laid upon the Table—

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

seconded.

I would like to ask the Minister in view of the extreme importance of this Bill and of its highly-complicated and comprehensive character if he will defer the Committee stage for a reasonable time so that the amendments may be considered by the House,

All right. I thought to put it down for Wednesday.

I hardly think that is sufficient time. I would like the Minister to give it at least another week.

Can the Minister not give us another couple of days? This is a very important matter. There are a number of amendments to be considered, and I think the Minister ought to let it stand over to the Friday. Will he make it that? If not, I will move that the word “Wednesday” be omitted and that “Friday” be substituted. Will the Minister make it a week later?

No. We have got to get the Bill through, and this Bill was before the House last session and went before a Select Committee. I should have thought the hon. member for Salt. River (Mr. Snow) would have known all about the Bill line by line. I will meet the wishes of the House, however, and make it Monday. With leave, I withdraw my previous motion and move—

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

moved—

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Voordat u die twede klausulelaat behandel, wens ek voor te stel ’n nuwe Klausule 2, ingevoeg te word na Klausule 1. Ek stel die nuwe klausule voor, omdat laatste jaar voor die Selekt Komitee daar ’n byna gelykluidende artiekel in die Wetsontwerp was, maar toe die Wet nou voorgebring word, blyk die artiekel daar nie meer te wees nie. Die voorgestelde wysiging bepaal, dat duidelik neergelê moet word wat ’n edele metaal is en wat nie. Sedert die laatste verdaging het die. Minister verdere proklamasies onder die Wet opedele metale uitgevaardig, waardeur die regie van eienaars ingekrimp werd en dit word daarom tyd, dat duidelik by die Wet neergelê word wat onder edele metale val en wat nie. Want as ’n plaas geproklameer word vir edele metale, danverlies die eienaar nie slegs alle gewone regte nie, maar ook die handelsregte. Ek stel voor as ’n nieuwe klausule te volg op Klausule 1—

“onedele metalen” betekent kwikzilver, ijzer, lood, koper, tin, zink, kobalt, nikkel, arsenicum, mangaan, antimonium, bismuth, alsook de ertsen van die metalen, en zwavel, steenkool, grafiet, of enige andere minerale stof niet gedefinieerd als een edel metaal voor de ontginning waarvan geen biezondere wettelike voorziening gemaakt is.

“edele metalen” betekent goud en zilver en hun ertsen, hetzij deze op zichzelf bewerkt worden of vermengd met een onedel metaal. Met dien verstande dat de Minister bij kennisgeving in de Staatskoerant ten aanzien van zulke vermenging in een biezondere streek, indien hij overtuigd is dat de onedele metalen de edele metalen in de vermenging in waarde overtreffen, verklaart dat de vermenging in die streek een onedel metaal geacht moet worden, en daarna is zulk een vermenging een onedel metaal en niet een edel metaal.

moved, as an amendment—

He said: The difference between this proposed section, and as it stands in the Bill, is that in the present state of the law the Minister can declare any metal a precious metal by proclamation in the Gazette. I would prefer that that position be defined. If we group platinum and metals of the platinum group and their ores—I think that is a sufficiently technical expression to define it—it should be definitely included in the definition. In the report of the Select Committee reference is made to radium being worth £25,000 per ounce, but I do not think we should bother ourselves about this; it is not a precious metal in the way we speak of precious metals. In the 1909 Act, silver and platinum is specially mentioned as precious metal, and I think that the platinum group should be definitely included in this Bill. I will leave the matter at that and move the resolution.

This is one of the clauses, unfortunately, which the Committee will find itself in difficulties in arriving at a decision. Last year on this clause we had considerable discussion, because the conditions, as they had existed in the past, were now obsolete. Under the old law the Governor-General had the right to proclaim any base metal a precious metal. In the Transvaal the trouble is that precious metal is vested in the Crown and base metal vested in the owner of the land. The Select Committee thought it advisable to bring forward a recommendation defining precious metal, but for some unaccountable reason, without consulting the Committee or the House, the Minister thought well to drop it. The existing clause is that the Governor-General might declare any base metal a precious metal, but the question raised by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) is a technical one, based on the economic value of a mineral which, when it advances to a certain monetary value, becomes a precious metal. We have it in the Transvaal that platinum, which is of more value than gold, is not a precious metal according to law, but the Minister can come forward and under his rights in the Law can proclaim it a precious metal, causing hardships and difficulties. In the old Cape Law it was laid down that platinum was a precious metal, and when the matter was considered by the Select Committee, they thought it advisable to insert a provision defining it as a precious metal in this Act, but the Minister dropped the proposal. It was considered by the Committee, who thought it advisable to proclaim it a precious metal, as the owner of land would be in a position, when he sold his farm, to know what he was selling, and not have the sword of Damocles hanging over his head. If we leave the clause in a transitory condition, we are leaving the Transvaal in a difficult position. Let us once and for all come to a decision as to the owners’ rights by inserting the proposition of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). Let the owners know definitely what they are dealing with, so that when they are selling their farms they will not be subject to the whims and fancies of the Government to declare any metal a precious metal. This question having been fought out in the Select Committee and accepted by this Committee, there is a considerable amount of responsibility in the matter, and although a technical subject, I would ask the Committee to consider every clause broadly and equitably, as far as the owners are concerned. In the past, in the Transvaal, the principle has been laid down that they recognized the right of the State to precious metals and the right of disposal by the owner of other minerals. This matter has been left out of Clause 2 in the Bill, which is merely fogging the whole question as far as the Bill is concerned. I am surprised that the Minister was prepared to laisser faire on this principle, which involves a big question as far as the owners were concerned.

Ek wens ook die amendement van die lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) te ondersteun. Die Minister sê wel dat platinum steeds in die Kaapkolonie beskou werd as ’n edele metaal, maar dit is nie so nie in die Transvaal; daar werd volgens Wet net goud en silver as sodanig beskou. Dit is waar dat die Minister die reg het, onder die Wet van 1908, om by proklamasie vas te stel dat ’n sekere metaal sal val onder die definisie edel, maar daardeur word grote skade aangerig aan die belanghebbende. Ek verstaan dat platinum nie voorkom in ’n rif soas goud nie wat jy kan afpen en bewerk, maar in kolle, “patches” soos dit in Engels genoem word. As ’n plaas vir platinum geproklameer word, dan word die hele plaas omgedobbel, soas geskied in die geval van alluviale diamant velde. As die proklamasie uitkom beteken dit dat van die eienaar allerhande regte vervreemd word. Dit is al geskied met die proklamasie in verband met vliegmasjienes, elektriesiteit en diesmeer. In die laaste tyd toon die edelagbare die Minister ’n neiging om regte van grondeienaars weg te neem en dit lyk of hy sterk oorhel na die sosialistiese kant.

Ek dag dat ek helemaal staat by die kapitaliste?

Nee, maar in hierdie geval is die edelagbare die Minister sosialisties. Die meeste metale en minerale word gevind in Transvaal en dit is sodoende maar telkens ons wat moet opdok en ons word die ding nou moeg. As die gevraagde bepaling nie daargestel word nie, dan weet mens nie waar dit heengaat nie—more, oormore, word miskien tin ook geproklameer as edele metaal.

Voordat die Minister antwoord wens ek die amendement van die lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) te steun, waarvan die strekking is dat sekerheid moet verkry word insake edele en onedele metale. As dit gelaat word soas dit is in die Wet, dan word dit weer onseker en daarom is dit hoog tyd, dat die Regering beslis wat edele metale is en wat nie. Neem die geval van die onlangse proklamasie van platinum. Dit is ’n nuwe ontdekking en toe werd ’n proklamasie uitgevaardig dat dit onder edele metale val en hierdeur is grote verlies berokkend. Die mense wat die kontrak had, het gemeen dat hulle sekere regte het, om later uit te vind dat dit nie so is nie, want hulle had regte op onedele metale. Die plaaseienaar ly ook grote verlies, dewyl hy alle regte verbeur wat aan ’n eienaar toekom, ingeval die plaas vir onedele metale geproklameer word. Dit is noodsaaklik dat die regte van die eienaar gewaarborg word. Sodra ’n proklamasie verskyn beteken dit dat aan die eienaar sekere regte ontneem word. Waarom moet dit wees? Dit is natuurlik behalve die lisensiegelde, maar die kan hom volstrek nie skadeloos stel vir die gelede verlies nie.

