I have moved—

1. (a) what amendments, if any it recommends; and
2. (b) generally upon the merits of the scheme embodied in the Bill.”

May I say at the outset that the wording of the amendment is not my own handiwork. The provision for reference of a Bill to the Provincial Council is embodied in the Standing Rules and Orders enumerated in my amendment, and the purpose of this amendment as will be readily seen by hon. members is to avoid any overlapping between the exercise of the legislative powers of this House and the exercise of the legislative powers of the Provincial Councils. It must be abundantly clear that when this House legislates upon any matter which is properly within the sphere of a Provincial Council this House would desire to avoid any suggestion of taking away, abrogating or invading the powers or the sphere of the Provincial Council. In this instance the whole question is one which will, if the Bill does pass, fall to be administered by the Municipal Council under the authority of the Provincial Council of the Province of Natal. And although the subject matter of this Bill has from time to time been before the Natal Provincial Council in one form or another this particular Bill has never been before the Provincial Council, and if it were to be passed in its present or even its amended form we should lay ourselves open to the charge of having passed a law relating to a matter within the purview of the Provincial Council without the consultation of the Council referred to, and of having presented them merely with an accomplished fact without having had an opinion from them. It will be clear to hon. members that the object of the Standing Rules and Orders is to prevent any such overlapping. Hon. members will see that the Standing Rules and Orders provide that this course of reference to the Provincial Council can take place at any stage, and therefore it is a very imperative and overriding clause. The Rules were drafted by authorities who were well versed in the effect of the various clauses of the Act of Union, and they were conceived in the spirit of giving the Provincial Councils powers to deal with matters affecting them within their own sphere subject, of course, to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the Act of Union. Now there are many reasons why the amendment which I move should receive the consideration of the House. I shall endeavour to mention those reasons in the order of their importance, and I am confident that they will appeal to the thoughtful mind of this House. We do not wish to be accused of invading the sphere of the Provincial Councils in any manner whatever.

Is that your only reason?

No, that is one reason. I shall name them in the order of their importance. We do not wish to appear to be legislating for Municipal Councils without reference to the Provincial Councils in view of the explicit nature of Section 85 of the South Africa Act. That Act specifies the various subjects which are within the sphere of Provincial Councils, and it goes further. Under Section 87 of the Act of Union you will find it stated that the Provincial Council can frame an Ordinance and recommend to Parliament the passing of that Ordinance if it feels that it has not the power to deal with it expressly. The amendment which I have in my name is expressly permitted by the Standing Rules and Orders. As I have said the substance of my amendment is embodied in the Standing Rules themselves and those Standing Rules have been in force since the early days of Union. Since that time the wording has been slightly amended but in substance they are the same. They were considered necessary for the guidance of members whenever legislation of a Provincial character was introduced. And although it is laid down that Parliament is supreme, it is also understood that it should proceed with consultation of the Provincial Councils, whenever legislating on Provincial matters. The Minister of Finance by reason of his distinguished service in the high office of Administrator of the Transvaal and of his study of the Provincial system will be accepted by most of us in this House as well as by many beyond its confines as one of the highest, if not the highest, authority on the Provincial system, and in February, 1941, he expressed himself very clearly as to whether the Provincial Councils had the power to legislate for a Municipal Savings Bank.

The Law advisers did not agree with me.

I want to quote what he said. It will be found in Hansard, 1941, on page 3034. Dealing with the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Umbilo, the hon. Minister said—

That was a very clear expression of opinion as regards a Bill which was one that could properly be dealt with by the Provincial Council. And then, sir, in regard to the undesirability of interfering with the Provincial Councils’ legislative power the hon. Minister said at a later stage—

He went on to say—

It is to correct that tendency, which is inherent in this Bill, to cut out the Provincial Councils that my amendment is being moved. It was always competent for me to move that amendment, but I have moved it at this stage because I can see a grave danger of our legislating for the Provincial Council, and imposing certain duties on the Administrator and his Council without any reference whatever to those authorities, and merely proceeding as though they did not exist. That would be, to my mind, a negation of the policy which the hon. Minister enunciated on behalf of the Government, and it might cause considerable complication. On the matter of a party vote on this matter, the hon. Minister on that occasion left it to the free vote of the House, and I hope in view of the non-party character of this debate and of the fact that this Bill has not been introduced by the Government, he would extend this privilege to hon. members and allow them to give a free vote on this matter. Before I leave these quotations from the Minister, I want to say that he mentioned in 1941 that there was a possibility in regard to the financial provisions of the Bill, of undermining the authority of financial control which the Provinces have to exercise over municipal institutions. There is still a possibility that these borrowing powers may be extended without reference to the Provincial Council. When once this House has embarked upon Union legislation to deal with municipal matters, they must realise that any amendment of this legislation must come to this House, and having introduced the principle of legislating for the Provincial Council in matters which belong to the sphere of that body, we should have to perpetuate it by legislating for any amendment that may be considered necessary to the parent Bill. The Minister, in dealing with the question of financial control, said by giving municipalities the power proposed in this Bill they would be undermining in a very important respect the financial control which the Provinces should exercise. The Minister said—

The passages I have quoted from the speech of the Minister of Finance deal with basic principles of policy, and any change in his views cannot change those bedrock principles. I do not propose to deal with the merits of the Bill, because I should imagine I would be ruled out of order if I attempted to do that, but I hope I may be allowed to say that it was claimed when the Bill passed the second reading, that it had very strong support from the City of Durban. There has been an election of the City Council since that date, and the results have not been such as to bear out the statements made by the promoters of the Bill in the matter I have mentioned. I shall leave it to others to be more precise on that matter, because I am not a representative of any of the constituencies in the City of Durban. Let met add that I have no interest in any building society; nor do I hold a share or a pennyworth of capital in any such institution. In my amendment I am not dealing with the merits of the Bill, I am dealing with a more enduring matter, and that is the’ undesirability of invading the sphere of the Provincial Councils in legislative matters, and so I hope this amendment of mine will appeal to the House. Hon. members of this House realise the functions of Provincial Councils, they have no desire to stultify those bodies, they wish, as far as this House is concerned, not to be accused of anything which savours of introducing disharmony between the Provincial Councils and the Union Parliament. The present stage of the Bill seems to me to be the appropriate one for a reference of this matter to the Provincial Council. Last Session we passed the second reading of this Bill, and we have not yet entered upon its provisions in detail, which are of such a character that the hon. Minister contemplates the introduction of far-reaching amendments at the Committee stage. This, therefore, seems to me to be the proper stage at which to invite an expression of opinion from the Provincial Council, so that when we proceed to the Committee stage we shall have before us the amendments suggested or proposed by the Provincial Council when we are considering the far-reaching amendments which the Minister of Finance himself will introduce. We shall then have the opportunity of dealing with all these matters at one and the same time, and we shall proceed in an orderly manner. I would like to mention that the Bill actually imposes on the Administrator a number of fresh duties and obligations, while at no stage of the Bill has either he or the Provincial Council had any opportunity of intimating their acquiesence in those duties, or their ability to carry them out. We are therefore, sir, placing ourselves in this position; we claim to impose upon the Administrator duties in his own sphere, we are interfering with legislation which he and the Provincial Council can properly deal with, and we merely hand to him a readymade instruction as to how he shall set about his duties in regard to the Bill. I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that the City Council of Durban has spent upwards of £3,000, it may be more, in order to promote the Bill in this House, and the effect of that was to enable the promoters to travel outside the reach of individual objectors to the Bill, who have limited resources at their command. The whole of the resources of the Town Council were available to enable the promoters of the Bill to travel outside the sphere of the objectors, and to promote their Bill at a long distance from those who objected to it. My amendment will very properly bring the measure within the reach of the opponents of the Bill, and also I may say within the reach of the promoters by referring it to a body which under the rules is bound to follow the procedure of a Select Committee. The purpose of that, sir—my amendment meditates that—the purpose of the Select Committee is to render the actual proposals easily accessible to the man in the street. Every person interested, whether a promoter or an objector, who has any germane testimony to offer, will then be able to go to Maritzburg from Durban to present his case. On behalf of the objectors, I ask that this House will give ear to the amendment, and agree to the adoption of the proposal standing in my name.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has raised the question of the Government’s attitude in regard to this Bill. He has asked whether this will be left to the free vote of the House. I think it was hardly necessary for him to ask that question, as the answer was given when the second reading was under discussion. I would merely repeat what I said then. “It is not a Government Bill, but a private Bill, and it is therefore open to the free decision of the House.” That still stands. I have therefore no intention to get up to take part in this particular debate, which seems to me to be a somewhat unnecessary debate but I feel I must do so in so far as a wrong impression may have been created by the reference which the hon. member for Illovo made to myself. He quoted and referred at some length to what I had said two years ago, but then I was not speaking about this Bill, I was speaking about a different Bill.

What is the difference?

It might have been appropriate if the hon. member had quoted what I said about this Bill last year, that would have been more appropriate to this discussion. The hon. member has in particular referred to the fact that I had indicated that in my opinion the main point raised by the Bill introduced two years ago by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) was one of a provincial nature. Well, Sir, I referred to that last year, and I am going to read what I said last year.

What is the difference?

If my hon. friend will listen to me I will give him the answer. When the Bill of the hon. member for Umbilo was before the House in 1941, I supported an amendment to the effect that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and I then went on to say why I had supported that amendment—

I held then (as I may say in all humility I still hold)—

The hon. member, therefore, has no right to quote the objection on constitusional grounds made two years ago, and which I have since withdrawn for perfectly good reasons stated by me in this House. Then, Sir, I went on to explain the other reason why I had supported that motion in connection with the Bill of the hon. member for Umbilo, which was that the Bill was too wide and too far-reaching. I went on to point out that the Bill differed substantially from the previous Bill, to which I had taken that exception. I said this—

In the second place, I went on to say, and this is very important from the point of view of my hon. friend, that in the second place this Bill does definitely recognise the principle of provincial control. I objected to the previous Bill because it did not recognise that principle, and I specifically said last year that the new Bill did recognise that principle, and therefore my objection, from that point of view, fell away. On that occasion I said last year that while I considered that from the financial point of view amendments to the Bill were necessary, my objections in principle which I had advanced to the previous Bill, were no longer valid against the present Bill. I think I have now sufficiently made my position quite clear, and I can only express my regret that the researches of the hon. member for Illovo stopped in 1941 and did not go on to 1942.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the amendment from one point of view and that is on the question of the feelings and wishes of the people of Durban in this matter. During the debate last Session, it was represented that this Bill was presented to the House to meet the wishes of the people of Durban who were unable to secure fulfilment of their wishes, because of the obstruction raised in the Provincial Council. I ventured on that occasion to say that this Bill had never been presented to the people of Durban, and I added that in my opinion if it were so presented, the people of Durban would reject it. I based that opinion on certain resolutions passed by ward associations which were communicated to me, and on my knowledge of the members of those associations. Now the position is different; a municipal election has taken place in Durban, and this Bill has been placed in the forefront of the platform of one party in Durban. That election affected eight seats in the City Council. Of those, two candidates were returned unopposed. Five seats were contested by councillors who respectively were publicly accepted as opponents and supporters of this Bill. One seat was contested by two candidates who both proclaimed that they were supporters of this Bill. Now here we have five seats in the City Council which can be accepted as indicating the feeling and wishes of the people of Durban in this matter. In those five contests every supporter of this Bill was defeated. The Bill was made a prominent plank in the Labour Party s policy, as is shown by the following appeal for Labour unity issued by S. J. Smith, the organiser of the United Labour front

These two candidates who would not support the Bill were both elected, in each case by a majority of votes over both their opponents put together.

