announced that the committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on Subject of Motor Carrier Transportation Bill, viz.: The Minister of Railways and Harbours, Messrs. Brown, De Souza, Pocock, Maj. Richards, Mr. W. H. Rood, Dr. Stals, Messrs. Sturrock, Swart, Van Coller and Maj. G. B. van Zyl.

I move —

As hon. members will see, this Bill provides for the suspension of the existing railway service between Colesberg junction and Colesberg town. The distance is just over two miles, and unfortunately the terminus is about a mile away from Colesberg town, with the result that the line is worked at a great loss. The expenses are about £4,588 a year, and the revenue £1,966, so that there is a deficit of £2,622 a year. In the circumstances the Railway Administration felt that it is impossible to continue working this branch line. But at the same time it is felt that as it is a privilege which has existed for many years, we are not entitled to take away the service without putting something in the place of it. With the full concurrence of the public we have decided to institute a motor service immediately the railway service is suspended to prove to the inhabitants of Colesberg that they will be served equally well by such a motor service. I have every hope that as a result of their experience of the motor service they will realize that we are quite justified in abolishing the line. Hon. members will see that I do not propose that the line should be broken up. In case that happens the House will have to debate the matter when it is submitted to it in the proper way. I am only here providing for the suspension for a definite time, and when the motor service has been established I hope subsequently to be able to ask for authority to break up the railway line itself.

I just want to ask a question: if we are experimenting with these various departures, motors, rail cars and so on. We have the line, which is going to remain under this Bill Is it not possible to use the rails, which we have instead of the road? I do not know whether the Minister can inform us whether this question has been gone into, but to me it appears to be quite feasible to use our railways for motor purposes more conveniently than with steam traction; and is this not a case where an experiment may be made to test it out? Is this not a case to see whether a rail motor service would not be much cheaper than a steam service, so that we might use this little line as an experimental ground? I am not sure at all that we have by any means reached finality in our transport development. We know that in certain respects the road motor can compete successfully with the railway, but it is still a question whether the rail motor may not work out better than the road motor.

The point raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is one of outstanding importance. The difficulty with this particular line is that the terminus is situated one mile away from the town, with the result that taxis convey practically all the passengers from the junction to the town, and a rail car will not be effective to suit this particular case. Rail cars have certainly been developed in all parts of the world, and to a large extent we have also embarked on these. We have experimented with a large number of types. The difficulty is for the experts to make up their minds which type is the best; some favour the steam, others the petrol, and others again the crude oil driven cars. We have experimented with various types, and already have a large number of rail cars operating on our branch lines with very great success, but we have not exhausted all possibilities in this connection. We might deal with passengers and light goods by rail car, and reserve heavy goods for the trains. We are at the present time building a number of rail cars in our workshops.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; the House to go into committee now.

House In Committee:

Clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

I move—

1. 2. Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the principal Act is hereby amended—
   1. (a) by the deletion from paragraph (e) of all the words after “area” and by the substitution therefor of the words “to accommodate the natives in his employment and such accommodation shall be subject to the approval of and to regulation by the urban local authority”;
   2. (b) by the addition of the following paragraph:
      1. (f) in accordance with such regulations as may from time to time be prescribed under paragraph (g) of sub-section (2) of section 23, require every native, not being a native belonging to any class specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (2) of section 5, who resides in but is employed outside the urban area to remove therefrom.”

As to the first half of it, the amendment is practically the same as the provision in the original Act. The object is merely to prevent a wrong impression among employers of natives. The impression is that when they ask a municipality to house their natives the municipality is compelled to provide housing in a location. That was certainly not the intention of the original Act, and this amendment is to remove the wrong impression. As for the second portion, provision is made that where natives of one local authority live in the location of another municipality, the former municipality will not be obliged to supply housing to such natives, because that would not be fair.

I want to ask the Minister if this new sub-section (f) which he has moved, will completely cover the mischief aimed at. At the end of the sub-section is the phrase “who resides in, but is employed outside the urban area to remove therefrom.” It seems to me that the mischief will arise more emphatically in the case of those who are living within and have no employment at all. That mischief would be avoided if, instead of using the words, “but is employed outside” the words—

were used. I think that the mischief which is aimed at by the sub-section would be covered more completely by the variation I have suggested.

I think that the position of the natives mentioned by the hon. member who are not employed is mentioned in another part of the Act, but I have no objection to the amendment if the hon. member moves it.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

1. (b) by the insertion in paragraph (e) of subsection (2) after the word “actually” of the words “and bona fide employed as a caretaker of any premises used for the purposes of trade or commerce or is at the time actually”.

This provides for an example of natives in large premises and commercial warehouses, and refers to native caretakers employed to ensure a greater measure of safety from risk of fire and burglary and so forth. I may say they have been found invaluable and I understand the police authorities are favourable to this being continued The native acts in the capacity of watchman, and is under the authority of the urban areas, so far as order is concerned. Exemptions only apply to native domestic servants, and this is the sole addition to the exemptions, it will make for greater security in the larger warehouses. It would be disastrous if they were driven away by this Act which is bound to happen unless a provision similar to this is made. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept my amendment.

I think full provision is made for the point raised by the hon. member under Clause 5, sub-section (2), paragraph (j)—

Amongst those who may be exempted a large number of various classes are mentioned, and “any other native who has been exempted permanently, or for a prescribed period by the local authorities,” and if the local authority thinks it desirable that these caretakers mentioned by the hon. member should be exempted, they already have power to do that.

The point is that here you have a provision for a prescribed period only, and only by permission of the local authority. Now the local authority may order that all natives shall not have that privilege. My point is that in these larger centres there is so much at stake that these caretakers should he provided for in this Act. The hon. the Minister will agree that provision is made only for a prescribed period, and if we rely upon this section of the Act, we are entirely at the mercy of the local authority whether this shall be permitted or not.

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). I believe the amendment proposed is necessary.

There are numbers of white men who are only too glad to have employment of this nature and I take exception to some of these wealthy firms employing natives as caretakers. There is a large field of employment for white men, and why should natives be employed? I hope the Minister will not give way, and I think the difficulty can be solved in the way I suggest. Look at the number of railwaymen pensioners and phthisis men who could be well employed at these jobs as caretakers and night-watchmen. Why employ natives who have an unlimited field for employment, besides white men are more reliable? It is time these rich firms employed Europeans of the kind I mention instead of natives.

I would like to support the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). I was going to take that very point. I trust the Minister will not remove the discretion of municipalities under the Bill which would cramp and hinder their providing further opportunities of white employment. One of the main objects of this Bill is to secure a maximum scope for white people, and one of the objects would be obtained if opportunities are given for employment of white people to increased extent. The possibility of municipalities desiring to circumscribe the employment of native caretakers so as to employ white men in this capacity should not be hampered.

I do not think the Minister’s explanation quite covers the point raised by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). I think the exemption must be taken in the name of an individual. Sometimes natives are sick or may leave their employment suddenly so that the warehouse would be left without a substitute because the individual who is to be put in the place of the absent one would not have the exemption granted by the local authority. I think the Minister might well accept this amendment.

The owner of the property ought to make provision in regard to that. I do not think we ought to depart from the principle that the urban local authority ought to have this discretion.