First of all, I would like to say why this clause was left out of this Bill. It was inserted into the Bill of 1922 merely for the purpose of removing a legal doubt as to the difference between a base metal and a precious metal, which existed in the definition of the Transvaal Law in 1898. The Select Committee removed that doubt, but left the Law exactly as it was. I say the Select Committee met last year and discussed this matter at great length, and removed the legal doubt which there is in the definition at the present moment in the minds of some people. To my mind there is no doubt, but if left the clause substantially in the same form which it is in at the present moment. Since then, as the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), has pointed out, two developments have taken place. One is that the refinery on the Witwatersrand has got into full swing and is now separating osmoridium from platinum. Therefore I had to proclaim it under the existing law as a precious metal. In the Waterberg district osmoridium has also been found. We cannot say that if platinum is found in the form of osmoridium on the Reef in Johannesburg it is a precious metal, but when it is found in the Waterberg district, that it is not a precious metal. I think it was the right thing to proclaim platinum under the existing law I do not think under the circumstances that at this stage we should repeat the law exactly in the form in which it was. That is the reason why I left the clause out last session. But doubt was removed that two proclamations have been issued under the existing law. I now come to the argument that the existing law in the Transvaal is against the owner. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler says that that is the law of 1898, but I will read to him the republican law of 1898. that is the year before the war. This was the law of the Transvaal long before this, because hon. members will remember that the Volksraad amended their gold law almost every year. As a matter of fact, the whole gold law was built up in that way. The Act of 1898 says—

You do not lay claim to quicksilver, now, as a precious metal.

Ek hoop my Transvaalse vriende sal nou die posiesie goed begryp.

As a matter of fact, the existing law of the Transvaal merely repeats that, only makes it a little doubtful. Here the discretion of the President with his executive committee is absolute. There is no reference to base metals. They say gold, silver, and quicksilver and any other metal which the President and his executive committee will proclaim, with no reservations whatsoever. What does the existing law say? It first of all defines base metals and then precious metals, and in the definition of precious metals base metal is referred to. For the convenience of members I will read both definitions as this is a technical subject, and I want hon. members to understand the position. The first definition states as follows—

Now I will read the definition of precious metals—

1. (a) “Precious metals shall mean gold, silver, quicksilver”—quicksilver was taken out of the republican law and has been put here now as a base metal—“gold and silver found in combination of a base metal, and where such gold or silver cannot be worked apart from such base metal.
2. (b) Any other metal not being a base metal declared by Proclamation by the Government in the Gazette to be a precious metal for the purpose of this Act.”

Practically this is word for word with the old Transvaal law, prior to the war, with these words added “not being a base metal.” These are the words which have given rise to the doubt. Some people have argued that base metal definition includes these metals mentioned here. Therefore sub-section (d) of the definition of precious metals might have not appeared at all, as they say everything is base metal which is not gold and silver. That is not my reading of the law, and I do not think that the law courts will uphold that, but will say that those words must have been put there by the Transvaal Parliament for some reason. If you compare it with the Law of 1898 you will see the meaning is quite clear. Platinum is a precious metal for which Parliament has made a special provision, and it is wrong for that reason to argue that every conceivable metal outside gold and silver must be base metal. That is the law as it stands, and having exercised the right given here to proclaim what are precious metals, I did not introduce this clause again when I introduced it again this year. Therefore I can see the force of the argument, and it has been urged from different sides of the House that this power of defining it by proclamation may be too wide and may lead to inconvenience and loss, and that there is a good deal to be said for defining it absolutely. Now in the Cape—the Cape law defines it absolutely by saying precious metals shall mean gold, silver and platinum and no more. Gold, silver and platinum are precious metals to-day. I dare say they would include platinum, osmoridium and two others. There are a group of four metals which differ chemically, though in physical characteristics they are the same, and they are commonly called the platinum group, as the hon. member puts in his definition. At any rate this matter requires careful grasping. There is another point in regard to the mixing up where base and precious metals are worked together and the mine gets worked out as a base metal proposition and becomes a precious metal proposition, or vice versa. That we are also trying to meet. Recognizing that this is a matter which has exercised the minds of members and others outside for a considerable time, and there is something to be said in favour of a definite statement of what the law is, and not to leave it. I am prepared to consider this amendment in that spirit and to see whether, with the assistance of my technical advisors, I can draft a definition to bring before the House later. I therefore move—

There is one point which I wish to refer to. To my mind, as far as platinum is concerned, there is no doubt that it is a precious metal. It is defined all over the world as a precious metal. But my complaint is this, why is this an amending Bill, why is it not a consolidating Bill for the four provinces?

Quite so.

Why should the Transvaal or the Free State be singled out for separate legislation as against the Cape or Natal? Is there any country within the Dominions where private owners are deprived of their rights, whether base metals or precious metals—private owners who hold the whole of the minerals. It is only in South Africa where you find this. The hon. member says that this law came about in 1898. I understand, it may be wrong, that this law was promulgated by the Transvaal for safety’s sake. That is stated openly. Now on this point of this question standing over—why was the Minister in a hurry to issue this proclamation? It is the work of an autocrat. Confiscation by administrative decree. Why did not the Government come to Parliament and give Parliament an opportunity of discussing these matters and giving its decision. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to another point, and that is that the platinum discovered in the Waterberg district is different to any in the world. There is no place in the world where platinum is found in reefs, it is always an alluvial, and what would apply to an alluvial in another country would not apply to platinum in a reef in this country, and I would urge the Minister, before he issues any further proclamation with regard to this discovery, that he should have his engineer and independent engineers to go and see what it is like and see how the platinum is distributed through the reef. It is of a very patchy nature. It is a valuable asset to the State, and it is the State’s duty to see to the administration and working of these properties, but I would like the Minister to find out exactly what really it is. There is no doubt that it is very patchy, and if it comes under the Gold Law and you give 20 per cent. mynpacht to an owner, you might be depriving him of all his rights, there might be nothing in what you give him and you have taken away all his rights, his surface and mineral rights and all you give him are claim licences. You take everything away from him with one declaration, with one stroke of the pen, as the Minister did, without coming to Parliament. I want to urge on the Minister, if he wants to do the right thing by the owner, and the future owner, that he should enquire very carefully how this platinum is found in the reef. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) knows very well what the position is, and he knows that there is no place in the world where it has been discovered except in alluvial. Now this is a matter of confiscation. The people in the Transvaal have had enough of that, they take it for electricity, for air force or anything else required. Hon. members on the Labour benches are delighted to see it, and even the new recruit, the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) is delighted.

No, I am not.

Well, come and join us. No, he is not going to vote with the Labour Party, he is out of place there. The hon. member strikes me like the amatory hero who wishes to marry high in life and is refused by the first, and being disappointed, rushes to the next one who will accept him. He looks unhappy as the result of haste. But on this matter the House should speak. This is confiscation, spoliation, it is pure robbery of the owner. As far as the South African Party is concerned, it is anti-Socialistic, and I thought at any rate, and I still think, that they look upon titles as an unassailable right and that they would protect private interests, and not allow spoliation, which has taken place. The Transvaal has been singled out for this spoliation, and the Free State as well. I am not going to vote on this amendment, as I am largely interested, but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the condition in which platinum is found in the Waterberg district of the Transvaal, and to consider carefully before he deprives owners of their legitimate rights.

Ek wens die amendement van die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) te ondersteun en ek hoop dat elke lid hier in die Huis wat verteenwoordig die grondeienaars van Suid-Afrika sal vir die amendement stem, want soos die Wet daar is om platina ook te bring onder edele metale, verminder dit die mag van die grondeienaars daar. Ek was bly om te sien by die twede lesing dat die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (die hr. Geldenhuys) ook al gesê het, dat in die tyd van die Republieke die grondeienaars goed beskerm was. Dit was ook so. Maar van dat daar ’n verandering van Regering gekom het is daar gedurig getorring aan die Goud-Wet en elke verandering wat in die Wet gekom het was ’n inkrimping van die regte van die grondeienaars, van die mense wat die oppervlakte besit. Ons ou voortrekkers daar van die Rand het die toestande daar baie goed geken en ons weet dat van daardie tyd tot noutoe groot veranderinge in die Goud-Wet gekom het, en dat gedurig die regte van die grondeienaars ingekrimp is. Ek sê saam met die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey), hoekom is die Eerste Minister so verskriklik haastig om somar platina te gaan proklameer as edele metaal. Waarom is dit nie eers voor die Parlement gebring nie; sodat ons die saak het kan bespreek? Ek hou nie van die soort van wetgewing nie, om eers dinge klaar te maak en te reken jy het ’n groot meerderheid en dan te kom om die Wet deur te druk. Nee, ons moet voeling hou met die pubilek en aan die anderkant voeling hou met die grondeienaars, want as die Wet nou so deurgaan verloor die grondeienaars baie regte, die oppervlakte regte. As platina ook onder die edele metale kom, verminder jou kleims baie, jy betaal baie meer eienaarsregte ens.

