I move—

1. (5) For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4) the expression “baker” shall include a biscuit manufacturer.

The object of this is to make it clear that this concession will also apply to biscuit manufacturers who are not bakers in the ordinary sense of the word.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I take it that if we accept this clause it will not bind us and that we will still be able to move alterations in the schedule.

Yes, I also propose to move an amendement to the schedule.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I wish to move an amendment in respect of items 16 and 17 as follows—

The effect of the amendment is aimed at doing away with the proposed increase on the excise upon cigarettes. There is no doubt that the increase involved in these two items will considerably increase the expenses of the serving soldiers, both men and women, who have still quite a long time ahead of them before they will have finished the work on which they are engaged. Last year, when the Minister proposed an increase of this duty, I drew attention to the fact, that owing to the circumstances of the time, whether we approve or not, cigarettes have become almost inseparable from the soldier’s daily bread, and we were being asked seriously to contemplate an increase in the cost of that indispensable article. There is. a further point. I think it is accepted as true that today the best customers for cigarettes are women smokers. There are many of us old-fashioned enough not to approve, but there is no doubt that among the women smokers there are those who whilst devoted to this habit, are at the same time devoted mothers, wives or daughters, as the case may be, and none of these are the less devoted for being smokers.

Question.

I hear objections from hon. members. I hope I am not proclaiming revolutionary doctrines. I maintain that there are other sources of taxation which the Minister could have recourse to with less hardship to the rank and file of the people. May I say, incidentally, that the Select Committee on Public Accounts has had to consider instances in which actually the supply of cigarettes to the army has been manipulated with great profit to the profiteers who sit in the background and rake in the shekels. They are the people really who benefit by this increase. I think it is well-known that any increase in excise is followed by an increase in price, and very often an unjustified increase in price. You’ll find that the condemnation of daylight profiteering in regard to cigarettes is expressed in very strong terms in the report of the Select Committee. May I just ask the indulgence of the Committee for a moment or two to read the salient features of a case which was cited, and then the Committee will understand more about the kind of person we are to benefit.

Will the hon. member tell me what this has to do with the tax before the Committee.

I am prepared to obey your ruling if you rule to that effect. I am engaged in showing incidentally that the increase in price is going to benefit a very unworthy class of profiteer.

I don’t think the hon. member should pursue that course.

I invariably bow to a ruling from, the Chair, Sir.

I don’t think that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) will be surprised if I say that I cannot accept the amendment, nor will he be surprised if I say that he has raised this matter at a rather late stage. Here we have; one of the principal items of our budgetary proposals from which we expected to derive a considerable amount of revenue. There have been various opportunities of discussing this proposal, and the hon. member only raises it at this stage. It is perfectly true that serving soldiers are cigarette smokers, but they do not represent the bulk of the community, nor will they represent the bulk of the taxpayers, if this item is passed. It is impossible to discriminate between one section of smokers and another. And I think it has been generally accepted by the House so far, that a tax of this kind, a tax on consumption, a tax which is strictly of a voluntary nature as far as the consumer is concerned, is one of the least objectionable taxes. I hope the House will not accept this amendment.

I move, as an amendment—

I just want to say in this connection that I do not want to traverse the same ground again; I just want to express a few thoughts for the information of the Committee. In the first place, I repeat that it is unreasonable to levy this tax, which is going to take a considerable amount out of the small quantity of liquor which is consumed in this country. It is an unreasonable tax in comparison with the income derived from other sources. In the second place, I want to say that this is a tax on the poor man. The Minister wants to make us believe that the poor people can avoid paying this tax by not drinking. To many of the poorer people it is part of their food. Of course, the Minister does not understand that. He now levies a tax of 4d., whether the wine costs 1s. or 6s. per bottle. In other words, it is a tax of 25 per cent., or rather 33⅓ per cent. on the poor man, while it remains at 4d. per bottle on wine costing 6s. Judging by what the Minister said, it is his intention that the people should drink less. If he wants them to drink less, let him set about it in a different way. Do not tax the commodity to breaking point. It is not reasonable that the poor man should contribute the same amount as the rich man. What is 4d. to a man who pays 5s. or 10s. for a bottle of wine? Nothing. But it represents a big sum to the poor man if he has to pay 4d. on a bottle of wine costing 1s. It is an unfair tax, because it hits the poor man more heavily than the rich man. If the Minister does not want the people to drink, let him introduce legislation and say so outright. We would then know where we stand. The Government is not being fair towards the wine farmers. It only helps the mines, not the wine farmers. The wine farmers have to pay up to the last 6d. It has not received assistance from any government in the past; we have already learned that we can expect to be hit; we have to bear everything. We are accused of being responsible for crime and goodness knows what else. We know that that is not so. We know that it is only unbalanced people who talk like that; but this tax bears unequally on the people. The rich man can easily afford to pay this tax of 4d., but on a bottle of wine for which the poor man pays 1s. it is too much. I think it is unfair. I move, therefore, that this item be deleted. I do not want to give the figures again which have already been given; I do not want to detain the House, but I feel that I must protest once again. I cannot remain quiet and allow this unfairness to be perpetrated without saying anything. It is an unreasonable and unfair tax on one section of the population. We enquired from one of the big bottle stores in the city, and we are informed that their sale of taxable wine fell by approximately 50 per cent. during the previous month. The Minister also knows that last month the sale of brandy fell by approximately 50,000 gallons. Here we are now faced with a fall in the sale of good wine, and the farmers are already saddled with a big surplus. They have had a particularly big crop, and the consumption is falling. I take it that they will only be afforded assistance when they are on their knees. Instead of that, that section of the population which has never received assistance from the Government in the past, which has never borrowed a sixpence from the Land Bank, which has always been independent, ought to be kept going. That section of the community has done a great deal for the country, but here they are being specially taxed in order to pay for the war, although they have least interest in it. The mines are getting a subsidy; they have a direct interest in the war ; but they get a subsidy. Mining is an undertaking which, once the mines have been worked out, will leave nothing but holes and unemployment. They are given a subsidy, but nothing is done for this excellent industry; on the contrary, the burden of taxation is becoming heavier and heavier. I think any reasonable person who is not politically mad realises that this is an unfair attack on an industry which has justified its right of existence.

I can well understand the hon. member moving this amendment. He is consistent, at any rate, but I am also consistent, and I cannot therefore accept the amendment. I do not want to go into all the arguments again. The hon. member made a comparison between what the rich man pays and what the poor man pays in the form of taxation under this item. I understand, of course, that he has in mind fortified wines, and his argument is that there is one type of fortified wine which is sold at a higher price than the other types, while the same amount is paid by way of taxation on the better class of wine as on the wine of inferior quality. The same applies in relation to other commodities. It applies also in the case of cigarettes, although in that case it may not be so obvious. And finally, my reply, the reply which the hon. member does not want to accept, is that it rests with the person himself whether or not he is going to pay this tax.

I would like the Minister to understand that the cheaper type of wine is not poor wine; it is cheap because it is not so well matured. The rich man pays more for the wine which is ten or twenty years old. Even if there is this inequality of taxation burden in the case of cigarettes, two wrongs do not make a right, and as far as I know the difference in the case of cigarettes is only 1d. or 2d. on 50, but here we have a difference of 1s. per bottle of 6s.—sometimes up to 10s. per bottle. I have not even mentioned sparkling wine. If I were a dealer I would not stock imitation sparkling wine. In any event, there one deals with a class of person who can better afford to pay the tax. I am talking of the poorer type of man who takes his tot of wine every day. He is now required to pay much more in order to see the war through, although it does not affect him so much; but the rich man in whose interests this war is being fought, is taxed very much less, comparatively speaking. A great portion of the wine which is consumed is the cheaper type, probably about 75 per cent. Now the poor man is being taxed to the utmost, and the rich man is not being taxed proportionately. It is unfortunate that the Minister does not smoke or drink, because that is why he does not understand the man who wants his tot. It would be a good thing if the Minister were to drink a little wine. Perhaps it would lengthen his life and make him feel better. It is no valid argument to say that this tax is a voluntary tax, that the people need not drink. One might just as well say that one can avoid paying income tax by having no income. We are here dealing with taxation which hits the wine industry heavily. I therefore move this amendment.

I have no hitherto expressed my views in regard to this matter concerning the taxation on the various sections of the community. In any event, I am convinced that a word of warning to the Minister will not be fruitless, although we may not be able to get a direct concession. The fact that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) was the only one who fought for the wine industry, must not be regarded as proof that he is the only one who sympathises with the wine industry. The Minister knows that the wine industry in South Africa is an agricultural industry which has contributed tremendously to the development of civilisation in the Western Province. Here we have the cradle of civilisation in South Africa, and the wine industry contributed to the building up of an independent, courageous and persevering population, which is a matter of pride to us. I do not want to draw any comparison between the wine industry and other branches of the farming industry. But we can take a certain amount of pride in the conduct and action of the wine industry in the past, and of the farmers concerned with it. They are sometimes condemned by people who protest against the abuse of alcohol, but surely they are not responsible for that. The fact that this additional tax is now being imposed raises the question whether it is fair to levy this additional tax on this industry at the present time. I do not want to repeat the figures, but it has been shown that an ever-increasing burden is being placed on this industry. I remember the days when the tax on brandy was 7s. 6d. per gallon. That was not many years ago, and today the tax has not only been doubled but it has been increased by so many hundred per cent. This industry contributes considerably to the income of the State. I am not prepared to make a comparison between one industry and another. But this industry is already bearing a very heavy taxation burden, and this new tax is being imposed exclusively for war purposes. No one can maintain that it is necessary to collect this money for ordinary State services. Since that is so let us be clear that the wine industry is being taxed for the prosecution of the war, and as the hon. member for Swellendam indicated, the wine industry has not derived any benefit from the war, and for that reason it is all the more unfair to levy this tax on the industry for war purposes. The Minister says he is consistent. I do not blame him. We appreciate consistency in people. But the Minister must not think that it will not be seriously resented if he continues to impose additional taxation on this industry, and we maintain that this is an unfair addition to the already heavy taxes which have been placed on the wine industry. The fact that it is a luxury item cannot be used as an argument No one regards it as food in the ordinary sense of the word, but there is as much justification for the consumption of wine as there is in many cases for the consumption of sugar and commodities of that nature. It is a need which is felt by people which can be used to their advantage, without detriment to themselves.

I think it is a courtesy due to the Minister that I should admit that I was absent from the earlier stages of the Taxation Bill, through no fault of my own. But I do say that this is the proper time to have brought up my amendment and my present purpose is not to be tedious about the matter, but I merely mention that it is my intention that I among others should have an opportunity of putting on record the courage of my convictions. I think the Minister is under the impression that we are not serious when we protest against this, and I hope he will give us an opportunity of voting against this increase in the price of cigarettes.

I should like to support the plea of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I do think it might be possible to make some exception in the tax on cigarettes so far as the Defence Force is concerned. I do not see any great obstacle to that. That is the practice in Great Britain, in the Royal Navy and in the Army. They are all able to procure cigarettes at a reduced price—at a considerably reduced price—on account of the excise duty that prevails in Great Britain. I do feel that in these days when our armies are comprised of volunteers only—there is no conscription in the South African Army, there is no compulsion to join the Defence Force—that we can afford, as a gesture to our troops and naval forces, to give them special facilities to enable them to procure cigarettes at a low price. We manufacture them in South Africa.

Is it not a dangerous precedent?

I do not think it is a dangerous precedent; they have not found it to be a dangerous precedent in other countries. I believe the same conditions prevail in America as far as naval and military troops are concerned. They are also exempt from taxation.

They do not pay the tax in this country either.

I hope the hon. member will be able to support the hon. member for Pinetown in a practical way. It is just about time that we should show some differentiation between the military and the people who stayed at home. Fortunately it does not affect me. I was a heavy smoker, and I made a considerable contribution to this excise duty. I was smoking 50 cigarettes a day for a matter of 20 years. I gave it up not to dodge this excise duty; I gave it up on medical advice. As you know, Sir, the troops practically live on cigarettes at times. The first thing they ask for when they go into action is a cigarette. The first thing the wounded man asks for is a cigarette. I do think that a few cigarettes per day are very good for one if it does not affect one’s health. This matter was raised last year and we hoped that the Minister would be able to say : “I am going to show the troops that we do appreciate what they are doing, that they are not going to be treated in the same way as the man who stays at home.” Let the man who stays at home pay the tax. I think it would be possible to arrange this excise duty in such a way that only the troops will receive the benefit. It has been suggested that you should not penalise a large community of our Defence Force for the sake of a few unscrupulous people who may take advantage of it. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown, perhaps he will be good enough to indicate that next year a little concession will be made to the troops. Let him undertake to see that our men who have served us so well will derive this little benefit; and I suggest to the Minister that it is something worth while in the case of our fighting men who are such heavy smokers.

How do you expect South Africa to be an exception in that respect?

South Africa would be no exception. Britain has been doing this for many years. They did not impose a duty on cigarettes supplies to the Army and to the Navy. The same position obtains in America. We in South Africa are the only people who tax the cigarettes of our fighting men. Do not let us merely pay lip-service to the wonderful job these people do up North. When we have an opportunity of demonstrating our appreciation in a practical manner, let us do so. Some of these people receive so little in the way of allowances and pay, that they have very little money left for cigarettes, and if we could give them their cigarettes, at a considerably reduced price, it would be a godsend to many of them. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, will he assure us that next year this concession will be made to the men when they return, that we will not burden them with this excise duty, and that we will rescind in next year?

I want to associate myself heartily with the motion of this side of the House to delete this, excise duty, unless we get an assurance from the Minister that he is going to see to it that the price of cigarettes is brought down to what it was before this tax was imposed. During the second reading debate the Minister’s attention was drawn by this side of the House to what happened in the Select Committee of this House, and the Minister was told that certain things had come out in that connection which we could not divulge because the report had not yet been printed. The report has now been laid on the Table; it is public property, and we can now inform the House what happened in the Select Committee. Briefly it amounts to this. At the beginning of the war the tobacco manufacturers were asked at what price they would be prepared to provide cigarettes to the troops. They expressed their willingness to deliver it at 12s. per 1,000. After a few months the price was objected to. It was said that it was too high, and it was then proposed to have a cost investigation into the price of cigarettes, and because the tobacco companies did not want that, they voluntarily agreed to reduce the price of cigarettes for the Defence Force to 9s. 8d. per 1,000.

Will the hon. member tell me what that has to do with this excise duty?

We are not prepared to agree to this duty, unless we get an assurance from the Minister that he is not going to allow the tobacco companies to increase the price of cigarettes by the amount of the duty. They then voluntarily agreed to réduce the price from 12s. to 9s. 8d. per 1,000. There were people who thought that that price was still too high, and they insisted on a cost investigation. The Select Committee was told that the tobacco companies had refused to have the cost investigation, but the Government had the power and eventually the cost investigation took place. Do you know what came to light as a result of that investigation? It was revealed that although the price has been fixed at 9s. 8d. per 1,000, on the assumption that it would only give a profit of 10 per cent., the true position was that that price yielded a profit of 35 per cent. and the tobacco companies were compelled to make certain refunds. The report mentions the amount of the refund. Altogether it amounts to a sum of £300,000 on the cigarettes supplied to the army. I think the Minister will realise how big the orders must have been to involve a refund of £300,000. Cigarettes are now being sold to the public at 2s. for 50. That means £2 per 1,000. The Minister may say that this duty is included in one price and not in the other. In the Select Committee this question was put—

The reply was—

Question—

Reply–

I just want to say this to the Minister, that if the profit is 35 per cent. on a price of 9s. 8d. per 1,000, what is the profit which is made by the companies when the price is £2 per 1,000? Have I not got every right to ask the Minister, since he is imposing this new duty, since the tobacco companies are able to pay the tobacco tax and then still make an excessive profit, that he should not impose this duty on the public? All the particulars are contained in the report of the Select Committee. The refunds were as follows—

If the selling price is 2s. for 50 or £2 per 1,000 these companies must make a profit of 130 per cent. or 140 per cent. It is not reasonable that the public should bear this duty. I thought it would be in the public interest to make these figures known to the House and to the country and I therefore support the motion of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick).

I do not think my hon. friend will expect me at this stage to go into the general question of the profits of cigarette manufacturers. That is something which will probably come up for discussion when an opportunity presents itself to deal with the report which my hon. friend mentioned. He only referred to it in view of the price of cigarettes to the public. As far as that is concerned, I have already undertaken to bring it to the notice of the Price Controller. The fixation of prices is a matter which falls under his control. I have heard nothing further from him, apparently because this report only appeared a few days ago. I shall again raise the matter with him, and I hope we shall arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Question put: That tariff items 16 and 17, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the schedule.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—63 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—23 :

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Erasmus, H. S.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Neate, C.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: G. P. Steyn and S. E. Warren.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick negatived.

Question put: That tariff item 22, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Schedule.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—65 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—22 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and G. P. Steyn.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren negatived.

First Schedule, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the Second Schedule,

I beg to move the amendments as printed—

The first one is consequential to the one we have accepted to Clause 4 and the second one will provide for a rebate of duty on wine for distillation purposes. Otherwise the distillers would have to pay duty twice.

Amendment put and agreed to.

During the second reading debate I told the Minister that it seemed to me, in regard to item 52, which deals with the 15 gallons which the wine farmer gets from the K.W.V. in exchange for wine, that this should be given annually, based on the wine farmer’s year which runs from the 1st February. The Minister is now using the word “calendar” year. The Wine Control Act does not refer to “calendar” year but merely “year”. In Section 4 (a) of the original Act it says “in any year”.

