take repossession of them at any time, and it is no use trying to escape that possibility. It may be a novel idea to the hon. member to find that even now it is a national asset, and that we are only licensing companies to work the people’s own asset, and I hope that we shall ultimately tell that gentleman and other gentlemen that if they don’t work those assets to the satisfaction of the Government they will surrender the licence. In that event we shall hear very little about non-payable mines. Control by the State is undoubtedly a socialistic movement, and, being somewhat socialistic, I think that it may be admitted presently that there are some things in regard to socialism that are distinctly advantageous. Taking up the right of the State to control the assets of the State principally for the benefit of the people, while it is socialistic, will prove to be a movement in the right direction, because it will show those who so far have worked these assets as if they belonged to somebody else, that they are absolutely wrong, and that the country of production comes first for consideration. Of course, the whole thing will turn upon the question of the Board of Control being independent. There, I have no doubt whatever, that the hon. members who are interested in the diamond business will rather hope that they will be entrusted with the selection of members of the control board. If that is done, once more we shall get under the same influence, the influence that has controlled the Premier Mine, and controlled the whole of our diamond assets, and been able even to dispossess a chairman like Sir Thomas Cullinan, and put in any chairman they like. I trust, indeed, that the board of control will be efficient and independent; and then we shall see the first beginnings of the fair play which we have been looking forward to in regard to this great national asset for so many years. I shall be sorry indeed if the public outside consider that this Act in any instalment of what they are impatiently looking for—a large development of diamond cutting in this country. Unfortunately there is a prevalent disposition to suppose that calling this a “diamond control Bill” it is going to be a diamond cutting measure, ensuring this large industry to this country. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. It is merely substituting, as there will be substituted, for irresponsible individual control a more responsible control under the Government. Further down in the order paper, there is the Diamond Cutting Amendment Bill, which may be reached, I suppose, and if so will give some relief, especially if improved in some ways, to the cutters who so far have been unable to get what they want in regard to diamond cutting in this country. But neither this Diamond Control Bill, nor the Diamond Cutting Bill, will really give us diamond cutting on a large scale in this country. The Nationalist party and the Labour party, have both pledged themselves to the introduction of diamond cutting on a big scale, and while it may be possible to open negotiations for private firms to make agreements—

The hon. member music not discuss the Bill which is on the Order Paper.

I was only pointing out that the public may look upon this Bill as providing for what they are looking forward to, and that it does not contain any such provision. In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not pursue that subject. I will merely say that, so far as it goes, it is a good Bill, but I would like to convey to the Minister President Woodrow Wilson’s warning to all Governments—

And it is the disposition of the governments, to go to these interested people and say—

To listen to all their misrepresentations; and then, unfortunately, we get into the position that the interests which are specially concerned are the ones that are considered and the general interests of the people are not. I trust that this is the first of a series of measures which will take control of the assets of this country in accordance with the new principle of—

To which this Government is pledged.

It is distinctly exhilarating and delightfully pleasant to find that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has placed himself on such a high pedestal of commercial morality, and I presume that the hon. member is a convert, because the companies with which he has been associated in his time have not left much to the shareholder. I suppose now, with his vast experience of these concerns, knowing all the little tricks of the company-monger, he wants to protect the shareholders of the different companies against the honest and genuine director. The hon. members record is not one that I would be proud of, but still, it is never too late to mend. The last episode of the hon. member’s career is a company called the Rogerston Colleries, in regard to which I have a cutting from the “Mining Journal” of Johannesburg. It appears that the shareholders lost all their money. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) was a director and a trustee, looking after the interests of the shareholders. The shareholders never got a 6d., and the company went into liquidation, but it only went into liquidation after all the funds were exhausted, and there were no more fees for the directors.

I lost over £16,000 of my money.

The hon. member says that he lost his money in it. Exactly, what I have said in this House over and over again—the unsuccessful man, the man who has been a failure at everything, is just the first one to try to teach or show us exactly how a thing can be run successfully, a man who has been a failure all his lifetime. Now he is advising socialism. Perhaps the hon. member has forgotten this. I am just mentioning this to show the commercial morality of the hon. gentleman who is preaching to me. The report says—

I was not going to bring up this matter; I was going to let the hon. member alone; but when he mentioned a relative of mine (Mr. Solly-Joel), who cannot defend himself in this House, I have some tit-bits in store for him, which I may produce later on.

I know the Minister will appreciate what has fallen from the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). When we recall the debate which initiated this Bill, it is rather remarkable that, although the necessity for the Bill was claimed by the Minister to be to protect the shareholders of a large company in South Africa, the hon. member apparently’ has thought it wise now in giving this measure his blessing to make it clear that what was being looked for is achieved, and that it is the first instalment of “socialistic measures” which it is presumed are to benefit the State. I do not know how this particular disclosure will appeal to the shareholders for whose benefit the Bill was introduced. The hon. member said it was a socialistic measure, and the forerunner of another measure which he hoped could be described as in the same category, the Diamond Cutting Bill; and he hoped it would not be long before other assets were placed under similar control; presumably for the purpose of developing along these socialistic lines. One does not know what these assets are; it may be fruit or maize; it may refer to labour or capita). The hon. member is entitled to his pæan of triumph. Of course, it is a socialistic measure; of course, it is one of a great many which they want to push through. I hope the country also will notice that it is one of a series of socialistic measures which the hon. member and his friends have in view.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Before you put the question that you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker. I wish to move the motion standing in my name on the paper—

I want to explain at the beginning that I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House. It will be in the recollection of the House that a motion was moved some time ago for an instruction to the select committee that sat on this Bill in similar terms to that which I am now moving as an instruction for the Committee of the Whole House. On that motion being moved, a debate followed at some length, but unfortunately no conclusion was reached. The adjournment of the debate was carried, and it was impossible, under the rules of the House, to get the matter on again. That is the reason why I am moving this motion now. I have no intention of delaying the progress of this Bill; if the House thinks it should go through, I have no intention of putting any obstacle in the way; but I do want that the House should face the question of the right of women to be enfranchised and decide one way or another.

Is this the right place?

I will come to that presently. The hon. member may have changed his mind about that in the last few years. When the matter came before the House last the adjournment was carried and it was impossible to bring it on again, but now I am asking the House to decide definitely whether or not they are going to proceed with this question on this present Bill. The matter is not new in regard to its ripeness or appropriateness in connection with this Bill. When the Bill of 1918 was before the House, of which this is an amending Bill, a similar motion was moved, and views were expressed very strongly from that quarter of the House from which an interruption has just proceeded that that was the proper opportunity for bringing forward a motion of this kind. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson), in much stronger language than I care to use, said it was the proper opportunity on which to discuss the question of women’s franchise. It has been the practice of those of us in favour of women’s enfranchisement to bring the matter before the attention of the House every year. We were unable to induce the Government of the day to bring it in as a Government measure, and we are in the same position to-day, but we have thought it right for years to bring a Bill before the House, within the last few years, at any rate, so that the House might pronounce on the question of women’s enfranchisement. I think so long as the right to vote is denied to women that should be continued. Now this year we were unable to do so because of the presence of this Electoral Bill on the Paper. We were informed on the best authority we could find that while this Bill was on the Paper no private member’s Bill for the enfranchisement of women could come on; and the matter, if raised at all, must be raised as an instruction to the committee on this Bill. It was an opinion rather than a ruling. It was not a ruling given in this House; but it was given by the best authority, and accepted in that light by the members who look after the interests of women’s enfranchisement as an opinion to which we had to submit. Therefore, we have pursued the course that, as it was impossible to bring in a private member’s Bill, we should proceed in this manner. When the matter was before the House last, the debate largely turned on the question of what party was responsible or was not responsible for the present position of affairs, and a great deal of time was occupied in debating that question. But I am not going to discuss that now, as it is not my concern in the least whether the Labour party have acted up to their pledges or not. That is a matter for them to settle with their own constituents. They have taken the line they did after due consideration, and there let it remain. What I am concerned about is that this question should be dealt with and not shirked by the House. Why should his matter be delayed? We have been told that this is not the place or the time to bring this forward. Why not? Some tell us we must not go on with it now as we will delay the Electoral Bill. What is the cause of the cast iron hurry about the Electoral Bill? Does the Government contemplate an election next year?

A provincial election.

The hon. member knows we are not taking all this trouble to pass the Electoral Bill because of an anticipated provincial council election. Supposing we do not pass the Electoral Bill, who is going to be any the worse? I do not think that is a genuine reason. The other reason for the delay was the one given by the Prime Minister, that this matter should wait until the native question had been solved. As I stated before, that is putting it off for a very long time, and I do not think we can accept that as a serious reason. If it is so, then I think it gives the women another grievance, that while this problem—which is the problem of South Africa above all others—is being solved, the women are to be kept out and to have no say as to how it is to be solved. It affects them as much as the men; but, apparently, this question is going to be solved before the women can come in and have a say in the government of the country. I cannot accept that as a genuine reason for the delay. It is an excuse—a mere putting off and not a serious reason. Then, in the third place, we are told, in rather vague terms, that there is going to be a change in regard to the franchise; that there are going to be new qualifications for the franchise. I would like to know what they are going to be. What is this vast alteration in the franchise laws of this country which is dimly hinted at as a reason why we should not proceed, at the present time, with the enfranchisement of women? I think when we know the intentions in regard to this change we shall be better able to decide whether it constitutes a good reason for not proceeding with the enfranchisement of women. No, these are merely subterfuges, and not good reasons for not dealing with the matter. An hon. member has stated “On what terms?” That is a matter for the committee to decide. This matter has already been before a select committee and was threshed out last year.

What is your suggestion as to terms?

I am not going to make that suggestion now. I will make it as soon as the hon. member has helped me to carry the resolution. Why should I bring it in now? All

ERRATUM.

Mr. Duncan’s speech, Col. 5125—“Select Committee” (five lines from end of speech) should read “committee.”

I am asking the House to deal with is the principle of the enfranchisement of women, and I am not entitled to deal with details.

Why did you kill it upstairs?

I put up a proposal which the hon. member may or may not like, but it was a proposal which, in my opinion, would have satisfactorily solved the question. I do not say that the actual qualification which I proposed was a cast iron one which could not be discussed or modified; but it opened the way to an opportunity by which women possessing certain qualifications would get this franchise.

Your party agreed to your proposal.

One of my party on the select committee did not agree to it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has interjected; but he knows that his party, as much as any other, killed it upstairs. I know his debating tricks; but they do not have any effect on me or, I hope, on anybody else. The chief executioner, I do not say, was the party to which the hon. member belongs, but was the party with which he has confessed that he is allied. That is where the death of this little fledgling is to be attributed. Let us face the question. I fully admit it is a difficult one, and the Bill that came forward in 1924 was killed in select committee. It is possible that the committee on the Electoral Bill may also not be able to agree to any qualification; but you will never come to a conclusion on the matter by not facing it. I do not think any solid or good reason has been given for delaying the matter. I think the House should accept this principle and instruct the committee that is going to sit on this Bill to take the question into consideration and do their best with it. I think we should not be doing justice to the women of this country who have asked for this privilege so long, if we refused to consider it and dashed it aside. If the House refuses now to deal with the matter, it will be understood by the women who are anxious for this change, as simply putting it off once more and refusing to face the question. I do not raise any party controversy; I do not want to attribute blame to anyone; I simply ask the House to face the question and allow the select committee which is going into the Electoral Bill to consider the matter and see whether they cannot come to a reasonable solution of this question. I propose the motion standing in my name.