I do not understand that the principle behind this Bill is the total exclusion of natives from employment of this kind. The section which the hon. gentleman seeks to amend makes provision for an exception. Of course I would like to agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) that wherever possible white men should be employed, but if this Act proposes to exclude natives from all classes of occupation covered by white people, then the whole clause should be cut out. If this means that from now onwards, except at the will of a local authority, no person is entitled to give employment to a native as a night-watchman, it is carrying the colour bar to absurd lengths. I can understand the hon. gentleman on my right who thinks that all natives in town should be excluded. It is a cheap argument to say that firms should give employment to white people, but that the native should not be granted this privilege. I do not understand that to be the idea of the Act at all. I understood the idea was that to exercise reasonable control of the natives. The Minister himself concedes the principle. We should not legislate directly against the native.

I re-echo what has fallen from the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson), and I hope this discussion will be continued without the endeavour to import into it the underlying motive suggested by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). This Bill is to amend the Act passed with the intention of improving the conditions of residence of natives and to regulate the ingress of natives into towns. To try to carry into effect a theory which would still further narrow the field of employment for natives is unjustifiable. I cannot imagine anything more harmful to the native than for him to find, when we are discussing this Bill, which is designed to improve the administration of native affairs in urban areas, that these extraneous theories are brought in to cramp the field in which he can extend his labour. I support the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). The Minister seems to think that if this sub-section was extended to apply to natives in stores and warehouses, there would be great abuses. If his argument has any force at all, it should apply to the case of natives who are employed in domestic service. What is the existing position? We are dealing with Clause 5, in which it is competent for the Governor-General to declare that all natives shall live in a particular area unless they are exempted. Then it deals with the class of native that should be exempted, and further with the individual natives who can be exempted. The point raised by the hon. member on my right deals with a class of natives affected. He desires to put natives, who may be placed in charge of stores and warehouses, in the same position as natives who are engaged as domestic servants. If they can show, either the native or the employer concerned, in the case of domestic servants, that they are actually engaged in domestic service, they fall under this particular exemption. The clause the Minister refers to deals with the native who may be exempted as an individual on a particular application. That is the case of the casual visitor, such as a visiting chief, or other visiting natives. We are dealing here with a class. I ask, what difference is there between the case of a domestic servant who is exempted as a class and a store-boy or watchman? I cannot see any distinction at all. Say a man owns a house, and next door he has a shop or store. He may have, in his house, any native who is actually employed there as a domestic servant, provided he provides proper sleeping and sanitary accommodation for him. If the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) admits the proposition that the native is rightly there when attending to the domestic wants of the European, why should he not be permitted to remain next door to look after his employer’s property? The Minister says that there will be great abuses if we allow these natives employed as caretakers to be exempted as a class. But is there any abuse at present in the case of natives employed as domestic servants? If there was it is probable that the Minister would have moved to delete the sub-section applicable to them! If he finds that such domestic servants provoke abuses, he should deprive natives from living in those places where they are employed as domestic servants. But he does not suggest that. The native is under control, and has proper sleeping and sanitary accommodation provided for him. On what principle can we say that a native can remain on premises when engaged as a domestic servant, but not when he is in care of business premises? If I leave a servant in charge of my house, he is entitled to remain there. Clearly, in a case like that, a native should be permitted to remain there. If it is competent to leave a native in charge as caretaker of one’s house, why should he not be permitted to be left as a caretaker in charge of one’s store? I see no difference at all in principle. It is all carefully safeguarded so far as possible abuse is concerned. If the Minister thinks that natives in these circumstances will gather round them a number of their compatriots, and create a nuisance, surely you have the police to check it. Let us ask ourselves if we admit the principle in respect of domestic servants, and that is reasonable, why should we not extend it to a case where natives are actually in charge of the property of their employers?

I move—

The object of Clause 6 (a) is to prevent an accumulation of natives in locations. If the municipality decides to apply to the Minister to issue a proclamation, then this amendment will not apply, because they are then complying with the object of the Bill, but in case the municipality does not pass such a resolution, it is necessary to do something to see that the accumulation does not take place. I approached the Minister and asked him whether in such circumstances he would, himself, decide to issue a proclamation, if a petition were addressed to him. He will not do so, and, therefore, I think that we ought to assist the Minister in connection with this matter. If the municipality refuses to resolve that the area shall be proclaimed, then I propose that the divisional council should have the right of dealing with the matter. The accumulation of natives in the locations causes great trouble to the farmers, not only are there natives without work, who may become a source of annoyance to the farmer, because they kill his stock, but the accumulation of natives in the locations also attracts the other natives from the farms. If the municipalities will do nothing to rectify the position, then it is no more than right that the divisional councils should be able to pass a resolution asking the Minister to issue a proclamation to give effect to the provisions of this Act. I am not proposing additional difficulties, but it is only an attempt to assist the Minister in getting the law carried out. The question will be asked what the divisional councils have to do with the matter. Two members for the urban area serve on the divisional council, and I, therefore, hope that the Minister will adopt my amendment because it will be an additional guarantee that the Bill will be carried out.

I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). Many of these natives have been employed as caretakers for years, and as it may be difficult to fill their places at short notice, the premises may go unprotected.

I regret I cannot accept the amendment. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), that could very easily be met by permission being obtained from the authorities. I do not see why we should take this power out of the hands of the urban authorities. This matter is dealt with in sub-section (j) of the original Act, which has been in operation for six years. A municipality can give a permanent ticket for a native to remain as caretaker.

*With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) the same thing applies. I am not willing to place this in the hands of the divisional council. It is a matter for the local authority.

And if they do nothing?

Then it becomes a matter for the people in that locality.

I wish to speak on behalf of men and women engaged as caretakers by the commercial houses in Johannesburg. It is easy to say go to the local authority to get permission for natives to remain as caretakers, but if all the members of the municipality had the same opinion on this subject as the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), I should be refused. If native caretakers have to live in locations they will be put to a great deal of unnecessary expense, and many of them are not paid sufficiently well ns it is. An urban native as a rule has not enough money to live on, and if you compel him to live in a location his expenses will be increased very much as he would have to pay for such things as light, water and fuel, which he now gets for nothing when he lives in caretakers’ quarters. I have had a native family growing up on my premises—have I now to ask for permission for them to continue to live there? Before the Minister takes this arbitrary step he should show that there is a necessity for it.

I am not proposing anything in connection with the matter—it is merely the Act.

Then I hope you will alter the Act in that respect.

I am glad that the Minister is stopping at this point in the Act. I must say that I agree with the arguments used by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). One of the hon. members opposite asked what the difference was between a native who lives with and works for his master, and those caretakers. The difference is that the owner of a business goes home at 6 o’clock, and the native remains behind alone in the building. What happens then? The native introduces other natives, where they can, therefore, find shelter, and from there they go out at night to steal. I think the Minister is taking up the correct attitude in the Bill where it says that in the case of a bona fide caretaker a temporary permit can be issued, and if the native abuses it, it can be withdrawn. We have had trouble with this in Johannesburg for years.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey). He said that if the Johannesburg town council consisted of members who had the same views on this subject as those held by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), the permission required under this clause would not be given. If the House consisted of members holding the same views on this subject as those of the hon. member for Roodepoort, segregation, instead of being merely a matter of talk, would be a reality, to the advantage of both the Europeans and the native races. The hon. member for Parktown now gives as one of his reasons for supporting the amendment that it is cheaper to have natives as caretakers.

On a point of order, I did not say that. I have white men already.

I know the hon. member does not do it, but he was giving it as an argument. Up to now the law is not a dead letter, but, at any rate, a most expensive matter as far as municipalities are concerned. What you want is to give municipalities the right to deal with them. It has already been pointed out that there is a wide distance between domestic servants under the direct control of their employer and a caretaker like this over whom his employer has no control. If, incidentally, a provision such as this creates an opening for white labour such as phthisis sufferers and the like, it is the right thing. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment.