Daar is handelsregte.

Daar is baie platina in die Transvaal, maar ek vrees, dat as die Wet deurgaan, dan sal die mense wat die ontdekkinge gemaak het en in wie se grond die metaal is, nie die saak kan bewerk nie, want dit sal teveel kos. Ek hoop dat die lede wat grondeienaars verteenwoordig sal vir die amendement stem.

I think it is rather important that this amendment should stand over, because there are very vital interests concerned, and the clause defining a precious metal will require to be very carefully drafted indeed. The whole of the owner’s rights depend upon whether a metal is to be precious or base. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) has pointed out that if the metal found is declared to be a precious metal, the owner has only the right to locate his right upon a portion equal to one-fifth of the area of his farm. If the metal is a base metal, then the owner has the rights to that metal on the whole of his farm.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the question is whether the consideration of the proposed new clause should stand over.

I am saying that it is important it should stand over because very big interests are at stake and the matter should be very seriously considered. That is why I want to submit a few arguments on these lines. Not only are the rights of the owner to the metal affected, but the whole of the surface rights are affected. If the metal is a precious metal, then the right to the disposal of the surface is vested in the Government; if it is a base metal the owner enjoys the right of the disposal of the surface of his farm; so that it is not only with regard to the metal itself but with regard to the surface that his rights are affected. That being so I think it is far too great a power to be left in the hands of any Minister to declare by a stroke of the pen whether a metal shall be precious or base. I think therefore that the Minister in drafting the amendment, which will subsequently be put before the House, should make very careful enquiries into the rights which may be affected and be very careful how those rights are defined in the amendment which he introduces. There is another point which he should consider in preparing that amendment. I understand that at the present time there is a case pending with regard to these proclamations which have been issued, making platinum a precious metal in the Transvaal. He will have to be careful that the rights affected by that case are left untouched.

Aangesien die Minister self insien dat daar behoorlik vasgestel moet word wat edele en wat onedele metale is, en genee is om met sy regskundige adviseurs die saak te bestudeer om ’n behoorlike artiekel op te stel, behoor ons die voorstel van die Minister aan te neem en later as die artiekel weer voor die Huis kom, kan ons dit verder bespreek.

Ek is baie bly dat die Minister toestem om die saak uit te stel en dat die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) tevrede is daarmee. Ek weet van ons kant is daar ook nog mense wat van plan is om die saak te ondersoek en wat graag ’n bietjie tyd wil hê, want dit is soos die lid van Troyeville (de hr. Webber) gesê het, dat daar ’n belangrike eienaarskwessie daaraan verbon, de is en ek hoop dat die Minister daarin sal slaag om die artiekel behoorlik op te stel. Ek wil nie verder praat nie en die tyd van die Huis in beslag neem, maar ek hoop dat die amendement aangeneem sal word.

I am very glad the Minister is going to take this course and to hear him express himself as he did. After all, I feel rather in a peculiar position: I am limiting a Minister’s discretion to proclaim what metal he pleases as a precious metal. That is not on account of my having any desire to take the same care of owners’ rights as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) does, and as many hon. members here do. I think there is a great deal in our mineral law which might with great advantage to the country be altered, if the owners’ rights were abridged a great deal in favour of the prospector and exploiter, and I believe that many hon. members think that it is not really the farmer who benefits so much by present arrangements as the monopolists and the commanders of credit and finance.

I think they lose, do they not?

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) seems to think it was an argument against this being proclaimed as a precious metal, that it occurs only so far as they know in patches, but he says the owner might be deprived. I suppose no one knows better than the hon. member himself that that may also take place in regard to gold. Platinum is a rare metal and will continue to be so. We can hardly expect that the tremendous values mentioned in that report of Mr. Wagner and Major Trevor will be extended over a large area. My complaint against the Minister is not that he has by proclamation announced platinum to be a precious metal, but for not having taken in hand the proclamation of that area more expeditiously as he would have done if it had been a gold discovery.

You must give people a chance.

Yes, after a reasonable time has elapsed. It is a gamble for them. I take it that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) says we should be very careful about legislating because there is a case pending. If there is any question of platinum not being a precious metal them we should put it right now. It is not as if we were legislating for all sorts of substances, the number of metals known to science is very limited.

Motion that the proposed new clause stand over for further consideration put and agreed to.

I move—

The Minister will remember in Select Committee I proposed to move an amendment that that amendment be introduced into the Bill, and I think that as the Select Committee went to a great deal of trouble in making that selection, it is necessary for me to explain to the House what this question is and what it was based on. It was on page 35 of the Select Committee’s report. You will see that it was resolved in line 25 to insert “land situated within the mining district comprised in Class A under the terms of section 7 of the principal Act.” That was resolved unanimously by the Committee. I do not know why the Minister has thought fit to leave this clause out of the Bill. The question here dealt with is the whole question dealing with mynpachts. With regard to class A, the principle which the Committee thought fit to establish was this. It has been found necessary where a large industrial population has sprung up suddenly on the Witwatersrand where the law originally made it the basis being the ground proclaimed when worked out reverted back to the owner and the owner then came into possession of his land and he could do with it what he liked. That was what the old Transvaal Gold Law made it when it was enacted. The conditions on the Witwatersrand were somewhat peculiar. Here we had many years of steady mining work which led to considerable mining development and led incidently to large areas, townships, and I may say the whole of the Witwatersrand area, a large industrial centre, springing up on what was originally a gold proposition. Now the Committee thought that the conditions on the Witwatersrand were of such a nature that it was necessary without making undue incursion into the original rights of the owner when this law was originally proclaimed that we should introduce and carry out and expand this principle that was laid down in the Bill. And after all these conditions which sprang up affecting the whole of the Transvaal and were especially applicable to the Witwatersrand and not the rest of the Transvaal should be given voice to in any legislation. In the Transvaal Act you will find in Clause 7 that—

That is the outside districts where there was a prospect of a small mine springing up and being worked out and reverting to the owner within a short period. These are entirely different to the conditions on the Witwatersrand. Now in reviewing that position we have to refer to the old Transvaal Law where this question of mynpachts had arisen. Under the old law, the owner in the Transvaal received a definite area of his farm which was one-tenth and he was allowed to do with it what he liked; not only that but it was definitely laid down in the law that he should not be interferred with in the exercise of any rights. Article 25 of the Gold Law of 1898 dealing with this question of mynpachts reads—

Under those conditions on the Witwatersrand, in this dense community, the enhanced value of this ground has been realized by these mynpacht owners and they have traded on this right and have divided up this area, and they have to-day created a large vested interest on this which was originally the owners rights. It is true that these rights are to-day largely accrued to the mining companies but this does not entitle us to take away or divest them of the rights which this law entitled them to build upon. The Committee on this question thought very seriously over it and we felt we would be doing it an injustice by detracting from those vested rights if we did not include those conditions in any Bill which was enacted. Now when I tell a Committee that this Bill largely aims at differentiating between ground which remains as mining title and which is proclaimed, then the Committee will recognize the depreciated condition in which the owners had been put through this clause being left out in this Bill. On that account, I hope the Committee will give this clause serious consideration. The Select Committee certainly did, and in moving this amendment, I may say that the whole Committee was unanimous. I must say that I am particularly surprised that the Minister has never mentioned it or introduced the principle into the Bill or even recognized its importance, or told us why he has left it out of the Bill. With that object in view I will move as an amendment that Clause 3 of the Committee’s report be introduced into the Bill.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has given a clear explanation of this clause. The clause was in the Bill as introduced and as it came before the Select Committee, when it was limited to the Rand, to the class A mines. I left it in the Bill for this reason: there was a ease pending last year while this Bill was before the Select Committee—the old Langlaagte Mynpacht, small areas of mynpacht which was not proclaimed land. All the mynpacht created since 1908 are dealt with as proclaimed land, but the mynpacht before this are not proclaimed. The case was heard in court and the court decided that under the existing law all mynpacht, even when the gold in the mynpacht was worked out and no licence money was being paid, could not be proclaimed not only for the purposes of gold, but for the industry in general. When the Act had not passed last year, it became necessary for me to use the power of the Government to proclaim that land under the existing law. Now to avoid difficulties I thought to leave the clause out as what had been contemplated by the clause, has been done by going on the judgment of the court. I have no objection whatever to the clause as moved by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). There is this to be said in favour of it going in: you need not in future have to refer to the decision of the court but to refer to the Act of Parliament. There is no difficulty in putting it in, but I think it is no longer necessary. But to make doubly sure, I will accept it.