I beg to second the motion. It comes very ill from hon. members on the Labour benches to interject in the way in which they have been doing during the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). They came to Parliament pledged to support the principle of “Votes for Women,” but now they are deriding it and, in so doing, they have compromised the interests of women. In many countries the prejudice against the enfranchisement of women has disappeared, and it is only in South Africa that we still persist in retaining this relic of barbarism—this denial of women’s rights. Many fatuous arguments have been advanced why we should not extend this right to women. As far as municipalities and divisional councils are concerned, it is agreed that women should have a vote, as they pay direct taxes to those bodies. Women are as much affected by the laws passed by Parliament as men are. Surely those who contribute to the maintenance of the State should have a voice in determining the country’s laws. One of the main arguments advanced against women’s franchise by no less a person than Mr. Merriman, the late member for Stellenbosch, was that women should continue to fill the place they were designed to fill. In the past, women have filled some very menial positions. Her legitimate sphere is that which custom and Providence have assigned to her, and Mr. Merriman had as little right to determine what position women should fill as Solomon had in his time. Custom alone can determine the position of women. Women should have an opportunity of advancing as the rest of the human race advances. Any innovation is viewed with grave apprehension by sticklers for propriety, who have drawn a line over which no one is supposed to step, and should they step over it, they are held up to opprobrium. The Prime Minister said that we cannot deal with this question until the native problem is solved, and he says that that cannot be solved for many years. Some hon. members have said that they will not vote for the enfranchisement of women, because if that principle were adopted, coloured and native women would also have the vote. But the Prime Minister has laid down the principle, to which his party have agreed, that coloured people should be treated on the same basis as Europeans—that means that they are going to enjoy the same political rights and privileges as Europeans. If that is going to be made an excuse for not granting the vote to the European women, then they will not get it Personally, I wish to abolish the sex differentiation so far as the franchise is concerned. Many people assert that it is undesirable to bring women into the arena of politics, and that if they are the chivalry which has characterized men’s treatment of women will disappear. But that is not so at all. Chivalry is just as present to-day as ever it was, and the argument is being made an excuse for doing an injustice to the weaker sex. Finally, I would say there is no ground for the suspicion that this motion has been introduced as a means of obstructing business.

I take up the same position with regard to this motion as I did with the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), for the instruction to the select committee, only more co. I am not going to discuss the abstract Question of women’s suffrage. We have arrived at a, point where you have to have some definite plan, or if it will not work, then you have to find another plan. The hon. member said in his remarks that the idea was to get some definite expression of opinion of the House on this question. The resolution says—

Does he consider that the Committee of the House are going to make any progress in surmounting the difficulty that confronted us a year ago?

You would not let it go to a select committee.

The hon. member was very modest then in not giving us his solution. The idea was to give it to all European women.

No, that is not right.

It is quite evident that the only effect on tins motion would be to introduce into this Bill something which would make the passing of it very precarious indeed, and my withers are unwrung by the allusions to 1918. I recollect the position then, and I speak with more knowledge now.

And a little more pressure.

The hon. member’s jests are beyond me.

You are too slow on the take-up.

I cannot grasp anything so subtle as his sense of humour.

I am glancing at the benches behind you—there is no subtleness there.

In 1924 we got as far as the select committee on the Bill. When we got into that select committee we found amongst those who, on the floor of this House, were prepared to affirm the principle of women’s suffrage on the second reading, that they were faced with wide cleavages of opinion in the carrying of them out. There will be no approach to a solution of these difficulties without a select committee taking evidence on every one of these proposed alternatives. The proposal was discussed to limit the franchise to European women, but it was opposed by all the members of the select committee who came from the Cape Province. Another proposal was to limit the franchise by removing the sex qualification in each of the provinces, but members of the northern provinces objected to that, because it gave the possibility of increased native franchise. The hon. member who has just spoken said that every woman, whose husband possesses the necessary qualification, should be allowed to vote.

No, I did not say that. I said sex distinction should be abolished.

How is that going to affect the balance of political power—

That is the crux of the whole position.

Let me finish. How will it affect the balance of influence between the wealthier portions of the community and the poorer community? The rich people’s wives and daughters will be qualified, but in the poorer cases, the property qualification will, perhaps, cover the wife, but no other member of the family. You may upset the whole balance.

Are the differences of opinion accentuated over there?

It does not trouble me what the difference of opinion here is, he hon. member, for a good many years, cast his vote against women’s suffrage.

No.

I beg your pardon. It was Gen. Botha.

But he was always in favour of it.

His vote was usually cast against women’s suffrage, except, perhaps, at the later period.

They are not very unanimous to-day on the question.

But you have always been unanimous on it.

So I am, but I am not going to cast a vote on this to-day, the purposes of which are different from the apparent purposes for which it is moved.

You are going to dissemble your love.

I hope the House will forgive me for taking no further notice of the hon. member’s nonsense. If you are going to deal seriously with this position, you will not do it by passing this resolution. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows that if the various amendments were considered to give the franchise to women, this House would not agree to a single amendment without a more exhaustive enquiry.

Very well, let the Electoral Bill wait.

That is the object of it. “Let the Electoral Bill wait.” No. We will pass the Electoral Bill, and deal with the women’s suffrage on non-party lines.

When?

When it is convenient to us.

When all those in favour of women’s suffrage take action early, so the select committee can sit and discuss the information on all its points. So far as the Labour party is concerned, it is the unanimous feeling that we are not going to be led into a scheme to enfranchise the wealthy women of the community and leave the poor women out.

Nobody asked you to.

I notice about the railway stations we can always see placards calling for women’s enfranchisement on posters in the colours of the South African party.

I don’t wonder.

But they always have been, they have always been the friends of hon. members opposite.

And this is the non-party spirit?

I am just pointing out the non-party spirit in which the hon. member wants to induce this House to discuss this question on a motion on which he says—

I have told you there is no particular hurry for it.

You are in no hurry for it, but we are. We want it. We want this electoral machinery made something more fair than it has been, and we don’t want this delayed, whatever else is delayed.

You have got four years before an election.

Parliamentary elections are not the only elections in this country; there are other elections in this country which are of very great importance. I have no doubt that hon. members over there don’t want this Bill to pass, they don’t want the nice little nick-nacks, so to speak, in electoral arrangements which this Bill may deprive them of to be taken away from them one day earlier than need be. I want to stress again the terms of this instruction. It is not a resolution of the House declaring the House to be in favour of the principle of women’s suffrage at all, but—

Ask him (Mr. Duncan) what that means.

There is no need to ask what that means. The picture that it brings to one’s mind is perfectly easy to understand. A Select Committee sitting in a calm atmosphere upstairs was quite unable to bring forward any practical suggestion, but a Committee of the whole House, sitting here in public, sitting here in full parliament assembled has got to consider one amendment after another, discussing the bright idea of some member or another embodied in an amendment relating to women’s suffrage without a particle of information on the points I have mentioned.

That comes well from you after refusing to let it go to a Select Committee.

I thought I had dealt with that in a previous speech. We are not going to entangle the question of women’s suffrage with an electoral machinery Bill which does not deal with the franchise. I am following the line that was taken by the right hon. gentleman (Gen.. Smuts) when he was in office.

When was that?

In 1918.

I was not here.

If the right hon. gentleman had been here, is he going to assert or to suggest that he alone would have made his party and his Government take the other line?

I might have agreed with you in 1918.

I have often regretted the hon. member’s absence that year, but nothing makes my regret more poignant than to think that he might have agreed with us on the cross-benches and gone against his own Government. That would have been a sight for the gods.

This is a sight that makes the angels weep.

I would like to imagine such a picture as that, but, strong as my imagination is, it absolutely falters before such a picture as that.

You have changed you see.

I frankly admit that on the question of the place to introduce it I have changed, and I have given very good reasons for my change. When we were sitting in the Select Committee I became convinced that you will never make any progress in this matter until you have an exhaustive inquiry into the effect of everyone of these various suggestions to solve this thorny problem. I am perfectly clear on this point, that by passing this resolution you are not going to advance women’s suffrage one single inch, but what you are going to do is to supply material for several days’ discussion in Committee of the whole House over a number of snap amendments, not one of which will be acceptable to the House, and it is not a matter in which any coherent plan, based upon knowledge and upon evidence as to the effects, will be possible in the Committee of the whole House.

Will you give Government time for a private member’s Bill next year?

We shall take exactly the same course as previous Governments have taken. The only result of a discussion on this motion will be to engage this House in discussing every futile amendment on this subject and to jeopardize the passing of this Bill this session. If any assembly of Labour supporters throughout South Africa had it put to them whether the course we are taking was the course of securing speedy passage of this Bill, that we were not going to risk the passage of this Bill by assenting to a resolution which would not advance the cause of women’s suffrage one single particle, but which would simply lead to an enormous amount of futile discussion in this House over ill-considered amendments, I am sure that such an assembly would say—

As far as we are concerned, we will make a present to hon. members over there and to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who I am sure will make use on a very large number of platforms of the Labour party departing from their principles.

You are departing from your principles then?

No, we are not—not an inch. Let them go and take all that ammunition. We have sufficient confidence in the common sense of our supporters to know that when the South African Party take this line that our supporters will know it is the time for the Labour party to look out for traps and pitfalls. We are not such innocents as all that. I do not think I can usefully add anything—

I do not think you can.

I do not think there is any useful purpose to be served at all, because as far as our own supporters are concerned they are perfectly satisfied.

Which section of them?

Our supporters are perfectly satisfied. The Labour party is possibly a trifle too suspicious, a trifle too prejudiced against hon. members over there.

Not too subservient?

†The MINISTER OF DEFENCE I cannot understand my hon. friend.

No, but other people do.

You were not used to be so dull!

The right hon. member is a person who during the three years he was sitting over here was an almost silent member, and I suppose he is rejoicing in his having regained the liberty of trying to express what he thought when he was sitting over here. I was saying that as far as the Labour party was concerned we are immensely grateful to hon. members over there for their solicitude that we should not in any way forfeit the confidence of our own supporters. We are as grateful as we were to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) when he used to go about the country almost with tears in his voice deploring the way in which the Labour party were being misled by their leaders. We never knew the affection he had for the Labour party until that juncture. He and his friends can go on, we will make them a present of it, but we can assure them that we are not going to let our principles be made simply a cat’s paw to suit the particular schemes of the right hon. member and his friends. We are delighted when they come forward with these little things. It is so nice of them; we feel always the need, in our innocent unsuspecting way to remind ourselves of that well-known nursery rhyme—

Why did Mrs. Wybergh resign?

