Before the House proceeds to deal with the orders of the day, I beg leave to make a brief statement in connection with order No. 14, viz., the Transvaal Asiatic Tenure (Amendment) Bill, which I consider to be necessary in the public interest, and for the purpose of avoiding all possible misunderstanding. Owing to its importance and the complexity of its subject matter, this Bill will necessarily require the careful consideration of the House, and as such consideration, appears to be impossible at this stage owing to the anticipated early prorogation of Parliament, the postponement of the proposed legislation until next session seems to be inevitable. As it is advisable that there shall be no uncertainty in the minds of those concerned with regard to future procedure, I desire to give the following assurances. 1. The Bill will be re-introduced into the House at an early stage next session. 2. In view of the fact that the Bill was submitted to the House by a select committee, to which the subject matter was referred, it will be re-introduced in an unmodified form, so that any amendments proposed will have to be moved in the ordinary way in the committee of the whole House. 3. Consequent to the postponement of the Bill, it is my intention, when amendments are considered, to move that the date fixed in section 6 in connection with the voluntary registration of illegal businesses shall be altered to a suitable date subsequent to the enactment of the Bill. It is, however, my intention subject to the approval of the House to let the remaining dates specified in the Bill stand and consequently to make the Bill retrospective in its application as from the dates mentioned.

I move—

This Bill deals with a variety of subjects which can more conveniently be explained in committee. I therefore content myself with formally moving the second reading.

It will be within the memory of some hon. members that the point was raised before of the advisability of introducing an omnibus Bill of this kind. This has been going on for several years. It is like crying in the desert, protesting against it, but it has no effect. In last night’s paper my attention was drawn to a telegram from Bloemiontein with reference to the Bill, and particularly section 14, which validates the discharge of certain teachers in the Orange Free State. At a meeting of the executive committee of the Orange Free State Teachers’ Association, held the night before, a telegram was despatched to the Government protesting against the proposed Bill on account of the legal position of teachers being affected. I think this clause should certainly have been explained by the Minister. These people apparently—one cannot tell—have been dismissed; apparently litigation has taken place, and apparently it is proposed to whitewash the Government’s liability. I am not in a position to give the facts of the case, but the Minister may state the real position when he replies. If the object of the clause is to close the mouths of these people, it is interfering with their fair rights. This matter must have been in the mind of the Government for some time, but in the last days of the session the Government comes with this omnibus Bill. The proper place to inquire into the rights of these people is the courts of law, and not this Bill.

I am surprised the Minister did not give us an explanation of some of the more important clauses of the Bill. In this case, there is a good deal in the Bill of an extremely contentious nature, more particularly the clause to which the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has alluded. I read it with a certain amount of perturbation. In the Orange Free State numbers of teachers have been dismissed by the administration, and, as it now appears, quite illegally. A married lady took her case before the courts, and won it before the provincial division. She succeeded in winning heavy damages from the administration for illegal dismissal and the decision was confirmed on appeal. It is proposed in regard to teachers in a similar state to this lady, and I believe there are quite a number, to deprive them retrospectively of their legal rights. In section 14 we are asked to divide these people into two groups; those who have been clever or forward enough to institute an action before the 30th of April, who have their legal rights preserved, and those people who are in exactly the same position and have exactly the same rights, who did not institute their action before that date, and are now losing those rights. It is a clause which will require very narrow examination at the hands of the committee. There are other clauses which would have been all the better for a short explanation from the Minister.

Each clause stands by itself, and can be dealt with in committee.

Usually the Minister has followed the practice of making a briet but not exhaustive reference to each of the clauses. This matter to which I am referring is not one of those formal matters, and I should have appreciated some explanation being given of the drastic action which has been taken. Perhaps some of my colleagues from the Orange Free State will explain how they view the position. What is wrongful dismissal is to be turned by an Act of Parliament into rightful dismissal.

This being a financial Bill, I am, I think, in order in dealing with matters concerned with the Minister’s department, and if that is so I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any intention of giving information on what I asked for on the 20th May. The question has been put back, and there seems—

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

This is a financial matter.

The hon. member is not allowed to do this.

I was going to follow the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, and deal with these matters in committee, but as this matter has been brought up I feel called upon to deal with it. It is a painful position we have reached when members of the public service are told, in effect, that when the Government, whether it is the provincial or the central, has done anything to these servants, the central authority will come to Parliament and rush legislation through to prevent these people having their rights. I agree with the Minister it is better to leave it over to the committee, where we can concentrate on each particular item as it comes along. In addition to entering a protest against that unjust method of dealing with our public servants, which must result in a tremendous feeling of unrest and insecurity, and as a result a lack of good work, I must protest against this method of rushing this legislation through the House at the last moments of the session. I cannot see anything in the Bill which could not have been considered two months ago. Everything is what the Government has known about all through the session. These things could have been discussed when the House was not tired and not ready to get away, but ready to do the work. Ministers are all tarred with the same brush, and not the present Minister only, to bring this sort of thing in at the end of the session. I want to support my hon. friend, and in future I want the Minister to bring this in earlier in the session, and bring in a separate Bill for something that happens to come in all of a sudden. I want to protest against this exercise of brute force against public servants, which does not enable them to get their just rights. Surely the thing was contemplated when the law was passed, that under such and such conditions they should be entitled to such and such a thing.

I hope before we go into committee, the Minister will explain, as fully as; possible, Clause 14, because prima, facie a more drastic use of the powers of Parliament is difficult to conceive. Parliament has never been intended to ride like a juggernaut over the rights of individuals. Here is a purely provincial matter and Parliament is asked to use its power to back up a provincial administration which has done something which, prima facie, according to a decision of the courts of law, has been unjust to quite a large number of people. Either that action was illegal, or it was not. If it was illegal, there is no doubt that the persons affected suffered serious injury, which entitled them to judgment in a court of law. If the judgment was wrong, there are the ordinary methods available to see whether that judgment was right or not. No Government is justified in interfering with the private rights of individuals like these, and adopting this method of introducing retrospective legislation with regard to them.

In connection with a part of this Bill, I want to call the Minister’s attention to something referring to the mint in Pretoria. We see that the mint is called the Royal Mint and, possibly in consequence of the fact that it is a branch of the Royal Mint, we see only one flag in front of that building. It is not necessary to say that it is not our own flag.

What clause are you speaking on?

Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill.

I am sorry but the hon. member cannot discuss the flag under those clauses.

I am sorry but then that flag had better continue to fly in the meantime.

I would like to have an opinion from the Minister as to how the position has arisen with regard to these teachers. I happen to have been a member of the provincial council when the ordinance was passed stipulating that when a female teacher was married she would lose her position as a teacher. Is the Minister of opinion that the teachers are taking advantage of a legal position, and one which cannot be morally defended? If not, it would appear that the Bill is an attempt to deprive the teachers of an inherent right, and an understanding at the time of engagement. If that is so, I do not think the House will approve of it. There are about 1,500 teachers in the Free State who are interested in this question.

In reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I may say that what we are dealing with now is the principle of the Bill, whether Parliament should deal with these various financial matters in a Bill of this nature. Every one of these matters stands by itself, and it is much more convenient to thrash out the whole thing in committee. I do not think it is necessary for me to give the House a lengthy explanation of every one of these clauses in the Bill at this stage. As far as the point of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is concerned, that we should have introduced this Bill early in the session, I explained on a previous occasion that a large number of the measures dealt with here have been introduced as a result of the discussions of the Public Accounts Committee. From time to time certain transactions must be legalized in a Bill of this nature after scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee. Take this Free State matter. It only happened a few days ago. As far as the Free State matter is concerned the facts are the following. The Free State in 1922 passed an ordinance giving it certain powers in regard to dispensing with the services of teachers in connection with reorganization. In 1927 it set on foot a certain scheme of reorganization. It found that the schools of the province had become overstaffed. It rearranged the classes, and laid down what number of pupils should be assigned to each class.

What is the number?

I cannot answer that question. I have not the information at the moment. Under this scheme reorganization took place in the school at Frankfort. It appeared that Frankfort had fourteen teachers, while they were only entitled to eleven. In deciding which teacher should go, the administration, after consultation and full discussion with the Director of Education, and obtaining the views of the Orange Free State Teachers’ Association, decided that certain principles should be applied. The principles were these. In the first place uncertificated teachers should go. In the second place, with regard to married women whose husbands were able to support them, if there were too many teachers a choice had to be made of those who would remain at their posts. At Frankfort there were three married women whose husbands were able to support them, and these three teachers were asked to retire, and their classes were split up amongst the other teachers. Some time ago the action of the administration was tested by Mrs. Luyt. She won her case in the Provincial Division. The administration took the case to appeal, and the Appellate Division upheld the decision of the Provincial Division. Heavy damages were given against the administration. The administration then ascertained how many teachers there were affected in this way. There were about six or seven. It was at once decided to rectify the position as far as possible by advising these people that they were to regard their retirement as a nullity, and an offer was made to reinstate them and to pay them arrears of salary. Demands then came in from all over the country, from teachers who have been retired since 1922, people who had accepted their gratuities. An ordinance was then passed indemnifying the administration in its action. After taking counsel’s opinion, and I think there cannot be much doubt about that, it is feared that the ordinance they have passed will not be intra vires, and the administration has come to the Government for assistance. The Cabinet, after considering the question, has come to the conclusion that these people have no right to demand heavy damages under the circumstances. Under the Public Servants and Pensions Act, public servants are prescribed from making such a demand after the expiration of a year. Parliament has decided that a limit should be set during which actions can be brought. There can be no question of the bona fides of the administration. It was thought that it had acted within its rights in retiring these teachers in the public interest. I think that on grounds of equity there is no doubt about it, and that it is the duty of Parliament to protect the taxpayer from actions of that nature. It is on those grounds that we have agreed to assist the provincial administration.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Has the agreement between the Union and Rhodesia with respect to the payment of a share of profit on Union subsidiary coin been submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, and been ratified by them?