I advise the Committee to be very cautious in accepting this proposed clause. It has this inherent drawback: it is a piece of retrospective legislation. The Gold Law of 1898 did not make mynpachts proclaimed land and subject to all the provisions applying to proclaimed land. The Act of 1908 stated that subsequently-created mynpachts should be regarded as proclaimed land, but made no provision for the mynpachts in existence, which still continued to be regarded as unproclaimed land. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) now in 1924 says: “We will pass this retrospective legislation which will declare that all these mynpachts should be regarded as proclaimed land, although for 35 years the law has regarded them as unproclaimed.” There is a world of difference between land which is proclaimed and that which is not proclaimed, and I say that without further enquiry we should not pass what is a piece of retrospective legislation. When the Minister introduced this particular clause, he had to meet a particular case which he now tells us no longer exists. He has solved the difficulty in that case by administrative action. If this clause is inserted it may lead to grave complications the issue of which we cannot see at present. There is no real reason for the clause. It has this big disadvantage that it is retrospective legislation, and I think the Minister would be well advised not to allow the clause to go into the Act.

Ek stem met die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) saam, want ons het nie genoeg informasie vóór ons om so’n bepaling neer te lê nie. Ek sal daarom teen die amendement stem.

Kan die edelagbare die Minister ons sê, is daar meer mynpacht gronde wat in dieselfde geval verkeer as daardie van Langlaagte en kan hy daarmee net so handel as met hierdie?

Daar is ou mynpacht wat noggewerk word en solank as die man die lisensie betaal, is dit myngrond en bly al die mynregulasies daarop van toepassing. Sodra dit uitgewerk is, wil die eienaar nie meer lisensiegeld betaal nie en laat dit verval. Dan is dit op grond tussen al die myngronde in. Dan kry jy soas reeds gesê, die stukkies oop grond tussen al die geproklameerde gronde van Johannesburg in. Daar is nie veel van diesoort grond nie, maar die word op die oomblik nog bewerk. Maar dieselfde geval as die van Langlaagte sal ontstaan met die andere, sodra dit nie meer bewerk word nie. Dan word die mynbrief gekanseleer, dog dit moet beskou word as geproklameer, anders kry jy allerlei onreelmatighede soas dat die poliesie nie daar mag kom nie en die stadsraad moet miskien elek triese drade daaroor heen span. Daarom is dit dat die Hof bepaal het dat die Regering die stukkies grond kan proklameer, nie vir goud nie, maar vir die doeleindes van die goudgrawery as industrie. Dit het ek gedaan met Langlaagte en is van plan om dieselfde te doen met andere, wat kom te verval. Die Minister het die voordeel om te kan sê: Nee, moet nie wag tot dit verval nie, maar bepaal by die Wet dat die soort stukkies grond sal vir die doeleindes van die industrie beskou word as mynpacht grond. Ek het daarom geen beswaar om die amendement aan te neem nie.

I do not think the case is quite as simple as the Minister suggests. If the Minister wishes to proclaim any special mynpacht as proclaimed land, he has, as he has said, the judgment of the Court. This section goes further. It says it shall be proclaimed land, therefore all the old mynpachts which have not been proclaimed land, will now become proclaimed land under the provisions of the Gold Law. The consequences of this are far more reaching than the Minister has found fit to explain. Why is the provision of this section confined to one small area in the Witwatersrand? If he has power to proclaim mynpacht as proclaimed land all over the Transvaal, why make provision for that part only?

There is no mynpacht.

There are old mynpachts in Barberton and old leaseholds.

Old leaseholds, yes.

Why confine this to special areas in the Witwatersrand? I think the clause was wisely left out of the Bill. The consequences are more far-reaching than we can explain or realize. You will realize this only when special points come up. Putting this clause broadly, it means that old mynpachts which up to now were not proclaimed, become proclaimed land under the Gold Law, and will be subject to all the provisions in regard to proclaimed land in this Bill. I think the Minister would be unwise to accept the amendment.

Ek stem in met die lid vir Troyeville (die hr. Webber), dat grond slegs geproklameer word, as daar betaalbare minerale op is, en hier kry die Minister die reg om, al is dit nie betaalbaar nie, hy dit tog kan proklameer. Daardeur word dadelik weer aan die eienaar sekere regte ontneem. Ek sal daarom seker nie stem vir die amendement van die edele lid hier naas my nie.

Ek kan nie verstaan waarom die edelagbare die Minister die amendement van die lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) nie wil aanneem nie. Want hy net die reg wat die amendement beoog, tog onder die uitspraak van ddie Hof en ek kan daarom nie die noodsaaklikheid vir so ’n nuwe wetsbepaling sien nie.

I do not think the members of the Select Committee can have much objection to the right hon. the Minister cutting out that portion referring to class A, because if it is desired to make exemption in the outside districts, it will not affect us on the Witwatersrand so long as we retain the power to exempt them in our area. I think the Minister should be very careful about the proposal regarding Chapter IX. The Committee had a good deal of discussion on it, and was of the opinion that unless it was clearly stated and set out what exemption might be made the Minister might make a mistake, no matter how good a Minister he is and exempt so far as trading also. We have had it here time after time that this is one of the particular things we must be very careful of; as certain townships have been sold for trading purposes and certain stands are also laid out for the same purpose, and if you are going to have certain additional islands of land where trading is to be carried on then you will have all sorts of trouble. I think the Minister will be well advised to stick to the clause of the Select Committee and have Chapter IX left in.

I would like to support the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) as regards Chapter IX, as this is a very important matter, and he has dealt with it so fully. I need not go into any detail except that I support him.

New clause, proposed by Mr. Munnik, put and negatived.

Clause 2 put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Ek het ’n paar amendemente soas u sal sien op bladsy 147 en 148 van die notule. By Klausule 3 (1) behoor opgeneem te word: “op applikatie van die eigenaar.” Ek voel dat dit ’n valse verhouding is en onreg dat waar die eienaar nie sy regte kan herkry nie, die Goewerneur-generaal wel die reg he die proklamasie op te hef. Dit is verkeerd dat die eienaar uitgesluit word en feitelik enigeen dit wel kan doen. Die eienaar moet applikasie maak en dit is weer ’n bevoorregting van Johannesburg alleen. Waarom word dit nie bepaal ten aansien b.v. van Pilgrimsrust. Kaapse Hoop en ander goudvelde nie? Nou is dit so, dat as die eienaar vind dat daar niks op is nie en hy wil op die grond bome plant of landerye maak, dan kan hy dit nie doen nie. By die volgende amendement is dit so dat die Goewerneur natuurlik kan proklameer al is dit nie juis vir myndoeleindes nie, maar vir andere publieke doeleindes. Dit sou onnodige onkoste veroorsaak as dit gepubliseer moet word. Wat dit lastig maak is die bepaling dat by die opheffing van sodanige grond saldaar kompensasie uitbetaal word aan die eienaar, waartoe die partye moet ooreen kom. Kan hulle nie ooreen kom nie dan word voorsiening gemaak vir arbitrasie. As dit nie duidelik daarin staan nie, sal die eienaar skade moet ly, daarom wil ek daar bygevoeg hê dat die geld moet toegestaan word, voordat die opheffing plaas vind. Ek stel dus voor—

I move—

I think those words “of land held under mining title” should remain, and they should fall under the category of proclaimed land. Otherwise I am in sympathy with the hon. member’s amendment. In wishing to add at, the end of that sub-section the words “and any other law” I am thinking of the Township Act, for if once the Minister of Mines excludes these lands let them be free. I agree with him that they should be exempt from this or any other Act. My other amendment is almost verbal, and I do not think the hon. member will object to it.

