With leave, I would like to make a further statement on the subject of the explosion which occurred in the ammunition factory in Pretoria on the, 1st March. Yesterday a question was put here in connection with the terrible accident. I would like to inform the House that the latest figures are not available. The casualties which have been ascertained are altogether 31., That includes Europeans, 4 men and 11 women—total 15; non-Europeans 16, which brings the total to 31. I may add that there exists a great deal of uncertainty regarding the cause of the accident. That uncertainty continues to exist. In the meantime all the Departments concerned are instituting the necessary enquiries in order to get evidence whilst the facts are still fresh in mind, so that a thorough investigation may take place as soon as possible.

I move—

In moving the second reading of this Bill I have to mention at the outset that the affairs of the Rand Water Board have been before this House on many occasions in the past, so I do not think it is necessary to explain in detail to the House what the Rand Water Board is, what its purposes are, or what its development has been during the past 40 odd years. I think it is sufficient for the purpose of introducing this Bill that I should remind the House that the Rand Water Board is a public utility non-profit making corporation formed in 1903 for the purpose of providing and supplying water to the Witwatersrand and neighbouring areas. Over the past 40 odd years the development and growth of the Rand Water Board’s undertaking has run parallel to the development and growth of the Witwatersrand itself; and as time has gone on, and as the problems of the board have changed, it has been found necessary to introduce amendments to the original empowering ordinance of 1903. Such amendments have been introduced not only during the provincial stage, but since Union, and the result is a body of law which is generally known as the Rand Water Board Statutes. During the last session of Parliament a Bill was introduced into this House for the purpose mainly of extending the operations of the board to the Pretoria and Vereeniging areas, and it was originally intended that the provisions of today’s Bill should be incorporated in the Bill that was introduced last session. Unfortunately, sir, delays took place in negotiations with Government departments which were prolonged to such an extent that it was not possible to give the necessary statutory notice in time to incorporate the provisions of this Bill into last year’s Bill. So it has been necessary to frame a separate Bill to meet those difficulties. I propose to explain very shortly to the House what the purposes of the present Bill are. In the first place, let me say that they relate exclusively to the financial provisions of the Rand Water Board Statutes. As I have already mentioned, the board is a non-profit making undertaking, with the result that the manner in which the board is able to acquire funds, and the manner it disposes of its funds, are laid down within the four comers of the statutes. The revenue of the board is derived partly from loan funds, and partly from a charge for water to the various consumers. The great majority of the consumers comprise the various constituent municipalities, the Railway Administration and the Chamber of Mines. They, in fact, represent 96 per cent. of the total number of consumers of water sold by the board. As I say, the manner in which the board is empowered to deal with this money is laid down within the four corners of the statutes, and these statutes provide that any surplus of revenue over expenditure must be returned to the consumers, or I should put it, must accrue to the immediate benefit of consumers save where the statutes make special provision for the creation of reserve funds. The purpose of this Bill is to introduce certain modifications in the present powers of the board in relation to those reserve funds. The first amendment relates to the board’s power to set aside an ordinary reserve fund. This power was originally conferred on the board in 1904, and enables the board to set aside annually from moneys received from the sale of water a fund to meet contingencies, to equalise the charges for water and to cover maintenance maintenance of the board’s works. The present position is that the amount that can be set aside is subject to the approval of the Governor-General, but this limitation upon the board’s power has been found to be extremely inconvenient. In the nature of things, as I am sure the House will appreciate, it takes perhaps two months from the time application is made to the Governor-General for his approval until that approval is granted; the result of that has been that at least two months before the end of its financial year the board has been obliged to survey the result of its year’s operations, and to consider what its surplus is likely to be, and in what way it should dispose of its surplus, before it really knows where it stands financially, before it really knows what the surpluses are going to be, or what ought to be done with them. That has proved very inconvenient, so the purpose of the first amendment is to dispense with this requirement of obtaining the Governor-General’s sanction for an appropriation to the reserve fund, and to put in its place an automatic limitation of the amount that can be so set aside. The House will, I am sure, appreciate that the sole purpose so far as one can judge, of this provision by which the Governor-General’s approval has to be sought, is to prevent the board from burdening the present generation by creating very large reserves, unnecessarily large reserves. In such circumstances, the Governor-General one may suppose, could step in and object to the appropriation of so large a sum to the reserve fund. In asking the House to pass this amendment, by which the Governor-General’s approval is to be dispensed with, we insert in place of that an automatic limitation upon the amount which can be set aside for reserve in any one year. Let me also mention, Mr. Speaker, that all the financial powers of the board are subject to the scrutiny of the board’s auditors, who are appointed by the Government and have very wide powers. They have power to make recommendations and to draw attention to any misuse of the board’s funds which they consider should be rectified; so that provides an additional check on any inclination the board may have to act in an improper or unwise way in relation to its funds. The next provision, which I think is the most important provision of the Bill, relates to the setting aside of moneys to cover depreciation and renewals. The present position is that the board, in arriving at a charge for water, which is known as the uniform rate, may make provision for depreciation, but the board has been advised that under the statutes as they stand at present they can only make allowance for depreciation in respect of items which are actually valued, depreciated and written off. In the nature of things the board, with very considerable assets of various kinds, has found it impossible to embark on a valuation of its assets annually for the purpose of making this appropriate allowance for depreciation and the purpose of this amendment is therefore to create an appropriate fund to cover depreciation and renewals into which the board may from time to time at its discretion place such sums as are considered necessary to cover those two items. Finally, I come to the provisions in the third reserve fund, called the Betterment Fund. This provision, Mr. Speaker, is of a very minor character, and the only changes which the present Bill seeks to introduce are as follows. In the first place, the Betterment Fund (which is already in existence) as its name suggests, was created for the purpose of providing for the type of expenditure to improve the assets of the board which falls midway between the capital form of expenditure and the revenue form of expenditure. It partakes of the character of both, and because of its rather ambiguous character difficulties have cropped up in the past as to whether a particular item could be appropriately called a betterment item or whether it fell into the category of “revenue” or “capital.” The purpose of this amendment is to enable the board in respect of its Betterment Fund to use it not only for betterment items but also for items which are appropriately describable as capital expenditure. That will meet the difficulties the board has experienced in the past. The only other amendment in this regard is of a very minor nature, and enables the board instead of setting a limitation of 1d. per 1,000 gallons upon this Betterment Fund the limitation is now set at a sixth of the uniform rate. The uniform rate is at present 6d. A 1d. per 1,000 gallons has, in the past, represented one-sixth of the uniform rate. But the purpose of this amendment is to make allowance for the possibility that the uniform rate may either decline or be increased, in which case the 1d. per 1,000 gallons would be either too little or too much whereas the sixth will put the two into an appropriate relationship. I think that deals with Clauses 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Bill. Sections 3 and 8 of the Bill I do not think call for any comment at this stage at all events. With regard to Section 9, whereas the previous sections have made provision for the maximum amount which may be put to any of these funds I have described, Section 9 contains an overriding provision which limits the maximum sum which may in any one year be appropriated to the three funds jointly. This provision provides an additional check upon any inclination on the part of the board to make undue provision for the future at the expense of the present. In conclusion, I would like to remark generally that when I speak of the board I am speaking of a body which is in every respect representative of consumers; in other words, the board really comprises all the people who might conceivably be interested in this Bill. In so far that queries may be raised as to the effect of any of these provisions on the interests of these consumers, it is obviously important to remember that the consumers themselves subscribed to these amendments as conforming to their conception of the way in which the board’s finances should be conducted.

Is that in the evidence?

Yes, I am just going to read to the hon. member a passage from the Select Committee report. The hon. member has the report in front of him, and he will see that page 8, paragraph 3, reads as follows—

What about the Railway Administration?

The Railway Administration has also expressed its approval. That, I think, is sufficient to satisfy the House that this is to all intents and purposes an agreed measure in so far as all the people—or 96 per cent. of the people—who might conceivably be interested have expressly been consulted and have expressly notified their approval. With regard to the other 4 per cent. they represent a very small body, but it is sufficient simply to note they have raised no objection to the Bill.

One cannot have any objection to the principles contained in this regulation or against the amendment which has been brought about in the existing Act, especially after the investigation which was instituted by the Select Committee and the fact which the hon. member mentioned here, that the constituting body which is concerned has given its acquiescence. There are, however, other aspects which I would like to mention regarding this matter. In previous years we have repeatedly seen the regulations brought before the House in connection with the Rand Water Board. Bills are continually placed before the House and amendments are continually being made in the Acts relating to this Body. It has practically become a hardy annual that a private member introduces a Bill of which notice has been given in the newspaper, to amend the Acts relating to this body. Documents must be deposited and a fixed procedure must be followed, in regard to the time of the House which is occupied in order to bring about such an amendment. This Rand Water Board was brought into existence in the year 1904. It has existed now for 40 years, and we have noticed that amendments are continually being made in the Acts. I do not say that those amendments were not necessary.

All the parties have always supported it.

Yes, I do not say that it was unnecessary. I believe that we in this House have always found that the matter also has another side to it. The amendments were necessary. But this matter also has another side to it. The Rand Water Board has always extended its activities and practically every year it is demanded of this House that amendments must be made. On this occasion the amendments are apparently necessary. I was surprised to find that through all the years there were no such stipulations in the Acts. After the Rand Water Board has already been in existence for 40 years permission is now sought to build up a reserve fund; to make provision for depreciation and to provide for a renewal fund; for powers in connection with a uniform water tax, etc. Further authority is sought for the investment of certain balances. What have they done all these years? I cannot understand that such an important Body has been without these powers for all these years. In the nature of the thing every institution must have these powers. The point, however, is this, that we have a fixed procedure in this House in regard to private Acts. It is a long-drawn-out and expensive procedure. I do not want to criticise it because it is necessary for the protection of private interests. But it demands much time, and a great deal of trouble and expense is attached to it. This Body, which occupies an important position in the country, must, when it requires such an amendment, publish the amendment in the newspaper, send its officials to Cape Town, employ an advocate and attorney to appear before the Select Committee. Practically every year this. Body has these large expenses. It appears to me that in fact this need not be necessary. I do not mean that the procedure in this House should be less retarding. But why should such a Body be placed in the position that year after year it is put to that expense? I have no objection to this particular proposition. However, I do want to point out that individuals who object to the regulation and wish to object, are practically out of court. They cannot come to Parliament to put forward their objections because that entails travelling expenses; they must put in a petition and oppose the Bill. This is practically a court case and it means tremendous expenditure. I make these allegations because I contend that the Rand Water Board has practically become a public institution. It is no longer the small and negligible body it previously was. Let us go into its history. It was formed in 1904. At that time they were granted authority to take out 10,000,000 gallons of water per day. Later they were given the right to take 215,000,000 gallons of water per day from the Vaal River. Originally the area supplied was only the magisterial districts within the Witwatersrand. Later it was extended to the East Rand, and last year it was also extended to Pretoria and Vereeniging. I do not know precisely what the area supplied was in 1904, but in 1943 it was 1,959 square miles. Now, two years later, it is 3,980 square miles. The European population of that area supplied is approximately 645,900; the non-European population of that area is 938,920. The total is 1,584,820 It is quite apparent to us that the Rand Water Board does not supply a small number of people, but that it has become a tremendously large undertaking.

What point do you wish to make in that connection?

I am coming to that presently. I just want to point out what the circumstances are today. I have mentioned these figures and I asked whether it is still in the interests of the country that this Body should be a purely private Body in which the State has practically no say, except that the Statutes can be amended by Parliament only, that the Government appoints the Chairman and that the Minister of Transport appoints a member. The Vaal River is one of the main rivers in the country and we cannot allow this tremendously large undertaking at the Witwatersrand which is practically a private undertaking where it supplies such a tremendously large area, to take all that water from this river. This undertaking is no longer there merely to supply water to Johannesburg and the mines. It is extending rapidly. Originally the purpose was to supply water to Johannesburg, but subsequently this undertaking has been granted the right to extend its supply area and to supply water to industries far outside Johannesburg. It can supply water to industries outside Johannesburg. Since then institutions in Pretoria and Vereeniging have been included and water is now also supplied to industries at Vereeniging. According to the report of the Committee we read—

In other words, this has now become a large business undertaking, similar to the Electricity Supply Commission. The Electricity Supply Commission supplies electricity to industries, municipalities, to the railways, etc. The Rand Water Board supplies water to the municipality of Johannesburg, to the mines, to Pretoria, to Vereeniging, to industries, just as the Electricity Supply Commission supplies electricity. It no longer uses the water for its own purposes only; it now sells it as well. I do no say that that is wrong, that it should not do so, but then I want to complain that we continue in this way that we leave it in the hands of the Rand Water Board as it is today. In my opinion the State ought to have much more say in the matter. Surely water is much more essential than electricity. Water is an essential service and we cannot allow it to continue in this way The Board consists of 34 members. Of them the Government appoints two, namely the chairman and another member, and the Railway Administration appoints one member. The Transvaal Chamber of Mines appoints 16. All the local authorities, from Johannesburg to Vereeniging—all those mentioned here—appoint 16 jointly. In other words, there are 32 members appointed over whom the State has no say. The State has merely two representatives, one of whom is the chairman, and he cannot always carry through his ideas. My attitude and contention is that the State should now step in, that where our valuable water is being used for certain places in the country, and is sold to industries for business undertakings, the State should step in just as it did in regard to electricity, and say: “No, this thing has now assumed such proportions that we should have a body which exists as a Utility Commission, just like the Electricity Supply Commission, and that the State should have more representation on it. I am pleased that the Minister of Lands and Irrigation is listening to this matter. I think it is a matter which he should take into consideration and to which he should give his attention. He is a Minister who lately since he has become a Minister, has taken much interest in the water question, and who wants to build dams all over the country, and wants to conserve our country’s water. But this tremendous dam is being used by a body over which the State has no say, in the manner I have described. I would say that if the position were to remain as it is today, then the Railways should have more say. If the Chamber of Mines has 16 representatives on the Board, I would like to see that the Railways have more than one.