There is only a verbal understanding as yet on this matter. What I must ask the House to ratify here is that in connection with the use of the silver coinage of the Union by Rhodesia it was thought desirable that a portion of the profit derived from the manufacture of the coin in the Pretoria branch of the Royal Mint should be paid to Rhodesia. Naturally the question arises how the profit should be shared. There is a considerable profit accruing to the mint in connection with the minting of silver coinage. It was agreed that we would allot to them 50 per cent, of the profit.

What about submitting an agreement of that kind to the Public Accounts Committee?

There is no agreement in writing. I am asking Parliament to agree to this. It is a question of policy. I entered into what seemed to me to be an equitable arrangement.

Why 50 per cent.?

I think that is an equitable arrangement. As a result of that arrangement we pay over to the Rhodesian Government the share due to them up to the end of the financial year, ended on 31st day of March, 1930. They said mat if they accepted our silver coinage they ought to be compensated. After consulting the Master of the Mint, we came to the conclusion that this was a satisfactory arrangement, satisfactory on both sides.

There is no doubt that the Minister of Finance has acted with the best motives in making an arrangement of this sort. I suppose that an arrangement of this sort was necessary and inevitable, but I do think that the Minister of Finance might very well have referred the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. Take the next clause we are dealing with. We regularly have in review the arrangements with the mint. I think the Minister would have been well advised if he had given this to the Public Accounts Committee in advance. How do we know whether it is 50/50? It may be we have been getting all the profits up to now. It is a business matter that might well have been enquired into by the Public Accounts Committee. That procedure would have been far more satisfactory.

I cannot agree with the hon. member at all. It is an inherent right the Government has to enter into such an arrangement and then to submit, to Parliament what it has done. The other matter referred to is a matter for the Accounts Committee. It was a complicated agreement, and something about which I think the Accounts Committee would like to have information. In this case the facts are well known, and it is as simple for the committee here to decide the matter as it is for the Public Accounts Committee.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I must ask the Minister as each clause is called to give us a short explanation.

I have not been asked to do so.

Then I will ask the Minister every time a clause is called. I wonder how many members of the House really know the object of Clause 2 which we have already passed. I ask the Minister to make a statement with regard to the redemption of these loans.

This clause is to put on a satisfactory footing the advances that have been made by the Treasury. The commission could have gone to the market or come to the Treasury. As it happened the Treasury supplies all the funds employed by the commission. The amount due to the Treasury is about £8,000,000, of which £5,000,000 was absorbed by the two railway undertakings. What we propose to do here is to fix the period of repayment of these loans to the Treasury. We have split them into two portions.

Have you expanded the period?

For a long time a controversy raged between the commission and the railways as to the redemption period. The railways considered the period was unnecessarily onerous to the railway administration and the users of the railways. They argued that provision was made for maintenance and it was unnecessary to have the redemption period and redemption rate specified in the Act. The position taken up by the railways was that we should treat this undertaking as we treat the railways themselves. In an electricity question you have to take into consideration the matter of obsolescence. While I was prepared to have the question considered as to what was a reasonable period I was not prepared to consider not having any period fixed at all. After discussion it was agreed that we could reasonably extend the period of redemption as far as the railways was concerned and we could also extend for ten years the redemption payment. As a result of that the railway loan will be redeemed in 50 years. The rate of interest to the Treasury was fixed at 0.8 per cent. I understand that a report of the commission will be published shortly and that that will disclose a very satisfactory state of affairs. It has a large surplus of assets over liabilities and I am informed that the position of the commission can be regarded as eminently Satisfactory.

I recognise the necessity for getting these loans consolidated and put in order but I rather doubt the wisdom of the Minister’s decision to give 50 years for redemption of an electricity loan. If you give a 50 year period for electrical equipment, I think it is a very optimistic way to look at it to imagine that in 50 years’ time or even in 30 years’ time, any of that equipment will be worth anything at all.

That is not the opinion of the experts.

If you compare the electrical equipment of 30 years ago and that of to-day, 30 years is too long a period and I feel we have been too optimistic with regard to the 50 years’ period. The truth of the matter is that the railways are being very badly hit with interest and redemption charges. I very much doubt whether we look on this question of redemption from the point of view of the asset which is being depreciated.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) seems to have overlooked the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1922 which provides that the commission has to set aside a reserve fund for the replacement of obsolete plant and for exceptional repairs or emergencies, so that we are here not concerned merely with a fund but to provide for renewal and obsolescence amounting to three per cent, per annum, so that I do not think that the unhappy railway user should be saddled with more for renewal and obsolescence. I am sorry the Minister in dealing with the Act of 1922 did not make this Section 9 a little clearer. It provides to Set aside annually a sum towards a reserve fund which shall he utilised when required for the replacement of obsolete machinery or plant and generally for the betterment of the plant owned by the commission or for exceptional repairs or emergencies but not for ordinary emergencies. The amount so set aside shall not exceed three per cent, of the money (other than advances made to it under sub-section 3 of Section 7) raised by way of loans in any one year or 15 per cent, in all, and may be invested by the commission in such securities as the Governor-General may direct or approve. I would like the Minister to explain what the words “in all” mean and I think he should take this opportunity of making this clause clearer.

Perhaps I can explain the doubt raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The words “in one year” in the position they are placed in the clause I think are his difficulty. I was concerned with the drafting of this Act and happen to know what was intended. It says three per cent., in any one year of the monies raised by loan which shall not accumulate to more than 15 per cent, altogether, for the purpose of making good obsolescence. For example, that would mean, on the £8,000,000, an amount of £240,000 per annum.

The reserve fund will not amount in all to more than 15 per cent.?

Yes, that is the maximum. A plant of this nature cannot be expected to last 40 or 50 years. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Supply Commission is actually setting aside this three per cent, per annum?

This question was raised in the Select Committee on Railways. The Railway Administration put up a case that the commission’s scale of charges was too high. The matter was referred to the Electricity Board to discuss the point, and finally they agreed on 1.9 per cent, redemption charges. It was felt that the Railway Administration had come to the conclusion that the Electricity Commission were piling up heavy charges which the railway would have to pay, and which made the cost of the supply of current to the railways too high. It was through this discussion that the period of redemption has been extended.

With regard to this £5,108 interest charges on this amount, I should like to know if this covers every possible expenditure in connection with the matter and the Administration also.

It does not cover the care which the Minister ought to have taken in having this printed. The Minister has laid himself open, if the Electricity Commission is clever enough, of receiving from them much less in interest. This is not 5,018 at all. It is 5 multiplied by 018. The dot is in the wrong place. The point placed at the bottom of figures is an old multiplication sign. To be a decimal point it should be placed at the top.

As I read the clauses in the original, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is incorrect. It is only for five years that this amount is to be put aside. At the end of five years, that matter ceases. The amount to be set aside is 3 per cent, annually, and the total to be set aside is 15 per cent. in all. At the end of five years, when you have set aside 15 per cent., there is no obligation on the part of the Electricity Supply Commission to put anything further aside than the amount necessary for this loan. My feeling is this: that the people who drafted this Bill did the same thing twice over. If we had stuck to this first method we should automatically have provided the money for renewal of the plant. There would have been no necessity to have set aside a further reserve. They set aside 3 per cent, for obsolescence, and they did exactly the same thing by insisting that the loans themselves necessitate a further sum. They should have done either one thing or the other, and have done it properly. They seem to have done both things by half. If we put a very much shorter period for these loans, we should then have relieved them of their obligations under the Act of 1922.

I think the Minister might have given some relief to the gold mines, as well as to the railways. It is more important in the case of the gold mines, for delay in giving relief now results in serious losses to them in later years. Anything that can be done now to reduce their costs, not only increases the profit-earning capacity of the mines, but enormously increases their, life. For these reasons we ought to know the reason actuating the Minister in separating these two periods of repayment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the first line of this clause, “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law”. I think some reference has been made to existing laws on the subject. It is very difficult for people who have to deal with legislation in the country to know where to look for legislation on a particular subject. A lawyer may get up in a court of law and quote something quite apart from this Bill. The parliamentary draughtsmen or legal advisers might have said what other possible law applies to this matter. On the merits of the thing, some time ago I told the hon. the Minister, and he rather resented it, that I thought this Angola settlement was a heavy cost to the country, and he said that I had been wrongly informed. I should like to know what is the cost of it to the country, and are we getting-interest from the South-West Government on the money we have advanced?

The law referred to here, which necessitates the passing of this clause, is the General Powers of the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa, in regard to the specific subjects in connection with which they can legislate. As far as the Angola farmers are concerned, on a previous occasion I gave the House the information asked for. Generally speaking, we are informed by the Administrator that the people there are going on as well as can be expected, and they are making a success. Land settlement every where is a difficult matter. Very few of our settlements are doing exceptionally well. These people are only just starting there, and, as far as we know, there is no reason to believe that they will not be a success. The hon. member asked about interest. I have informed the House on a previous occasion that these appropriations were made on conditions that no interest would be payable. When repayments are made by settlers, they go back into the fund, and will be available for re-issue for land settlement purposes in the territory. The question of the ultimate disposal of them is left in abeyance.

I want to be quite clear on this matter. The amount which was given to South-West Africa to help these Angola farmers was stated to be a loan which need not necessarily be repaid in whole. It would be a loan ostensibly from this Government to the South-West African Government. On that basis a misunderstanding has arisen. Whenever the question is raised in the Assembly in Windhoek, it is said to be the concern of the Union Government, and that the Assembly had nothing to do with it. It was said to be a Union matter. When the matter was raised here, we were referred to the Administrator. It was said he was the person administering the fund. I understand that the position now created by this Bill will be this: this fund, together with other additions which may be made later on to it by the Government, will be a South-West Africa fund at the disposal of the Assembly there. They will be in a position to pass laws and to criticize and supervize the administration of it. We have given the fund, and we are not looking forward to any return whatever. If anything is paid back, it will go into the fund, and will be at the disposal of the South-West African Administration and the Assembly there as a fund for land settlement. In future, if this Bill is passed, this fund will be entirely a South-West African fund, and will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Assembly there. That I understand to be the position, if the Bill goes through. It will no longer be possible to bandy about those responsible in regard to this matter. It will become the responsibility of the South-West African Administration. That is my reading of the clause, and I should like to know if I am right. I think the existing state of affairs has been eminently undesirable, for, when matters are raised there, the people are referred to the Union people, and when they are raised here, they are referred to the Administrator in South-West Africa, and it is better for us to put the responsibility somewhere.