I am afraid this has not much to do with either the motion before the House or the amendment.

I thought I might be allowed to mention this because the hon. mover of the amendment referred to this matter. I did so merely to confirm the fact that the people of Durban have now expressed at the polls their wishes in connection with this Bill.

I think this debate has shown the futility of the Dominion Party. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), sir, has expressed a very pious concern about the chosen functions of the Natal Provincial Council, and the only argument that the hon. gentleman has advanced this afternoon was a fear that the functions of the Natal Provincial Council were being taken away by the Union Parliament. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that big business, the trust companies and the building societies have more eloquent and consistent advocates in this House than the hon. gentlemen on those benches. I do not think they are really concerned about the powers and functions of the Provincial Councils; actually they are more concerned that certain business may be taken away from the building societies and the trust companies. If one examines their speeches last Session one finds that the underlying motive in all those speeches was the desire to show that the public is being served adequately by the building societies and trust companies, and the Durban Corporation should not be permitted to intrude upon their grounds.

There is not a word of truth in that.

The hon. gentleman says there is not a word of truth in that.

Yes, I do.

But strangely enough the whole matter was thrashed out in Select Committee, and again it was not the Durban Corporation who opposed the Bill in Select Committee, nor the Provincial Council. The only people who actually opposed the Bill in Select Committee were the building societies and trust companies, and as a result of the deliberations of the Select Committee the preamble was agreed to with one dissentient, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). He was not open to persuasion, sir, and although I feel confident he felt it was the right thing to do to allow me the introduction of the Bill, he was prevailed upon to vote against it. That was the only opposition in Select Committee. Now the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Hooper) has given the House a resume of the result of recent Council Elections in Durban, and with great pride informed us that all the supporters of the Savings Bank Bill were defeated at that election, I believe with the exception of one. Strangely enough, if that was the issue at the election, one would have at least expected the Durban Corporation to pass a similar resolution, and to inform the House that they had now decided the Bill should not be introduced and passed. But we have heard nothing from the Durban Corporation, only from the hon. member for Durban (Berea), who stated that the people of Durban, as a whole, have now decided against this Bill.

You have overlooked the rules of the Town Council, or you do not know anything about it.

Probably I do not know anything about them, nor have I any desire to know about the Durban Council. I am only concerned about one matter, and that is a private Bill in this House which will enable the Corporation of Durban to provide better housing accommodation. As we view the matter, housing is an essential problem in South Africa; it is essential that all facilities should be granted to any body or society which can provide houses, especially for the smaller wage earner.

’How many loans have been taken by Durban already?

The position at the moment with regard to the provision of housing is this, that there is such an acute shortage of houses that the prices of properties have risen to an unprecedented degree, and it is impossible for the small purchaser to buy a house at all today. I want to say this, that it is not my intention to give unqualified support to this Bill. There are one or two matters which I consider of sufficient importance to bring to the notice of hon. members now.

I think the hon. member should confine himself to the motion and the amendment. He can deal with other matters when the House goes into committee.

Will I not be permitted to state now for what reasons I am prepared to give qualified support to the Bill?

It is purely a matter of referring the matter to the Provincial Council, and the motion.

I will then take the opportunity of moving the necessary amendments at the Committee stage, but I feel that in the interests of the smaller wage earner in Durban, the House should agree to the re-introduction of the Bill.

I was particularly interested to hear the hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Hooper), rise to oppose this motion, because the hon. member for Berea has been one of the most outspoken opponents of this Bill, and part of the Dominion Party case has been that the people of Durban do not want this Bill, so the hon. member for Berea, in an excess of zeal, went back to Durban during the recess, and the hon. member called three meetings of protest against this Bill.

More than three.

I understand he called three meetings of protest. The total attendance at the three meetings was 45 persons. As a matter of fact, he sort of reached the highest peak of Durban popularity at the last meeting when actually three people turned up to listen to him. Having listened to him myself in this House, I am not at all surprised. As a mater of fact, I do not know what was wrong with the three people who attended the meeting. But that is the truth. The hon. member talks very glibly here. What actually did happen at the last municipal election was that four members of the Town Council were due to retire. One member was returned unopposed. The other member, who was particularly responsible for this Bill, Sen. Sidney Smith, the man whose baby the Bill actually is, was returned by a majority of 500 and incidentally his opponent was an independent Labour man who is in favour of the Bill. There we had the position that we had two Labour men fighting one another, and every vote cast there was a vote in favour of the Bill because both the contending candidates were in favour of the Bill. At the other seat, which incidentally is in my own constituency, the Labour Party lost the seat, but the candidate who was successful despite the fact that he was asked on numerous occasions to say “Yes” or “No” to the Bill, has up to now not said whether he is in favour or whether he is against it. Let me say a word or two to my rural friend from Illovo (Mr. Marwick). When my hon. friend leaves the fastnesses of Illovo and comes to the more rarified atmosphere of Durban, he displays an abysmal ignorance for one who has been in this House for so long. He ought to know that it is competent for the Durban City Council at any time to pass a resolution withdrawing this Bill.

No, it requires a two-thirds majority.

It is not a two-thirds majority at all. The fact of the matter is that the Durban City Council decided to introduce this Bill last Session. As a matter of fact, I was first asked, and when I became sick, the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer), was asked, but this Bill did not pass through this House last Session, so it was necessary for another resolution to be passed asking that this Bill be re-introduced this Session.

It has not done so.

That is the position. I do not know whether that resolution has been passed. My hon. friend must not wave his finger at me like that. The position is that if this terrific landslide had occurred at the last municipal elections, as suggested by my hon. friend, the Durban City Council could have decided not to proceed with this Bill. Incidentally the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Hooper) was asked at the last election to fight the issue on the Bank Bill. The hon. member was requested by Sen. Smith to take part in a public debate in the City Hall on the Bank Bill, and he refused on the ground that Sen. Smith had insulted the Dominion Party in the Other Place. How anyone can insult the Dominion Party in the Other Place passes my understanding.

Order, order!

Sen. Smith apologised and said that in view of the fact that the Dominion Party felt peeved—and the Dominion Party is peeved very easily—Sen. Smith suggested that I should debate the matter.

It is not correct to say that. The matter was dealt with by my colleagues and they asked me to give effect to their wishes.

Actually the explanation makes it a bit worse, but I thought it was only a piece of political backwardness on the part of the hon. member for Berea; now it appears it was a piece of political backwardness on the part of the whole Dominion Party. But the point was that Sen. Smith had apparently insulted them, and when my own name was substituted, the Dominion Party refused to discuss it. If the people of Durban do not want this, why are they afraid to discuss it in public? Surely the hon. member for Berea is not afraid of me as a public speaker?

He is a much better speaker than you are.

Of course. He has more brains than I have, too, and he knows a great deal less about the Bill than I do, too, which in front of a Dominion Party audience is a very good thing indeed. To come now to the hon. member for Illovo; where is the interest of the hon. member in this particular Bill? The hon. member for Illovo represents a rural constituency? The hon. member for Illovo in his rural constituency has not got to come face to face every day with an acute housing shortage. The hon. member has not got to deal with the problems of a city. If the hon. member for Illovo wants to talk about scab and other stock diseases, the House can be forgiven for listening to him, but when the hon. member starts poking his nose into the affairs of Durban, then I say the House is not called upon to listen to him.

I have lived in Durban for 20 years.

That is not to your credit. I am sorry, I should not have said that, but this is a matter which affects very intimately the people of Durban. I am not going to suggest that this Bill is something which is going to reorganise the whole financial life of the country, but in Durban we are faced with a grave housing shortage.

Due to the war.

Everything is blamed on the war, and it does not make any difference whether or not it is due to the war, because after the war we will have to solve it. One of the things that is causing that shortage is the fact that there is not enough money available.

What about the amendment?

I am coming to that in a minute. One of the things that has caused this acute shortage is the fact that there is not sufficent money available. I say that everything that will assist us in building houses should receive the consent and assent of the House. It does not matter in what form the measure comes before this House, but if it aims at giving houses to the people of Durban, it should receive the assent of the House, and that is the main idea. The point that appeals most particularly to me in the Bill is the fact that it is a small effort on the part of the Durban City Council towards building houses for the people. I am not interested in the Building Societies; I am not interested in the Trust Companies which are standing in the way of this scheme. We need houses in Durban and we are urgently in need of houses. It must be remembered that we have 20,000 more people in Durban today than we had before the war. The house scarcity in Durban is something to which this House should pay attention. If you have children today in Durban, you cannot get a house at all. Where the future generation is going to come from I do not know, but the fact is that if you have children you cannot get a house. Now let me come back to the Provincial Council. That is the most specious argument of all because the hon. member for Illovo knows full well that on three occasions the Durban City Council placed this Bill before the Natal Provincial Council. (Interruptions). What has struck me most about this discussion is the fact that most of the people who talk most about the Bill do not come from Durban at all. I was saying that on three occasions the Durban City Council placed this Bill before the Natal Provincial Council. Subsequently it transpired that on each occasion there was a suggestion that the Government would not give its assent to the Bill, even if it were passed by the Natal Provincial Council, and so I introduced the Bill two years ago myself. As a result of the discussions and the view taken by the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) both legal gentlemen, I let the Bill slide, and the Bill was again re-introduced in the Natal Provincial Council. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the Natal Provincial Council, but before the first meeting of that Select Committee a letter was received from the Minister of the Interior by the Chairman of that committee, stating that it was the considered opinion of the law advisors of the Government that the Provincial Council could not discuss a Bill of that description, and that if the Bill were passed the Government would have no option but to refuse assent, and so the Select Committee of the Natal Provincial Council decided—I happened to be at the meeting myself—the Select Committee of the Natal Provincial Council decided that no good purpose could be served by carrying on the investigations, and so the point was settled.

What was the finding of the Select Committee?

The Select Committee never had any discussion on this because the Select Committee had this letter from the Minister, and in view of the contents of the letter which said that it was beyond the powers of the Provincial Council, the Select Committee did not take any evidence, and the Bill was thrown out. It has taken us all these years to get some kind of finality as to whether it is a matter for Parliament or whether it is a matter for the Provincial Council. The Durban City Council took the matter to the Appeal Division in Natal and to the Appellate Division in Durban, and on both occasions they lost, so it seems to be settled; whatever opinion may be held by the Minister and whatever opinion may be held even by the hon. member for Illovo, it would seem that this is a question for Parliament pure and simple.

The Appellate Division did not say so.

The Appellate Division refused to express an opinion. I do not know whether it is possible to get the Appellate Division to give an opinion in a case like that. So my hon. friend is just argueing himself to absurdities, which is nothing unusual for him. We in Durban prefer that the matter should be thrashed out in the Natal Provincial Council. We do not want to take up the time of Parliament with matters which appertain purely to the city of Durban. I personally am a great believer in the rights of the Provincial Council and I am astonished to find that the hon. member for Illovo is a believer in Provincial rights. It is something new to him.

You have not followed what I said.