The hon. member raised this point during the second reading debate. From a technical point of view, I think he is correct, but in the existing Act where we make provision in item 29 for spirits which is provided in exchange for wine, we also refer to “calendar” year in connection with the 15 gallons. That wording has now been used and the difficulty which might have arisen is eliminated administratively. As long as the term “calendar year” is used there, we must continue to use it here, but the hon. member can take it for granted that any difficulty will be eliminated administratively.

I am very pleased to have the Minister’s assurance. But if the year is reckoned for administrative purposes from the 1st February, why cannot it be laid down in this Act?

Because the Excise Act refers to “calendar year”.

The title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clause 4 and in the Second Schedule put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 3rd May.

Third Order read: Second reading, Death Duties Amendment Bill.

I move—

This Bill has as its primary object the translation into law of the resolution which has been passed by this House in Committee of Ways and Means with regard to Death Duties. Hon. members will see that the proposed new rates of Estate and Succession Duties are contained in the substituted first and second schedules which are embodied in Clause 6 of this Bill and that with Clause 6 must be read Section 2 (b) of the Bill which deals with the present abatement of £15,000. Instead of an abatement on the taxable amount of £15,000 it is proposed that in future there will be a rebate of £300 on the amount of tax calculated in terms of the formula. These proposals were discussed in the Budget Debate, they were discussed on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and they were again discussed when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means. I dealt fully with the proposals then, so I shall not go into details now. Let me summarise the position. There are proposals both in regard to Estate Duty and to Succession Duty. The proposals in regard to Estate Duty are the more important. There our primary object, of course, is to secure more revenue, but at the same time we wish to make the rate of progression of duty more regular than it is today. Now what is effected by this new scale as set forth in the new substituted schedule in Clause 6? The following: in the first place the duty will now become payable from £10,000 instead of from £15,000 as at present. In the second place the maximum rate of duty will be 33⅓ per cent. instead of 25 per cent. and that maximum will be reached at £111,000. And thirdly the scale will follow a more regular rate of progression than is the case at present. The scale proposed is three ten thousandths of £1 for every completed £100 or part thereof and from the amount so calculated £300 is deducted. That means that on an estate of £1,000 the rate is ten times three ten thousandths, that is thirty ten thousandths which gives £3. From that you deduct £300 and therefore there is no duty payable. Take an estate of £10,000. There the rate is three hundred ten-thousandths; that works out at £300 from which you deduct £300 so there is no duty. Take an estate of £100,000. There the rate works out at three thousand ten-thousandths, i.e. £30,000 from which you deduct £300 which leaves you £29,700. There are, of course, slight unevennesses at about every £100, but the rate will show an improvement on the present rate which is very uneven throughout the first half. Then as far as Succession Duties are concerned, the proposal simply is to increase the present rate of duty payable, but Succession Duties under our law are payable at different rates according to the degree of relationship. The present rate is two per cent. where the successor is a direct descendant or ascendant of the testator, four per cent. where the successor is the brother or sister, six per cent. where the successor is a descendant of the brother or sister, and ten per cent. in other cases. We now propose simply to change those rates from two, four, six and ten per cent., to three, five, eight and twelve per cent., and in addition we propose to levy an additional one per cent. on the amount of any succession duty above ten per cent. It is also provided in Clause 7 that these new rates will take effect in respect of the estate of any person who dies on or after the first of April of this year.

Does the extra one per cent. only operate above £1,000?

Yes, one per cent. on the amount of succession above £10,000. So much then for the part of the Bill which gives effect to the resolutions which the House has already adopted. Advantage has been taken however of the opportunity presented by this Bill in order to effect amendments in the existing law with a view to its more equitable operation. There are two main matters dealt with in the earlier clauses of the Bill. There is first the case of the man, who transfers his estate to a private company controlled by himself and then gets the company to make a dispostion for the property or the estate to pass after that man’s death to someone else, for either no consideration or a nominal consideration. Hon., members will see at once how in that way death duties may be escaped. The object of some of the amendments of this Bill is to enable property passing in that way to fall within the scope of the Estate and Succession Duties. Clause 1 (a) brings such property within the scope of estate duty. Clause 1 (d) defines controlling interest for the purposes of these provisions. Clause 3 deals with the valuation of such property for estate duty purposes. Clause 4 (a) brings such property within the scope of Succession Duties, and then alongside those provisions there are the provisions of Clauses 1 (c) and 4 (b) which bring within the scope of Estate and Succession Duties property donated or disposed of for a nominal consideration by a company of the nature referred to, within two years of the death of the person who has the controlling interest. As hon. members are aware, if the individual himself disposes of the property within two years of his death, that property falls within his estate for duty purposes. It seems only right that that should apply where a person has formed a company, and that company makes a donation within two years of his death. That is the first main point dealt with in the earlier clauses of this Bill. The other main point is the matter usufruct, and there I would refer the House to Section 2 (a) which substitutes a new Section 4 (a) (7) in the existing law. Along with Section 2 (a) there must be read Paragraph 1 (b) as a consequential amendment. Now the principle of the Death Duties Act is that when a man who has enjoyed usufruct dies, the value of the cessation of that usufruct is part of the estate for duty purposes. Now under the Act of 1922, the original Death Duties Act, if a testator married in community of property died, leaving property subject to usufruct to his surviving spouse, then half that duty was payable on half of the estate at his death and on the other half on the death of his surviving spouse. That was felt to be somewhat harsh. It was felt that the first usufruct should not be liable to death duty and so in 1925 an amendment was made which was intended to have the effect of exempting the first usufruct from death duty, but that amendment seems to have gone further than what was intended at the time. It had the effect of exempting from estate duty the value of the cessation of the usufruct in respect of the share of the property which belonged to the surviving spouse as well as in respect of the share which belonged to the testator. Now the share of the property belonging to the surviving spouse might have been more than half the property. The effect was that no duty was collected in respect of that part of the property when the usufruct ceased, and the purpose of this amendment in the first place is to rectify that and to make duty payable at least in respect of that share of the property which had been brought in by the surviving spouse. But on the other hand, the amendment of 1925 operated harshly, creating an anomaly in one respect. Its object was, as I have said, to exempt from Estate Duty the usufruct of the surviving spouse, but in some cases, the wrong person benefited from that provision. Let me give an instance. A testator bequeathed his property to his grandson, subject to a usufruct in the first instance to the surviving spouse, then to his son and then his son’s wife and only after the death of the son’s wife does it come to the grandson. Now under the law as it stands, when the surviving spouse dies, the exemption holds. That was in accordance with the law of 1925, and the son pays no duty. But when the son dies, then his surviving spouse does pay duty, whereas when the son’s wife dies, then the grandson pays no duty. Now that is putting the thing the wrong way round. The intention was that in such cases the son’s wife should not pay duty, but the grandson, the ultimate beneficiary, should. And the purpose of this amendment is to effect that. In the same Clause 2, there are two new paragraphs, viii and ix which it is proposed to put into 4 (d) of the Principal Act which deals with cases where bequests are made for public charities subject to usufruct. In such cases the law today allows relief on estate duty. We propose to make it clear that the amount of relief in such cases is the value which passes to the ultimate recipient after the deduction of the value of the interposed usufructuary interest. In other words, payment should be made on that portion of the value of the property concerned which is actually enjoyed by the person who is to have the usufruct. Then under the law as it stands the charity or the public body which ultimately receives the benefit has to pay duty in respect of the cessation of usufructuary interest. That I don’t think was contemplated. Here again the burden is put on the wrong person, and so we propose in this clause to relieve the ultimate recipient, be it a public body or a charitable institution, from duty in respect of the cessation of the interest. Well those are the proposals of this Bill. The main proposals as I have indicated are taxation proposals, but at the same time we seek to take advantage of the introduction of this measure to clear up one or two points of uncertainty and difficulty in the existing law.

I want to precede my remarks by objecting to what one can only describe as a serious departure from sound parliamentary custom. It is a cardinal principle of parliamentary custom not to ask Parliament to vote money before it has had every opportunity to “get grievances redressed.” That is to say that the taxation Bills should only be introduced after the estimates have been practically disposed of. I have here before me a paper entitled “Parliamentary Procedure on Public Finance” by the Clerk of the House. He admits here that there is nothing in the Standing Rules and Orders but he says that it is the practice. He says: “As a general rule” the consideration of taxation proposals is left over until the House has had an opportunity of dealing with the estimates and that is emphasised right throughout this little book. Let me refer to page 7 where he says this—

And a little later on page 12 he says this—

Yes, but this is not “a granting of supply.”

I have a ruling here by Mr. Speaker in 1942 in which he particularly emphasises this. He says—

What is the position at the moment? We are only half way through the estimates. We have only disposed of 28 of the 44 votes, so that there are 16 left in respect of which we have to vote money without Parliament, in accordance with ancient practice, having had the opportunity of discussing grievances, of submitting grievances to the Government and of getting them redressed by discussion. If we continue in this way, all the taxation proposals will have been disposed of and the Minister will have all his money without our having had an opportunity to discuss grievances and get them redressed. I can only describe this as a serious departure from century old parliamentary custom and conditions, and I hope the Minister will take this into account. The taxation proposals should only be placed before the House in the form of Bills when the estimates have been almost disposed of. Now let me deal with this tax itself. I have explained the attitude of this side of the House on previous occasions. Our attitude briefly is this: that we are not in favour of great wealth being accumulated in the hands of a few rich people. We are not in favour of that, and therefore when the Minister wants to redistribute that wealth by means of an estate duty or by succession duties we have no objection in principle. But we have warned the Minister before that it is quite possible in South Africa to go too far or too fast. We cannot say that South Africa today is a highly developed country. We have in South Africa a process of development, to build up our farms, and to develop our factories. We have not yet reached the position which certain old countries in the world have reached—let us take England as an example—where the industries have already reached such a financial peak that there is no longer any need continually to keep on pumping new capital into those industries, in fact it is even possible to withdraw capital from some of those industries. So far as South Africa is concerned it can certainly not be said that we have achieved that position. We are still building up our farms and developing our factories. Fresh capital has to be invested every year, and an estate duty is nothing but a capital levy. We look upon this as dangerous in South Africa, especially in view of the situation of the farming industry we consider it dangerous to impose a heavy capital levy on the farming industry of this country. It means at the end of every generation a large proportion of the capital is withdrawn from the farm or the factory no matter whether the farm or the factory can stand it. That is why we have taken up this attitude that we are not in favour of the Minister dropping the abatement from £15,000 to £10,000. We feel that the Minister should leave it at £15,000, and if the Minister then tells us that that will mean that we are going to lose revenue, then we shall have no objection to his raising the maximum of the scale. The maximum at the moment is 6s. 8d. and we on this side would have no objection if the Minister were to increase that maximum to 10s. In that way he would recover the revenue which he might perhaps lose under our proposition. That was our attitude when this proposition was placed before us in the first instance. Since that time we have had the opportunity of scrutinising the Minister’s taxation proposals further. We have had the opportunity of getting a better insight into the whole position as to whom the Minister is now taxing and whom he is not taxing. I can only say, on behalf of this side, that after the experience we have gained in connection with the Minister’s unwillingness to tax speculators on the share market we refuse to agree to this proposal of his—I can only say that our objection to this measure has become stronger and the Minister can expect, that unless he promises that before the end of the Session he will also tax these people as they should be taxed, we shall fight every inch of the ground which the Minister will have to cover in piloting this tax through the House, and we shall do all we can to oppose this proposal. If we analyse this tax, we must realise that it will affect a large proportion of the farming population and that in many instances it may compel the farmer to take a bond on his land, and we refuse to agree to the farmer being compelled in this way to mortgage his land while other people are making pots and pots of money, and the Minister is too nervous to touch them. That is the attitude of this side of the House. We want to say clearly that we stand for equality of taxation and sacrifice. That is what we insist upon. When the Minister tells us that there is a war on, and that that war costs money and that someone has to pay for it we say : “Very well, we must all pay alike.” And where the Minister has shown very clearly this year that he is discriminating against certain sections of the population, we intend fighting his taxation proposals to the last ditch. This tax in particular is going to hit the farming population of South Africa very hard. The prices of land have gone up. There are very few farmers in this country who, when they die, will not leave an estate which at the present prices of land will not be valued at £20,000 or £30,000. If a farmer in the Free State has 600 or 700 morgen that land can now be valued so that it will assist towards raising his estate up to £20,000.

Are not those people capitalists?

A man like that is perhaps making a decent living now, but there have been years when he has not been able to make a decent living on 600 morgen, and now the hon. member says that that man is a capitalist. A farmer with a farm of 600 morgen in his estate, can, with the high valuation of land, be valued at being worth £20,000, and what is the result? He has to pay an Estate Duty of nearly £1,000. He hasn’t got the cash which means that he has to take a bond of £1,000 on the farm to pay the Estate Duty.

But is that a reasonable price for the land.

The farmer is not responsible for the price of the land. The Government’s inflationary measures are responsible. Prices have gone up. The farmer stays on the farm and cultivates his land, and the price of land has gone up through no fault of his.

But how can the valuation of the 600 morgen amount to £20,000.

I say that with today’s prices of land a farmer isn’t necessarily a rich man if his whole estate is valued at £20,000 or £25,000. With prices as they now are a farmer can still pay £1,000. But assuming he has taken a bond of £1,000 and the years of depression come, then he has the £1,000 bond on his farm and what do the farmers’ representatives have to say about that?

I don’t know how you get £20,000 on a 600 morgen farm.

The farm is valued when the man dies. We have not yet reached the highest point in the rise of prices. The biggest rise in the price of land came two years after the last war. As long as the war is on, the Government can exercise strict control, and the public are disposed to be patient, but as soon as the war is over, while people have given the Government a bit of a free hand during the war, we find that the biggest rise takes place. The farmer dies, and his land is valued at market price, and if he is assessed for a tax which he cannot pay, he has to take up a bond. A year later everything collapses and he has a bond on his farm.

Has the farmer only got one child?

The Estate Duty has nothing to do with the children, but is a tax on the whole of the estate. The hon. member should study the Bill before he talks about these things. It is the Succession Duties which fall on the respective portions of the inheritance. Now this is a question which I want to bring to the notice of farmers’ representatives in this House: on them rests the responsibility to decide whether they are going to support this proposal, which is going to get the farmers into the same trouble in which they were years ago. I have the figures before me in regard to these two taxes and I want to quote these figures to the House to show how the Estate Duty has been increased since the beginning of the War. I am giving the pre-war figures and I want to show what they are going to be under this legislation. First of all let me take an estate of £12,000. With the price of land as it is at present, the farm hasn’t to be very big to bring the value of the estate up to £12,000. It only has to be a small bit of land on which the farmer finds it very difficult to make a living. I am not talking of the Free State only, but also of the South-Western Districts where land is expensive. You cannot buy it for less than £12 or £15 per morgen so the farm dosn’t have to be a very big one to make the estate go up to £12,000, or £15,000 or £20,000. These farmers don’t grow wheat, but they produce vegetables, and during the last few days we have again had the experience of the potato market collapsing as a result of the Government’s actions. These people are struggling to make a living. Before the War, on an estate of £12,000, no Estate Duty had to be paid. The duty on an estate like that today is £132. On £15,000 no Estate Duty was payable before the War. Today the duty is £375. Before the War, the duty on a £20,000 estate was £185, today the duty is £900. On a £25,000 estate the duty before the war was £635, today it is £1,575, and a man leaving an estate like that cannot be called a big farmer. It is the price of land which can be responsible for the farmer’s total estate being valued very often at £20,000 or £25,000. We should take into account that this is not a War tax which can be taken off immediately after the war is over. It is being incorporated in our taxation system in this country. It is there to stay. It remains until after the war is over and till after the days of plenty have gone, and even stays there after a tremendous depression has come over this country again, and the farmers’ representatives have to take that fact into account. We know that there has been a tremendous outcry of recent years demanding our assistance to get rid of their mortgage bond burdens. The Minister is now proposing a tax which is going to force the farmers to take bonds on their farms. Where the Government is trying to do good with the one hand it is doing twice as much harm with the other. On a £25,000 estate the duty before the war was £635, and now it is £1,535. On a £30,000 estate the tax before the was was £1,285, and now it is £2,400. We on this side of the House intend opposing this part of the Minister’s Bill—that is the part dealing with the drop in the abatement from £15,000 to £10,000—to the last ditch. In regard to the other provisions of the Bill I can say that there is one part which we welcome, that is the part dealing with a case where a family converts itself into a company for the purpose of escaping income tax in that way. I know of instances where men have had estates of £80,000 and more— there’s one case of that kind which occurred last year where the man turned his family into a company. Fortunately or unfortunately he died before the first of April, so his company got off scot free. I had intended bringing this matter to the Minister’s attention this year, because in those cases they not only escape the Estate Duty but also the Excess Profits Duty. In this particular case the man turned his family into a company; he himself was the Governing Director with a salary of £2,500. His eldest son was Managing Director with a salary of £1,500. His wife was appointed as Works Manager or something of the kind, and each of the children were paid directors’ fees of £1,000 per year. The directors’ fees amounted to £10,000. Now that was done, not only to escape the Estate Duty but also the Excess Profits Duty. We welcome that part of the Bill and there we shall support the Minister. We are not so sure that we are doing the right thing in amending the 1925 amendment. I have not yet had time carefully to study all the implications of the change which the Minister proposes, and I shall therefore wait until the Committee stage before finally expressing an opinion. I just want to say to the Minister that we on this side are in favour of the principle of equality of taxation and equality of sacrifice. The Minister refuses to accept that principle. He says he cannot accept it. I want to ask the Minister whether he has seen the offer made by Dr. Dönges in the “Cape Times.” The Minister says that he cannot achieve equality of taxation because he is struggling to find a way of taxing the gamblers on their profits. Dr. Dönges has said in the “Cape Times” that if the Minister is prepared to grant him and this side of the House the necessary facilities, we shall produce such a measure before the end of the Session. We undertake to do so and the Minister will then be able to play the role of critic for the moment and he with his department will be able to criticise our proposal. I should like the Minister in his reply to tell us whether he is prepared to accept Dr. Dönges’ offer, yes or no. If not, we say there is a deliberate inequality of taxation. We say the Minister refuses to tackle those people and to pluck them. And as long as the Minister refuses to do so we are not going to allow the farming community again to be plunged into that condition of misery in which they were before. I will say at once that we intend voting against this Bill as a whole.