Must I bring you a few volumes of Hansard?

No, thank you, I can speak without the assistance of Hansard. I am not one of those persons who carries his brains in a book. I have my knowledge with me. (I do not carry my brains in Hansard; I have my brains in my head.)

He does not understand it yet; talk Latin,

I contend that these points which I have raised do in fact demand the serious consideration of the Government. It will be interesting in connection with what has recently been said here in regard to the question of water supply at Hutchinson where a certain Minister receives 1s. 6d. per thousand gallons, to say that here the price is merely 11.2d. per thousand gallons. I am actually pleased, whereas the Minister charges 1s. 6d„ the Rand Water Board merely charges 11.2d. per thousand gallons. I think we should institute a Water Board at Hutchinson

Then you must also build a Vaal Dam there.

… with the hori member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) as the Chairman. I have mentioned these points because I believe that, where in South Africa we have followed the principle for many years that public services, essential services, should not be left to individuals Where it can be helped, the State should have a say as we have done with our iron and steel and with electricity. That should be done in regard to water; and the Rand Water Board comes every year to Parliament with powers which are extended, and we should take this matter into serious consideration. I have no objection to these particular regulations which are being asked for today, because they are powers which any Board ought to have, and I can only express my surprise that they have not had them previously. I trust that the Minister will now give the whole matter his consideration in regard to the Whole question of water supply from the Vaal River, that the Government will intervene and see to it that it retains its say, and that everything goes well and does not develop into a tremendous undertaking which now supplies water to all kinds of industries. In these words I would like provisionally to support the Bill, but I hope that the matter will be put in order.

I was one of the members who served on this Committee. The matter was before us last year and was put very plainly. There was a large committee which considered the matter, as well as an advocate who outlined the case very clearly, especially in regard to water supply in Pretoria. What was very upsetting to me, was the question of how it was going to effect settlers further down if we were going to pump out large volumes and supply industries with water. The purpose of this dam was principally to get settlers there and thus their interests come first. In the reply to the question they gave us the assurance that it did not detract from the rights of these people. Consequently we agreed that the distribution of water may be allowed. Recently the Rand Water Board again sent down a deputation. That was strange to me. I considered that the matter had been completed last year and that it would not come before us again. It appears to me that it is being made out that the Committee came down on a sort of a holiday. But it has been explained to us that certain things had been forgotten, which they did not raise last year and which should have been dealt with then, consequently unnecessary expenditure has been incurred in connection with the sending down of this deputation and the Commission decided to acquiesce in the request. There is, however, one point which I feel we should guard against and that is that the supply of water by the Water Board should not later on become a sort of speculation, that later we will have to use the dam for the benefit of certain bodies so that they can sell water to industries and thereby use the State dam which was built there for utility purposes in the interests of certain bodies out of which there arises moneymaking. I trust that the Minister concerned will see to it that in future the dam is not unnecessarily pumped out to benefit certain bodies. Further I must say that it is wrong and I agree that the Government should have more say in connection with this matter in the future. Where it is the owner of the dam it should have more say.

As it appears to me, the Rand Water Board has already come to this House on several occasions for an extension of their rights. I am pleased to see the Minister of Lands and Irrigation here this morning ….

That is not strange.

…. because this matter has a very important aspect. We are busy harnessing one of our great national rivers for the development of industry, for tertiary purposes, as the Irrigation Act calls it. Here the water is taken away from its catchment area. The riparian owners’ rights are being taken away and the water is being used far in the interior. I know that this Board is all-powerful. The Board can take the water belonging to the riparian owners and give it to anyone. But every time that happens private rights are affected, and you find that the people whose rights have been affected usually have to appear before a Select Committee of Parliament, and they are involved in heavy expenditure in connection with the matter. The procedure of the House is such that they must appear by means of an advocate. There is a long procedure. Evidence is heard, and our experience has been that in such a case the persons whose rights have been affected are mulcted in large expenditure in order to protect their rights. Now I would like to tell the hon. Minister that here is a case to which he, especially as the Minister of Irrigation, should give his consideration, especially when he is again going to bring forward legislation like this; that is when the rights of riparian owners are affected and they have to bear all the expenses, the Government or the body seeking these rights must bear the expenses. Why, if the Government comes along, or such a body as this, the Rand Water Board, to affect private rights should the persons who come to give evidence before the Select Committee, to lay their case before the Select Committee and protect their rights, pay the expenses? I consider that the Minister should pay attention to the matter in that light, that when the Government or such a body uses water outside the area and thereby affects private rights, the Government should bear the expenses of those people whose rights have been affected. That is a matter which concerns me deeply, when I see in the future expansion of our country, especially in the next ten or fifteen years, that it may quite probably be that the State will be compelled to take away the rights of private individuals. Then we usually come with a private Bill, an amphibious Bill, and the parties must come and give evidence. The Government must see to it that in such cases all the expenses in connection with the obtaining of the rights of those people are borne by the State or by an undertaking of this nature. But there is another aspect of the matter which I would very much like to emphasise, and that is this. We are engaged in using the water from a national stream to give it to persons who are not riparian owners. The danger is this, if I may put it that way, that the Rand is going to expand and will require more and more water. It is quite possible that there will be a large expansion even in Pretoria in the future and that water will have to go from here to Pretoria.

That is so.

I understand that that is already the case. Now I would like to tell the Minister that there should be some or other sort of limitation. We are using the water in the Transvaal for the Transvaal only, and now I would like to know this from the hon. Minister: What is he going to do in future to ensure that the people who live further down in the Cape the riparian owners at Kimberley, for example, the riparian owners at Pfieska and the riparian owners of Gordonia and Namaqualand, who do not require the water for tertiary purposes, but who require the water for primary and secondary purposes—and he knows that primary rights come first, and then come the secondary and when the requirements of the primary and secondary rights have been fulfilled, then only come the tertiary rights—now I would like to ask the Minister to what extent the primary and secondary rights of the riparian owners further down the river are being protected; and in the event of expansion taking place in the Transvaal it would become necessary to use more water for tertiary purposes, and then the Minister must say how he is going to protect the people down here. Then there is another aspect of the matter which the Minister must take into consideration. He is not going to grant all the water for tertiary purposes to the Rand and Pretoria. He is also going to give it for primary purposes, as well as for secondary purposes. According to our common law and according to the Statute of 1912—the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) will agree with me—the people have no right to that water. It is only a special Act of Parliament which gives them that right. Whereas I represent an electoral division, where a tremendous expansion may take place on agricultural lines, where there are still thousands of morgen of ground which can be irrigated in the future, I want to know to what extent the granting of this right is going to retard the expansion of that area. That is a very important matter. Every time the Rand Water Board asks for more rights. This will increase and it would appear that everything is being concentrated on the Rand. But the Rand cannot live from the air. They already have a scarcity of food there, and if we are going to retard agriculture in this country, so that we cannot produce along the banks of the Orange River they will die on the Rand. They cannot live on water alone, they must have food, and therefore I must request the Minister not to allow this Bill to pass the second reading before he has explained the position in regard to the rights of the riparian owners lower down along the Orange River. We very badly want to know that and when I have such an authoritative and reassuring statement from the Minister of Lands, I can say to the people there: “You need not fear; sufficient water will flow in the river; you can develop and you will be able to supply food to the Rand where industrial development will take place.” There are also other places which will later want to draw from these sources. We know that Kimberley is doing this and we know with what great enthusiasm the North West is devoting itself to the expansion of industries. We know that at Kimberley congresses are continually taking place between the Chamber of Commerce and the Farmers’ Associations, and the representatives of those parts are invited to go there. Unfortunately I have not yet had the opportunity of going there, but I always get a report of what takes place and it would appear that that part can make a claim to industrial development in the future, and their only source of water supply will be the Vaal River. Do not go and give everything to Johannesburg and think that Johannesburg is the cradle of all our industries. We must take a wider view of our industrial development. There are other rivers such as the Crocodile River, and other rivers, which can be utilised for the development of those areas. Why must we make a claim to water to which we have a right? I say again that the House has the power to amend the Act of 1912 or the common law and I now request the Minister to make a statement which will reassure those areas.

I think that I will immediately reply to the few questions which have been put to me. It is naturally very important for the House to know it in view of the expansion which is taking place on the Rand and which will take place in the future, and which will naturally result in the requirements for water increasing. My hon. friend has asked what the position of the riparian owners will be in the future. Let me immediately say this in reply to the first question which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) asked. He says that it is his opinion that the Rand Water Board has now become a large organisation, a large body, which gets so much water and even sells it to private people, that the time has arrived when the Government should intervene and take it over. Let me immediately say this. I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the Bill provides that the Rand Water Board shall not make any profit on the water which it sells. They must not show a profit therefore hon. members may rest assured that they do not make a profit regarding the sale of water.

I would rather see it in the hands of the State than in the hands of the Chamber of Mines, even though the Government is so rotten.

The Government has representation on the Board, and so far it has worked excellently.

That representation is too small.

In the first place I would like to say this to the House. The Vaal Dam has been built, the whole country is dependent on water which comes from it and will be dependent on it in the future. The large industries which are being built and which develop there from time to time are practically the source of most of the progress and prosperity which we have in South Africa. A very large community is being built up there. The Government is bound and feels bound, no matter what happens, that that community must have sufficient water, not only for their local requirements but also and especially for industrial expansion. Pretoria is already terribly short of water. They have endeavoured to get the Government to get them water from the Hartebeespoort Dam, but that is impossible because the Hartebeespoort Dam cannot supply that water. Thus we have not sufficient water to supply the needs of the settlement.

Can the Dam not be made larger?

No, the Dam is almost as large as it can be made. The result has been that on the recommendation of my Department, Pretoria has now become a shareholder in the Rand Water Board, and as soon as they can obtain the pipes the water will be supplied to them by the Rand Water Board and that is going to cause a tremendously increased consumption of water.

I notice that it is therefore no longer the Rand Water Board; it is now practically the Transvaal Water Board.

What the hon. member is losing sight of is this, that for the quantity of water which the Rand Water Board has obtained from the Vaal Dam, they have already paid to the Government more than a million pounds. I am not certain of the exact amount but it is in the vicinity of a million pounds. In other words, the Rand Water. Board has practically paid for the whole of the cost of the dam, and if they extend further they will want more and they will always have to pay more and more for the water.

The dam can surely be enlarged?

Now the hon. member is concerned about the position of the riparian owners. He is afraid that due to the expansion, we are going to rob the riparian owners at Gordonia, Prieska and people lower down, of water. He asks what security they have for the future.

That is what we want to know.

The Vaal Dam can be enlarged by 18 feet. Eighteen feet can be added, and if we add 18 feet then the Vaal Dam will hold 2½ times as much as it does now.

Later on you will have the whole of the Free State under water.

We have already practically made provision for that.

You must not obstruct our gold mines.

In the first place we have already bought out servitudes and paid for enlargement which will come at a later stage. Thus we know exactly which ground will be under water. If that is done I can give the House the assurance that according to calculation, whatever extension may take place on the Rand and whatever we may require, in any case there will be sufficient for the purposes for the coming hundred years. Then arises the question, what about the position lower down along the river. I can only say that since we built the Vaal Dam, Gordonia, Karos-Boegoeberg, Kakamas, and all the other undertakings are in a better position than they were in the past, because the permanent flow from the Vaal Dam is so strong that even in the severest droughts they are assured of having water, and the water has never ceased flowing since the Vaal Dam was built.

We want to know whether there will be sufficient water for expansion in the future.

If we raise the embankment by 18 feet there will be sufficient water for expansion on the Rand for industrial purposes and other purposes, and the areas lower down will be assured of a permanent flow. Take the dry Hart River. That was a dry river years ago and now it is a permanent stream. I do not think that hon. members need be concerned that the other areas will not have sufficient water. Compared to the past their position will be improved. It has improved through the building of the dam.

Is there not a danger of it silting up?

If we raise the embankment by 18 feet, we will be assured of sufficient water for 100 years and silting up, evaporation and everything has been taken into account.

That is to say if we have a normal rainfall.

If the Heavens should fall in … that is the position. I wish to repeat that the Government is bound, and feels itself bound, to provide for all the requirements on the Rand and Pretoria in connection with industrial expansion and otherwise. These are the centres from which our prosperity practically comes today. There is going to be a very large community settled there and the Government feels itself called upon to make provision for sufficient water to be able to expand, and for other purposes. That we can do by raising the embankment of the Vaal Dam.

