I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table—

Reports referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

1. (1) Statement, prepared in terms of section forty-nine of the Exchequer and Audit Act No. 21 of 1911, as amended by the Exchequer and Audit Act Amendment Act No. 31 of 1916, of all special warrants issued during the period 6th September, 1924, to 12th February, 1925, under section forty-eight of the Act.
2. (2) Statement of Accounts of the South African Railways and Harbours for the financial year 1923-24, with the report of the Controller and Auditor-General. [U.G. 42—’24.]
3. (3) Special Report by the Controller and Auditor-General in connection with expenditure on construction of the Klaver-Kokenaap railway, in terms of section fifty-one, sub-section (2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, as amended by the Exchequer and Audit Act Amendment Act No. 31 of 1916.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

1. (1) (a) Agreement of the 24th January, 1920, as amended by the agreement of the 18th June, 1920, between the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Pretoria Iron Mines, relating to the establishment of iron works in the Transvaal, and the purchase of certain iron and steel goods manufactured in the said works from South African materials, together with—
   1. (i) Deed of Indemnity dated 24th January, 1920.
   2. (ii) Resolutions of the Company empowering the Directors to enter into the Agreement, dated 14th January, 1920, and the 18th June, 1920; and
   3. (iii) Resolution adopted by Parliament approving of the Agreements. (Printed.)
2. (2) (b) Extract from Minutes of the Meeting of the Railways and Harbours Board held on the 24th July, 1923, regarding the modification of the Agreement.

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the papers [Annexure No. 37—1924 (2nd Session) ] were upon the Table.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

I move—

seconded.

May I ask the hon. Minister to put the second reading of this Bill down for some later date? There is such a congestion of Bills now before the House that hon. members find it impossible to get through all this stuff, and here is a Bill of a very complicated character which has not been published before. All our time is taken up in the attempt, the futile attempt, to digest the large number of Bills before us, and I think out of consideration for the House the Minister ought to put it down, say, not before the middle of March.

If this was a new Bill, something which had not been discussed in this House before, I could understand the objection taken by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). But the House is thoroughly conversant with the principle of this Bill. Moreover, the hon. Minister intends sending it, I understand, to Select Committee. I have some knowledge of the time a Bill of this nature will take in Select Committee, and I think the sooner we get into Select Committee on this particular Bill, the better it will be for us.

Is it quite fair? Here is a Bill which has never been published. People in the North, vitally affected by it, have had no opportunity of considering it. It may be an excellent Bill, but I think it is only fair to this House and the country that we should have an opportunity of considering this Bill and those members who wish to do so an opportunity of consulting their constituents upon it.

I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) has said, namely, that the sooner the second reading of this Bill is adopted by the House and the draft Bill referred to Select Committee the better it will be. The Bill deals with important questions and its complicated nature requires close investigation. Therefore the sooner the second reading is adopted by the House the better.

It is most unreasonable. It is all right for the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) to ask for the Bill to go through without delay. No doubt he knows all about it. No doubt he has been consulted about the Bill. But it is a very complicated Bill. I confess I do not know what is in it, but it deals with a complicated question, and there are hon. members who do want to study it and consult their constituents.

It is going to Committee.

The hon. member and his friends of the Labour party would have raised Cain in this House if this sort of thing had been done by us. Well, of course, this sort of thing has only one effect, that is, we don’t fall into line. In the ordinary work of the business of this House the Opposition has a good deal to say. If the Government want to rush things through like this we shall know what to do.

Don’t threaten.

I will put it this way. You do not encourage us to facilitate business. It is most unjust.

It is quite pathetic to hear the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) pleading for time on a measure of this kind. No doubt he has the greatest solicitude for these people suffering from phthisis. But this is no new measure.

We do not know what it is.

It is practically a measure put before this House by the late Government.

How do you know?

I do not know anything, but I want to state as the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) stated, it is an injustice to retard this Bill. The action of the late Government was always purposely to retard the passing of this measure through the House. Now they are in Opposition they are adopting the same tactics. The objection that is coming from the other side of the House is pure obstruction. If here is one question we want to get on with it is this question of miners phthisis. I hope the hon. Minister will not agree to put the Bill back, but will let us get into Select Committee as soon as possible.

Evidently the hon. member who has just sat down is in exactly the same position as the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). They are favoured members. They have seen the Bill.

You saw it for ten years.

That is the funniest statement I have ever heard a member make in this House. The Minister comes forward with a perfectly new Bill and asks for the first reading. The Bill has not been published; it has not been read and the hon. member who has just sat down says we must all know what is in it and that it has been before the country for ten years. We do not know what is in the Bill. The Minister has not told us. I agree it is doubtless a very important Bill, and I say that very Important Bills should be known to the people of this country and to members of this House who should have an opportunity of consulting their constituents on them. It is quite reasonable to ask the Minister to put the Second Reading down for a later date. I remember when the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs used to insist on the country having an opportunity for proper and full consideration of Bills before they came up for Second Reading in this House. Now I would mention another thing. That is, the Order Paper has been congested by Government Bills from the very first day of session, and no member of this House knows which of those Bills the Government is likely to take in the next three or four days.

Most of them have been published in the “Gazette” for the last two months.

I would like to add my appeal to that of hon. members who are asking that we should have an opportunity for a later reading. I know the measure has been before the House before, but the present House is not the same House. I am interested in these measures, and with the greatest will in the world I want to study them adequately so that I can contribute to the debates on subjects with which I am acquainted. I do ask the Minister to give us till the 15th of March so that we can fully grasp this very important matter.

Since the Bill is to go to a Select Committee I hope the Minister will bring it forward as soon as possible. It will probably be months before we get it through.

How do you know? Have you read it?

No I have not, but I have read the Villers Commission Report. I know what the principle of that Report is, and I presume this Bill is founded on it. If so it will be a very good and sound Bill. I hope the Minister will not give in one inch to the suggestion that this Bill should be postponed. We want to have finality. Ever since 1911 there have been Bills dealing with miners’ phthisis. The late Minister of Mines and Industries brought in his Bill at the end of the session when he knew nothing could be done with it.

I am sure we are all as anxious to reach finality as is the hon. member who has just sat down, but it seems to me that the argument that the Bill is to take months in Select Committee is an argument in favour of our having a little time to consider it before the Second Reading comes on. I have not read the Bill, but if it is to bring in an entirely new law surely we should have time to consider it and consult people in the Rand who are very much concerned. Whether the hon. member likes the Chamber of Mines or not, he knows that they are very much affected by this Bill, and they should have time to consider it. I would like to suggest to the Minister that he makes the date the 11th of March, which will give us time to read the Bill.

I hope we are not going to waste time about this. I think the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries is quite satisfied, but he gets no chance to rise. He is willing to accede to the suggestion as regards the 11th March.

The hon. gentlemen on that side of the House have my deepest sympathy because they are trying to have everything both ways. They have been complaining that the Government have no programme. Now they are crying out because the programme is too big for them.

This is not a programme, this is chaos.

It is quite evident that there is going to be a good deal of opposition to any measure of phthisis legislation designed to do justice to numbers of men, people who are suffering in this country owing to this disease. During the second reading debate we shall have a very full discussion and the matter will be discussed very fully in the Select Committee there will be further discussion on the floor of the House and it will take a great deal of time to get this legislation placed on the Statute Book. I quite agree that the Chamber of Mines should be consulted by those gentlemen who sit in this House representing the Chamber of Mines.

Who are they?

Those gentlemen ought to consult the Chamber of Mines. Well, there is no great difficulty about that, because at the present moment the Chamber of Mines are in Cape Town; there are at least five representatives of the Chamber of Mines in Cape Town to-day. Probably that is why it is so hot down here. If the hon. members on the opposite side of the House wish to get the opinions of the Chamber of Mines I guarantee that they can get into touch with Mr. Roberts and Mr. Fraser and the other technical gentlemen who are down here, and get their views of this Bill. They will tell them all they want supported or opposed in the Bill inside of 24 hours. I hope the Government will do all they possibly can to facilitate the passing of this Bill, and that the hon. gentlemen on the opposite benches will not continue to place obstacles in the way.

The remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down seem to constitute a very convincing argument in favour of time being allowed. He seems to apprehend great opposition to the Bill and has formed the opinion that the discussions in the House and in Select Committee will cover some weeks. Well, I do not knew whether there is going to be any opposition or not although the hon. member seems to know a good deal about the Bill. If there is nothing more than what has been before the House on previous occasions there seems to be no particular reason why there should be pronounced opposition to it, though the hon. member seems to think otherwise. He may have some reason for forming that opinion, but we have not had the opportunity of seeing the Bill, and therefore, it seems to me only reasonable that we should know more about it before it comes forward for serious discussion in this House. Whether the Chamber of Mines have seen this Bill or not I do not know; that is their affair, but we members of this House have not seen it and surely we are entitled to some time in which to consider such an important measure. Judging by the fact that the hon. member is so keen about it I think there must be some contentious principle embodied in the Bill which he thinks will be settled favourably to the people he represents. I hope the Hon. Minister will agree to put off the date on which this Bill shall be set down for the second reading.

