I move—

I want to explain that the Pretoria Municipality have withdrawn the Pienaars River scheme, and for that reason it has become necessary to amend the preamise and title of the Bill accordingly. The Bill will now make provision for the one other scheme, namely, the Heunopsriver scheme.

seconded.

The work which has recently been done in connection with the two schemes was always intended to assist in getting the Pienaars River scheme through, because it would serve a double purpose, namely, in the first place the supply of water to the Pretoria Town Council for the iron and steel industry, and secondly to see that the farmers along the Pienaars River, who would be below the dam if it were built, should also have an opportunity of buying water from the dam from the municipality. I want to point out that the irrigation possibilities ought to receive consideration. Such a dam will be too dear merely for irrigation purposes, as enquiry has already shown, and therefore we asked the Pretoria municipality to have a survey made at Pienaars River with the provision attached that the farmers should have the opportunity of buying some of the water. It will at once be seen how greatly this will benefit the farmers, because then they will have a regular stream instead of only flood water, as at present, of which moreover the largest part runs away. The ground is excellent for agricultural purposes, but on account of lack of water the farmers have so far no use from their lands at all. Hence we not only wish the Riet Vlei scheme to be completed, but also the Pienaars River scheme, which will be beneficial both to the town council and the farmers. I make no objection to the Riet Vlei scheme as such, because then the iron and steel industry will get no water for quite a number of years. I want to push the industry, but I cannot see why it will not be pushed if it also includes the Pienaars River scheme.

The hon. member who has just spoken is looking after the interests of his constituency, which perhaps no other hon. member does better, but I wish in a few words to explain the position to the hon. member. The first point is that the question of the withdrawal of the Pienaars River scheme is not a question for this House. It is a question for the Pretoria municipality, and they feel they are not in a position to proceed at present, and for that reason they have withdrawn this scheme. I am given to understand that it is their intention in the future further to consider the possibility of the scheme, and if sufficient data are presented on which they can work, I have very little doubt that scheme will also be accepted by them and in due course a measure will be brought before this House whereby Pretoria will enter into the second scheme.

Can they get all the water they want under this scheme?

Yes, for present requirements.

I want to tell the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) that the committee is in the position of requiring the preamble to be proved by the promoters. If they are not prepared to prove that the Pienaars River scheme must be tackled, nothing can be done. Accordingly only one of the schemes proposed has been taken. The Pienaars River scheme is a matter which must be represented to the promoters.

Motion put and agreed to.

The Minister knows that there is a lot to read and study before we know what is in the Bill, and that I have given the utmost possible assistance with regard to one item in order to come to an agreement. We are having a meeting on Wednesday, and I suggest that the second reading be put down for Friday. After the Budget speech there will be nothing much to do. If the Minister does not agree to that, there will be much discussion. I promise him that to put the second reading down on Friday will save him a lot of time.

I agree.

Second reading on 15th March.

I move—

seconded.

I cannot see there is much of importance in the regulations, which I have looked into, but the Minister might take the trouble to explain to the House.

I am afraid that the debate is now closed.

Cannot the Minister make a statement now in reply.