It is not often that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) defends what he has so often called the plutocrats. If an employer has more than 25 natives in his employ, he is entitled to do this thing. May I point out to the Minister that he is faced with another sort of inconsistency; he has moved an amendment to make Section I more satisfactory. The principle then is conceded. It is not a question of control. It is more difficult to control 25 natives than one native. What of the case of the employer who is not wealthy enough to fall within the clause, and who employs only a few natives? I move, further, as an amendment—

In other words, where an urban local authority compels a native to live within a location, it is reasonable to give him at least one calendar month’s notice. The native may be a tenant of property, and may be bound in turn to give a calendar month’s notice, and if the municipality can give him notice on any odd day of the month to leave in the succeeding month, one can see that would be a hardship; it certainly would be in the case of a European. May I point out that apparently there is an error of draughtsmanship in Section 6. I move, as a further amendment—

There is no proclamation of the area under sub-section 1 of Section 5, but there is under Section 12. I can see some misconception can arise. I leave it to the Minister.

With regard to the first amendment of the hon. member, in the Interpretation Act, “month” is declared to be a “calendar month,” so there is no point with regard to that part of the question. If the hon. member wants from the first to the end of the month, he should have moved accordingly. I am not quite sure what the hon. member means. Does he mean that notice must be given so as to start on the first of the month?

So as to run from the first of the month.

If that is the ease, the amendment won’t help.

I will draft it. Are you prepared to accept it?

I have no objection, if it is for the calendar month, though I do not see the object of it. With regard to the other amendment of the hon. member, Section (12) of the Act provides for proclamation of the area. If the hon. member moves to insert “sub-section (1) of Section (12)” I am prepared to accept it.

Perhaps you might deal with this on the report stage.

I will do that if the hon. member will leave those two points over.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Coulter withdrawn.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to sub-section (6). The provision runs that the whole of the area must have been proclaimed under the sub-section. There is a strong opinion on the part of municipalities that it should not be confined to the whole of the area, but might be extended to where a portion of the area has been proclaimed, and where a resolution has been taken. I have here a copy of a letter addressed to the Secretary of Native Affairs by the Transvaal Municipal Association on this particular point. I would ask the Minister if he has considered that resolution, and if he has come to the conclusion that there would be any great difficulty in applying the other provisions of this Act where a portion and not the whole of the area has been proclaimed. I can see no practical difficulty in the way of applying the other provisions, if only a portion of the area is dealt with.

The contention of the municipalities and of the hon. member would be perfectly correct if the whole of the procedure had not been altered. There will be no object in future in proclaiming a part of an urban area, so that I do not think there will be any difficulty as far as that is concerned. Moreover, I would rather discourage the proclamation of portions of an urban area, and for that reason I have made it applicable where the whole area has been proclaimed.

On page 4 of the Bill sub-section (6a) you have the words “in pursuance of a resolution adopted at a duly constituted meeting of the local authority.” We have no definition of “a duly constituted meeting”; you have some municipalities with six members, and three form a quorum, and this thing might be sprung on a meeting without the members having received any notice that such a drastic proposal is going to be discussed.

Surely if there is no quorum there is no meeting.

It may be just a snatch vote. There should be a certain amount of publicity to the members that such a resolution is going to be proposed.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Henderson and Mr. Bekker put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 3,

I move—

1. (a) by the deletion of sub-section (1) and the substitution of the following subsection:
   1. “(1) Except with the approval of the Minister, no owner, lessee or occupier of land situate outside an urban area within three miles of the boundary thereof shall allow natives to congregate upon or any native to reside upon or to occupy any dwelling on such land other than a native who is in his bona fide employment; nor shall natives congregate upon nor any native who is not in the bona fide employment of the owner, lessee or occupier thereof reside upon or occupy any dwelling on such land;” and
2. (b) by the deletion of sub-section (5) and the substitution of the following subsection:
   “(5) This section shall not apply to—
   1. (a) any native who is the registered owner of any such land as is referred to in sub-section (1);
   2. (b) in the province of the Cape of Good Hope any native who is a registered parliamentary voter;
   3. (c) the wife, minor child, unmarried daughter or bona fide dependent of any native referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) so long as she or he resides with such native, or any widow of such native or minor child of such native residing with the widow;
   4. (d) the congregation or residence of natives in any native reserve lawfully established prior to the commencement of this Act or in any township specially exempted by the Minister.”

The reason for this amendment is that there have been several nuisances where natives have congregated on the borders of a municipality on land which has been proclaimed as a township before this Act came into force, and fell neither under the Act of 1913 nor under the Urban Areas Act. A very undesirable state of affairs has arisen, and for that reason this section has been brought in to deal with the position.

I move—

My reason is that in the Cape these words are constantly used. Act 30 of 1899 gives a definition of a private location and the words defining same contain the words “in bona fide” and “continuous employment.” Bona fide employment may mean that a man is, for instance, employed for only one day in the week, whereas, if the wards “bona fide and continuous employment” were used, it would conform to a statutory definition already existing—and which is well understood in the Cape Province.

I hope before the Minister accepts that, that he will consider its precise effect. This may be an important bar on natives who may have property. If these words are added, unless the native concerned is employed, and always employed, he cannot be on the property. Natives may work for six months, and then go back to their kraals. That must happen often. Natives frequently go away and come back after a period. In the case of a dairy farmer on the outskirts of Johannesburg, who has a native in his employment who leaves when times are slack, or for a holiday—under these circumstances he would not be in bona fide and continuous employment. Does “continuous” mean running daily from 8 o’clock to 8 o’clock, or continuous throughout the year? If it means throughout the year I see difficulties arising. At the moment I am not quite convinced as to the meaning of the term.

I hope the Minister will hesitate to accept this amendment. It may be that the word “continuous” has been interpreted, because he will recognize the undesirability of importing an uninterpreted work into a measure of this kind. It might open great avenues for difficulty and uncertainty. The simple meaning of the word “continuous” requires that you are given a date to start and a date to finish, but if you are given no date, then the word has no meaning at all. I suggest to the Minister that it would probably be best to consult the law advisers to see what interpretation has been given to this word, and whether it is desirable to introduce it here. The word “bona fide” has been interpreted. The drafting of the Bill before the House is clear and free from ambiguity. May I raise one other matter referred to by the Minister— the new sub-section (1) of this new section which the Minister has read. I am glad the Minister has introduced this new clause, as it deals with an important matter. My only complaint is that in fixing the radius within which these congregations of natives is not permitted, three miles within the boundary is only too short a distance. The Minister said it may be altered by the Governor-General to five miles. That might have been all right when travelling was confined to walking or riding in a cart, but it may be too short in these days of cycles and motor-cycles. I suggest that five miles should be a minimum, which may be increased to ten by the approval of the Governor-General.

What is the position of a kraal on a farm? There are many farms which have kraals just within three miles of the municipality. This only applies to the native bona fide employed—it does not apply to members of his family who may be living with him, but are not bona fide employed. There is a danger that they may be affected by this provision.

The intention is to deal with cases where townships have been proclaimed, but they have never been dealt with as townships, and they have never been controlled. There is no power to deal with that, and, for this reason, the present section is being brought in. Under this Act of 1909, to which the hon. member refers, no native may live on private land without a licence, unless he is employed bona fide and continuously. I think the meaning of the word “continuous” is not quite clear, and it would be better to leave the section as it stands. I will go into the meaning of the word “continuous,” as to whether we can put it in.