It has already been intimated that the hon. Minister is prepared to accept the 11th March for the Second Reading.

I will just urge— the hon. Prime Minister has already suggested— that a little more time be given to this Bill. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) says that we must consult the Chamber of Mines. I want to do so. I am not ashamed about it. I want to consult not only the Chamber of Mines, but also the phthisis victims who reside in my constituency. For this reason I ask for more time. I hope the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) will not make the same blunder as they made in the past concerning this Bill, namely, to hold it up when it had reached the committee stage. A similar proposal has already been referred to Select Committee. There were members of the Select Committee who objected to the sitting of other members. Time was lost before the ruling of the Speaker was obtained. I can therefore understand why those who then delayed the Bill are now so anxious to bring it before the House.

I hope the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree to Wednesday the 11th March, that is a fortnight from to-day.

Yes.

Then I need not say anything further. I move—

The hon. Minister cannot move again. Another hon. member can do it for him.

I move as an amendment—

To omit “4th ”, and to substitute “11th ”.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

That the Bill be read a second time on 11th March.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday next.

seconded.

I object, though I believe it is a little measure which I myself drafted. I object to it however because we need longer time to consider it. The Bill embodies an important principle, and I cannot see why the hon. Minister wants to get it through the House so quickly.

I have no objection to giving more time. But I do not know why the hon. member offers objection seeing that he drafted the Bill himself.

Make it the 15th March.

I have no objection, but it will be better to fix it for the 16th.

It is perfectly certain that the enormous mass of legislation before us can never be got through this session. No doubt the Government does not intend to place all this proposed legislation on the Statute Book during the present session. It would shorten discussion and facilitate matters if the Prime Minister would now make a statement and give us some indication of what Bills he intends to drop and what Bills it is intended to carry through this session.

All?

The second reading was set down for 16th March.

Section 3 has two subsections (a) and (b). You did not draft it so.

It makes no difference. It is taken as one section.

On the schedule.

The schedule here provides for the free interchange of South African products. At present there is no such free interchange. I do not know why it is that at present consignors are not able to obtain the Customs forms which are necessary for them to send their goods on. To-day you cannot get them from the railway stations nor from the magistrates. They tell you to go to Pretoria. In my district fruit ready to be sent on has had to be sent elsewhere because it could not go on. I brought this matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister yesterday, and I think I should have some reply. I have not yet had a reply, and therefore I thought it was my duty to bring the matter forward.

In reply t0 what the hon. member has said, this is a matter of administration. He mentioned the matter yesterday, and I took steps to find out what the position was. I am informed these books containing certain forms must be purchased by consignors.

Where?

At the various Stationery Departments. It is a matter for the Stationery Department. They distribute them and the consignor must purchase them. I am arranging that they shall be available at convenient centres. We are looking into the matter.

The schedule was agreed to.

The title was agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 2nd March.

I move as an amendment—

My object is to make this clause more effective than it is at present. The clause provides two qualifications to the principal Act, neither of which qualifications is made in the principal Act. One qualification is that you shall prove that the dwelling is for “persons employed in any area conveniently situated in relation thereto,” and the other is that you should prove that they cannot get suitable accommodation “within their means,” and for that reason these hostels are necessary. As regards this question of its being impossible for employees to get accommodation within their means, in the first place there are people who are not employed but who are also entitled to the help of the Government in obtaining accommodation I may refer to two instances—one is persons who have done their day’s work and who are entitled to the help of Parliament and the country in providing themselves with a suitable dwelling. Take, for instance, women teachers and other employees such as hospital nurses and persons of that kind who have done a very good life’s work in this world and who are entitled to our help and sympathy. Under the wording of this clause those people would not be entitled to utilize the moneys that are voted for Government housing, in order to provide themselves with a hostel in which they can pass the rest of their days. I think it is very necessary that the Bill should be amended in that direction. Then, it is a very difficult thing for a person to prove that he cannot get accommodation within his means. Under the Housing Act, 1920, there is no necessity to prove that. The only thing you have to prove under the Act is, that you are agreeable to erect a house at a reasonable cost and the Government will help you to put the house up. You can also erect a set of flats under the same conditions. What is the difference between erecting a self-contained set of rooms in a block of buildings and erecting a building which contains a certain number of bedrooms and the other living rooms of which are in common? I welcome this amendment to the Act. It is a very good amendment, as far as it goes, but I am afraid the value of it will be very much reduced if these qualifications are insisted upon. I feel that the Minister is in sympathy with this suggestion of mine and I hope that he will accept my amendment.

I would ask the Minister of Public Health whether such an amendment would not involve additional expenditure?

The position is this: if Parliament votes money then it is possible by widening the scope of the Bill to expend more money. Of course, it is always subject to the provision which is made by Parliament, but the widening of the scope of the Bill certainly makes larger expenditure possible.

May I just make a remark in regard to the Minister’s statement? If you refer to the principal Act you will see, that in Clause 3 (2) the only monies that can be used are such monies as Parliament may from time to time appropriate to that fund. I suggest that this amendment to the Clause cannot increase the money that is voted for this purpose. It would only vary the class of persons who shall have the use of that money.

In the absence of a recommendation from His Excellency the Governor-General I am unable to put this amendment to the Committee, as by widening the scope of the Bill it would involve increased expenditure.

I want to know whether the hon. Minister approves the translation of section 1. I must say that when I see the translation I almost agree with his views concerning Afrikaans, for the Netherlands is here obscure. In the English text appears, “and ‘dwelling’ further includes” In the translation “further” is translated “voorts tevens.” I must say that if I had not the English text beside me I should not have known what it signified. The hon. Minister is certainly a Dutch scholar, and I hope he did not draft the Bill, or else that he did it in English. But it must be one or the other. I move therefore that the word “voorts” be deleted, and that the word “beteken” (signifies) be altered to “sluit in” (includes).

I would just like to say that in a certain sense I am very sorry that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has been ruled out of order. As he said quite correctly, I have to a very large extent sympathy with his intention.

Why don’t you take it over?

I say that to a very lage extent, I have sympathy with his intention and with his amendment. On the other hand, I think this amendment goes a little too far. If this amendment had been in order and had been accepted by the House, then I think that a certain class of dwellings in common would not be excluded, and it is certainly advisable that they should be excluded from the scope of the Housing Act. I am thinking of hotels and boarding-houses and dwellings of that kind. But I think that, to some extent, the hon. member should be met, and I would therefore move—

If this amendment is carried, the Bill would not only include that class of dwelling in common which I had originally in mind, viz., hostels for people employed in industrial areas and for whom proper housing accommodation does not at present exist, but it would make provision exactly for that class of person mentioned by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), viz., retired teachers and other people who are old and who are not in employment any more, and whose means are very limited. I do not think that we should bring under the scope of this Bill, buildings which are provided even for that class of person, but which are built with a view to profit, however small that profit may be. I think that would be extending the scope of the Bill too far. On the other hand, by deleting the words “employed in any area conveniently situated in relation thereto” we extend the scope of the Bill, and by keeping in the words which the hon. gentleman proposed to delete, viz., “who would otherwise be unable to provide themselves with suitable accommodation within their means,” we limit the assistance which we give under this amending Bill to that class of person whom we would like to assist and for whom we would like to provide better accommodation than is at present possible within their means. As this would involve greater expenditure and widen the scope of the Bill, I beg to announce that His Excellency the Governor-General has issued the necessary warrant in connection with the matter.

I am unable to put this amendment for the same reason I had been unable to put the amendment by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford).

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed.

Progress reported.

announced that his Excellency the Governor-General, having been informed of the proposed amendment to Clause 1 of the Housing Act, 1920, Amendment Bill, viz.: The insertion after the word “providing” of the words “without profit ”, and the omission of the words “employed in any area conveniently situated in relation thereto and ”, had been pleased to recommend to the consideration of the House the incidental expenditure contemplated therein.

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health it was resolved that the House do now resume in Committee.

House in Committee.

I move—

Now that the hon. Minister has made a very important amendment in this Bill and seeks wider powers from us, I would like to ask this, would this permit of blind people being accommodated in these hostels? It is a very important matter because there are a large number of blind people in Johannesburg now begging for a pittance. I think something should be done for these people.

Yes; I think they will be included.

There is a further point about this amendment. I should like to know whether as it stands it would be possible to lend money for country clubs. I would like the assurance of the Minister on that point.

I must thank the hon. Minister for having gone part of the way where I wish to go the whole way, but as the amendment stands there are very great practical difficulties when one comes to try to get one of the hostels built. The Housing Board only lends a certain amount of the total cost, for instance 70 per cent or whatever it is, and the difficulty always arises of raising the difference between the amount advanced by the Board and the total cost of the hostel. I agree there should be no real profit made out of these institutions, but it would help anyone trying to arrange for one of these hostels if there could be a limit on the amount of interest on capital lent over and above that amount lent by the Housing Board. Supposing the Housing Board advances £7,000 on a building to cost £10,000, it is difficult to raise the £3,000 as a gift. It is much more easy to raise the amount if you can go to a man and say: We agree it is a bad investment for you, but at any rate you shall have 5 per cent, on your investment. I think the case-would be met if the Minister would agree to an amendment. I move as an amendment to this amendment—

I leave it to the Minister to reduce, if he thinks fit, the amount of interest to 4 per cent. I am talking from the point of view of the man who wants to get one of these institutions erected. It is going to make a good deal of difference if we can say: you shall get 5 per cent or 4 per cent., whatever the Minister decides, on your money at any rate. I am afraid if we have to go round with a hat for any of these things the clause will be a dead letter. It will be a very hard task to get money put up as a gift. If the Minister would consider that point I think it would help to make the clause really effective and workable.