I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is quite correct in saying that there is nothing much of importance in this motion. As hon. members will know, certain regulations are issued by the Minister under the Higher Education Acts of 1916 and also I think, in the same way under the Higher Education Acts of 1923. It is laid down in these Acts that these regulations cannot be altered in any way, or become of any force or effect, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. That is the reason why I have to come on this occasion to Parliament with the motion that is tabled. The amendments of the regulations that I lay Before the House for approval are regulations in connection with the universities and the university colleges, and more particularly affecting the regulations under the provident scheme, or more nearly affecting them. No new principle or new policy is laid down here. The intention is merely to remedy the bad drafting of the existing regulations, to remedy certain oversights and omissions. I will just mention the principal points in these amended regulations. The first is, that pensions, of course, are paid on the basis of the salary which the officer has been receiving over a number of years. In the regulations as they stand now, no account has been taken of the fact that these institutions are autonomous. They get a sibsidy from the Government, but still retain the right of appointing professors and lecturers without receiving any subsidy from the Government, that is to say, in cases where such appointments or posts have not been approved of beforehand by the Minister. As the regulations stand now, the provisions with regard to the Provident Fund would apply to all appointments whether approved by the Minister or not, and will apply to all salaries whether the salary which is paid to a professor or a lecturer has been approved by the Minister or not. If, for instance, an officer has a salary of £1,000, and the council thinks he should be paid £2,000, under the regulations, as now, they would apply to the second £1,000. That was not intended, and we want to remedy that. Further we make alteration in the regulations. According to the existing regulations, any professor, lecturer, or any other official is compelled to become a member of the provident scheme. No account has been taken of the fact that these institutions may, on their own, without a subsidy from the Government, appoint such professors, lecturers or officials. It was certainly not intended that such persons should be compelled to become members of the provident scheme, and thereby lay a financial obligation upon the Government. Another alteration affects the staff of those institutions which were taken over in 1925 from the provincial administrations. When these schools were taken over, it was taken for granted that they would all come under the Union Education Department, but the fact was lost sight of that the art school at Grahamstown was not handed over to the Union, but to the Grahamstown College. Provision was made, as far as provident scheme rights were concerned, in regard to some of the other schools, but not in regard to this particular institution. We now make provision for that, It was simply an oversight. Further, hon. members will note that in the regulations, it is made possible for an officer to take out an insurance policy, and that when he makes a contribution in payment of the premium every year, the Government pays the other half. It was not the intention that bonuses on such insurance policies should be made payable to such an officer while he was still in the employ of the Government. The intention was that bonuses should be made payable only at the end of the service, and also in cases where policies matured. That is all there is in these amendments. There is nothing of any great importance; these are simply alterations which are necessary.

Resolution transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

The Committee has leave to consolidate the two Bills into one Bill.

On Clause 5 of the Native Administration Act, 1927, Amendment Bill,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Agreed to.

Section 6 of the Bill refers to amendment of Sections 12 and 20 of the principal Act, by the insertion of the words “or head man” after the word “chief” wherever it appears in those sections. When the Bill was before the Select Committee the year before last we specially considered that point, because the words “or head man” appeared in the draft, but after consideration the Minister of Justice agreed to strike out those words and to confine the jurisdiction to the chief. Why are those words now inserted.

They are called head men by law, but they are really chiefs. In the Cape law you have certain terminology used describing these men, who in the other provinces, are called chiefs. It is now found that the words “or head man” must be inserted; otherwise these people who are of the rank of chiefs will be without the jurisdiction given to the other chiefs.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

On the second reading I raised a point in connection with the terminology used for the constitution of the native divorce courts. Clause 9 gives power to the Governor-General to establish native divorce courts to hear and determine suits of nullity, divorce and separation between natives domiciled within their respective areas of jurisdiction in respect of marriages, and give the widest power as to constituting the personnel of such court. Sub-clause (3) says that every such court shall be a court of law, and shall be held by and before the President of the native appeal court exercising jurisdiction in the same area. I think, however, that it is not intended that the president of the appeal court shall as such constitute the divorce court, but that the person for the time being occupying the position of president shall constitute the court. I have accordingly a suggestion to make. I propose—

While a large number of divorce cases may quite well be decided by one judge alone, it is highly desirable that in certain cases complicated and intricate as some of these cases particularly natives can be, the judge should have power to call to his assistance two assessors, in the same way as a judge can do in criminal cases under the Criminal Procedure Act of 1917.

I am obliged to the hon. member for the suggestion, which I think is a very good one, and is a considerable improvement. I would suggest, however—

which is an English law term.

I am quite prepared to accept the Minister’s suggestion.

During the second reading debate, I suggested that as we have a native appeal court in Natal, namely, the native high court, the Minister should allow it to continue to function, as otherwise there will be overlapping with two courts. Supreme court litigation is far more expensive for the native than litigation in the native high court; and in the interests of the native the latter should be continued.

I have given attention to the matter raised by the hon. member,and it was pointed out to me that here it was a question of appealing on points of European law, whereas the native high court deals with native law. Appeals to the native high court on questions of European law are not contemplated by the law.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 3 of the Native Administration Act, 1927, Further Amendment Bill, put and negatived.

Clause 2 put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Pursuant to the instructions of the House, the committee has consolidated the two Bills into the Native Administration Act, 1927, Amendment Bill with amendments.