A township does not appear to come within this sub-section (1) of this clause at all. I would like to ask the Minister has he in contemplation any legislation which might give some sort of control over natives in this satuation? It is a problem of very great concern to the urban authorities who are endeavouring to administer this Act. I am not surprised to hear that difficulties have arisen in Johannesburg. Does the Minister think that this clause can be improved? The effect of the administration of this Act has been to send hundreds of natives into the hush on the Cape Flats. In some cases it is even dangerous to venture there. I presume that in Johannesburg they have the same state of affairs. The Minister clearly must do something to provide for these congregations of natives. They take up their occupation on ground owned by private owners, and in the case of a city like Johannesburg, it is difficult to get the police to deal with natives in those circumstances. I should like to ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the clause deals with the evil which exists? On the outskirts of Cape Town, natives congregate on Saturdays and Sundays and drink cheap, fiery liquor, probably obtained illicitly, and it is difficult to deal with them.

This amendment as suggested by the Minister was referred to by me during the second reading. I suggested something on these lines. If he is only shifting to a further three mile limit, so far as we know the native will make his abode outside the three mile area. Those with experience of this particular thing know that, in practice, this clause will not be of great use. The native inside the area of this kind will have a congregation of a few natives for a beer drink. It is not the huge congregations which create the menace. It is the small numbers that gather together, even in a backyard, and by going in for beer drinks ultimately become a nuisance. I cannot see how this clause will definitely help us. I think, too, that your police will have a very big burden placed upon them. Take the circumference of any town, the extra area of any town, it is so immense in relationship to the town itself, that I believe it is a great problem. If you are going to pass this amendment to the principal Act, then we "say, in order to give authority to it, you have to see that these areas are well policed. It is the policing of the areas that matter to-day, and not so much the effect of what you are trying to help out by this amendment. The three miles limit is not sufficient if necessary, and I think we want to go into the matter more carefully from that point of view.

I venture to express the hope that the Minister will really give some attention to the suggestion I have made, that this limit be extended very materially. Very likely he will have in mind the actual area south of Johannesburg that I am thinking of. Take the farm Klip River’s Hoek. At the present time there is a continuing accretion of natives squatting there, having been squeezed out from the towns on the Rand, and more particularly from Johannesburg. I should think it may be just outside the three mile limit. Therefore, they would not be hit by this provision. Wherever they are they have simply destroyed all possibility of sheep farming in the area. It has become unprofitable. Crime has increased in various directions, and the police are powerless to act, because they have not got a sufficient number of men. The opportunity is now before the Minister to so amend the Bill that a really radical and useful provision may be made. If the principle of the sub-section is admitted, I think the House will be willing, quite unanimously, to accept the principle underlying it. Let it be extended to such a radical limit as will make the limit effective. I hope he will be prepared to accept an amendment to extend the limit to 10 miles with the consent of the Governor-General. Up and down the Rand you have cases of this kind occurring, probably small circles radiating from the different municipalities which will allow of the effective congregating of natives to the detriment of the white inhabitants. Not to remedy this now is to lose an opportunity of bringing in effective legislation.

I think we ought to be fair to all parties and consider the other side too. The hon. member who last spoke referred to farms south of Johannesburg. There is a township north of Johannesburg, within the urban area, called Alexandria township.

That is just outside the three miles.

What is an urban area? It is described in Act No. 21 of 1923 as an area under the jurisdiction of an urban local authority. Therefore, first of all, the local authority of Johannesburg has a radius of six miles. This Alexandria township comes within the urban area. A large number of natives employed tin the township of Johannesburg have their homes in this township. If this clause goes through as it stands, it is within the power of the Minister to say that all the natives living in Alexandria township shall be removed. That is how I interpret it, rightly or wrongly. What is this provision? It says that no owner, or occupier, or lessee of land situated outside the European area within three miles shall allow natives to congregate upon, or any native to reside upon, or occupy any dwelling, upon such land unless the native is in the bona fide employment of the owner of that area. If the Minister decides that he is not going to allow these people to live there any longer, he will have power under this section to do so. The Minister should elucidate what the meaning of this section will be. It may be that all the natives who live in the Alexandria township and work in Johannesburg will have to move. But the question is—where are they to go? For years Johannesburg has been trying to find a site for a location, as every district in which it is suggested the location should be placed naturally objects.

I hope the Minister will not extend the provision as the case is covered by the three mile radius. When the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) talks about the evils of natives congregating—

They ought to be in villages or locations.

We should not extend these restrictions beyond what is reasonably required. I congratulate the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) on his courage in taking up the stand he has adopted. The discussion reminds me of a character in Charles Dickens’ novel, “Bleak House,” who always has “to move on.” So it is with the natives—they are always being moved on. A three mile limit is the very most that should be asked for.

The discussion discloses the very great difficulty of trying to pass legislation for the Union on the presumption that it fits only one particular corner of South Africa. Here we are proceeding on the assumption that all urban areas are alike and have the same conditions, and that the natives who live outside one area are similar to natives living outside other urban areas. For instance, the urban areas of Cape Town stretch in every direction and extend as far as Fish Hoek. At Durban, on the other hand, there is a small circumscribed municipality with a town all around it, and now a controversy is proceeding whether the outlying areas should become part of the urban area of Durban or not. Hence when we talk about three miles outside the urban area that connotes an entirely different set of circumstances in Durban to what it does in Cape Town. Three miles outside the urban area of Cape Town is equivalent only to 15 miles outside the municipal limits of Durban. Hence we see that, there are urban areas where the three mile limit is insufficient.

When one examines the difference between the Act and the amendment, there appear to be some important variations. Whether we are dealing with a three mile, five mile or ten mile limit we must consider what is the position of natives living outside the perimeter of the large towns on land which they may have occupied from time immemorial. Would a native kraal be safeguarded from the operation of this three mile limit? The section makes a clean sweep for a distance around a city. If within that limit there is a native kraal which has been established for years, it would be an extraordinary thing to say now that the natives have no right to live there. The Minister’s amendment to section 6 of the Bill lays it down that—

But any native who is the registered owner of land referred to, is exempt. Well, at Goodwood near Cape Town, hundreds of people hold land under hire purchase agreements, but they are not the registered owners. I know of cases where some of these people have been paying instalments for 20 years. Under this section as it stands, will a native (if he is concerned) be compelled to leave that ground? In dealing with this question of township is under the original Act, the section has no application to natives who resided in a township. There must be quite a number of townships where natives occupy land, and unless the Minister exempts them, have they not to give up occupation? We must be quite certain that the net is not too wide, or you could get intolerable hardship.

It is not the intention of this clause to deal with cases such as mentioned by the hon. member. In any case, it will be seen that the approval of the Minister can get over any cases of that sort, if they are thought to be such as to be dealt with under that section. If the hon. member can suggest any amendment to meet the cases he has mentioned, I am quite prepared to consider it.

On what principle does the Minister consider these applications?

The majority of the municipalities are not providing sufficient accommodation, and large numbers of boys are employed by residents, who provide accommodation for the boys only and it is impossible to get them to provide accommodation for female natives.

I would not care at the present stage to go into the question of altering the limits set by the original Act of 1923; that is to say, the three-mile limit, subject to alteration by the Governor-General to five miles. We should not lightly pass from that principle. There is legislation in contemplation, as hon. members know, dealing with the whole question of land outside urban areas—the Native Land Act—and I do not think we should provide under this Bill for matters which can more easily be provided for under that Act.

When will that be passed?