As this amendment involves increased expenditure I am unable to put it to the Committee.

I would like to associate myself with the hon. member’s appeal. While the late Government was in office we had a good deal to do with housing, and everybody acknowledges that the hon. member who has moved the amendment has done more than any other person in South Africa in assisting people to get their own houses. He is talking as a practical man. It is not a profit-making concern. If in the Minister’s opinion 5 per cent is too much, make it 4 per cent., but do something to make the return on capital invested reasonable.

I am afraid we are landing again in the same difficulty we were in before; or in which we should have been had I not met the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). This will again widen the whole application and scope of the Bill, and lead to the possibility of greater expenditure, so that it will be necessary for me to go again to the Governor-General for his approval. Allow me to say that the Housing Act can be improved in many respects. There are several points on which, when the opportunity occurs, I want to bring forward improving amendments. But this little Bill is introduced more particularly with a view to a certain class of institution and to provide in an urgent necessity which has arisen. I would not like to see use made of the opportunity now to bring forward all the various improvements which members wish to make. The position is that the Housing Act must either be done away with altogether or else must undergo improvement in some radical respects. Before I bring them forward I want first to have the opportunity of investigating the matter myself, and then of bringing a more comprehensive Bill before the House. I should have done it on this occasion. But hon. members on the other side of the House, who first said that the Government had no policy, now complain that too much appears on the Government’s programme. They complain so that I am obliged to say that they are suffering from political dyspepsia. There is now during this sitting no opportunity to bring forward a proper Bill for the revision of the Housing Act in its entirety. I shall thus prefer that hon. members on a later occasion bring forward all amendments so that we can then thoroughly revise the Housing Act.

I would like to ask the Minister to agree to report progress and get consent to this amendment. I quite understand that he does not want further amendments, but the purpose of this one is merely to round off the amendment which he has already accepted. My hon. friend’s suggestion is based on experience in England of the Public Utility Societies, which are societies that by Act of Parliament are not allowed to make more than 5 per cent profit. It has been found that the provision which my hon. friend is suggesting has had a very practical effect indeed in connection with the housing question in England, and it would be so here. I appeal to the Minister to accept the suggestion to report progress and get the consent of the Governor-General on this point if further expenditure is involved.

I think that everybody knows that the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment has had very considerable experience. It would be just as well if he would explain exactly what these public utility institutions do. It appears to me the effect of reporting progress would be to waste time. I cannot conceive of anybody being prepared to lend money on second mortgage. The security left is so small after the Government contribution that very few people would be prepared to lend their money. By limiting the interest payable you make it more difficult to raise money it appears to me.

The public utility societies in England are societies which under the Housing Acts provided their Articles of Association are in conformity with the Act can get advances from the Government for housing. As regards the other question, he hon. member’s cynicism as to whether a man would lend money on what would be practically a second mortgage indeed—it is rather worse than second mortgage, it is purely an open credit—the reply is that it has been done. The first garden city at Letchworth in England had the whole of the capital subscribed and one condition was that the rate of interest should not exceed 5 per cent. There is a case where thousands of pounds of capital have been subscribed under conditions I am suggesting here. Unless the amendment is accepted I believe this clause will be a dead letter.

My point is not quite met. The hon. member quoted Letchworth. There I understood the whole of the money was subscribed by people interested in the scheme and it was subscribed on the whole area as a security. After all, people investing money want security. Here we have not got the security because the major portion of the cost will be contributed by the State and they have the first call upon the realizable assets.

I think after all the matter which the hon. member is suggesting is a small thing and I do not want to seem to be unreasonable. Therefore I move—

This will give me an opportunity of going into the whole question and considering what the hon. gentleman has suggested.

House Resumed.

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

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time. On the first reading of this Bill the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that it is a very important one. The importance of it has been realized by us for years—fully realized, I hope —and in no less degree than it was by the former Government, of which the hon. Leader of the Opposition was leader. If admonition is called for to-day, was the admonition also at that time considered? It is of no use now coming to the House and, as it were, threatening us. Speaking for myself, and I think also for my colleagues, I say that we are not going to allow ourselves to be turned by threats from the road which we consider is the right one.

You are going on blindly, then.

No, we have no intention of acting unwisely. I shall endeavour always to be as reasonable as possible, even towards people who differ from me. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has pointed out the far-reaching consequences, possible or actual, of a proposal such as is now before the House. Imperial relations have been referred to in connection with the exclusion of Asiatics, but there was very little, in the few words which the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, which does not apply as argument in respect of his own action and conduct in 1911, for his Government was the composer of the Act of 1911, which Act I shall discuss later on. In South Africa we have to deal to-day with a great national question, namely, the preservation and perpetuation of the white race. We do not want to be unjust towards the native and we are willing to allow him latitude for development. We acknowledge also the principle that we cannot through artificial measures and action oppose his reasonable progress. Self-preservation, however, is, after all, the first law of nature. This was always our acknowledged policy. The action which we wish to take regarding this Bill is in principle the same as was proposed in the past by the Opposition, and which was fully approved and endorsed by the former Government—not that I am necessarily able to accept the policy of the former Government as a satisfactory standard. It is wrong for any subsequent Government to take for granted anything which happened in the past. It is our duty from time to time to apply to our legislation the test, not of what has been done in the past, but of its deserts and merits. The great national question to-day is the maintenance and preservation of our whites, and although there are in South Africa a number of influential persons who say it is unreasonable to talk of a white South Africa, I think I am right in deducing from his utterances that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is amongst those who stand up for South Africa as a white man’s country, who stand for the principle that the position of the white men must be acknowledged, respected and maintained. With regard to the mines, especially those on the Witwatersrand, and in lesser degree in regard to mines in general, there are certain inherent advantages possessed by the native as against the white man, which make him more attractive to the employer as a source of labour. There is, for example, the compound system. There are thousands of natives, and it means naturally that the wages and expenses are kept low, and that it is more attractive for the mining companies, the employers, to utilize these herds of labourers, and not only to use them for rough work, but also to train them so that at last they may take the place of white men. Then there are the miners’ phthisis laws. These lay great burdens on the mining companies and on the industry, but these are not unreasonable nor uncalled for burdens. As regards the natives, the compensation given to miners’ phthisis victims is, compared with that given to whites, much lower, and here again the inclination is strengthened to employ the native in place of the white man. Then there is the indenture system, especially in respect of natives recruited in Portuguese territory and those coming from outside the Union. These also prejudice the chance of the white man. For the sake of the Portuguese native, the immigration law was relaxed; special provision was made that natives imported from Portuguese territory need not possess the required £25, or whatever the amount is, required in the case of other immigrants. The native is also subject to prosecution for desertion. This is also an advantage to the mine baases. Thus are given by law and in the other ways I have named, adventitious and artificial advantages in favour of the native. The opportunities and chances of the white man are much more slender in comparison with the inherent advantages which exist in present conditions concerning the natives. Further, there is the lower standard of living of the less civilized element of our population. All these factors exert an influence greatly against the reasonable chances which the white race ought to have in connection with the development of our industries; of which naturally the gold mines are one of the most important. Where can the line be drawn if matters are left vague and undefined? It will lead to continual difficulties. If we leave it to the mine baases to apply the regulations according to their ideas, then we shall find that there are many divergent opinions on the respective mines. The opinion of A regarding what is kaffirs’ work will differ from the opinion of B. Legislation is thus necessary to put matters on a proper footing, and indeed such an opinion has existed for 11 or it may be almost 15 years, that is since December, 1911, when the Act drawn up and promulgated by the late Government became of full force. According to that Act, it is quite clear that the object of the regulations is the safety of the mine employees, and in the first place, I can almost say, the strict application of the mining regulations. This signifies principally the safety of the native, for he greatly outnumbers the white man. The white man is there in much smaller numbers. Further, health conditions are protected by the regulations; and another important factor is that of discipline. We must not lose sight of these points in considering the desirability of investing the regulation with the power of law. This legislative measure is intimately connected with the whole great national question of segregation. About this it is unnecessary for me to dilate on the plans of the Government and of this side of the House. The policy in his connection has been declared many times, and we must not lose sight of it. The position before the promulgation of Act No. 12 of 1911 was, briefly, this. I need not delay the House by quoting laws which before that time existed in the Transvaal, Free State and Natal. But the condition before the Act of 1911 was in force was such that a very definite and effective colour bar was in force in many districts in the Transvaal, Free State and Natal. In Natal particularly there are laws which apply the colour bar particularly to Asiatics. To give one instance, Act No. 12 of 1896 (Transvaal), section 92 makes it clear that work of a certain character must not be done by coloured persons. The expression “coloured” the law says, indicates and includes every African or Asiatic native or any other coloured person. The former Government by the law of 1911 and by the mining regulations provided that not only natives, but also Asiatics, should be included thereunder, as well as the ordinary Cape coloured person. This appears clearly from the mining regulations. Act No. 12 of 1911, section 4, provides as follows—

1. (I) The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, in respect of or in connection with all or any of the following matters or things, namely (amongst others)
2. (l) the safety and health of persons employed in or about mines and works, and generally of persons, property and public traffic;
3. (m) the procedure to be followed in connection with trials by an inspector under this Act.