For my part I would like to support the powers asked for by the Rand Water Board. I think that we can congratulate the Rand Water Board on the work they have done up to the present. It is being said that every year they ask for more powers. That speaks for itself. You see the expansion that takes place, the tremendous expansion of the water supply area, so that it could not be otherwise but that they should ask for more powers. A tremendous expansion has taken place and they still supply water at something over 11d. per thousand gallons. I think that we should congratulate the Rand Water Board on its achievement. Now it is being contended for more Government representation on the Rand Water Board. One almost fears that if you give the Government larger representation on the Board you may possibly get a second Conroy-Hutchinson scheme on the Rand. One of the speakers said that the policy on this side of the House is that we want State control of industries. I will stand or fall by that. But in so far as the Rand Water Board is concerned that is in fact not a key industry. The Board is not there to accumulate a profit and therefore I cannot see what objection can be offered to the granting of the powers sought. We have already heard from the Minister that the Rand Water Board is not allowed to show a profit. If that is the case, what danger can there be? No, I think that we can be proud of the services which the Rand Water Board has rendered, and I do not see why we should put any stumbling block in the way of the acquisition of more powers. The Minister has said that the Rand Water Board has already paid almost the whole of the cost of the Vaal Dam, and if we enlarge it by another 18 feet, I am sure that within a measurable period of time the Rand Water Board will also have paid for the enlargement of 18 feet. I do not see how we can oppose the Bill. I support this Bill and trust that no further stumbling blocks will be put in its way.

The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) spoke of objections which have been made against this Bill. He apparently referred to the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). The hon. member did not, however, object to the Bill which is before the House, but he objected to the fact that it was only now coming before the House and that these powers have not been granted long ago.

I spoke of bad business.

The hon. member expressed his surprise at the fact that such a big body carried on its business all these years without a proper system of depreciation and without reserve funds. In any event, the time is ripe for this legislation. What we do feel, and especially we in Pretoria, is that it is essential that the State should have a greater say in the Board of Control. I endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Westdene that the Rand Water Board carried out its duties in an excellent way. No one stated anything to the contrary. But here we are concerned with the future development of the great area of Pretoria, the whole Rand, the East Rand and the West Rand, and including even Vereeniging. The Minister spoke of the next 100 years. I think if we could get up out of our graves in a hundred years’ time, we would be astounded at the tremendous development which has taken place. But when it comes to the question of which parts should be provided with water, in which direction development should take place, then it is no longer a matter for a private board, but the State ought to have a big say in the matter. I think it would be a good thing, if the Minister were given a greater say. I am thinking especially of Pretoria. For a number of years negotiations have been in progress to let Pretoria get its water from the Rand Water Board, and the Pretoria municipality is very anxious to obtain this water. What is happening in Pretoria year after year? Sometimes we have sufficient water for drinking purposes only, and not even for a bath. Then there are the Pretoria regulations forbidding one to use bath water for gardening purposes. The garden to which one’s wife devotes so much time has to be neglected through lack of water. We feel when we find this type of thing happening, that in the future control should be exercised by the Central Government. The decision as to what development there should be and what schemes should be developed, rests with the State—not that we feel that the Rand Water Board has not done its duty, but surely we cannot go on expanding until we reach the point where the Rand Water Board will control the whole of South Africa. With due respect to the Minister, I would say that at the moment we have a very weak Government perhaps and that it will not do much. But we shall not always have such a weak Government. With regard to the Minister’s statement in connection with the position a hundred years’ hence, I should not like to doubt his word, but the Minister’s statement that by adding eighteen feet to the Vaal Dam there will be sufficient water for the next hundred years in spite of expansion in that great area, seems somewhat unacceptable to me. And in addition to that we must bear in mind the development along the whole river up to a point practically past Upington. We must also bear in mind the possibility of the dam being silted up. We know that in South Africa dams silt up rapidly.

The Vaal River has the least silt, or is one of the rivers which has the least silt.

We cannot judge how quickly a dam will silt up by looking at the quality of the silt. The Minister knows what happened in the case of other dams. Certain dams silted up completely within a period of fifteen years, and in some cases, the position was even worse. Although the Vaal Dam and the Vaal River contain the least silt, that matter should be thoroughly investigated.

That has been done.

Even if a silt survey has been made in the Vaal Dam, it is still not sufficient. There should be a thorough silt survey over a period of years, a survey covering the river itself, before one can come to any conclusion.

They know how much silt there is in the Vaal Dam.

That may be but one cannot decide on the strength of the quantity of silt in the water how long it will take before the dam is silted up.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was discussing the estimate of the Minister of Lands that this scheme, with the new development of Vaal Dam, will yield sufficient water for the Rand and for irrigation purposes for the next hundred years. The Minister of Lands also stated that in arriving at that estimate, the question of silt had been taken into consideration. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that a survey of the quantity of silt in the water cannot be a guide to us in determining how soon the dam will silt up. If the water contains 5 per cent. silt, we cannot say that if the dam is filled every year, it will silt up 5 per cent. There are various factors. Even where the dam is filled five times a year, we do not know what proportion of that silt goes to the bed. In other words, we do not know how much silt is carried over and through the dam and how much is left behind in the bed. There is only one way of determining what percentage of silt is left behind, and that is to make annual surveys over a period of years in special dams. It is for that reason that I am inclined to doubt the statement of the Minister of Lands that Vaal Dam will have sufficient water for the next hundred years. That is the water aspect. On the other hand we are concerned with the increase in consumption, which is also a changing factor of which one cannot make a correct estimate for the future, even by approximation. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has already indicated how the area to be provided with water by the Rand Water Board has extended. The increased consumption has not taken place proportionately, and we cannot make any estimate for the future. We may get a big industry which uses little water. On the other hand we may get a relatively small industry using a great quantity of water, nor do we know the extent of the industrial development which will take place, and for that reason the Minister of Lands cannot make such an estimate at all. Then there is another factor of which I have a good deal of experience. I refer to the development of the peri-urban areas of Johannesburg and Pretoria. Those peri-urban areas will require a tremendous quantity of water. In the past they have unfortunately developed haphazardly. The town council has not exercised the necessary supervision. The result has been that areas have developed which will require huge quantities of water in the future. The Minister cannot estimate this in advance either. Moreover, there will also be agricultural development in those peri-urban areas. The people will require water for the development of those areas on modern lines, and we are not at all in a position to say beforehand what the needs of the Rand Water Board will be. We can only ensure that we expand our water supplies and pay greater attention to water conservation. For that reason I feel that in dealing with an important body like the Rand Water Board, we must take into account the fact that great unheard-of quantities of water will be required in the future.

I listened to the discussion which has taken place here and I am not rising to oppose the request of the Rand Water Board. But I do think that a very important matter has been overlooked. Even the Minister of Lands, in giving the House the assurance that the Vaal Dam can supply sufficient water for the next 100 years, overlooked the fact that the Free State is also going to play a very important rôle in the future and in this debate not a word has been said in connection with the requirements of the Free State and what demands will be made by the Free State for a supply of water from the Vaal River in the future. I had the honour, and the Minister of Lands probably knows about it, of accompanying the Minister of Mines to the potential gold fields in the Free State. We made a special journey that day to go and look at the water supply in case this development should take place. In this connection there is some talk of a scheme along the Sand River, along the Vet and also along the Vals River. It is possible to develop those rivers. But I ask myself whether the Free State will not actually be handing over and selling her birthright if this water from the Vaal River is ceded to the Rand Water Board. We have the Sand and Vet River schemes and there are possibilities in the Vals River, as I said just now, but it will take years before anything will be accomplished. On a previous occasion I pointed out the importance of starting as soon as possible with the development of the gold fields in the Free State. It will be retarded if we do not think a little bit further and concern ourselves with the question of where the water is going to come from in order to start with the development. As the position is, there is no hope of the development in the Free State taking place on a big scale until such time as permanent water supply is provided. We know that representations have been made for another big scheme at Zastron. But these are all things for the future and it is clear to me that the Minister should give his attention to it immediately, having regard to what will become necessary for the development of the gold mines in the Free State. We have heard the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) speak about the riparian owners along the river as far as his constituency. It affects my constituency to this extent that it affects the development of the gold fields which are expected. But it affects the Free State as a whole if that development is to be retarded as a result of a shortage of water. It is a pity that the Minister took part in the debate at such an early stage because I should have liked to hear his views in this connection. I take it he has thought along these lines, and possibly he can tell the House whether the Government has a plan and how they propose to provide water in connection with the development of the new gold fields.

I am glad the Minister of Irrigation is watching this legislation, because if there is anything in South Africa which we should jealously guard, it is the consumption of our water, and the Minister of Irrigation especially should see that it is effectively controlled and that there is no waste of water. When legislation is introduced—moreover by a private member—to give certain rights to interests in connection with the consumption of water, we are somewhat suspicious, and although we do not want to oppose the Bill as such, we must warn the Minister that he should remember that there are great possibilities of development in the Free State and also along the Orange River, and that the economic life in South Africa is dependent to a large extent on the Orange River. He should see to it that no improper use is made of the water. Today we witnessed the remarkable spectacle that the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. A. Steyn) made a plea not in the interests of the farming community, but that water from the Orange River and the Vaal River should be used for the gold fields of the Free State. If he had made a plea for the interests of his district, I could have understood it, but he is acting as the advocate of the future gold fields of the Free State. That makes me highly suspicious. It reminds me of the danger that in the near future we shall have to give all our water to manufacturing industries. Does not the hon. member know that the consumption of water is classified in three sections—for primary, secondary and tertiary purposes? The hon. member is now making a place for tertiary use. That is farreaching. I am afraid that if we do not warn the Minister timeously not to allow the improper use of water, the natural primary consumption of water and irrigation will later be handicapped. The Minister spoke of the provision of sufficient water for a hundred years or more. He may have had in mind the Vaal Dam and the requirements of the immediate surroundings, but the Minister should not only think of the requirements below the Vaal Dam, or of Johannesburg, but he should consider the whole country. We heard from the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that the irrigators along the river at Upington are already perturbed at the possibility of not getting sufficient water.

They have never been in as good position as they are today.

If the water of the Vaal River is now seized, I am afraid that practice will be extended and that other irrigation schemes will be prejudiced because excessive quantities of water from the Vaal River will be used for Johannesburg. The Minister’s first concern should be the conservation of water for secondary purposes, that is to say, irrigation. We do not want to retard the development of the manufacturing industries, and we do not want to prohibit them from making use of water, but here we are dealing with a life artery of our country, and that life artery should only be tapped after all possible developments have taken place in connection with the provision of water. There are other rivers in that area which can be damned up. I regard, the Vaal River and the Orange River, in the first instance, as rivers which are intended for irrigation and not for manufacturing industries. They should be the reserves for irrigation, and only if it is impossible to make other provision for the industries, should this House be approached with a request that water be used for industries from those sources. Once we start tapping the most important irrigation sources, we are toying with a dangerous principle and I want to ask the Minister to ensure that irrigation is not prejudiced. While I am on this subject, I want to ask whether sufficient attention has been paid to the requirements of riparian owners between thé Vaal Dam and the Vaal-Hartz scheme. I know that provision has been made for certain rights, but what about the Free State’s requirements as far as irrigation is concerned?

There is still the Kromellenboog scheme.

That has not been constructed yet, but the Minister is now giving this water away to the Rand, and if the Minister builds the Kromellenboog scheme, the riparian owners lower down, like the hon. member for Gordonia, will be prejudiced. It all goes together.

If we construct six Kromellenboog dams higher up, the people lower down will be more assured of a permanent stream than they are today.

The question remains whether there are facilities to build such dams. Even as far as the Kromellenboog scheme is concerned, the question is whether the place will be suitable. A number of reports have been submitted in regard to this scheme, and so far not a single report has been favourable. It remains an expensive scheme and it is not very effective. The Vaal Dam is our best dam because it stores clean water. Clean water is stored, and that water is now being used for manufacturing industries. We do not want to handicap the industries but the Minister should bear in mind the interests of the irrigators.