I say that I am astonished to find that the hon. member for Illovo is a believer in Provincial rights. It may be remembered that on two occasions when it was necessary to elect the member, he brought those members from the Transvaal. So we have two men in the Dominion Party who are not Natal men at all. Surely the hon. member cannot describe that as being a believer in Provincial rights.

I have fought for Provincial rights for 20 years.

The hon. member may, but his party certainly does not. I must say that this is peculiar behaviour for people who want Provincial rights. It seems to me that the essence of Provincial rights is Natal men for Natal and Transvaal men for the Transvaal. I am satisfied that the opposition to this Bill arises not so much from any conscious knowledge of the Bill—I must say and I hope that I am not transgressing the rules of the House—but it does seem to me that there is an element in the opposition to the Bill which is directed more against the member who is introducing the Bill than to the Bill itself. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) had not been a member of the Dominion Party long ago and subsequently saw the light, I think the opposition to this Bill would not have been so vociferous as it is now.

Are you a thought reader?

I could not read your thoughts. You have not got any. I am satisfied that the House is going to support this Bill. We want it. Then just one final point. We have heard so much during the last three years of war about new orders and new states of society and all the different things that are going to be done after the war, that it seems obvious to me that if we are going to have any success in any new kind of order, we have got to tackle the financial system of the world in general. This is a very small effort in that direction, but at least it does represent a line of thought, and it does seem to me that when we are considering the future development of South Africa, when we have a measure before us which is going to make some effort to control what I call the financial octopus, it should deserve the sympathetic consideration of the House. I think it was the hon. member for Cape Western who once said with reference to this Bill that anything coming before this House which tends to lower the percentage of interest, would have his support. I feel so myself. It has been proved up to the hilt that the operations of this bank will tend to lower the rate of interest in Durban. Anything which tends to lower the rate of interest, whilst it may be against vested interests, while it may be against building societies, while it may be against the “Mercury,” is in favour of the ordinary working man. One of these days the Government of this country will have to assume the task of providing cheap houses for the people of this country. The Durban City Council has possibly in this instance set an example to the country, and I feel that the House can do little better than show that it appreciates what the Durban Council has done by passing the reintroduction of this Bill.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) displays a very proper concern, that what we are doing should not be interpreted as a by-passing of the Provincial Council. In that concern he does not stand alone. I for my part should not have identified myself with the passing of this Bill if I saw in it what my hon. friend fears. There are no grounds for such fears. The point has, I think, been adequately dealt with both on the second reading and today by the hon. Minister and in a less lofty manner by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), and I do not want to emphasise it unduly. I only want to say that I am at a loss to understand how it can be suggested that the sporsors of the Bill are ignoring the Provincial Council, when the Provincial Council has said in plain terms, rightly or wrongly, that it is not prepared to investigate the matter, taking the view that it has not the power to do so. That, to my mind, disposes of the question and the sponsors, as has already been said, quite rightly, were left with no option but to come to the House. They themselves were in the first place desirous of the Provincial Council dealing with the matter. If the Provincial Council said they did not have the power, the sponsors were obliged to come to Parliament. But there is another consideration, sir, to which I think the attention of the House ought to be drawn. There is not only the status of the Provincial Council that is involved, there is the status of this House, and I think equally we should do nothing which would reflect upon the status of the House as the supreme legislative authority. If the hon. member for Illovo had moved this amendment on the second reading, then the present objection would not have arisen. But the matter is an entirely different one now because the House in its wisdom has committed itself to an acceptance of the principle involved in the Bill. (Interruptions). I wish my hon. friends would give me a hearing.

“God save me from my friends!”

That applies to you too. I am afraid that my hon. friend, with whom I am sorry to be at cross purposes on this Bill, I am afraid that he is inviting the House to create an anomalous situation. Supposing this Bill were referred to the Provincial Council, and supposing that the Provincial Council in its wisdom decided not to accept the principle of the Bill. You would then be vesting in the Provincial Council an authority overriding that of Parliament, and that is the crucial difference between making the suggestion at this stage when the House is committed to the principle of the Bill and having made it before that was done. I am not at all sure that this procedure of referring a matter peculiarly affecting the Province to the Provincial authorities—that the rules which obtain on that subject do not contemplate that that should be done when the matter has not been to a Select Committee; in other words, as I interpret the rules, these are the two alternatives, either the matter is referred to the Provincial authorities for consideration and determination and report, or the matter is referred to a Select Committee of the House, and I venture to suggest that because quite obviously, they are alternatives where the promoters ask that the matter be referred to the Provincial authorities during the recess. Mr. Speaker may do so unless he is of opinion that it is a matter which would be inquired into by a Select Committee of the House, and that is my reason for suggesting that the rule contemplates these two procedures as alternatives. As the House well knows the Bill has been before not only a Select Committee but a very competent Select Committee who went into the matter very exhaustively. I want to say in conclusion that there is no shadow of a suggestion that in the procedure that has been adopted and in the further steps which the sponsors of the Bill are asking should be taken to bring this Bill on to the Statute Book, there is anything which in fact or by implication reflects on the authority or the standing of the Provincial Council. There is nothing which tends to deny the authority of the Provincial Council.

I took very great interest in the remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), particularly his homily against the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) for daring to poke his nose into the affairs of Durban. I have a very vivid memory of a Bill I introduced only a year or two ago in connection with a very vital matter affecting Pretoria, in which the hon. member for Umbilo poked his nose so effectively into it that he killed the Bill And that is partly true, and I must say that the homily which he preached to the hon. member for Umbilo seemed somewhat out of place. Well, I cannot refer to that particular measure now. I am rather sorry that the Minister spoke so early in this debate because I understand that there are going to be very material amendments moved to this Bill at a later stage. Recently there has been a conference in regard to certain amendments to the Building Societies Act and my information is that the Registrar of the Building Societies has been very busy drafting amendments to this very Bill which is now before the House, and I understand that these amendments are to be of a very drastic nature indeed. They are to bring the Bill more into line with the Building Societies Act, and it may change the whole character of the Bill which this House was asked to pass last Session. I am not sure, because I don’t know what the amendments are, but we may be asked to pass amendments to a Bill which was passed by a Select Committee. Now, it is quite true that the House, having passed the principle of this particular Bill on the second reading, cannot change the principle. But it is well known that in the Committee stage you can kill any principle of a Bill by deleting sections of the Bill.

That is a reflection on the Chairman.

Now this House will not have an opportunity of discussing this matter again on the second reading, and if it is correct that the Bill is going to be vitally amended, will not it be better to bring in a completely new Bill? It would be better to deal with the whole matter in that way. I think the House should be given the opportunity of seeing the amendments which are going to be introduced, and if these amendments are of such a nature as to render the re-introduction of the Bill advisable, then that course should be taken Now I am not clear whether the Consultative Committee of the Provincial Council have had this Bill before them.

No, of course not; this Bill only affects one Province.

That is so, but if it is so good a measure it may also be adopted in respect of other Provinces. Has the Consultative Committee been asked to discuss this?

No, it is not their business.

Well, here you have a Bill which is giving special powers to one Province.

No, to one town.

I feel that the Consultative Committee should go into it.

That suggestion is absurd.

I think that as this is a matter affecting the Provinces it should go to the Consultative Committee. I do think that on a matter of this kind where there has been so much dispute and the Minister himself has certain ideas as to the principle of the Bill, every possible precaution should be taken. The Minister was not very convincing in the statement he made during the last Session, and I am not sure whether even now he agrees with the statement of the legal advisers. Anyhow I think that we should have further opinion about this particular matter. This Bill will presumably come before the House again, when we shall have a completely new set of clauses put before us. I wonder what opportunity there will be to consider the principles of these new clauses in Committee—there will be none. I therefore suggest that this Bill should be withdrawn and a new Bill introduced embodying all these new recommendations which I understand will be introduced by the Registrar of Building Societies.

Surely all that can be done on the third reading.

It is very difficult to discuss the whole principle on the third reading again. Anyhow, I am not prepared to support the present proposal and I think in the circumstances the Bill should be withdrawn.

I should like to correct the impression given by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) when he said that this matter had come before the Provincial Council and that they had refused to deal with it because they were led to believe that it was not within their province, and that that was why it was brought before this House. This question has been before the Provincial Council in one form or another on three different occasions and on each occasion it has been rejected. I was speaking only a few days ago to the hon. member for Point Division of the Provincial Council. He said the reason why the Provincial Council would not deal with this matter was because it was shown that the City Council of Durban had had an opportunity of raising loans for millions of pounds through the Housing Board over a number of years, and the City Council had never taken advantage of that money. That was the reason why the Provincial Council did not take any interest in the matter. I think that is an important point which this House should be acquainted with. As the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) said, there is a shortage of houses—well, there is a shortage of houses everywhere owing to a shortage of building material, but the fact that the City Council of Durban for a number of years had the opportunity of borrowing millions of money through the Central Housing Board and did not avail itself of that opportunity, seems to me sufficient reason why a Bill of this kind should not receive the support of this House. Why should the money be raised in this way? There is no logic in it. When the second reading of the Bill was discussed in this House, I raised very pertinent points in the speech which I made, and I expected the mover of the Bill to reply to those points. He replied to none of them and eventually he said that the reason why he could not reply to my points was that the “closure” was moved and he was not responsible for that. I think it was a very lame excuse to put the blame for the “closure” on someone else. Because I am quite sure that none of his supporters would do anything which was not in accordance with his wishes, so I do not accept his excuse for not replying to my points. The Mayor of Durban, Mr. R. Ellis Brown, is now in his fourth year of office. He has never been in favour of this measure and he is not in favour of it at present. I think that is a point which should be considered.

The man who tied with the Mayor of Durban was in favour of this Bill.

No, that is wrong. No one tied with the Mayor. Last year when this measure was before the House, the City Council of Durban was in the hands of a certain body of men who saw to it that the Ratepayers’ money was wasted by their sending a phalanx of legal pundits here to try and impress the Select Committee as to the correctness of their case, and they were very successful in persuading the majority of the Select Committee. Now, here we have this measure coming up again, but there are no respresentatives of the City Council whatsoever. What is the reason? If this measure is of such importance to Durban why has not the City Council sent someone down to try and help in getting it passed?

Are you sure of your facts?

Yes.

Then you are quite wrong, they are sitting in the gallery.

I deny it. A representative of the City Council may be sitting in the gallery but he did not come here to promote the Bill. If he did come down he came at his own expense because I have had it from a City Councillor that they are not spending another penny on it. Owing to the change in the complexion of the City Council of Durban not another penny is going to be spent on it. They are prepared to cut their losses.

On a point of order, the City Treasurer and Deputy City Treasurer are here for that very purpose.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Hooper) referred to the recent City Council elections. There were some gentlemen who stood for election in the interest of the Labour Party, and one of their main planks was the promotion of this Savings Bank Bill of the Municipality. Out of those four contestants three lost their seats to candidates who remained silent on the subject of this Bill. I don’t think there is any question about it. Any fair minded man must realise that in these recent elections held in October a mandate was given by the people of Durban to oppose the passage of this Bill. Only one man out of eight candidates was elected who publicly favoured this Bill, and I think it is up to this House to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Illovo. It is not killing the Bill. It still has a chance if it goes before the Provincial Council. Furthermore there is a change in the Provincial Council in the fact that a new Administrator has been appointed, who will assume office at the beginning of next month, and it will give a new character to the Provincial Council, and if this Bill has any merit in it—which I doubt—then it will receive a fair deal from the new Administration. I hope this House will be fair to Durban and take cognisance of what I have emphasised in regard to the result of the recent elections, and support the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo.