That is right, but the hon. member will see at the end of the clause that “the grants mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) and any further grants which may be appropriated by Parliament for land settlement purposes in the said territory shall be repayable at such time and under such conditions as the Governor-General may determine”, We are not altogether waiving our right. Apart from that, the Assembly will have the administration of the money.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I see, in Clause 7, that the power is being taken to increase the number of members on the central board of the Land Bank to six. I understand that the real reason behind that is the intention to appoint Mr. Herold, the retired managing director of that bank, to a seat on the board. In view of Mr. Herold’s unique experience, I do not think this committee can easily take exception to that. But I do ask, if and when they appoint Mr. Herold to this position, is Mr. Herold to draw his full pension and his full salary as a director of the Land Bank? If that is so, I want to say, as I have said before, in the case of Mr. Roos the other day, that this is a most unsound thing to do.

The hon. member is correct in stating that, broadly speaking, we are very anxious to avail ourselves of the continuous service of Mr. Herold as a member of the board in view of the great services he has given to the Land Bank, and the way in which he has built up that institution. It would not have been right for us not to have made an attempt to retain his services on the board. Doubts were expressed as to whether it was desirable in view of the fact that the managing director would be able to dominate the board to the embarrassment of the present general manager. I discussed that matter, and it was felt that we need not have any fear on that account. As far as the pension is concerned, a pensioner will not give his services, and it would be unreasonable simply to pay him his pension and nothing more. Mr. Herold will draw the ordinary pay of a member of the board, and his pension. He has not been reappointed a member of the public service, as the Land Bank is outside the public service.

Why have the services of Mr. Herold, as manager of the Land Bank, been dispensed with? He is fit to do another 20 years’ work.

He is over age.

He is a jolly good man, I know that, but when he retires in a year or two, there may be a job for somebody else. Surely five directors are sufficient to run this institution.

The desire to retain Mr. Herold’s services is the only reason for the clause. The work of the bank is increasing, and we are piling on the shoulders of the bank work which does not belong to it. We are using the bank as an agent of the Government, and this naturally necessitates more sittings of the board, but through the addition of another member they will sometimes be able to hold two sittings of the directors simultaneously, and thus speed up the work.

Will the Minister kindly explain sub-section (3)? I have turned to several amendments of the Act, but I do not see which Act is amended, nor can I discover the object of the amendment.

Under the law as originally passed, a member of the board is entitled to only 14 days’ leave of absence a year without incurring a penalty of £3. Under the amendment we shall be able to give the members slightly extended leave.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

With regard to Clause 8, I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the extension of time of repaying of loans for boring, and the increase of the amount from £250 to £350. I want to say that these alterations are very welcome, because it has long been felt that the amount which could be got under this system was a little small, and that the period might be a little longer. Although we are very thankful and glad for this concession, I want to point out to the Minister that it is still very difficult for the farmers to make use of these facilities. The reason is that if the Land Bank grants such a loan to a landowner, then he has, first of all, to get the consent of the mortgagee. In other words, a small loan is treated as a first mortgage on the ground. Especially in the case of people passing bonds to chambers or other financial institutions, it is very difficult to get the consent, and the private bond holders also are often a little hesitating in giving their consent. In consequence the farmers can only avail themselves of the facilities with difficulty, although they are at their disposal. As the position is now, the mortgagee cannot be compelled to allow a loan for boring works, if he is opposed to it. I have a letter here, e.g., about a case where there was a first mortgage of £3,000 on a farm. We must therefore assume that the farm is worth at least that amount. The mortgagee gave his consent to a loan of £137 10s., and because the owner has now got two instalments in arrear, through circumstances beyond his control, such as drought, the Land Bank is demanding repayment of the loan.

Does the hon. member intend moving something, because otherwise he cannot debate the old Act.

I would just like to call the Minister’s attention to this matter.

The hon. member cannot disobey the ruling of the Chairman. He can only discuss this proposed clause.

May I point out that this clause refers to the original Act, and how can I discuss the clause unless I also discuss the original Act? My question to the Minister is whether he will consider the possibility of so amending the Act that the people do not experience so much difficulty in using the facilities that are available, if, e.g., as in the case I have mentioned, there is a farm worth more than £3,000, and a loan of £127 on it is called up by the Land Bank, then one cannot blame a bond-holder for refusing to give his consent to such a loan.

What we are doing here is to make the position easier in connection with loans, and the provisions of this Bill will very much assist the farmers. We can, however, only do this kind of thing, and give help to the Land Bank, provided the Land Bank remains sound. We cannot increase the assistance if we derogate from the sound principles of the Land Bank, that the loans must be against first mortgage. In connection with loans of this kind, dealt with in the clause, a note is merely made against a title deed that it is a first burden on the property. There is nothing unfair in that. The Land Bank advances the money to improve the property, and why should not the Land Bank have the first right of getting its money back before anybody else? A few years ago there was a little trouble in connection with first bond holders, but now that the people understand the position better, the board tells me that there is no longer the least trouble The bond-holders realize that by loans for boreholes and fencing a farmer can improve his property and so improve the farming, thereby increasing the security. The Land Bank, however, is a business institution, and must do its work on a sound basis. We are here going to extend the time for repayment of loans for boreholes from five years to twenty years. We realize the importance that the farmers should make as much provision as possible for water on their farms. The same facilities are given for fencing loans by this clause. Here also the period is extended from five to twenty years for jackal-proof fencing. We find that in time of drought the farmers who have fenced get through the drought much better than other farmers. We are, therefore, helping the farmers a great deal, but we can only do it on a sound basis.

I do not want the Minister to misunderstand me. We are thankful for the assistance and help which is being given, but what will be the good of having the facilities and people not being able to make use of them?

Many are using them.

I have a letter here in this connection that I want to read. [Letter quoted.] In this case there is a bond of £3,300 on the farm, £127 is due to the Land Bank, and because two payments are in arrear, the Land Bank wants to sell the man’s land. If that sort of thing becomes known, then bondholders will not consent to such loans. I know that the Land Bank is a separate institution, but I should very much like the Minister of Finance to use his influence with the bank not to persecute people in those circumstances.

If the farm is sold, then the commission, etc., will certainly amount to £200, and the individual will have to assume that burden. I shall be very thankful if the Minister will go into this matter, and will see what can be done.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

Would the Minister be good enough to explain this I shall read the proviso—

It is “puzzle, find the lady”. If the Minister will tell us where the lady is, I shall be very much obliged.

This amendment is to meet several hard cases which cropped up under the death duties. You have a case like the following—a woman remarries who has children by her former husband. She dies, and leaves these children, and they have to pay 10 per cent, instead of 2 per cent. They really inherit from their mother. It is a conundrum I must admit, but it is putting right where, strictly speaking, the successors are not blood relations.

Are you sure this meets the case?

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

This again seems to be a very unfair clause, and deals with appointments before 1910. It is going to deprive many people of existing rights. It says—

1. (a) by the provincial administration; or
2. (b) at an aided private school if the provisions of the laws relating to teachers in the service of the said administration have been applied to him,

who was appointed prior to the thirty-first day of May, 1910, and who has attained the age of sixty years, shall have the right to retire and shall be required to retire unless the Administrator of the said province determines that it is desirable in the public interest to retain him in his post beyond that age; and in that event such a teacher may from time to time be retained for further periods (not exceeding one year at a time) up to the age of sixty-five years, above which age no teacher shall be retained on the regular teaching start of the said administration or in a pensionable capacity in an aided private school.

We are dealing here with an ordinance of the Orange Free State with which we are not conversant. Apparently there was no provision there for an age of retirement. Now it is proposed that we should pass a law whereby they may be retired at the age of 60. Under certain circumstances they may be kept on up to the age of 65. In the case of women it is 10 years earlier. This may end in a tremendous amount of injustice to people who have no other means of earning a livelihood. Here it is proposed to deprive people of existing rights.

There is question about it that public interest demands that we should make provision for the retirement of teachers after they have reached the age of 65 years. Prior to Union there was no age limit fixed with regard to the retirement of teachers. After Union an ordinance was passed, but unfortunately it appears to be ultra vires, and teachers appointed prior to 1910 may claim to go on irrespective of an age limit.

Why have we to interfere?

Because their legislation is ultra vires. Prior to 1910 there was no provision for an age of retirement. Under the South Africa Act the rights of public-servants, and also teachers, are protected. Provision, as I said, was made, but that legislation is now found to be ultra vires.

This is where I find myself in agreement with the Minister. I would not allow them to remain until 65. I would go further than the Minister. Surely when a person has worked to the age of 60 it is up to the state to see that he does not work any longer. I must take exception to the differentiation between the female and the male. I have never been able to appreciate the difference between men and women in the public service. Why should a woman be retired 10 years before a man?

It is in accordance with the Free State ordinance.

What is the principle underlying it? Whatever may have been said in favour of the argument of the Minister that certain things could not be brought up before, that cannot be said with regard to this matter. Surely it has been known for some time that this legislation was required. Under these circumstances I think the Minister will be well advised if he were to accept a motion for the deletion of this clause. I move—

I am not satisfied with the explanation I have received. The Minister says that in the interests of the public this should be done, but surely the interests of the individual are as great as the interests of the public. I am not satisfied that people become incompetent by reason of age, and surely the common law applies. If a person is unfit to carry out a contract, the contract can be terminated. Everyone will agree with me when. I state that the law is correct. It is the duty of Parliament to see that the Government in power should carry out, its contract. The Government entered into contracts with these people, that they should give their services for a certain time. If their services can no longer be given, the law will see to it that the Government is not mulcted in damages. I move—

I appeal to the Prime Minister. He has always been willing to do something for the ladies. Here he has the opportunity of his life, and I call upon him to support me.