Ek het geen beswaar teen die kleine amendement van die edele lid vir Ermelo (Kol.-Kdt. Collins) en ek stem toe dat dit ingevoeg word.

I think I shall best deal with these two sets of amendments together. I think that the intention of the words “and all land held under mining title,” as suggested by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), is sound because you do not want to exempt only proclaimed land. If the land is held under mining title and is not being worked, you do not want that surface to lie idle. The following words, “situated in the area of the Witwatersrand,” is an amendment that was put in in Select Committee at the instance of several members, and they thought that this exemption should apply to the Witwatersrand only. I rather opposed that. I say that if you have legally made waste on the Witwatersrand, deal with it in this clause. If you have them in other parts of the Transvaal why not deal with them also? But I was overborne. At all events, I am prepared to stick to the clause as it was without this amendment as it was inserted in Select Committee; but, of course, this is a matter of detail. If the hon. member insists on it, well, as a member of the Select Committee, I shall stand by him; but I think the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) also felt that they went a little too far. At all events, I now agree with him. That I would accept. Then there is the question of the omission of Chapter IX on the following page. Well, I read the Gold Law as meaning that it is only Chapter IX which imposes conditions on the surface. But as to exemption of such conditions as the Governor may lay down, under proclamation, I think there is no great harm done in omitting these words, and so far as this is concerned, I am not so very much concerned. Then there is “any other law,” which the hon. members want to put in. There I am a little doubtful, and for this reason—that means trading, and I do not think it would be wise of the Government to exempt this land for trading purposes, and if you were to add these words, that would be the effect of it, and I think so far as trading is concerned that should not be. I know that there is a trading community on the Rand very much opposed to it. It was through their influence that the Committee left the clause as it is. Personally, I think it is better to leave it out. I originally had a clause to that effect in the Bill, but the Select Committee took it out. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) now seeks to go back on the decision of the Select Committee, but I think was not in the Select Committee’s Bill. I say that in so far as land has been exempted by the Governor-General, the use of the land shall be at the disposal of the owner for such period we had better stick to what the Committee has decided. Now the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) wants to say that this exemption shall be given at the request of the owner. I go further. I had inserted sub-section (2), which as may be prescribed by proclamation, so the whole of the exemption and the use to be made of the land after exemption: is in favour of the owner. The hon. member will see therefore that my new sub-section 2 not only includes it, but it goes further. That was the original intention of the clause. Then I have a little amendment of my own, viz.—

It was merely an omission not to have that in. With regard to the last amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), as supported by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), I am prepared to accept that.

Amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp, in line 47, and the first part of the amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp in line 49. viz., to omit the words “and of land held under mining title”; amendment in line 2, on page 4; and amendments proposed by Col.-Cdt. Collins in line 3, on page 4, put and negatived.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

stelde het volgende amendement voor—

De Minister heeft al aangeduid—oppervlakkig mag ik zeggen—wat de bedoeling van dit amendement is. Nu, de leden sub-sectie (3) van sectie 4 willen opslaan, zullen zij zien, dat daar word neergelegd dat bij deproklamatie zekere rechten niet geaffecteerd zullen worden o.a. wat vermeld word in Kapittels 8 en 9 van deze Wet. Onder die rechten worden gespecificeerd gronden gegeven voor publieke gebouwen, voor godsdienstgebouwen en doeleinden die strekken tot bevordering van gezondheid en recreatie. Op het laatste wil ik bijzonder nadruk leggen. Wanneer een godsdienstig lichaam, of het Gouvernement, of municipaliteit of eenige plaatselijke autoriteit voor sekere doeleinden grond benodigt en daarop ’n opstal is opgericht voor de invoering van deze Wet, dan moet die grond getransporteerd worden aan zoodanig lichaam zonder eenige betaling. Ik zeg, dit is inbreuk op die rechten van eigenaars. Onder die Wet kan voor zekere doeleinden grond gegeven worden. Dit is niet billijk. Stel b.v. die doeleind waarvoor die grond gegeven word is recreatie, b.v. voor ’n golf-terrein. Ik hou van sport, en zie graag, dat die zooveel mogelik aangemoedigd wordt maar om die geproklameerde eigenaar zijn grond te ontnemen en te gebruiken voor golf-course, enz., zonder vergoeding, dat is toch niet billijk. Ik wil een ander concrete geval aanhalen, waar b.v. een stuk grond van 100 morgen die municipaliteit aangewezen is als kafferlokatie. Nu is die waarde van die grond £200 per morgen en die word nu van die eigenaar genomen zonder eenige vergoeding. Dat is onbillijk. Nu legt die bestaande Wet neer, dat na die proclamatie—voorzoover rechten niet zijn afgestaan—die weer aan die eigenaar vervalt. Indien nu die lichamen of personen eigendom van die grond willen hebben, dan is dit niet meer als billijk, dat een redelijke vergoeding word betaald aan de eigenaar. Nee, ik zeg dit artiekel van die Minister gaat te ver. Die grond word weggenomen zonder eenige vergoeding. Daar behoort een redelijke vergoeding te zijn. En indien eenige verschil ontstaat omtrent de grootte of waarde, zal dit beslist kunnen worden bij arbitrage.

Ek wens ook ’n amendement op dieselfde artiekel voor te stel—

Mnr. Voorsitter, ek het nie geleentheid gehad nie om dit op papier te bring, maar ek het die Minister ’n kopie van my amendement gegee. Dis baie moeilik om sulke amendemente op die Goudwet voor te bring, want die Wet is baie ingewikkeld. Die bedoeling van die artiekel is om die regte van die eienaar soveel moontlik te beskerm en dit sal bevorder word deur in plaas van “9 maande” te set “3maande.” Verder stel ek voor om alle woorde na “daarvan” in regel 57 tot en met “vergunning” te skrap en na “arbitrage” in regel 70 in te voeg die bepaling omtrent lisensies ooreenkomstig my amendement. Dis nie meer as billik nie, dat daar ’n sekere lisensie betaal word. Nie veel nie, maar as die grond gedeproklameer word, dan is dit nie meer as billik, dat as daar ’n derde party inkom, die ’n sekere kleinigheid daarvoor betaal. Dis die doel van die amendement.

Ek hoop die edele Minister sal sy weg oop sien om die amendement aan te neem. Wat ons sien is dat so stadigaan meer en meer die regte van die eienaars weggeneem word. As daar ’n plek geproklameer is en na verloop van tyd blyk dat daar nie genoeg minerale wat die ontginning betaalbaar maak, waarom dan dit vir niks weggeneem? Dit is onbillik. Ons gaat nou heen en neem die eiendom van die eienaar wat die eiendomstietel besit, weg sonder die minste vergoeding. Is dit reg en billik teen cor die eienaar? As ons nou heengaan en dit doen, wat belet dan om in die toekoms ook plase weg te vat, as die beginsel hier neergelê word? As b.v. die Regering of andere lichaam dit wil hê, laat hulle daarvoor betaal en laat hulle dit nie vir niks kry nie. Die kerk wil dit ook nie verniks he nie, die eiendomsregte moet gerespekteer word.

May I ask the right hon. the Minister, does this mean any forfeiture of fees payable or rights?

Not in that way. The Government, municipalities and churches erected these buildings on land which they held from the Mining Commissioner. They pay nothing for the permission, and therefore there is no sacrifice as far as that is concerned; but if the Government has to pay for the buildings and land there will be public expense. That is quite clear. [An Hon. Member: “What is the amendment?”]. I have a copy of the amendment before me—it is the same as in the Bill—the remissions are taken from the Bill. That is common to both. The difference between the amendment and the clause in the Bill, is that the clause says that for public purposes these buildings and land, shall be transferred free of charge, while the hon. member says they must be paid for on valuation.