Because—

It is so delightful to see such charming humour on the part of the Opposition.

Well, you were quoting nursery rhymes. You started it yourself.

We have recently been hearing at every opportunity from hon. members of the Opposition complaints about the quantity of work on the Order Paper still to be done Hon. members opposite laugh each time the Government introduces a new Bill and say “still more work.” But here comes the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and wants to put more work on the Order Paper. He wants to give the House the opportunity of discussing the principle of a very difficult matter which he himself knows will last for days. I think that he is honest enough to admit that if we are going to discuss that matter in Committee of the whole House it will take a long time. The matter has already been dealt with by this House, but then we did not come to a vote but yet the feeling of the majority was—this will be admitted by all—opposed to this matter being dealt with at this stage in the Electoral Act. Now I ask why this motion is again brought forward and what the object of the hon. member for Yeoville is. It seems to me that his object is to gain something on us by bringing about the so called split in the Pact, to accentuate the difference of opinion between us and the Labour party and to get our Labour friends into difficulties. Now the hon. Minister of Labour said—

But that is not the only reason for this motion. Another reason surely is to obstruct the Electoral Act, to hinder it and to prevent its acceptance. We discussed the Electoral Act in Select Committee for a very long time and had very many difficulties. Now we have the amended proposals but what will the result be if at this stage such a matter as women’s franchise is dragged in again? The hon. member for Yeoville must surely understand what it means. We have moreover many other little matters which we would like to deal with. Admitting that we permitted the discussion of women’s franchise we would also like to see that the students’ franchise should be discussed and the franchise for trek farmers and diggers. Then we have also the important matter of the Letter Patent in the Free State and Transvaal. We have time after time pointed out the injustice that persons getting pensions from the Government by way of support, e.g., a man who gets 15s. a month, cannot vote. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) has already mentioned the matter but withdrew the motion just because it would mean a delay in the progress of the Electoral Bill. Assume now that all the matters I have mentioned come before us. Hon. members will admit that if we discuss one matter then the other matters have just as much right to discussion. There is yet another difficulty which I mentioned in the Select Committee namely the absurdity which exists in the Act of Union in connection with the qualifications of candidates for the Union Parliament in comparison with those for the provincial councils. As hon. members know Parliamentary candidates are required to be entitled to registration as a voter before they can stand as a candidate therefore their name need not be on the voters’ roll. But for the provincial councils a candidate’s name has to be on the roll, otherwise he cannot be a candidate. This absurdity should also be removed. Instances have occurred where persons’ names have been left off the list and they could not stand as a candidate. The Select Committee however thought that that matter was not relevant to the present Bill. If we begin by introducing women’s franchise then other matters must also be dealt with. The hon. member for Yeoville has asked why we are in such a hurry with the Electoral Act. He says: there is surely no election next year. Well, I wish to ask him why he is in such a hurry with women’s franchise if there is no election next year. But we are in a hurry with this Act because it creates a new system of registration of voters which we are anxious to see in force. Moreover next year we shall have the provincial election which in the Free-State will occur early in the year, namely May or June and in the other provinces later. For that very reason we are anxious to have the Electoral Act passed, so that it can come into full operation next year and that there should be no difficulty. The hon. Minister of Labour has already referred to the circumstances in 1918, I shall not repeat them nor do I wish to go into the principle of women’s franchise. I expressed my opinion on a former occasion, but I only want to make the point which I also made on a former occasion namely that the women and people who are agitating for women’s franchise must not come to us as members in order to prove to us that women’s franchise is good or bad. Their first duty is to convince the women on the country side of the necessity of it. When I go to my constituency and all the women vote against the women’s franchise—supposing I were a supporter of the principle—with what justification could I then continue to agitate for the women’s franchise if the women in my constituency were opposed to it? Let the people who are agitating so for the women’s franchise, first apply themselves to convince the women. The reasons that I have given are, I think, more than sufficient to show that at this stage the matter cannot be dealt with, therefore I move—

seconded.

As regards the Minister who criticized this Bill and the point that there were a great many persons on this side who were Britishers, the time he speaks of does not exist now, and very many of us were in the same position as the Minister was when he took up this question. The last speaker says that the object of this resolution is for the purpose of stopping the passing of the Electoral Bill. I do not see how it can be interpreted in that light. After all, one day’s discussion in Committee of the Whole House would settle the question. Every time it has been discussed previously, it has never taken more, and I think I have been in every discussion since the question was first introduced in this House. The hon. member says that hon. members complain that the Order Paper is overloaded, and yet this resolution is brought forward; but who overloaded the Order Paper? Is everything to be stopped because the Order Paper is in that condition? We have had a great deal of talk about who should get the franchise; but it is a question we must give consideration to, and this is the only opportunity we have to discuss it this year. I do not blame the Labour party for the position they have taken up. I recognize that they think that this Electoral Bill is of such importance that every other question should stand aside for it; but I take the opposite view. I think that the depriving of one-half of the population of the franchise is of more importance than the passing of the Electoral Bill.

One thing at a time.

Yes, I agree with the hon. member; but which should first occupy his attention is the question as to whether the women should have the vote or the method of conducting elections? I think the rights of the individual should receive first attention. The Minister concluded by saying that he did not think he could add anything to what he had said. That is quite correct. He had said nothing useful, and he could not add anything to that; but what is the position of the Minister in charge of this Bill—the Minister of the Interior—in connection with this question? I think, from a speech made by him within the last two or three weeks, we may take it that he has accepted the coloured man as part of the European population. I think I am right in stating that the party opposite has accepted the coloured man as a man and a brother. I do not know whether it is a brother-in-law or not; but, having accepted the coloured man, and rightly so, as being entitled to every consideration, what can be the great objection to this franchise question being discussed upon a broader and bigger basis? The Labour party, who have taken up this position now, have been enthusiastic and earnest advocates of the franchise for women.

Hear, hear.

But for a party purpose—

No.

There you are; whenever you hit them on the raw they shout. For party purposes, they have put aside what they believe to be an act of righteousness and justice, in order to pass an Act for greater purity at elections.

Your side made it a party question.

I do not know what he means by my side; I have always been on the side of the women, no matter what party took the matter up. What answer can we give to the fact that every large civilized country in the world has granted women the vote? The Prime Minister says the matter must be settled when the native question is settled. But the native question will not be settled within the lifetime of many members of this House, so, in that case, the present race of women will have to go without the franchise. I can assure the Government I am not actuated by any desire to obstruct the Bill, but the rights of women are more important than the speed at which a Bill is passed. One hon. member says the motion was moved to drive a wedge between the two Pact parties. We can, however, do nothing of the kind, for the Pact is so firm that its members are prepared to sacrifice anything to maintain it. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) interjected in Dutch—

Is that a courteous way of treating the matter?

Repeat what I said in Dutch.

I cannot repeat it in Dutch, but I have given the essence of it in English. It was translated to me by two hon. members who know Dutch. The hon. member did say it, and when he has time to reflect he will recognize that it was unworthy of him.

I did not say it.

If you did not say it I will withdraw it, but I know what scab is in Dutch. It has been stated that if an effort be made to deal with votes for women in this Bill, the passage of the measure will be hindered, but only one or two amendments would be necessary, and they could be discussed in a day. It is the duty of those who maintain that women should be enfranchised to take every honest and legitimate opportunity to have a vote of the House upon the subject. I submit that this is a legitimate opportunity, and this is the only time it can be discussed this session. A Bill dealing with the franchise question is the proper time at which to discuss this subject. It is the bounden duty of those who support votes for women to bring in the matter here, and I hope the motion will be pressed to a division, so that we can know who the true friends of women’s franchise are, come weal come woe, and through thick and thin.

Previous question put, viz.: That the original question be not now put; and Mr. Duncan called for a division, upon which the House divided:

stated that he had “paired” with a Government member and asked Mr. Speaker’s permission to leave the House.

I am sorry, but “pairs are not recognized by the House.

I move—

The object of this clause in the Bill is to provide that no person can be registered as a voter in any division unless he has resided in the division for three months. In that respect it is an amendment to the law as it exists in the three provinces. In the Cape, I understand, there is a provision that a voter must have resided for three or six months before he is entitled to we registered. But in the other provinces, if a person has resided in the division for a day he is qualified to vote and is on the register as a matter of course. This provision requiring three months’ residence, on the face of it seems quite reasonable. If you look into the matter closely, however, you will find if a man in a bona fide manner changes his residence from one place to another within three months of the date when the registering officer begins to make up his list he will lose his vote because he will not be put on the new list as he has not been in that division for three months prior to the registration beginning and has not been three months in his old division prior to registration beginning. So that between two stools he falls to the ground. My amendment will have this effect, that if a man changes his abode within three months _ the registering officer of the district which he leaves will not delete his name, but his name will appear on the list where he has resided up to within a few months ago. The provision in the Bill says—

I go on to say—

Surely it cannot be the intention of the Minister to disqualify people who may have lived a long time in the country, who have been good citizens, from being registered as voters, because without registration a man cannot vote. It is one of the fundamental principles of our democratic constitution that every citizen who is qualified is entitled to vote, and this provision requiring a three months’ residence was inserted no doubt for the purpose of preventing the voters’ roll from being packed by people removing to a district a few days before the list was made up and then departing back to their own localities, people who might be brought forward to vote when an election came along. Up to that point I am quite with the Minister, but, in trying to get at what you might call the “carpet bagger,” the man who is only on the list for the purpose of voting there, we are preventing the honest, law-abiding citizen, who in good faith changes his address from one constituency to another, from voting. We discussed this principle very fully in committee and we divided and, unfortunately, my amendment was lost. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter, because a real hardship may be done to a man who is entitled to vote but who cannot avoid changing his residence, say, three months before the list is made up. Under the present law the fixing of the list commences some time in January. Assuming the 1st January is the date fixed for commencement, anybody who changes his residence in October, November or December will be disqualified if this clause passes in its present form, and he cannot get on the roll until the following October, because the first supplementary list will be made out at the end of October and this supplementary list, according to the Electoral Act, does not come into operation until after the lapse of six weeks, so that his name will not be on the list until the middle of December. There is another aspect. Under our Constitution a member of Parliament must have certain qualifications. This is a point which was overlooked in select committee, but it is one which members should pay special attention to. Section 44 of the South Africa Act provides that a member of the House of Assembly must be qualified to be registered as a voter for the election of members to the House of Assembly. If he has changed his residence within three months before the biennial registration then he cannot be qualified to be registered; he is disqualified. You, Mr. Chairman, if you happen to change your residence, if this Bill is passed, three months before the biennial registration in any year, will be unseated. Section 54 also provides that if a senator or member of the House of Assembly becomes liable to any of the disabilities mentioned in the law, or ceases to be qualified, his seat shall become vacant. A member of this House who changes his residence between 1st October and the 1st January may be required to vacate his seat, and if the matter is brought before Parliament or a court, it will be held under the South Africa Act that his seat is vacant, and then the strange thing is that he cannot go on the voters’ list until the following October, because that is the first supplementary list that is made up and that supplementary list does not come into operation until the middle of December. Assuming. Mr. Chairman, that you were to be disqualified in the manner I have mentioned, which might happen to you or any member, then you would naturally have your name put on the first supplementary list the following October, and that list would come into operation in the middle of December; but in the meantime, if your seat was declared vacant, another election would be held within 40 or 42 days, and you would have no chance of standing again for your constituency because you were not registered. The thing is so apparent that I hope the House will adopt my proviso.