Motion put and negatived.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I thank the Minister of Finance for his explanation, but I do not find it quite satisfactory. The Minister says the action taken was taken pursuant to a scheme of reorganization. While, of course, reorganization is necessary at times, it can only be carried out with due regard to the rights of the people concerned. Some of the people concerned by this reorganization tested their rights in a court of law, and their rights have been upheld in the appellate division. It is a lamentable thing that we should pass legislation to condone illegality where it concerns the rights of private individuals. The Minister has mentioned public interest, but public interest is bound up in the safeguarding of the rights of these people. If the Minister is right in saying they have recognized the equity of the thing, and have accepted compensation from the Government, that is a matter for the courts to decide. If these people have waived their rights, they will be told by a court of law that they cannot go any further.

But the court said there was no question about equity.

I am speaking of the waiver by the individual of rights that he had. It is a question of point of view. There is only one safe rule, and that is to take the strict rule of interpretation of Acts of Parliament. It would be a sorry day if we prevented people resorting to the courts provided to test whether they have rights or not. Yesterday I voted against the Bill, because it sought to take away the rights of an individual. I do believe that in the interests of the public we shall be taking a longer view if we resist any application from any quarter, whether a responsible body or any other body. We shall be doing more in the interests of the public if we resist any claim whatever, and refuse to use the powers of Parliament to deprive people of the rights which they are en titled to regard as sacrosanct. We are asked to give an indemnity for an illegal action. No argument can say that this illegal action is one which, from the point of view of equity, ought not to be dealt with. I ask if it is a sound method of procedure, and if it is right for Parliament to permit an act, a radical misuse of the powers of the majority? I say unhesitatingly that the answer can only be in the negative.

I do not think that we can generalize about these matters, as the hon. member has done. He said that a step like this is not warranted under any circumstances. Let us look at the action of the administration. You can see, even under the law, as it stands, if there had been any question about this procedure not being correct, it could have got over that difficulty very easily. No real injustice was done to these people. Take the Frankfort school. There are fourteen teachers employed in a number of classes. The administration was wanting to deal as equitably as possible with these persons dealt with on that basis. If they had not dealt with them on that basis of classes, they would not have got into any difficulty at all. They could have re-distributed the work and they could have retired any one of these people. They were not appointed to any particular posts. They were ordinary primary school teachers. Instead of that they picked out a person who would suffer less from being retired. That is where they went wrong. They re-distributed the work in the school. There were fourteen teachers, and if they wanted to get rid of Mrs. Luyt, they could have given her post to another teacher and have said that she was redundant and she would have to go. But they went about the thing in a straightforward manner, and said that if she were retired there would be less suffering. Some of these teachers have actions pending. We could have given them another post and then indemnified them. I want to say that you cannot generalize about these matters. What did Parliament do in 1918, in a case where it was thought that the right of a private individual should not override the public interest. It was under the Hartebeestpoort Irrigation Act of 1918. That was the van Maarseveen case, in connection with which Parliament passed an Act. This case went to appeal, and van Maarseveen won his case. The court round that the expropriation was illegal and he was entitled to damages. The court found in his favour. You cannot generalize on these things; you must treat them on their merits. There is no injustice here. I cited this as an instance to show that cases occur where it is right that we should say that no individual should make use of a technicality to inflict loss on the state as a whole.

I feel that the clause, as worded, makes it difficult for us to assume full responsibility. It states expressly that every suspension, dismissal, and discharge, etc., is considered to have been done lawfully.

Every one. Surely there is a possibility of there being cases where lady teachers are discharged under this ordinance, and where the ordinance has not been applied to them correctly. We do not think that all the cases since 1922 should be allowed to be brought up again, but I think that there may be cases where, e.g., a lady teacher along with her husband has undertaken certain financial obligations in view of their fixed appointment, suddenly the ordinance is applied to them with a quarter’s notice, by which they, personally, will probably get into difficulties. If, according to law, the person had the right, as against the administration, it seems to me to be a great responsibility for us to refuse the right. A wrong application of the ordinance concerned took place in the case of Mrs. Luyt, who was wrongfully discharged as the court indicated. I do not think there are many of these cases. The Minister spoke of six or seven which the educational department had already considered. If fifty or 100 lady teachers should come, and should advocate their cases which were not analogous to that of Mrs. Luyt, the entire sympathy of the public would be against them.

That is precisely what took place.

I do not at all want to support that sort of case, but there may be some cases where people have actually acted contrary to the law, and in such cases they ought to have the right to take their cases to court. If they cannot go to court, the administration of the Free State can try to meet them by paying them out in some way or other, but I think that it is not right to close the door entirely. I do not think it is right to take up the attitude that there is not a single case left now which can be considered. I do not see my way to assume the responsibility of saying that every case has now been dealt with We are also in the difficulty that we are at the end of the session and we cannot properly investigate all the cases. I therefore feel that I cannot vote for the clause. If, possibly, there is a single case where there is a fair grievance it will create great dissatisfaction if such a person is deprived of his right of going to court.

I cannot imagine anything more vicious than this particular proposal being brought before the House in this way. It was not even printed before this morning. What do those who are particularly affected know about this?

They know it.

They knew only of this matter when they read the Bill.

It is a provincial matter.

It is an obscure clause in a long Bill dealing with a number of points.

I have yet to learn that those who are affected had an opportunity of laying their case before the House. If it was a matter brought before the provincial council of the Orange Free State, it would probably be published in advance, and they would know what to do. The title of the Bill does not give any warning of its contents, and you find a clause of this sort which takes away rights which exist at the present moment. I admit that occasionally the House has to undertake the unpleasant task of passing legislation which has a retrospective effect. We had to do that the other day in the case of the Department of Labour in regard to a court decision under which determinations were declared to be invalid, and we had to make them valid. But I do say that the most vicious form of retrospective legislation is to take away from an individual a right he actually has. If you are going to do that, where are you going to stop? Here there are a large number of individuals who think they have claims. If they are valid what right has Parliament by a stroke of the pen to rob them of these claims? If they are invalid the courts will give a decision accordingly. If the administration is inundated with letters of demand, let them be inundated! If they are based on right claims, they will have to meet them; and if they are based on wrong claims in law, there is nothing to fear. Most of the persons who are making these claims are persons of substance, and they will have been advised to do so; if not, they would not be making them. To say that because a number of claims are now being brought forward, dating from 1922, against the Free State administration, that we must now interfere, is something to which I cannot possibly agree. We are asked to agree that every suspension, dismissal, discharge, termination of appointment, retirement or transfer of a teacher, made, prior to the first day of January, 1930, by the administrator or by the director of education, shall be deemed to have been lawfully made and is hereby ratified. Can you wonder that Parliament finds this rather a difficult pill to swallow? You say, in effect, that anything done to any servant in the Free State Education Department, whether wrong or right, we hereby ratify, without having heard the other side, without knowing anything of what the persons affected may have to say. In other words, in legal parlance, we are giving judgment ex parte to the plaintiff, without reference to the defendant. I am surprised that a lawyer of the eminence of the Prime Minister, a judge himself in former years, should support a provision of this sort. If summons has been issued, they apparently are protected, but short of summons being issued, they are not protected. Take the case of a teacher who is hoping, ns a result of correspondence, that his claim will be satisfied. Because of that hope, he refrains from issuing summons. If we pass this clause, because he has refrained from issuing a summons straight off, he will lose his right to proceed. Anything more invidious I cannot understand. What we are saying is this, that the vigilant litigant, the person who has already got a judgment, or who has issued a summons, can get his remedy, but the person who has suffered the same damage, and the same injustice under the same circumstances, but has refrained from taking action, is to be debarred. The Minister of Finance talked about the case of a man in connection with Haartebeestpoort dam. That was a case where the whole of the Haartebeestpoort scheme was being held up because one man took a dog-in-the-manger attitude. What we did in his case was to say, “You must be prepared to sell out that land at a fair price to the Government.”

You took away his rights in the courts.

It is always understood, in law, that you may expropriate land where the Government is held up to ransom in this way. Here we are taking away a right possessed ex hypothesi by members of the public. [Time limit.]

I submit that this clause is going too far. I have every sympathy with the provincial administration in the difficulty in which they find themselves, but the Minister will see that we are asked here to validate any action whatever of the provincial administration of the Free State up to the end of last year, however sweeping or far-reaching or illegal it may have been. We are here asked to validate it. This is going too far. It goes too far in another respect. The committee will see that under the provision here laid down an action may be pending in the courts now, and this Bill will stop it.

No.

Yes. It is only actions taken prior to 31st April last that are safeguarded.

The case was brought up in the Provincial Council of the Free State at that time, and an ordinance was passed.

I understand the difficulty of the Minister, but the fact remains that if action has been instituted this month in the courts of the Free State, this Bill will bar that action. That goes too far.

Quite right. If it does not bar that action it should not bar the others.

made an interjection.

That must be null and void in this case. We are actually now stopping actions which may be pending in the courts. I do not, think we are justified in going as far as that. Surely the Minister of Justice will admit that is going too far. Here we are passing legislation in Parliament which will stop actions pending. I think that will be going too far. The clause, as framed here, goes much beyond the necessities of the case. I will point out that it is really unfair to put in a provision like this in this Bill. The Bill relates to matters of a financial character. Here is a case where we are not dealing with a matter of finance, but upon which the administration is in a hole, in a hole where it has, to a large extent, our sympathy, and where the Government is helping it out with a ruthless hand. In fact this clause is as bad as the Riotous Assemblies Bill to which the hon. member objects. The Minister of Justice is now followed by the Minister of Finance, and clear tights which may be pending in the courts at this moment are decided by the heavy hand of Parliament.