I challenge the Opposition to give me the assurance that at the time when the Act was drafted there was any intention to abolish the colour bar then in force. The intention was to maintain the colour bar in every respect.

Not by legislation.

Must I then presume that the mining regulations were at that time promulgated by the former Government just as a joke? That they were intended and promulgated as a mere matter of form, and that the regulations did not come within the scope of the Act?

Was it by legislation or by regulation?

I have already admitted that it was by regulation. But the point is that the former Government intended it, whether it was by legislation or by regulation, and that the Government was under the impression that the regulations came within the compass of the Act. Then occurred the case Rex. v. Hildick Smith as a test of the regulations. Regulation 179, of which unfortunately I have only the English text, reads as follows—

Take now section 285—

In 1923 the judgment of the Supreme Court was that the regulations were ultra vires. But the regulations existed, and the former Government cannot deny that it was its intention to include under an effective colour bar natives and also Cape coloured and Asiatics. This was not done by the Nationalist party, but by the former Government; and the words “coloured persons” include natives, ordinary coloured, and Asiatics. In my humble opinion it was a most short-sighted line of action which was taken by the Crown mines and others in employing kaffirs as engineers on electric and other locomotives.

Was that the only place where they were employed?

I am able to give the hon. member a long list. On pages 49-51 of the report of the Low Grade Mines Commission of 1920 hon. member will find a long list. All those regulations were promulgated according to law by the former Government and were from time to time amended. I will come back to the fact that there were various Commissions appointed which commented on the colour bar. I believe we find this as early as in the report of the Commission on Mining, of 1907-’8. Then it was also referred to in the report of the Low Grade Mines Commission. We have also the report of the Mining Industry Council of 1922, of which Mr. Justice Solomon was Chairman. What struck me so was that in the report of the Brace Commission we find one of our prominent judges adopting the premise that the mine regulations had statutory force. The judge was not concerned with the regulations, but with the status quo. He refers to it on page 5. After he has cited the colour bar, we read—

The report talks here of “abolish.” If the S.A.P. were against the colour bar, why did not the Leader of the Opposition do away with it? Further we read—

We ask once more: why were the regulations not abolished? I answer: “ask the Leader of the Opposition.” If I remember rightly the Leader of the Opposition rose here in the House not once but several times, and gave the House the assurance that there was not the least intention on the part of the Government to abolish either the status quo or the colour bar, nor to interfere with them. This is my reply to the interruption of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). The impression may be given that I take up a position contrary to the ruling of the judges. I share in all respects the views of the learned judges in this matter. In my view there is little doubt that the regulations are ultra vires. But whether the former Government was under the impression that this was not the case, or whether something else was the case—well, I will not say that something else was the case. I will not attribute improper motives to the former Government. I am of opinion that the former Government intended to promulgate the regulations and that it aimed at the institution of the colour bar. I take it that this was the attitude of the Government. But I call it exceedingly imprudent and unwise that the position and the regulations were repudiated by the Crown Mines. In the report of the Low Grade Mines Commission of 1920 the opinion is given that the colour bar is ultra vires, but it is strange that the report of the Brace Commission contains no single answer concerning the validity of the colour bar. A later report, however, says: “the colour bar is ultra vires: nobody doubts that.” I will offer another challenge, but not frivolously. The former Government knew that the regulations were not valid. If they knew it why did they make them? Then a particular case occurs. A kaffir, Stevens, was employed to drive a locomotive. The manager of the Crown Mines was prosecuted because he allowed a kaffir to drive an electric locomotive. The kaffir gave evidence before the magistrate to the effect that conditions were such that on the locomotive he was obliged to force other kaffirs out of the way. There was also other evidence given, showing that employees simply jumped on the locomotive to ride from place to place, although it was only intended for quartz. In cases where persons were carried, the regulations required that the locomotive should be handled by a white man. Such things had occurred there. The same Stevens declared that a kaffir had in this way previously been run over. It is not in the nature of a kaffir to be able to do such work and to do it well. The charge against the mine manager was, that he had acted in contravention of section 197 of the regulations. It was pointed out as criticism that if we read the text of the law we shall find that it is comprehensive enough, and that it is unreasonable to exclude the kaffir from such work. The Government were thus under the impression that the mine regulations possessed the full force of law. That was the position twelve or thirteen years ago. Now I must honestly say that I do not see the difference between a direct provision of the law to the effect that kaffirs shall not be employed in the mines for certain work on the one side, and on the other side, where you do not embody this in the law but act as if you had. It is thus entirely justifiable to-day to express in formal legislation what 13 years ago was actually done; and it is of no use, seeing what was done 13 years previously, to say now that we are doing something which is unjustifiable towards the native. I cannot see the difference. Could the Government remain inactive after the judgment of 1923? The judgment of the Provincial Court of the 1st November, 1923, was not the result of an appeal by the original complainant before the magistrate, but the Government itself had appealed and had endeavoured to obtain a ruling of the higher court in respect of the judgment of the Provincial Court, which had declared against the validity of the mine regulations. This was the former Government. A person cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. The Government was then advised by the Attorney-General to make no further appeal against the ruling of the Provincial Court. The Government asked the Attorney-General whether the matter could not be brought before the Appeal Court. Such was the anxiety of our predecessors to establish the validity of the mine regulations, and their attitude throughout before the magistrate and the Provincial Court was that the mine regulations possessed the power of law. It is now argued that we must respect and submit to the ruling of the Court. The result of the Act may be that the ruling of the Court is declared pro non scripto, but the procedure is constitutionally altogether justifiable. The position further is that in the legislation of all civilised countries it happens that the ruling of the court actually becomes amended. It remains with the legislator to say whether the conditions shall continue or not. I will just give an example as to how a ruling of the highest court in the land—the Court of Appeal, Bloemfontein—was reversed, namely, when the right of the Provincial Councils to levy a tax on mining profits—which right had been supported by the court in Bloemfontein—was abolished by legislation. I have now received an official communication from the department in connection with the accident statistics on the mines. It appears from the statistics that since 1922, accidents have greatly increased in number. That is to say, since the strike, from which time the number of white men on the mines has been reduced, with the consequence that there is no longer proper and sufficient supervision in connection with the application of the mines regulations. And it is added that in 1922 the accident rate had been abnormally high. It is thus most important that we should set the matter on a sound and proper footing. The courts must no longer remain in doubt that the mine regulations carry the force of law.

Was the increase in the total number of accidents due to the increase in the number of native labourers?

In the opinion of my advisers that is so. They say that the reduction in the number of whites has been followed by an increase in the number of accidents owing to there being less proper supervision. Now I want to say that scarcely was the verdict of the magistrate declared ultra vires by the court than the Chamber of Mines, with which the Crown mines is also connected, offered the assurance that they would still respect the regulations. Why, then, had the Government gone to court? As far as I am concerned, and I know that it is also the feeling of hon. members on this side of the House, we are not going to allow matters to rest on the favours and good graces of the Chamber of Mines. The matter must be put on a proper footing. I do not doubt their good-will, but it must be properly defined what is white man’s work and what is kaffir’s. Otherwise we shall be in continual difficulties. And allow me to say that the Bill has been drawn up on the technical advice of most of the mine inspectors. They say that unless the mine regulations are properly laid down and not left over to caprice, their position will be impossible. What, then, about Natal and the Cape Province? I am not going to make any promises to these two provinces. The matter chiefly concerned is that of regulations regarding kaffirs on the mines, which is a big question on the Witwatersrand. But it is an authoritative Bill, and the Cape Province and Natal will receive due consideration. It is now alleged that the mine regulations are solely intended for the subjection of the kaffirs. The answer to this I leave to the Opposition, who compiled the mine regulations. It is also stated that the colour bar was the cause of great dissatisfaction amongst the natives. If that is so, this also I leave to be answered by the other side. I have always maintained that the kaffir, by being suitably employed, should have a reasonable chance of progressing. I am not in favour of the subjection of the South African native races. This is also the attitude of the Government, and we announce it because it is the intention this session to create a Native Development Fund. We feel that they also must be given a chance; but the predominant conviction is that we must also care for the whites. I would also remark that amongst others, notice is given of a Bill by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) which particularly affects Asiatics. What is the use of beating about the bush? The Opposition knows well enough what the position in Natal is, and I would like to know what Natal had to say about the exclusion of Asiatics. Are they against it? I want here to say that I regret that the Government, in respect of the provision of work and assistance for poor whites, has not received from the mines the measure of assistance which it might have expected. The Council of Industry and the Chamber of Commerce went specially out of their way and said: We will do what we can to give employment to white people and to solve the problem of unemployment. But the Chamber of Mines are not prepared to move a finger to help us. I regret it exceedingly. It is short-sighted, wrong and disloyal towards land and people. I want to refer to what was said in 1912 by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) regarding the finding of employment for whites and kaffirs. He will recollect it, and I shall not repeat it here. No, he said it in 1911, and he can turn it up and read it again. This is not the first time that a distinction has been made in legislation between whites and coloured. If anything actually new has been introduced, or alteration made, then it is in favour of the Cape coloured, who has been excluded.