I must say that I am very surprised at the attitude of the Minister and of some hon. members. I did not know that large dams were being built at present in order to provide the big cities with water. I thought that these dams were and are being built in order to give the country better irrigation facilities. I am surprised that the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) is not here to discuss the matter. If also affects Kimberley. I just want to tell the Minister that he should be careful not to give so much water to the commercial people that the interests of the irrigators and the rest of the country are neglected. We have to produce food, because if there is no food the gold mining industry cannot exist. We feel, therefore, that the water should be used in order to produce food. The district of Kimberley and the whole Northern Cape is drying up and if this water is used for the Northern Cape and for the Karoo, our subterranean waters will again rise instead of receding, as is happening today, and we will again have fountains. I want to ask whether the Minister is not forgetting those dry parts. I do not know whether the scheme can be extended so that it will reach Hutchinson, but in any event the Sak River area can benefit by it. There are great parts of our country which require water and which should be irrigated and, as I have done on previous occasions, I want to urge the Minister to bear in mind two factors particularly, namely the conservation of soil and the conservation of water. The Minister must see to it that agriculture does not suffer as a result of this type of legislation. Agriculture has always been of primary importance, and food has been of primary importance. It will be of no avail to the manufacturing industries to take away all the water from the farmers if, by doing so, the farmers cannot produce.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford). It very seldom occurs that a private member tables a private Bill which creates so much public interest as this Bill has done. I do not know whether it has ever happened that in connection with such a proposition a whole Department has been inveigled. It surprises me that more Cabinet Ministers have not taken part in this important discussion. This Bill is brought up at a time when we feel that we are standing on the threshhold of tremendous development. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has touched upon the important question of the riparian owners along the Vaal River, and the hon. member for Cradock has rightly mentioned the necessity of the farmers providing food for the whole country. This problem of water conservation assumes tremendous proportions. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) has mentioned the pending development in so far as the Free State is concerned. The concentration centre of interests will no longer lie on the other side of the Vaal River, but is in the process of moving to this side of the Vaal River. The Free State is going to be the gold producing area of the future. It is that already. Now provision has to be made for water. The Minister has spoken about provision for 100 years in the future, but he is speaking about the other side of the Vaal River. This matter also concerns the Minister of Mines. We cannot remain stationary on the northern bank of the Vaal River. Let me just quote from the report—

This term “authorised consumers” can assume tremendous proportions, and I feel that with a view to the developments in the Free State, we must be particularly careful. The development of a gold mining industry brings with it industrial development along different lines as well. I read further—

That is for industrial purposes in and around Vereeniging. What is going to be the position if industrial development also takes place on this side of the Vaal River? Would a Board on the other side of the Vaal River then have to decide who the “authorised consumers” shall be? There is another matter which I would like to raise. Recently at Kimberley an association has been formed, the Development Association of Kimberley and neighbouring parts. The Association has a membership which includes Kimberley and neighbouring parts, and the purpose is to draw attention to those parts and to bring about development of the North-West Cape and neighbouring areas. Year after year a congress is held, for the purpose of discussing the development of those parts. This movement has assumed big proportions. The Minister of Railways was present at the last congress and he recognised the possibilities of development in the area, and admitted that these areas have remained fallow for years, but that they can lay claim to development. If this development takes place, what is the position then going to be? I have mentioned thes few cases to indicate that although the Bill, as drawn up by the hon. member, may originally have a small compass, by reason of present-day circumstances, it has assumed tremendous importance, and one wonders whether the time has not arrived when, instead of coming along yearly with amendments, the whole matter in its entire compass should not be considered and consolidated legislation brought about? Such legislation should not be limited to the present, but also to the future. I trust that the day will arrive when consolidated legislation will be drawn up which does not only see to present day requirements, but looks into the future and keeps account of possible development, not only on the other side of the Vaal River, but on both sides. As Paul Kruger has said, the development on both sides of the Vaal River will make it possible to build up a great South Africa.

I am not rising to fight against the Rand as such, but I feel nevertheless that here we are dealing with a development which is not normal. It would almost seem as though the belief is taking root in this country that South Africa consists of the Rand and the Rand only. The Minister of Lands gave us the assurance that the Government felt responsible for the provision of sufficient water for industrial expansion on the Rand. We have no objection to that. But I personally feel that we should no longer allow our people to be herded together in a few big centres. I think as far as our industries are concerned, a policy of decentralisation should be adopted and not a policy of centralising everything on the Rand. This is a serious matter we are discussing. Some hon. members seem to think that we are discussing matters which are not really relevant to this Bill, but I feel that we should give attention to the question as to whether it is in the interests of our country that industrial development should be concentrated in a few cities. I feel that what this country needs is a spreading of industries throughout the country.

The hon. member is wandering too far from the subject.

I feel that more water is being asked in this Bill for the Rand, and the result of it may be that agriculture will suffer and that other cities like Kimberley, where development must also take place, may suffer. Other means can be devised to provide water for the Rand. With regard to the construction of irrigation works, I also have in mind the possibilities of the big dam at Zastron, which will be one of the biggest in the world. There we shall be able to get electricity and sufficient water to develop big industries in this part of the Free State and the adjoining part of the Cape.

The hon. member is wandering right off the subject.

If all the development takes place which was mentioned here this afternoon, the question arises whether Johannesburg will need all this water. I am in favour of the spreading of industries, and if that spreading takes place, Johannesburg will not need all this water. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) touched upon a very strong point when he asked the Minister of Lands what was going to happen to the existing rights of people if these rights were to be given to the Rand Water Board. What is the policy of the Government for the future? Is it going to allow the expropriation of private rights, and require people whose rights are expropriated to bear the costs of appearing before a Select Committee to give evidence? That would be unfair. If expropriation takes place, why should the people bear the cost of objecting to such expropriation? If a spreading out of industries takes place, then there will have to be some other division of the water in the future. The Minister explained that if the Vaal Dam wall is made eighteen feet higher, it will hold three times as much water and that there will be sufficient water for a hundred years. It is quite impossible for anyone to estimate the rate of development in the future, and the Minister cannot make such a prediction. But there is another aspect of this matter. If that dam is made so much bigger, the tributaries will also be affected, because the catchment area of the dam will have to be protected. It will mean that the people in that area will find themselves in great difficulties. During the past few years we have been getting a Bill before the House practically every year—or let us say every two years—in connection with the Rand Water Board, and I want to suggest that the time has arrived to introduce consolidating legislation so that one can know what the position is. The industrialists, the manufacturers and the farmers will then know where they stand. At the moment there is uncertainty and the farmers along the Vaal River and the tributaries do not know where they stand and what their land will be worth. For that reason I am of opinion that this matter should now be placed on a firm footing.

I want to contribute my small share in order to get this Bill through the House as soon as possible. In the first place, I want to say that I do not agree with the majority of speeches which we have heard from this side of the House. It is a very short-sighted policy to deprive a beautiful city like Johannesburg of an adequate supply of water. We know that there is great industrial development in that centre. Every factory needs water, not only for the activities of the factory but the people who are employed in the factory must also have water to drink and to wash themselves and so on. When members in this House on various sides do not want to give those people sufficient water in order to live a proper, decent and hygienic life, I am afraid they are doing an injustice to the good citizens of Johannesburg. I think many members do do not realise just what this Bill deals with. It is erroneously believed that this Bill seeks to give Johannesburg more water; that is not the case at all. Johannesburg does not want any more water. It wants more meat, and also more beer. This Bill does not deal with beer, nor does it deal with water. In the report of the Select Committee there is a brief and concise exposition of the object of this Bill, and I should like to read it to the House—

It is as the Englishman would say, as clear as mud. The Bill itself puts it almost in the same way. The Afrikaans text agrees with the English text. There is apparently something wrong in the Translation Bureau—

They seem to be ridiculing the Cabinet—

1. (1) the revenue derived from the uniform rate; and
2. (2) The amounts paid by consumers towards the fixed charges.

I hope the position is quite clear now. In case it is not clear yet, I shall read the next clause—

If members of the House do not understand the position yet, it is not my fault. That is only half of the Bill. The other section deals with the renewals fund. It is again set out very nicely in the appendix to the report, which I have already quoted. The renewals fund is an important thing and in the Bill we find the following provision in that connection—

This Bill ought definitely to be passed. It seems reasonable to have a renewals fund. Even our Cabinet needs a renewal fund, perhaps not of coal hydrate, but of vitamins. If the Cabinet has to make renewals, we are afraid it will find its renewals fund so exhausted that it will become bankrupt if it were a private company. With regard to the first portion of this Bill, the objection of the Opposition is not well-founded, but there is another matter, and that is whether the Rand Water Board really consists of people who are qualified to come to a decision in regard to a renewals fund. The Chairman is appointed by the Government. We all know who he is. But the question is the other members. One swallow does not make a summer. The Rand Water Board consists of thirty four members. Are they qualified to decide in regard to such a renewals fund?

We know that the composition is the following—

Just imagine, a place like Roodepoort-Maraisburg has the same representation as Pretoria. The Minister of Transport who is the biggest private consumer in Johannesburg only has one representative. But we find that the Chamber of Mines has sixteen. We have always heard that the Chamber of Mines is Johannesburg. But it really seems as though it is not only Johannesburg, but Johannesburg and all those places I mentioned, plus the Railway Administration, plus Pretoria. I expect the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) will get up and object to this on behalf of Pretoria. If he does not do that, it will be another nail in his political coffin. In any event he will not return. The legislation which comes up for discussion after this Bill, is not as important as this one, and the hon. member for Pretoria (City) should get up and object on behalf of his constituents to the treatment meted out to Pretoria. If he does not do it, he will be called to account by his constituents because he made the interests of Pretoria subservient to those of the Chamber of Mines. I think in any event he will not come back. But if he does not protest here, we will put so many nails into his coffin, that he will never return to this House again. We shall miss his face here.

I listened attentively to the speeches of the Opposition in regard to this Bill. I am convinced that they are not opposed to this Bill and that they will support it. They have made many speeches, but it is clear that they know very little about the Bill itself. I notice that the next item on the Order Paper is the Married Women’s Property Bill, and I want to congratulate the Opposition on succeeding, by means of their continual speeches, in passing the death sentence on that Bill, since the time to discuss it has nearly elapsed. But I want to suggest that they should now put it to the vote, so that they can attend the funeral of that Women’s Bill, and there they can act as pall bearers in honour of their tactics.

It is a great pity that the hon. member who drafted this Bill did not consult me. There is no member in this House who has a greater interest in the Vaal Dam than I have. My constituency borders on the whole length of the Wilger River, which flows to Vaal Dam and a large portion borders on the Vaal Dam itself. We are in favour of the principle of live and let live. But when we feel that there is too much emphasis in one direction, we are compelled to protest. There are certain dangers, and I want to point out some of them. We should like to know what obligations they are going to take upon themselves with reference to certain matters. The water of that dam lies in the fertile area of Frankfort. It is true, the land was bought at a reasonable price, but that price was not sufficient to compensate for the loss of that fertile soil. The riparian Owners had to sacrifice things which were of great sentimental value to them. Homesteads which stood for generations and which were precious to those who had to sacrifice them, were destroyed. The graves of beloved ones are underneath those waters. Permission is now being sought to make available even more water and to make the dam wall higher, while great damage is already caused in times of flood because the water floods the lands of the farmers, and they do not get any compensation at all. Great settlements will be established in Frankfort in the future, and there is a danger that if the Rand Water Board requires more and more water, it will prohibit the people from pumping water out of the dam. We want to know what the position is. Another danger is this. The poisonous plant algae was discovered in that dam. As a result of it thousands and tens of thousands of the farmers’ stock died, and we should like to know whether they are prepared to compensate the farmers to some extent. We also want to ask the hon. member what they are going to contribute towards combating algae or must this money come entirely out of State coffers? We now learn that a great portion of this water will not be used by the inhabitants of the Rand and for essential purposes, but that it will also go to the mines. When we bear in mind that we have a drought in this country—we can practically say that we have drought every year, not merely periodic droughts—we want to ask whether it is right to give all that water to the mines. If our farmers are not allowed to put up pumps along the dam and there is a great drought, they will suffer indescribale damage. I visualise a certain amount of danger and I felt obliged to raise these few matters. We advocate the principle of live and let live. But there is another saying that charity begins at home. I feel in this case that it would be foolish on our part only to look after the interests of others and not to study our own interests. I shall support this Bill, but these objections stand, and I should like to have an assurance that the people will not be prohibited from erecting pumps and that something will be done by the Rand Water Board to exterminate algae so that the farmers will not be prejudiced.

I have listened with interest and attention to the debate on this Bill, because my constituency is closely connected with and deeply perturbed over this matter. One thing we suddenly encountered is that during the time that the present Minister of Justice still represented that constituency he and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) went and bartered away the rights of certain riparian owners to the Rand Water Board. It happened in this manner. Above the dam wall some riparian owners were resident. When the dam was completed the water rose in the spruits and those people could not get through to their markets. The Rand Water Board then undertook to set aside the sum of £1,000 for the construction of a bridge. Just imagine it, £1,000 for the construction of a bridge over the Vaal River above the dam wall. The Rand Water Board handed over this amount to the Union Government; the Union Government passed it on to the Provincial Councils of the Transvaal and the Free State; the Provincial Councils accepted it as revenue—and there is still no bridge. The Rand Water Board has the water, but the riparian owners are still without their bridge. I should like it to be undertaken either by the Rand Water Board or the Minister of Lands that a bridge is built for these people, because it is absolutely necessary. It affects the existence of these riparian owners. Not only that, but just as in the constituency of my colleague alongside me, my constituency is deeply worried over the algae poison plant that is prevalent in the dam. That is the first poisonous plant that we have got there, but others could easily be conveyed there later. What is the Rand Water Board going to do in connection with the prevention and eradication of poisonous plants in the dam. The active farmers are indirectly made the prey of the mining interests of the Witwatersrand and of places like Pretoria. We grant that they should have the most favourable development because they create new markets for us but we cannot give them our very existence. Consequently we should like to have the assurance that they are prepared to combat such menaces as the algae plant that is there now, or that may appear there in the future. Another matter that is of great importance is that the Minister of Lands should be the guardian and the protector of the greatest asset that the land possesses. That is our water and the preservation of our land. We spend millions of pounds on land preservation, but we should at the same time bestow our attention on the conservation of our water and of our soil. At present our country is drying up and is being turned into a wilderness. The Minister closes his eyes to that. The Minister is not a watchman on the walls, he does not guard our interests, he does not protect us. Just take the problem of the use of water for combating miners’ phthisis. The Minister knows that it is an old-fashioned way of combating miners’ phthisis, and here we are brought face to face with the point that exists in connection with the Minister’s department. We desire that he should make himself thoroughly conversant with the matter before he gives his sanction to the water being made available. I do not want to drag out the debate any longer, but I hope that the Minister will lend an ear to our representations and that the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) will reply to our objections.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister has intervened in this debate, and in view also of the support which this Bill has received from portions of the other side of the House, I do not think it is necessary for me to reply in very great detail to the important points which have been raised by members opposite. But I must confess I have been deeply moved, as I am sure other members of the House have been, by the plea made by hon. members opposite in regard to water for the Free State. I have been feeling a sense of guilt during this debate as an inhabitant of Johannesburg that I should have been enjoying these privileges while the Free State has been deprived of them. I feel with members opposite, one should give serious consideration to altering the flow of the Vaal River, if that can be arranged. But hon. members opposite have spoken this afternoon without a proper study of the figures. Hon. members may check these figures if they so wish, but I think they will find that the Free State is amply supplied with water at the present time. You will find per head of population that the inhabitants of the Free State drink one-and-a-quarter pints of water per day as compared with three-quarters of a pint of water per day in the Transvaal. [Interruptions] On the Witwatersrand it is one gill per day with one exception. It appears that the members of the Chamber of Mines have a rather higher consumption. They drink two gallons of water per day. I think that is the reply to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), who complained that there were sixteen members of the Chamber of Mines represented on this board. I think, Mr. Speaker, that covers the more important points that have been raised.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time. House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee :

On Clause 1,

I should very much like the hon. member to explain what is meant by—

That is very vague and in very general terms. The hon. member knows that whenever a company forms a reserve fund it is stated why it has been formed, for what object. But here the word “contingencies” is used. We should like to know how the reserve funds will be applied. Will it be applied for instance in the case of an act of God, when for example washaways occur? What falls under that description? I think it is in the interests of the public that when a utility company is granted such powers and has a reserve fund the public should know for what purpose these reserve funds can be utilised. As it stands, it 1s vague, embarrassing and bad in law. Particularly is it vague.