It took my hon. friend a long time to come to a decision. Let me say at once that in connection with this matter I have not the least sympathy with the teachers. As for the date about which a difference of opinion has arisen, I want to point out that the provincial council passed an ordinance on the 1st April. We do not know whether that ordinance is ultra vires, but just because of the danger that it may so exist this clause has been put into the Bill to cover the position, and I cannot see why we should not take the date of the passing of that ordinance as the date for stopping any further claims against the administration. We now come to the general question; I have listened to the hon. member for Edenberg (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) and cannot understand his attitude. I should have liked to think that he, more than anyone else, would have understood how immoral the attitude of the teachers is in connection with these claims. I should have thought that anyone who regarded life from a moral standpoint would have supported us in connection with this matter.

I just want to say a few words more about this clause. As I have said, I have not the least sympathy with the teachers who are concerned in this matter, and I must honestly acknowledge that I think that the Free State teachers are not showing a very high standard of morality. Apart from this, I just want to call to mind that a great deal has undoubtedly been done for the teachers, and especially the teachers of the Free State, so much that they have come to be on an equal footing with the public servants. I do not mean by this that they do not deserve it; in my opinion their position has rightly been improved, and, moreover, it is certainly always a proof that the present Government in its legislation has never hesitated to come to their aid, to protect them and to advance their interests. I must say that they have not shown that high morality in this matter which, in my opinion, they should have done. In the first place, they complained about the injustice done them. From what I have seen of the matter no injustice at all is being done to them, but they are worried about the precedents which will be created by this clause. They are afraid that a precedent is being created which may be followed in other circumstances in future. Well, as the Minister of Finance has rightly said, they are cases which must each be decided on its own merits. The teachers must not overlook what is just and fair, because they are afraid of the future. How far can the action of the teachers be justified from a moral point of view? Those who were discharged at that time, and the whole teaching profession considered so much that it was right and according to law that for a number of years nothing was heard of them, and they did not even think of even complaining themselves.

The matter was never tested.

Of course it was never tested, because they never thought that an injustice had been done them, and they held that view for the same reason as those who pensioned them did. Everyone was convinced that it was done according to law.

If that were the case, why then did they take action?

For a number of years they did not do so, until one person in an individual case took counsel’s opinion, which was to the effect that they had a right, and that person instituted an action. Because that occurred, it is now stated that an injustice was done them, which they previously never felt. They always considered that position just, but now everybody has been wrongly used. It is very clear to me that all those persons have no claim now from a moral point of view. That they have no claim is proved in the first place— and let us not forget that the court says so itself—that it was merely a technical point upon which that person’s action succeeded. If the provincial authorities had only acted slightly differently under the law, then there would have been no claim at all. If they had adopted a different course by saying that they were abolishing a certain standard, then the person would have had no claim, and the case in court would have failed. It has, therefore, been proved as clearly as possible that the people are only claiming under the law by virtue of a technically wrongful action. Moreover, no one knows how many persons are concerned in this matter. All the claims are only based on the fact that one person has succeeded in proving that they did nothing all the years, but if they had not been so stupid, then they would have had a right of complaining on account of that technical mistake.

I submit the Government has completely failed to establish a justification for this, and the Minister of Finance, to my mind, was artificial in his plea on the ground of public interest. I have yet to be convinced, and I believe the whole of this House has yet to be convinced, that public interest is best served by doing a great injustice to Clause accordingly agreed to any people, especially members of the public service. The Minister has not established that either, for doing this substantial injustice to these teachers. He was singularly unfortunate in his choice of an example of something similar when he mentioned the Hartebeestpoort case; there you had an individual deliberately holding up the state to ransom.

It was his right.

There you had public interest overshadowing the right of the individual.

Is there no public interest here?

Yes, over money, but I do say you must not do this injustice to a section of the populace. In the Hartebeestpoort case the individual was compensated, but here you are taking away people’s livelihood.

He became insolvent.

Probably he would have become insolvent and failed for a larger amount if he did not get the compensation from the state which he did. We protested strongly against the amount of compensation which it was proposed to award him, and was out of all proportion to what his rights warranted. With regard to the present case, we have, a right to much more information than the Minister was good enough to furnish us with. He prated roundly about re-organization. What does he mean? I rather suspect from certain information that was given, that they rearranged the classes, and handed over to teachers the pupils the other teachers had been educating, and rather increased the size of the classes; the object of the re-organization was not to afford better educational facilities to the children, but in order, as far as I can see, to get rid of these teachers. The hon. member for Bloemfontein stated he was a member of the provincial council which passed an ordinance which made it imperative that they should not employ these married teachers. With that I entirely agree, if that is the only question involved; but if the Minister pleads this, why did they ever establish the principle to employ married female teachers? If it was right, you have, not the right to get rid of them, because you have altered your point of view. Under the circumstances, these teachers have just as much right to claim they must be monetarily compensated, when forced to retire, as any other teacher, male or female. We have received a great number of telegrams, and when I was in authority in the post office, I very much welcomed them, but you can be assured that behind them is this or that interest; so I am rather sceptical as to the motive underlying them. But here facts are stated. It is one of the long list of similar floutings of real public interest and public policy. Under the circumstances, I hope the committee will reject the clause.

Clause put and the committee divided:,

I move, as an unopposed motion—

This Bill gives effect to the schedule of pensions which has already been approved of in committee. It has also been sent to the Senate and by them endorsed.

seconded.

Agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

In order to meet the suggestion made by the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) I want to move—

I move this as an unopposed motion.

seconded.

There is a further amendment. I think if the Minister will look at lines 30 to 31 he will see that he must put in the word “falls”

Amendment put and agreed to.

With reference to line 32, I would like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that the words “municipality, city or borough” cover a town?

Yes.

In Clause 6,

In accordance with the promise I made to the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I move, as an unopposed motion—

so that the sub-section will read—

seconded.

A local board may determine from time to time the volume and nature of motor carrier transportation which may be permitted to operate over a given route. Nobody may have made any application or objection in regard to the traffic in a particular route, and the local board says that a certain amount of motor transport is to be allowed. That may seriously affect any persons who have never made any application at all.

The power given to the central board and the local boards is to take a survey of the whole question. When you come to a particular service, applications must be made in the ordinary way, and the board will deal with the case on its merits.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 11,

I move, as an unopposed motion—

This is inserted in order to meet the position of a farmer who is conveying goods on his own account from his farm to the nearest station or town, and who also takes the goods of his neighbour at a profit. It is clearly circumscribed that this will only be allowed where there is no railway and there is no motor transport carrier operating in that particular area.

seconded.

Will he be licensed?

No, he will not be licensed.

I move—

seconded.

We shall get into a most unholy mess in the way we are going on. We are moving amendment after amendment, and we have clauses in their wrong places, and we shall make this a fruitful source of litigation. I warn the House that this Bill will lead to a lot of trouble.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford put and agreed to.

I should think it would be advisable for the House to adjourn for half-an-hour so that the Minister can find out where he is.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) has not been very helpful. I understand that the amendment I moved should be moved to Clause 9. With the leave of the House I therefore move—

seconded.

The Minister should not make an attack on people who are willing to help him out of a muddle.

I am not making an attack on you.

Motion put and agreed to.

In Clause 9,

I move—

which I have already moved [see previous column].

seconded.

Why not leave put these last words, “if no reasonable facilities are available to the farmer”? It seems as if the farmer cannot carry his own produce.

A farmer or a merchant who transports his own goods in his own motor-lorry is not affected by the Bill. A farmer conveying his produce in his own lorry could also take his neighbours’ goods for them under the Bill, and that is the case I am trying to meet.

The farmer is included under Section 11. Therefore, he is presumed to be carrying for reward.

Unless the contrary is proved.

He is liable to be held up by a policeman.

That point was raised in the select committee, and it was realized that there was a difficulty, but unless you do this, how are you going to control the traffic? Unless you have the amendment it will be almost impossible to prove that a carrier was breaking the law.

What would happen if a dozen farmers combined and bought a motor-lorry for the conveyance of their own produce?

They would not be carrying for profit.

It seems to me that you will be vitiating the whole principle of the Bill.

It is quite clear that this only applies in the case of a farmer where there is no other available transport.

Let us take a practical case. Up and down the south coast of Natal there are railway sidings. It is customary for motor trucks to carry the products of the farms, mostly sugar cane, to the sidings, there to be loaded into railway trucks. It is quite possible that the whole of the north and south coasts of Natal will form a transportation route, and along those routes will be vehicles, licensed to carry goods. What is going to happen to individuals who have motor trucks to carry their goods from their farms to the railway, if they have to travel along these routes?

They will be covered.

Suppose a farmer has finished carrying his crop, or has a small crop, and then utilizes his vehicle for carrying the goods of his neighbours and thus makes a profit. He will not be allowed to convey—

He will, if there is no motor carrier on the route.

I suppose there are, between Durban and Stanger; and on that route there are motor trucks licensed carrying goods. Is a man prevented in that case?

No, he will not be. He is carrying from his farm to the nearest station.

This shows a most serious difficulty. This Bill should have been before the House long ago. The thing is now being rushed. When an hon. member points out a blunder, the Minister says he is not assisting him; if we leave it alone, the Minister will say, later on, the clever attorneys have pointed out errors in the Act. The Minister may go to law, and thereafter there will be a general indemnity. I want to register another protest against it.

I would like to support what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has said. You may have to travel along a route on which there are motor trucks which are licensed. The Minister says it is all right; I say it is all wrong. You could not carry along that route if there is a railway line parallel to the route taken by the motor trucks. The wattle industry is in the same position. You may have a case where a wattle farmer has not the bark or the wood for transport, but is helping his neighbour. If he travels along a route on which there are licensed vehicles he is infringing this. It requires further consideration. Perhaps the Minister may not know in the Cape what it is to carry goods like this, but let him come to our farms in Natal. We get our neighbours to help us. Now we will not be able to carry our neighbours’ goods along such a route. The man who is licensed as a carrier will demand that he should have the right to carry the goods. I wish to protest against the way in which legislation is being passed in this House. We are acting like a lot of children.