I shall keep the House a very short time but I think it is fair to say that, perhaps unintentionally, the last two speakers have misled the House. I am satisfied that it was not done deliberately. The statement has just been made that there were eight labour candidates in these recent Municipal Elections at Durban, and that only one was returned.

Oh, no.

That is the statement which was made.

I did not say that.

You did say that.

I submit that that is precisely what the hon. member for Stamford Hill said. He stated that one of the eight was returned; and the implication could fairly be that the other seven were rejected. There were three elected, two being returned unopposed, and I think it is quite fair and true to suggest to this House that if the total votes cast were taken, the great majority would prove to be in favour of this Bill. Among the statements made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill was that although Government funds were available to Durban for building suitable houses for the poor. Durban had not taken advantage of that fact. That is not true. Durban may not have taken a hundred per cent. advantage of it, but Durban has called upon the Government and has received very large sums of money for that purpose. Now, the same type of argument appeared to be put forward by the hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock). We were told by him that we had better delay because there were many amendments coming which might possibly change the character of the Bill, and then we should be buying a horse of a totally different colour, and there would be no opportunity to deal with it when the new Bill emerged from the Committee stage. Well, that is not so. It is to provide exactly that opportunity that all Bills have a third reading. If we have the third reading, and if the Bill were radically changed in principle, the House would throw it out. Another reason for delay urged by the hon. member was that the Provincial Consultative Committee had not had the opportunity of seeing what a good Bill it was. If this Bill is passed by this House I hope it will be of very great help for the construction of houses for the people of Durban, and the opportunity for the Consultative Committee to profit from it will still be there. If they see what a good Bill it is and how well it works no doubt they will follow the example set in this measure. The arguments put up are merely frivolous. I submit this, the House has fully debated this question of referring this Bill back to the Provincial Council. That was argued ad nauseum last Session, and to go over the same ground again is simply vain repetition and is merely wasting the time of the House. If there is to be a re-introduction of this Bill and another second reading—I don’t want to threaten the House, but I can assure hon. members that in the event I shall myself have a good forty minutes on the Bill—and in view of that deterrent I hope that the House will deal with the matter in the way suggested by the mover and allow the Bill to go forward from the stage which it had reached when suspended. We are not living in ordinary times. Why should we have more delay? I hope the House will support the motion, and in Committee make such amendments as they think fit.

I think before the House decides on the fate of this Bill it should have a good perspective of what it means, and I think hon. members should avail themselves of this opportunity of looking backwards and finding out what sort of Bill it was that the Durban Corporation asked to be introduced into this House. The Bill which was originally introduced made no reference to housing, and we had the then City Clerk of Durban tell us that the balance of the money which was not invested in cash in the bank, and in gilt edged securities and in one other investment, would be used for the general capital purposes of the Corporation. There was no mention at all of housing in the first Bill submitted to this House.

Are we discussing the first Bill or the second?

In the Select Committee there was an amendment proposed, an amendment to this effect that the character of the whole Bill was changed. That Bill practically stated that 80 per cent. of the money which was deposited in the bank could in certain circumstances be used for housing. Not less than 80 per cent. Now, that Bill has never been returned to the City Council for discussion. It is an entirely new Bill. Now, if in the Committee stage certain amendments are put in at the instance of the Minister of Finance the effect of which would be to put the City Council of Durban in the same straight jacket as the building societies, then it is an entirely new Bill and not a Bill authorised by the City Council of Durban in any way. When the City Clerk was giving evidence before the Select Committee he was asked whether this Savings Bank would come into competition with the Post Office Savings Bank and he admitted it would. And I distinctly recollect the Minister of Mines on the second reading saying that he opposed the Bill at that stage for the reason that if it was passed it would take money out of the Post Office Savings Bank which should be devoted to the War Funds and used for the general purposes of the City Council of Durban. If the people of Durban had any idea of depositing their money at 2½ per cent. that idea must have been wiped out by the fact that the Minister of Finance has submited to the country War Bonds at 3 per cent., so why should the people of Durban put their money into a Savings Bank at 2½ per cent.? The Bill will be a dead letter for years after the war even if it does pass this House. But the fact of the matter is that the Bill as it stands today and as it may emerge from the Committee stage, is such that the people of Durban will not want it—it is a Bill on which they have not even been consulted. That, I think, is sufficient reason at the present stage for referring the Bill to the Provincial Council. But there is another very cogent reason and that lies in the provisions of the South Africa Act, where it says that the Provincial Council may make Ordinances with respect to municipalities, and this is an entirely municipal affair. It is not a Bill which affects any other part of the country, or any other part of the Province, but simply the City Council of Durban, over which the Provincial Council has authority. If this Bill is passed and if it emerges from the Committee stage, and if it passes a third reading and goes through the Other House, then it is a Bill which will authorise the City of Durban to do certain acts contrary to the authority of or actually avoiding, the Provincial Council, and my contention at present is that rather than the Union Parliament should infringe on the powers of the Provincial Council the Union Parliament should at least submit the Bill for enquiry and report to that Provincial Council to make recommendations to this House which may or may not be followed. But at any rate we shall then have given the Provincial Council an opportunity of stating its views on this matter. Durban is well represented on the Provincial Council and it can state before the Provincial Council what its views are. Then I want to say something about the action of the City Council in respect of this Bill. It is said that the City Council could by resolution withdraw the Bill. I understand from a City councillor that this matter was raised and that the Council was advised that they had no power to interfere either by resolution or otherwise. The Bill was in the hands of Parliament and the City Council had no power to interfere with its progress or otherwise. If that is the case, the City Council of Durban has had no opportunity to say whether it should ask for the withdrawal of this Bill and certainly it has had no opportunity of expressing its views with regard to the Bill which may emerge from the Committee stage, and, subject to the amendments which I believe it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to introduce, surely the City Council of Durban should have the opportunity of saying whether they want the Bill in its amended form. And I think the only way in which that can be ascertained is by referring the Bill to the Provincial Council for enquiry and report, and let the Durban representatives in the Provincial Council put their case. If the Select Committee is satisfied they will certainly recommend in favour of the Bill, if they are not satisfied they will report adversely, and this House must take cognisance of that. With all these facts before it, I think the House will be well advised to pass the amendment so as to give the Provincial Council and the Durban Council an opportunity of pronouncing upon the merits and demerits of the Bill.

I do not think that I can let this matter pass without saying a few words upon it, because I think it is very regrettable indeed that this Bill should pass any stage without its being thoroughly appreciated how very important is the action that the House takes upon it. There is no mere question confined to the citizens of Durban, it is no mere question of whether the housing of Durban’s population is to be assisted or not assisted by the passing of this Bill. Still more is it no question merely of personal dispute or persiflage, of which I regret to say there has been some indication in this House. The matter which is embodied in this Bill is very very serious indeed, and the action we are going to take or not going to take is of importance on the question of procedure with which we are primarily concerned. It is a matter of principle whether these bigger issues should be decided without reference to that body to which they are primarily committed by the terms of the South Africa Act, I mean the Provincial Councils. Last year, when I had to speak on the second reading of this Bill, I did point out that in my opinion it was very regrettable that the Provincial Council should be by-passed in this respect by this House. I was criticised for using that expression by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Long) who said he thought it scarcely fair that I should use that expression because the Provincial Council had already been approached more than once in connection with this matter. With great respect to the hon. member for Gardens, I think the expression “by-passed” was peculiarly adaptable to such a position. If you go up against a strong point and you are repulsed from that strong point, and you make up your mind you won’t make another attack, but leave the strong point behind you, that is exactly the process which I understand military persons describe as by-passing that strong point. But surely that is exactly the stage at which we have reached in this stage. It is quite true the Provincial Council has been approached not once nor twice, and whatever has happened and whatever decision has been come to, it is quite clear that the Provincial Council gave no support at all to either the principle or the matter of the Bill which was put before them. Well, Sir, that is a fact which still remains an outstanding fact and feature in this case. I ask the House to consider if you are going to by-pass—again I used that expression deliberately—by-pass the Provincial Council in this matter, consider the precedent that you are going to set, consider other matters which may arise. I appeal to all members on both sides of the House quite dispassionately to consider this matter. Are you quite clear that in the future you will be satisfied with your action, if you set up a precedent for by-passing an important popularly-elected body, to which has been consigned the consideration of the subject matter which you are bringing before this House. We should pause very deeply and carefully indeed before we take action of that kind. The Provincial Council is given limited matters of legislation, and of course this House has always got an overriding power, that is part of the constitution, that is quite correct. There is nothing illegal in bringing a matter of this kind before the House without referring to the Provincial Council at all, but it is very unusual, and it is a departure from what was undoubtedly anticipated would be the ordinary procedure by the founders of our constitution, those who framed and drafted the South Africa Act. We depend very much upon our municipal institution, and I for one think that South Africans do not realise the debt which in general is due to the city fathers, those who are prepared to accept the burden—it is a very grave and increasing burden—of giving their time and attention for no remuneration at all to municipal affairs. The control of your Provincial Councils over and the consideration of municipal institutions, is primarily committed in the South Africa Act to the Provincial Councils. They may enlarge, not indefinitely, but they can enlarge, the powers of a municipality, and if the powers of a municipality fall short of what the Province deems is right, surely they should be put in a position of giving effect to that opinion. It is not right that these great aggregations of population who get into municipalities should have the powers altogether to disregard the opinion of those who live outside. I have no part or lot, I have no patience with this badinage about whether a person lives inside or outside a municipality, whether because they live out they have a right to speak on it or not, it is mere badinage, it is trifling with the question, and I have no patience with it at all. We are members one of another, and whether you live inside a municipality or outside, whatever part of the Province you live in, you are concerned with what takes place in other parts. Are hon. members prepared to leave to the municipality the entire control of marketing their products? Of course not. They are concerned very deeply indeed with seeing that in municipalities there are proper rules and regulations for that, and that those living outside have a fair chance of disposing of their product and living their own lives. The lives of those living outside in country districts, are intimately concerned with and inter-dependent with the lives of those who live within municipalities, and to try and draw a line of division between the two, and set the one against the other, will not find approval in this House. We are all concerned one with another; you cannot take any action within or without a municipality that, has not repercussions and effects upon those who live in other places. We are right and our forbears were right when they determined that before you can enlarge the powers of a municipality you should consult primarily the larger body which represents both town and country, and with whom the decision should rest. That body is representative not merely of one town but of all towns, not only of those who live and depend upon agriculture, but those who live upon industry. Therefore I say that in by-passing the Provincial Council in a matter Of this kind we would be taking a very serious step indeed. In the South Africa Act there is a provision that even where there is a matter which is introduced as a private Bill, and where the private Bill, as in this case, has already been introduced, that the subject matter may be referred to the Provincial Council, and that Council may give its opinion and its recommendation one way or another after taking evidence, and it may convey that decision to this House, and after that there is an expeditious means by which Parliament may dispose of that Bill. I am referring particularly to Section 88, which, of course, contemplates the limitation of procedure by an examination by a Select Committee which in this Bill has already taken place. I refer to that provision for the purpose of saying that our Constitution was carefully designed so that machinery should be provided for an intimate connection between the Provincial Council and Parliament. As that machinery is provided, it means that the designers of the South Africa Act were of opinion that the Provincial Council should deal with these matters. If we by-pass that on any occasion, it is setting a very serious precedent which may lead to results in future years on entirely different matters, which results may be deeply repented of, not only within the four corners of this House, and all sides of this House, without regard to party, but outside this House too. Why this haste? Why this indignation of the idea of referring this to the Provincial Council? Where is the need for haste? I agree that it will take some time, but why not take that time, where is the need for haste? I gather that hon. members who have spoken in favour are concerned with the housing of the population, and the Town Council of Durban is also concerned in this matter. If I understand the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) aright, he quoted what I thought were very apposite figures to show that the Town Council of Durban has had ample means at its disposal. I do not remember the exact figure, but great sums of money have been retained for this purpose, and over a period of the last decade they have neglected to take this in hand and have done nothing. What is the inference? It is that they are not as a body consistently deeply concerned about this housing problem, not sufficiently so as to indicate the need for haste. If they really wanted it they had the means at their disposal to do it, and if they are not doing it, why this haste now? I say, sir, we must look for some other reason, and when I heard the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) speak, I thought that he let the cat out of the bag. He spoke rather more than was wise for him to do, perhaps he is very apt on many occasions so to speak. What he said on this occasion was that what was intended really by this Bill was an attack on the financial system of the world, the financial system of South Africa as a whole. And he went into all the rest of it that we are accustomed to from the benches which he represents. Sir, if that is really the motive behind this, I say it makes almost irresistible the inference that we should take all the constitutional precautions we possibly can before committing ourselves to any action which commends itself to the hon. member for Umbilo, and apparently his friends, for the purpose of upsetting the financial system which exists in this country. I have no brief for the financial system as it exists here or anywhere else in all its ramifications, I have attacked it on many occasions and I propose to do so and to propose measures of amelioration in the future. But that must be done in the proper way, and not because of some hypocritical desire to get the population of a particular town re-housed. That is not the proper way to set about it. The proper way is to deal with the housing question as a housing question, and the financial system as a financial system, and when you are dealing with municipal institutions and proposing to extend the functions of a municipality, it should be dealt with directly by a Bill directed to that purpose. The way to enlarge the functions of the municipality is surely by a public Bill, one which will affect all the municipalities, not only of a province but of the whole country, and certainly of a whole province. That is a measure which should be introduced, I should say, by the Government of the day and nobody else. To enlarge the functions of a municipality by a private motion by the municipality itself, extending it to that municipality alone, and to break new ground which has not been broken before in that respect by means of a private Bill, is a very dangerous procedure indeed, and the bypassing of the Provincial Council in your steps towards attaining that, is a danger signal which none of us should miss the significance of. When I spoke on the second reading last Session, I had occasion to point out that although the Minister of Finance backed the second reading of this Bill, his predecessor on a previous occasion took the strongest exception to it on the very wide ground that it would be allowing municipalities to compete with the Treasury in the very large collection of the savings of the people, and diverting those savings to the development of one particular town to the detriment of every other town. If a measure of this kind goes through, the savings bank of the Durban Municipality may, if the scheme is successful, attract investments from the Free State, the Transvaal and everywhere else. Is it the considered opinion of Parliament that it is desirable that facilities should be offered to one particular town to do that and not extended to other towns. This is limited to Durban now, and I say, is it intended by this House to confer that great power on one municipality and deny it to the rest. Such proceeding would need arguments of logic and philosophy to support it, which to me are utterly unknown, and which certainly have not been touched upon either by the Select Committee or by any speaker who addressed this House either last Session or this. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if you are going to deal with municipalities in this way, one should be dealt with on the same basis as another, and the powers given to one should be given to another. That is why in the South Africa Act, this machinery for consultation was provided, that is why we have a Provincial Council, and that is why we have Parliament over all. No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the argument that the cause we are all desirous—I certainly as much or more than most people in this country, at any rate I am second to none in my desire to see housing and feeding extended to the whole of our population—but that is not going to blind me and make me go in for devious and what I conceive to be improper ways of raising money to do it. Your object may be very good indeed, but an irregular method of carrying out that object is universally denounced, and I say, sir, by similarity of argument, if you by an irregular method set about what is in itself quite a desirable ideal, you are going away from the right path, and you are going to land yourself in difficulties. Parliament is not only bound by precedent, but it is inspired by precedent, not that precedent forms a road upon which we can walk blindly, but because precedent is the result of the boiled-down experience of our forbears, and predecessors, which leads us to say that following a certain line is safe, and another is fraught with danger. And the line which is laid down for us here is that there should be a uniformity in dealing with the powers of municipalities, and that in controlling and deciding what those powers should be, there should be consultations between the Government and the Provincial Councils. For these reasons I support very strongly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Illovo, and I hope that even those who support the Bill will think twice before voting against the amendment.