The hon. member appears to think that the wording of this new Clause is not sufficiently definite, and I think the reply to the hon. member is to invite his consideration to the Bill as a whole. It provides for three different funds—a reserve fund, a betterment fund, and a fund to provide against depreciation and renewals. These three funds in the aggregate cover all the possibilities against which it is necessary for the Board to provide reserve funds. But it is only in considering the wording of the sections in respect of the other funds that one can get a full appreciation of what is meant by the terms “contingency” and so forth in the section to which my hon. friend refers. The provision in this section for the creation of a reserve fund is intended to meet anything that can be described as unexpected. The other two funds provide against contingencies which inevitably do occur in carrying on of a business over a period of time. But I would suggest that this section is to provide for unexpected contingencies, hence the term “extraordinary expenditure” and so forth.

In connection with this matter I pointed out during the second reading that it is strange that the Rand Water Board never had such a reserve fund. I assume that they have had profits in the past. I see, for example, that the price of water has been sometimes increased and sometimes reduced. In 1941 the price was 11.71d. per 1,000 gallons. In 1942 it was reduced to 11.16d. and in 1943 it was increased again to 11.24d., and in 1944 to 11.29d. The reserve fund is apparently intended as an equalisation fund, so that should a loss be sustained in one year the consumers will not need to pay more. Now I want to ask what has happened in the meanwhile. Is there such a balance, has there been so much profit made, and what is going to be the position if they now create such funds as a reserve fund and a renewals fund into which up to a third of their revenue can be put. Will this signify that the price to the consumer is going to be increased? What has happened? Was there a profit in the past years? Why has the price been regularly increased since 1942? If there was no profit where did they obtain the money for the new funds?

There is something that troubles me and that is the reserve fund. It gives me the idea that a profit is going to be made out of the public who consume the water. You will perhaps find that reserve funds are being established where this is unnecessary.

I should like to urge that a part of the reserve funds should be employed for the eradication of the poisonous algae plant.

The hon. member is out of order. That has no bearing on the Clause.

I should like to reply very briefly to the points made by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). In the first place, let me assure him that prior to the introduction of this Bill, as the statutes stood before the Bill came before the House, the profits, that is to say the excess of revenue over expenditure, which the board received, were in fact appropriated to reserve in the ordinary way with the consent of the Governor-General. As I explained earlier on, it has been necessary up to the present time to make an estimate of what profits would accrue to the board’s undertakings, but these estimates have been made and the profits have in fact been appropriated to reserve, and have thus been available for the purposes for which the reserve was created. Then the hon. member could not understand why the price per 1,000 gallons had increased between 1943 and 1944. The reply is, I understand, that the supply of water fell over that period and whenever the supply of water falls the overhead costs per gallon slightly increase, hence the slight increase in the price of water.

Did not the board apply the reserve fund then to keep a uniform rate?

I shall have to ascertain that. Finally, the hon. member was doubtful in regard to whether these amendments would have the effect of increasing the price of water. I can give the hon. member a definite assurance that they will not.

May we ask the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) whether the word “contingencies” that appears in the clause includes the combating of the algae plant, because it is a “contingency,” and it is also unforeseen. No one foresaw it. The algae poisoning assumes tremendous dimensions.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot discuss this matter.

Then I merely want to ask the question whether it has been included. Further, I want to ask whether it includes the bridge that was promised to these people and which they have never got.

The hon. member may not discuss that.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and the Preamble and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 2 and 4 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I have a few observations to make. I must thank the Minister of Irrigation for having given the southern riparian owners the assurance that their rights will not be in the least abridged by this regulation. The Minister knows that we on this side of the House are not opposed to any extension of industries, but it does not help matters if you are busy with industries and you do not see that the people, as a whole, are fed. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) brought up a very important point, and I do not know whether the Minister realises its implications. If the Minister goes into the Act of 1912 he will see that if large dams are built, particularly if they are on the river, before such a dam is built, whether it is by the Government or by anyone else, he must obtain protection in regard to that dam. It does not help to build a dam that costs £1,000 or £20,000 while the riparian owners higher up later on have themselves to resort to the construction of a dam. That eventuality must be borne in mind. On that account the House decided in 1912 that provision should be made in the law for the protection of such dams. Whenever anyone wants to build such a dam he has to give notice to all the riparian owners higher up, and if he wants protection a definite period has to be laid down for the lodging of objections. The objections must be received by the Water Court, and the Water Court then lays down a specified period within which the work must be completed. This ensures that large irrigation works which are perhaps a national asset, can be maintained. I do not know whether the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) is well acquainted with the Free State, but there are tributaries in the Free State that join the main stream above the dam. The Minister will confirm that. Now when the Minister increases the height of the Vaal Dam by 18 ft. much more water must be stored, and my question is how this will affect the tributaries. What about the villages on the tributaries? Will they be able to expand in the future? If they cannot expand, what is the good of going on with this? Consequently I want to ask the Minister that before he raises the wall of the dam 18 ft. he should enquire what tributaries feed the Vaal and what the effect will be of the raising of the dam, and what the requirements will be of places on the tributaries. Before dams are built the future requirements along the tributaries should be determined. I do not know whether the Minister is thoroughly conversant with the enormous seams of coal in the Free State. If the Minister goes into it he will find that there are tremendous quantities of coal in the Free State, that there is no part of our country that is richer in coal than the Free State. When the coal in the Transvaal has been exhausted, future generations will have to fall back on the Free State. It is stated that there is enough coal in the Free State for the next two or three hundred years, and if we are going to develop big industries in the future we must have coal. The hon. Minister should therefore take into account the possibilities of industrial development in those areas as well, and the needs of those parts in the future. Because if we are going to have big enterprises on the tributaries in the Free State, or even in the Transvaal, water will be required, and if dams are built then this large dam later on will not answer its purpose. The supply of water to the Rand will be cut off, and that is a point that I would like the hon. Minister of Irrigation to consider. We are engaged here in discussing a very important Bill that we are anxious to see pass through the House. But we would like the Minister to give us a definite assurance that when he is dealing with a consolidating Act or an amendment of the Act, that the work to which he has referred—to raise the height of this dam 18 ft—will be protected. And it is not only those works, but there are other works that will be established in the future. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) incidentally touched on them, but I think the Minister will set minds at rest in the Free State if he devotes attention to this policy of protection. It may possibly happen that we shall later have a Government that will take away these powers and say: “I shall not allow you to build dams above this dam, because it is the source of supply to the Rand, and the Rand must be supplied.” We know that in future the people will have an opportunity to effect development, and with development the remaining water would run to the dam. But the Minister must take this into consideration. I assume that this dam is being constructed with the approval of the Department, or that the water is being given with the approval of the Government. Accordingly it is necessary that we should know that such big works will enjoy protection in the future.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—61.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—28.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bremer K.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Werth, A. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

On a point of order. I should like to have your guidance. The House has just resolved that you should leave the Chair.

Yes, but it will be a waste of time if I do so at this stage. It being 4.12 p.m., I have to interrupt the business under consideration in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (4).

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

This has been a year of achievement for the South African Railways and Harbours. What were regarded as major accomplishments in previous years have paled into insignificance in comparison with many new records. I want to mention some of these:

Earnings for goods traffic amounting to £603,425 during the third week of November broke all previous records.

South African Airways, which renewed its civil air services on a restricted basis in December last year, passed the highest prewar weekly earnings figure on several occasions. During the first week of December a new record of £6,507 was set up, but this stood for only a short time. In the second week of February seven aircraft earned £9,483—the highest yet.

During one week in August the combined output of Transvaal and Natal collieries amounted to 413,230 tons, a figure never previously attained.

Engine, train and ton mileages all came into the record category.

Honourable members will appreciate, therefore, that the past year was not lacking in interest, while in another respect it was, if I may use so wide an expression, an epoch-making year because we also succeeded in applying large-scale improvements to staff working conditions.

I now propose giving a brief review of the activities of the Department, before dealing more specificially with the financial position.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 7th March.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 5th March.

I move—

Hon. members will recall the long debates that were held during the last Session when the amending Bill in connection with the Native Acts was before the House. That Bill principally dealt with the amending of the Act regarding natives in urban areas. It was one of several measures amending the main Act, and hon. members on both sides of the House complained at that time that the principal Act had been so frequently amended that only a lawyer who had made a special study of it could understand it. After my experience, after having worked with it for two years, I must honestly say that I agree with hon. members on that point. That legislation was originally drafted in Nederlands and also in English, and complaints have been received from Afrikaans-speaking members of local authorities that they were not able to understand either the English or the Nederlands of the laws. I then gave a promise to this House, in reference to a request by hon. members on the opposite benches, to introduce a consolidating measure during the present Session, and the Bill now before the House has been introduced in compliance with that undertaking. During the 1943 Session you, Mr. Speaker, laid down the procedure that should be followed in connection with the introduction of a Bill that merely consolidates existing Acts. During the previous Session of Parliament, last year, my colleague the Minister of Finance explained the procedure that was followed with the Land Bank Bill, and also the ruling that Mr. Speaker then gave. It was fully explained and it is consequently not necessary for me to go into details. If the House agrees to the second reading of this Bill, it will at the same time be approving the principle of consolidation, and subsequently I shall move that the Bill be referred to a select committee that will function in conformity with the ruling of Mr. Speaker. The Bill that is now before the House presents nothing new, and makes no attempt to modify our existing laws. No alteration is introduced here into the original Act. Though there are several amendments, this Bill merely proposes to embody the legislation in a more convenient form. The original Act was amended by six different Acts, and it is now proposed that the provisions should be rescinded, and these provisions are being incorporated in this Bill, in which the provisions are arranged properly and conveniently, and in a sequence that makes for ease of reference. I am certain that the yarious people who have to work with this legislation will welcome the elucidation of the Act that is furnished by this measure. It is not necessary for me to go into the provisions contained in this Bill. The long title gives a summary of the points dealt with in the Bill, and almost every clause of the Bill has at one time or another been the subject of long debates in this House. They have been thrashed out year after year.

Hon. members will recall how last year I had to sit here for five days, when the Native Amendment Bill was before the House. It is consequently not necessary for me to explain the purpose of the Bill. We know that the contents do not carry the approval of every section of this House, nor even of the whole of the general public. I think especially in regard to the hon. members who represent the natives that they will not be in agreement with this measure.

Why do you not speak English so that they can understand you?

They should understand both languages. Other sections, again, feel that parts of the Bill are good Then there are many members who feel that the measure plays an important rôle in native administration, and that it is necessary to have it on the statute book. May I say that these divergent views were revealed in the course of the debate last year, when the Native Laws Amendment Bill was before the House. I am glad that it is not necessary to enter the lists again on the matters contained in the Bill. I also feel that this measure clarifies the position for the native population, and that it will for years fill an important rôle m our native administration. I repeat that no alteration of principles is contained in this consolidating measure, and although some members did not agree with the original Act, I feel that this is not the time to debate the whole principle of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will be in agreement that the Bill should go through the House as quickly as possible. After the second reading it will be referred to a select committee.