That depends very much on what hon. members on the other side do. With regard to the interjection of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), in a case like that which he has suggested, where a man has lived for 15 years on certain ground, naturally an exemption will be granted if that man transgresses this section if he continues to live there. What we intend to prevent is the gathering together of a large number of natives on land just outside urban areas, who practically do there whatever they like, and there is no opportunity of creating a body to control them. They cannot come under a municipality. It is for a number of natives who congregate—not individuals.

As the Act stands, it draws no distinction between a congregation of natives and individual natives. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) raised an important point with regard to natives who are on land on the hire-purchase system, or what comes to it. Some proviso might be introduced to deal with that—something stating “provided this shall not apply to a native who is on land occupied under the hire-purchase system.” It will be the natives who will be those who have to get permission. Would it not be possible for them to get that from some local authority instead of having to go to the Ministers in Pretoria with all the long delays there may be? There would be cases where natives would get exemption quite rightly from the Minister. All the Minister aims at would be secured by making the permission subject to the approval of the municipality.

I think it is quite sufficient to have the Minister, because, after all, these are natives who are not in the jurisdiction of a local authority, but outside it, and the local authority is the body who will apply to the Minister to deal with this matter.

Do I understand the Minister is really proposing to introduce comprehensive legislation to deal with natives further afield? If he tells me that, I am prepared to leave it. Otherwise I shall move to omit “three” and to insert “five”. The matter is of first-class importance, and will prevent farmers going in for sheep. It is impossible in the areas in question to go into sheep farming. This is really touching very nearly the life of the people on the Rand.

The hon. member knows that the Native Land Bill has been before the country for some considerable time now, and in it provision is made for a number of natives who will be able to reside on farm land, and after all it is farm land with which the hon. member seeks to deal.

I think this clause might stand over. The Minister says that where exceptional cases occur, he will extend the necessary exemption. I have heard a great deal in the House about administrative law. Imagine what that proposition is, that all those persons will remain there dependent upon the mere decision of the Minister. There is not a man in this House who would put himself in such a position under circumstances such as those, and though this applies to natives I do not think that if they are lawfully resident, the right to remain should depend upon an administrative official, because the Minister must after all depend upon the report of an official. I would like to move something which would give a person, under these circumstances, right of recourse to a court of law. I move—

Would it be too much to ask the Minister to let that clause stand over, so that we might deal with it at a later stage?

The hon. member loses sight of the fact that any natives residing on land of that nature must be residing on land belonging to private owners. This section only deals with natives who are there without the consent of the owners. You must leave something to the owners. Further, I understand that under the Cape law it is illegal for a native to live on private property unless he is the sole owner of such property under title deed registered in the deeds office.

There is another principle in this Bill, which I think my friend the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) loses sight of. It is not only a question of hardship being inflicted on a certain native. There is the other principle underlying the Bill, the desirablity in the public interest of absolutely preventing the congregation of natives within the limits which are laid down. It may be necessary to clear a particular area. I should deprecate very strongly indeed the watering down of these provisions, which are intended to close certain areas where natives are not required, simply on the grounds advanced by the hon. member for Gardens.

With leave of committee, amendments withdrawn.

New clause put and agreed to.

On clause 4,

I move—

With regard to the matter being subject to the consent of the Minister, the idea is not to cut out the administrator with regard to this matter. It will be possible for the administrator, in case of difficulty between the local authorities concerned, to bring them together and get them to agree on such conditions as may be acceptable to both. This section, as I have stated before, was introduced with a view to meeting the present situation.

I would like to ask the Minister whether this is not a suitable opportunity of cutting out all references which provide for reference to the administrator, which act as a clog on the administration of this Act. The procedure of referring matters to the administrator and then referring to the Minister is productive of very great delay. Why should a matter of this kind, which appears to me to be efficiently dealt with by the Native Affairs Department, be referred to the administrator? I do not think that in regard to native education the provincial councils have much say to-day. What practical purpose is served by so many of these matters being referred to the administrator, who has no power except to obstruct or delay? I think the provinces are very much out of touch with matters such as the making of regulations under this Act, which are settled in the last resort in the Minister’s office in Pretoria. I would like to ask him if not only a great deal of delay, but a great deal of friction does not arise as a result, and I move—

I hope the Minister will not accept that. I do not know whether the hon. member realizes the effect of his amendment. Imagine that Port Elizabeth requires another location, and without any reference to the Walmer municipality, they can establish a location there. Or the case of East London requiring to establish a location within the jurisdiction of Cambridge without either Walmer or Cambridge being consulted. This would undoubtedly be severely resented and must inevitably lead to friction. I think the administrator should be consulted, so that the other interested municipality can lay its case before him—

I think the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) is correct. Here we have a position where a local authority wishes to acquire land in the area of another local authority, and the two authorities are not able to agree. The natural step would be for the administrator to decide the question. Dealing with the general question of the intervention of the administrator in these matters, there is a certain amount of delay, but I do not think the delay in any case has proved to be detrimental. I think the whole principle is that the administrator should be consulted because the municipalities fall under the provincial council, and the provincial councils have to deal with them, and I am not prepared at this stage to rule them out.

The principle underlying this is a dangerous one. You may allow one municipality to obtain ground from another, and the land which is expropriated is free from its jurisdiction. It may be surrounded by territory under the jurisdiction of another municipality and not contiguous to the municipally by which it is to be governed. It seems to me the whole of this new subsection (6) is unnecessary, and it makes no provision for the question of ground outside the limits of a municipality on open farm land—it makes no provision for securing the consent of the inhabitants in the case of ground expropriated by a municipality for the establishment of a location in another municipality, to the very great detriment of the farmers who may be living around this expropriated area. Their land may be depreciated, and it is quite conceivable that undesirable elements may be introduced. I submit that the Minister, in attempting this, must have been guided by the desire expressed by various municipalities, and without consultation with those whose interests may be very deeply affected.

I should like to ask the Minister how this clause came into being. Do I understand that under this section you could take a piece of land at Simon’s Town outside the jurisdiction of that municipality and make it a part of Cape Town?

It is possible under that section.

Then will it be rated under Cape Town or Simon’s Town? Take the question of Public Health. The municipality of Cape Town may be bound to do certain things. Is it bound to carry out its own regulations in this territory? I could point to a hundred possibilities of extraordinary litigation that night ensue. We do not want to pass legislation to promote litigation. I should like to ask the Minister if all the implications of this clause have been considered? It is full of dangerous possibilities. I should like to know how the clause came into being. Was it one of those clauses suggested by some municipal conference, or was it practical people who suggested it?

If we were to take account of all the possibilities that may happen in regard to all legislation introduced, possibly there would be very little legislation dealt with in this House which would pass into law. In Durban, you have the Durban municipality which is surrounded by a number of local bodies on its border. It has no land for the purpose of a location. There is land available in one or other of the areas of the local authorities surrounding Durban, and the Durban municipality has in mind, or has already purchased, I am not certain which, a certain piece of land lying within the jurisdiction of one of these local bodies surrounding it. It is quite impossible to find land for the location in the Durban area itself. Obviously, if they acquire this land for the purpose of establishing a location, it would not be fair that the load authority, within whose jurisdiction it falls now, should have all the say in regard to it. The section which was drafted originally simply stated that the land so acquired would fall under the jurisdiction of the urban local authority acquiring it. Certain objections were made, and I have consented to this amendment, namely that the rights should vest in the acquiring authority only with the consent of the Administrator, and so on, subject to the consent of the Minister after reference to the local authority and subject to such conditions as he may impose. That is to say, the intention was this. Take, for instance, the position in Durban. The Durban municipality and the local authority concerned are unable to come to an agreement. The position would be, if the clause is passed, that the administrator would step in and endeavour to get the two bodies together in order that he may initiate and lay down the basis and conditions upon which the land will fall under the jurisdiction of the Durban municipality. A similar case is quite conceivable in regard to other local authorities placed in the same position as Durban. That is the whole object of this clause.