The hon. the Minister of Mines made a very strong point of the fact that a principle would be created by means of legislation to strengthen the Durban Municipality in its efforts to secure better housing for its inhabitants. He also considers that this would be a violation of the rights of the Provincial Councils. I feel that in the first place the Provincial Council is not called upon to take any part in the great effort to provide housing wherever possible to that class of people who have no cash or who are unable to obtain credit facilities for the purpose of building houses. I regard the basic idea of this legislation as complementary to the legislation already in existence. We have legislation in connection with building societies which was specially placed on the Statute Book by the Union Government so as to give the building societies power to take up money and to lend it out for investment purposes. That legislation was passed by this House. And if the City Council of Durban comes along now and feels that its particular requirements cannot be met by the building societies, particularly in the case of those classes of the population which are less privileged and which are not considered as being strong enough by the building societies to be granted loans, if the City Council comes to Parliament and asks us to give it the power to meet that need, then I feel that this constitutes a link in a large system which is so urgently required in this country that we should do everything possible with a view to solving the housing problem. I therefore fail to see, as this matter has already been raised by the City Council of Durban, and as the assistance of the Provincial Council has already been invoked, and as the Provincial Council of Natal has investigated the matter by means of a Select Committee, and the request has been practically turned down, and as the City Council of Durban has now referred it to this House, I fail to see that there is anything inconsistent in its attitude in now asking this House to pass this Bill. Surely it is perfectly right when such a large City Council in the first instance approaches the body immediately above it, and fails to get any satisfaction there, that it should then turn to the highest body in the country to ask for legislation to assist it in order to meet such cases of emergency. I fail to see anything inconsistent in it and I differ entirely from the Minister of Mines where he says that this is a new principle, and that it violates the rights of the Provincial Council. It is no more than the logical outcome of the system which provides that if a small body feels that a central body is in its way in regard to an urgent matter it must go to a higher body in order to obtain its rights. In Select Committee we had the building societies before us. They were the principal people to oppose this matter—it was not the Provincial Councils or some other body which opposed it. I put the direct question to them, as to whom they regarded as the small man, and the chairman of a building society replied and said that the small man was the man who was worth £2,000. If the building societies consider that a man must be worth £2,000 before he can get a loan then I say that legislation of this kind is urgently required to provide for the needs of those people who have not got £2,000 and who require assistance in order to build a house. The City Council is therefore meeting an urgent necessity and I cannot see that the system is in any way dangerous, I cannot see any danger in its being extended to other large towns. Durban’s magnificent co-operative system is most essential for all the big towns, and I should like to see it extended to all the towns. I have no doubt that this House will show itself to be in sympathy with this Bill, and that it will reject the amendment, so that in future there will be nothing in the way; there will be nothing to stop the big cities, if they feel that they must properly clear up their slums and put up decent houses so that the inhabitants of the town can be properly housed. It is particularly the less privileged classes who are affected by this Bill and at a time like the present when it is urgently necessary to use every possible effort in order to provide for housing, it is essential to give Durban this right after it has made an effort to get this power through the aid of the Provincial Council, and after it has not been treated sympathetically by the Provincial Council. We should treat this matter in the most sympathetic way possible in this Parliament, and that is why I am going to vote against the amendment and why I am going to support this Bill right through.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—53:

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, J. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Hugo, P. J.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Oost, H.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and C. F. Miles-Cadman.

Noes—20:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Deane, W. A.

Friedlander, A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Gilson, L. D.

Hare, W. D.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Tothill, H. A.

Tellers: R. M. Christopher and A. O. B. Payn.

I feel bound to tell the House right away that I agree with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, that discussion of the maize position is really out of order, because there is no extra expenditure involved, and no extra money is voted for maize at all. But I suggest that where hon. members were led to believe that they could discuss the Vote, and as it is of great importance, I should give the Committee a short resume of the maize position. In the first place I want to deal at once with the remark made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and his objection evidently, to the supply of maize to Rhodesia. In December 1941, that is the previous year’s crop, Rhodesia applied to me and said that they had starvation in the country and asked whether we could assist them with maize to be returned to us during the season we are now in. I don’t want to make the excuse that we did not know what the position was then, because we saw what the season was like and it was quite possible that there would be a shortage. For that reason I would not agree to give them all the maize they wanted, but I agreed that we would let them have 100,000 bags of maize, to be returned during the next season. Early in February, 1942, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia came down personally and made a personal appeal again that we should assist them, as they had cases of starvation in that country. I asked whether they were certain that they would be able to return the maize and they said that they had very little doubt about it. So we gave them another 100,000 bags—again, not as much as they wanted. So Rhodesia got 200,000 bags altogether. That was, of course, some time before our new crop came in. They had not been able to return it, they just did not have the maize, and the position is that we have accepted from them a provisional payment for accounting purposes, but they are still liable, if we want it, to return the maize and to get back their money. Now, I suggest that one could not have done very much less. I don’t think the hon. members want to say that we should have turned them down completely. There was starvation in a friendly State and seeing that we were not taking a great risk in assisting them in this matter we could not very well have done otherwise.

There is starvation here as well.

Now let me come to the position for the present season. I should like to remind hon. members that there is a tremendous shortage of maize. People do not seem to realise exactly what our position is in this country and what it has been during the past six to nine months. I should like to tell the Committee that our crop last year was about 16,000,000 bags. We had a carry over of about 1,000,000 bags. Our consumption in the season before was 22,000,000 bags.

In South Africa?

Yes, in South Africa, including, if you like, the 200,000 bags that went to Rhodesia. Now, my Department expected that on account of the higher price of maize the consumption would have been reduced. But on the contrary the applications for maize were almost more than the season before. So we had this position, that there was a possible shortage of from 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 bags, and no evident reduction in consumption, and we had to get through somehow. I immediately started to explore all channels of import. We are still today endeavouring to import maize. Principally on account of the shortage of shipping and on account of there being no maize obtainable on the continent of Africa, to speak of, we have not been able to get anything to speak of at all. Well, that being the case the first step naturally—and I don’t think anyone will deny that—was to take control of the maize, to take physical control, to husband all we had. I told Parliament last Session that our first effort would be to see that we had sufficient for human consumption, and stock consumption would have to come next. As I say, I don’t think anyone can object to that, because I am satisfied that if there had been no control we would not have had any maize at all by the end of November last. I am satisfied without any doubt that that would have been the position. We had to take control of the maize. How was it to be done? It seemed to me obvious that at that time there was only one body which we could use to take physical possession and that was the Maize Control Board. I venture to submit that if at that stage we had tried to form a new organisation we would have had confusion worse confounded in this matter. But this Maize Control Board acted under my supervision. They agreed to do so. They agreed to act under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture. Two of my senior officers were appointed and they gave almost their full time to this matter in advising and assisting the Maize Board in a very difficult matter. I see the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) is smiling.