The decision of the Government to introduce this consolidating measure implies the reaffirmation of the principles embodied in that measure, and implies also the acceptance by the present Government of those principles, for so far as can be seen into the future at all events, as a permament feature of South African policy. It is our contention on these benches that this legislation, which this Bill now seeks to consolidate, cuts right across the natural line of our economic development and conflicts (as I shall attempt to show at a later stage) with the economic policy that is necessary to be purused in the interests of all races and all sections of the community. It is therefore our strong feeling that so far from this legislation being consolidated at the present time, the time has come for a reconsideration and review of the principles embodied in this legislation, a reconsideration and review in the light of contemporary social and economic conditions of the whole of the people of South Africa. It is for that reason, it is because we feel that very strongly, that I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading. The amendment which I now move is as follows—

In support of that amendment I propose to submit three propositions to the House, and I shall then attempt to show those propositions are in essence and in fact correct. My first proposition is that the legislation it is now sought to consolidate has, for a period of 20 years, represented a steady encroachment upon the basic liberties of the native people of this country, in their several capacities as citizens, as consumers, as traders, as investors and as wage earners. This legislation, as I shall show, entrenches upon and encroaches upon the vital, the functional activities of the native people of this country in all those capacities. The second proposition is this: That not only is legislation of this character inconsistent with those freedoms which in the international field this country professes to be fighting to uphold, not only is it inconsistent with such freedoms, but it is contrary—more particularly in the long run—to the interests of all the people of South Africa, whatever their racial origin.

It cuts right across the Atlantic Charter.

It cuts right across the principles of the Atlantic Charter, but there is a narrower aspect, a more isolated aspect, and that is that it conflicts with the interests of the whole of this country. My third proposition is that there is an alternative constructive policy which is embodied in this legislation, a policy that pays due regard to the needs of all sections of our people, and a policy which is in line with the natural economic development of the whole community. In relation, then to the encroachment which this legislation represents upon the liberties of the native people and their opportunities in the various capacities I have mentioned—the first two capacities that I mentioned were those of citizens and consumers—this legislation authorises the Government of the day to issue proclamations laying down that in any particular urban area, the native community there and any who come in at a later stage, shall live in a particular portion of that urban area. Those proclamations are permitted to be issued without regard—and have, as I shall contend in fact been issued without regard—to the housing facilities available or to the civic amenities that have been provided. It segregates native people on the basis of separate communities not in seperate towns with democratic rights within these areas of their own. If they did that the only principle involved would be that of social separation between European people on the one hand and native people on the other. But this legislation separates them on terms that the Africans will be subject to local authorities, where, execept to a limited extent in the Cape Province, they are unrepresented, without any requirements as to the amenities to be provided in the segregated areas at the time they are proclaimed. Nor are any safeguards against the local authorities placing upon these segregated separated communities, which in practice we know represent the poorer sections of the community, the cost of the ordinary civic and social services which any urban community requires. The results in practice, after 20 years of this type of provision, have been the growth in these locations of slums on a large scale; and by slums I mean urban communities which are overcrowded and without proper sanitary and other services. This is one result. It has led to its own breakdown wherever industrial forces have proved strong enough to attract to a particular urban area a native population in considerable excess of that which existed at the time the separate location was proclaimed. I do not think I need give examples of that. I do not think I need remind hon. members at length of the fact that in Orlando at Johannesburg the native people were so overcrowded a short while ago that they were forced into the position of having to build houses of their own with any kind of rubbish they could pick up. Although Cape Town has been proclaimed for twenty years an area where native people are segregated, there is not sufficient accommodation for more than about 20 per cent. of them, and we have native people living under foul conditions on the Cape Flats and in the peri-urban areas of Cape Town, representing a complete breakdown of this sort of legislation when it comes into conflict with industrial forces. Finally, as we know in practice, and as the committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Native Affairs reported, the absence of safeguards against financial segregation, against the burdening of these poor communities with the whole cost of their civil services, has in fact led to that very thing being done. In respect of very few municipalities in this country can it not be said that the costs of the ordinary services such as water, light, streets and so forth, are imposed on the native revenue account, upon these separated communities, in conflict with the modem canon of taxation, local or national, that taxation shall be placed on the shoulders in any community of those best able to bear it. That canon is based not only on justice but on sound economic principles as well, on the ground that to burden the poorer sections of the community with imposts which cover the whole cost of the services they require, is to substract from their consuming capacity, and therefore from the market available for the absorption of the products of the country. I also stated at the outset that this legislation is based upon most serious restricions placed upon the liberty and the opportunities of the native people in their capacities as traders and as investors. That is not done directly; that is done by the provision of Section 4 bis of the present Act, by the provision which prohibits a native in any urban area from buying or leasing land. In the case of a lease he may lease land in a separately demarcated location. In the case of a purchase, however, he cannot do it without the permission of the Governor-General except in certain areas designated by the Minister and there have not been many of these. If in the case of an urban community you prevent them from leasing or purchasing land, you are prohibiting them from trade, because in order to trade a man has to show that he has premises in order to carry on his business. Furthermore, you close up the ordinary avenues for savings. I admit there may not be many of the native people who have savings, but one would hope they will grow. A certain number have savings. The prohibition of access to land means a prohibition of all independent economic activity. A native may not be a shareholder because the company that has shares has to have a registered office, and if it has a registered office it is holding property, it is holding land within the meaning of this Act. He may only invest in a savings institution or a building society approved by the Government. He may not put his money into land or the ordinary securities into which people put their money. In some locations he may trade, and where he is trading he is restricted to serving an impoverished community, but there are many local authorities who do not even allow natives to trade in that limited market in their own locations. In the Free State there is a general prohibition of this nature, though I believe, there has been some relaxation, in the case of Bloemfontein. I am not sure how far the matter has progressed there. Even where the opportunities are afforded the natives to trade the limitations are obvious. So in their capacity as traders or as investors, all those serious disabilities are placed upon the native people by this type of legislation, and they have similar disabilities, too, in their capacity as workers. If there is one basic liberty a man should have it is the right to move about the country so that he can sell his labour to the best advantage to himself. Under this legislation an African may not even enter a rural area except by permission of the local authority. If he is a resident in a town, he may not move from one town to another in search of work without official permission. That is simply another example of this type of legislation. This legislation cannot work. In a community that is in the process of industrialisation it is legislation that simply cannot work. I am going to make some constructive proposals at a later stage as to how movement should be facilitated in accordance with the requirements of the economic situation. Even if a native is allowed into an urban area, or allowed to move from one area to another, he cannot bring his family with him unless he has been resident there two years, and his wife gets permission from the magistrate where she conies from and from the local authority whose area she is going to. The obvious restrictions that are imposed on the family life of these people must militate against the growth of the native population in the urban areas. Because it means that the local authorities when invited to cater for native housing, are catering for a population of temporary single labourers. There is therefore no incentive for them to build married quarters where a man can stay with his family, and it is only when accommodation is available that man is allowed to bring his family. The whole trend of the Act is not to encourage accommodation being available on a basis of married labourers, but only on a basis of single labourers. Restrictions such as these that are placed on a man from moving with his family where he likes, and restrictions on his own movements, are obviously restrictions on his earning capacity, and the African therefore, in his capacity as worker, is particularly restricted by this legislation. This legislation has not all been initiated at once. It represents a process that has gone on for years. When the Urban Areas Act was originally introduced in 1923 the provisions were of a much more modified character. The original legislation did not deal with any restriction on property rights. It did not restrict in any way whatever the native being able to buy a house in an urban area. Nor did it put any restriction on people moving. There was no restriction under that legislation (I am not referring now to the pass laws in the Northern provinces)—there was no restriction in 1923 on a man entering an urban area or moving from one urban area to another. The original legislation was limited really to two principles. First it enabled the Governor-General to proclaim certain areas where Africans had to reside. But it made that subject to property rights If a man owned land elsewhere he could live there. In other words, he was not doomed for ever to be a location dweller. He could buy other land if he had the industry and thrift to do so, and there was no restriction, as I have said, upon entering urban areas. The law which laid restrictions upon property rights and on movement was the Native Laws Amendment Act of 1937. That was the Act which embodied these restrictions upon property rights and upon movement. That Act was passed by this House and was fought tooth and nail by the members of the Dominion Party under the leadership of Mr. Coulter, and was also strenuously opposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), who I am sorry is not here. Last year a further amendment was passed which really stiffened up the 1937 legislation in a number of directions. That survey embodies the extent of the encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the native people in these Various capacities which this legislation represents, and I pass now to the second proposition which I enunciated at the outset, and that is that this legislation conflicts with the interests of the people of South Africa. I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear what the cardinal feature of this legislation is. The cardinal feature is that the native population of the towns shall be temporary labourers. They shall not be full-time labourers except a small minority. They are to be communities predominantly of temporary labourers. One would assume that legislation of that character would be designed to safeguard the rural population against urbanisation, assuming of course that you were agreed that urbanisation were not in their interests. One would assume that behind legislation of this kind there was a community of peasant producers living as a society with ways and customs of their own, and more or less isolated from the more civilised community that was growing up beside them. That is not the position at all. Eighty-two per cent., admittedly, of the native population of this country have their homes in rural areas, and have come from the rural areas. These are the figures given by the Van Eck Commission, taken from the 1936 census. But the native population as a whole are only allowed under the law of this country access to land sufficient to accommodate less than half of them, and then only on a basis of arable allotments of two to five morgen of land. In other words, under the laws of this country in the rural areas the native is not allowed to satisfy that land hunger which is the attribute of every peasant the world over, and every country the world over, except on a basis which the Native Affairs Department has told us in the last White Paper they issued, is not adequate to support a peasant community on a peasant standard of living. We therefore find this position in the countryside, that so far from the opportunity being open to the rural native population of establishing themselves as an independent peasantry where they may maintain their traditional form of life (assuming that is a good thing in itself) they are unable to do so because of artificial pressure that has been produced by legislation. If the African works on a farm he knows that he can never some day fulfil the ambition of every farm labourer, namely to have a small piece of land of his own. No matter how industrious he is he knows that the law will prevent him from acquiring a holding. When he seeks economic betterment of his lot by going to the towns, when he gets there I have described the difficulties he comes up against. What are the results of this system? The results are what they obviously must be, to reduce the bulk of native labour in this country to a population of migratory labourers. By migratory labourers I mean men who live in one place and work there part of the time and who are then forced by the economic situation to go to another place and to seek work there; constant movement, therefore induced at both ends by artificial pressure. The native goes to the industrial area and from the industrial area he comes back to his inadequate holding which is insufficient to absorb his full labour powers, so that he then has to return again. What then, in turn, are the results of the migratory labour system? The first thing is and must be a shattered family life. You get a community, the male members of which have to be away an increasingly high proportion of the time. How can they maintain, on any basis traditional or otherwise, Christian or otherwise, a civilised family life? We have heard from time to time members of this House criticise Soviet Russia on the ground that the communist creed militates against family life. I am not going into that issue and do not know very much about it, but what I do say is this, that no one in this country who subscribes to the kind of policy embodied in this legislation has the right to criticise Soviet Russia on that basis, because we maintain a policy which is bound to lead to the wreck of family life of a very large proportion, if not the majority, of natives. The second result of the migratory system is obviously casual labour, the most inefficient labour in the world. Casual labour is bound to be inefficient because it sets a man to work on a job in which he cannot specialise. The African can go to a town and get a job as a houseboy in an hotel. He then goes home and when he comes back he may get a job in a garage or he may work as a mine labourer. Therefore the labour is bound to be inefficient and it leads to a waste of labour, because any industry which makes use of casual labour must keep a reserve of labour available in excess of what it requires, if it has no stabilised labour force. Another result of the migratory system is that it restricts the field for recruitment of more skilled workers of the country. It militates therefore directly against, the mechanisation of the industry and the productivity of labour. It means also low consuming capacity. It means that if productive standards are low there is a low earning capacity and following upon that obviously also a low consuming capacity, and a narrowing of the market for the products of this country, resulting in the ruin of agriculture and inhibiting of the growth of industrial mass production. We see that it has become necessary to make provision year after year for special financial assistance to the farming population especially in recent years. What is the reason for that? It is because the farmers have not got a market, and we have laws in this country which artificially inhibit the growth of the market. All these factors lead to the restriction of the national income and the impoverishment of increasing numbers of the European population of the country, with ruinous effects upon agriculture and limiting the field for employment of European labour. The members of the European working class at the present moment are practically restricted to a small class of artisans and a certain number of women in industry. It does not look as if that field is going to expand very much further on the basis of present policy. Now, two years ago, the Government appointed a Commission to report upon the whole question of the economic future of this country. The Van Eck Commission reported stressing every feature I have mentioned, the inefficiency of casual labour, the low income per head of population and the low productivity per head of population, and it attributed it directly to the maldistribution of the non-European and native population between town and country, which it describes as constituting a major maladjustment in the economy of the country. And, Sir, it recommended not restriction of the growth of the urbanised native working class but an absorption of as many as possible of the native people into industry through migration to the urban areas and employment there as operatives on a permanent basis. That was the recommendation of the Commission. Last Session I put it to the Minister of Economic Development whether the Report of that Commission represents the policy of the Government. He said yes. I want to know how that policy, which has also been adopted by the Planning Council, squares with legislation of this nature. There is another ecoonmic policy which has been put forward most powerfully, which is the exact opposite of the policy laid down by the Van Eck Commission. The mines favour the maintenance of the migratory labour system, however inefficient it may be, on the ground that casual labour is cheap. That is the policy of the gold mining industry and I know of no more authoritative statement of that policy made on behalf of the gold mining industry than the statement made by Mr. Gemmill, representing the Chamber of Mines before the Lansdown Commission. That statement is so clear that I think the House ought to have it, because Mr. Gemmill related the migratory labour system with this particular legislative measure we are now asked to consolidate. This is what Mr. Gemmill said; I quote from the Lansdown Commission’s Report—