Why?

Because they have adopted the white man’s civilization.

They have the vote.

We know that the Asiatic stands on an altogether different footing. I need go no further into this. I will only refer to what is going on in Natal. In different laws distinction is drawn between white and coloured. In the Transvaal, the native cannot trade in gold; must not be in possession of raw gold; cannot hold a licence nor possess mining ground. The same in the Gold Laws. There is also in the Diamond Act a distinction madeley against him. And it is quite understandable why this is so. Any of us who are acquainted with our history will know why. And why should we not put on a proper lawful footing something which was acknowledged 14 years ago? In conclusion, I want once again to repeat that there are particular occupations from which the kaffir must in view of all circumstances be excluded; also that the mine regulations must be made law. There is, for example, the examination of workplaces; the use of explosives for blasting; the management of hoist and other machinery and locomotives— to mention only the principal cases. We hear to-day that kaffirs are being employed who are not suitable for the work. It may be that there is here and there a native who is able to do this work because he has reached a certain stage of civilization. We must, however, look to the summum bonum of the race as a whole —to the race collectively. The bulk of them are barbarians or semi-barbarians. And we cannot allow these regulations to be applied or not applied according to the vagaries of the mines. The whole matter must be put on a proper and a lawful basis, and it is for this reason that the Government has brought in this Bill, consisting of only one section; but which, I admit, is a most important one.

I have already indicated on the first reading of this Bill that I am utterly opposed to it. I am going to move an amendment at the end of what I have to say. I believe the Bill is one of the most far-reaching ever brought before Parliament. A serious principle has been brought before us, and I think we should have a direct vote upon the issue. In the first place, it must be remembered that this is not merely a mining question. The Mines and Works Act of 1911 refers to a number of things besides mines. If hon. members will look at the definition of “works” they will find that it is of a very far-reaching character. “Works” includes, with certain exceptions, any places where machinery is erected or used. The definition of “machinery” is also very far-reaching, so is that of “mine.” You have to remember then that this does not merely refer to “mines”; it refers to a variety of subjects brought together under the Mines and Works Act of 1911. I would say, at once, in reference to what the Minister said that there was nothing in the Act of 1911 to indicate that a colour bar was to be drawn. If hon. members had known that the Government intended to draw a colour bar, the Bill would have met with very active opposition. The hon. Minister inferred that it was the intention of the Minister who brought this Bill forward to introduce a colour bar, but that was not indicated. There was a power to make different regulations for different provinces or mining districts, and one quite realizes that the same regulations would not reasonably apply to all the mines in the Union, but that does not mean that there was any question of a colour bar. But the colour bar was introduced by regulation, and I agree with what the hon. Minister said that it was the old Government that drew up these regulations; it was not exactly the Government which was last in power but the South African party Government which came into power after Union, and it is true that under those regulations there was a distinct colour bar. I would say to the Minister that where I think he is not correct is where he assumes that there is no difference between making a colour bar by regulation and by statute. Hon. members will find these regulations referred to on pages 48 to 51 of the Report of the Low Grade Mines Commission. I am with the hon. Minister in respect of what he says about the safety of the people on the mines. I do not want anybody who does not know about these things to get the positions referred to; I do not want anybody who does not know about the laws of public health to be allowed to deal with sanitary matters, and I do not want anybody who does not understand discipline to be employed in a responsible position, but the Minister cannot tell me that it is quite impossible to get discipline, cleanliness and safety through any other person than a white man. Where the Government has gone wrong is this: when that judgment of the Supreme Court was given declaring the regulations ultra vires they should have framed a new set of regulations laying down stringent provisions as to the conditions under which persons should get the certificates, and those who could not comply with the conditions should be able to get the certificate, whatever their colour, whether white, coloured or black. You should lay down your law that no man who does not comply with these conditions should be able to get the certificates, and then if an individual is incapable of making provision for safety, health or discipline he would not get it, not on the ground of colour but on the ground of want of competency. But there would be no injustice done to him because it would be laying down a civilized standard. Those who complied with the conditions would get the certificate in that case, but unfortunately the trend of this is to say: “We brand you for ever in the statute as incompetent to perform Certain classes of work; we brand you for ever with a brand of Cain in industrial matters.” Well, if we do that, we shall do something which this House will eventually regret, because it is asking us to build upon injustice. This is laid down very clearly by those gentlemen who formed the personnel of the Low Grade Mines Commission, both in the majority and in the minority reports of the commission, because even that of the minority who did not agree with the majority on the question of the imposition of the colour bar practically agreed in regard to its inequity and injustice. The whole of the members of the commission practically were agreed on the iniquity and injustice of it. This matter should be put on a different basis from that of colour. It should be possible to establish wages boards so that the employers of labour would not be able to exploit men. But it is not a question of colour. There is no injustice in laying down a civilized standard, but if a man comes up to that standard he should be paid the wages of a civilized man, and to treat the matter on the question of colour instead of civilization is absolutely wrong, but that is what the Bill intends to do. It is quite true that the Bill does not go so far as the regulations, because here the coloured man, apart from the Asiatic or native, is excluded from the colour bar. He will now be able, as far as the law is concerned, to fill these occupations, and in that respect no doubt the Bill is slightly in advance of the regulations, because the regulations included the native, the coloured man and the Asiatic, whereas the Bill before the House includes only natives and Asiatics. The Asiatic has been included specifically I suppose because he may be a formidable competitor, but I really cannot understand on what ground the Government can say that the Asiatic is permanently and perpetually incapable in performing any of the classes of work mentioned in the regulations, one of which for instance is to take charge of sanitary arrangements. That is something which I find difficult to understand, namely, what particular skill is required in connection with the ordinary sanitary work of a mine. If hon. members will look at the occupations on pages 27 and 51 they will find that whereas there are 51 occupations on the mines which are reserved for the white man, only 32 of these are prescribed by regulation, but in regard to 19 others not prescribed, there is this fatal colour bar although the regulations do not provide it. What, therefore, is the necessity for this Bill. It is quite clear to-day by what is stated in this section 165 of this report that—

If there has been a change could it not be met by laying down new regulations, fixing a civilized standard as to what is required in regard to discipline and in regard to health and safety, and saying that you are only going to give certificates to those who come up to that standard, and not to bring in a new colour bar. That cannot be done. If you build on injustice you get into one difficulty after another. No matter what the capacity of the native, or the Asiatic may be, no matter what his standard of civilization may be, no matter what standard he may hereafter raise himself to, he is never to be allowed to do the work of a civilized man.

This is a white man’s country.

The hon. member says this is a white man’s country. Well, I wonder what the hon. member will do with the vast majority of non-white men in this country. The hon. member talks about the uncivilized, and I am quite prepared to agree to any measure reserving any occupation of the kind referred to the civilized man. As a matter of fact the uncivilized man cannot do these things; by civilized man I mean a man who has intelligence and a standard of life which fits him to do that kind of work. In various professions you require certain standards, and in the mines if you required special skill to deal with these occupations I would make a man show that he is capable of doing the work. That is what I mean by saying that the work should be reserved for civilized men and not merely for white men. If the hon. member will say that we should make this a land for the civilized man I would agree with him, but when he says it should be a land for the white man he is laying down a wrong doctrine. It is absurd to say that civilization is the property only of the white man. There are civilizations in non-white countries quite equal to the civilization of the white man. You have to recognize that. These people are growing in number and belong to South Africa equally with the white man, you have to take account of that. One thing you must not do and that is permanently debar them and give them to understand that they can never improve their position or develop, no matter what standard of civilization they may reach, but this Bill is going to act as a perpetual bar against them so far as improving their position is concerned. The country belongs to all these people who inhabit it, namely, white men, coloured, natives and Asiatics, and they should be allowed to cooperate for the benefit of the country, but that cannot be done by laying down a colour bar. I want a civilized standard. To lay down a colour bar, to lay down a doctrine that a man who is not white must necessarily be uncivilized and this is a wrong doctrine. Every man should be treated according to his merits. Your legislation here is saying that you are going to treat a man according to the colour of his skin, and that is what I object to. There is no question of merit, competency or skill or civilization, you say to them “Because you are not white you are barred.” That is a principle to which I can never subscribe because it is unjust. With regard to the court case which has been referred to this was brought up in the Transvaal and the judges went very carefully into these regulations. Undoubtedly the effect of this Bill which has been brought before us to-day is to render null and void that judgment of the Supreme Court because that laid down that the Government in making these colour bar regulations have been doing something which was ultra vires. It was not a surprising judgment either. It was an open secret that these regulations were ultra vires, because the commission which I have already referred to said so when they were dealing with the matter. They say in section 163 of their report that this differentiation, not being authorized by the terms of the Act, was considered by many, and apparently rightly so, to be ultra vires. That was years before the judgment was given by the Supreme Court, and the same opinion was also expressed in this House. When the test was made, it was no surprise to hear that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal held the regulations to be ultra vires. This Bill excludes the coloured man, and in that way limits its operation, but in other respects it will lead to far greater trouble than existed under the old regulations. The old regulations applied only to the Transvaal and the Free State and not to Natal and the Cape. The Minister has taken power here in this Act, if this Bill goes through, to make the regulations, preventing the native or Asiatic from doing any of the works referred to on such broad lines in the Mines and Works Act applicable also in the Cape and in Natal. They will apply far away from the mines of Johannesburg and affect men who are making their living in various ways in this Province and Natal. He can make the regulations applying those laws to an Asiatic for instance in charge of scavenging where any machinery is used.