I am not smiling, I am crying.

I want to make him a present of this argument at once—the whole responsibility is not with the Maize Board; it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my Department.

Yes, you are the Food Controller.

I make no bones about it.

Now you must not get cross.

Now I at once want to reply to the hon. member’s argument that we should have established depots throughout the Native areas and that we should have seen that there was sufficient maize in the Native areas to supply the natives. Now this is a matter which has been discussed and argued about for the last two years. We have argued the matter with the Native Affairs Department, and that is the view my Department took. My Department took the view that we should see that the maize was there, but the Native Affairs Department should establish depots and see to the distribution of this maize because we were of opinion, and I am still of opinion, that the distribution of maize, the method of the distribution of maize in the Native territories leaves a great deal to be desired. I feel that very strongly.

That is the position throughout the whole country.

But I put it to the hon. member—to have at that stage started with the building of depots would have meant that we would have been in a worse position than we are in today. We had to take possession of this maize. I wonder whether members know what that meant. It meant that every ton of maize had to go through one channel in this country. I commend this to the consideration, or shall I say to the brains of people who are fighting for a one-channel scheme, and who say that it is the only right thing for the maize industry in this country. Everything had to go through this channel. It was clear that a bottleneck had to be created. You could not get away from it. Now, the Maize Board did their best. They appointed officials and more officials—they could not get enough people to do the work. I had to lend them officials from my Department, and let me say this, if any set of people during these last three or four months worked hard, it was the officers of the Maize Board. They worked day and night, over week-ends even, and I feel bound to say that the manager of the Maize Board showed a considerable measure of efficiency.

Well, there is not one of them who has got thin as a result of hard work.

Some of us grow fat on hard work. Now, how were we to deal with this short crop? I don’t think many of the people in the country would question that the first item—the first people—who had to he seen to were the humans in this country, the white people and the natives of this country had to get food. Some people seemed to object to that. I still get representations from people, from dairy people and chicken feeders, who say that it is ludicrous. They say: “Why should you give food to the humans and let our chickens die?” But I think generally it will be agreed that we took the right course. Anyhow, that was the complaint. People asked for maize, for permits to buy maize, and the complaint was that they had to wait and wait and often did not get their maize. That I think is the principal point I have to meet. I suppose the committee will realise that immediately there was a question about a shortage there was the usual ramp of people rushing in to supply themselves. It is natural and that was one of the factors which had to be watched. Hon. members will agree that every application had to be very carefully scrutinised and one had to see in the first place that maize was only given for human consumption. And one had to retain a certain amount of maize—and one had to allocate it. For instance, chicken feeders must get a certain amount of maize in preference to other people. Well, that was the position. We started right away in order not to make it too difficult. In June it was decided that every farmer could buy 25 bags of maize without a permit. In July, August and September that was reduced to ten bags and in October to five bags, while in November it was made two bags. That is maize that could be bought without a permit. We could not possibly give applicants all the maize that they applied for. I am satisfied if we had done that we would not have had a bag of maize left in December, certainly none today.

[Inaudible].

I shall be very glad if hon. members can tell me where I can get maize; I promise them we will buy every bag. I hope farmers as soon as they are able to reap, will do all they can to supply us. They will still get the full price. I wonder whether hon. members realise that we have to resist from stock feeders in this matter. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) will remember how be pleaded with me to get maize for sheep that were starving. He agreed afterwards that the position was so serious that the maize could not be given, but we had to do all that we could to resist the demands that were made upon us, and to supply the needs of people who wanted it most. We had to live from hand to mouth, and we had to watch the position from day to day and see how our stocks would last. That is the reason why we could not do what many people suggested, which was that we should give permits for three months, which would give them plenty of time to get their requirements for the next three months. We dare not do that because we had to watch very closely what was going out and what we had from week to week. I would like to tell the Committee that we did not refer this to the Maize Board and leave it there. I and my chief officers realised that this was a most difficult problem we were up against and we gave it all the attention we could, we continually reviewed the position and continued to make plans to meet the demand. In November it was possible, more or less, to see what the position was, what the demands were from month to month, and more or less to make up our minds how we could get through. At the end of November or the beginning of December, it was possible to give people permits for the two months January and February, so that the delays which took place will, to a great extent, be obviated. On that point we have met the position fairly well up to date. There were delays, of course there were delays, I cannot but admit it, but that was largely due to the position we were in. We had to keep enough maize to see us through until the new season’s crop came in. I have not spoken about the railways and the shortage of trucks, but I would like to say that the railways met us as well as they could, they went out of their way to give us trucks, and did all that they could to expedite transport from centres to the different points. It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and through the delay of which people complained, we have been able to conserve maize. Through this delay, which I am not trying to dispute, we have more maize today than we would have had if there had been no delays. I hope we will have enough until the new season. At any rate, that is the position, today we have maize. Of course there have been hardships, I accept that, but I do not know of any cases of actual starvation. Where we had information that natives were in danger of starvation we did not bother about permits but sent the maize straight away. When the magistrate advised us of the position we sent straight away. We called in the Native Affairs Department into consultation, and in certain instances we said “There is the maize, take it, don’t bother about regulations, give it to the retailers and pay the price when the time comes. The Native Affairs Department was able to assist us very largely. The position is still critical, but I think I can give the House the assurance that there will be no starvation before the next season’s crop comes in. We will manage somehow to get through. If we have not got the maize, we will find substitutes to give the people, so there will be no starvation. The chicken feeders and the dairy people are very much perturbed. About a week ago we informed them that they cannot get any maize after the end of February. We also told them that the department will help them to get substitutes, we will try and give them a larger proportion of rye and oats and barley. We will even try, if possible, to give them some of the lower grade of wheat at prices which they can afford. We will try and help them in that way, but otherwise they will have to try and get through the next few months until the new season’s crop is reaped.

We are sorry for you.

I appreciate that, it is a new development and I welcome it. I have heard some loose talk that this position was due to the Maize Board or some of its officials doing it on purpose. I have even heard talk of sabotage of the Government’s war policy. Well, I know what I am talking about, and there is nothing in that. I want to say again that the Board did its best, the officers worked very hard, and there is no question that there was any deliberate movement to try and either harm the Government or the war effort. Now, sir, I have given you the full story, and I leave it at that.

I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has at any rate given us a little information. I must say that the information which the Minister has given us today falls very short of what is needed, as so far he has only dealt with one aspect of the matter, namely, the mealie position. Now, what has the Minister told us? He told us that the poor Mealie Board were nearly worked to death, that they did not have the necessary number of officials to do the work. That is what we can thank the war for. Then the Minister also informed us that the data at the Department’s disposal was very poor, because the Native Affairs Department had told them that there was no starvation in the Native areas. The Minister also told us that the Government had lent 200,000 bags of mealies to Rhodesia. I have no objection to the Minister wanting to assist other people, but there is an old saying that charity begins at home. The Minister should in the first place see to it that our own people do not starve before lending mealies to another province.

It is not even a province, it is another country.

Then the Minister told us about the way in which they have curtailed the issuing of mealies. We are told all day long to produce and to produce more, and then we find that mealies are curtailed, with the result that the dairy farmers will probably be knocked out, the children in the country will have no milk one of these days, and the poultry farmers will be ruined. We repeatedly warned the Government that those things were going to happen. The Minister further told us that there were difficulties about shipping, and that we could not get everything we needed, but how am I to reconcile that with the speech which the Minister made on the 4th September, 1939? We were then told that if we took part in the war we would be like a Canaan’s Island. I shall leave the mealie position to be dealt with by other hon. members on this side of the House. I only want to bring a few matters to the Minister’s notice. The report of the Secretary for Agriculture says “Produce, and keep on producing”, but what is the position so far as the potato farmers are concerned. I have a telegram here which was sent to me from my own constituency, and that telegram reads as follows:

The Minister is aware of the fact that one cannot get a payable price for one’s potatoes today. The price of potatoes has been fixed by the Food Control Board. I want to emphasise that I am not talking about my own potatoes. The position today is that we have plenty of potatoes, and what advice do we get from the Department? We are advised to feed our potatoes to the pigs. If I remember correctly the Minister told us on the 4th September, 1939, that if we did not go to war our products would like here and rot. Today all our markets are overloaded with potatoes, and the very least thing the Minister can do is to buy up all those potatoes at a reasonable price. One of the Government departments produced 80,000 bags of potatoes this year to compete with the farmers. I know the Minister will tell us that those potatoes were supplied to the soldiers and to the ships. I say that it is a scandal for the Government to compete with the farmers in this way, and then to tell us that the farmers were doing so well. Personally I have no complaints, but I and others are stuck today with all those potatoes, yet the Department of Agriculture and the Government have told us, “Your motto should be ‘produce and keep on producing’.” And now that we have produced we are told that we should feed our potatoes to the pigs. The interests of the poor farmer are completely lost sight of. The Government does not care if he is ruined. Is that the kind of attitude which we are to expect from the Government? If the Government has any feelings for the farming population then it is its duty to step in to assist the farmers. The Government told us that we must produce. The whole country started planting potatoes, with the result that there is a glut of potatoes today, but it is the Minister and his Government who are responsible for that; they are responsible because they advised us to produce, and the very least the Government can do today is to buy up all those potatoes. Why cannot the Government start a factory to convert those potatoes into other things? No, all we have to do is to see the war through. The Government takes no notice of the farmers. We on this side of the House say that we represent the farming population, and not only do we represent our farming population but we also represent our people in the country. We are not asking for anything unreasonable; we are not asking for an unreasonable price, but we say that it is unfair that our potatoes should be thrown on the market at prices ranging from 2s. to 8s. per bag. The bag alone costs 1s. 6d. How can the farmers possibly deliver their potatoes on the market at 2s. per bag if the bag alone costs 1s. 6d.? The Minister must not take it amiss when we say that instead of having £154,000 on the Estimates he should have £1,000,000 there. We notice that the next Vote is £12,500,000. That is for the war, but when it comes to a question of assisting the farmers then we get a trivial amount of £154,000. I trust that the Department of Agriculture will step in and come to the assistance of the farmers. It is no use telling the farmers to produce and then after they have produced to turn round and advise them to feed their potatoes to the pigs. The Minister will have to bear the responsibility.

I think hon. members must agree with me that the hon. Minister had a very difficult time in administering the short crop of last year, and I think the Minister and his department is deserving of great credit for the way they handled this thing. What is the use of blaming the Maize Control Board when they had to distribute mealies for the whole year with a crop that is 5,000,000 bags short. I think they have done remarkably well, and I am surprised that there should be any criticism at all coming after the season we had last year. As a grower of mealies, I can say that when we reaped our mealies last year, v. e received every assistance and the railways helped us to move them. Now we know that this has been one of the best seasons that we have had, I am speaking now of the last spring. So far as the coastal area of Natal is concerned, the crisis is over. An hon. member says no, but I can say that on the South Coast of Natal the natives have an abundance of green mealies. I see the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) is grinning like a Cheshire cat; he knows nothing about it. I say it is a good thing for the country that the price of mealies was controlled. I can remember a similar drought 55 years ago, when the shortage of mealies was so great that the price went up to £3 a bag. We are not as bad as that this year, and I am glad the price was controlled. I think hon. members ought to be reasonable in this matter, they ought to realise the difficulties that confronted the Minister with a shortage of 5,000,000 bags. They ought to take that into consideration.