Now, that policy embodied in that Act, Mr. Gemmill says, is based on the employment of casual labour on the mines. He goes on to say—

I want to point out that Mr. Gemmill’s hypothesis the development of the reserves could not go too far otherwise the natives would not come to the mines. However, presumbaly he ook it for granted that there would be that limitation in development. He refers to the housing of the natives in the urban areas. There is no adequate housing, even after twenty years of this legislation. He then continues—

But the Lansdown Commission reported that the native peasant spends half his time working on the mines. He continues—

Now, that statement is very clear and it is the exact opposite of the policy of the Van Eck Commission. The Van Eck Commission said: Get rid of casual labour by integrating the native population, through migration if necessary, with the needs of industry in the towns. This other policy says: Maintain casual labour because the mines cannot pay a family wage. That is what it comes to. And how do they think it must be done? They say: do it by legislation of this type. There is the point at issue and I want to ask the Minister a clear-cut question here as to whether or not the policy of the gold mines, as stated here by Mr. Gemmill, is in accordance with legislation of this kind purely by coincidence or not? Mr. Gemmill says that this kind of policy is necessary for the mines to maintain their labour supply and he defended legislation of this type. What is the alternative? What is a constructive alternative? It follows the general lines, actually, of the Van Eck Commission’s Report. It requires to be worked out in detail, but it implies, in the first place, the encouragement of the migration of native people to the towns—and not a restriction upon the migration—in numbers sufficient to take advantage of the labour demands in the urban areas. The practical machinery for that should be not a system of trying to ration native labour in the towns, not a system whereby the native comes to Cape Town from the Transkei to get a job and when he comes here he is told that the local authorities are very sorry; he has come and has wasted his time and his train fare but there is no work for him here. The policy should rather be an integrated systemof employment exchanges all over the country, all in touch with each other and centrally directed and applied to the whole of the working population. Anyone who wants to look for work should be able to be registered at the exchanges. As we know that is not the policy of the Government, and legislation of that kind is proposed for this Session. Through the means of labour exchanges compulsion would not be necessary because obviously a man will not want to come to an area where he knows there is no work. Through that machinery of exchanges information can be given as to where labour is required and it should be integrated into the more general system which the Minister of Labour contemplates and which aims, if I understand it correctly, at organising the whole labour market. Instead of it we today have the uneconomic hawking of labour by which time is lost both on the part of the employer and on the part of the employee, and which results in frequent unemployment. That should be the policy, that Africans should be encouraged to come to the towns. Permanent employment in the towns should be encouraged and conditions in the reserves should be improved so that the native who does not want to work in town can stay in the reserve and farm to better advantage. Coincident with planned migration to the industrial centres on the basis of the estimated labour needs of industry, there should be a land resettlement policy in the reserves on the basis of allotments adequate to enable the African peasants to make a living off the land. If, on a proper manpower survey, it is found that there is still a surplus of population over and above the requirements of industry and the potentialities of the land, then either there should be an extension of the land available for African agricultural settlement or a planned location of new industries in the neighbourhood of the sources of labour supply in order to absorb the surplus labour of the reserves, or both courses should be followed simultaneously. Planned migration, planned land settlement and planned location of industry are necessary for the planned development of our economy. That is the logical alternative to the Urban Areas Act. That is the constructive alternative. That is a policy which takes heed of economic trends and needs, and represents an attempt to apply the remedies. It is stated that the object of the Urban Areas Act is not so much to restrict the growth of a permanent industrial population but to control it in accordance with the housing available. The Act lays down explicitly that the control of natives entering the urban areas shall be on the basis not of housing—it does not mention housing—but on the basis of labour requirements.

Is not that administerd by local bodies?

Yes, but without regard to the housing position.

Is it not related to housing?

The Minister asks whether it is not related to housing. The Minister knows it very well that the native population has grown very much larger than the housing facilities provided.

The local authorities do that.

Because the labour is required. It is only possible to control it in a manner which is consistent with the economic needs of the people involved and of the country. On the basis of this alternative policy it will be perfectly possible to build up stabilised communities in town and country who are specialists and who do the same work the whole time and are not migratory labourers. And it will be possible also to effect what from the social point of view is probably the most important matter, namely, to re-integrate the family life of the African people.

In seconding this amendment I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). We have been constantly reminded during the past two years that this country is unable to maintain the necessary extension of its social services, mainly because of the low national income, due to our low productivity. We certainly have a low level of productivity; and that, to my mind, is due to the appallingly low level of efficiency of the native labour in this country. This matter is of extreme national importance in these days when we should be boldly and bravely planning for a better South Africa. So much so is it important that the economic progress of South Africa depends perhaps more than we realise on a deliberate effort to improve the quality and the rewards of native labour. Now that aim, improving the quality and the rewards of native labour, depends not on the negative restrictions of our native legislation, but rather on a positive economic policy. In other words, we should today in this House be considering not merely the consolidation of what is generally recognised as being unsatisfactory native legislation, but framing a social and economic charter for the whole of our native people. I would like briefly to deal with certain economic adjustments that would be brought about if such a charter were formulated and carried into effect. The first requirement, as I see it, is the stability of the whole native labour force, both urban and rural, regarding that labour force as a unit, as one national labour force. Hitherto our legislation has kept that labour force migratory and divided and I contend (in this I agree with the hon. member who has just sat down), the stage is now long past when we could honourably defend that old policy. On social grounds it is indefensible, making for the break-up of family life to such an extent as to be a sorry reflection on the civilisation of this country. On economic grounds it is equally indefensible for it is only a permanent, trained, contented labour force which can be productive to any reasonable degree, whether it is employed in the mines or in the factories or in the ordinary services of our towns. In order to stabilise, or rather to give stability to the native labour in our towns on these lines, it is essential that we provide as a priority measure reasonable facilities making possible a decent family life. That is to say, wages adequate to meet the family’s normal expenditure at decent living standards, proper housing, regular and assured food supplies, health services, and all the amenities of civilised life should be supplied. Now, it may be argued that if we do these things, if we pursue this policy of uplift, we shall simply aggravate the disequilibrium between town and country in regard to wages and conditions. We shall do that, Sir, but then that is not a good argument for keeping the urban natives in their present unhealthy and inefficient state. What then is the obvious conclusion in these circumstances that we are forced to come to? It is—I quote the words of the Native Economic Commission—that “urban poverty must be tackled in the reserves”. No matter what native legislation we pass, we shall never avoid the fact that legislation will inevitably break down if it conflicts, as does our native legislation, with the economic trends in the country. These trends are quite obviously in the direction of stability and uplift of our native labour force. On that basis then the charter for the native people should provide, side by side with the improvement of wages and conditions in the towns, parallel and comparable improvements in the country. This brings us up against the important question of providing rural capital. The native population, out of their poverty, would find that impossible. To get capital for native rural development from the ordinary money market in the country would not be possible either. Obviously that capital must come from the State. If the native land economy, now on a non-capital basis, is to be protected and redeemed, then a policy of providing capital goods in the form of schools and clinics, fencing, implements, etc., is absolutely necessary. Capitalisation of native lands in the reserves is a primary economic necessity towards reconstruction in this country. Not only should the land be capitalised in this way, but the skill and natural aptitudes of the native people should likewise be capitalised. How shall we do that? In the first instance by establishing manufacturing industries in the reserves, and doing that on a co-operative basis, industries such as those connected with hides and skins, textiles, canned goods, etc. Home industries could also be developed on a big scale. These are fundamental matters to the economy of South Africa. They arise from the economic evolution of native life. They must be met. Old legislation in a new garb will never meet the position. Mr. Heaton Nicholls, the present High Commissioner in London for South Africa, touched upon that aspect of our legislation a few days ago. I quote from a speech he recently made in England. He said that it had been impossible to enforce the restrictions imposed by the Urban Native Areas Act, with the result that in the absence of any means of directing labour to the industries most needing it, there was a serious lack of balance in the development of the country’s wealth and resources. The native charter, a charter for the native people, reaching into many years ahead is a fundamental necessity. We in this House should now be formulating such a charter. While we have always in our towns a limited reserve of natives seeking work, while we always have a pool of natives in the reserves ready to migrate for work, while labour remains unskilled and is easily replaceable, there can be little prospect of progress for the native people or for our own people in this country. The present maladjustment between urban and rural conditions, the enforced depravity and inefficiency of the native workers can only be met by what I call a planned native charter based on social and economic factors and not on political and racial considerations, considerations which run right through every clause of our native legislation. Dr. Van der Horst touches very succinctly on these matters in what is an admirable study of native labour in South Africa. She reminds us that all the restrictive measures in our legislation are short-sighted, and she adds—

In seconding this amendment I would add my protest to the futility in these days of merely consolidating old legislation when we might be building up a charter for the economic and social improvement of the native people.

It is my intention to vote for the second reading of this Bill. During the last Session, when we had a somewhat heated discussion in connection with the matter, one of the criticisms passed on the legislation that was put before us, and one that came from all sections of the House including hon. members opposite, was the difficulty and unfairness of expecting not only members of this House, not only legal men, but the general public and more particularly the native population who are affected by this legislation, to understand and be able to follow a series of amending Bills which cover the subject. On that occasion there was a request to the Minister to review the whole position, and certainly to introduce a consolidating measure. I think the Minister then stated he would consider that request. He has done that, and he is attempting to simplify the position by introducing this consolidating Bill. Although I for my part do not agree that we can afford to adhere to a policy which while applicable in 1923 does not meet the changed conditions of today, and requires revision. At the same time I feel that, until such time as there can be a change in policy and public opinion is ready and the Government is prepared to alter the policy as far as the urban natives are concerned, it is an advantage to have the Native Urban Areas legislation simplified by consolidation, and, therefore, I welcome this consolidating measure which everyone can understand. I have no doubt whatever that the Minister himself is anxious to do the right thing towards the native population for which he is responsible. During the recess he has on many occasions dealt with native matters and he has been faced with difficulties. Some people have urged him to go further in reference to the relaxation of restrictions affecting the natives and to give them greater and improved facilities, while others have expressed their opposition to any relaxation of the present restrictions. In those circumstances I think we all appreciate his difficulty, although I believe his sympathies are sound. Whilst this consolidating measure does not in any way alter the law as it stands at present, a law which many of us not only in this House but in the country, including so-called liberals, followers of a more leftist view, representative industrialists, practical men, economists, fully realise will have to be altered in so far as our policy towards the natives is concerned, it is clear that the Bill simplifies the present legislation and further presents an opportunity of full discussion and of submitting suggestions to the Minister and to the Government for reviewing and revising the whole position, with a view to ultimately scrapping the whole of the present legislation and introducing a Bill embodying a new policy. Such a policy will have to deal with our native population in the light of the changed conditions of this country, and in the light of the industrial development that is taking place. I take this opportunity from this side of the House to press upon the Minister—though I do not think it is necessary to press it, because the Minister is fully alive to the position—that some change will have to be made in our whole point of view as far as the native population is concerned. I take this opportunity of putting these points to him, because I hope that at no distant date some steps will be taken by the Government to consider an alteration in our legislation and policy as far as the natives are concerned. Reference has been made to the Van Eck Commission. The Government have repeatedly quoted the Van Eck Commission report with approval. The commission has reported very lucidly and in many cases in an almost revolutionary manner on many of the problems we have been discussing repeatedly in this House and in regard to some of the demands industry is making at the present moment. If we are to have a greater national income in South Africa and to improve our opportunities for development and afford economic security—political security without economic security is of little value—if we are to afford economic security to the European people of South Africa and more particularly to the underpaid and underprivileged non-European section of our population (at present eight of our population of ten million) we must proceed with the policy of utilising to the fullest extent our natural resources and of preventing the non-use and the misuse of our natural resources. Attention has been given to the subject of soil erosion; that is one aspect. But at the same time we must insist in an alteration in our attitude towards our human resources, and we have to see that our human resources, and more particularly our non-Europeans are given the greatest possible opportunity of developing and finding further and better opportunities for employment than they have today, in order that they may contribute to the fullest extent to the national wealth of South Africa and to the increase in our national income. Industry has been clamouring on the one side and agriculture on the other for more native labour. We know there is a shortage of native labour today. We will require more and more, and as far as industry is concerned it is quite clear that it has to be developed. All the evidence shows that all sections of the population are realising it must be developed. But it cannot be developed on a basis of casual migratory labour. So, if we are to go ahead, if we are to improve the lot of our people, if our economic standards of life are to be improved, we have to consider very fully and very seriously and very soon the problem of affording our native labour better opportunities and of stabilising our native labour force. This applies not only to our urban areas but also to our rural areas. In order to achieve that stabilisation it is essential to see that the provisions of our native legislation which was passed in the days of the late Gen. Hertzog, the provisions for placing an adequate additional area of land at the disposal of our rural native population. We committed ourselves to the purchase of 7¼ million morgen of land for the natives, to enlarge our native reserves so that the natives will not have to depend on going into the towns in order to supplement the miserable pittance they eke out in the rural areas. Until such time as we have carried out our peldge to provide the necessary land for the native rural population, it is impracticable, it is illogical and it is unfair to impose any restriction or to tighten up any restriction in connection with natives coming into the towns. Consequently as far as the urban population is concerned and as far as secondary industry is concerned, it is imperative to see that that native labour force shall be stabilised and that the restrictions imposed on them shall be relaxed not only from the point of view of migration, but also from the point of view of imposing the conditions under which they have to labour and of affording them more and greater facilities for useful employment. These opportunities should be given not only in the interests of native labour but also in the interests of industry. If that policy is going to be pursued, if on the one hand we are going to improve the conditions of the natives in the native reserves by carrying out the pledge made by Gen. Hertzog, and by placing at the disposal of the natives the amount of land that we promised, and if on the other hand we encourage the industrialisation of the native and the establishment of a stabilised native labour force for the benefit of secondary industries in the towns, we may be told that that is going to react adversely on the agricultural community. The agricultural community is I know, clamouring for more labour; they are short of labour; and naturally by pursuing such a policy as the one which I am discussing this afternoon, the agricultural industry may be faced with probably greater difficulties in regard to the supply of native labour But I think up-to-date farmers, from all I have read and heard of them, and also from the point of view of ordinary economics, will realise that cheap native labour is not efficient labour, that it is of no value to them, and that they may have to alter the whole system of agriculture—as we have been discussing in the House a few days ago—and have to use machinery to a greater extent to secure higher efficiency and to make the land more productive than it is at present. Consequently, they may find themselves in the position of having to use more European labour than they do at present, instead of depending all the time on cheap labour. We have been told recently that the Italian prisoners of war who have been employed on the farms have proved very satisfactory. We know they are very efficient people from that point of view, and it may be desirable before the last Italian is sent out of the country, to see whether some arrangement could not be made to encourage a number of them to permanently settle in this country to supplement the labour force available for agriculture and industry. Those are all aspects of the position that will have to be taken into account. It is now many years since we have had a commission dealing with economic problems in South Africa. We had a commission in 1920, but it is many years since we had a commission dealing with native problems in this country, and today when the Government is relying to a great extent on the Planning Council, when the Government is appointing commission after commission in order to decide upon revised policies in the light of changed conditions, I think the Government should consider the appointment of a commission to deal with the whole native question in the light of changed conditions. I feel it would be a pity if in the period before that commission is able to make its report as far as the native population is concerned we should leave the legislation affecting our native population as it is today. It is difficult to follow and people who are interested do not know where they stand. From that angle also I propose to vote for the second reading of this Bill, because I believe this consolidating measure is necessary, at any rate as an interim measure, before we can get a report from a commission which would deal in a broad way with the revolutionary changes in our outlook and policy towards the native people of this country.