No.

It is clear the hon. member wants enlightenment on this matter. If he looks carefully at this clause he will see that the Minister has the power under this Bill of applying the colour bar to any particular occupation in connection with any mine or with any works—not mining only but any works—as defined by the Act of 1911. The hon. member may say “We are not going to use it” well, we do not know how that power is going to be used, but I would rather see them without the power than with a promise that such a power is not going to be used. That is a power which is made possible by the Act and this Act is going to result in a serious irritant to the non-white races. Let there be no mistake about that. The Government thinks that by excluding the coloured man they will get him to stand alongside them, but no greater mistake was ever made. The native, asiatic and the coloureds in a matter of this kind will make common cause, the coloured man will feel the injustice of this Bill as keenly as the asiatic. I claim to know something about this and I can assure hon. members that it is so. Under these circumstances I feel that this Bill before the House has principles which are not in the best interests of the State because it proclaims a spirit of injustice abroad by reserving occupations for persons of one particular section and penalizing others for no other reason than because they are not white; it contains provisions which will enable the Government to take away the rights existing even under the old regulations of two of the Provinces, and it is capable of being worked in such a way to do injustice on a great scale in this country. For these reasons I move as an amendment—

seconded the amendment.

I am sorry that some words which fell from me last week should have brought the hon. Minister under the impression that I was threatening either the Government or the benches opposite. That certainly was not my intention, and I do not think it was a fair inference from what I said. It so happened that last week on the first reading of this Bill many hon. members on this side of the House, myself included, voted with the Government in favour of the first reading, and I said a few words in order to explain why we did so, and whatever I said simply had reference to my intention to explain that position, and not to threaten the Government in any way. It may be that that wrong impression in the mind of the hon. Minister accounts for the very controversial tone he adopted to-day, but it was entirely unjustified and I am not going to follow him in that. I do not look upon this as a matter into which we should impart any party spirit at all. This is a question which cuts across all parties, it goes deeper than any party issue in this country, and I think it will probably be found that among hon. members supporting the Government there will be some who do not agree with this Bill. I do not know, but it may be that there are hon. members on this side of the House who agree with the Bill of the Government. It is not a party issue. We are dealing with one of the most fundamental issues in South Africa, and I hope we shall discuss it in that spirit during this debate. So far as I am concerned, I shall avoid all party acrimony or partisan spirit in discussing this matter. We are up against the fundamentals—no doubt about that. We are up against the gravest issue that can be raised either in this House or in this country. The Bill, as the Minister said, is a very short Bill, a Bill of one clause, but in that small compass it raises the very foundations on which this South Africa exists. I wish to point out, in the first place, that the Bill which the hon. Minister has introduced goes beyond the old existing colour bar of the Transvaal and Free State. I think we must get to the facts, and if the Minister had come forward with a Bill which merely ratified and gave the sanction of law to the old colour bar as it has been existing in the interior, it might have been much more of an arguable question than it is to-day. But the Minister is going much further, as I shall immediately show. Let me point out what the framework of that Mines Act of 1911 was. I happened to be the culprit, I happened to be at the time the Minister of Mines who introduced that Bill, and, therefore, I know all the circumstances connected with this difficult and grave question. In that Bill, which was intended to give the Government power to deal with mining at large in this country, clause 4 gave the Government power to deal with a large number of questions by way of regulation. I believe the sub-paragraphs of that clause range from (a) to (p), as various matters which may be dealt with by way of regulation by the Government. One particular paragraph—(n)—which is referred to in this Bill dealt with the question of certificates of competency, and it laid down that certificates of competency would be required by regulation in certain cases—such as mine managers and overseers, any persons who had a supervisory position on mines, or people who were responsible for safety, such as people who were exercising blasting duties or who were engine-drivers and similar people. That paragraph (n) includes these overseers, supervisors, engine-drivers, blasters and similar cases, and it provided that certificates of competency could be required in their cases. It was under that paragraph that the colour bar regulations were subsequently framed which were intended to maintain the practice that had been existing for a long time in the Transvaal. There is no question about the facts. The hon. Minister has stated that there had been an old Transvaal law. It has existed right through the Crown Colony period and up to 1911, when this new regulation came to be framed under the Union Act. We found this practice and it was a practice which it was impossible for any Government to alter at the time, and all that the regulation purported to do was to recognize this practice by way of regulation. It is this regulation (No. 197) under paragraph (n) which has been declared by the court in the Transvaal ultra vires. The first part of this Bill deals with this question and in so far it purports to deal with the old colour bar situation in the Transvaal. The first ten lines of this new paragraph deals with that old question. It says that the regulations under paragraph (n) which I have been discussing may provide that certificates of competency shall not be granted to natives or Asiatics. If the Bill had stopped there we would have purported here to deal simply with the old Transvaal colour bar which appears in paragraph (n)of the old Act. But the Bill does not stop there. It now goes on to apply the colour bar to all the other paragraphs of section (4) of the Act from (a) to (p). It says “and the regulations under any other paragraph of this sub-section may restrict certain classes of work to, and impose duties and responsibilities on persons other than natives and Asiatics” subject to proof of efficiency. You will see, therefore, that the Bill in this second part extends the colour bar as it has been existing in the Transvaal in years past right on to all the classes of work which fall under regulations from paragraph (a) to paragraph (p). But it does not even stop there. The Bill then goes on to say in line 16 “and may subject to such proof of efficiency generally apportion work as between natives and Asiatics and other persons respectively in respect of mines, works or machinery.” Here the Bill goes right into the blue. It leaves the Mines and Machinery Act altogether, it leaves section (4), it leaves all the paragraphs and it gives power to the Government by regulation to apportion work on mines and works generally between whites and coloured persons on the one hand, and natives and Asiatics on the other. I do not think that what I am contending can be subject to any dispute. There is no possible misconception upon this, that the Bill as framed and before the House extends the colour bar far beyond the limits laid down in the old Transvaal Act, and under paragraph (n). In the first place, the Bill extends the colour bar to all the other paragraphs and then it goes still further and gives the Government power generally to impose a colour bar. I think that that is a very serious matter, that we should, at this time of day, 15 years after Union, give this blow in the face to a very large portion of the people of South Africa. I admit what the Minister has argued that there was the old practice and that quite honestly the previous Governments had tried to recognize that practice, but this is the first time that not only the old colour bar but an entirely reinforced and extended colour bar is going to be put on the Statute Book of this country. I recognize that there is great pressure from the Rand and from the mines to impose the colour bar or to maintain the old colour bar, but I hold that the Minister has no mandate, so far as I know, and the Government has no mandate whatever, even from the Witwatersrand, to extend the colour bar beyond what it was before. In the second place, I think in a large matter like this, where we are going to put on our Statute Book in black and white a principle like this, we ought to consider the whole question from a South African point of view and not merely from the point of view of one industry or one locality in South Africa. Let me say this, the Minister referred to “blankedom” and said he thought he should claim me from previous speeches as one of the men who had stood for a white South Africa. Make no mistake, my whole political effort and public life in this country has been to establish and render firm and secure white civilization in this country. But there are ways of doing it and the question is whether this Bill and the statutory enactment of this colour bar in this wide and extended form with the disability placed here upon millions of our fellow-subjects, whether that is the way to establish the white position in South Africa I am very doubtful about it.

It will greatly assist.