I am afraid I shall be very unpopular in the House in taking up the attitude which I do. I am personally against these heavy duties. I do not think many people realise what a tremendous difference they will make to any kind of enterprise. Supposing you have a man who has a business or an estate worth £150,000. He leaves this business probably with the usufruct to his wife, and the business to his son or sons. As I read the Act, such a business will have to pay £50,000 in death duties, that is to say 6s. 8d. in the £. The wife has the usufruct and the son perhaps administers the business. Then she dies after a year or two, and the unfortunate son has again to pay a third of the value of that business in death duties. I speak under correction, but I understand that is the fact, because I see in this schedule there is case in point on page 7 where it say that “G” bequeathes a property to his grandson through his son. Well, now I am speaking of a wife who has the usufructuary interest and the son has the business. In the case I have quoted the business will have to pay two death duties which will ultimately reduce the property to something a little bit more than a third of the total value. That means that the son will have to turn his business probably into a limited liability company. It may be that he will not be able to raise sufficient capital, in which case the business is going to suffer still more. He may have to raise a bond on the property in very difficult circumstances and have such a burden round his neck that although he may be thoroughly well acquainted with the business and be just the sort of man who can develop it, yet he will be so handicapped that for the rest of his life he will be in deep water and never be able to use his talents in industry in the way that he should be able to do. I take great exception to these heavy death duties. Probably when legislators pass this sort of thing the bulk of them, knowing that there is no possibility of succeeding to any I large amount, and thinking that after all these people are going to get money left them, money from home, as it were, money which they have not earned, they should be taxed as heavily as possible. But when you are doing that you are probably going to handicap people who are experts in that particular line. These big assets generally either come to the son of a wealthy farmer, a manufacturer, merchant or someone of that kind. Now and again there are large estates that pass from a wealthy speculator, and you may think that those estates are justifiably taxed. Well, that is also a question. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) spoke a great deal about income tax not being paid by people who make money from shares.

Well, there are two sides to that case also.

You have men certainly who make money from dealing in shares, but the companies concerned are sometimes exceedingly speculative, and people very often lose money; I suppose they lose more often than they gain and the money goes into the ground and never comes out. If you are going to penalise people, the result will be that some new companies will never be floated, because people will not risk their money.

The hon. member is going too far; he must come back to the principle of the Bill.

Under these circumstances, whether that money has been made by share speculation or not, I do not think heavy death duties are advisable in a country like ours. The hon. member for George spoke just now about this country not being fully developed, and he deprecated too high taxation on farms. You have exactly the same set of circumstances here, and I maintain that we are unwise to adopt this heavy system of taxation. In any case I ask the Minister whether I am correct in this contention that a property which is left with usufructuary interest will have to pay two death duties, one on the death of the testator and the second on passing to the ultimate heir. If that is the case, it seems to me that it will mean you are going to reduce these assets to such an extent that after a time there will be practically nothing left.

If we are going to be out and out socialists, well and good, let us say so at once. But until we have adopted that I do not think it is fair to penalise certain people who will be of great benefit to the country. These are being penalised now to such an extent that you handicap their activities and their genius in their own particular line.

We are not opposed to estate duty as such, but I must say that I have always felt that our system of estate duty is entirely wrong, and in my opinion unjustifiable. The attitude which the State adopts of taxing an estate as such, irrespective of the circumstances of the estate; of taking into consideration the amount only, 1s. wrong in my opinion. The State adopts the attitude that because a man leaves £100,000 for example, he must be taxed on that amount. It is not taken into account who inherits the money or the property; how many children the testator has. I cannot appreciate that it is fair that an estate of £100,000, where the testator has one child only, should pay estate duty on the same basis as the estate of a person who leaves £100,000 and who had ten children. Apparently the state’s argument is that the heir inherits this money without having worked for it himself, and that he should therefore hand over a portion of it to the state. Very well, but in the one case one child inherits £100,000, and that estate is taxed on the same basis as an estate where the money has to be divided amongst ten children. The estate duty is the same; even the succession duties are the same. Although the estate is therefore divided amongst ten children, the same estate duty is payable as in the case of an estate where the money is left to one child only. And that is the unfair part of it. Cannot a more reasonable system of estate duty be introduced which will take into account the number of people amongst whom the money is divided? Surely it is in the interest of the country that large inheritances should be divided amongst as many persons as possible, and that it should not remain in the hands of one person. But this estate duty does not encourage a testator to divide the £100,000, it encourages him to bequeath it to one child only. I do think we ought to alter that system and introduce a fairer system. The Minister says that his revenue will be decreased if he abandons this form of taxation. But if he is afraid of that, let him tax the bigger estates more heavily. Today the limit is at £111,000. Above that figure the duty remains the same; the scale remains the same. Let him tax the bigger estates more heavily. Let the estate of £110,000, where there is only one heir, pay a higher estate duty, but help the estate where the money is divided amongst a number of people. Let the State rather lose that money and make it up from big estates, where the scale can be stepped up. There are many cases where one person inherits £250,000. I say that in that case the State should take a fairly big sum; I would like to see a very big slice taken out of it, because in these days, if one person inherits £250,000 he is inheriting a very big sum of money, and I feel that the State would be entitled to take a large portion of it. My attitude is that the State should rather tax the bigger estates more heavily, and exempt the smaller estates. Then there is another question which seems unfair to me. I want to put this position. The Act provides that if a person bequeaths money or property to his children by way of donation more than two years before his death, it will not be subject to estate duty.

Take this case, for example. Husband and wife are married in community of property; they jointly make a donation to their children, but one of the spouses dies within two years of making the donation; in other Words, the donation is subject to estate duty. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has always ruled—that say for example the estate is worth £10,000—that when the property again falls into the estate, the community of property will apply; in other words, only £5,000 will fall into the estate and the remaining £5,000 comes under the deceased estate. But two years ago the Transvaal Court decided in the case of Cohen versus Commissioner of Inland Revenue, that the full amount falls into the estate and that community of property is not recognised. Surely that money was the property of the two spouses jointly. Why should the community not be recognised; why should estate duty be payable on the full amount? As a result of this decision notice has now been given to the various Masters that that is the position. I know of estates where this decision has operated harshly against the persons concerned. I hope the Minister will go into that point, and that this matter will be rectified. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue will be able to give him the details.

I should be failing in my duty if I did not say a few words about this tax. This Estate Duty of all taxes is the one of which people are most afraid. The Minister has now brought down the basis of the tax from £15,000 to £10,000, knowing, as he perhaps does that in that way he will tax the middle class man’s estate. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) mentioned the case of a farmer in the Free State, and hon. members on the Government benches declared themselves astonished at the fact that the estate of an average farmer should be taxed at £20,000 and more. Take the average farmer with a farm of 700, 800 or 1,000 morgen. That man’s estate is immediately valued at £20,000 or more. Hon. members should realise that in certain parts of the country land values are considerably higher than they are in other parts. In my own district, for instance, land was recently sold for £25 per morgen. If a farmer, therefore, leaves a farm of 700, 800 or 1,000 morgen his estate is very hard hit. Let me mention a case which occurred recently. A man—he wasn’t a rich man, but a man who lives quietly on his farm, a man who did not indulge in the luxuries of town life, but who had learned from his early youth to be economical—died recenly. He had 1,000 or perhaps more than a 1,000 morgen of land, and his widow is faced today with the position of having to find from £2,000 to £2,500 to pay the Estate Duty. She has to meet other expenses as well. That man’s children are still minors. Their father left them a piece of unencumbered land, but when the day comes for them to take it over, they will have to take it over under bond, which of course is a very serious thing. The Minister is going to hit the middle class farmer by bringing down the abatement from £15,000 to £10,000. We have been taught since we were little children to be economical and not to indulge in luxuries, not to waste, but to save a little bit so that we can leave our children something when we die. But it seems to me that the Minister has accepted the principle that you must not leave your children anything. He has not given us the assurance that he will not next year bring down the abatement to £7,500 or £5,000. This Bill will now be placed on the Statute Book and the public will have to pay for it. It is not a temporary measure. I am not one of those who is opposed to taxation, but still one has to watch and make sure that the taxes that are imposed are fair taxes. The Minister is now taxing the people who have preserved their land in the rural districts and who have studied thrift. They have been taught not to run into debt. But this tax will force them to contract debts. We are told that the land is worth so much money, and that a man’s cattle is worth so much. It may be argued that the cattle before the war were worth £5 a head, whereas today it is worth £15. One should not, however, lose sight of the fact that the cattle constitutes the farmer’s capital. I hope the Minister will reconsider this question. I do not think it is too late to remedy the position and I want to appeal to the Minister not to take such drastic action, especially after a family has been bereaved through one of the parents dying. Do not force those people into the position of having to contract debts. It is the one thing they have guarded against all their lives. The children will now have to take over land which they will have to mortgage to enable them to pay the estate duty. Every farmer has the ambition to leave his children land which is unencumbered, but that would be quite impossible if this tax is agreed to.

We have taken note of what the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech this morning—that these principles had been approved of by the House more than once—and consequently there is very little prospect of introducing any amendments to these proposals. But there are some surrounding circumstances which we have to emphasise, and one of the matters which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is that I am finding it extremely difficult at this late stage of the Session to pay proper attention to a Bill with so many amendments, especially where we already have a long list of Bills on the Order Paper and the House is already very much overworked. To introduce so many new things at this stage of the Session, together with the taxation proposals is expecting too much from hon. members. It is clear from remarks which have come from some parts of the House that there are members who haven’t even read the Bill. And I don’t blame them. It is difficult at this stage of the Session to pay careful attention to all the amendments proposed to the taxation measures. We have no excuse as far as the taxation proposals themselves are concerned, but these additional amendments contain so many implications that no member has the time tb go into them thoroughly and to do his duty to his constituents and to the public. I should like to make a few remarks about the amendments before coming to the actual principles involved. First of all let me say a few words about the amendment dealing with tax evasions. This to me is proof of the Minister’s ingenuity in replacing a mortal being by an immortal being. In other words by a legal individual. In principle there can be no objection to the prevention of these evasions, but the Minister should realise that as long as this process of increasing our taxes from year to year continues, human ingenuity will do all it can to evade taxation. The Minister must expect that. Numerous factors are lacking to compel people to pay these taxes under the present system for the purpose for which these taxes are used. The Minister needs the revenue for the war in which the Government is taking part, but the Minister should take into account the fact that the great majority of the taxpayers are not in sympathy with him and that is why they will not support him. He will have to keep on introducing taxes and amendments from year to year. He will have to see to it that these funds are spent in a totally different way. There is no moral obligation on people to pay taxes which are used for this purpose, and the country is fed up at the realisation that the money is being misspent. I say, therefore, that the Minister will have to keep on amending his taxation laws from year to year. There can be no objection to the provision aiming at preventing evasions, nor can we have any objection to the provision dealing with donations. But now I come to the provision dealing with the existing usufruct, the taxes which will be levyable on the estate where there is usufruct. Does the Minister merely want to amend the existing Act simply because he is busy amending his Act? The question which arises is where we are dealing with a legal conception, whether other considerations should not also be taken into account. There are social considerations in a matter of this kind which should also be taken into account. Not only is it very difficult to understand all the implications of the amendment, but the question is whether it is necessary in this connection to pass this type of amendment which the Minister has announced in view of its social implications. That is what I would like to know from the Minister. Is it his experience that the right of usufruct which has passed from one person to another is being abused? Is it his experience or is it the experience of his Department that it is being abused; in other words has there ever been an instance where such usufruct has been abused for the purpose of evading obligations to the State? I don’t know of such instances, But because it is so difficult for me to follow this whole question on account of social aspects being involved, the question is whether the Minister should insist on his amendments in this respect. Now I come to the great point in regard to the increase in Succession Duties and to the considerable reduction of the abatement in the Estate Duties. Nobody would object to the State having claim to its share in the revenue of accumulated assets. It is one of the recognised sources for the State to tax to ensure a more balanced distribution of wealth. But while I want to support that principle wholeheartedly, I am faced with these implications—first of all whether it is the right thing to tax the estate so heavily irrespective of the effect of such tax on the heir? Should not the number of heirs be taken into account? The hon. member for Winburg, (Mr. Swart) raised that question, and I certainly think it should have the Minister’s attention. It is a pertinent question which must have far-reaching social effects. Secondly, I want to ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that South Africa is not fully developed, and in view of the fact that that capital must be looked upon as a source for the development of our resources, whether he does not feel that it should be the subject of special consideration. Is it fair today to bring down the basis from £15,000 to £10,000 when we have for years been exempting from Estate Duty all estates below £15,000? Is it fair to tax the smaller estates while the big estates, which surely should provide the State with the means of distributing accumulated assets, are not taxed more heavily? Is it fair to let the rising scale stop at a certain curve and to increase the tax on the smaller estates irrespective of the social effects? I assume that that aspect has been considered by the Minister and that he will tell me that he has gone into this whole question. The Minister will not blame us for feeling that he is imposing estate duties on small estates while at the same time he is not prepared to increase the tax on speculators. Where the Minister wants to secure revenue for the purpose for which he requires it, and he is now increasing the tax on the smaller estates, and where on the other hand he is letting the speculator off scot free, he must not expect to get any sympathy from us or from the public outside. Neither the Minister nor his Party who are responsible for this form of taxation will find that it will meet with the approval of the country as a whole. Perhaps it is too late to expect the Minister to abandon this form of taxation but we want to ask him to reconsider the whole matter.

I have never really found the Minister very sympathetic towards the platteland. I just want to ask him this. Since the property of the farmer has always been something which has given him confidence in the future, and since the Minister now proposes to tax the estate of the farmer so heavily, we feel that we must protest against this measure. If the Minister had said that this money was required to see the war through, we would have been able to understand it. But here we have a tax which is not of a temporary nature, a tax which will hang like a millstone round the necks of our children in the future. We feel that it is our duty to acquaint the Minister with the position in which the farming community found itself before the war. In 1928 farming in South Africa was on a very sound footing. We then had a Minister Who was very conservative, just as the Minister is today. But even that conservative Minister did not dare to touch the property of the farmers. The present Minister now proposes to meddle with the property of the farmer, the farmer’s capital. If he wants to do so as a war measure, one might still understand it, but we cannot understand why this tax should continue after the war. If he is imposing this duty merely in order to find money for the war, one might understand it. But there was no statement on his part that it would be of a temporary nature. As I have said, in 1928 the position of the farmer was fairly sound. At that time his index figure stood at approximately 100. Since that time the index figure has gradually fallen. In 1933 the position of the farmers was so serious that the Government had to come to their assistance. Later on they had to be given further assistance under the Farmers’ Relief Act. In 1936, 1938 and up to the beginning of 1939, the farmers could not exist. The Minister of Finance had to help them at that time. The farmer’s position was absolutely critical. After the war we are going to have those conditions again. We have a temporary prosperity today. The index figures of many of our products is not as high as the Minister thinks. Take wool for example. Today the wool index figure is 124. The figure for processed wool goes up to 300. We have never been able to understand why that should be so; but the price of the farmer’s products has risen very little, taking into consideration the increased costs of production. We feel that the farmers will experience the same difficulties after the war. The wool farmer, for example, still does not know what his position will be after the war. There has been no authoritative statement to show what the position of the wool farmer will be after the war.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was pointing out how conservative the Minister of Finance is; how he was intent on one thing only, namely, to get money to see the war through. We know that he is in difficulties and we can understand his desire to tax us, but he has given us no indication where he proposes to get money after the war by way of taxation in order to build up the country. We would like to know what he is doing as far as the future is concerned. The Minister is altogether too conservative. He should enable the farmers to expand their operations after the war and to develop. That is unfortunately not his attitude. Even as far as industrial development is concerned, in which the farmers are also interested, we have not been told what is going to be done. We should like our factories to receive protection; we would like to have more factories established—such as wool factories, for example. But now the Minister is jeopardising the position of the farmers. If they invest money in their farms with a view to bringing about improvements, they are taxed. The farmer loses every penny which he puts into improvements, because he does not get it back; and on top of that the Minister is still taxing the farmer. The result of this will be that the farmers will not exert themselves; they will sit on their stoeps and watch the sheep grazing. They will bring about no further improvements, because if they do, they will be taxed. It is in the interests of the country that the farmers should improve their farms; but the Minister is preventing that. He will promote poor whiteism on a larger scale, and force people to the cities to become unskilled workers.

I move—

I second.

Having regard to the other business, I am prepared to agree to the adjournment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd May.