I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). In discussing this matter in committee, I think the official stated that a period something like seven months would have to elapse before a person, who changed his residence under the circumstances mentioned here, could be reinstated on the roll. The aspect of the case to which the hon. member has alluded as affecting members of Parliament is one which was not raised in committee, and as to whether these consequences are likely to arise I do not know; but undoubtedly I was surprised that the members representing gentlemen on the cross-benches on that committee should have voted against the proposal which was contained in this amendment. I have always understood that they were particularly anxious that every man should have a chance to register his vote at election time, and to a very large extent, the provisions of this Bill, especially the provision relating to voting by post, are such as they have always urged as being desirable; but for some inexplicable reason these hon. gentlemen now vote in the majority to exclude the rights of a person who has, by circumstances over which he has no control, to move his residence within a period of three months, from registering any vote at all. There are, I understand, some difficulties in the Cape Province, but the amendment states definitely that, providing the man’s qualifications entitle him to be registered, that in that case the man does not lose his vote. All that is urged by the amendment is that, if a person, three months prior to the compiling of the voters’ list, is compelled to change his residence, then he should be allowed to record his vote in the division where he is registered. I need not point out that there are a number of men in the railway service, for example, all over the country, who are compelled to change their residence, and unless this, or some similar amendment, is adopted, these men must be disfranchised; and I hope the Minister will reconsider the position. There is a very serious aspect of the matter so far as members of Parliament are concerned. There is the double possibility, not only of losing their vote, but also of losing their seat. It appears to me that that would be the result that would follow.

I just want to say at once that I will make every allowance for the good intention of the hon. member who has moved the amendment and, at the same time, I am willing to admit that there is certainly hardship in, I won’t say a very large number of cases, but in many cases to which the hon. member has referred. But, on the other hand, I think that this amendment, it put on the statute book, would be altogether impracticable. It cannot be worked. The reason for that is that to make up the provisional voters’ list at a bi-annual registration, certain information must be obtained by the canvassers, and ultimately by the registering officer. For that reason that information is asked from the claimants personally. The canvassers are instructed to go from house to house and get that information. What will be the position if, in, say, Cape Town (Central), there are a hundred people who have removed to other constituencies, in some cases to, say, the north of the Transvaal within a period of three months before the commencement of the bi-annual registration? It is absolutely impossible, especially if one hundred are scattered all over the Union, to get the correct information, and it is impossible, for that reason, for the registering officer to know whether these persons are qualified or not. It will make the working of the Act impossible. Provision is made in the Bill for improved facilities for registration by means of supplementary registrations; instead of giving only three opportunities in two years for claimants to be put on to the register, we are giving under the Bill five opportunities. So the hardship of the past will be diminished. Under these circumstances, I think it is unnecessary to introduce an amendment. With regard to the other point that members of Parliament will be disfranchised, and may be unseated, because they are not qualified. I think that is a point to go into with our legal adviser. If the view is correct, that they will be disfranchised, the light way to correct the difficulty is to amend the South Africa Act on that point.

We cannot amend the South Africa Act.

Parliament can. If it is proved, after I have discussed the matter with the law advisers, that the hon. gentleman is correct, we must rather amend the South Africa Act. The same objection must hold against the existing law so far as the Cape Province is concerned, for what we are doing under the Bill is to extend the law of the Cape Province to the rest of the Union.

I think the Minister has somewhat misunderstood the position. Cape Province residents were entitled to be registered either where they lived or where they were qualified other than by a residential qualification, but under the Bill they will be forced to register only in the division in which they live. A man who has been registered here, say, for thirty years past on his salary qualification is now forced to register on his residential qualification. He may have moved to a new residence within a month of registration commencing, and thus he may not be registered because he has not resided in the division for three months. In this way he will be disfranchized. Provision should be made so that men should be able to retain their vote who through no fault of their own are placed in these circumstances. Under the old Act only one month’s residence was required, to be registered at a biennial registration and three months’ residence to be registered at a supplementary registration, but under the new Bill a man may be disfranchized for a period of nine months if he is not resident in a division for three months prior to a biennial registration.

I hope the Minister will give a little more sympathy to these people. The Minister admits a number of men may be disenfranchized by this Bill. It is a serious matter if a number of people are going to be disenfranchized simply through the working of these new principles. I am in favour of the principles but I think they should be put into force with some regard to the people who may have moved within three months of the registration, so that if they cannot be put on the roll in the district they have removed to they should not be removed from the roll in the district they have left, These are cases of hardship which ought to be met. What is going to happen if you have a general election in this country after you have had the registration under the provisions of this Bill but before you have had a new delimitation. The application of this particular provision is going to make a big difference in some of the constituencies especially in the Cape. In some of the constituencies of the Cape thousands of voters will cease to be eligible in the constituencies in which they are registered but they will be eligible in others. The result may be that you will have members sent here to represent a few hundred voters only. The Minister should look into the matter. This will make a tremendous shift over in some divisions.

With regard to this point I gave the information to the House on the second reading debate, namely that this Act cannot come into operation before two years’ time, that is in 1927 and it is impossible for the new delimitation to take place before the middle of that year. The delimitation must be on the basis of the census and that will be taken next year in May. The delimitation commission cannot be appointed until the census figures are considered and therefore the Act will come into operation at the next biennial registration.

When my time expired I was explaining that the old voters roll continues in force until the 1st of August and from then until the supplementary roll comes into force in December there may be a large number of people disqualified including members of Parliament. There is no difficulty in giving effect to my amendment,

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the House suspended its sitting. I was trying to point out the effect of this clause as it stands on the individual voter who may change his residence shortly before the beginning of the biennial registration, and I also showed how the member of Parliament might be affected who also changes his residence within that period I am quite sure that if the Minister of Mines and Industries will look into this matter, he will find that I am right in saying that a member of Parliament may find himself unseated, and be unable to become a candidate for the election which will take place in consequence of the vacancy created.

Why? Not as long as he is qualified.

The hon. member, I am afraid, was outside, when—

No, I was here the whole time.

I am sorry that I have to repeat this matter, and I have not very much time remaining to me, but the qualifications for a member of the House of Assembly include this, that he must be qualified to be registered. It is not “qualified as a voter,” but “qualified to be registered as a voter.” If this law says that a man cannot be registered as a voter unless he has resided in the constituency for three months prior to the registration, any member find that he is not qualified, and under Section 54 which I read to the House before the suspension of the sitting, he may be disqualified and his seat shall become vacant. It is a legal question. I hope the Minister will look into the matter before the next stage of this Bill, and I am sure that, if I am found to be correct by the law advisers, something will have to be done. I do not intend to repeat the arguments, but I have stated the position to the Committee, and it is for the Committee to decide.

The hon. member (Sir Thomas Watt) does’ not seem to know the reason why this clause has been put into the Bill. It is to stop the packing of the voters’ roll. I am quite certain the voters’ rolls are packed and will be packed unless this clause is put in. That is one of the reasons why the South African party are fighting so hard.

No, not at all.

Yes, of course. When this Bill comes in no member will be able to pack a roll or pack any constituency. To-day he can pack any constituency. If a man is there one hour before the roll is made up he is qualified to be enrolled. To-day if a man just signs a form that he has resided in a certain place for five minutes before the roll is made up, he is entitled to vote. The qualification will hold just the same. No member of Parliament will lose his seat, because he will have qualification of being able to be registered as a voter; so I think we can pass this without any trouble.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) misunderstands me entirely. I am in favour of three months’ residence in an electoral division before a voter can be registered. I am in favour of the clause as it stands; but I want a proviso to protect the man who honestly changes his residence and who is not registered in any way, although he may have been born in the country and may have lived in it all his life.

If I understood the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) correctly, then he states that when a voter, for instance, in Cape Town (Central) removes to Salt River, e.g., a month before the registration, he will then not be qualified to be put on the list. It is not so. The position under the old law was always this, that when a person was registered on an occupier’s qualification he had to be three months in a constituency before he could be registered there. We have two different kinds of registration. A person can be registered on a residential qualification or he can be registered according to his occupation and the place where he exercises it. If he goes to live in Salt River then he need not be registered according to his residential qualification but still on his salary. The law remains unaltered in this respect of the salary qualification; the new provision only differs in this respect, that he is registered where he lives and has no longer the choice of voting where he lives or where he exercises his occupation. With respect to the qualification no alteration is made. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has mentioned a difficulty that I always felt. A person who was registered according to the residential qualification if he moved before an election had always to wait three months for residential qualification. Thus it is nothing new that an injustice is done to these people. I admit the difficulty, and it is possibly an injustice which we can remove.

I am glad the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) expressed his views on this section just now, because it is quite evident that the hon. gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension altogether. I quite see his point that it would be dangerous to allow a person to move from one position to another just before an election takes place. In that way, of course, a constituency could be packed. Apparently the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. What is proposed by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) is not that a man should be allowed to vote in a new division, but if, under circumstances over which he has no control he has to move his residence from one division to another, that then he should retain his right to vote in the original division. I hope the hon. member sees where the difference comes in. We are not asking that a man who moves from one division into another should be allowed to record his vote in the new division. Apparently there is some misapprehension. As a matter of fact the unworthy suggestion that we are urging this from some ulterior motive finds the contrary the case; it is entirely the other way. What are urging will help the type of voter the hon. member and the gentlemen on the cross benches are supposed to represent, men who, through no choice on their own part are frequently moved from one division to another just prior to an election. The hon. member will remember that the officials upstairs told us that a man registering under these circumstances would not be able to vote for a period of something like seven months. He has three months in which to register, then there are the objections, and altogether about seven months have elapsed, so this man who moves his residence is disenfranchised for that period. I do appeal to the hon. member, under these circumstances, to support this amendment and change his point of view.

Amendment put and negatived Clause as printed put and agreed to.

New Clause 18,

I wish to propose a new section after section 17. It will be seen that section 18 gives the revising officer the right to correct any mistake or omission or the removing of a name of a deceased person, etc. There is no power given in this Bill to remove the names of persons wrongly registered, and as the Bill now stands, rightly or wrongly, they remain registered for two years. I propose in a case where any name goes on the roll at the biennial registration which is not entitled to be there, that at the next supplementary registration objection can be taken to that name being’ included in the list, and the officer can then deal with it as if it were one of these other cases. My amendment reads as follows—

The machinery here is exactly the same as the machinery in other cases, but this right is not given to anyone in any part of this Bill. I say in the case of anyone who is wrongly registered at say the biennial registration, provision should be made so that his name can be objected to at the supplementary registration in the same way as other names.