I hope that the point is quite clear. That is the effect of it. Now I come to the other point. What I dealt with was the first amendment moved, and I now come to the amendment put by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus). Sub-section (4) of the clause provides, and that was agreed to by the Select Committee after hearing the landowners of the Witwatersrand—and they came to a unanimous decision in this matter—with regard to sub-section (4) where lands have been given under a permit for one of these three purposes—to the Government for Government purposes, to a municipality for municipal purposes, and to a religious body for religious purposes, if they have used this land and built on it a building to the value of £500, then a sufficient amount of land on which this building stands will be transferred to the party that has erected the building, free of charge. That is the clause as it stands. A religious body, a municipal body, or the Government, who has taken proclaimed land and a permit from the mining commissioner, and has spent £500, will now on depopulation get the building and the land round it free of charge because it is for public purposes, for the advantage of the community that this has been done; and I say that hon. members who read the evidence given before the Select Committee will find that the evidence led from Johannesburg was to the effect that they agreed to this. I may say in regard to the religious bodies that that insertion was made by me during recess. I put in the churches. I have now explained the clause as it stands here, that is, that if a building of £500 or more has been put on that land, that land will be given free of charge to such a body. The position is that they have an interest of at least £500 in that land, and it is not more than right that they should now get that land, and the proposal in the Bill is that the land shall be given to them. Now the proposal of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) is, that as far as this land is concerned on which these buildings stand, they must be valued and must be paid for according to valuation, and if they cannot, there must be arbitration. That is the proposal. He takes over part of my amendment, but he goes further here—that the land should be handed over free of transfer duty. I should think that that is not in order, because the hon. member cannot make a proposal to relieve a taxpayer of any taxes, but he can amend my resolution and move his other part into mine, and leave out this about the transfer duty. The hon. member’s proposal will then be in order, but in the way it is now, it is not in order. I warn the hon. member now, so that if he wants a decision on the principle, he can alter his amendment so as to comply with the rules of the House. The difference in principle between the proposal of the Select Committee and that of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) is, that I say that the land on which these buildings are placed for public purposes should be transferred free of charge, whereas the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) proposes that there shall be arbitration if they cannot agree as to what is a fair valuation of that land. Well, these are the amendments which have been moved. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has moved an amendment to delete the limitation of £500, and he says that if any land has been given for any of these purposes, whether they have built on it or not, the land should be given to those bodies. That is his amendment, but I am not prepared to accept that.

We have only two amendments now.

I move—

These are purely drafting amendments.

Ek stel voor ’n amendement—

Ek verstaan dat die Minister bereid is om dit te laat oorstaan en ek sal net korteliks my rede gee dat steeds meer regte van die eienaar weggeneem word. By die proklamasie word sekere regte van die eienaar weggeneem; ons bly stil en laat maar begaan, maar vind uit dat die regte maar steeds ingekrimp word. Hier word sekere oppervlakteregte weggeneem, terwyl onder die ou Wet by de-proklamasie alle regte terug val na die eienaar. Maar onder hierdie Wet word aan allerlei liggame sekere regte gegee. Die Minister het verlede jaar ’n nog sterker bepaling as hierdie, in die Wet gehad, maar dit werd uitgegooi. Die Minister is nie tevrede met sy neerlaag nie, maar kom nou weer met hierdie nuwe artiekel en wil die regte van die eienaar verder bekort. Dit is niks anders nie as uitbuitery. Waarom kom die edelagbare Minister nie voor die dag met ’n gelykluidende Wet vir al vier die provinsies nie? Ek hoop dat die lede aan die anderkant sal toesien, dat die Minister nie sy sin kry nie en dat die sub-artiekel heeltemal geskrap word.

I move—

I would like to say a few words. I agree with the principle of Clause 4. Where the Government or municipalities have been in occupation of land in mining area under permits, which was convenient to them and the Government, and where during the period when that land was under proclamation they have had the use of that land, when the land is reproclaimed they should be given the title to that land without charge. The Minister’s suggestion now is, that where £500 had been expended upon the land the municipalities may retain it, but that is not the wording of his sub-section (4). He says “where there is a building worth £500 on the land”; he does not say “where £500 has been spent.” This is a totally different thing. Now, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), I believe, wants them to remove these buildings and hand the land over to the freeholder. As some of these sites happen to be cemeteries, he forgot to tell us what he wants done with the corpses. Does he want them removed?

Nee, hul kan maar bly.

I should like to refer to the amendment which I gave notice of, namely, to move in sub-section 4, the omission of the words: “upon which a structure of a value of not less than £500 has been erected prior to the commencement of this Act.” I think, too, it is most unfair to the House that hon. members have moved several important amendments without giving notice of them. It is unfair! I am sure there are quite a number of members who do not know what those amendments mean, and I suggest that this clause be held over until the amendments appear on the Notice Paper.

I have no objection to that, but I would like all members to move their amendments which they wish on this clause. Clauses 4 and 6 were practically open in Select Committee because there was such a difference of opinion on them, and the Select Committee came to no decision on them. I think it would be wise, that we should take these Clauses 4 and 6 and let all the amendments be moved and they can stand over so that members can study them. I would like the House to understand what they mean, so that they will be guided in their deliberations. The clause as it stands says that when land is deproclaimed certain things will happen. All the rights incidental to mining are preserved until such time as there is no more mining in that district at all. Secondly, with regard to surface permits which have been given out by the Mining Commissioner, under the old law for churches, for municipalities, for churchyards, sports-grounds and so forth, these permits will continue so long as they are required for the purposes for which they are given, free of charge. They are given now free of charge and what is proposed here is that these permits are not right and that is why we separate them into (a) and (b). (a)are rights, but I propose now that these permits, where a permit has been granted before deproclamation, shall continue until such time they are required no longer for the purpose for which it has been given. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) moves an amendment to the second part to the effect that these permits, after deproclamation, must pay licences according to Schedule 3 of the principal Act. That is the difference. I move that the permits be free until they are no longer required, and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) moves, that they shall pay licences according to Schedule 3 of the principal Act. What does he want to do in regard to cemeteries and depositing sites? Unfortunately all this land has been used for these purposes. What standard of value is there in this test that the hon. the Minister proposes to insert in the Bill? “Any house worth £500.” I have seen buildings on the Witwatersrand not £200 in value which cover millions of pounds worth of machinery. That is no criterion—the value of the building. On many mines you will see a wooden shed with dynamos and all sorts of highly valuable machinery in them. Surely the test is to what use it is being put by the municipality and whether they have alternative sites. All the municipalities along the Reef in regard to this have made representations to the Minister that they should be treated in the same way as the Crown and that the land should be vested in them. They have expended public monies on the land; they have caused a lot of things to be removed—machinery and so on, and it is simply an attempt of blackmail. That is what it amounts to. As a matter of fact, the hon. member who moves in that direction, knows as well as I do that there is no alternative site to the one the municipality is using at the present time.

What municipality?

Any municipality along the Reef; there is no alternative site to the one being used at the present time for this particular purpose. All cemeteries where dipping tanks have been erected for cattle, where slops are emptied, and rubbish deposited—he knows that for these there are no alternative sites, and he is going to force the municipality to go to the land-owner whose rights alone are respected in this Bill—no public rights—and to pay the price which the private owner whose land has been out of use all these years, who has received large sums of money in claim licences—and in many instances it is not the original owner at all who owns it, but the mining company—he is forcing the municipality to go to them and beg and pray for this land and pay the price they demand. I hope the Minister when considering this, will consider the case of the poor landowner.

As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, I want to say that Benoni Town Council hag up to now always got everything that the Minister could possibly grant it for public purposes. I want to say in this House that, even when the Labour Party controlled the Benoni Town Council and we wanted ground for public purposes, we always got it from the Minister when he could grant it to us. The Minister knows that the case presented by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is a good one, because if he took the depositing sites of the municipalities on the Reef, they have not got any buildings on these sites. The boys are housed in municipal compounds. The whole of the buildings are erected there, and the boys live in them. The depositing sites have no buildings at all, and unless the hon. the Minister agrees to this amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), it will mean that the municipalities will have no depositing sites. The same thing may apply to the cemeteries. Take the case of Brakpan, where they are just commencing, and perhaps are pot in a position to erect a building on that cemetery site, even to accommodate the caretaker. They may have a building somewhere else, but not on a cemetery, worth £500, and the municipalities will have to pay through the nose in order to secure this land at a later date. There are numerous other cases, but I am sure the hon. the Minister, with all his experience of the needs of the municipalities on the Witwatersrand, will agree that there are numerous cases where hardship will be created unless the words are omitted. I ask the Minister to give further consideration and, if he could, meet the wishes of the municipalities in this respect, and agree to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson).

moved—

Aangesien die Minister daarin toestem, dat die klausule oorstaan, wens ik te sê dat my amendement sal oorstaan tot die artiekel behandel word, omdat ek reken dat die klausule nie van toepassing is op die saak onder behandeling nie.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

moved—

There is nothing in Clause 5 that is binding. It simply says that the day date should be fixed in the Gazette.