On this question of the restriction of title I should like to say at the outset that we are not unmindful of the things which the Native Affairs Department wants to do for these people. But I feel there would be a better understanding if the Minister would understand that we are working in the same direction as the Department but along different lines. I want to stress the idea that we want to see the gradual development of the African people and in that way give them a share in the civilised life of the country. It is clear that in the early stages, the Native Affairs Department had to control and direct the African people, but we do not want the Department to become obsessed at all times with the need for controlling the African people no matter what their stage of development may be. And that is the main point on which we differ from the Department on this matter. It must be realised that you have different strata in the development of these people, from the completely uncivilised, to the man who is able to take his place’ in competition with our Europeans in civilised life. And from the point of view that the Department is considering bringing into force the power which it possesses of allowing African people to have freehold plots, it is evident that the Department realises the position, but we feel that we must oppose the idea that that development of the African people must be circumscribed. Why do you make an offer to the more advanced Africans on the one hand, and take away from them on the other hand. The Department is like the parent who does not realise that his child has grown up.

You want the child to be grown up too soon.

I should like to see a debate between some of the people I have in mind and some of the members of this House and I know who will come out better.

But they are not the people who are controlled under this Bill.

Oh, yes, they are. I do ask the Committee to recognise the fact that certain sections of the African people have grown up and they must be given responsibility. We want you to give these people responsibility. It has never been tried out. I cannot understand why the Department holds on to this control at every stage. What is the use of not giving them responsibility.

They can have it in their own territories.

I am so tired of that story. We have heard it so often. We have to recognise the fact that the Africans are no longer confined to the Reserves, that they leave the Reserves to earn their livelihood in other parts of the country. You must give the native an opportunity of showing what he can do, otherwise this experiment of giving these people land is useless if we require them to live under conditions which apply to locations. Why must we assume that a man who has reached a certain standard of life must necessarily live like a pig? I submit that there is no evidence of that at all. I know the homes of African people which will compare with the homes of certain types of Europeans, they will bear comparison with the homes of some types of Europeans, and what we are asking you to say to these people is: “Here is your charter; we are going to give you a place where you can live under ordinary conditions. Show us what you can do.” Why must we anticipate that these people will do the wrong thing; why must we say : “You are going forward but we are holding you back”? I hope the Minister will appreciate our point of view. We are not unmindful of what the department is doing or unmindful of what the department has done. But we want you to consider that we also have a point of view, we are acquainted with the African people from a point of view other than the official point of view, and we say that this idea of giving these people these places where they can live under conditions of improvement does not require all these regulations which the department proposes.

Mr. Chairman, it is rather discouraging to hear some of the comments thrown across the floor of this House at this stage in this debate. We on these benches are becoming more and more accustomed to the fact that the members of this House who legislate for Africans are in fact entirely ignorant of the type of legislation to which they are putting their names. Let me say I do not entirely blame the members of this House for their ignorance of the laws under which we govern our native population for the simle reason that these laws are so complex that it is difficult even for those who have to deal with those laws to unravel them. One of the criticisms against this Bill which we are now disussing is that it is so complicated that it would take members of this House hours and hours of close study to begin to understand what it means; but I do contend that it is a little disheartening to those of us on these benches who try to make clear the implications of the legislation which we are now undertaking to get the kind of comment that has just been thrown acrosos the floor of the House. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has said in reply to the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) that we cannot legislate for a particular section of the community. I hope the hon. member for Roodepoort will not feel that I am pilloring him, because I know his heart is in the right place, but having your heart in the right place is not enough.

The whole point we are trying to make, and were trying to make yesterday afternoon in regard to this clause of the Bill, is that the Government is legislating for a particular class of person, and if we agree that the Government ought to legislate for a particular class, we say that the Government is not legislating in the right way for that particular class. I and my colleagues tried to make it clear yesterday afternoon that under the law as it stands provision is made for the creation of special areas in the towns of this country whereby a permanently urbanised native population, which has achieved a recognised standard of living, may live under the ordinary conditions of citizens of the towns. I hope the hon. member for Roodepoort will not say that is a fantastic provision in our law. In fact, Sir, I am certain that if today we were considering the law as it was introduced in 1937, that is the law which gave these rights to the African, I say if the Minister were today introducing that provision instead of the present one, members of the Government side would have been telling everybody that that was the wise and liberal thing to do. That is the sad situation which we have the face. Well now we here are supporting today one of the few liberal provisions of the Urban Areas Act which makes it possible for the Minister on the advice of the Native Affairs Department to set aside areas in which Africans who have achieved a recognised standard of living may live as ordinary members of the community. Our oppostiion to this clause in this particular Bill is that the Government at this stage in the evolution of the African people is going back on that position, that it is closing the door to ambition and improvement on the part of this section of the urbanised native population, and as such we consider it to be completely reactionay. A certain section of the African community has become permanently urbanised, and a proportion of that section has shown its capacity to live in accordance with European standards, and that section ought to be encouraged to identify itself with the community to which it does by that standard of living actually belong. We say that these people should be allowed to live as ordinary citizens, and we deprecate most strongly that the Native Affairs Department has implied in this amendment that there is no period in the history of the African people in which they can be regarded as capable of living in accordance with European standards. The argument used against this is that certain slums have developed in so-called areas open to the native population in the past. The Alexandra Township in Johannesburg, and Lady Selborne, in Pretoria, and other areas of that kind have been quoted, and we have been told that in no circumstances must we allow this sort of thing to develop again. Now our argument is that we have inherited in these townships evils which were not in the first instance the creating of the native population. I say, and I say without any hesitation, that anybody who has made money by selling plots in Alexandra Township or Lady Selborne to the native population has made blood money. These areas were given to people who were allowed the right to alienate them to natives, but with those rights no obligations whatever were imposed on the sellers to provide any sort of services for the native population. These plots were sold without any obligation to provide water, light, sanitation or roads, or anything else, and it was this that created the slums. It is a slur on the native population, and a slur on the whole of our European population in the urban areas to suggest that any urban area is going to be allowed to set aside land for alienation to the native population or to anybody else, without the responsibility for providing the basic services for decent living in those areas. I take it that this clause exempts the townships I have mentioned from the imposition of the control which we are visualising in this clause. I suggest that to impose these restrictions on new areas over which we have complete control is to show a want of confidence in ourselves as well as in the native population to whom we are proposing to give opportunities in those areas. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say at the outset that I agree with the native representatives that there are quite a number of natives in this country who have attained quite a high scale in civilisation. We all admit that; we come in contact with them every day. These people have to live in very difficult circumstances, and the Native Affairs Commission has realised that the time has come when these people should be given an opportunity of living in better conditions, and this particular section is intended to bring that about. We have been told time after time about the ideal conditions which prevail in the Bloemfontein location. There the native can lease a bit of ground, he is allowed to build his own house and so on, and we are told that the Bloemfontein location is one of the best in the country.

[Inaudible.]

I am not denying it, but we are going a little further than the Bloemfontein experiment. We are giving the municipality power to lay out a section of ground, divide it up and sell it to the natives, to the better class of natives who can put up their own buildings, and also assist them financially. We do not, however, think in general that the natives have reached a stage in this country at which we can apply assistance of that kind in a wholesale manner. We say develop gradually, which means that those who have attained a certain degree of development can be given the opportunity of proving themselves. I do not think hon. members here will deny that the greatest racketeers are the natives themselves. You go to the Alexandra Township and to East London, and you will find the native, the so-called better type of native, is one of the people who is profiteering and racketeering. Now we say that some natives have attained a stage of civilisation at which they should be given an opportunity of proving themselves and bettering themselves, and there I think, Sir the Native Affairs Department, the Minister and the Commission have taken the broad and liberal view, and so have a number of municipalities. They are intending to do their best to assist development in that direction. Hon. members on the cross benches want to travel a little too far. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) knows that in the greater part of that area the natives have title, they have had title for 30 or 40 years, but there are conditions to that title.

It is not freehold land.

I know it is not freehold, but I have yet to learn that there is any clamour or demand on the part of the better class natives in the Transkei, or any other natives, to remove those conditions of the title. Hon. members ought to realise that in these matters we have to travel slowly, and that we must not simply throw open the doors. Hon. members know that in the locations there is a continual struggle by the superintendent to prevent destruction and prevent the erection of ramshackle buildings alongside the better type of houses in which lodgers are housed. No, Sir, I think this is a step in the right direction, and I think the Department is to be congratulated on what we should regard as one step towards improving the lot of the native. Instead of criticising it, as hon. members are doing today, they should urge the natives to accept this step forward in the spirit in which it is offered.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot forbear to express my surprise at the remark of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that we are trying in this particular matter of African property rights, to travel too fast. What we are asking in relating to this particular clause is not to travel anywhere, but to get the present position maintained. The hon. member for Tembuland is one who has taken a prominent part in framing the various laws, the discriminatory laws, against natives in recent years, and in view of the part he has taken he must know well the history of native property rights in urban areas. My recollection is that in 1937 when the Native Laws Amendment Bill was bèfore the House the attitude he took up was very different to the one he has taken up today. But however that may be, perhaps I may shortly state for the benefit of the members of the Committee what the history of these laws is in relation to urban natives’ property rights. I feel bound to deal with this matter in case hon. members might pay undue attention to what the hon. member for Tembuland has said. The impression he created is that we on these benches are wanting to make some sort of revolutionary change but what we are trying to do is to resist to the best of our ability what we regard as a very serious backward step. Up to the 1st January, 1938, the native had the right to buy land in an urban area. It was only in the year of grace 1937 that we took that right away, that right that any ordinary man has in this country. I know from my personal experience here in the Cape Peninsula that there are many natives who have been able to save enough money by industry and thrift to buy a small house. I know many homes in the Cape Peninsula created by natives which under the present law would have been illegal. It has to be remembered, too, that most of the Africans living in slums are living in houses owned by Europeans, Indians and other sections of the community. Well, now, in 1937 this right to buy land was taken away. That was by virtue of Section 4 bis of the Native Laws Amendment Act. This section was fought tooth and nail by Mr. Coulter of the Dominion Party. I was not in the House at the time, but I heard from the gallery the fight he put up against this clause, and I must say I admired him for it. In terms of Setion 4 bis it requires the approval of the Governor-General for any native to acquire an interest in land in urban areas. In sub-section (2) of Section 4 bis there are certain exemptions, and one of the exemptions is this—

Section 5 is the section which empowers the Minister, by proclamation to designate certain areas for the residence of natives. Since 1937, when the general right to purchase was taken away, this exception remained that in an area designated by the Minister for the residence of natives, that right is still operative.

Alexandra Township.

That is not an urban area, it is under a separate local authority and owes it position to a special grant by the South African republic.

[Inaudible.]

Lady Selborne has been designated as one of the areas within which natives can live. That is within the municipal boundary, and it has been thought fit by the Minister of Native Affairs to designate it as one of these areas, but presumably it will not be controlled by this section, because this clause lays it down that it shall not apply to existing areas. These provisions are for future townships. I have gone into the history of this matter to substantiate my point that there is no question of our wanting to go too fast. What we are doing is fighting a rearguard action against a process which has been going on for years of steadily whittling away the property rights of natives in urban areas. So there is nothing very revolutionary about the attitude we are taking up. I know that slums have grown up in certain places, but to say that the mere fact of the possession of property rights by natives has created slums is a libel upon the native population of this country, which I hope no hon. member will repeat in this House. It simply is not true. I have seen plenty of native homes which are as decent as any others. The fact that you have slums is due to poverty, and that applies to coloured and Europeans as well as to natives, and it applies also to other countries where there is poverty. Slums have got nothing to do with property rights. Mr, Chairman, what this clause proposes to do is to say that even under these attenuated property rights the natives shall be subject, even when they have acquired property, to the sort of regulation which at present applies in the locations. In the locations they have been told that they cannot have their sons living with them if they are 18 years of age unless they pay a tax for them; they have been told that they cannot have their mothers or fathers living with them unless they pay a tax; that they cannot sell their property to the next door neighour unless they get permission; and all that kind of thing. What has that got to do with the growing up of slums? I say quite definitely that the powers under the Urban Areas Act have been in existence for a very long time, and I have seen no more disgraceful slums than I have seen in locations, and I challenge contradiction by any hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall be forgiven for going on with my argument that the complexity of our native laws is such that most of our legislators are not aware of their provisions. I am grateful to those hon. members who have stayed in this House to listen to the debate. That at least shows that there is a growing sense of responsibility in regard to the native population. My colleague asked what the Government really does want to do in regard to these freehold areas which it claims it is now prepared to recognise and encourage if it can get the powers of control implicit in this clause. It would be very useful if the Minister would explain to us just exactly what sections of the Urban Areas Act he intends to apply to these particular areas. That might help to clarify the situation to some extent. At the present moment we are bound to conclude that the Government wants to exercise all those controls which it now exercises in terms of the Urban Areas Act over municipal locations, and in view of the circumstances that we feel that these conditions were designed to deal with a stage in the evolution of the African population quite different from that which is now reached by a large proportion of the urban population, we are necessarily opposed to the acquisition of these powers by the Government. The point which it is incumbent upon us to place before the House is this: it is the one which my colleague has been emphasising, that we stand here today as the supporters of the existing law against the sort of change which the Minister is seeking to introduce. Had this legislation been introduced in 1937 and before that time, the present Minister and many others would probably have been getting up and telling the Assembly that it must make provision for the progressive elements. I am certain that if the Minister were giving a lead in the direction of liberalising the policy in respect of the native population, all the people behind him would be saying: Yes, that is what we have to do. And that is why it is so important that we should convince the Minister, and that is what we are trying to do. Can the Minister say that this is the stage when we should be taking retrogressive steps in our native legislation? Does he believe that it is an honourable reflection on both the intelligence and the good intention of our South African Parliament that whenever the native population comes to the point of being able to demand in its own right, the use of privileges given to it by the law of the country, we should step in and take away those privileges? That is the position that we are trying to deal with here. Now it is a fact, as I know from personal experience that there are municipalities in this country which echo the contentions of the more responsible citizens that the native population of this country must be given progressive responsibilities if it is to carry its own burden in this country. I have in my mind—it is true a small municipality, but what after all has size to do with the virtue of the argument—I find that last year the Municipality of Uitenhage— which is contiguous to Port Elizabeth and perhaps acquires added stature thereby which it has not in its own right—I find that the Municipality of Uitenhage has been requesting the Native Affairs Department for the last year to be allowed to establish an area in which Africans may be allowed to acquire freehold outside the regulations and restrictions of ordinary location control. And Uitenhage was told that that could not be done—which is in fact not true. It can be done. It may not be the policy of the Government to do it, but the Municipality of Uitenhage has been made to believe that it could not be done under the present Act and it has been refused its claim to establish this sort of village. Now Uitenhage wants a village of this kind but it doesn’t want the kind of restrictions which it will be possible to impose on villages of this kind in terms of this Bill. Now here we have an expression of progressive opinion in this country, and we consider that it is extremely retrogressive that the Government should insist that people who have the power of restrictive control should exercise those powers. I am always anxious about the power of suggestion. Suggest to a Municipality that it should have these powers of control, and the Municipality will think that it should have them. On the whole there has been too great a tendency in this country to govern by the big stick or the policeman rather than by the exercise of one’s own intelligence. That is the danger I see in taking these powers. We feel that this is pulling down not merely the liberal instincts but damming up the progressive instincts of the community, and that is why we are opposed to this Clause. If anyone wants to see the capacity of the native population to rise to responsibility and decent living, just let him go to Port Elizabeth. I know perfectly well that in saying that I am quoting conditions in a municipal location, but I am glad to say that it is a municipal location in which the restrictions possble under the Urban Areas Act have been more liberally interpreted than they are generally in this country. But that is not the point at issue. The people who are today leading a decent respectable life in the municipal location of New Brighton with houses that would be the envy of any community, are poor people lifted out of the most foul conditions. They were people who had to be moved from the Korsten location because plague had broken out there, and the Korsten location had become one of the worst of its kind in the country. These people were moved from plague-ridden houses. They were put into New Brighton and anyone can go and see how these people have responded to the new conditions and then let anyone dare say that a native population cannot rise to decent surroundings. [Time limit.]

For many years in this House we have heard this cry of “go slow.” My friend has heard it and I have heard it. There was a cry of “go slow” about the women’s vote. We must be thankful that we did not go too slow, because had we done so we would never have had this brilliant woman member here, probably too brilliant for the Minister of Native Affairs. Now we have the cry of “go slow” again. How long are we to go slow? When will the native be allowed to run his own townships?

As soon as we can give them to him.

That is supposed to be an intelligent answer. When will the native be allowed to run his own township in his own country under his own law? Will the Minister answer that?

I am listening to you now.

President Kruger gave Herbert Papenfus the concession for Alexandra Township right out in the veld to be a garden city. They had to make their own living there and grow their own vegetables. We know what happened there. There has been more rack-renting and more bloodsweating in Alexandra, and more overcrowding than anywhere in South Africa. It was sold to the people and when they had paid £50 out of £60 and could not pay the other £10 it was taken back and sold again. Was the black man responsible for that or the white man? It was the white man who did it. I know the history of Alexandra. I knew the man who sat in this House representing the seat which I am representing now, Mr. Papenfus, making thousands and tens of thousands out of it. Did the black man make any money out of it? And what about this place which the hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Clark) is so worried about, Lady Selborne? Who is responsible for that? The Pretoria Town Council, because they had the worst slums in the whole of South Africa.

What about Durban?