I do not feel pessimistic about the possibilities of legislation if we face all the difficulties involved in that legislation. Perhaps some people would think that we should not be worse off if we ceased to pass some of this legislation that we are passing. I come back to this. When we are deliberately passing a clause, and when we deliberately see the greatest possibilities of danger ahead involved in the legislation, it seems to me that we are taking a serious risk in passing that legislation. Apparently, this clause is based upon one difficulty in one locality. That is the difficulty of passing legislation based upon a particular case. Could that not be dealt with by legislation passed in Natal for Durban? Wily should this not be made by legislation passed in the town by the local authority? Whatever the reason may be, and however difficult it is, to pass legislation in Natal, if it is difficult, I say even with the consent of the Minister and the administrator, we are going to lead ourselves into a very dangerous and difficult position between two municipalities. Take two municipalities A and B; one buys land in consultation with the first municipality and by its own act. If it gets the approval of the Minister and the Administrator, no matter how much an objector the municipality may be in whose area the land is bought, it will have no control whatever over the land in the municipality into whose, area it is taken. I ask the Minister to consider, whatever special need there may be in one particular locality, whether that cannot be met in some different form, and not by this way, which will extend the risks all over the country.

I wish to support the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). This clause is based on a particular difficulty, and because of that particular difficulty, it is proposed to enact legislation of a general character, of a far-reaching character which, on grounds of principle, is open to objection. The hon. Minister will remember that I spoke to him about this particular clause some time ago, and the amendment he has put on the order paper certainly meets the objection I raised to a considerable extent on the point of detail. But it leaves the objection on the point of principle entirely untouched. The difficulty is a difficulty of the municipality of Durban in finding land for a native location. I think the facts are quite definitely as the hon. Minister has stated them. In the congested area of the municipality of Durban it is virtually impossible to find land for this particular purpose. Durban must go outside of its present boundaries to find that land. But there are two ways of meeting this difficulty and there are two ways of solving this problem. The one way is that set forth here. It is by bringing forward legislation of general applicability to which objection can be made on grounds of principle. The other is for it to be dealt with as a specific case in regard to Durban itself along the line of the extension of the boundaries of the borough of Durban. If Durban cannot find land within its present boundaries the obvious way is for Durban to accept it as a clear pointer to the extension of its boundaries and the creation of a greater Durban. Durban’s difficulties are, in this matter, due to the fact that, in the past, there has been a lack of imagination. A position has been created whereby a very large number of the real population of Durban, the people who work in Durban, and have their interests in Durban, to-day are living outside the borough under conditions which are by no means satisfactory. On that ground there ought to be an extension of the boundaries of Durban. When such an extension takes place, the whole necessity for this proposal falls away. This matter is, at the present moment, the subject of investigation and negotiation. A commission has been appointed which, for the moment, has suspended its work while negotiations are proceeding between the borough of Durban and the surrounding local authorities. If these negotiations or the report of the commission leads to a satisfactory result, the whole need for this clause will fall away. It seems to me that it would be much better, in view of these possibilities, that this matter should not now be proceeded with. That certainly is a better solution. If Durban cannot find land within its present boundaries for native location purposes, then it should extend those boundaries, especially as there is abundant evidence, along other lines, in support of the extension of the boundaries of Durban.

It is quite clear that we cannot pass this clause as it stands. It is in definite as to what is means.

I am prepared to leave it out if hon. members do not want it.

We do not know whether this means that the boundaries of the locality are to be extended in order to take in the land they require or not. If we mean that, we should say that this land should be included within the boundary of the acquiring municipality. The whole thing is full of anomalies. For instance, are the people within the area to become voters in the acquiring municipality or of in the areas in which they live?

I am not bent on this clause, and if hon. members think it ought to be deleted, I am quite willing to do so.

The need of this section to Durban is great, and I believe it was because of that that the clause was introduced. The land outside Durban is under the jurisdiction of small health authorities, and a big native village which might involve an expenditure of 300,000 would be controlled by a small municipality.

Come!

I have an intimate knowledge of the surroundings of Durban—not a knowledge acquired by a jaunt down to Durban and listening to evidence given before a commission. Durban should have the right to purchase land. If the wording of the clause is unsatisfactory, it can be amended, but I ask the Minister before he withdraws his amendment to consider the needs of a growing town, which wishes to establish an up-to-date village for natives, and is anxious to help the natives to live under better conditions.

The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has, to some extent, said what I desired to say. Although it is a fact that negotiations are proceeding with a view to the incorporation of the surrounding localities into Durban, so far these negotiations have not been successful. Suppose we incorporate all the small townships around Durban, and the municipality wished to place a location, say, at Jacobs, then the objection of that locality would have to be met. I hope the Minister will not jettison the clause because of the difficulties which have been pointed out. I believe there are other areas circumstanced similarly to Durban. The Minister should try and meet the difficulty at Durban, even if it involves some amendment to the Bill. I do not know what Durban will do, unless the facilities proposed to be given here are conceded. The incorporation of the outside areas will evolve tremendous difficulties in order to give legal effect to it. Is it not possible to give Durban the power originally intended and to place some jurisdiction on the areas so set aside?

I suggest that the clause stand over so that the Minister may consult his law advisers to see whether it is not within the power of the Natal Provincial Council to give to Durban all the powers it requires to extend its municipal boundary.

They want a permissive section.

If there is a risk of Durban not obtaining these powers, then the clause should be made permissive, or, the clause should be made applicable to Durban alone. It is very objectionable putting in a special clause in a Bill of this kind applying to a particular town.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson). The necessities of the amendment have been made apparent to the Minister, and I do appeal to him to stand firm and to keep to the indomitable spirit of his forefathers, because he knows a provision of some sort is necessary; what, otherwise, is Durban to do? It is anxious to make suitable and up-to-date provisions for its native population, and it is hedged about. Are they to put natives on boats in the bay? An alteration of some sort may be necessary.

I move—

The hon. member can vote against it.

I will vote against it, for this reason; it has been abundantly clear that the only reason for its incorporation is the difficulties of Durban. Certainly, as far as the municipalities of the Transvaal are concerned, it would be positively injurious. I would suggest that the provincial council is quite competent to deal with the matter. The powers vested in the provincial councils would enable them to deal with the legislation which is necessary to settle the difficulty. It seems to be very dangerous and unnecessary to introduce legislation here to deal with a community in a particular part of the Union.

I hope the Minister will accept the suggestions of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) and allow the clause to stand over, because there is more to be considered. The opinion of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) may be all very fine, but he accused Durban of lack of vision. Other towns have lack of vision too; what about Cape Town? It is only within the last few years that it has extended its boundaries to take in these adjoining areas. Durban has a tremendous difficulty in dealing with these matters. They must find room for the natives. If the provincial administration can deal with the matter, the Minister ought to take this into consideration and withdraw the clause for the time being.