What do you mean by other names?

A man may be registered although he has not got the three months’ qualification, or a man may be registered who is not a British subject, although he has given in his name as such, and there are many other cases. Opportunity must be given to have such names taken from the list, otherwise they remain registered for two years, and it is only after an election petition that it can be shown that such men are not entitled to vote.

The Minister recognizes that in the hurry and rush of preparing the list biennially, mistakes may occur, and he has admitted the principle by taking power, where an obvious mistake has been made, to alter the roll. I should think that ought to be done also where names have been included in the roll which should not have been there. As the Bill stands at present, a heavy burden might be thrown on the parliamentary candidate. As an example, I might mention that, in the Liesbeek division, a few years ago, it was found that the election had been influenced by the vote of one voter who was not entitled to be on the roll, because he was not a British subject, and of another voter who was a minor. The Minister desires to have the roll as correct as possible. The purity of the roll is a feature on which he laid very great stress on the second reading of the Bill, and he has endeavoured to bring that into practice by the number of sub-clauses to this section. Is there any reason why the principle should not be applied also in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour)?

There is a very great difference, I should say, between names coming on to the register by accident, which should not be there, and names which come on the register merely through the neglect of possible objectors of the party opposing the registration of such a person, and while it is quite right to make provision in this Bill to remove certain names which are on that list by accident or to restore other names which should be on the list, it would be wrong, I should say, to extend the provision of the Act so far as practically to open the way to attack the whole existing voters’ list. If this amendment is accepted, then the difference between the biennial registration and the supplementary registration would vanish, and it would throw an impossible burden, I should say, on the country generally, and especially on the rural areas.

I don’t know whether the Minister refers to the accidental mistakes in the case of deceased persons. Nor could you call it an accident if you removed the name of a person owing to his having been convicted for a criminal offence. If you can remove any name through this cause, you ought to be able to remove the name of a man who gives false information in order to be registered. The only way in which to obtain a pure list is to let people know that they cannot be registered for two years if their claim for registration is open to challenge.

There is an objection to this amendment. The hon. member asks what about the person who has supplied wrong information? He can be punished under the law.

But their names are on the voters’ roll.

Yes, but a person will be very careful about giving information if he knows that he is liable to punishment. If there are persons put on the roll who have no right to be there, then all the parties have sufficient time to file an objection. There are always weeks or months for that. If they have neglected their duty there, do they now want the right to keep on for two years making objections against people? The result will be that the names of many people will be removed, e.g., in the Cape Province, where there is a proper qualification. The voter against whom an objection is made is often shy of the court, he will not defend the case. The position will, therefore, be that people who want to spend much money will be in the position of removing many names in this way. It is not fair to the voters in general. If the Officials have passed names which should not appear on the roll then it is the duty of the various parties to raise objections. We cannot expose the voter to legal proceedings for two years.

I hope and trust the Minister will not accede to the request of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). In the past the political party, which he so ably represents, have taken objection to numerous names on the voters’ roll. The men to whose names exception was taken accordingly received notice to appear at a certain place at 10 a.m. on a certain day, but rather than lose a day’s pay, the men did not appear, the result being their names were erased from the voters’ roll.

Proposed new clause put and negatived.

On Clause 18,

I should like to ask the hon. Minister to permit of the deletion in lines 47 and 48 of the words “if the removal has taken place by virtue of paragraph (c)”, At the recent election we had a couple of cases in my constituency where people’s names had been removed on account of death, and yet they were not dead. They get no notice of the deletion, and just on the polling day they find out that their name has been taken off because it was accepted that they were dead. The object of my motion is, therefore, that notice shall be given to the people who are taken off the roll for this reason. If this is wrong, then they can protest. I move—

If I understood the hon. member correctly, then he wants notice to be given to a deceased man when his name is removed from a voters’ roll. Well, the hon. member has suggested nothing as to how we should reach such a person. If he had done so, we could have considered the matter. I will just point out that the names which are removed in that way are pasted up and people who know anything about the person, e.g., that they are not dead can notify them and the department of the removal of the names.

I just want to make it clear. I take a case that happened during the recent election. There was a man who had lived for years and years on a farm, and the day after the election was still there. He had always voted and never received a notification that his name had been deleted. On polling day he was told: No, you are dead. That is the difficulty. If he had received notice that his name was taken off on account of his death, then he could have corrected the error in time. The mistake, of course, happens in cases where there are many people with the same family name. Hence my motion.

I can just refer the hon. member to (f). It is said that if a mistake is made it can be rectified on the order of the Minister, if it is brought to the notice of the Minister. The Minister can order that the name should be replaced on the roll.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 39.

This is a drastic clause, and something entirely new in the electoral law. It is one winch requires the publishers of a newspaper to make a return in connection with any matter inserted in the paper in respect of which payment is made, the space occupied and the amount of money paid, and the amount of money owing. Electoral matter is defined to include advertisements, articles, or other matter intended or calculated to affect the result of an election. I think the Government should make out a good case before introducing this entirely new principle. So far. I have heard nothing in the House on the second reading, or in the select committee, which would justify the committee in putting this unnecessary, irritating and futile clause on, the newspapers. There is nothing here to say that it shall be unlawful for a newspaper to receive money for inserting articles which are not advertisements. There is nothing to say that they may not employ as many people as they like to write up a political party, and all that is going to be achieved under this clause is unnecessary work which will be thrown on the newspapers for no other purpose than to satisfy curiosity. No doubt some people in the newspaper world may like to see what the publishers of another paper receive from political parties. Apart from newspapers and members of the Government, I don’t see anyone who is to benefit. There is no penalty ‘for subsidizing the press, or for booming a political party or a candidate. It occurred to me on the second read debate that the Minister, in moving the Bill, was under the impression that certain newspapers in the country received large sums of monies from political parties for propaganda purposes. The evidence before the committee negatived that idea. I am bound to say I am at a loss to know why we should have this clause in the Bill. Supposing an editor pays one guinea or ten guineas to one of his contributors to write an article, not necessarily a leading article, in favour of one political party, what right have the public to know what is paid? It is unnecessary. This clause is of far-reaching-importance. Sub-clause 2 defines electoral matter as—

I can conceive a temperance journal publishing an article on temperance in which it criticizes the action of the Government in connection with a local option Bill. Is that a matter to be referred to in this return? Must this temperance journal state the amount of space given to the article and the amount of money spent on it? lake the case of a trades journal writing during an election time about, say, the customs tariff or the excise, and assuming the writer of this article criticizes the Government’s policy in connection with these matters, which may, in the opinion of the Minister, be calculated to affect the result of an election, is that to form the subject of a return? I think the whole thing is unworkable, quite impracticable, and the more one looks into the matter the more unnecessary and irritating and futile the whole thing is.

I think the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has misunderstood the purport of this particular clause. So far as I read it —I may be wrong—there is nothing in it about payment by a proprietor for any article published in a paper. This clause, as far as I can see, means that there shall be a return made by a newspaper proprietor of all matter for the insertion of which he has been paid.

No.

Take line No. 9—

Clearly this indicates that it is money paid to a proprietor of a newspaper. That is the intention of the clause, and I think it is a very desirable check on electoral expenditure.

With regard to what the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) has said, this is a point which has caused us a vast amount of difficulty, viz., what exactly is the meaning of—

I would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the evidence which was given before the Select Committee. Strangely enough there was not a single word of evidence given in favour of this clause. The hon. member was present, but I do not remember that he asked any question in regard to this clause. There were some of us who were present on all occasions. We did not go electioneering during the time when we should have been sitting on the Select Committee.

There was no electioneering.

The hon. member has had an opportunity of reading the evidence, and if you will read the evidence of Mr. Muir who was present with Mr. de Villiers—

An impartial person!

Nobody is impartial in your view, except yourself. These gentlemen were the president and vice-president respectively of the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa. Surely these are representative gentlemen, and their evidence was not questioned in any way. At page 60 of the Committee’s report it will be found that Mr. Muir said—

That interpretation was accepted by the Committee. Mr. Muir proceeds—

Who has got to pay for that? In regard to the clause itself he says, at page 59—

No purpose, except to satisfy the idle curiosity of some. He says further—

That we admit, but the difficulty is in regard to making “a return of electoral matter, in connection with any election inserted in his newspaper in respect of which payment was or is to be made.” It has been held, and held very strongly, that every report has to be paid for by the newspapers. All the men on the staff and even outsiders who are sometimes engaged have all to be paid. How are they going to make these returns? How are they going to allocate the cost of the different paragraphs, and the different articles relating to an election? It seems to me that this clause is merely inquisitorial, and that it will serve no useful purpose whatever.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) also appears to misunderstand this clause. The evidence he has quoted here does not refer to this clause at all.

it is exactly the same in principle.

What Mr. Muir said about this clause is rather interesting. We have heard from the hon. member what he said about another clause. Mr. Muir, the representative of the newspaper proprietors, apparently an impartial person, says—

That is what I read.

The hon. member read the next page.

I read that also.

The hon. member may have read that, but he also read evidence given on another clause, which is not this clause at all. I would like to point out that the newspaper proprietors themselves do not object to this very much. In my opinion a very good reason has been given for this clause, that it is a check on election expenditure, and I submit that it ought to be passed.

The speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has certainly caused me a certain amount of uneasiness in regard to this matter, that is presuming that what he read was in connection with this clause. It appears to me now that the Pact will be debited with the expenditure upon the reports of all South African party speeches.

This clause can really be read, I think, to mean a great deal more than the Minister means. I am sorry that we did not notice it in Committee, because it says that the proprietor and publisher shall make a return of all the electoral matter in connection with any election in respect of which money is paid or owing to him. I thought that meant what was to be paid to or by him, but in another line it speaks of electoral matter for which an amount is to be paid or is owing to him in respect thereof. It seems to me that, to make it quite clear, the Minister should move the insertion of the words “to him” after the word “made” in the fifth line. That will clear up what at present is an ambiguity. As it stands it can be read both ways. I move—

Does the hon. member propose that it shall be made quite clear it must be paid to the proprietor and publisher?

Yes.

Of course, there is just the possibility that it may be paid to the editor. Say, for instance, it is paid to the editor, then that also is expenditure in connection with an election, and the whole idea underlying this clause, as it is underlying every clause, is that election expenditure, not only on the part of the candidate but by all other persons, must be controlled, checked.

With regard to the Minister’s objection to my inserting the words “to him,” he will see that the clause goes on to say—

Amendment put and agreed to.

The Minister will remember we had considerable discussion during the select committee with regard to the phraseology of sub-section (2), that is—

I want to move—

There is a penalty of £500 attached to a contravention of this section, and the person who has to try the case will find it difficult enough to decide on matter intended to affect the result of the election, but to ask him to pass a conviction upon what was calculated seems to me to be going too far. As the Minister apparently did not oppose the amendment by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), I hope he will accept this one. It will narrow down the very wide reading of this section.