It had been definitely proved in Pretoria that the white man could not look after the location. Look at the location in Pretoria where you had that outbreak the other day—the lowest and the worst location in South Africa—and my hon. friend over there was quite right, if it had not been for the plague at Korsten the white man would not have been forced to build New Brighton. There are quite a number of native men in South Africa today of incomes of £1,000 and £2,500 a year, men who pay income tax. Where are these men to live? Under the control of the Johannesburg Town Council? That body cannot cope with things today. It has just put up a lot of brick houses, or some sort of ash houses, at New Orlando—houses without windows, costing six or seven hundred pounds for a whole family to live in one room.

When was that?

Now; only a few weeks ago. If the hon. member would read the “Rand Daily Mail” he would see that the natives would not go into this new township because there were no windows in the houses. The hon. member should keep himself informed.

I have no time.

I have no time either but still I have time to read the newspapers and even to write one. Anyhow, those are the people who want to control these locations. Has the white man made such a success of controlling these townships? No. The Town Councils have failed, with the exception of Bloemfontein, and I know something about that location. I laid it out. I gave it its name. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) laughs, but if he looks up the record he will find out that I went over and saw the missionaries in Basutoland and that I got them to go there, and Mr. Logan and myself laid out the whole scheme from beginning to end and it has been an enormous success. There the native is allowed to build his own home—and it has stood for years—and it has cost him about £30 or £40. In Johannesburg the white trade unionist has come in at 4s. an hour to build a house for the native who is getting 4s. per day. I must say this that the Labour Party is doing more than any other body in Johannesburg—they’ve asked that the native in Johannesburg should be represented on the Johannesburg Town Council—they’ve gone so far as to say that the native has become so civilised that he wants to be represented on the Town Council. Why shouldn’t he? The Labour Party is right. But the Minister is taking a backward step. You cannot stop the tide. It is no use making stupid speeches about the time not having arrived for reform. You cannot stop it. In the meantime you are making the native more and more sour which you don’t want to do. I want this place “Suurbekom” sold to the natives so that they can build their own homes there, run their own Town Council—that’ll be a step forward and not a shot in the dark. It is an experiment, and we can see how it goes. The Johannesburg Town Council lays out townships like Orlando. Every house looks alike. They will make a slum there. Leave it to the natives to build their own homes under the control of the Government.

Yes, under control.

And you will find that he will put up a first class model village. You cannot put back the clock. But that is what the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) wanted to do. I know he is honest. Many of these people are honest but they don’t think. You are encouraging a big native population to go into industry. The hon. member for Kroonstad knows I am right but unfortunately he is bound by a party which will not tackle the native question. All his party can think of is a low wage for the natives on the farms. But in the towns it is different. There are a large number of Africans in Johannesburg getting £10 per month, men who work in offices. Their children are making money as they are the new type. They are the middle class, and they want a middle class home—a village—and you will have to give it to them.

Probably the primary reason why I voted against the second reading of this Bill was because I felt that the laws governing the native people of South Africa have become so complex that it is almost impossible to unravel them. And I am quite clear in my own mind that a considerable job of work could and should be done in order to make the laws more clear so that one could understand the laws which relate to the native people without having to have a legally trained mind to unravel all the different laws and regulations. And not only is it the case with regard to the laws of the country, it is equally so with regard to the administration of the laws.

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I thought I was speaking on the clause.

Will the hon. member tell me in what way that is connected with the clause.

I wanted to say that the administration which is now proposed to be given effect to by the application of this clause, runs counter, or creates a state of complexity in the administration of the country so that one is unable to distinguish the lines of demarcation as between the Native Affairs Department, the Public Health Department and other institutions of State including the Provincial Council.

That is a general discussion of principles which I cannot allow in Committee.

Why I object to this clause is that it will cut across the whole plans which are now being formulated by the various City Councils in South Africa, including Durban, which I happen to represent in this House. At any rate I represent a Durban seat here. It must be clear to the Minister that included in the general plans of post-war reconstruction considerable financial provision is made for the building of sub-economic homes for the native people in Durban; and the people who would fall under the terms of this particular clause with which we are now dealing are the type of people for whom such sub-economic homes would have to be provided. Those people would be excluded in terms of this clause. It has been often mooted that there is in South Africa a type of native who cannot be identified with the “barbarians” who live in the backveld kraals.

Be careful.

We want to defend the rights of all these people and let me say that it was particularly pleasing to myself to see that on May 1st 1944—May Day— such a great fight was put up by the native representatives in the House against exploitation. My whole conception of the Native Affairs Department and of the Native Affairs Commission is that they are so rooted in those backward, tribal conditions, so rooted in the farming community and the things the farming community wishes, that they are not prepared to recognise that there is a class of African urbanised native who is growing up and should be protected against the exploitation that is going on.

You must not call these people barbarians. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) will object to that.

Oh no, the hon. member for Cape Eastern knows what I am referring to. They are classified by members here as barbarians and members know to whom I am referring when I protest. My conception is that the Native Affairs Department and the Native Affairs Commission are so rooted in their prejudices that they are not capable of dealing in the best sense with the urbanised people who live in the urban areas, and I sbumit that this cuts across the policy which is outlined by the various municipalities of South Africa. I commenced by saying that not only was the law complicated, but that also applied to our social administration. There is another point I want to come to. The hon. member for Hospital, (Mr. Barlow) protested that in the municipal area of Johannesburg the Municipality has built up Orlando and that Orlando has been transformed into a slum area.

No, but that it will be.

The fact that the houses are one single design is not sufficient to suggest that the whole area will become a slum area. The houses built in Orlando may not be the best that could have been built.

May not—they are not.

It is possible that better houses could have been built.

Should have been built.

It is possible that the natives would be able to build a type of dwelling which would have an architectural feature to remove the suggestion of stereo typed houses—the suggestion of slums being created. It might be argued that in municipal areas the building of native houses should be done by native labour. I do not believe that argument to be sound.

Why not?

If we reduce the general rates and charges on building sub-economic houses, it will be possible to let these places out at a reasonable rent.

Why not let the natives build them?

Of course I am not suggesting this in the same sense as the hon. member for Hospital is suggesting it when he speaks of houses being built by native labour. We know that when that argument is being raised, the idea is that it should be done by diluted labour.

Oh no, that’s not so.

Well be that as it may. The point I want to emphasise is that the policy embodied in this particular clause of the Bill cuts directly across the whole of the outlined policy shaped by the various municipalities of South Africa and as such makes the position as complex in the administration of the laws applied to natives as it possibly can. The hon. member for Cape Eastern complained that one could not understand the laws applying to natives. Where is the line of demarcation? The reason which the Minister gives for this clause is that in certain areas conditions are not what they should be. The condition of which we complain in Alexandra are conditions largely affecting the health of the community, and the extent to which Alexandra constitutes a danger to the whole community of Johannesburg. And that being so it is a subject which must be dealt with by the Health authorities, and I want to show how this is done in Natal, and I want to show that in Natal, the responsibility has been accepted by the Provincial Council of Natal—in areas outside the municipality— while in the municipality itself it is the responsibility of the City Council through its Health Department. There is no doubt that year after year the attitude of all the municipalities of South Africa is steadily changing so as to provide for the needs of the African urbanised population. [Time limit.]

I rise to make a statement in regard to my interjection during the speech of the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming). I said that we could not legislate for a section. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member. If he meant that there were members of the native community who were capable of managing a township, then my interjection was unjustified, and to that extent I withdraw it. As far as I am able to do so, it is my wish in this House and outside the House to serve the native people of South Africa, in common with the rest of the South African nation. I think that in a matter of the government of natives in their own townships in the areas under notice, it would be a very fine thing if we could say that in every such township we will hand over the entire control to Africans. I hope that that day will arrive. The majority of the people of this country will admit that many of the natives have advanced, that they are able to take their place in the full management of their own affairs. But I support this particular clause because I am convinced, not only in my heart but in my head, that it will assist the native population in the urban areas of the Union in the present circumstances, and only on that account will I support it. At the same time I consider that we should keep before us the ideal so eloquently pleaded for and stressed by the representatives of the natives and, Sir, we are moving towards that ideal.

When?

We are moving all the other way; we are going backwards.

With my experience of the municipalities on the Witwatersrand, I think I can say there is a definite trend in the direction of giving the African population better conditions, and I think this House will assist the tempo of that trend.

The tempo is the other way.

I hope the House will assist to expedite the provision of facilities to enable the African population in our existing locations to assume greater responsibility.

That is not the point at all.

Let us improve the position in this regard in our existing locations and give the Africans a greater amount of responsibility.

Order, order! I think the hon. member is right away from the clause.

Hear, hear.

He is right away from the locations.

By means of legislation and in other directions throughout South Africa we are endeavouring to provide up-to-date townships for natives—no longer locations but up-to-date townships—and it is my desire and I think the desire of a good many on this side of the House that an opportunity should be given as early as possible to the natives to have a full share in the control and management of such townships. I feel that the sooner that opportunity can be given to the natives, the better it will be for all concerned.

The hon. members who represent the native population in this House seem to think that the Europeans in the urban areas are against the uplift of natives and the improvement of native conditions. I would like to say on behalf of Johannesburg that that is not so.

That is not our attitude.

I would like to say that we in Johannesburg have a Native Affairs Department which is run by a man who understands the native and can speak their languages, and he has a staff to assist him and who know what is wanted by the natives and they are doing their best for them. I believe that a great measure of the misunderstanding that exists between the Europeans and the natives is due to the fact that the Europeans representing the natives cannot understand the native languages. There is another thing I would like to say, that in a great many cases those hon. members allow their hearts to run away with their heads.

Have they got hearts?

That is the old story.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) knows that the old, old story is the best story in the world. I would like to say that without control we will never be able to house the urban natives under proper conditions. We have districts in Johannesburg which are not controlled—I am not referring to Alexandra Township— which is outside our jurisdiction—but we have places like Newclaire and Sopbiatown ….

It is a disgrace to the Johannesburg Municipality.

It is a disgrace. But what contribution have we had from those hon. members? We have had a lot of talk but that is all.

It is a municipal responsibility.

Talk is cheap.

Why do you do such a lot of it then?

If I only did half as much talking as the hon. member for Hospital, I would be proud of myself. We have a large population of detribalised natives growing up in the urban areas and we in Johannesburg are doing our very best for the natives who work in the urban areas. We hope that they will grow up to attain, if not complete civilisation, then a state which is as near the recognised European standard of civilisation as possible.

How much money have you spent on Sophiatown in Johannesburg?

I can give the hon. member the figures. The money spent on it last year was over £50,000.

What did you spend the year before that?

I can give that too.

It would interest me very much.

I should, if the hon. member wishes, be pleased to find out when she is in Johannesburg. I would like to show her what we have done and what we are trying to do for the natives. I do not know all the districts, but I do know Johannesburg and the Reef and what is being done for the natives there. The hon. members on those benches have asked why this, that or the other cannot be done for the natives now.

What is the point you are trying to make?

I am going to show you that it is impossible to do these things in a hurry.

Which things?

He is worrying you.

He won’t worry me. I would like to say that we built 18,000 houses for the natives, and within a matter of weeks we found that as many as 15 people were crowded into one house. That is the type of thing we want to prevent. We do not want to build a house for one family and find later that there are three or four families living in it.

What is wrong with your health regulations?

I shall tell the hon. member. The trouble with the health regulations is that they are something like the hon. members; they are overdone. We have voted money for the purchase of over 6,000 acres of ground for a township for the natives. We want control there. We want to have control so that they will behave themselves better than some hon. members in this House who represent them. And unless we get that control, it will become a second Newclaire or a second Sophiatown.

Why?

We are doing our best. We are being practical. We do not only talk as the representatives of the natives. We want to show the natives how they can be housed properly and decently. We want to give them something to look at and live up to. We have been told that houses were built for the natives without windows.

What has that got to do with this clause?

When those hon. members hear the truth, they do not like it. If it is true that 280 houses were built without windows. Those houses had to be put up, and we told the people to get on with the job, whatever it cost. We built those temporary houses of blocks comprised of ash and cement hand packed which we believe will last until more permanent houses can be erected. I want to tell hon. members that if they have not got windows it is because we built those houses so quickly that there was no time to supply the windows. That is how quickly we worked. As soon as those windows can be put in, you may be sure they will be. We are assured that what we did was the best for the natives. No one knows that better than the hon. member for Hospital, though he said the location at Bloemfontein was the best.

I did not say it was the best. The Minister said it was the best.

We would like to see the natives housed properly. A member of the Labour Party has declared that the trade unions are against the natives building their own houses.

The hon. member must now come back to the clause.

Give him rope.

He is coming through the window.

The hon. member is coming down the chimney. We are in favour of control. We do not want houses to be built without control. If there is no control the health regulations cannot be enforced.

Why not put in windows then?

Some folks have got all the windows they want yet they cannot see the light. Unless we have control this new township will become the same as Newclaire within a short space of time. We have just bought almost 3,000 acres for another township. [Time limit.]

When the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) spoke earlier in the afternoon he said that we were anxious to see a gradual development of the natives, and he said that some control was necessary whilst that development takes place. The hon. member very fairly said that there were two strata of natives, that the completely uncivilised native was in a different stratum from the fully civilised native. That is what I understood the hon. member to say; and that is the point. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member; if so, he can correct me. The point is that we are passing through a stage where you have living practically cheek by jowl in the towns the urban native who has been there for several generations and who has become civilised and completely urbanised, with the man who has never lived in a large organised town with all the difficulties of civilised life. It is because one has to bridge that gap and pass over that period where you have the civilised native living cheek by jowl with the uncivilised native, that you must have control, and I understood the hon. member for Transkei to agree that that control was necessary.

He was talking about the civilised stratum.

Yes, but he also said that there were people who were not fully civilised. I wrote it down. If I am wrong the hon. member can correct me.

I am talking about the type of native who comes to town to live here permanently.

But the hon. member will admit that there is a great difference in the strata of the two types.

Of course there is.

And therefore a certain amount of control is necessary for the type that is not fully civilised yet.

He won’t be there.

But we have them coming here to Cape Town from the Transkei. It has been urged here time and again that in Johannesburg you have men coming in from the Transkei.

But those are not the ones you are legislating for in this case.

But the point is this. If there were no control, and the urbanised native had a house belonging to himself and he could do with it exactly as he liked, he might when he is hard up or wants to make some money take in a lodger or build a bit on to his house, and in that way create a slum condition. We want to prevent that position from arising. I am trying to explain to the House what is at the back of my mind and what is at the back of the mind of my Department. If the civilised native who has been a town dweller for some time were permitted to erect his own house without any supervision at all, without any provision for this transition period, he might when pressed for money take in tribal natives as lodgers and in that way create the slum conditions which we see today in places like District Six. It is to prevent that that we are introducing this clause. [Interjections.] I wish hon. members would give me a chance to speak. I think they might extend the same courtesy to me that I extended to them. I did not interrupt them while they spoke.

I hold up my hands in holy horror.

The trouble is that there are some people who think that no one else knows anything except they themselves and that no one except them has any intelligence. I am trying to put the case clearly to the House, and I am sorry if I get on other people’s nerves but I intend going through with it. The hon. member for Transkei also stated that parents do not always understand that the child grows up, and that they try to treat him as a child. Perfectly fair and perfectly correct, but I think it will be agreed that there are some natives in the towns who have not attained full civilisation, although there are some who are able to look after their own affairs. You have only got to look at the conditions in Lady Selborne, Alexandra Township, the peri-urban conditions in Cape Town to realise what is happening.

Why do you allow these places to continue to exist?

That is the very thing we are trying to prevent in the peri-urban areas.

[Inaudible.]

I hope hon. members will stop interrupting me. I listened to this debate yesterday and today and I made a lot of odd notes, I am trying to make my speech as clearly as possible, but it is difficult to make a speech which is not disjointed if one is continually interrupted. I say that if these men were civilised they would prefer to take a job on the mines where the pay may not be so good but where the cleanliness and the food, the medical attention and other conditions are at least acceptable; they would rather take that than live under a bush in the peri-urban areas, and I do not think anyone will contest that. But I do want to try and make this point. The hon. member for Transkei, who is always reasonable and who always tries to give one credit for what one really believes is the right thing and which one believes to be in the interests of the native …

Don’t we all?

I think you do. I do not think everybody in the House does, but I think the native representatives—the eternal triangle as I call them—do give one credit for an honest attempt to promote the welfare of the natives.

You are giving them too much credit.