No. I don’t think it will assist. I think it is going to embarrass us in every way possible. We cannot ignore the position as it is in South Africa and if we want to entrench our position merely as a white oligarchy by getting round us a ring fence of hate from all the other communities in South Africa, we shall have a very hard and difficult row to hoe in future. That is not the way to establish a white South Africa. No, I ask the House and I ask the Government to consider very seriously the road on which we are embarking now, perhaps with the very best intentions. I know the Minister is in a difficulty owing to the position which has arisen through the judgment in the Courts, but I say that with this Bill we are making a new departure; with this Bill we are beginning a new record in South Africa, and I would very seriously implore the Government and the House and the country to think and pause before we make this new start in the relations of the races of South Africa. What will the natives say about this? I see the Prime Minister pondering deeply over this issue. And he must. He is not only the Prime Minister of this country, but he is also the Minister of Native Affairs. Have the natives been consulted over a Bill like this? How is native opinion going to be affected by this? It is not a case any longer of maintaining the old practice which has been existing in the Transvaal. This is a new law on the Statute Book of the Union to apply to the whole Union, and how is it going to affect native opinion? We have several times given the natives what amounts to a pledge that, as they are not represented in this House, whenever large questions affecting them are brought forward, they will be consulted. We have constituted special machinery in order to provide for the consultation of the natives. I would ask the Prime Minister, have the natives been consulted; have the Native Affairs Commission been consulted, and what is their opinion over a question like this? I am afraid we are going to raise enormous difficulties and the position of the Prime Minister, after this Bill is through, will be very unenviable in his relations with the natives in this country. An hon. member has asked what about the connection of this with the segregation policy. The Prime Minister has said to the natives of this country: “Our policy is to give you areas where you can develop yourselves; we do not wish you to be mixed up with the whites. We will give you full scope in your own areas.” That scope has not been given; the segregation policy has not yet been put in force and it will probably take a long time before it is put in force. We have read the proceedings of the Native Affairs Commission which has been travelling about the interior and which has been trying to get the views of people on the segregation policy and suitable areas for natives. We have seen everywhere objection raised by the agricultural community against setting aside new ground for natives. We are left with this position, that, before there is segregation, before any scope is given to the natives to develop in their own areas and before there is any definite prospect that such areas will ever be given them, they are here, by the law of the land, pressed down into the depths. You here, by the law of the land, tell them that this country, this country of their’s just as much as our’s, has no place for them. I do not wish to attack the Government for this, I only wish to bring home to all of us the extreme gravity of the situation. The Minister of the Interior has brought a Bill into this House by which the natives of this country are going to be declared South Africans. Every British subject who has been born in this country, will henceforth be a South African, not only the whites, but the natives just as well. While the Minister of the Interior is declaring every native a South African, his colleague is bringing in a Bill under which we are going to declare to the natives “you shall in future be debarred from rising above the level of hewers of wood and drawers of water.” I am all for the white man, but there is something in my breast that cannot stand this. I feel that this is not honest dealing. I feel that we are not even ensuring our own position, we are now securing our own position by making such a provision as this. We read to-day a great deal about the question of security. What is the fear at the heart of Europe? One nation against the other all asking for security. And we have thousands and tens of thousands of people in South Africa who are actuated by similar feelings of fear. We also want security for white civilization. My deliberate opinion is that there is only one way of security and that is honest, plain dealing and justice between man and man in this country. Nothing else will give us security. There is no doubt about that. I know that is the intention of all of us and I do not say this in criticism of any party or of the Government, but I do say that this Bill which we are asked to sanction on the present occasion lays down a precedent in the history of South Africa, establishes a precedent of injustice, of inequality and unfair dealing, that will recoil upon the white races more than upon anybody else in this country. If there is any other way of meeting the difficulty in which the Minister and the Government find themselves let us explore it. Do not let us look upon this as a Bill that we are going to force through at all costs, but let us pool our wisdom and intelligence to see whether we cannot overcome this trouble without putting this blot on the Statute Book of South Africa. I regret profoundly that the Minister has increased the difficulty by putting the Asiatic here too. In the old days, when I was negotiating with Mr. Gandhi, I found the position he took up was this: No doubt when my hon. friend the Prime Minister goes to London this year he will find himself in the same position. Mr. Gandhi took up this attitude. He said:” Do not dishonour us. We recognize that there is a difference between you and us. We recognize that there must be distinctions, but do not cast a stigma upon us in the laws of your country. Here the very thing which we were asked to avoid and have sedulously avoided all these years the Minister do.es. He walks into the very trouble which we have strained every nerve to avoid. I am very sorry this has been done. By doing this we are gathering on our heads the hatred of the whole of Asia from one end to the other. Every Asiatic people is branded here in this Bill. If it becomes the law of the land, take it from me we shall feel the weight of that in years to come. In its implications this Bill will be taken as an outrage and an insult not only by black Africa but by yellow Asia. I see opposite me a party which has stood for an independent South Africa, and so far as I can make out they still stand for the right of secession, the right of South Africa to go her own way among the nations of the world. How is that secured with this policy which we are embarking on here to-day—a handful of whites beginning its lonely way on this continent, and declaring war on black Africa and flouting and insulting Asia from one end to the other? My intention was to move that this Order be discharged and the subject matter be referred to a Select Committee, but I feel if I do so the Government will at once accept that as a challenge. They will think I am challenging a fight. No doubt when it comes to a fight, whatever forces outside this House we on this side represent, we shall be steam-rollered. I do not want it to be thought that we want to challenge the Government, but I am most anxious to get out of the Bill in its present form which the Prime Minister and the country will find a source of endless mischief in the future. I think we should narrow the issue. One great mistake here is the departure from the colour bar as 4t was in the old Transvaal. I think we should not go a single step beyond the old colour bar. That is the first bit of advice I might give the hon. Minister, if I might presume to advise so wise a person. The second is this: Let us separate the Asiatic from this native question. I think it is a great mistake to mix up the two. The Asiatic question stands on a very different footing. It is a very urgent question and the Government will be pressed very early to deal with it. I trust the Government will bring forward their considered policy with regard to the Asiatic, but this is not the place to raise it. We are trying to find a solution of a specific difficulty which has arisen in the Transvaal mines. Let us separate these problems; each is big enough on its own account. While we should consider the restricting of the colour bar to its previous basis, I would also ask that the Asiatic be eliminated from this Bill. Not many Asiatic persons are directly affected by the provisions of the Bill, but hundreds of millions are indirectly affected through the stigma which is placed upon them. Let us explore some other way of meeting the difficulty. There are hon. members in this House who have given this matter every consideration. I have given it a good deal of consideration myself, and in any Select Committee which will consider the matter I am prepared to bear my full share of the work. No doubt we have a colour bar in the South Africa Act. Let us leave it there; it is fundamental. Do not pile on the agony and do not make the position of the white man in South Africa impossible. Do not ring-fence him in with the hatred of all the other races. I would suggest to the Government—I am not going to move an amendment—but I would suggest that we discharge the Order for the second reading and put our heads together to see if some other way out cannot be found. If we do not do that there is not a person here who will not regret it, whose children and grand-children will not regret the evil results which will arise, evil results beyond the foresight of any man here to-day to perceive. I have spent my life with these difficulties and I know that this sort of thing is making the life of the white man in South Africa impossible. I hope, therefore, it will be possible for us to find some other way of meeting this difficulty which will help this country on to a saner and sounder policy than we have followed hitherto.

I very much regret I lack the eloquence of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. After a speech lasting half-on-hour he has not even told the House whether or not he is in favour of this Bill. I think not only he but everybody in this House will regret that the big native question has not been tackled and settled, but whose fault is that? If legislation has not been passed in the last few years, whose fault is that but the hon. gentleman’s? It is no good the hon. gentleman coming to this House and regretting that legislation was not passed by his own Government. The hon. gentleman said that the present Government had no mandate in regard to this matter. I say the strike on the Rand gave an unmistakable mandate that here should be some protection for the white man against the encroachments of the natives and Asiatics in the fields of employment. And what about the General Election? Did not the hon. gentleman hear of the questions put to candidates, asking them if they would see the old colour bar restored? That is our mandate. Then the hon. gentleman asked had the natives been consulted about this? I wonder how far the old Government consulted the natives before they brought forward the former colour bar which was declared by the Courts ultra vires. I look on this measure as something which will restore the status quo, something which will restore that which was taken away from the white men on the Witwatersrand by force of arms. This matter has a long and painful history I know. I have heard the suggestions of the hon. member who would have us consider this question from the point of view of the rights of man. I have lived in Europe myself and there I was probably as good an exponent of the rights of man as was the hon. member. But Europe is a different place entirely from South Africa where you have men of a highly civilized standard living next door to men who are practically savages. Here self-preservation is the first law of Nature. The native himself would not listen to any diatribe about the rights of man if he had you in a corner. The hon. member represents a good many of these people, and is entitled to put their view for ward in this House. I am not saying anything against that. There have been many hundreds of instances on the Witwatersrand where white men’s lives have been endangered by the lack of any sense of danger in natives who were entrusted with work for which they were not fitted. Then as to the standard of living, it is the wages which a man earns that determines his standard of life and until some attempt is made to establish wages which should be paid to workmen in this country to enable them to maintain a decent standard of life, what is there to prevent their being dragged down to the very low wage level of the kaffir? The Mines and Works Act provisions are provisions which are contained in the Factory Acts of other countries. Those provisions, generally speaking, are for the protection of the health and safety of the work-people and for the protection of the property of the employer. Many people would support the insertion of the colour bar into these regulations for the purpose of protecting property alone. Others to protect the workmen and to prevent the white man’s wages being dragged down to the level of the natives. It can be defended on either of these grounds. We never heard anything in the Transvaal or the Free State before Union about the rights of man and the colour bar. Cape members representing native and coloured voters were in such a majority in the governing party in 1911 that they practically compelled the Government to drop the colour bar.

You could look right through Hansard and the colour bar is not mentioned.