It also deals with this question of deproclamation, the whole question of which is to be put off.

No section of the House has moved an amendment to this clause. Do let us get those things passed which are not contentious. I hope the Committee will accept the clause.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Ek het ook ’n kleine amendement so as blyk uit die Ordepapier. Ek stel dit voor om die bezwaring welke ik reeds by die tweede lesing geopper het, en dit is die ingryp in die regte van die eienaar. Ek verstaan dat die Minister miskien moeilikhede het, maar waar ek teen opkom is die reg welke aan Mynkommissarisse gegee word om stukke grond te vervreemd en die doel van my amendement is, dat dit sal beperk word tot grond wat reeds geproklameer is en nie van toepassing gemaak sal word op wat nog geproklameer sal word nie. Anders sal die mag naderhand sover uitgebrei word dat as ’n plaas geproklameer word en dan weer gedeproklameer, dan kan die Mynkommissaris enige stuk grond uithou vir enige doeleinde en daarteen kom ek op. Ek stel voor—

moved—

6. (1) In exempting the surface of pro claimed land under the provisions of section four, or in deproclaiming any land, the Governor-General may, by the proclamation, impose conditions as to the best method of utilizing such land especially in regard to—

1. (a) The provisions which should be made to meet the requirements of holders of mining title;
2. (b) the extension of existing or the establishment of new townships for industrial and residential purposes;
3. (c) the interests of the local authority including road construction, water reticulation, light and power supply and kindred matters;
4. (d) the endowment of the local authority;
5. (e) the general future development of the neighbourhood;
6. (f) the protection of any surface occupations for the protection of which no special provision is made in this Act.

Before any conditions are imposed in regard to any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e), the report of the townships board established under section three of the Townships Act, 1907, of the Transvaal, shall be obtained.

(2) The Governor-General may vary or annul any, or all of the conditions imposed under paragraph (a) or her may substitute other conditions of a similar character.

(3) Every officer charged with the registration of title shall take cognisance of those conditions and shall not permit the transfer of any land otherwise than in accordance therewith.

And to insert at the end of the clause: “: Provided further that the provisions of this section shall only apply to land situated within the mining districts comprised in class A under the terms of section seven of the principal Act”.

He said: What I am trying to do is, to restore this clause as it was when the Minister introduced it into the House, and my reason for doing that is, that there are so many outstanding-problems to be considered in conjunction with the disposal of proclaimed land under Clause 67 of the law of 1908. The first point was the question of the disposal of the proceeds of the sales of bewaarplaatsen, and the other was the question of surface rights. It was impossible in 1908 to tell what the life of the mines would be, and in what position the municipalities would stand when the mines closed down. Another outstanding problem was, whether the dumps would be of any further-use. In the 1908 Act the rights of the mining people were secured, but the right of the disposal of the surface rights of the land was vested in the Crown, and the manner of their disposal was left for future Parliaments to determine. I have never heard that fact disputed. I notice in the House and Lobby a sort of campaign being carried on, which I am sure is against the public interest, judging from the class of amendment it is inspiring [AN HON. MEMBER: “Who are they?”] Against the public interest. The old Transvaal Parliament at least preserved all public rights under Clause 67. By virtue of circumstances of their growth and the peculiar position of the Witwatersrand as a mining centre, the municipalities there have no public land whatever. When they require land for parks, public purposes or cemeteries, they have to purchase it in the open market. The mines hold the surface rights through the permission of the State. There is nothing in the law to compel the State to deproclaim land, so what rights have the freeholders to the surface rights? How can you compel the State, except through this House, to deproclaim these lands and to talk about their reversionary rights of ownership? That is all rubbish. They have no rights except what the State may give them under this law. The municipalities along the Reef have naturally looked to the day when the mines adjoining them were closing down, and this land would be at the disposal of the State. They made their representations from time to time, and it was accepted by all a few years ago, that they had to be considered when the deproclamation of the land took place. The Government of the Transvaal met the question of the disposal of Bewaarsplaatsen moneys and the disposal of this land by appointing commissions—they appointed the Bewaarsplaatsen Commission, and also appointed a local Government Commission, which has given its report. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) was a member of it. This report was to the effect that ample provision should be made for the municipalities. It is noteworthy that, although many of our municipalities outside the Witwatersrand are handsomely endowed with large areas known as “town lands”, those on the Reef, with the exception perhaps of Krugersdorp, who must need them, are singularly unfortunate in this respect. They do not possess any town lands, and are consequently seriously handicapped in tackling the housing and town planning problem. The report says, it is but natural that the Reef municipalities should come to regard the worked-out gold mining areas as the rightful inheritance of their towns as town lands. The commissioners then go on to point out that the proposal is that the Union Government should immediately take steps to require this reversionary right at its present-day value, and hold the land so acquired in trust for local authorities. They resolve that the Union Government should take immediate steps to acquire at present-day values the reversionary rights to the surface of all proclaimed land, and that the surface land so acquired be held in trust for, and, upon deproclamation, placed at the disposal to local authorities. The Commission further says—

The local Government Commission were not constituted of Bolshevists. I think if my hon. friend would study the names of the personnel of that Committee, he would agree they were not inspired by the Labour Party or the Bolshevists. They were: Mr. Stallard, Mr. W. Campbell, Mr. G. Constable, Mr. Frank Brown, Mr. G. Maasdorp, Mr. Mondriaan and Mr. M. G. Nicolson. They were members of the South African Party and well-known public men in the Transvaal, and they pointed out, that the titles to this land should be vested in the municipalities. All the increased value over the agricultural value is due to the presence and expenditure of the Rand communities, and it is due to those people who have made improvements to the land, or done the land any good. There is no value in that land over and above the agricultural value which has been created by the original owner or holders of the titles. No value at all. I know that the Commission’s suggestion was strongly opposed by that good old Tory body, the Transvaal Landowners’ Association, which was composed of a mere handful of men, who try to oppose the interests of tens of thousands of people on the Witwatersrand. The Minister referred the Commission’s views to a Departmental Committee, and we were informed in Select Committee of the result of their deliberations. It seemed that his Departmental Committee were inclined to be more liberal towards the local authorities than was the Minister himself. In the original Clause 8 of the Bill which was introduced two years ago, it was stated that, in exempting the surface of proclaimed land or upon deproclamation, the Government may impose conditions as to the best methods of utilising such lands, especially with regard to the extension of new townships or for industrial or residential purposes; the interests of local authorities including the right of the construction of light and power supply and such like, the endowment of the local authority, etc. When we got into Select Committee, we soon felt the Land-owners’ Association attack in force, similar to the attack which they are making now upon the House of Assembly. When they made this attack upon the Committee upstairs, it was apparent that the Committee was inclined to run away from the Minister’s proposals in Clause 8. The Committee then decided to delete Clause 8, and the Minister proposed to insert in its place the following clause—

1. (a) The local authority shall have the right to apply to the mining commissioner for the expropriation of any land to be deproclaimed or exempted which is required for the purposes of the local authority, whether such land is already occupied under any right or permission under the principal Act, or otherwise;
2. (b) the application shall be made in writing and shall state the extent and purposes for which the land is required, and a copy thereof shall be sent to the freehold owner of the land;
3. (c) on a given date, which shall be published with the application by the mining commissioner in the Gazette, the mining commissioner shall hear the application and any objections thereto, and shall give his decision as to the extent of land which is to be subject to the expropriation;
4. (d) the price to be paid for such land to the freehold thereof shall be fixed by mutual agreement, or in default of such agreement shall be determined by arbitration;
5. (e) the provisions of this section shall in no way affect the undermining rights of the holder of the mining title.

The Committee divided on that motion of the Minister’s, and it was negatived. Therefore a blank was created —

The hon. member’s time has expired.