What we are trying to do is to prevent conditions arising which would put back the clock. There are people today who are in favour of allowing the urbanised native to have his own house in his own area and his own bit of ground. If there is no control at a place like that, the whole thing will go by the Board. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) spoke about a chink having been left in the Bill when the 1937 legislation was put through. I take it he was referring to Section 5 (2) (h) of the Natives Urban Areas Act. I suggest to the hon. member that that was not a chink but that that provision was purposely left there. When the Native Laws Amendment Act of 1937 was passed a new Section 4 bis was introduced prohibiting natives from acquiring land in an urban area, but it specially excluded from this prohibition land situated within an area approved by the Minister for the residence of natives in terms of Section 5 (2) (h). It will be seen therefore that the rights under Section 5 (2) (h) were deliberately preserved so that natives might continue to buy land and erect their own houses in areas so set aside. If we want to develop—and hon. members have asked for it—a middle class native urban population—people who have been in the towns for two or three generations—the idea is that those people should be allowed to settle in a township where they can buy their own land and build their own houses— and that was the idea put forward by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) when she moved a motion in the House last year shortly after I had become Minister. Many people feel and many municipalities feel that such native townships should not be established unless, for the present at any rate, it is certain that they will not become slums. I am trying to put the case fairly as I see it. I feel this, that if we can get public opinion to recognise that there is a definite urban native population which in the course of time must be allowed to have its own areas apart from the whites where natives can own property, then that is a step forward. But if the municipalities are afraid that without control these areas will become slums, then let us have power to frame regulations that will meet this difficulty, and remove the objection to this step forward. I want hon. members to realise that the present proposal is a definite move forward. It is not merely a restriction to repress the native, it is with a view to securing something for the advancement of the natives and their interests that this clause is being introduced. That is the position. The average native is not yet sufficiently educated, and many natives have not had sufficient contact with urban conditions to appreciate the importance of sanitary and other regulations. If the urban native were allowed to build his own house he might, when pressed for money, decide to take in lodgers, and in the end you would have a slum. The Law Advisers were of the opinion that the ordinary municipal health regulations and by-laws are not sufficiently strong to prevent the creation of these conditions. And so this clause is being inserted, not to repress the natives but because the municipalities and public opinion will not allow the step forward which the hon. member for Cape Eastern asked for last year in her motion, without adequate safeguards. That is the reason underlying this clause. I do not propose to reply to all the speakers; I just want to deal with the points which are germane to the argument. The hon. member for Cape Eastern—it was either she or one of her colleagues—said that Port Elizabeth had a fine native township. That is perfectly true. They have a magnificent township. But why is it such a magnificent township? Why is the whole condition there so perfect? It is because there is control. I went into numbers of houses myself and I was astounded to find that within a matter of six months former residents of a slum like Korsten were living in new surroundings as decent self-respecting citizens, proud to show their houses to you. Why is there such a perfect condition there? It is because there is control, and if the native does not behave properly he can be turned out of his house.

It is the idea of personal responsibility.

But the power is nevertheless there to put them out of the house if they do not behave properly. A stronger form of control I cannot imagine. I do not say that that is the only reason; I am sure it is not. These natives have become house-proud. They keep their furniture spotless. You can see at a glance that here you have an entirely new generation of natives. Then the hon. member for Cape Eastern said that. Uitenhage had asked to be allowed to establish a native village, and we had said that it is not possible. I do not know whether the hon. member intended to give that impression, but that was the impression I got. I have the whole correspondence here. My Department turned it down because Uitenhage had not spent one sixpence in sub-economic housing, and we thought they were not carrying out their duty towards the native population. We thought it was the duty of the municipality to provide sub-economic houses for the poorer classes who would never be able to buy a house under present conditions. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), who is a very sincere man, said that he was only voting for this because it was in the interests of the natives. I accept that, I think the hon. gentleman would not vote for this if he did not think it was in the interests of the natives. I ask other people to believe that the reason this Bill was brought in was a sincere belief that we were doing something to advance the native interest. You will not get public opinion or the municipalities to do the very thing which hon. members asked for unless they can have control and avoid creating appalling conditions in their own area. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) said that we must not confuse property rights with overcrowding or slum conditions.

There are slums in every country.

We know that slum conditions have been created in many cases because there was no control over property rights. I suggest that had there been proper control in many European towns then the slum conditions of which Mr. Molteno speaks would never have come into being. Therefore property rights, if abused to exploit the poor, have a direct bearing on slum conditions. To take the case of Alexandra Township, we know the appalling slum conditions are due to the fact that the property owners can do practically what they like, and take in as many lodgers as they like, and there is nothing to stop them. There are places in Johannesburg where the rack-renters are making large sums of money. On one plot I believe the owner was making the best part of £1,000 a year out of his plot. I have never seen conditions like that in my life. There were no kitchens, no facilities whatever, and the people had to bring their paraffin tins, made into an improvised stove, and a couple of pots into their rooms and dp their cooking there. I have never seen conditions like it anywhere. There the owner had full ownership to do what he liked. Whilst I agree that property ownership must not be confused with slum conditions, I do say this, that slum conditions can be created by people who are not able to realise their responsibility to the people to whom they let their houses. If the natives were completely civilised they would refuse to live under such conditions, but there are unfortunate people, natives, coming in from the Transkei to the Cape who are prepared to live under these ghastly conditions because there is nowhere else for them to go.

The Town Planning Ordinance prevents that.

Then it is a pity the Town Planning Ordinance cannot take over the whole of South Africa. The hon. member also said that the native confidence was being shaken by this Bill, the native confidence in us was being shaken.

I never said anything of the kind.

I accept the hon. gentleman’s denial, but I wrote that down at the time. Then the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) asked me a hypothetical question; I think it was: “When will the natives be allowed to run their own townships?” That was the question he put to me across the floor. Sir, I entirely admit that there are natives who are as civilised as anybody else in this country, they are in Johannesburg and other places, but they form a very small minority of the people as a whole. They are highly civilised, well educated, some of them having the highest degrees, but I say they are a small minority of the total native population.

When will they be allowed to run their own townships?

The point is that the natives, as a whole, have not reached the stage when they are capable of administering a large township.

What is being done at Edendale?

The whole grievance of the three members over there is that I am taking the powers of the Urban Areas Act and using them outside urban areas, giving it to local bodies such as the divisional council. There is a Health Commission in Natal and a special board which has been created by ordinance last year in the Transvaal. In Natal this Commission is building houses, etc., and therefore it must have the necessary powers to prevent its work being negatived. What can that body hope to do if it has no powers of control over what it is creating for the benefit of the natives? The native has not yet reached a position when he is capable of administering a township under modern conditions. Where natives have been allowed to develop townships without municipal control, the result has been disastrous. I refer to peri-urban areas outside Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg and Johannesburg. Until such time as it is clear that the native can be allowed to run a township administered entirely by himself, until that has been proved we must have control. I cannot say how long it is going to take, but first we must put him in a position from where he can reach the stage when he will be able to run his own concern. If you go too fast you will destroy the very thing you are trying to build up.

The Minister will remember this in twenty years’ time.

At this rate I think I shall have been long underground in twenty years’ time. I listened very carefully to what hon. members have said, and I tried to make my position as clear as possible. I tried to make hon. members understand that whilst I realise fully that the native is developing rapidly, that is to say the urban native, and that he will have to be provided for, I am trying to move forward into a position from which one will be able to give them the control of their own areas in time. But we shall not get that if we go too fast.

I think when the Minister first became a Minister the African people called him: “Pillar of Fire.” He was supposed to lead. How has he answered this question today? First he says that a blanket kaffir will come along from the Transkei with a big cheque and buy a house.

I never said anything of the sort.

Yes, you did.

May I rise to a point of explanation? What I said was this, that where a native who has sufficient money had bought a house he would perhaps hire it out or perhaps take in lodgers. I never suggested that an uncivilised native came in to buy a house.

The Minister said that a native would come along from the Transkei with a cheque.

You are repeating now what I have just denied.

Will the Minister allow me to make my own speech? The native will come along to the owner of the property in a city and say: “Here is this cheque. I want to live in this house. Will you build a piece on for me?”

No, the Minister never said that.

Of course, as a lodger; according to my friend here, the lodger has a big cheque. We have just been told by the Minister that a man was making £1,000 a year out of a house near Johannesburg. There must have been some big cheques coming to him, if he made that amount of money.

Who said that?

You said just now you were acquainted with a man who made £1,000 a year by rack-renting the natives. Well, the people who paid him must have had a lot of money, they must have had a big cheque. I think the Minister is exaggerating the situation. That happens in the European quarters. The hon. member for Durban (City) has said that the Government can step in and say to an owner that he will not be allowed to build any more rooms. That is what happens today on the Rand; we cannot put up a new room unless the Planning Council agrees. That is the law. I myself cannot add a room to my house unless the Planning Council agrees. I contend that the native be controlled in this respect just as the white man is controlled. Another point the Minister made was that we must wait until the urban councils demand these new ideas. He said we must wait, we must go slowly, wait until the Town Council agrees, and when that happens he will act. That is why I said the Town Council will never agree. We say that there are a large number of natives on the Rand today who are making quite a good wage many of them have been born in the urban areas, they are well educated, some of them are schoolmasters, they are men who have good jobs—why not allow them to live in their own location and run it themselves as an experiment? Is it a good experiment to make? No harm will be done by it, because the State can always come in and say, if such were the case: “You are turning this into a slum.” The trouble is that the Minister will not lead, he is a Cabinet Minister but he won’t lead, he is leaving it to the town councils, and they will never lead. I can assure the Government that I love the Government. I am a humble musket-bearer of this Government. They should allow the African people to have their own homes in a township run by themselves. If the Minister allows them this he will go down in history as a great Minister. We know his heart is in the right place, but let him leave the town councils alone, because they have not the capabilities for dealing with this situation. We have been told by one hon. member that the town council in Johannesburg is building houses without windows for their native population.

[Inaudible.]

They are building ashbrick houses, without any windows. They could at least leave an opening. I ask the Minister once again just to lead; he knows that I want to help him, he knows that my friends want to help him, because after all why should we not help the Minister; we want to do our best. We know that the natives are watching these things very carefully, but what has the Minister given them? Nothing but restrictions. He says to them: “You shall not have this, you shall not have that, it is forbidden.” There is nothing new in this legislation at all. The Minister will not let the native have his own home in his own township, because the white man has made slums. It is the white town councils who have allowed slums to be established, not the black men. All these slums in South Africa, under whose control were they created, under the black man? No, under the control of the white man. These evils have grown up because the white man has had control of the black and has made a mess of things. Give the black man control of his own township and see how far he gets; he cannot do worse than the white man has done. Give him the opportunity. It is bound to come some time, although I do not know how long it will take. Hon. members in the future will wonder at the speeches made on this legislation against what I advocate. I can remember the speeches that were made here when many years ago we asked for the trades unions to be recognised. They are recognised today. Things move very quickly. I again ask the Minister to just make this experiment; give these people the right to manage their own affairs, you can always keep your hand over them as Minister. If the Minister does this the native people will arise and call him blessed.

I want very largely to echo what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has said. I want also to say that we are entirely satisfied about the good intentions of the Minister. We know his anxiety to do his best and we give him full credit for his determination to do that. But we feel that we would be wanting in our duty to the native population if we did not suggest to him that we have got to a point in our national life where the Government must, as the hon. member has said, cease to follow and begin to lead. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that if the Minister of Native Affairs had said to the municipalities that it was the policy of the Government to encourage the development of the African population to a point where they would be able to become a part of the community to which they belonged, those municipalities would have begun to fall into line. I fully endorse what an hon. member has said about the dangers of allowing municipalities to feel that they have control over villages such as they already have had over locations, The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray) has got up at various intervals in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill and expressed his complete disapproval of what we have said regarding the practice of local authorities. He has reminded me of areas like Newclaire and Sophiatown. He has reminded me of what municipalities have done in regard to the government of the poorer sections of their communities, and it is not an encouraging recollection. I am reminded of my general experience of the local government of this country, wherever there are non-Europeans, an experience which covers Indians in Natal as well as Africans in other towns. Take any urban area and walk through it, and you will be able to decide from the conditions which prevail the racial character of the people who inhabit it. You can tell from the outside the economic condition and racial character of the population of any area of any one of our towns. Wherever you have non-Europeans, there you have a striking decline in the standard of public services such as road, pavements, street lights and and so forth. I beg to suggest to the Minister that the reason many of the areas occupied by non-Europeans in this country are the hopeless slums that they are is largely that the people who live in these areas are regarded by the local authority as not being their responsibility but that of somebody else. Our native legislation creates and justifies this assumption. Now the Minister has spoken of African as rack-renters and has urged that the rest of the African community must be protected against such. While he was talking, my mind went back to my experience in 1918 in Port Elizabeth where I had been brought up and where I then lived. The influenza epidemic revealed there the extent of rack-renting, not by the Africans but by Europeans which was one of the main tragedies of the lives of the poorer classes of all racial groups. So bad were the revelations in that regard that the public conscience was deeply stirred. The result was a new standard of public health was demanded to which all sections of the country were expected to conform and for which the community as a whole was expected to provide. It is on that foundation of experience and progress that these freehold townships for Africans would be established, and we maintain that there is no African in this country who is riot prepared to accept every responsibility and every burden that ordinary civilised living imposes upon him. I am prepared to stake the whole of my reputation, such as it is, on the capacity and willingness of the African population to rise to the demands of civilisation, if the community will give it a chance to do so, and it is on that alone that I wish to end my argument on this clause. I appeal to the Minister not to go on with this policy of waiting until the community is 100 per cent. behind a progressive move but to give a lead to that community which will follow but will never lead.

I have listened very carefully to the hon. member and I am very sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept the suggestions made. I think the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has very clearly given a reason why the natives should be given a chance of managing a township of this kind. The reason why they are not to be given the chance is because of the danger of slums being created. If we look around South Africa and see what has happened, I do not think that any worse slums could be created than one comes across in the European areas today. What the Minister should take into consideration is that the decision of a town council is not necessarily the decision of the people of the area. Take Johannesburg. You have a municipal election in which not more than between 30 and 40 per cent. of the population vote. The others don’t even take the trouble to go to the poll.

Will the hon. member come back to the clause?

I was trying to show that this fact showed the apathy of the people in the towns in regard to the creation of slums.

What has that to do with the clause?

I am trying to point out that there is no adequate reason for saying that you must leave the control of this sort of thing in the hands of municipalities which themselves have made a mess of things simply because the ratepayers don’t care to vote, because they are indifferent or dissatisfied with the present state of affairs. I think the Minister would be wise if he gave this a trial. I don’t think the position could be worse if the natives were given a chance as suggested. Let the natives be given an opportunity to show what they can do.

The Minister in his reply just now answered the contention of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in relation to the standard of living achieved by the native population in New Brighton by saying that he attributed that to the powers of control which the Port Elizabeth Municipality has under the Urban Areas Act, and on that argument he based his further contention that these powers should be extended to African freehold townships. Now that brings me to what I was saying a little earlier when I was interrupted by the time limit. I say that the reason why Port Elizabeth has been able to establish for itself, for its African population, conditions which few if any other municipalities have been able to do is because they have been prepared to spend money, because they have been prepared to charge rents within the capacity of the people to pay, because they have been willing to provide certain amenities which other municipalities will not do. I say the fact that the existence of these powers has anything to do with the growth of slums is conclusively disproved by the fact that some of the worst slums I have seen have been in villages or locations proclaimed as such by the Native Affairs Department. Let anyone travelling along the main line look out of the train at Beaufort West. I am talking of proclaimed locations which have to be approved by the Minister of Native Affairs. These hellholes cannot be established as locations unless they have his specific approval as places fit for the residence of natives, and where all these powers asked for in this clause are in full force and effect. Look at Green Point location at Beaconsfield—a foul slum through no fault of the inhabitants but through the desperate poverty of the inhabitants; and I can tell the House this that the worse the condition of the native populaton, the more Draconian the methods applied to them, the more they are harassed and chased about. Anyone who has a knowledge of locations knows perfectly well that the slum conditions prevailing have nothing to do with the location regulations. Indeed, it is the municipalities who have asked for the most drastic powers who have the worst locations. I want to repeat that slums are due to poverty, neglect, low wages and lack of education. Those are the factors that account for slums. The Minister suggested in his reply that the fact that slums had grown up at Alexandra showed that native landlords were the trouble, that they were responsible. I am surprised at the Minister using such an argument, when I know that he personally has been to the slums of Windermere and District Six. The Minister knows that these houses are not owned by natives, but by Europeans or coloured people or Indians. The natives are housed there, but the fact that these areas are owned by non-natives has made no difference to the growth of slums, and in many cases these particular areas like District Six are owned by wealthy people and not by comparatively poor people such as you find at, Alexandra. To say that because slums have grown up you must therefore take away property rights of people who are victims of slum conditions is an argument which could not hold water in any other country in the world.

Clause 14, as amended, put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mrs. Ballinger and Messrs. Hemming and Molteno) voted against the clause, as amended, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 16.

I move—

17. Section 29 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion, after the definition of “coloured person”, of the following new defintion:

“Interest” in relation to land, includes, in addition to other interests in land, any right under a lease or a mortgage of, or a servitude or a charge over, land.

As explained during the second reading Clauses 2 and 14 (4) among other things aimed at the prevention of future exploitation of natives who wish to buy land to build their own houses thereon in areas set aside for their occupation. Doubt has been expressed as to whether the words contained in Clause 2 sufficiently cover a mortgage bond over such a property. It is principally as a result of conditions inserted in bonds that this exploitation occurs and the definition of the word “interest” now introduced is intended to ensure that the doubt is removed. Yesterday, on another clause, I gave an instance of what goes on. Several instances have been brought to my notice since I made my speech on the second reading. Just to show the appalling conditions which it is proposed to prevent by this clause I will repeat very shortly what I said before. Here is the case of a bond for £925 in which the actual amount taken up was £490. It was a native woman who took up that bond. For some reason or other building operations ceased, and the mortgager, who had been depending on the income derived from this building, had no income at all and she offered to pay back the money she had been given. The bondholder insisted on 8 per cent. interest for five years in advance if she wished to pay off the bond. The woman could not do that, and then she offered to pay one years’ interest at 8 per cent. in advance and at the same time pay off the whole capital amount. That was not accepted either. I have another example here. It is not unusual for an advance to be made on condition that the interest is debited in advance for five years. Thus the capital is not only tremendously increased, but interest is payable on the total amount, and there you have interest paid on interest. This is a very flagrant case—the individual borrowing has to add five years’ interest to the capital amount and thus interest is paid on the capital as well as on the five years’ interest.

Did you prosecute in those two instances?

No, I am not the Minister of Justice. I think enough has been said to show the necessity for this new clause.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move the deletion of this clause.