I have listened very attentively to the explanation given ty the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and I almost feel like saying to the Minister: “Did we not warn you”; did we not say to the Minister: “If you continue to reduce the price the day may come when the mealie farmer will not produce and then there will be a shortage.” I am sure that a big agitation is being started in this country today in regard to this so-called shortage of mealies, but I want to warm the Minister first of all to make sure that there actually is such a shortage of mealies before he starts worrying his head about importing mealies. I want to assure the Minister that in our part of the country there are no empty sheds and I am convinced that the co-operative sheds still contain considerable quantities of mealies.

That is what we depend on.

I am glad to near it, because I am worried about the position. I am worried about our having a position where people, immediately a shortage is expected, start kicking up a terrific fuss in the Press. I have a leading article here which appeared in the “Natal Mercury”—a Government paper, if I am not mistaken.

Not at all.

That leading article says this among other things—

This paper shows that a tremendous agitation is being started to force the Minister into making provision for a commodity of which we have no shortage in this country. I want to associate myself with the hon. member who has just sat down and who said that the natives in Natal have plenty of green mealies today. The same position prevails in our part of the country. I have done a good deal of travelling lately through Native locations and I have never yet heard that the Natives are starving. There are plenty of green mealies, and within a fortnight’s time the Natives will no longer want to eat the old mealies. There is no question of a shortage. I want to tell the Minister that we are glad that he established control last year. I only hope that he will not have a larger surplus of mealies than he expects at the end of the year, but I am convinced that that will be the position. I, as a mealie farmer, don’t want the Minister to be stampeded. He must not allow himself to be forced into doing all these things by an agitation which is being started. I also want to point out that the distribution of our mealies is not what it should be. Three years ago I made certain suggestions to the Minister and I pointed out to him that the only sound market in South Africa was with our mealie farmers, and that we should institute a system of distribution on an extensive scale. It has come to my notice that the farmers here in the Boland were unable easily to secure mealies for their mules. If they needed three or five bags they had to send 5/- to Pretoria in order to get permission to obtain a permit. The Minister will realise that we are following a policy which makes it practically impossible for the small buyer—and the small buyer in South Africa happens to be the biggest buyer—to buy mealies. Those speeches which the Minister had to listen to from his side of the House today are the greatest repercussions due to the system which we have followed. The Minister should give instructions to his Department to find means as to how the distribution of mealies can be carried out in a more speedy and smoother manner. I can also tell the Minister about the difficulties which have been brought to my notice, difficulties of people who urgently required mealies and who had to wait a long time for their mealies. But I assume that with a new organisation, with a new effort, one cannot avoid having certain difficulties and anomalies. I am not going to associate myself with the stupid statements which have been proclaimed that the Mealie Control Board is responsible for everything that’s wrong. On the contrary, I am one of those who believe that we should assist the Mealie Control Board to make a success of the marketing of mealies, and all those arguments which have been raised here today concerning the distribution difficulties and the Mealie Control Board have nothing to do with those distribution difficulties. We must find the necessary means for distribution, and I again want to submit to the Minister that as he is expecting a big crop this year he should do everything he possibly can to use the sheds here in the Boland and throughout the country to store mealies which will be available for those areas, so that it will not be necessary for people to have all sorts of difficulties in getting hold of mealies. With the price of wheat at 30s. per bag the farmers in these areas will require more and more mealies so as to enable them to do the work they have to do in a proper manner. I want to make these few suggestions to the Minister, and I hope he will carefully consider the matter before he takes steps to import mealies or other products from other parts of the world, as such action might be to the detriment of the mealie farmers. I remember that three years ago the export of mealies was stopped in October at a time when the price of mealies was high overseas, because it was stated that the Natives in certain parts of the country were starving. There was no truth in that. In January the year after it was found that millions of bags of mealies had to be exported, but they were then exported at a lower price, with the result that the mealie farmers had to accept a few shillings less per bag overseas. When the market overseas was good an agitation was started to stop the export, and when it was eventually found that there was a surplus in the country a few million bags had to be exported, but by that time the market had gone down and it was done to the detriment of the mealie farmer insofar as he got a few shillings per bag less overseas. Now the Mealie Board is being blamed for that sort of thing. I say that the Mealie Board would have exported mealies in September had it not been for the fact that export was stopped by the Government. The mealie farmer was compelled to hold over his mealies and when the market had dropped he had to go and sell it overseas.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s frank statement this afternoon …

It was not very frank.

And I fully sympathise with the Minister and I appreciate the immense difficulties with which the Department has had to contend during the past few months in administering what he admits was a makeshift organisation. My object in intervening in this debate is not to give instances of the delays or of the difficulties, and of the shortcomings which the operation of that makeshift system has evidenced, in recent months, but rather to invite the Minister to give us an assurance that for the future, plans will be effectively made to avoid a recurrence, a recurrence of what many consider to have been a Pearl Harbour in the annals of Control Board administration. It is clear from the Minister’s statement that we were caught unprepared in a large measure for the aggravated shortage of maize and the crisis which accompanied it. I speak as a representative of an area which has suffered both in regard to the Native population in being brought very near to famine point, and in regard to ordinary consumers of maize, so far as the farmers are concerned, and I can confirm that the position is, as the Minister has indicated, considerably eased. The crisis is not yet over; the position is far from being as rosy in Zululand, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Deane) has painted it. That the position in Native areas has eased is due very largely to the prompt and effective way in which the Department of Native Affairs intervened when the situation was at its gravest. I cannot sufficiently highly express the appreciation of the prompt way in which the Department made relief possible in areas which were threatened by famine. In one instance, within twenty-four hours of a telegraphic appeal being received by myself from the Ntonjaneni District Farmers’ Association, the Department of Native Affairs saw to it that 1,000 bags were despatched for immediate distribution to Natives, and it was due to the prompt arrival and distribution of these supplies that a threatening situation was alleviated. It is not meet for me at this time to take up the time of the Committee by giving—as I could so easily do—details of the obvious delays and shortcomings of the makeshift organisation to which the Minister has referred. My concern is that we shall be assured that for the future there will be different and more effective machinery established and that prompt steps will be taken, wiser steps will be taken, by planning now to meet future emergencies. In this connection I wish, although not myself either a farmer or a business man but as one who during the last eight months has had frequent cause to investigate the difficulties occasioned by the maize shortage, to offer for the consideration of the Minister suggestions which I hope are of a practical and constructive kind. The Minister has explained that he had no alternative but to use the existing Board, which in my constituency is generally referred to as the Mealie Dislocation Board. It must be obvious that that Board as at present constituted is much too unwieldly, too unbusinesslike, to be suited for carrying out so big a task as the emergency control and distribution of mealies in times of shortage, and my suggestion is that now, while we have the time—there may be more than a year’s time if the promise of a good crop materialises—that the Government see to it that machinery is planned now so that if another shortage supervenes there is a more competent body, be it a Committee or Board, which includes in its membership men with knowledge of business methods, not necessarily connected financially with a particular industry themselves, who can more efficiently undertake the distribution of the maize crop in a time of shortage such as we are still going through. Further, if the Minister will pledge the Government to proceed as soon as circumstances allow with the building of increased storage facilities, strategically placed throughout the country, so that in future there can be an adequate annual carry over of mealies which can form an effective reserve in the event of future crop failures besides ensuring smoother and quicker distribution, something will be done to reassure those who today justifiably view the whole position with great concern. It is clear from the admitted failure of the distribution and the Minister’s announcement that there is not sufficient maize to ensure any further supplies after February for animal consumption, that no carefully balanced system of rationing based on competent assessment of the estimates of the available supplies was worked out when it was first known that there would be a serious shortage of mealies. The Minister has complained that he was handicapped by not having full or accurate statistics. In future these should be made available. They must be available so that from the beginning of a shortage a careful scheme of rationing should be instituted which can be applied right through. Whatever plans, whatever organisation is planned for the future, I submit must be more flexible and take more account of local circumstances. Proper consideration must be taken of the factor that the mealie trade in certain areas is seasonal, and the error should not be repeated of dividing the allocations by permit up into equal monthly allotments, whereas the total requirements of maize in certain areas are needed almost entirely during peak seasons of approximately four or five months. Furthermore, in regard to the fixing of prices of which in principle I approve, due regard should be paid to the legitimate needs of the count try trader. The failure to do that in my particular constituency made it quite impossible for the small country traders, recognised by almost everyone as an indispensable economic wing of Native administration, to deal in maize at all. The unreasonably small margin of profit, amounting often to less than per cent. gross profit, allowed by the Board made their position entirely impossible, and forced them to appeal to the Department of Native Affairs to step in and distribute mealies in Native areas. It is only just that the trader who does fulfil a very legitimate and necessary function in outlying districts and who in these times is suffering from a number of severe handicaps, should on any system of price fixation be entitled to a reasonable remuneration of say 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. on his turnover If this injustice is now redressed as it should have been months ago, then the difficulties in regard to distribution in the country areas should be considerably lessened and justice will be done to a body of men who have suffered through the inability or refusal of the Board and of the Controller to take account of these special circumstances obtaining in certain parts of the country such as Zululand. I also make the suggestion for the future that at the start of a shortage, the Government should initiate a campaign of encouragement of early planting. This was not done in the present instance. In the Natal Coastal Belt for instance there are many districts where early maize could have been planted, could now have been maturing and might have become available towards the end of the ordinary season to supplement any shortage. Already supplies of green mealies are obtainable on the Durban market, and no doubt elsewhere too. The Government should even now consider whether it is not desirable to prohibit the sale of this luxury crop of green mealies at a time when every cob may be required in the interest of the dairy farmer or the poultry farmer…. [Time limit.]

It is clear from the conditions which prevail this year that if ever the necessity has been proved for the mealie crop to be controlled in our country, then it has been proved this year. It is also very clear that that section which in the past profitably gambled with our mealies, has again set in motion an agitation for the abolition of the Mealie Board. The criticism which was made here in regard to the efforts of the Wheat Board to exercise control and to cope with the shortage, is a clear pointer to us, because if we had had no control over our mealies, then there would have been famine in the country. But the cry of famine which we heard today from the Government benches and the appeal which is made to the Minister by members on his side to abolish the Mealie Board, and the statement that chaotic conditions have been created in the country, is clear proof that a mighty agitation is afoot which is designed again to plunge us into the old state of affairs which we so often experienced in South Africa, and which enabled certain people in the country to speculate with our mealies to their heart’s content. I want to emphasise what the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) said here, and what we have so often emphasised on these benches, namely, that our difficulty lies with our distribution machinery. Our distribution machinery has not been oiled sufficiently. There are hitches, and we ought to make a strong effort to remove those hitches. During the sowing season, the farmers found it extremely difficult to obtain a few bags of seed mealies, and that is at a time when the country is in distress, and when an appeal is made to the producers to produce more. The Government should make efforts in those cases where, for example, there is a short ploughing season, so that when the rains come, an emergency permit can be obtained from a justice of the peace or from a magistrate, to enable people to buy seed mealies immediately. If they have to wait three or four weeks for a permit from Pretoria, the soil will be dry by that time. This is ineffective and unpractical, and tends to make these people impatient. I am surprised in that respect, since there are practical farmers on the Mealie Board, that they did not make provision to remove this unpractical arrangement in connection with seed mealies. I just want to say this too, that the Department of Agriculture has valuators all over the country. They are experienced valuators, and I think the Department must admit that in those cases where it has chosen men to furnish statistics with reference to the size of the mealie crop, it has not been let down, but it has always been able to determine more or less what the production would be in any particular year. This valuation should have warned the Government last year already that there would not be sufficient mealies to enable the State to lend mealies to a sister State like Rhodesia. Charity begins at home. I do not think that the Minister’s attitude can be justified. Rhodesia should have made provision for her own needs. I certainly do not think that it was fair to lend some of our mealies to Rhodesia,. And then I want to say this too, that I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland). Does he imagine that a few businessmen in the country have a lien on all knowledge, and also with reference to farming matters? How would he like to hear a suggestion from these benches that a board consisting of farmers be appointed to arrange the affairs of the Chamber of Commerce in Durban, to fix prices and to prescribe what they should, do with their products? It is absurd to pay any attention to that suggestion. I want to admit that the advice of businessmen with reference to distribution may be of use to the Mealie Board; but to have the audacity to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry to eliminate the Mealie Board in order to make room for a number of businessmen, is simply too far-reaching and ridiculous to be considered.