I want to point out to the Minister that the proprietor or the publisher is going to be prosecuted or may be prosecuted, for publishing electoral matter. The test whether this stuff is electoral matter or not depends upon the intention, not of the publisher or proprietor, but of somebody else. The question is whether somebody else intended this particular stuff to influence an election, the man who wrote it, who is someone entirely different. It seems a most drastic provision to make the conviction of the person prosecuted depend upon the intention of someone else. I do not know whether the Minister has thought about this particular point.

“A” writes a criminal libel and “B” publishes it.

It is not a question of libel; that is a question of law which the publisher may be expected to know. How can the publisher know what the intention of the other man was?

Let me put a case to the Minister. A newspaper proprietor receives an advertisement. He is paid for it and takes no further interest in it. Then it turns out, quite unknown to him, that it concerns something which has influenced the result of an election. The proprietor has published something, a notice relating to a garden party or anything else it may be, which he could not possibly know was going to have any influence upon the result of an election.

I do not think I can accept this amendment. I do not see what harm it can do to leave these words in. It is very difficult to prove intention.

You do not want to prove someone else’s intention?

You may have an article insertion for which in the paper has been paid for, and it may be calculated, to anybody reading it, to affect the result of the election. But it is very difficult in such a case to prove that it was intended by the writer so to affect the result.

The Minister apparently has not grasped the argument put up, because the trouble is that a writer may say—

And yet the unfortunate editor is fined. If you fined the writer I could understand. Take the garden party incident mentioned. The person giving the garden party and inserting the advertisement intended it to be political. He goes to the court and says so; he is not fined but the editor is fined. It seems to me the Minister would be wise if he would let this clause stand over. I think it would be a pity to let a loosely drafted clause like this come into the Bill. I move—

to enable the Minister to look into it. I am sure he must realize that there is something wrong with the drafting. We want to assist him; we are not doing this in any antagonistic spirit. It seems to me that if we go on with the other clauses there is no harm in allowing this clause to stand over.

Motion put and negatived.

I wish to move—

My point is that I want the proprietor or publisher to have the opportunity, himself, of deciding whether the article presented to him is one that would be likely to affect the result of an election. This would prevent him from being punished for possessing an intention as the clause provides that was never present in his mind, but which might be present in the mind of another person, or which, by a subsequent act of that person, might make him subject to a criminal prosecution.

The very mischief aimed at is that you should punish the intention, even if it does not attain its object. The amendment states—

That is not the mischief you aim at. If you have electoral matter which intends affecting the result, that is the mischief aimed at. It does not follow that the result will be achieved. I think that any court of law will interpret the word “intended” to mean intended in such a way that the ordinary man would perceive the intention. That would be the test of the prosecution, and I do not see that any risk is run by retaining the word “intended.” I cannot conceive of anybody being convicted when the intention is not clear, or cannot readily be present.

Why put “calculated” in?

That is another thing. It is not difficult to judge of a thing being calculated to affect a result. The word “calculated” to do anything, is one that occurs frequently in judgments. Take the ordinary case for trade mark, where a man is sued for an imitation, and where the judges very often use the expression that the imitation is—

There is nothing very abstruse about it; it is a matter of common-sense and sound judgment. I do not see any objection to these words, even though they may give rise to a prosecution. The common sense of the court will have to be brought to bear on these words, whether it is a civil case or a criminal prosecution. I think, therefore, that the words are perfectly in order.

We are not dealing with trade marks. We are dealing with the question of criminal prosecution. We have had about six lawyers dealing with the matter, and we are still at sea about the meaning of this clause. I wonder what an unfortunate layman is going to feel when he gets prosecuted under this clause. I am sorry the Minister would not accept my suggestion because it was meant in a friendly spirit. It has become clearer than ever that we are in a bit of a maze in regard to this matter. It is not an ordinary civil case for damages that we are letting the public in for, but a criminal prosecution that may end in jail. It is a matter which affects the liberty of the subject.

I think the difficulty is proved when we find one Minister saying that it is very difficult to prove intention and another saying it is quite easy. Let me remind the Minister, also, that this is not an ordinary matter but one where the person is guilty of an offence is liable to a fine of £500. It is difficult to know how far the newspaper people are to be held liable. Suppose we have an ordinary innocent meeting, say, of the Sons’ of England. I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is a member and he may make a violent political speech. What is going to happen to the poor newspaper proprietor? And the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs may be at—

and break out into a political speech, and you would have the newspaper proprietor guilty of an offence right away. I think the Minister ought to accept the amendment of my hon. friend or, as suggested previously, postpone the consideration of this clause until it can be very carefully considered.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Robinson and Mr. Coulter put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

This clause appears to have been drafted without any real apprehension of its exact intention. The clause lays it down that every person, who has, in connection with any election, expended any money or incurred any expenses, shall make a return. Every such person shall keep proper books and vouchers of the money so expended, and the court may, on the petition of any registered voter, order an inspection of the books. I wonder why the Minister of the Interior has omitted to refer to elections for the Senate. It is possible, perhaps, that elections for the Senate are always conducted with the utmost purity, but by a very wide stretch of imagination it may be possible to imagine money being expended in connection with the Senate election.

What do you suggest?

I am not suggesting anything beyond what I said. Why does the Minister throw on the candidate and election agent the double duty of rendering two sets of election returns? This seems to be unnecessary. I move—

What is the position of a person who incurs any expense in the interest of a particular candidate or party? It might refer to a voter who pays 1s. 6d. for his railway fare in order to proceed to the poll. It might refer to the whole of the expenditure by the organizer of a party, or even by the Prime Minister if he went touring the country in furtherance of the interests of a particular party. Is it dignified to imagine that a single voter should be able to harass the present Prime Minister or any member of Parliament by calling upon him to produce a return of such expenses? Frequently, speakers proceed to various parts of the country to address meetings in the furtherance of the interests of a particular candidate or party. Under this clause it will be necessary to enter these expenses in books and render a return. Take the case of a person who uses his motorcar either for canvassing before the election or taking voters to the poll. He incurs expenses—at least in the purchase of petrol. Take a farmer who drives an old-fashioned cart and horses who conveys an elector to the poll; he also would have to make a return. If these returns are not made, a heavy penalty is incurred. If the Minister is not actuated by more than a mere spirit of curiosity the existing law is sufficient to punish those people who incur expenses which can be brought within the definition of illegal or corrupt practices. To give effect to the second point, I move—

I support the amendment, and I think the committee is indebted to the hon. member, because I am bound to say that the select committee which considered this Bill did not discuss the aspect he has brought before this committee. There is no doubt the words of this clause, as they stand, would compel any person who hired a motor or a cart to record his vote to make a return. Likewise, any person who paid his train fare would have to make a return.

What about his shoe leather?

Exactly, that must go in. That clause must have been drafted by a political Paul Pry, anxious to get into the secrets of other political parties. So long as an election is conducted in terms of the law, and the candidate makes a return of his expenses incurred in connection with the election, I don’t see that it is the business of any person how much money is spent in propaganda in connection with a political party. This clause deals, not only with the conduct of an individual election, but covers any expenditure in connection with the support of the political party, and is not limited, as in the previous clause, to the duration of an election. If members turn to Clause 45 they will find the limit there placed on Clauses 39 and 44 does not refer to this clause, so that any expenditure by any person, political party, trade union or any other body in connection with a political party at any time of the year which may affect an election or a political party must form the subject of a return. Surely that is carrying the thing too far. Newspaper proprietors are also covered by this clause. If hon. members will look at it refers to any person and goes on to say in sub-clause 2—

A newspaper sends reporters all over the country in connection with elections and political meetings at all times of the year, and the expense incurred in that way is covered in this clause.

Is that on behalf of a political party?

The hon. gentleman knows there is a certain paper in Durban run in the interests of a political party.

Only one in Durban?

I was referring to the only one I know.

There is only one, and it is run very badly.

Let me read the clause—

There is nothing here limiting the effect of this clause to the time of an election, as in the other two clauses, and if a newspaper writes a long time before the election about the claims of a certain candidate to a certain seat, and writes him up all the expenditure incurred must be sent in the form of a return. There is no limit to the amount of money spent by any person, newspaper, political association or trade union. I could understand the Minister saying that political parties shall spend no more than a certain amount of money on an election, and if it does spend more, there will be a penalty. Here there is no limit to the amount of money that can be spent. Newspapers and societies must be on the watch on any money spent, under Clause (b)—

It is absurd, and ought not to be in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will agree to it being deleted. It serves no useful purpose. Suppose a political party makes a return, and suppose that return is correct and unimpeachable, it has to be made within twelve weeks after an election, and cannot then affect the election, which has either been won or lost, and nobody is any the wiser. It is only a question of satisfying curiosity.

It does seem like carrying the thing to an absurdity. Why, if anybody wrote to a friend advising him to vote for a particular candidate, and he has to buy a penny stamp, or he pays for the notepaper and envelope, then he must make a return.

Do you believe that?

It is in the law, and that shows the hon. member recognizes the absurdity of it. We all nominate our candidates, and you cannot summon a party meeting without incurring expense. You will have to make a return of those expenses. The Minister will get so many returns that the department will not have the time to look after them. After all, it does not affect the issue of an election, as far as I can see. These returns of expenditure are now to be brought down to such a pitch as to make, the position absolutely absurd. Under this, if you buy a postage stamp and put it on a letter and write to a friend, advising him to do this, that or the other in an election, you have got to make a return of the expenditure.

The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has evidently overlooked some very important evidence which was given on this clause in the select committee. The chief of the department was under examination and the question was put to him (page 147) in regard to section 67 of the principal Act of 1918. That section lays a tremendous burden on the candidate. He has to file returns of all moneys expended or incurred by or on behalf of or in the interests of that candidate on account or in respect of the conduct or management of that election in his division. If you look at the clause you will find that it includes, in addition to the candidate, companies, associations, societies, trade unions, organizations, leagues and bodies of persons. The candidate, therefore, comes under this clause 67 of the principal Act of 1918, and he comes under Clause 40 of this Bill, but besides that the election agent comes under that Clause 40 as well. The question was put to the head of the department—

And the reply was—

The question was also put—

And the reply was—

It seems to me that this is very far-reaching. Not only is the candidate himself made responsible, but the candidate’s election agent is made responsible as well, and he is required under sub-section (9) to produce his books and those books are to be open to the inspection of every man who is registered. We are giving people an opportunity now to go to court with what is known as a fishing application. The court can order an inspection of such books, supported by vouchers. This clause of the principal Act has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court of this country. We know that it is a very wide Act, and we don’t know how far the court would go in regard to this clause. Added to that, we are now having this Clause 40. with all its special provisions. We are going to make the position almost impossible. The poor candidate who dares to stand for any seat now is liable to have all his books inspected, not merely by anyone immediately concerned in an election, but by every single individual who is registered. That is the position, I maintain.

He is not bound to mix it up with his ordinary book-keeping; he should keep separate books.