I thank the Minister for his brief explanatory statement. He has told us that this Bill contains no new principles, and that it really merely consolidates the native legislation that is already in existence. But I would point out to the Minister that the preamble of this Bill states just the opposite. It is suscepible to a hundred and one interpretations, and I should just like to read this out—

The Minister adds something to that, and it is not clear whether it has reference only to the existing Acts.

The select committee has to decide on that. That is the reason why the Bill is going to a select committee.

Yes, I will not dwell on that any longer. I only mention it to the Minister. In the first place, I should like to ask the Minister whether, if this Bill is accepted as a consolidating Bill, it will be carried out? I think the Minister will realise why I am putting this question to him. We know that in 1937 the so-called Grobler Act was placed on the Statute Book, but it was never carried out. Suppose that the Select Committee accepts this Bill and sends it back to this House for approval, will that then mean that the Minister is going to give effect to the provisions of the Bill; or will it happen as was the case with the Grobler Act of 1937 (the provisions of which have not yet been carried out) that the provisions of this Bill will also not be put into force. The Grobler Act had a good object, and it would to a large extent have overcome the difficulties of my hon. friend on my left if it had been administered with the object for which it went through the House. The proposer of the amendment made a point on which I think we are all in agreement, namely that it is necessary that the native labour force in South Africa should be stabilised as far as possible. I think that any right-thinking person in South Africa, whether on the platteland or in the towns, ought to agree with that. Because if you do not have it we shall have to continue with this system that a native this year may be found in Cape Town, and the following year up in the Transvaal, and so it goes on. In Cape Town I have met natives who have asked me whether I do not remember them. I ask them then how I can remember them out of 7,000,000 natives. Then they tell me that they worked in Johannesburg, that later they came and looked for work here, and that they get better pay here than in Johannesburg. It is a waste. The greatest waste of native labour is now taking place on the Witwatersrand. There we have a concentration of natives from all parts of the country, and not only from all parts of the Union, but there is also a large number of prohibited immigrants among them. I am not referring now to natives who have been recruited under the Mozambique Agreement, but to natives who, for instance, come from Basutoland and make for the interior. It is an unstable labour force. These natives work one year on a farm, the following year in a shop, then for a year on the mines, next for a year as lorry drivers, and so it goes on. The native is never trained and made competent to do any special work which will be of benefit to him and also to the benefit of his empolyers. Under the present circumstances we cannot obtain natives who have been trained in special work, and I say that this sort of labour is of little value to us. It is labour that fluctuates between the platteland and the towns, and this is a point on which we agree with hon. members, that with an eye to our industrial development and also with an eye to the welfare and prosperity of the natives themselves, we must stabilise our native labour, just as we expect that the European will stabilise himself in the sphere of work in which he is engaged, whether it is in agriculture, in mining or in an industrial undertaking. If this happens there can be regular progress for the worker. Then we shall, in a great measure, find a solution for the problem of the vagrant native who we find here today and somewhere else tomorrow. My hon. friend has not gone far enough and told us how he is going to solve the difficulty of those who do not want to elect where they want to work, those who are living on their wits and who organise themselves into gangs and live dishonestly.

That is the result of this sort of legislation.

My hon. friend is, to a certain extent correct, that this legislation has contributed to this in a measure. The problem however exists, whether it is our fault or whether it is due to some inherent weakness in this class of people. The fact is that the problem exists whatever the cause may be. Consequently I maintain that my hon. friend has not gone far enough, and he has not told us what he is going to do in such cases. In spite of the great outcry about the shortage of native labour, I maintain that if there is proper stabilisation of native labour in South Africa, if there is proper rationing of native labour, the mines could get enough labour in the Union, and the farmers will also then obtain an adequate labour supply, while the factories will have their requirements met as well, and it will not be necessary for us to bring natives in from outside the Union. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will not allow me to refer now to the recruitment of natives from outside the Union, but so long as there is this fluctuation of native labour and so long as we waste native labour it may be necessary. But as soon as native labour is properly rationed between the platteland, the towns and the mines, and as soon as the native can adapt himself properly and can be trained for the type of work at which he has made a start, we shall have enough natives in our country to do our work. I think that this is the main purpose of the hon. member’s amendment, and I agree with it. The Minister of Native Affairs has stated that he wants to make the position convenient for us. I hope that the Minister will tell us before the Select Committee presents its report, that he realises that the time has arrived that this stabilisation of native labour should occur. I am sorry that the Minister in presenting this Bill, did not tell us what his largest problem is. He has not told us this. Other members have told us, and this House has long felt that the great difficulty of native administration is this continual fluctuation of the native people. Natives are incessantly moving from one part of the country to the other. Now they are busy with this sort of work, and then they are engaged on the other sort. It represents a waste of time and labour, and the time has come when our native labour, as such, should be rationed in a better way and should be adapted in a better way to the various spheres of employment. That is highly necessary. I want to emphasise that whatever the Minister may evolve in the future, this must be one of the frist points to which he should devote his attention, namely, the proper stabilisation and apportionment of native labour.

How will you do that?

The hon. member has just come in, and he does not know what we are talking about. He cannot expect that we should repeat every few minutes what we have stated; what sort of debate would we have then? I stated that I agreed that it is necessary for the Minister to consolidate these provisions of the law, so that his Department can function properly. Everyone in the House will agree that this is necessary, but at the same time I wish to mention that there is at the moment a waste of native labour going on. It is wasted to such an extent that in spite of the so-called surplus population in the country we have continuously to recruit natives from territories outside the Union. I hope that I understood my hon. friend aright when he spoke of the encroachment on the rights of the natives. I stand on this, that the native should retain his rights in his areas. I maintain that no European should have the right to trade in native areas. When I say this it virtually means that I contemplate the consistent carrying into effect in practice of an honest and just policy of segregation. I do not mean that the natives must be kept together in sheds for the benefit of the Chamber of Mines, so that they can just go and fetch them when they are needed on the mines, and that those natives should be herded together without their wives and their children, with thé result that three-fourths of them become criminals, and that a great many of them are sent back when they contract miners’ phthisis. That is dishonest segregation.

Let me understand you properly; you desire that the women and children should be brought along too when the natives work in the mines?

Yes, if the mining industry needs that labour they must be prepared to have reserves in which the natives will have the same rights as in the Transkei. If it is necessary that such a migration of natives should occur, and that native reserves are established where they must work, then the Europeans can again get room in their area. My point is this, when we tell the natives they must come to the big cities to work, we must give them all the reasonable interests and rights that they enjoy in the Transkei. If we say that the heavens will fall if we do not have the natives we must give him the rights that he has in the Transkei, and we must take the land that the native has in the Transkei and give it to Europeans, but we should not just provide sheds under the cloak of segregation. By doing that we shall be acting merely in the interests of one section of the people, but we get a conglomeration of natives in such an area and we foster crime on a large scale I describe that as dishonest segregation. I am in favour of honest segregation. By that I mean that we must eventually attain the ideal of having areas where if the European crosses the line he should know that he is in a native area where he will enjoy no political rights, and that he can only enter with a permit. In the same way the native should only go into a European area with special permission if he is going there for the convenience of the Europeans. The reverse applies. But I do not want to apply segregation in half measures in the interests of certain big concerns, and at the same time announce it as segregation, knowing that you will not consistently carry it through. Hon. members representing native interests have simply referred to the fact that the native sooner or later will have higher representation. I want to say that the allegation that the native’s position is retrogressing is not correct. The native has gone ahead with tremendous strides, but the position of the Europeans has deteriorated with tremendous strides and this is leading to a clash, and we shall be blamed if such a clash occurs, because we cannot for ever and eternally be improving the status of the native and allowing the European to deteriorate and expect that there will not be a clash. Should a clash come we who are governing the country will have been the cause of that clash, because if the majority of the European workers fall to the level of the natives, what is going to be the future of our European civilisation? Therefore I want to suggest, and all who give serious thought to the matter will agree with me, that we shall have to stop talking about a white country if we continue along the lines we have followed in the past. I do not see how it is practical to retain South Africa as a white man’s country so lang as natives are brought into European areas for the benefit of certain big interests, and are kept there under present conditions, the natives working for a lower wage than the Europeans; because so long as that continues the native will be an economic assegai to stab the European to death. Vested interests do not Worry, nor does the Chamber of Mines care about what becomes of South Africa. In what way would the Chamber of Mines worry if eventually there were only ten Europeans left in South Africa? Then they would be in a position to oppress the natives, because I think we can all recall how in former years workers were imported from all parts of the world when they did not think the native was good enough for their work. They even imported Chinese to work for them, to enable them to make big profits. Later they discovered that the native was a better worker. Consequently I am sorry that the Chamber of Mines only establishes a policy that is good enough to enable them to recruit natives from territories beyond our borders. There is the detribalised native who has already learned a little more. The detribalised native is no longer prepared to work for the wage that the Chamber of Mines is prepared to offer him. Now I want to tell hon. members that the reason why the mines cannot get enough natives, at any rate, the principal reason, is that they are importing natives.

Order, order. That question cannot be discussed under this Bill.

The point that I want to make is that the three-quarters gentleman native, the white-collar native, does not go to the mines. The mines say “his standard is too high”. That is why they are bringing them in from outside. We do not want to have this, but the mining industry just continues, and asks concessions from the Government to be enabled to follow such a policy, and of all the industries the mining industry is the worst payer in the Union. Hon. members who represent the natives and perhaps some other hon. members will perhaps not agree that the mines pay less than the farmers; but that is a fact. The overwhelming majority of the farmers pay their natives much better than the mines pay them. The facts speak for themselves. That is why the mining industry has to obtain concessions as against the farmers in order to obtain natives. Without these concessions they would not get enough natives. That is the proof. Although hon. members may be under the impression that the farmers pay less it is nevertheless a fact that they pay better than the mines. Why cannot the mining industry pay at the same rate as factories, as the clothing factories, the soap factories and other factories? Is the mining industry not wealthy enough to be able to pay the same as the factories for native labour? This is what the representatives of the natives in this House should emphasise, that if the small concerns—many of the factories are only small concerns—are in a position to attract the three-quarters gentleman-native why cannot the mines do that?

We have frequently said that.

I have listened when the hon. members were speaking, but I have never heard them make that point. I began to form the impression that the representatives of the natives did not find fault with the mines. I maintain that if small enterprises such as the clothing factories, and the soap factories, can do this with their small capital, the mining industry can also afford it, and the mining industry will then have enough natives. There are at least 50,000 natives on the Rand who will be available if the mines would pay the same wages as the factories.

We have always said that.

Well, I have not heard it.

We have said that they should get a family wage.

I will not make a fuss about that, but I do not recall that the hon. members have made that point. I am glad to see that their opinion agrees with mine on this point.

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, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 5th March.