It would be a great pity if the hon. member’s remarks should be interrupted, and I, therefore, formally support his amendment, and I hope the House will listen to his further remarks.

I voted against the Minister’s proposal, because there was no provision for municipal endowment. The price was to be determined by an arbitrator, and as no basis was stated, it was pretty evident that the basis which the arbitrator would take, would be the market value of the land. The public have undertaken all kinds of expenditure upon this land. Roads and trams have been built upon it and many other things have been done to improve its value, and yet, under the Minister’s proposal, the owner of this land was to receive all this increased value. Then in determining what area the municipality should have, the Mining Commissioner would take out of the hands of the Townships Board, the functions which they generally have. Everything was to be determined by the Mining Commissioner. The same elements of the Committee which assisted the Minister to delete Clause 8, turned round on him and helped to defeat his new clause. So the Minister now has another proposal. That is Clause 6 of the Bill we are considering. In this we have a complete surrender to the landowner. The laying-out of townships on this land is to be vested in the Townships Board, but the municipality is not to be given title to any of the land, except where there is a building of £500 on the land. It may get that land on deproclamation. The Minister has totally ignored the interests of the municipalities and of the public of the Reef. The municipalities will have to go into the market and buy stands for themselves, and at the market value created by their improvements. The only check is that a Townships Board will regulate the laying out of such townships. I ask the House to stand by the recommendations made by the Commission. We thought, when the Minister introduced his original Bill, that a reasonable compromise had been arrived at, but now find that he has now surrendered his previous strong position. I move the amendment standing in my name. With regard to the last part of the amendment confining the provisions of the clause to the Reef, I consider that the same provisions are not necessary in the country districts, where municipalities have large town lands to meet all the requirements of the community, and therefore propose that this amendment should be applicable to class A only, or, in other words, the Witwatersrand.

Ek sien, dat die Minister gewillig is om die artiekel te laat oorstaan. Maar daar is een punt waarop ek die aandag will vestig en wat my nie heeltemaal duidelik is nie. Dit is artiekel 6, par. I, waar ek lees—

Nou begryp ek nie wat die bedoeling is nie. Kan nou die houer van mynbriewe kom en klein stukkies grond in die omtrek vat sonder enige kompensatie daarvoor te gee? Daar is baie mense wat klein stukkies grond het van 50 of 100 morge daar in die buurt. Kan nou die stukkies grond gevat word sonder iets daarvoor te gee? Ek het beswaar teen die artiekel en wil graag uitleg van die Minister daaromtrent hê.

In antwoord op die vraag van die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) wil ek sê dat as daar ’n stuk grond is, wat nie meer gewerk word vir myndoeleindes, dan is dit moontlik dat daar nog elektriese drade oorgaan na andere plekke. As die reeds bestaan, dan word die beskerm onder artiekel 4. Onder die bestaande Wet word alle bestaande regte beskerm, maar dis moontlik dat daar in die toekoms met die ontginning van die myne veranderinge gemaak moet word, as b.v. aanleg van spoorwee na ’n ander skag of elektriese lyne vir die eksploitasie. Anders sal naderhand die ontwikkeling van die area as mynarea belemmer wees. Jy moet dit nie te gemaklik maak om te deproklameer, omdat dit moontlik kan word dat jy dit later weer wil proklameer. Op ’n verder vraag van die edele lid vir Rustenburg wil ek antwoord dat jy onder die Goud Wet nooit die grond self van die man kan wegneem nie. Jy kan maar net regte daaroor gee, b.v. die aanleg van telefoonverbindinge of elektrisiteit. Jy kan maar net serwitute uitgee, maar die grond self kan jy nooit van hom afneem nie.

With regard to this clause I want to say one or two words. This as I say was part of the matter, that was left open by the Select Committee. I have taken part of the open matter into Clause 4; all that relating to the permits which have already been given was taken out of the old Clause 8 and put into another clause. But here you deal with land on deproclamation. Before deproclamation I say two things. First of all you must look at the mining conditions round about that area, and as I have just explained to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler), this is really an attempt to facilitate deproclamation. If you do not do this, to study the interests of the area around, you will simply not deproclaim. No Minister of Mines will deproclaim land if the mining engineer tells him that that land may still be required, or a servitude of that land may be required, for the working of the surrounding mines, and therefore I left it to the technical advisor. The Minister simply says, “I cannot deproclaim this land,” but if you take the provision which is made in sub-section (1) of this Clause, you will see that you can go to the mining engineer of the adjoining mine and ask him: “What are your requirements in respect of water leases, electric wires, etc.?” And after that is done, the mining engineer can give his certificate that that land may be deproclaimed, and the Minister can agree to the deproclamation which is in the interests of the freehold owner. The reversionary right—

What reversionary rights has the original owner?

He has a freehold. When the land is deproclaimed under the existing law all the existing rights are continued. All existing rights on the surface are continued. I say the permit should continue until they are continued. But now with regard to the rest of the land; first of all you must make provision for the probable requirements of the surrounding mines otherwise you cannot deproclaim. That is number one. Now number two. If the municipalities on that land require land for extension, or if a new township is to be created under this proviso, the matters can be referred to the township’s board, which will then go into the matter and enquire.

Is that the same as regards municipalities?

When it appears to the Minister on the recommendation of the township board established under this Act, that it is desirable that an existing township should be extended.

Where does the municipality come in?

The municipality asks the Minister for an extension, he then refers the matter to the board which goes into it. If the township’s board is satisfied that the land is required, then additional land will be set aside under the township act. The owner will get the rights which he gets under the township act with regard to such land. That is the provision as I have it in this clause. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) goes further and says “no”; that land of this kind should be given free to the municipalities and practically that they should have not only the first choice, but the first free choice of any land which they may require for that purpose.

Some of it.

I have got a few amendments of a formal nature to move—

These are purely formal amendments, just to make the thing more workable.

I understand this clause is going to stand over, and before it stands over I wish to move—

This is merely a transfer of the Minister’s amendment in regard to power, and it is to be added to the amendment by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). Bearing in mind that the old section 8 was defeated in committee, not only by those who were against it, but by those who are now in favour of it—it was defeated by those who thought that the Minister had not gone far enough, as well as by those who thought he was going too far. During the interval the Minister may think it over and decide to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), therefore I move the amendment in regard to the distribution and transmission of power.

I hope that the right hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). We have in Clause 4 provision made for the retention by municipalities of any ground which they hold without compensating the owner. That is going a very long way in contravention to the present law, which gives the owner of the proclaimed land freehold rights to his farm. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) goes further. He proposes to set aside land on deproclamation of a farm for the benefit of a municipality or local authority for the establishment of townships, for industrial and residential purposes, and for the general purpose of development. He proposes to deprive owners of their freehold rights without compensation. He advances the argument that, because the owner himself has done nothing to improve the value of the land, therefore the municipalities and the public generally should come in and take whatever they like. If that is a sound argument, why should it not apply to other places besides the Rand? If we are going to introduce legislation of that kind, why not extend it over the whole Union of South Africa to all cases where the value of land has been advanced by the community? Why should it not apply to Braamfontein, Jeppestown, Troyeville and Rosebank, all of which have also advanced in value for the same reason. Why confine it to proclaimed land? I am talking about the land at Rosebank. How is that taxed? That land is taxed in no other way than the land which is proclaimed. Why do you not apply the principle to those lands? Why do you select those lands which proclamation has placed in your power? Why do you select that land for the spoliation of the freehold right? If you want to introduce legislation of that sort, let us be frank and bring in a Bill for that purpose, then we can debate the matter on the broad basis of principle. You seize the fact that we are going to change the Gold Law to deprive the landowner of proclaimed land of what is his legal right. Under Clause 4 you have given the municipality the right to retain what they now have. But under the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) you are going to extend those rights without any limitation whatsoever, except such as may be placed upon them by the Governor-General. You are going to allow the Governor-General to take land for the extension of existing townships, for the establishment of new townships, and for residential purposes, without any compensation. Why not apply that to the land on the Flats here? You propose to give the Governor-General power to take land for the local authority for water reticulation, for light and power. I think this section should stand over as section 4 should stand over. I think it will be to the advantage of the House if we reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

I am prepared to accept that. At this stage, however, I will move—

Agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. Webber, it was agreed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed.

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on 18th February.