Not I.

We have not had a copy of the Bill, and when I asked the Clerk, he said there were not sufficient copies; for every hon. member. If there is a mistake, we place the full blame on the Minister.

This is going to affect the mealie farmers as well. In that part of Natal where I farmed for some time, it is customary to hire your neighbours’ wagons and convey goods to the station. These ox-wagons are now being replaced, to a great extent, by motor-lorries, and they will travel along routes which may be declared transportation routes. Farmers take a fee merely as a recompense for the wear and tear on that particular occasion. This clause is going to affect the farming community right throughout the Union.

I also wish to support what hon. members have just said.

The hon. member has already spoken on this.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments having been agreed to, the Bill, as amended, was adopted and read a third time.

I move—

How is any distinction to be made between vehicles going to and from the railway station and others? The Minister is here competing with private enterprise, but where he is not competing he is doing work which would be done by private enterprise if he were not doing it. I think the Minister should not shelter himself behind the privileges he has as a representative of the state. He is in control of a purely commercial undertaking, and he should do what other people have to do if they do this work. I think the Minister should say that where he employs railway vehicles within a municipality, where he uses the streets the municipalities have to maintain, and enjoys all the privileges private people enjoy when they put vehicles on the road, then he will undertake the obligations private people have to undertake and pay the same taxation.

In reply to what my hon. friend has said, I just want to point out that if he says the railways are a business undertaking he is slightly in error. He must not forget that the railways practically stand on the basis that they are nothing more than an instrument of state which the state uses to render gratuitous services to the public. Accordingly, one of the first principles of the railways is that no profit must be made. Practically the railways merely pay for themselves. We must not forget this. I must say that I would otherwise sympathize with the attitude of my hon. friend there, but we, as a Parliament, represent the public in the country, and must not lose sight of the principle upon which the railways render services to the public. The railways are not used as a means to get revenue for the state, which is actually the object of the other transportation concern.

Very often the conduct of the Administration in holding themselves free from the operation of municipal bye-laws leads to most undesirable results, and the extension of the practice we have in this amendment of the Minister’s seems to me to be altogether wrong. Let me give an illustration. The amenities of a certain type of road was sought to be preserved by a municipality, and the Administration, in defiance of its wishes, dumped down a wood and iron building, taking up the attitude that no municipality could pass building regulations which would affect the Government. The Government can carry, according to this attitude, heavy loads on any kind of vehicle, and no municipality can insist on its bye-laws being observed. To argue that the Administration can act in this way, and not pay licences, is manifestly unfair. The Minister will drive the municipalities to make differential charges for water and light and other services. If the Government differentiates against the ratepayers and the municipalities, then the municipalities may in turn differentiate against the Government. The argument that the railway is not a profit-making concern falls away because a municipality is not a profit-making concern. The Minister is pushing this principle of disregarding local regulations too far. If the municipalities find themselves treated in this way they will retaliate, and manage to get back by differential charges or in some other form what is taken away from them by the loss of licences which ought to be paid. The Administration, in repudiating its obligations under the existing law, is masquerading as a licensed highwayman.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). We are amongst the best customers of the municipalities, and have always acted in the closest consultation with them, and the best relations exist between the municipalities and the Government. Take Cape Town municipality as a case in point. When we have had any difficulties we have always been able to settle them as between sensible men. The hon. member is not speaking, I am sure, for Cape Town municipality in this regard. The hon. member knows perfectly well that we are acting within our rights. That is the only basis on which we can carry on the service. I can only say in reply to the allegations which the hon. member thinks he is entitled to make that we are not a profit-making concern. We are doing the cartage business for the benefit of the community. The argument in regard to our destroying the roads has never appealed to me, because the responsibility to construct roads rests on the local authorities. We give benefits to the provincial councils, so it is set off in that way. I have conceded the principle raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), and I understand this meets the views of hon. members opposite.

I can only characterise the Minister’s reference to co-operation between the railways and municipal councils as the co-operation between lion and lamb with the lamb inside the lion.

That is unfair to the corporation of Cape Town.

Surely this clause is wide enough to stand without the Minister taking extra protection to himself. The Minister is taking power to start motor services in any part of the country. He asks us to give him a blank cheque. But now that there are extra expenses connected with this blank cheque, he takes exception to meeting them.

I would like to ask the Minister which of these vehicles are going to be licensed? He has numbers of vehicles now. Will he have all his new vehicles licensed? Perhaps the Minister will explain what he intends doing, so that we may know the effect of this amendment.

I have discussed this with the general manager, who has to carry out the law, and while he explained that it might give a little difficulty, he does not think the difficulty will be insuperable. It will be possible to reserve vehicles for the work which we are doing. Hon. members must not forget that these services will fall under the same terms as services of other motor carriers.

I would put one suggestion to the Minister. He could have an arrangement similar to the method used by the provincial authorities. In the case of dealers they have what are called “red numbers” on which licences are paid. I do not see what the Minister is giving us. The Minister is not paying all the licences that an ordinary man has to bear. I say that his vehicles should bear all the provincial and municipal taxation which the ordinary vehicle has to bear. The Minister only deals with licences which have to be paid to a municipality. It seems to call for an amendment. Is there any hope of getting that amendment?

I will read the clause [Clause read.]

It is by no means clear what the effect will be. In the Transvaal the local municipal authority does not ordinarily levy a tax on these vehicles. The provincial authority levies the tax and remits a portion to the local authority. I am not sure whether that is not also the position in some of the other provinces.

I shall pay what every other motor carrier has to pay.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I have a great deal of objection to this clause. The second reading debate centred upon this clause, for the reason which, I think, most of us who opposed the clause felt, that an act of very substantial injustice was being done to the natives. The Minister, in reply on that occasion, stated that whatever we may feel or believe in regard to liament, when it passed the original Act, had in its mind no desire to establish that as the principle of compensation. I want to say this: that we are so much concerned in its being an unjust method of dealing with the natives, that we ought to take the earliest possible opportunity of removing that injustice. Therefore, I am going to ask the committee to reject this clause in toto. But as I know that, under the rules, you will prevent me, once we have voted on the question, moving any amendments, I must move any amendments I want to move as an alternative to the present clause, now. I justice or injustice, of not including the value of food and other services rendered, as part of the natives’ wages for the purpose of compensation and so on, the fact remains that Parshall do so at once, and explain my reasons. I move—

Whatever justification the Minister may have for asking the House to register itself as clarifying the original intention of Parliament up to date, he can have no objection, unless his policy is similar to that, that in future you shall not do this injustice to the native. In other words, I am challenging the Minister’s policy, and the policy of hon. members on that side of the House as to whether they honestly believe that the native is being unjustly or justly treated by preventing, in the computation of his wages, for compensation purposes the taking into account of the value of food, the value of accommodation, and the value of medical and other services which may be rendered by the employer to the native. I am challenging your policy. The argument has been used, perhaps with some justification, in the general thing, but with no justification of this particular thing, that there is a commission sitting. The commission now has its terms of reference so widened that it can enquire into all matters appertaining to miners’ phthisis compensation on the gold mines of the Witwatersrand. But I say that this is a matter that it is not necessary, nor is it desirable for the Government to wait for a report of the commission upon it. I think it is highly improbable that the commission will consider it, unless specifically brought before that commission by some interested parties. It may be that the report will be made without any consideration of this question at all. But whether they consider it or not, the Government should have a policy on this question, more particularly as the Cabinet includes two members, one of whom himself moved in committee to carry this out in the form of an amendment, and had the full support of the South African Labour party in those days, and I think, today on that point, seriously and honestly believing that it is an iniquitous thing not to take into account the value of all these services in computing native wages. I cannot conceive it possible that they have been without influence upon the Government in its consideration of its policy on this question. Therefore, I move these two amendments. The effect of this will be that whilst we are clarifying the original position and accept legislatively the interpretation placed upon it in the past, and remove the doubt that has enshrouded, so to speak, this question, it will remove any fear in regard to these 10,000 cases going to court, which I do not like—up to that point we say, “yes, we shall do it, but after that the new policy shall come into force, and the native shall have his due”

I have little to add to what I said yesterday, except to state that I cannot accept the amendment, for several reasons. One reason is that if I were to accept the amendment the Bill would assuredly be wrecked, as we have not time to amend it and put it through at this late stage of the session. The House expressed itself on the principle in 1919 and in 1925, and I have not the least doubt it will again have an opportunity of doing so, I hope next year. I cannot, however, at this stage, anticipate the report of the commission, and I am certainly not going to ask the House to consider a measure of such importance now. I do not want to take the House by surprise, and have a snatch vote on a side issue. If the principle is to be adopted, let it be adopted in the proper way. The hon. member has now lodged his protest. I ask him to be satisfied with that and to assist us in getting the Bill through, as I do not think it is the general wish to wreck both clauses of the Bill, for I must get them through. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

I am sorry the Minister has adopted that attitude. His first reason is that if we start to discuss the question now it will wreck the Bill. Why?

Because there is no time.

If the Government feels sufficiently strong to bring in the Bill now, it will be sufficiently strong, in face of the position caused by the time being short. This time limit for the period of the session has been arrived at by the members themselves, and if they think sufficiently of this business they will wait for this, that is if they are serious. Therefore, I cannot understand that as an argument. Another reason the Minister advanced was that the House has already decided on this principle, but that was in 1919 and in 1925, and this is a new Parliament entirely. I am trying to ascertain what the Government’s policy is on this question.

Wait and see.