The hon. member can vote against the clause, he cannot move to negative it.

It comes to the same thing. I certainly intend to vote against it. This provides for the discretionary extension of the provisions of the Native Urban Areas Act in a wide and sweeping manner. According to the terms of the clause, if it becomes law, it will rest with the Governor-General in his discretion, to give power to any local authority including a rural local authority to give any of the powers contained in the Urban Areas Act to such authority. In other words the Governor-General, or the Government, is to be given power to legislate for the whole of the rural areas of this country or such rural areas as have local authorities—and that applies to the Cape Province in particular—by the application to them of powers under the Act essentially designed for the governing of urban areas. That is to be done without any control by this House—in the discretion of the Government. I personally look with a good deal of alarm on the growth of these administrative powers which has taken place in recent years. Every Bill that is placed before Parliament asks us to give more and more powers to some Minister or to the Government as a whole, and powers which cover every aspect of the lives of thousands of individuals. That is more particularly the case in relation to native legislation.

Why not?

The hon. member says: “Why not?” I am surprised at a member of this House saying that. This House is the Legislature and not the Government. This House is more and more asked to concede to the Government powers of legislation. What are the powers? I think the Minister might assist us to this extent by telling us what are the provisions of the Urban Areas Act which he wants to apply to essentially rural authorities like the Cape Divisional Council. The first section of the Urban Areas Act gives certain powers to an urban local authority for the establishment of locations, native villages and hostels for the residence and occupation of natives. It gives powers to provide buildings or huts in such locations or native villages, and it also can require employers to provide accommodation for natives in their employment, and it gives powers to local authorities to cause natives within their area to move from such area. Now if this power were given to a Divisional Council, such council could require every native to move if he did not live in certain specified places. Section 2 of the Act gives the Minister the power to force proper provision to be made and accommodation to be provided by urban authorities, and Clause 3 gives the Minister the power to provide such accommodation where the local authority does not do so. I do not know why these powers are necessary in the case of rural authorities. They can borrow money if they want to do so under the Housing Act, but in any event, under the existing Act, natives cannot reside in any places except those set aside for them— except with the Governor-General’s consent, that is the Government’s consent. I cannot see what use these particular powers, even housing powers, would be to a Divisional Council, and my feeling is that the real intention of the clause is not to equip rural authorities with housing and Public Health powers, but presumably to equip them with the powers to administer Pass regulations, the registration of contracts, the production of documents and so on, and also the powers referred to in 5 (bis) of this Act. If I am wrong about that I hope the Minister will say so at once and that he will amend this clause to exclude the Divisional Councils from its scope. There may be some argument for those who believe in the Urban Areas Act for extending its powers to peri-urban authorities, to authorities which are not urban authorities but which are administering peri-urban areas. We on this side have made it perfectly clear that we are opposed to this. We are opposed to the kind of regulations which can be made under this Act, but once the principle has been adopted that the Urban Areas Act can be extended to peri-urban authorities, we can concede that, but why give it to rural authorities? Unless we have a definite assurance from the Minister that this clause will not be used to confer restrictive powers on Divisional Councils, we must assume that that is the intention. If it is not the intention, well, let us have an amendment excluding rural authorities from the scope of the Bill.

You have no such rural authorities except in the Cape.

I am referring to the Cape now. The Cape only has Divisional Councils, but as things are going I take it that the other Provinces will also have them in time. In any case whether they do or not, the Cape is the largest area of South Africa and has one-third of the native population and moreover, in other Provinces there is a rural pass law already, administered under the Native Administration Act, whereas there is not now in the Cape. If this clause becomes law there will be nothing to stop the Governor-General, that is, the Government, from equipping Divisional Councils with full Pass Law authority. You may have a network of restrictions—proclamations restricting native movements into any area. We know from experience of how Section 5 (bis) has been applied. We know how far the Government can go. At present I think I am right in saying that there are 200 urban areas in this country from which natives are excluded under Section 5 (bis). This means that we are placing in the power of the Government, not only this Government but any future Government, the power to proclaim any divisional council area under Section 5 bis. That is what this clause means. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons which I gave in my second reading speech, and which I do not want to repeat, I regret I cannot accept the hon. gentleman’s amendment. As the hon. member for Cape Western has said quite rightly, this clause does not give the Governor General the power, after reference to the Administrator, to apply the Native Urban Areas Act to areas which do not fall under the control of a local urban body. The whole idea is to meet the difficulty in what are known as peri-urban areas, such as exist in the Cape, and places like Edendale near Maritzburg, and Windermere before it was taken over by the municipality. In Natal, as the hon. gentleman knows, they have created a Health Commission. That commission has power even to build houses, and it must have the powers of control over areas where it is building houses. In the Transvaal by an Ordinance last year, they created a similar body, the Transvaal Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, which has to deal with these people who go outside the municipal boundaries and live in undesirable conditions on ground which is not controlled by a local authority. There is no intention of applying this section to divisional councils as a whole in the Cape, but only where you have a situation such as you have here in Cape Town, where these people move out from the municipal area so as to get away from the control of a local body. In the Northern provinces these bodies might apply for a registration contract system. On the other hand, there are no passes in the Cape, so the Divisional Council could not have power to apply any pass law here. It will be observed that it is not intended to apply these provisions to native villages established under Section 30 of the Native Administration Act of 1927 as amended by Act 21 of 1943. For these reasons and the reasons I gave in my second reading speech, I regret I cannot accept the hon. gentleman’s amendment.

The Minister has stated in reply to my colleague that it is not the intention of the Government to use this clause to give the divisional councils the power of the Urban Areas Act. It is a fact, however, that if he does take these powers he can do that. It is not what it is intended to do, but what can actually be done that is important. We have to legislate for any or all governments who can exercise the powers that are given by legislation passed in this House. The Minister says he does not wish to exercise these powers, but the Act which this Bill seeks to amend is the Urban Areas Act which is designed to control the ingress of natives into the towns, and we consider that the divisional councils, or any other local body upon which these powers may be conferred, are not equipped to provide the services which the Act visualises.

What about Bethalsdorp?

The Minister seems to be under some misapprehension about my attitude to Bethalsdorp.

I merely mentioned that in passing.

The point is important. The Minister said in his second reading speech on the Bill that hon. members on these benches were in favour of the taking over of Bethalsdorp by the Divisional Council and I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not in favour of Bethalsdorp being taken over either by the Municipality of Port Elizabeth or the Divisional Council.

I accept that, so that will be on the record here.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I will not endorse the proposition that Bethalsdorp should be taken over by the Divisional Council for the very reason which the Minister used to justify the introduction of this Bill. I have no grounds for believing that the Divisional Council has adequate powers to do what is necessary in the case of Bethalsdorp and that was the stand I took on the occasion of the interview with the deputation which came to see me in regard to Bethalsdorp. There are growing up outside all our towns these peri-urban areas which are phenomena of our industrial development, and I contend that we have no local government machinery adequate to deal with that phenomenon. In fact I suggested to the Minister of Social Welfare under whose Department I thought this matter fell, that he should have an investigation into the whole position with a view to the creating of some new local government machinery to deal with the problem of local government needs in South Africa. One of my main planks in my political programme is the inadequacy of our local government machinery to our growing and changing needs. I feel we have outgrown all our old machinery. My complaint about legislation like this with which we are dealing in this Bill is that it is designed to deal with new conditions by old methods, and that in consequence, it simply will not work. Bethalsdorp is one of the new areas in this country in which coloured people and natives have an equal right of entry and purchase. If this clause applies, as I understand it, it will mean that the Government has the power to prevent the ingress of natives as tenants. But nobody proposes to prevent ingress of coloureds. Now I have every sympathy with the coloured people—we on these benches have stood for and defended the rights of all minor groups in this country—but I am not prepared to sit here and support the proposition that the natives should be discriminated against as against the coloured people. I cannot understand why the Native Affairs Department acts in this way. It is supposed to be the father of the people and as such, I feel the business of the Department is to protect every right of the native population. There are other Departments to look after the coloured, and there is no excuse whatever for interfering with the rights of the native to go into that area. In regard to Edendale I say the same. Edendale consists of Europeans, Indians and natives.

So does Bethalsdorp.

That does not alter my argument. In fact it strengthens it. Why should the native be discriminated against, the very people who have a Department to look after their rights? The C.A.C. would not stand this for a moment were this discrimination against the coloured. The natives continually find themselves regulated and controlled, and I protest most strongly against this interference with the rights of the African people. Where there are Europeans, coloured, Asiatics and natives, it is only the native who must be kept down. I regard this as most unjust and I oppose it With all the strength at my command.

The hon. member who has just sat down wants to know why there should be discrimination against the natives in the Bethalsdorp area. It is because the natives there have created the problem, and not the coloured people. The coloured people were quite happy there, but many years ago the natives also got rights there. If it had not been for the natives this problem would not have existed.

This clause, as I understand it, will make possible the application of the powers embodied in Clause 14 for urban areas to the outside peri-urban areas. When the Public Health Commission in Natal was appointed through the Provincial Council, I was then a member, and the idea of the appointment was to create a body to guide the people living in the peri-urban areas, where there was an absence of ordinary facilities for public health, and to encourage them to set up their own form of administration in areas populated almost entirely by non-Europeans. I would like to ask the Minister in what way the Public Health Commission of Natal has asked the Minister to embody in a law of this description the provision which he now contemplates. The idea of the the Health Commission in Natal in its approach to this problem, is to my mind a feasible and proper means of dealing with the circumstances which have arisen. The position is not the same in all areas, because in the areas contiguous to Durban there is government by local boards, and these people are governed in some form or other. It was because in some places like Edendale where there was no authority at all, the Health Commission was established by the Provincial Council for the purpose of providing machinery for the control and administration of these areas. The idea underlying the whole thing was to train these people in matters of public health, and to set up their own administration. That, to my mind, is the correct and proper approach to the subject. I would like again to ask the Minister in what way the Public Health Commission in Natal have asked for the inclusion of the powers in this particular law, because I feel the provisions in this Act can only run counter to the work of the Health Commission.

The idea behind this Bill is the control of people who have been forced into rural areas from the towns, and the line of demarcation must go gradually further and further back. You have this situation in Cape Town where people are driven back further and further from the municipal area. You are establishing in the Cape a definite system of passes, and that again is going to create a further difficulty, and so we go on with this vicious circle of restriction. Quite obviously this legislation has not been fully considered, because you have no real machinery to deal with the situation which is being created. The Government says: “Here is the divisional council, an excellent body to look after this.” Mr. Chairman, I ask in all sincerity, what qualifications have divisional councillors to handle this problem? They are excellent people, no doubt, and quite capable of dealing with roads and questions of that sort; but not to control human beings. In municipal areas you have men of experience, although they may not have a great deal of sympathy with the natives, but what experience have divisional councillors had in these matters? I strongly object to the placing in the hands of a divisional council such powers as are conferred in this Act. I feel, too, that we should avoid as far as we can regulations which interfere with the liberty of the subject. I do ask the Minister to seriously consider whether at this stage he should not pause, because he has no machinery to deal with the situation. This law empowers the Minister to drive these people back until they will eventually reach the very borders of the Transkei Territory, and to put such powers in the hands of an untried body is to do a dangerous thing.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister’s reply to the criticisms levelled at this clause has alarmed me still more as to the implications of these provisions. He wants to be able to confer powers under the Urban Areas Act upon peri-urban authorities. Now, if urban conditions have grown up outside existing urban areas, the proper way of dealing with the situation is to extend the urban area.

Where will that stop?

That will stop, I suppose, at the limit at which urban conditions exist. I am talking now in general terms; all I am saying is that if there is any virtue in municipal government, municipal government must be applied where urban conditions exist. That is a proposition which I am very surprised any member of this House is prepared to challenge. I am surprised to hear the hon. member who is always prating about social security objecting to a simple proposition of that kind. The Minister says that the Act is to deal with peri-urban conditions. Now, what does he mean? What does he say the Cape Divisional Council can do that the Cape Town City Council cannot do? The City Council of Cape Town and other municipalities have lamentably failed in their elementary duty to house the native people. There are one or two exceptions, but on the whole that is true and I am sure the Minister will agree. What does he mean when he says that bodies like the divisional councils or peri-urban authorities, much weaker financially and with much smaller powers, what can they do which municipalities cannot do? The Minister went further and said he did not want these powers conferred on rural authorities, while at the same time he has told the Committee that he wants to take the power to do so. If he does not want these powers conferred on rural authorities, why take the power to do it? The hon. Minister took my breath away by saying that there is no pass law in the Cape. What is Section 12 of the Urban Areas Act if it does not provide for pass laws. Section 12 provides that in a proclaimed area either the Government or the urban local authority can institute systems of registration of service contracts which must be produced on demand, permits to seek work which must be produced on demand, permits to be in a particular area, which must be produced on demand. Fees are payable for all these documents; and those are pass laws.

I specifically referred to the Service Contract Certificate. I specifically used those terms.

But the Minister also used the term that there are no pass laws in the Cape.

I said that the ordinary pass law as it applies in the other Provinces does not apply here.

I say these are the ordinary pass laws.

I quoted that.

The Minister can disagree with me, but I am saying as a matter of law that these are the pass laws, and if this clause becomes law the Government will have power to equip the Divisional Councils with these powers. The Minister says that it is not intended to confer these powers on Divisional Councils except those operating in the peri-urban areas. If that is so, why take this power? Can the Minister guarantee that no future government will extend them? Obviously he cannot speak for future governments. It is proposed to confer on the Cape Divisional Councils a power by which they can cover the whole of the Cape area with a network of pass laws if they found a government that was willing to support such a step. Not only is power being given to the Government to confer the power to make pass laws on the Divisional Councils, but under the law any Divisional Council could be required to exclude natives from its area. The question is not whether the Divisional Councils are intended to exercise those powers or not. The Minister says that is not the intention. If so, why take these powers, and what guarantee is there what policy will be followed by a future government? The Urban Areas Act by which a local authority can be required to submit to the Minister a list of natives whom it regards as redundant to labour requirements and who can be turned out of the area— those powers too can be conferred on a Divisional Council if any particular Minister wishes to do so. I wonder what the Minister of Finance would say if he were in the House and realised what was being done in this clause. The Minister of Finance in 1937, when he was not Minister of Finance, but in charge of another portfolio, spoke and voted against this power being given, even to urban authorities, and he did so in defiance of the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. Today when the Government proposes to confer these very powers over a much wider area, the Minister of Finance apparently is not bothered about the position; he is not interested. I doubt whether the Committee realises, or did realise, an hour ago what is proposed in this clause. Under this clause any future government may give all these powers to any local authority, either the existing Cape Divisional Councils or any rural authorities that may come into existence in the future in other provinces, without coming to this House. I do not doubt what the Minister says. He says he does not intend doing it. In that case I say why take the power when such a power can be used and might well be used by future governments? [Time limit.]

Clause 18 put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mrs. Ballinger and Messrs. Hemming, Molteno and Wanless) voted against the clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I hope the hon. Minister will agree to delete this clause from the Bill and accept the contingent amendments which appear on the Order Paper on page 490 in my name. This is an entirely local matter, although it is one in which I should like the House to take an interest. It refers to the Fingo and Hottentot locations in the urban areas of Grahamstown, in respect of which the Government has undertaken a useful and valuable tidying up of an inheritedly bad situation. The Fingo location is one of the few locations in which land owning has been recognised by the Department. The Department has undertaken not to institute a new type of title, but to remit all charges for transfer which have not taken place and to permit the established owners to obtain the cheaper title deeds provided for under the Native Administration Act of 1927. But in order to do that it is proposed under this clause to take power to treat the Fingo location as if it were an area held under the conditions of the 1927 Administration Act. It is clear to me that it was not the intention of the Government to alter the titles. If the Government will agree to my proposition there will be a guarantee to the people of their title so that no Government may change it in the future without coming to this House. I hope the Minister will allow me to move these contingent clauses.

I accept this amendment because it will attain the object I have in mind, and put it in greater detail. It also removes any ambiguity as to the intention regarding the Fingo and Hottentot locations. The hon. member also proposes to insert a new clause to follow Clause 22, and I will accept that as well.

Clause 21 put and negatived.

New Clause to follow Clause 20,

I move—

21. Section 7 of the Native Administration Act, 1927, is hereby amended—

1. (a) by the addition, at the end of subsection (1), of the following proviso:
   Provided that in the case of the areas comprising the Fingo and Hottentot Village situate within the urban area of Grahamstown in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, this sub-section shall be construed as if the words “upon quitrent conditions” were omitted therefrom;
2. (b) by the adddition, at the end of sub-section (2), of the following proviso:
   Provided that the conditions of any such substituted grant as may be issued in respect of land in the areas comprising the said Fingo and Hottentot Village shall be as set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act.

Agreed to,

On Clause 22,

I should like to hear from the Minister in connection with this clause up to what amount claims can be dealt with by such a native chief. According to this clause a native chief or headman can deal with civil claims. Is there a fixed amount? Supposing it concerns a claim in connection with the proprietary rights of a farm. We know that a chief may perhaps die; will his successor then be able to decide such a case?

The amount has not been limited, but I shall give the hon. member the full particulars afterwards.

The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has an amendment on the Order Paper on page 449. He would like to move—

The Minister will notice that this only concerns cases arising from native practice and usage. The hon. member should like to see that when such cases are heard by a captain, that the same procedure will be applicable, that native law and procedure will also be taken into consideration; that for instance such a chief will not try to apply the rules of the magistrate’s court or the Supreme Court, but that he will deal with it in accordance with the ordinary native law and customary procedure. It may be superfluous but at the same time it cannot do any harm to move the amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. This question has been fully discussed with the Law Advisers some time ago and their opinion is that it may cause difficulties in the administration. I discussed the matter with them ….