I must say with regret that I am extremely disappointed with the Minister’s reply on this question of the supply of mealies to the people in my area and other areas. I cannot understand why there are no figures available in relation to the requirements of this country, because if I understand the position correctly there must have been figures to guide the Department, for the reason that the export figure of maize is regulated as to quantity by a consideration of the crop figure on the one hand and the Union requirements on the other. In answer to a question put by me in February last year the Minister said that he expected a shortage in the 1942 crop, and I must confess that I am disappointed that no steps were taken to deal in advance with the position with which we are now faced. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that in order to lessen consumption, the price of mealies was raised. That seems, when you are dealing with the food of the people, both European and Native, an amazing method to deal with the position—you are simply making it impossible for the poorer people to buy the food they need. I must confess that I do not share the optimism of the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. Deane). I don’t know what the position is in Natal but I want to assure the Committee that away from the coastal belt of the Transkei they will not get green mealies before March. Now, people cannot live for the next three months on promises as to what they will get next year. I say again, as I did on a previous occasion, that the requests of the traders (who are an important cog in the distributive machinery) for supplies of mealies—the necessity for which had been confirmed by the local magistrate—have been disregarded. If a trader says “I want 700 bags of mealies,” and the magistrate confirms the need of the trader to be supplied with 700 bags, then that request should not be disregarded. I want an assurance from the Minister that something will be done now to tide over the next two or three months, because I assure the Minister that the position is serious and that it will become even more serious. We want to know that there is real co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Native Affairs. We, that is the man in the street, feel that there is not that co-operation. Unless there is that co-operation the situation will become worse, and I say again that nothing the Minister can do will improve the position unless there is co-operation. I feel, too, that a body like the Mealie Control Board which primarily represents the producers is too unwieldy to cope with the situation and I ask the Minister again what it is proposed to do to meet the present urgent situation. We are told that certain steps are being taken, we are told that there is a bottle-neck. Well, you have to get rid of that bottle-neck before the people who need the mealies are brought to a state of starvation. I hope the Minister will tell us not only what will be done next year but what will be done this year to meet the existing position.

I listened this afternoon to the statement of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and I would like to say plainly that it is one of the most astounding statements which I have heard in this House for a long time. I draw the attention of the House to certain aspects of it. The Minister knew in 1941 that this country’s consumption was 22 million bags. In February, 1942, he knew that the crop would not yield more than 16 million bags.

How could I have known that?

In February and March the drought had set in; can the Minister tell me that he did not know as far back as February that there would be a big shortage?

That is another question. You spoke of 16 million bags.

The Minister has his valuators; he knew about the drought and he should have known that there would be a big shortage.

That there would be a shortage, but not what the shortage would be.

In view of the drought the Minister should have known that there would be a serious shortage.

I knew that.

Very well. Notwithstanding that, in spite of the fact that the Minister knew that, he proceeded to lend mealies to Rhodesia. It is said that Rhodesia is a sister State. The Minister’s excuse was that there was famine in Rhodesia, and in order to alleviate that famine he took our mealies and lent it to Rhodesia, knowing that there would be a serious shortage in pur own country. Talking about Rhodesia, I just want to say this. Rhodesia is the country which prides herself on the fact that she is still using flour in baking bread, that she has enough wheat to give her people white bread. In South Africa we have a shortage of mealies. We have a shortage of wheat. Rhodesia prides herself on the fact that her people are still able to eat white bread, but the Minister of Agriculture sends our mealies to Rhodesia to prevent famine in that country! Now we have this state of affairs that the Minister has sent these mealies, which we require, to Rhodesia, and he has no mealies to give to our dairy farmers and our poultry farmers. If the reports which we read in the newspapers are correct, then we are faced with this position that there will be a shortage of milk in Cape Town and its vicinity in the near future. The children who need milk will not be able to get it. As it is, we hear that there will be no milk for school children, but our mealies are sent to Rhodesia in order to prevent so-called famine amongst the natives. I say again that in view of these facts the statement which the Minister made here to the effect that he sent mealies to Rhodesia, with all these facts before him, is one of the most astounding statements which I have heard in this House for a long time. If the reports we read are correct, application has now been made to the Minister by the dairy farmers and the poultry farmers, in view of the production of milk and eggs which is an absolute necessity especially for our children and adolescent youth, to make available barley as cow fodder and chicken food.

Yes, that is correct.

It is also correct that the Minister refused that request? I should like to know this because it is reported that this request was refused in view of the fact that barley is used for the brewing of beer. I would very much like to know whether the Minister did refuse. I do not want to attack him, because it is possible that he may acceed to that request. If it was not acceded to and if there is sufficient barley in the country—which I do not know either—and if the shortage of mealies can be supplemented in that way, it will be nothing but a crime to use that barley for the brewing of beer, while there is a shortage of cow fodder and chicken food in the country. Just this further point. I would not like to make an attack upon the Mealie Control Board. I realise in what circumstances they have to carry out a difficult task. But I must refer to the difficulties which farmers experience in obtaining seed mealies. Surely it was one of the first duties of the Mealie Control Board to see to it that there would be sufficient seed. They should have seen to that immediately when they took over control.

And that was done.

I need only refer to my personal experience to indicate how difficult it was to obtain seed.

Mealies were available for seed purposes.

I could not get decent seed. I tried to get it through my co-operative society, but the greatest portion of the seed which I got was nothing but rubbish.

But provision was made.

I do not want to criticise too much. I appreciate the difficulties of the Board, but if there is one thing about which we must complain, it is the inconsistencies in control. I can speak of personal experience. I made application for a permit for seed mealies to be planted towards the end of October. The Mealie Control Board must surely know that one cannot arrange the rainy season at one’s pleasure. On the 31st October I was granted a permit. They forwarded it to the Exchange in Johannesburg, which had to provide me with the seed, but the permit was made valid for October only. This permit, issued on the 31st October, is made valid for October only. The permit reached Johannesburg on the 1st November. It is not really a case of stupidity on the part of the Mealie Control Board, because their excuse was that they could only issue a permit in respect of the month in which the application was made. Because my application for seed was made late in October, they could only make my permit valid for the month of October.

That is wrong, of course.

I just mention this so that the procedure can be altered, so that it can be made more elastic.

I am not so much concerned about the duties and lapses of the Control Board as I am about the critical situation in the Native territories. As I stand here I know that many Natives are actually starving. I know there are traders who have put in requisitions for 250 bags and they are being granted 150. The day I left, in Umtata I went to see the Chief Magistrate, and he quoted one trader who had ’phoned him that morning that he had requisitioned for 250 bags and had been allowed 120, and before they arrived they had been taken up by the Natives on the road. He ’phoned that there were 150 natives on the station who were waiting for mealies, and who were on the verge of starvation. That is the position in the Transkei today, and I want to give the Minister this assurance, that that position will exist until the end of March. There are no signs of green mealies there. We have been through a period of drought for the last month, and many crops have been burnt out; that I know of my own knowledge. The Minister has suggested that it should be the responsibility of the Native Department to control the distribution of grain in the Native territories. I wonder if the Minister meant that. If that is really the position, let us face up to it. Will the Minister, at this stage, grant to the Native Affairs Department full control, the right to purchase as much maize as they require, and control the distribution in the Native territories during the next three months.

[inaudible.]

I am glad the Minister has given the assurance here that as much maize as is required in the Transkei will be secured to the traders.

Not certified by the traders.

No. By the magistrate. At the beginning of December I had an interview with the Mealie Control Board, and I pointed out the very serious position that existed in these territories then, and they gave me the same undertaking, but in spite of that the traders are being cut down ell over the place, and the result is that there is no grain for the natives. Last year when this matter was discussed, I put forward the suggestion that in the Transkei a Board should be established to advise upon the position there. I pointed out that in the coastal area we had a bumper crop, the biggest crop we ever had, while on the higher plateau we were threatened with serious starvation. I saw the authorities of the Native Affairs Department, and proposed a scheme which I knew would meet the case. The Minister of Agriculture looked upon it with favour. I met the civic association representing the traders, and made arrangements for the constitution of the Board, a purely advisory body. I realised that we were going to be faced with a serious position. That Board, Sir, is still in the air. In the coastal district there have been more mealies than ever before. At this moment you can go there and see beer drink after beer drink. I counted the other day at one of these kraals as many as 20 of those barrels that they brew beer in, and in a distance of ten miles there are 20 or 30 beer drinks, while 40 tot 60 miles away there is absolute starvation. I am not going to place the responsibility for the position that has arisen upon the Mealie Control Board, but I want to say this, that there is not a single representative from the whole of the Eastern Province or any representative of the great native consuming public. Out of 16 or 18 members, there is not one representative of the greatest consuming area of the whole Union. That is wrong. They have one there who represents the Native Affairs Department in a purely advisory capacity, but he has no power or authority whatever. I ask the Minister whether it will not assist him and his Board to have some responsible people to advise him in connection with the conditions that arise in these territories. The position is this. Many traders have refrained from dealing in mealies for the last year, with the result that those who are trading in maize require three or four times the quantity they did the year before.

You want to break control.

I do not want to break control at this stage. I want to say his, that had we not had control mealies would have been fetching £3 a bag in the native areas and the position of this country would have been desperate. I am not accusing the Minister or his Department for one moment of having failed in their duty, I think they have done exceedingly well under all circumstances, and if they carry us through the next three months without human beings starving, then I say the Minister and Control Board will have done very useful work indeed. I am very pleased the Minister has given me the assurance that provision will be made to provide the Native Territories with all mealies required there. The natives can pay, they have plenty of money. A native offered me 25s. for a bag shortly before I came down. As long as the mealies are there the natives can pay for them, they have the money. I want the Minister to take immediate steps to relieve the position, and I hope the railways will be able to assist, because one of the fundamental necessities there is transport over hundreds of miles.

It is fairly late already; it is Friday, and there are still a number of members on this side who would like to say something in this connection. Will the Minister of Finance report progress at this stage?

I am prepared to do so, but I think hon. members will apprecaite that it is essential for us to dispose of the Estimates on Monday, together with the Appropriation Bill. I therefore move—