The only way to see is to find out. Are you or are you not in favour of the native getting justice? The Government came into office on this type of promised legislation. Surely the Government has a policy. What about the native labouring under this injustice? Now the Minister comes to his culminating reason: “The hon. member has lodged his protest.” Does he think that all I come to Parliament to do is to lodge protests? I come here in my humble way to try and influence legislation, and I should be lacking in my duty if I did not continue to do so. A mere protest I can lodge by letter, or by asking my constituents to drop a note to the Minister of Mines. That is rather a childish way of dealing with the question. I am here to endeavour to convince the House that what is proposed by the Minister in this Bill is an injustice, and if that is so, it should be removed. The Minister has been prating about legislation being introduced as the result of a report of the commission. May I make perfectly certain that legislation will be introduced by moving another amendment—

That will give the Minister 12 months’ breathing time, and he must then bring in legislation either to perpetuate or remove this injustice. This will not commit him to a policy, but it makes it obligatory on him to give the matter further consideration by introducing other legislation.

The hon. member cannot move that until the other amendment is disposed of.

A great deal can possibly be said for the contention of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that compensation to natives should be fixed not merely on their cash wages, but on their total emoluments. I am quite willing to admit that a great deal can be said for that, but the point is whether this is the time to say it. Every member of this House can make himself quite clear on the point that when the 1919 Act was passed, it was the intention of Parliament—both in the select committee and in this House—that the natives’ compensation should be calculated just as the white miners’ compensation is calculated, namely, on the money value of their earnings and not on their food and housing, but only on their cash receipts. That is quite clear. If another view had been taken, and the idea had been then what was put forward by the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, that there should be taken into account the value of their food and housing, I have very little doubt compensation would have been calculated on a different factor, and you would not have had the same multiple of their total wages.

You have no grounds for saying that, except you are not anxious to pay them properly.

The idea is not, not paying them properly. The multiple may be adequate or inadequate, but that was the intention of the legislature in 1919, and we should leave that until we are prepared to deal with phthisis compensation as a whole. The Minister has told us, and we know, that another Phthisis Bill is coming forward. It is only fair to consider the enormous amount which phthisis compensation imposes on the mines. It is only fair that we should not deal with this piecemeal, and if we are going to make alterations to the compensation payable by the mines we should have the whole question before us, and not make an alteration in the policy which has existed since 1919 by a side wind, so to speak. I am not prepared to say there is not a good deal in the argument of the hon. member, but this is not the time to deal with it. The phthisis board has acted on that basis, and are we now going to say that they are entirely wrong or refuse to indemnify them for their past action, and change the basis for the future? The simple and the fair way is to adopt the principle put forward by the Minister, pass this Bill and leave the question of the proper basis of native compensation to the time when we reconsider the question of compensation for the white man also.

If this amendment is rejected, that of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley)—the third one—cannot be put.

Will you forgive me, sir, for saying my amendment is a modification of the other?

Yes, that is quite so; but it is the same principle. It is after a certain day. If that is allowed, the hon. member can go on moving amendments—1931, 1932, 1933, 1934 and so forth.

I follow that.

I recognize that what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has said does not make much appeal to the other side, or to the South African party side, who are rather prone to be negrophilists when it does not touch their pockets. The point I want to submit to the Minister is we want to help him, and we go so far as to say that we realize some difficulties may have arisen, but we do not know if they have, and we are prepared to agree to there being indemnity up to next year so as to enable the Minister to deal with that matter, when the question comes up. We are as anxious as he is that Clause 1 shall be effective, but why jeopardize it, which is good, to shield something bad? We say exactly what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says; why deal with it to-day? Leave it until next year. Leaving out the question of justice to the native at all, it is a pernicious thing to make such a differentiation as you are making because you are encouraging the idea of using cheap native labour, because if you employ the natives it will be easier for you than if you employ the European. We want to encourage raising the standard. In spite of what has been said by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) the other day, it is bad for the natives, because you will discourage them from coming to work on the mines. If it is necessary to grant any relief to the mines I have no objection—

You would encourage the mines to spend as little on accommodation as possible?

No, you should see that there is proper accommodation. If you start on this principle, where are you to stop? Why should you not come along to-morrow and say that in order to grant relief to the mines the compensation to the white miners shall also be reduced? You are introducing a dangerous principle. I suggest that you take the matter up from the 31st January, 1931, and then deal with the whole matter of phthisis compensation. I think the Minister should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni.

May I withdraw “1930” and substitute “1931”?

I cannot let this occasion pass, without once again raising my voice in protest against the principle which is being enacted in this clause. It has been said that the eloquence of my denunciation was commensurate with my lack of knowledge of the principle. That may be so, but I cannot allow what seems to me to be an immoral principle to pass uncondemned from my seat in this House. Parliament must have intended something, and it has been a tradition in this House and in the courts to interpret the intention of Parliament by the language it uses. Why should the Minister tell us on this occasion that Parliament meant something other than the ordinary acceptation of the terms which are used? How can the Minister of Mines speak for a Parliament as far back as 1919? It is true that there was a select committee, and on that select committee the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs championed a principle which was right and just. He has now changed his mind. Now he says that because at a select committee his contention was not supported, he is now prepared to accept the defeat which he suffered, and support the very principle to which he was opposed on that occasion. I listened to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) state that the application of miners’ phthisis compensation has been measured on money wages paid to the natives. That is possibly so, but does the hon. member suggest that that is an equitable principle? Does any hon. member suggest that it is unfair to base the compensation upon the true earnings and not on earnings which can be estimated in wages? If any other principle is to be followed, why not let us lay down a flat rate for miners’ phthisis compensation in native cases. Let us take the average amount which has been paid to these sufferers, and say that £50 is enough? We are told that £55 is the average amount paid to natives as compensation for miners’ phthisis. Let us say that natives shall receive £50 as compensation. Then we strike a happy medium. The wages paid in some instances is less than £50. We are told that compensation was paid as high as £172 in one case. The compensation paid must be lower than £50 in some cases to have brought the average down to £55. I assume that the average compensation is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £25. If it is possible to grant a better compensation to these derelicts in an industry which has meant so much to South Africa then it is only right to see that they get it. If the Minister is not prepared to agree to the deletion of this clause, because of the amount involved on the mining industry in estimating that compensation on claims already disposed of, I would like to support whit the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said. Do not let us in this Bill deal finally with one aspect of miners’ compensation. [Time limit.]

With leave of committee, first part of amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley withdrawn.

I want the Minister to give a guarantee to the white miners. I ask that legislative consideration will be given next session to their claims for better compensation facilities. By accepting this amendment of mine, namely May the 31st, 1931, it gives an assurance to the white miners that as raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) a retrogressive effect will not arise by reason of the low compensation paid to natives acting as an inducement to the mines to employ natives instead of whites. After all what harm does it do?

It is bad law.

No, this is mighty bad law to ask to remove an ambiguity in a former law before the courts have decided that any ambiguity exists, and incidentally doing natives an injustice. Whether it is bad law or not, miners are not concerned as to the mechanics of the law. They are concerned as to whether the Government will keep its pledges.

Are you calling for sanctions?

No, for guarantees. The Government like to give sanctions rather than guarantees. This would have an enormous effect on the miners who are in a state of unrest because their experience has been that the reports of these commissions are so often pigeon holed without tangible results. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment—

First part of amendment put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Bowen, Bowie, Christie, Gilson, Kentridge and Madeley) voted for the amendment, the chairman declared it negatived, and the second part of the amendment dropped.

Clause, as printed, put, and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Bowen, Bowie, Christie, Close, Gilson, Kentridge, Madeley, Maj. Richards and Col. Wares) voted against the Clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

Clause 3 and title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMID:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move—

seconded.

It is difficult to help the Minister in this matter. I am not satisfied with the wording of Section (10) sub-section (2). I have read the section hurriedly. It says that where a warehouseman has a lien on any products stored in his warehouse, for the payment of costs connected with storage, he can give notice to sell. It is not sufficient merely to make a demand. I think it should be a demand coupled with a tender of such amounts as may be due.

I think it must be clear that if anyone is going to claim the goods he must comply with the law by paying for them. I, however, make the position still clearer by my amendment. When notice is given of the sale of the goods the man can now pay his arrears in respect of the goods. Hence the small amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New sub-section (2), as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

Sub-section (2) was debated last night. It lays down—

That makes it clear that the liability for loss by shrinkage or drying out will fall upon the owner of the receipt, I should like to ask the Minister to consider this point. These receipts are negotiable documents, and pass from hand to hand. It is very desirable for that purpose that the document should make quite clear what the holder of the receipt is entitled to get. Under this clause, nobody will know exactly what he is likely to get. Take the case of 100 tons of maize in the warehouse. If there were a receipt for 100 tons of maize, negotiated from one holder to another, nobody would ever know what weight cf maize he is entitled to. The holder of the receipt may go to the warehouse, and the warehouseman says, “I can only give you 90 tons, as all the rest is dried out.” Nobody, therefore, will know what he will get. I favour the suggestion made by the hon. the Minister last night, that there should be a percentage fixed. The percentage should be fixed by regulation, so that the owner of the receipt will know that he will get 100 tons of maize, less, 3 per cent., 5 per cent, or 10 per cent., as the case may be. As the law stands, the holder will not know exactly how much he will get. The value of the document will be uncertain, and nobody will know how he stands.

This is one of the things which will be dealt with under the regulations in the same way as it is dealt with by the grain elevators, which allow a certain percentage for drying out, and we are going to follow the practice of the grain elevators, which have had many years of experience and know exactly what percentage of maize dries out.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments up to Clause 29 put and agreed to.

Omission of schedule and amendment in title put and negatived, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

On the motion that the Bill be now lead a third time,

I just wish to say that to my mind the Bill is purely experimental, and is not going to have the effect desired by the Minister. It is assumed that the measure will assist the farmer, and so far as that goes I am quite in sympathy with it, but as far as the warehousemen are concerned regulations have been framed which it will be impossible for any warehouseman to accept. The Bill has been designed to suit the co-operative agricultural societies, of which, however, only 25 per cent. of the farmers are members. The Bill will not benefit men who do not belong to co-operative societies.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I want to draw attention to this, as one of the Bills the Prime Minister said he was not going on with, and in view of this, some hon. members may not be present.