It seems to me that the complaint against this clause is that it is so absurd that it will become a dead-letter. There are two kinds of bad election laws, one that does not make any provision about limiting expenses, and the other, almost equally bad, perhaps worse, is that which tries to limit expenses to such an extent that it becomes a dead going to keep a record of his expenses: what it costs him to travel by train, what his meals will cost on the train, and even what it will letter. But imagine that every man who goes out to speak for a friend during an election is cost him for shoe leather. He is not going to do it, and so the whole tiling is going to be a dead-letter. What I particularly want to ask the Minister is what is meant by sub-section (8): Every association, society, trade union organization, and so on, must make certain returns. Everybody is bound to do that, no matter who they are, but then sub-section (8) comes along and says the Minister can call upon a particular society or association or person to give a return. Now why should he? If everybody is under legal obligation to do so, what is the use of giving the Minister power to call upon A, B or C to do so. I would like to know from the Minister what the meaning of the sub-clause is. I should like to move—

I want to make a few remarks on sub-clause (9) which deals with the receipt of revenue. It is stated that—

This section. No. 40. is a section in which the commencement of an election is not defined. The Minister accepted an amendment in select committee whereby where sections 39 and 44 were concerned, he would lay down when an election was to commence. That limiting provision does not apply to the section under discussion. What effect has this upon a society or an association which commences in the year of grace 1924 to collect funds for the next election, which may take place this year, or next year or some time at any rate? When it spends what it has collected it can be called upon to produce its books and so must keep books in respect of all the money collected. These books would have to be kept, and would have to be available after the lapse of a period of five years. Surely that seems an unnecessary burden, and just as it applies to any particular association, it might apply to anybody collecting funds. The Minister might not have realized that a return will have to be given for five years, and if these monies are expended on a particular election they would obviously be collected for the purpose of an election. It seems to me that, for a wholly useless purpose, we are going to make people keep books for a particular purpose and for that lengthy period. I would like the Minister to consider that in conjunction with the other points.

The amendment in line 41 was put, and Mr. Coulter called for a division; upon which the Committee divided:

I move—

With a view of getting from the Minister some explanation of what this clause means.

It is quite true what the hon. gentleman says, that there is a legal obligation under this clause on a company, etc., to render returns of their expenditure, but it is quite possible that some of them may not send in such a statement, and the Minister may have good reasons for thinking they have expended money in connection with the election. He must have power given to him to call upon them. That is the reason for this clause.

If the Minister has good reason to think that a particular association has expended money and has not made the return, all he has got to do is to hand it over to the public prosecutor. This gives the Minister power to step in and take one particular association and say—

Now, I say that is quite unnecessary. It puts in the hands of the Minister a power of exercising petty persecution over a particular association or person that is quite unnecessary. There is no reason whatever, in my opinion, why this additional power should be given to the Minister which he can apply to any particular association which he may happen to pick out as requiring his attention for the time being. The powers for enforcement of the requirements of this section are quite ample. I do think this particular sub-section may put in the hands of the Minister—I do not say this particular Minister—the opportunity of exercising special persecutive measures over a particular association or person.

I do not think the whole matter is quite so serious as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) represents it to be; but on the other hand, I do not think it is of so much importance. I think, for that reason, I will accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

This and the two preceding clauses appear to have been drafted by the office boy. I have seldom heard more devastating criticism levelled at any clause, and the Minister has condescended to reply to scarcely a single one of them. Clause 41 is a sad commentary on the Minister’s view of political life, for he is trying to divorce politics from charity; apparently in his mind no politician can have any charity in his make-up. Take Clause 1—

Surely this is a scathing indictment of South African politics that no political party is to be allowed to indulge in philanthropy. What are the definitions of political organization and philanthropical society? Take the helpmekaars and the temperance unions, both hybrid bodies savouring of political and philanthropic views. They are both philanthropic in their scope and origin, but participate in politics too. I hope the Minister will tell us why a political body is not to be allowed to show a little charity. Say there was a flood, the Nationalist party would like to come down with a subscription, but that would be prohibited. Then section (2) of the clause says—

The unfortunate chairman may not have been present at the meeting at which it was decided to make a grant, or he may have voted against the decision.

He can resign.

It would be too late then. None of these clauses are workable, and they are all despotic to the last degree. The Minister should tell us who calls for them. They are subversive of all liberty, and are harassing and vexatious. I know of no other country in the world with such legislation. It surpasses my comprehension.

The greatest condemnation of this section is supplied by the Minister’s department. If hon. members will read pages 143 to 145 of the evidence given before the select committee on the Bill, they will see that not a word was said in favour of the clause. On the contrary, everything was said in condemnation of the clause.

That is the case all through.

I will read some of the evidence—

Is it not rather a strange position to try and make people liable for severe penalties if you do not define what philanthropical work is?—I think the committee can thrash that out.

I thought you would give us a lead?—No. Take the case of trade unions, they have a philanthropical side, they have sick pay, or pay the men out of work. Would you prevent a trade union from spending money?—That is the intention of this clause.

Not a bit of it.

If the hon. member will read 519 he will withdraw those words, “Not a bit of it.”

Read 544.

I would read them all if I had time. Take 523—

528.—Supposing the Labour party support a candidate because they want to get certain labour social legislation through, they will be debarred from doing it because they help their men?—Yes.

Do you recognize that?—Yes.

Was it not put in there to prevent a form of bribery?—A form of inducement, I should say. That is the object.

Political parties can use their funds for philanthropical purposes and thereby try and gain votes?—The object is to prevent that.

Is it your intention to stop such a body? —No, the intention is to prevent inducement being made to voters to give their votes on account of philanthropical work done amongst them by political associations.

From your point of view, you have no objection to their doing philanthropical work provided that the proceeds obtained are not used for inducing votes?—Philanthropical work must not be connected with any kind of political party, there must be complete separation.

Take the trades unions and temperance societies or practically anybody you like; the moment they do anything by which they are inducing any member or person to work in a particular way to get certain legislation through, they fall under this Act?—This is only for political organizations.

When does a society become a political organizations? When it takes part in politics. As long as the temperance society remains a temperance party only, it will not be stopped.

The temperance party do certain political work at certain times for certain purposes. Is it your intention to stop them from doing political work, or to say “having done political work you cannot do philanthropical work now”?—The section would cover that. If they once do political work they cannot do philanthropical work.

Is that your intention?—No, that is not the intention. The intention was directed solely towards political organizations.

The effect of this clause is contrary to the intention. That is perfectly clear. If the intention is only directed against political organization, why not alter this clause? The vote in the Select Committee by the Pact representatives was solidly in favour of retaining the clause. If the object is merely to get at political parties, then why is sub-clause 2 in here? If it is intended, as the Department says in evidence, that, once anybody does anything in the nature of political work, they can no longer do philanthropical work or vice versa, then I understand the reason for sub-clause 2. We know that the temperance party cannot carry through their policy unless they can have influence in Parliament, yet they will be debarred from taking any part in politics in future. They will not be able to spend a single penny on political work. Take the Native Welfare Society, the moment they do anything which can be termed under this very wide clause political work they come under this clause and the chairman is going to be held liable in a very heavy fine. The whole idea of this legislation is entirely wrong. Strangely enough, there is no other part of the world which can be pointed to as having similar legislation to this. I cannot find in the whole of the evidence a single word in favour of this clause.

The fact that there is not in any other country a similar provision to this does not cut very much ice. If it is a good thing, it is desirable that it should be in the Bill. I suggest that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has not read the evidence before the Select Committee or does not understand it, because he left out most significant clauses of the evidence given before this Committee. He tried, either wittingly or unwittingly, to make this committee believe that the temperance party was affected by this particular clause. If you read the report, you will find the following on page 145—

Yes, not the intention.

I have yet to learn that the temperance party is a philanthropic body. It is a body which exists to get its views adopted, not to give soup and mealie meal to the poor. The object of this clause is clear. We want to prevent bribery, we want to prevent political parties from giving meals in order to get the votes of the poor people. At present there is nothing to prevent a bogus charitable society being formed for the purpose of buying votes for political purposes.

I want to support what has been said about this—not what has been said by the last speaker, of course. I regret immensely the tone he adopted. Let me say at once that most of this work is not done with the object of “buying votes.” Quite recently there was held a meeting of a women’s political organization—the Women’s South African party, quite true—a splendid lot of women who devote much of their life and time to the welfare of the community. The question of indigent children came up in an area where indigency is rife, and they decided to devote monies to the relief of the distress of these children, but now, under this Bill, because these women band themselves together to alleviate the lot of unfortunate fellow South Africans, they are to be debarred from doing any good work with the funds they have at their disposal. The thing appeals to me as being so pettifogging and inquisitorial. To say that a body, because it is a political organization, shall be debarred from doing anything philanthropic, shows an extraordinary attitude of mind to your fellows. On the other hand I think that there is a possible danger that bogus philanthropic societies might be established of set motive and could be used for ulterior purposes. It is not only for one party I am speaking, but for any political organization. I think it is a scandalous thing to debar them from doing anything like philanthrophic work. On the other hand I repeat that there is a danger of philanthropic societies, so called, being expressly founded for political purposes. I wish to move—

It is important to note that this section has no relation to elections at all. In point of fact it lays down an entirely new principle which will affect the whole of our social life. Although it does not debar any philanthropic society from carrying on political work, it provides that it shall not devote any of its funds for the purpose. When this matter came before the House on the second reading it was pointed out to the Minister how difficult it was to understand these two terms “philanthropical” and “political purposes.” What is philanthropy? I suppose it would be anything for the benefit of humanity, and it is one of the widest terms one could use. When the Minister dealt with this, on the second reading, he realized that it was quite impossible in the form it stood for this House to pass it. On page 2102 of Hansard it will be seen that the Minister acknowledged that there was some danger in the clause, and that he was not likely to get it through Parliament as it stood, but he said that in the select committee he thought it would be possible to draw a dividing line clear and definite enough to be “safe.” The Minister recognized that there had to be a line drawn; that the clause was not “safe,” and the House did not say anything more about it, no doubt because they felt that the select committee would go fully into the matter. If these provisions had been in a separate Bill we would have had a definition clause giving definitions of “politics” and “philanthropy.” The select committee, appreciating the difficulty, had the head of the department before it, and asked him what was the solution of this conundrum. He did not know what was meant by “philanthropy”. The committee divided on the clause, and it was carried by one vote, and so it comes back to us as the Minister introduced it, and no one knows where the dividing line is to be drawn; where it is “safe”, and where it is unsafe. If “philanthropy” can cover anything for the benefit of humanity, it can refer to a variety of organizations which normally do use their funds, and rightly so, for political purposes. The Temperance Alliance has been referred to, and on the other side the Licensed Victuallers. We have employers’ organizations which are formed, inter alia, for establishing pension funds and also for providing for the promotion of legislation in the interests of their trade, such as the master printers’ association. You might have the boot manufacturers providing for pensions or superannuation funds or making provision for employees’ holiday funds.

That is not philanthropy.