What judicial procedure do they follow?

I can only say that the Law Adviser pointed out that as the chief will have jurisdiction to decide claims of natives, he has to proceed according to native law. I am not a lawyer and I accepted their advice. Section 12 has been in operation since 1928 and I am not aware of any case where a question of procedure has ever been referred to the Supreme Court on appeal. Furthermore there is nothing to indicate what native procedure is and we have to leave it to the chief and his council to follow the customs of his tribe; otherwise there will be many appeals coming to the native court on matters of procedure.

I fully agree with the Minister. This amendment is proposed precisely with the object of preventing difficulties which might arise. The point might be raised that the chief acted in conformity with the rules of the magistrate’s court. There may be an attorney on behalf of one of the parties and he might tell the chief: “You can hear claims in accordance with native law and practice and procedure, but what procedure are you going to follow in the court?” This would cause trouble. That is all the amendment proposes to prevent, namely, that the chief should not be tied down but should follow native law and procedure. The hon. member happened to ask me to move this amendment on his behalf, but this is exactly what the Minister approves of and what he aims at, namely, that that native chief will act and give his decision in accordance with native law and practice and procedure and that no new procedure shall be applied, and it is only to make that position clear that this amendment is moved.

I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister how one can give a court jurisdiction without saying how it should apply it; and if the chief has to act according to native practice, what objection can then be raised against this amendment? One cannot stipulate that certain people will have jurisdiction to decide certain types of cases without also clearly defining under what procedure that shall take place. We have a Supreme Court procedure and we have a magistrate’s court procedure and the procedure for other bodies is defined. It is always laid down what procedure the court shall follow. Now you simply say that the chief and the headman have the right to decide in disputes but you do not say according to what procedure they must do this. I think the position is wrong. If it has to be done in accordance with native law and practice what harm can it do to lay that down clearly in this clause?

All I can say is that the procedure has been followed since 1928 and the chiefs have acted since 1928 under the existing procedure and we have not had any difficulties yet. I believe it should remain as it is. That is the Opinion of the Law Advisers. I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister whether this amendment has been brought to the notice of the Law Advisers; if not, I would be glad if the Minister would bring this amendment to their notice. This only clarifies the position. If it is brought to their notice, I shall be satisfied. As I said, it cannot do any harm. It merely clarifies the position.

I have already said that this amendment was submitted to them and that this is their opinion.

No, then I am satisfied.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On New Clause to follow Clause 22,

I move—

23. The following new Schedule is hereby inserted to follow the Schedule to the Native Administration Act, 1927—

I accept that.

New clause put and agreed to.

Clauses 23, 24, 25 and 26 having been agreed to, The Committee reverted to Clause 2 standing over.

On Clause 2,

When this clause was ordered to stand over, an amendment by Mr. Hemming in line 16 had been agreed to and the following amendment had been moved by him, viz.: To add the following proviso at the end of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 4 quater:

Provided that a deed of hypothecation, the conditions of which do not provide:

1. (a) for payment of interest at a rate higher than six per cent., or
2. (b) for the payment of compound interest, or
3. (c) for a period of notice of capital repayment exceeding three months, or
4. (d) for a fixed period of capital repayment exceeding two years, or
5. (e) for forfeiture of any capital payment made, shall not be deemed a transaction acquiring or intending to acquire an interest in such land.

I have consulted the Law Advisers since the hon. gentleman proposed his amendment As the House will remember, he proposed it practically while the House was sitting and I had no time then to consult the Law Advisers. I have now consulted them and they point out that while the conditions in the amendment do provide against the most common dangers, there is also a danger that there may be some undesirable conditions which are not mentioned in this amendment. For example, there may be the question of high and exorbitant rasing fees. They are of opinion that it is dangerous to lay down a hard and fast rule and our experience is that unscrupulous money-lenders invariably find some means of getting round conditions which are specifically laid down. That has been the experience in administering the provisions of the Native Land Act. Under the present Act every case is carefully scrutinised to protect the interests of the natives. The hon. member suggested laying down that the rate of interest should not be higher than 6 per cent. Whereas a rate of 6 per cent. might not be regarded as too high today, although I think it is, 8 per cent., 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. some years ago was not considered too high. We found that just after the last war a municipality like Kimberley, for example, was paying 7 per cent. on a gild-edged loan. So whereas 6 per cent. might not be considered high under present conditions, it may be an exorbitant rate in five or six years’ time. I think it is not wise to fix any particular rate. One has to meet the market as it is, and the Minister should have the discretion to say: “Whereas 6 per cent. might have been a reasonable rate of interest three or four years ago, I consider 4 per cent. a reasonable rate under present circumstances.” I regret therefore that after careful consideration, I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments: amendments to be considered on 3rd May

I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER read the Report.

I move—

1. (1) The amendment of the Schedule to the Natives Land Act No. 27 of 1913, by the deletion therefrom, in terms of paragraph (b) of Section 3 of the Native Trust and Land Act No. 18 of 1936, as amended by Section 2 of Act No. 17 of 1939, of the reference to the area described in such schedule as “Makoba’s Location as surveyed”; provided that land of at least an equivalent pastoral or agricultural value, being land referred to in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the said Native Trust and Land Act No. 18 of 1936 shall be included in a Scheduled Native area in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.
2. (2) The removal, in the general public interest, in terms of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Native Administration Act No. 38 of 1927, as amended, of such native inhabitants of Makoba’s Location in the district of Mount Currie as may not after due notice voluntarily remove from the said location, to the block of land owned by the South African Native Trust, comprising the farms Hillside, Northbrook, Afzondering, Nurhah, The Bends, Nahainkwe, Rochdale, Tikatikong and Nkandi, in the district of Matatiele.

I second.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have to deal with a rather intricate matter after a long day on native affairs, but I would like to ask first of all for your ruling on a point of order as to whether the report should not in fact state what the “general public interest” is upon which the Committee relies for the background of this resolution.

What is the point of order?

The Committee is reporting on a matter and says that the removal, in the general public interest, of native inhabitants of Makoba’s Location should take place. I am rasing the question whether this is in the public interest as the report does not state on what grounds the public interest is concerned.

I do not consider that that is necessary to be mentioned in these resolutions. The House has already approved of the motion that the resolutions be considered. The matter is entirely one for the House. It is open to the hon. member to move any amendment.

I want to point out that the land known as Makoba’s Location was originally granted to the native people who lived there for 70 years or more without let or Basuto War. I think we cannot over-estimate the importance of that point. They have lived there for 70 years or more without let or hindrance, and they are now to be moved, not as individuals but as a whole tribe. The tribe consists of approximately 400 odd families, and I suppose we can be quite sure that these 400 odd families aggregate about 2,000 people. So it is not a light matter to move holus-bolus some 400 families and their stock and all their chattels to some other place. Let me now explain. This matter was also raised in 1926; it was then considered by the Government of the day, after which these people were officially informed that they would not be moved. That position continued until last year. I do not contend that these people cannot be moved under any circumstances, the law being what it is. The question is whether it is in the public interest to move them. After the 1936 Act came in, attempts were made to acquire land in various parts of the country. The country involved is native area today and the intention now is to move these people in order to make it a white area. One should not forget the circumstances even after this lapse of time under which this particular location was established and the land given to them. One can well imagine the circumstances under which these people were placed there. They were told that having been loyal to the Government, the Government would be loyal to them and this land was given them for all time. Well, we know that that kind of statement is often made, but it is a sacred statement and an undertaking like that should only be departed from under conditions of the greatest stress. We are now faced with this position that it is proposed to give the people of Makoba’s Location land in another area. But the tribe does not want to go to that particular area, or has put forword an alternative suggestion that if they have to go at all, they should be given land across the Umzimkulu River, where they would prefer to settle. The people have protested very strongly against any attempt to move them, and they are refusing to move of their own free will. The Department, it is true, has offered them other land, in place of the land which they have to give up. The Department has offered them 10,304 morgen and I have to admit that the area of land which they will get is far more than the area which they will have to give up, viz. 4,038 morgen. So many people may say that the bargain is a very good one so far as they are concerned. But the point is that these people feel that the land on which they live, having been given to them, they should not be moved. They are living on land today which has been owned and worked by their fathers and forefathers. Quite recently the people of that location said to the Government: “We don’t want to move, but if you insist on moving us, put us on a spot which adjoins the Umzimkulu River.” They want to be given certain areas there, those areas are contiguous in part to another location and they are in an area where the Government must eventualy acquire land if it is to carry out its obligations to the Native Trust. The point I want to make is that if these people are getting a bargain, as some people say, there still is very great doubt whether these farms which the Government has offered to them, are anywhere as valuable from an agricultural and pastoral point of view as the land they will have to leave. There are nine farms altogether and the native people allege that those nine farms have never been successfully farmed by the Europeans and that that is one of the reasons why it has been possible to buy them. We have a report here from the Director of Agriculture of the Transkei, Mr. Thompson, to a committee which went into this question. Now that Committee cross-examined Mr. Thompson on his report. I was under the impression that there would be a record of this cross-examination but I have found out that the conferring Committee was not supposed to take evidence, and consequently the results of this cross-examination were completely lost. So the only thing we have before us is a statement by the Director of Agriculture. As a result of that cross-examination, however, Mr. Thompson was forced to admit that the land these natives were going to get was not as valuable as the land they were going to give up. It is true that the land which they have to leave is in a bad state of erosion but in spite of that the Director of Agriculture put the value of that land at a figure equal to that of the land to which they were to go. Now it seems to me that this House must have some evidence in regard to the agricultural value of that land. Although the Act does not say that a tribe when moved from certain land must be given other land of the same value, the implication is there. Now I made a suggestion before, in connection with this matter, in relation to other farms, which are between the farms they have been offered and the one they have to leave. Those farms were mentioned in the Select Committee. Some of these farms are capable of being acquired for the Trust. The people in that area at one time were prepared to consider the acquisition of these farms by the Department, and the Department was seriously considering the acquisition of these farms.

Can you give any proof that these people were prepared to dispose of these farms?

That is my information. There was a deputation to the Government led by Mr. Gilson, the former member for Griqualand, and that deputation dealt with the whole question and we are told that speaking on behalf of the Kokstad farmers and the Matatiele farmers, that deputation made all kinds of threats to the Government—turning this whole issue into a political one. That deputation wanted these natives moved out of that district. It comes to this that while it is the policy of the Government to acquire land the policy of the Department was completely set aside because of the threats made by Mr. Gilson and his followers, who wanted this tribe to be far removed from the land which they occupy at present. I say in the first place it is wrong to move these people at all from the area which they occupy. The native people feel that they are being punished by being removed from that land. I can assure the House that they feel this action of the Government very keenly. They say to the Government: “You have the power to do this to us, but if you have to do it, try and soften the blow.” There is nothing unreasonable in that request. The farms which they want are of the same type as the land which they hold. The soil on that land is superior in type to the farms already acquired. I feel, of course, that it is no use kicking. The Government have made up their minds, and at the request of the farmers of Kokstad these people will have to go. I have virtually accepted the position that these people have to go, but I do feel that even at this stage a further effort should be made to satisfy them in regard to the area which they are to occupy, and I accordingly desire to move the same amendment as I did in Select Committee below. I don’t think any harm can be done by postponing this for a period of 12 months. It is a matter of considerable importance to the native people and I am extremely anxious that all these little dissatisfactions should be removed.

The hon. member desires to move the amendment which he proposed before Select Committee. I regret that I am unable to accept it in that form.

I just want to explain what the position is so that the House can understand it. What the hon. member said is quite true, that these people have been there for a large number of years, but I think the House would appreciate the position better if I were just to give a short history of the position so that everyone would be au fait with the conditions of this proposed change. Now the area involved is 4,038 morgen, and there were some 2,000 people living on it which means about 2 morgen to the individual. I may say that this is the only native location in the district of Mount Currie. After the war of 1880 it is true that Makoba’s followers were settled in that area as a reward for their loyalty. The Natives Land Commission of 1916, under the Chairmanship of Sir William Beaumont, recommended that the District of Mount Currie should be declared a European area. Then the Scully Committee recommended the same thing. And later during the then Prime Minister’s visit to East Griqualand, a deputation of farmers pressed for the dis-establishment of Makoba’s Location and the removal of the natives to a native area. With this object in view, options for the purchase of certain farms in the Umzimkulu area were obtained, and the natives were consulted, but they would not agree. Now for the information of hon. members and to enable them better to understand the position, may I show a map to the House indicating the situation of Makoba’s Location and the areas. [Minister shows map.] Now this red is all native area. The farms bought by the Government are these farms here in blue. The farms referred to by the hon. member which he wanted to move into, are these lying in this white area here. The point is this that Makoba’s Location is a black spot in a white area. All the farms, which the hon. member suggests we should buy are also in a white area, whereas these other farms which we have bought, these nine farms, are inside the native area or a released area. The Chief Magistrate of the Transkeian Territories, in 1926, was told that if the natives were unanimously against removal the Government would not force it upon them. But since then we have had the 1936 legislation, and repeated representations have been made by farmers’ associations for the removal of the location. In the meantime the Trust had bought from the Europeans a number of farms in the released area in the Matatiele and Umzimkulu districts. A number of consulations with the natives followed, and they were told that suitable land would be provided in the Matatiele district. The land suggested was some 7,400 morgen in extent, comprising seven farms in the Matatiele district, but the natives were opposed to moving. They were offered 7,400 morgen as against the 4,038 morgen which they were occupying. Then three more farms were bought bringing the total area to 10,304 morgen. The Department and the Native Affairs Commission were entirely satisfied that the new land bought, was eminently suitable for the occupation by Makoba’s people. The existing location is grossly overstocked, eroded and tramped out. They certainly cannot go on like that. The point is that if they were left where they are, there would be no room for expansion and the land would continue to deteriorate. Now the Department is prepared to give them this new land. The natives offered to go across the river to the farms which the hon. member spoke about just south of their present location. So the argument that they do not want to move from their old land is not quite right. They were prepared to move across the river. The argument about moving them from their ancestral home, and the cruelty attached to doing so, is not quite right. The Department is prepared to pay full compensation for their houses, huts and all improvements and will provide transport and food during the transition stage. Further we are prepared to give them a year within which to move. During this time they can start to build their huts and so on and then they can move in. If they were allowed to move just across the river, it would mean a new black spot in a white area, but I do not think there will be any great difficulty if these people are told they will now have to move. I cannot quite understand the hon. gentleman’s remarks about Mr. Thompson, who gave evidence before the Select Committee on the land now occupied and the land bought. He valued the location at £5 a morgen, and the new ground also at £5 a morgen, but the point is that the new ground is entirely fenced; it is all paddocked and they can move straight in there, where they will have proper conditions, good grazing and the whole settlement under control. Moreover, there is room for expansion. The value of Makoba’s Location at £5 works out at approximately £20,000. The land we have bought actually cost the Government £69,601. This land, without improvements, cost £47,154. It is true there are 475 families, but 555 lands have been laid out, so there is room for expansion in this new area. As I have said, Makoba’s Location is badly tramped out and there is no room for expansion, and if these people were to be allowed to stay there, there would have to be a strict limitation of stock. As a matter of fact, stock would have to be reduced, because they would not be able to keep the stock they have. In the new area there is room for expansion. Of course, if Makoba’s Location is excised from the scheduled area the Government will have to buy an area of equal agricultural or pastoral value somewhere in the same province. The object is not to reduce the amount of land that can be bought for the natives. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is quite true that these tribesmen were settled at Makoba’s location for loyal service to the Cape Government, but we are giving them something very much better than they have got at the present moment, and they are getting an absolutely fair and square deal. The Native Affairs Commission was sent to the area and I sent my officials there, we had talks with the natives, and these areas were carefully gone over. There is no question at all of any injustice because they will definitely benefit. They are getting a location where there is room for expansion, where the property is fenced, there is a good water supply and the land is properly paddocked off. If looked after as will be the case, to see that the fences are not destroyed or the land badly farmed, or the stock allowed to increase out of all proportion, then they should be able to live happily for many years and still have room for development. I feel that in this way the Government are really doing them a good turn. I shall be very glad if the House will accept this.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the amendment of my colleague was ruled out, I want to move—

This question does not really depend on the comparative values of these reserves. It appears on the Minister’s own statement that these people have been there ever since, or soon after, responsible government was given to the Cape. They were given these properties as the result of services they rendered to the Cape Government when that government was in danger, and presumably that grant was made in perpetuity. Undoubtedly under legislation that was passed in 1939 the Government has the power to disposses these people and remove them to where they don’t want to go. It may or may not be the case, considering the comparative value of the lands, that these people are ill advised; that is a matter of which I have no knowledge. But one party to the bargain is entitled to say whether he is prepared to take something in exchange for what he has got. This was a moral obligation assumed by the old Cape Government, and naturally binds the Union Government. As I say, the comparative value of the lands is not in point. I believe Naboth was offered something very much more valuable for his vineyard if he would give it up, but Naboth did not want to give it up. According to the Government’s memorandum to the conferring Committee, during a visit of the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, to East Griqualand in 1925, a deputation of farmers pressed for the disestablishment of this area as a native reserve. The Government would not force it upon the people concerned, and Gen. Hertzog was apparently prepared to accept what the Cape Government had done. Gen. Hertzog said that if the natives were unanimously against removal they would not be removed.

I second the amendment.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd May.