I hope the Minister will not be talked into withdrawing this clause. Durban is in a very peculiar position. The people who originally laid out the town did not look far enough ahead. To-day it is very flourishing, and expanding in all directions, but it is surrounded by health boards who refuse to become incorporated in what we would call greater Durban. So we are at a deadlock, and the only way out of the difficulty is to acquire land outside the municipal boundaries and to use it for the purposes of a native village. Hard cases in legislation do occur, but there should be some way out of the difficulty to meet the requirements of Durban in this particular instance.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). I can quite foresee a municipality like Cape Town wanting to acquire land outside its existing area. You might find it wishing to acquire land from a local body. If that land becomes their property they may want to settle a large number of natives on it, and the municipality would like to have it controlled entirely by the regulations applying to the municipality. The expression “subject to the control of the municipality” is not the same as “in the jurisdiction of the municipality.” You might have the prosecution of a native for infringing some regulation, who might plead that the regulations have no application to him, because he was outside the boundaries of the municipality. I move, not that the clause be deleted, but that the clause stand over.

I move—

In the meantime I hope hon. members on the other side will be able to compose their differences when we come to the clause again.

Motion put and agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 4,

Before you come to Section 5, I wish to move an amendment to clause 11. You will find the Minister has the power to appoint officers who have the power to inspect a native location under that section. I would like to go a step further and to make provision for the appointment of native welfare officers, who, at the expense, if thought fit, of urban local authorities, might be appointed, if the authorities so desire, to assist in the administration of native villages. As the clause stands the Minister can appoint officers with powers of inspection. I want to be satisfied that you can have a native resident welfare officer. I have been rather struck with the fact that in the administration of the native location here the native seem to be very dependent upon the advice of people outside who frequently mislead them. At the present time there are very considerable difficulties being encountered by those responsible for the administration of the location. I would like to see the power given whereby an officer could be appointed whose functions would be to act as an adviser to the natives, and to afford protection to them. At present you have a number of people who are really living upon the credulity of the natives, creating grievances. There should be a resident officer in the location known as a resident welfare officer who should be available even at night when the natives return from their work, and who would at the same time prevent the natives from unnecessarily stirring up trouble. Natives in Cape Town are often taken into courts of law because they think they have rights which they do not possess. I think that if we are going to keep down agitation and the unnecessary creation of grievances the natives will be advantaged by having some sort of officer resident in the location from whom they can get advice. I want to move an amendment which possibly may serve as a basis for discussion in this matter. I move—

1. 5. Section 11 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the addition to sub-section (2) of the words following:
   “The Minister may if so requested by a local authority and at its cost and expense appoint a resident native welfare officer in any such location or native village for the purpose of promoting the well-being and welfare of the natives resident therein or employed within the area of such local authority who shall for that purpose have, possess and exercise such functions and authorities as may be conferred upon him by regulations framed under Section 23 (1).”

I think the whole of that is covered by Section 11, which deals with the management and inspection of locations and hostels. The Durban town council approached me some time ago with a request of this very nature, and I have sanctioned it, and such an officer has been appointed in Durban. I am prepared to consider any application made upon the lines the hon. member has mentioned. If it is thought there is not sufficient power in the Act, I have no objection to the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary.

I understand the Minister has made such an appointment at Johannesburg?

No, in Durban. In Johannesburg it is quite a different thing.

With leave of committee proposed new clause withdrawn.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (d) by the insertion in sub-section (2) after the word “section” where it first occurs of the words “but may be required to produce on demand to an authorized officer proof that they fall within one of the classes hereby exempted.”

I want to move—

The amendment by the Minister to omit the word “has” having been agreed to I cannot allow an amendment dealing with any part of this paragraph prior to the word “has I have not yet put the whole clause as there are subsequent amendments.

On a point of order, the Minister sprang up first and by getting a very small amendment agreed to that simply wipes out all further amendments up to that stage.

It was put by me and agreed to. I cannot allow further discussion on it.

I should like to ask whether further discussion cannot be permitted on this paragraph prior to the word “has” which has just been deleted?

No.

I move—

The municipalities concerned with this proviso feel that they will have difficulty in meeting the wishes of the Minister in this respect. If a woman is allowed to come into the municipality with a certificate that she is the daughter or wife of a resident native, the difficulty will be to accommodate these women. Take the case of a man who has five wives. Provision is made for the boys, but not for the females. How is the municipality going to provide accommodation for these women? Accommodation is limited as it is, and this will mean overcrowding and worse.

It states that power will be given to prohibit women from coming into a proclaimed area and that a certificate will be issued to a woman whose husband or father has been employed for a period of two years. The hon. member wants to make it five years. Does the hon. member want to say that a man living for five years in a municipality cannot bring his wife in? I see no reason why he should not do so and the municipality should be able to provide accommodation for these women in some location or other.

The hon. member has missed the point of this proviso. The municipality must provide accommodation. If it has no accommodation, you are giving the native a right to obtain accommodation which does not exist. I should like to ask whether the obligation is placed upon the local authority to provide accommodation for a large number of female natives? This proviso gives the right to a native who has been resident for two years in employment in an urban area to demand accommodation for his wife. That is throwing a heavy burden upon the municipality which it ought not to bear.

A native who has been resident for two years must be a man of good character, if he has been in continuous work all that time. For a native to stay for two years in one place is a comparatively rare thing. Therefore, it will be comparatively rare to have a large number of natives residing in one place for two, three or four years.

I think that two years would be quite sufficient to meet the position here. After all, there are few natives who remain continuously resident in any urban area for any length of time. After they have lived there for two years continuously, it means that they have established themselves, and they should be given the opportunity to bring their wives in.

I should like to ask the Minister if he can supply a reason for the suggestion I am going to make. In regard to the object of the clause, am I right in assuming that one of the objects is to curtail or prevent immorality on a large scale?

That is only part of it.

Surely the Minister knows that the best way to achieve that object is to encourage respectable females to go there. If any woman is respectable, she should be permitted to go. The Minister says it is seldom that natives remain continuously in one place for two years. There is good reason for the suggestion that the limit should be one year. I would oppose an extension beyond two years. I think the object the Minister has in view would be better served if the period of time were reduced to one year. It is rather rare that a large percentage of natives remain continuously in employment for two years, and yet they are to be deprived during that time of the society of their respectable womenfolk. I think it would be better to have a shorter period.

The Minister over-looks the point of the first clause, namely that the provision to reside there is permissive. How are those native women to be accommodated? The Minister has not told us that. He is forcing a municipality to give the rights to native women to come into town, and I should like to ask if he is going to force the municipality to provide accommodation for them.

Surely the principle underlying this is fraught with great danger. One of our difficulties, at the present time, is the increase of the town-bred, detribalized population of natives. What is desirable is that the town-bred native population should be as small as possible, net only in the interests of the municipalities who have to provide accommodation for all natives resident in their areas, but also in the interests of the natives themselves, and to prevent them becoming degraded by being exposed to town conditions in undesirable circumstances. I hope, at a later date, we may be able to deal with the proviso as well, but the period which is here enacted is the minimum residence under which a woman should be able to demand a certificate of this kind, and it is very short indeed. I think you will find that there are a large number of natives who can prove, or against whom it cannot be proved, that they do not live in an area continuously for a couple of years. That number is tending to increase. I submit that the Minister should be prepared to consider the question of an increase of this period from two years to five, being a reasonable compromise in the circumstances. Hereafter we may be able to take action which would render a restriction of this kind unnecessary, but, for the time being, a restriction is necessary, both in the interests of the municipality who may be compelled to a large expenditure, and also in the interests ot the natives themselves. I move—

If we limit the period to two years, it is reasonable that the natives should have the right to bring in their wives, and if we fix it at two years, I think that will meet the situation.

Is it not better to stick to the same wording right through the Bill?