What is the difference between an organization which provides funds for pensions or holidays only and an Association which in addition does something else. Where is the line to be drawn, where is the “safe” line? Trade unions might be called philanthropic associations. They make contributions to members for sickness, funeral benefits, etc.

They pay for that.

Look at the constitution of the Labour Party. They claim this right to discharge philanthropic work, and it is quite clear that one of their objects is the expenditure of money for the benefits of their members.

It is not charitable.

If a trade union stood up and said it did not have philanthropy as part of its objects, could anyone seriously say that was correct? When the matter comes before a Court it would not avail a defendant to appeal as the Hon. Member for Umbilo to what was said in the Select Committee as to the construction to be placed upon the wording of the Bill. How was it that on April 15th the Minister admitted that the clause required a definition, but now he thinks that a definition is unnecessary? I ask the Minister to allow the clause to stand over so that an interpretation can be placed upon it. [Time expired.]

I quite support all that was said by the last speaker, and would like to raise another point. I would like your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether this clause is covered by the title of the Bill, which is “to amend the Electoral Act of 1918”. That Act provided for the registration of persons qualified to vote at elections, the abolition of plural voting, certain residential qualifications for active service voters, for the conduct of elections and so on, and for other purposes in relation to elections. There is nothing in this clause that has anything to do with elections. I fail to see any connection between this clause and the title of the Bill. We have made very good progress with the Bill and I think the Minister might very well accept the motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Not yet.

The objection should have been raised before the House went into committee. I may point out to the hon. member that this Bill with this clause included, was referred to the committee of the Whole House. I cannot now rule that it is out of order. The hon. member says it is not covered by the title. To my mind it is. If it is not covered by the title, the committee is entitled to alter the title to cover this clause.

If the Minister cannot see his way to allow us to report progress I ask him to allow this clause to stand over. He must appreciate, now he is reminded of the speech he made at the second reading, that the definition of the word philanthropic is required. There is the intention to prevent a political party in the guise of philanthropic work doing something likely to influence an election. Under the clause as it stands at present there is no period of time to which this work is confined. Section 45, in defining an election period, only refers to other sections of the Act, and this clause as it stands, would mean that any political organization which, at any time, uses its funds for the purposes of political propaganda would be liable to a penalty of £500. I am sure that is not what the Minister intends to get at but that is clearly the interpretation of the section. Again it must be pointed out that it is impossible to hold the president or secretary of one of these societies responsible for an act of his society. This would be a monstrous: state of affairs. If a society, by vote, decided, in the absence of the secretary or president, to allocate some of its funds for political purposes it would be monstrous to hold the absent secretary or president responsible for what occurred at the meeting. I asked the Minister to hold this section over and reframe it in such a way as to meet the case he has, in his mind.

I appreciate very much the assistance which hon. members on the other side have given us this afternoon and this evening with regard to this Bill and the progress we have made, and I will be very glad, as soon as we have agreed to this clause, to report progress, but I hope we shall finish this clause. After all the clause has been debated in the Select Committee and on the second reading, and I should say very exhaustively, and I think everybody in this House has a quite clear idea of how he is going to vote on the clause. Just a word in connection with the drafting of this clause. During the second reading debate I stated, as far as I could judge, that it would be a good thing for the Select Committee to give a definition of philanthropic work for political purposes. During the progress of the work of the Select Committee this matter was specially through me and the department referred to the law advisers and the law advisers after going into the matter advised the department and myself, and through us the committee, that he saw difficulty in giving definitions to these words, but did not anticipate any danger in the interpretation of the clause. That was reported to the Select Committee. Only after discussion with the law adviser, and with his definite approval, the clause was left as it stands here now. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), who moves an amendment, admits, and I am glad that he has admitted, that there is a danger in philanthropic bodies taking part in party politics, and in that way exercising an undue influence on elections.

As a matter of personal explanation, I do not admit that philanthropic bodies would do that. I said it was possible that you may have suspicions that bogus philanthropic bodies might be instituted in order to do what the Minister is trying to prevent.

The hon. member (Mr. Struben) distinctly said that there was the danger and for that reason he was quite ready to let the clause stand as it is, with the exception of a certain part of it. As I stated on the second reading debate, there is a definite need—and I am afraid that the need is increasing—to make provision of some kind as we intend doing under this clause. In recent years the women of the country have been taking part in politics and doing so increasingly, and women, we all know, are more philanthropically inclined than politically inclined, and there the danger is introduced into our political parties. Just to mention one particular instance, a women’s political party in a certain division engages the services of a district nurse, pays her salary, and at election time they go to the poor people and say to them that this nurse, who has been paid by this particular political party, has been in this house and done so much good, and that is a reason why they should vote for this particular party at an election.

Do you think this Bill will prevent that?

This Bill will certainly prevent that. I do not mean to insinuate in any way that the danger lies on one side only, with one political party and not the other. I definitely stated in the Select Committee that the danger exists also in my own party.

The Senate election.

What about that? The danger is all round, in all parties. In one province, for instance, on a certain day money is collected under the auspices of the National party and those funds collected on that day by the party are divided, and go partly to party politics, and the rest is devoted to philanthropic purposes, I think that is, in principle, wrong, and it should be prohibited. The only way to prohibit it is by introducing something of this kind in the law.

Why is it wrong for a political party to give money to charity?

Because in that way undue influence is exercised on the election. They can go in election time to the people and say “This political party has your interests at heart; see what the party has done for you.” That is wrong. As I stated at the second reading, it is a form of bribery. That is the reason that this particular clause has been introduced.

Can a religious body take part in politics? The chief object of religion is philanthropy.

It is a good thing if it does not. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) stated in his speech that this clause is a scathing indictment on the political parties that they may not do philanthropic work. I do not see that.

I said it was a scathing commentary on your idea of politics and philanthropy.

I do not see why. If it is so it is a scathing commentary on my idea of the Church, when I say they should not enter the political arena.

There are five of you here now in the House.

What about that? It is not the Church that is doing that; it is the individual.

A distinction without a difference.

Well, anyway, it is open to anybody if he wishes to enter the political arena, to exercise any influence in the political field, to belong to a political society, and if he wishes at the same time to do philanthropic work he can join a philanthropic society; but there is no reason why both these functions should be combined in the same society.

The hon. Minister has spoken about philanthropy. Who is there that has more influence over the electors than the parson? He is there to show philanthropy. He divides the money of the church council among the congregation and then he suddenly goes and stands as a candidate at an election. If that is not philanthropy combined with politics I should like to know what is. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has said that trade unions do not go in for philanthropy, that they make certain contributions to the treasury and then again get payments out of it. But if one who has only been a member for a few weeks suddenly dies is not his funeral provided for? Is that not philanthropy?

It is a life policy.

Yes, you can also take the life assurance. The agents who go about amongst the coloured people are nearly all political agents. The hon. Minister knows it very well. They come to the houses and say: old woman you can pay in a few weeks’ time. You need not pay this week. Is that philanthropy or business? Then the helpmekaar association. Does it not take part in philanthropy and is it free from politics? Not so long ago there was a member of Parliament who had passed a bond to the association. If his affairs had not been so very bad he might have got the money somewhere else. Was that not philanthropy? Mr. Stuttaford, the Argus Company and Die Burger regularly every year send their people for one day to the country. If there suddenly were an election Mr. Stuttaford would not be able to do so. (Laughter.) Yes, I am going to laugh last. There are people here in the House who can pay a fine of £500.

The Minister stated that he had an opinion from the legal advisers in regard to this clause. I do not remember, in the select committee, hearing any opinion given by the legal advisers, and I saw no opinion. Is the Minister prepared to submit that opinion to the House?

It was not a written opinion. We consulted the law adviser on a good many points and this is only one of them.

Legal men will tell you that very often an opinion is valueless unless you see the case which has been put. From what I have read of the evidence, you will see that the Department had no idea how to apply this clause. The Minister made great play on the work of the women. If the women are not acting legally or properly in carrying on this kind of work, what about “Die Burger”? The Minister considered “Die Burger” to be a philanthropic institution, as well as a political institution. What is going to happen to that paper? In August, 1924, at the anniversary festivities at Worcester, he stated that the “Die Burger” company—

Is that a philanthropic society? I urged that this matter be given a little further consideration. We have given the Minister very good assistance to-day. We started on the Bill quite late in the afternoon, and we have got through 40 clauses. There is only one clause of importance after this, and the Minister therefore should agree to the adjournment.

This apparently is a Cape matter, as a matter of fact only Cape members have spoken on this subject, also in the other provinces they have not coloured or native voters. To a certain extent the South African party have done good work in the mission field, but in future if these gentlemen wish to support native churches, they should do it as private persons and not as a political party. I hope the Minister will stand by the clause.

The Minister has not dealt with the point I raised as to the anomaly of the unfortunate chairman or secretary going to gaol for the misdeeds of a society. I move as an amendment—

I hope the Minister will meet us in this. He has been amenable this afternoon, and the clause I think meets this objection.

There is absolutely nothing unusual in the procedure adopted here. I think it is quite generally realized that we consider the president and the secretary of any society as representing that society.

In civil proceedings, yes; but not in criminal.

They bear the responsibility of the members in that society.

But not in criminal proceedings.

Yes.

There is no other law in this country, or in any other country, that fixes criminal liability on them.

But it is evident the payment of a fine would not be done by them in their individual capacity, but by the society which they represent.

Supposing they had no funds?

It is impossible to summon before a court, whenever there is a contravention by a society, the whole of the members of that society, and for that reason representatives of the society must be summoned and bear the responsibility for the whole.

The hon. Minister describes this as a new form of corruption. One would have expected him to put forward a concrete case of where this occurs. He gave one concrete case. He said a philanthropic association might employ a nurse who would render charitable work and then, when the election came round, would go round and remind the electors of the source from which the funds came. In this sense she would be employed for remuneration to go round and induce voters to place their votes in a particular way. This is punishable under the present law. Take the case of a person who went round, not necessarily a nurse, and reminded voters of the work done by a particular society. What is there wrong in that? The other case mentioned by the Minister was not the case of a paid nurse, but of a voluntary canvasser who spoke of the good work which had been done by the X society. What is there really punishable or wrong in that? Let us take the case of a member of Parliament who during the course of his five years of office has made donations to this or that particular association or to a body which gives relief to the poor. Where an individual has done this, the Minister does not propose to make it illegal, but where it has occurred at the instance of some society which calls itself a philanthropic society he desires to make it an offence. Where is the distinction? It seems to me that we should have some definition of the term “philanthropic,” and I therefore move, as an amendment—

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has taken exception to the fact that the president, or chairman, or secretary, or other officer of any organization shall be liable to punishment under this Bill. I just rise to point out to the hon. member that that is the position under our criminal code. He seems to think this is an exceptional position, and if I remember rightly he stated that under no act in the world did he know of a chairman or director of a company being singled out for punishment under these circumstances. Section 384 of the Criminal Code says—

In sub-section 4 it says—

That is our law, and I therefore do not understand the point the hon. member has raised.

These amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.