We had the assurance of the Government of those days that it would be possible for the Government to do exactly what was wanted by virtue of the regulations promulgated under the Act, and the Government carried that assurance out. It was known, however, before the regulations were promulgated, that this particular provision was ultra vires. But something else happened to protect the workers against native competition. The war broke out soon after the Act came into force, and there was a great shortage of workers at once. For a time the winning of gold was considered essential for winning the war, though we know now that that was a great fallacy. For two years, however, the mines were left entirely out of the scope for recruiting; indeed, it was almost a crime to recruit at a mine. However, the contingents did not fill up sufficiently well, and the barrier was removed, the recruiting committees had access to the mines and naturally the first people who went were the strong men, the blacksmiths, drill-sharpeners, and so on, and the mineowners had to get other workmen to take their places. The only people available were the black men who had been assisting in these occupations and these men were called upon to take the skilled white men’s jobs at very low wages. That is what happened in the Transvaal. There were many inroads into various occupations notably drill-sharpening, but after the first few years there was a great outcry. It was not convenient at that time to the mineowners to have a strike, so the status quo agreement was passed. But later, when the men had returned from the war and there was a surplus of labour, that status quo agreement was, with the assistance of the Government, abolished. Then came the decision of the Supreme Court, viz., that the regulations promulgated under the Mines, Works and Machinery Act were ultra vires. Thus every protection which the workers previously had against the low wage competition of the natives was swept away. From that time till the present the demand has been insistent that an Act such as this should be passed. I regret we have to vote for this temporary expedient, because the Minister of Labour is going to introduce a measure which is going to lead to standard wages based upon civilized standards of life being paid in South Africa. Unfortunately, this will take anything up to ten years to become operative, or I would not consider this Bill necessary to-day. There is nothing existant to-day to deal with the under-cutting of wages that is still going on. We have seen it here in Cape Town, first the coloured man under cutting the white, and then the native coming into the town and undercutting the coloured man. The latter is now squealing for a colour bar against the native. That is what we find here, and shows the necessity for the Bill which the hon. the Minister for Labour is going to introduce into this House in a very short while. There is another thing which naturally brings down the whole civilized standard of life of the workers in this country, and which many will deplore. Many of us in the early days looked for a solution on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). We thought then that as the standard of civilization of the natives and coloured men were raised nearer to our level, they would try to improve and sustain that standard and demand higher wages. I am afraid, however, that the white man will be brought a long way down towards the level of the coloured man and the native before that will happen. But in any case how is that going to come about when you pour uncivilized natives over the borders at the other end of the Union by tens of thousands? Those natives are being used as a check against the civilized natives in this country in their demand for increased wages in order that they may reach a higher standard of civilization. These natives are kept in a state of servitude, and are a constant drag not only upon ourselves, but upon the coloured man and the natives of the Union. We have to get that stopped before we can think of abolishing the colour bar. Every worker on the Witwatersrand has demanded this being put into force until some other form of protection against the encroachment of low wage servile natives is put in its place, and therefore we on these benches intend to support this measure as a temporary paliative.

The hon. member who has just sat down has treated this question almost entirely as though it related only to the Witwatersrand gold mines. It seems to me he has disregarded the more important aspects of the question with which we have now to deal. I suppose we may take it from the hon. member’s speech—the hon. member being a prominent supporter of the party opposite—that the Government are not prepared to accept the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and this matter must be fought out on the floor of the House. Well, I share the view of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that it will be a bad day for this Parliament, and a bad day for South Africa, when we are called upon to vote on a question like this. It seems to me that the hon. Minister made it a great point, that it was necessary to restore the status quo in the interest of the white man, especially on the Witwatersrand, but is it not the fact that he would really have gained more if he had left the whole matter alone, because so far as I am able to ascertain there has been, and is going on now, very little interference on the Rand with the practice which has prevailed for a good many years past. How that practice grew up it is easy to see. Years ago, when the regulation which has been found to be ultra vires was passed, the country was simply continuing a practice which had grown up in the days when most of the unskilled labour on the Rand was indentured labour. People had been accustomed to rely upon the Portuguese indentured labour, and, at a later date, upon Chinese labour, and it was not until afterwards that a number of natives from the rest of South Africa and from the Cape Province in particular were employed on the mines. The number of natives increased in that way to a large extent, and owing to the fact that many of these natives were of a far more civilized type than those on whom the mining industry relied previously, people began to see that this system could not last. I do not know exactly the circumstances under which the particular judgment referred to came to pass, but it seems to me that in any case, some such question was bound to arise. The feeling of the natives throughout South Africa is growing, the feeling that they are not going to be hewers of wood and drawers of water and nothing higher. Every year the native is going to assert himself more and more. He is going to press his claim for greater consideration, for despite the many times expressed intention of the white races that they were going to uplift him in the world and raise his standard of civilization he is not satisfied with what has taken place. And what is going to happen as a result of the hon. Minister’s Bill? The first thing is that that feeling among the natives is going to be enormously accentuated. The native will look upon this as an outward and visible sign of the intention of the Government and the people who put them into power to keep the native down. But the native is striving to rise in the standard of civilization, and if he finds that he is to be kept despite his efforts in an entirely subordinate position, agitation is bound to arise to a greater degree than would otherwise have been the case as a result of the debate which is now going on. A great many people would have been content to leave matters as they were, but they will now be forced into the open to declare their sympathy with the natives’ aspirations, and in future they are bound to respond more freely than would otherwise have been the case to the appeal of the natives. The volume of opinion in favour of removing the injustice of the colour bar is bound in consequence of the action of the Government to increase to an enormous extent. I think the Government would have been well advised if they had left the matter alone. Really, it does seem to me that they are flying in the face of trouble. If they had contented themselves with restoring the position which existed on the mines of the Witwatersrand there might have been something to be said. That decision would have appealed to a good many people, at any rate, on this side of the House; there would have been a good deal more excuse for the action of the Government. As a matter of fact, however, they are extending the colour bar right and left, they are making it apply to a large number of further regulations which: had previously nothing whatever to do with it, and, more than that, they are making it apply not merely to the Transvaal, where this regulation has been in force before, but they are taking powers to apply it to any industry throughout the whole of South Africa.

That was the case under the existing regulation.

Yes, but the hon. Minister quite well knows it was never intended, and no attempt was ever made to apply that regulation anywhere except on the mines. And now he is taking expressly the power to extend this regulation throughout the Union, and it seems to me that really it is hardly too much to say that it might become a criminal offence for a native to drive a motor-car or be placed in charge of any small engine on a farm, or anything of that kind. It is surely going to unreasonable limits. Then, the hon. Minister takes some credit to himself, I suppose, for the fact that he does not propose to apply this power to the coloured man. Well, I do not know, but I suppose many people “This is a plain warning, it is the uncivilized man’s turn now; it will be the coloured man’s turn next.” After all, what is the justification for this? The hon. Minister and his supporters here have talked about the question of safety. But surely some of their arguments are beside the mark. Nobody has suggested that certificates of competency should be given to any incompetent person; the whole wording of the law implies that the real test of whether a man is to do certain work or not is whether he is competent to do that work. By all means make your regulation as regards competency as strict as you like, but how is it possible to bring in a law the ostensible object of which is to deny competency to a man because his skin is a different colour? The man with a black skin to to be called competent under no circumstances whatever. The hon. Minister will probably say that there is practically no intention of putting these regulations into force outside the mining industry.

He says he will not.

I understood him to say that the question of the treatment to be accorded to natives in this respect, in the Cape Province and Natal, would receive the most careful consideration. Perhaps the hon. Minister will tell us how far it is supposed to carry these proposals into effect in the Cape Province. There is one thing, it seems to me, to follow, that all this mass of legislation, of which this is apparently one of the first steps, is going to have one effect beyond the shadow of a doubt. Some of the Bills begin with a preamble that they do not apply to the farming industry. That may be so, but it will be very difficult in many cases to decide what is farming and what is not, and I suggest to my farmer friends that many of them will find it very difficult at no distant date, if this Bill comes into force, when the hon. Minister tries to apply its regulations, especially in the Cape Province, to prove in the face of trades union agitation that it will not apply to them. It will be difficult for them to show where they have some small pieces of machinery on their farms that they are not subject to this restriction. I hope that when that time comes they will remember the warning of my right hon. friend. Then, Sir, with regard to the Asiatics: why is it necessary to bring in another bone of contention. It has already been pointed out how dangerous is a policy of that kind, and I need not elaborate this, I will say, however, that any man who reads the papers to-day must know of the serious and dangerous state of affairs that exists in many of the eastern parts of the Empire, and I cannot imagine that, if the hon. Minister had had any consideration whatever for the difficulties under which the British Government suffers to-day in regard to their problems in India and elsewhere, he would have chosen this particular moment to bring in a Bill which, as has been stated by the right hon. gentleman here, is going to cause great irritation in the minds of millions of his Majesty’s subjects in India. We had hoped perhaps, that in response to the invitation of my right hon. friend, the Minister would have shown some intention to meet us in this matter but he is not prepared to do so, and must take the consequences.

On the motion of Mr. Van Hees, the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.