How does the Minister intend to bring about the machinery which is necessary to put the clause into operation? We have these women coming here looking for work, and under this clause they will not be allowed to enter the area at all. As soon as they do they become prohibited, they are liable to a penalty. The position arises that a native comes down to town and becomes a waster, and his wife comes down to look for him and take him back again. I take it that under the wording of this section she will not be allowed to enter the urban area at all, for as soon as she does, she becomes a criminal. How can she obtain a certificate from the Transkei or anywhere else? Can she write to the authorities down here asking for the authority to enter she requires? I think this is rather an important matter. Instead of prohibiting any female from entering an area, there should be a proviso to the effect that she is prohibited from permanently taking up her residence in that area. I put that point to the Minister as being of some importance, otherwise any native female coming to look for work becomes a criminal.

An amendment is proposed to Section (12) which provides that the Governor-General may proclaim an area in each urban area to deal with this matter.

Assuming a native wishes to go home for a week or two, will that interfere with what may be regardede as continuous residence? If that is so, this will be a heavy disability. There is also the position of a native born in the area, brought up there and who also has been in employment there, but who, through no fault of his own, is out of employment. He is found to be unemployable. When has he to be deported? It is true he can be sent to a farm colony. Where is the farm colony? If there is no such place to send him, what has to be done?

Amendment proposed by Mr. Giovanetti put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Native Affairs put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

I move this so that we can get not only at the man who supplies the liquor, but also the person who is in unlawful possession of that liquor.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move a drafting amendment—

I move the amendment of which I have given notice—

And in moving it, I beg to state that I fully realize the importance that municipalities should have power to eject undesirable natives from their location. Under Act 30 of 1899 farmers are not allowed to have more than a definite number of squatters on their farms, and because of this, some natives went and lived in towns. If this position crops up in a municipality where these people were formerly allowed to come in, or the municipality decides that it has more natives than are required for that particular community, they can order these people out and to go elsewhere. The clause refers to any native who is habitually unemployed and has no sufficient, honest means of livelihood, and it states further that he is to be sent to the place he “originally came from.” It cannot be the farm, because the law prevents that. They have no home in the native areas. What is such a native to do in a case of that nature? It seems to me to be a most inhuman thing to do to order such a native away. I do not think that was the intention of the Minister when the clause was drafted. I therefore move that if a native, or natives, has, or have, no particular home to go to, some place should be provided to which they could go. The time has arrived, I think, when provision should be made for labour colonies to which these unfortunate people can go. I cannot imagine that this House will adopt a law to send people like that away and send them adrift. The municipality of Bloemfontein has something in the vicinity of 25,000 natives, supposing employment cannot be found for them all and the municipality says it has too many, and decides to eject half of them. What is to become of them? I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

I think the hon. member’s difficulty is more imaginary than anything else. We have had a section in the Act of 1923 that a magistrate may order any idle or disorderly person to be removed from an urban or proclaimed area and sent to the place to which he belongs. That is exactly what we have had in the Act for all these years; it has been acted upon, and we have not had a single case where a man has not found a place in his home area. He is sent back to his home—where be belongs.

If that is the law which the Minister has read out, and if that is sufficient, why have we got Clause 6 in this Bill? Clause 6 shows that the Minister wants.

further powers. A large number of these people have no home except where they are at present, and if they are turned out, surely there must be a place provided for them.

This section is one of far-reaching application. A police officer comes to the conclusion that a native is habitually unemployed, or that he is a disorderly fellow. As a matter of administration the native is brought before a magistrate. The onus of proof is thrown upon him of showing that he is not a disorderly fellow, or that he is in employment, and if his explanation is not regarded as satisfactory he can be ordered to be transported to the place whence he came, which means that he has to leave the location. I do not think it is possible to do that in all cases. Natives have been turned out who have nowhere else to go, and I hope the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) will give us information on this point. I do hope that these extraordinarily wide powers in Section 6 will be exercised with care and circumspection.

I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment. I am speaking from experience in the Western Province. We recently had another incident here which is deplored by everybody, and without doubt one of the contributing causes was a number of unemployed and undesirable natives who came into a neighbourhood where there was no work, and which was a fruitful soil for the agitators. If there is one thing that the Minister ought to feel it is that where in urban areas, or parts of them, no provision is made, or can be made, for separate locations for coloured people and natives, it is so much more necessary not to congregate the natives. Hon. members who know the circumstances will feel what great danger the concourse of natives creates, and that it may cause the greatest evil through idle natives who preach unsound doctrines and have nothing else to do. The Minister must not allow a single provision in this clause to be watered down. We all agree with the pious hope of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) that the Minister will not carry out the provisions drastically or inhumanly. It is, however, a fact that the good position in the Western Province is being poisoned by idle natives who have preached all kinds of unsound doctrines.

This is to my mind one of the most difficult position of this Act. It seems to me it is entirely wrong. You have a bad class of persons—diseased and prostitutes—they are brought before a court and are asked where they belong to. If a person comes from the Transkei, he is sent back to rail head, and carries on his malpractices at Umtata, although he may have come from near Natal, a hundred miles away. Until the authorities have some labour farm or other suitable place to which these persons can be sent, they will simply carry on their evil practices wherever they are sent. In one case a native was returned, and the chief, after he arrived, told the magistrate that he had been away for 15 years. He asked the magistrate, if this man continues his malpractices, what would happen, and he added: “If we have a beer drink and this man is found at the bottom of a river, do not come to me; he should have been shot or hanged long ago.” Another man who had been deported remained only three days, and then left for the sugar estates in Natal. These people will go on floating about from one place to another carrying on their malpractices. Now what is happening at Umtata? You have got a small area there on which there are 40 or 50 of the worst type of prostitutes you can possibly have. Last week a labour agent told me of a young man who had been working in Johannesburg and had returned. He had drawn his deferred pay of about £50. He had gone away with the intention of going to Pondoland, but he came back in three days’ time without a penny. These women had got hold of him, and he came back and was ashamed to face his own people and wanted to return to Johannesburg. The Government will encourage that type of woman. As Umtata is the rail head, all deported prostitutes will congregate there. They say that these women are to go back to the place to which they belong. Where is the place to which they belong? It may be the Cape Province. I want to know what the Minister intends to do with these people. It is useless to take away the scum of Johannesburg and send them down to Cape Town or Umtata or anywhere else. Unless you have some system of control the position is hopeless. I would suggest a ticket of leave system. They could then report at a magistracy every month or fortnight, as the case may be, and the police could get into contact with them and know where they are. In some towns we know venereal disease is fairly prevalent. The doctors have periodical examinations of these women, and they find that they are disease-ridden women. But what happens? The women slip away into the next district, or go to East London or Cape Town or some other town. That is one of the most dangerous types of women we have in this country. It is useless to make these laws unless we control them. The Minister should take into serious consideration some method of controlling these people, so that the police can keep in touch with them.

Amendment, proposed by Brig.-Gen. Byron, put and agreed to.

I wish to ask a question in regard to Clause 10 at the bottom of page 6, and I should like to know why that provision has been inserted, in regard to the question of transportation from one district to another, and the right of appeal. The Minister also referred to the question of review. I am not at all clear upon the point, and I should like to ask for some information on it. I should like to ask if an order were made for native “A” to be conveyed from Cape Town to Butterworth, is that an order which can automatically be reviewed?

No.

Is it the intention it should be reviewed?

No

I gather, that the object of this sub-clause (f) is to ensure that where a magistrate makes an order there should be an automatic review. I should like to see a judge review all cases where an order of this kind is made. Will the Minister be prepared to accept that?

Certainly not.

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