No, it is not one of these Bills.

I move—

This Bill has been prepared after due consultation with the Wine Growers’ Co-operative Society, the traders and the various interests of the wine trade. There was a conference as far back as 1928, and as a result of its deliberations certain proposals were made and this Bill was drafted. Later, however, we consulted the interests concerned again, and I may say that all interested parties agreed that, in the interests of the wine industry, it was necessary for this Bill to be passed. I therefore hope the debate will be very short, and that we may be able to pass this Bill this year. The difficulty in the wine industry is the wine of very low quality which spoils the market for the people who make a good article. Those people who spoil the market make wine of poor quality, and then add sugar and other things to it to keep the wine. We therefore want to assist the people who make good wine. The House will remember that we passed an amending Bill in 1926, and we thought that the various things which are being dealt with in this Bill had already been satisfactorily solved in that Bill. After the Act, however, had been in operation some years it appeared that there were certain things in connection with which we had no control, and which were injurious to the wine trade. Hence the necessity for this Bill. The House will probably say, in view of the fine, that we are taking a very drastic step, that the fine for contraventions of the Act is too high. Let me say, however, that the wine farmers, and dealers, all acknowledge that if we do not fix the high fine and do not take very drastic measures we shall never get rid of the evils that are taking place, because the people who are guilty of the abuses make profits of £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 a year, and if we do not make the fine high they will continue their practices. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) knows the wine trade very well, and is one of the members, or a director, of the wine company.

He entirely agrees with this, and feels that if the measure is not passed the wine industry will be completely undermined. There is another difficulty in connection with the principal Act, viz., that it is possible to make kinds of brandy of a comparatively low alcohol content without contravening the Act, and the Bill therefore prohibits that. Another difficulty is that a manager always tries in court to put a contravention on to one of the employees so that it is not possible to punish a person. We are now taking steps to force a person who is charged to prove that he did not know of such abuse under the Act, and we do not only hold the head responsible, but also the partners as well as the employees. I do not think it is necessary to go into the other provisions. I just want to add that in connection with dry and sweet wines it is considered that there are unnecessary difficulties in the existing Act, and we are trying to remove them by this Bill. There are also clauses to secure uniformity with the provisions of the Excise Act. I hope the House will pass the second reading.

The wine farmers and those interested in the trade, both wholesale and retail, will be grateful to the Minister for bringing in this Bill at this late stage, and I hope the House will succeed in agreeing to the second reading and taking such steps that it may become law this session. There is nothing new in this Bill; provision is made only to bring it up to date. We have found in the working of the Act certain anomalies and difficulties, and with regard to the fortification of wines to which the Minister alluded. We have built up an export trade, but without using our best wine or spirits on the other side we cannot succeed in that. We have to fight on the other side. The Australian states subsidize their wine, and we can compete only on quality. It is an agreed Bill, and we have not had a single protest against it, not even from the temperance party. It will suit everybody.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I just want to explain that in the Afrikaans translation I want to make a few alterations. The Afrikaans text was drafted in the select committee and taken over in the Bill. It will be necessary to make the alterations to make the Afrikaans agree with the English. Hon. members will see that Clause 3 practically gives full control over the water and the works to the board. I would like to point out that the change made by the select committee is as follows: Hon. members will see that under the old Section (3) the board was to exercise control over all irrigation works constructed or to be constructed within the said district. That has been altered to read as follows: “To exercise control over such portions of all irrigation works, constructed or to be constructed, within such districts for the purpose of abstracting water from the Breede River, as may be necessary for the purpose of effecting an equitable distribution of the water derived from the said conservation work. The difference is this, that if anybody is aggrieved, and contends that the control is not necessary for equitable distribution, he will be able to appeal to the Water Board.

On the motion of the Minister of Native Affairs, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

On new sub-section (16), amendments in subsection (19) and new sub-section (25) proposed by select committee,

The intention of this section is to do away with the minor boards, and vest all their powers in the major board, and at the same time retain what may be considered advisory committees instead of minor boards. That is in order to avoid the expense of administration, and expense in other directions, and also to have the control of the whole scheme in the one centralized board. The section mainly deals with that, and it also gives similar powers to the major board there as are given under Section (3) to the Breede River Board. May I suggest [to the Chairman] that you put the sub-sections separately which may simplify matters.

Before that is put, the Minister will recognize we are suffering under a disability with regard to this Bill, which is an important one. It is placed before us at the last moment, and before the report of the select committee has been laid on the table. It is, therefore, quite impossible to give the Bill proper consideration. Therefore, in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill, we would like to know that those people who are gravely affected have been consulted. I think it would have been far better had the report of the select committee been presented to the House before we went into the Bill. I especially refer to the people in the Fish River and Sundays River valleys, where there has been some clashing and overlapping, when I say that we do not wish to oppose any measure which is intended to relieve the position there, but claim that their views should have the fullest consideration.

As the hon. member knows, this Bill has been published. The people have had an opportunity to appear before the commission, and it was after considering the evidence given that the select committee reported the Bill as now before the House. I wish to tell the hon. member that the select committee was unanimous in all its recommendations.

On the motion of the Minister of Native Affairs, amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

On new sub-sections (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13) proposed by select committee, amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English.

I would like to ask the Minister a question. Regarding paragraph 6 (1), this says the Minister may amend the schedule. Paragraph 6 (2) says the Minister has power to include the schedule. Why is it that the power is vested in him? In the Fish district the Irrigation Board is the one which will proclaim the schedule of the area. I ask the Minister why it is that he has taken these powers which may be of the utmost importance to the owners of property along the river, powers which may injure the property owners. I want him to explain why there is this departure from the statutory principle of the Act recognizing that the local authority is the one which ought to determine what the irrigable area is. What reason justifies the Minister in asking the House for the power which is quite opposed to the whole principle of the Act?

The position at Sundays River is peculiar because you have various kinds of ownership there. You have companies who are owners and estates that are owners, and you have this board which deals with the whole position. The board has already passed a resolution practically amounting to this: that the irrigable area should be reduced to a certain area. That means that this land has to be re-scheduled. It is merely to obviate the ordinary course which will operate, and certain steps having to be taken which, in the circumstances, are not necessary. It is giving the Minister power which it is necessary to exercise in order expeditiously to deal with this case.

Where you have a board doing this sort of thing, then the local people concerned have the power of getting their representative on the board on the spot, and the board are aware of the local conditions. That is the whole principle of Section 90 of the Act. The local people know the facts, and the local persons concerned can make their representations to the board to deal with the matter. Here the Minister is some 100 miles away, and there is no provision for representation to him by the people concerned. He has the power to come to a most arbitrary decision. I am not satisfied why it is that the Minister has taken this power instead of leaving it to the board, which has the right to prepare a schedule and amend it from time to time. What is there so special about Sundays River? Surely there are other districts under which people hold their land under various titles.

The hon. member will realize that when a flotation takes place it has to be done on a certain principle. Take what is called the proportional curtailment or curtailment according to area which has been already irrigated, or it may be by some other method. The method recommended by the commission was that in the land which has already requested water in the past that that should be based on a schedule for the future, and that all that land should be cut up. That practically has the approval of all the members. It will not be possible for the Minister to act arbitrarily in the matter, because 6 (1) says—

There is a schedule attached. This has been before the people in the valley. They have had the opportunity, and notice has been given to each one of them that they can make representations in regard to these areas and the properties, to cut up this land and no more. That is not a case where the Minister can act arbitrarily and cut out land without previously having gone into the matter. The select committee is satisfied that this land ought to be cut out on the terms set out in the Bill.

The great drawback at Sundays River irrigation scheme is the scarcity of water. The difference between the Western Province and the irrigation scheme at Sundays River is that where our land is increasing in value, the land along Sundays River is decreasing because every year the water is getting less and less. In 40 years’ time the land will only be worth prairie value. Seeing that all the De Beers and other lands are all to be cut out of the irrigable scheduled area, I should like to know whether it would not also be possible to cut out Harvey’s land at Barkly Bridge? Harvey gets water free for about 30 morgen. We have to maintain a canal from Addo station to Barkly Bridge, approximately five miles of main canal and five miles of a subsidiary canal. That is that between nine and ten miles of canal have to be maintained, and, what is more serious, a tremendous quantity of water wasted. The Government has hundreds of morgen of land bought from the Sundays River estate, which has been cleared, and it is lying there idle. This land cannot be given out because there is not sufficient water for the area already allotted. Cannot an arrangement be come to whereby we can compensate Harvey for his improvements and give him the equivalent, or more, land at Addo station to prevent the water travelling to Barkly Bridge-Cannot some such arrangement be come to, because that would enable the upper owners to get water?

I am afraid nothing of the nature suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Faure) can be done at this stage. The basis on which the recommendations have been made would preclude the cutting-out of Mr. Harvey. At this stage it would be impossible to cut Mr. Harvey out.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8, schedule and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

The Clerk will now read the next order.

Our patience is becoming exhausted. We have allowed the Government to take Bill after Bill through all their stages on one day, and now we are told that a measure which the Prime Minister definitely assured us would not be gone on with this session is to be proceeded with. We are not prepared to give any further facilities to these measures.

A little while ago, when I drew the Prime Minister’s attention to another Bill which was brought forward, but which he had said was one of the Bills he would not go on with, he said it was not so. When the Prime Minister’s statement was made this is one of the Bills which he said was not to be taken.

I wish to draw attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 13th of April. This particular measure is No. 9 on the order paper for that day, one of those which the Prime Minister then said was not to be gone on with. A good many of us who are interested in that measure have dropped their interest because of that statement, or are not here, and we are not prepared to discuss the measure. It would be most unfair if the Minister now takes it.

If a definite promise from this side was made by the Prime Minister that we would not go on with this Bill, then we will certainly keep it, I just want to say that this Bill was absolutely non-contentious. It is quite obvious that it is only intended to facilitate the administration. If hon. members opposite, however, object, then we will not go on with it, although I cannot see why there should be any objection.