As regards clause 8, I should like the Committee to be clear about what this clause really means. According to this clause the Minister can, notwithstanding the provisions of clauses 2, 4 and 5, issue permits to Asiatics. Clause 2 provides that in what for the sake of convenience, we shall just call white areas, Asiatics can only purchase from Asiatics, and Europeans can only purchase from Europeans. That is regards ownership of property. Clauses 4 and 5 deal only with occupation, and there it is provided that properties which were lawfully occupied by Asiatics at the time this Act comes into force, or the date announced, in future can be so legally occupied, just as properties which were occupied by Europeans at the date of the coming into force of this Act, or the fixed date, can only be occupied by Europeans. But notwithstanding that, this clause provides that the Minister of the Interior can authorise permits to be issued whereby Asiatics can acquire the right of ownership in respect of ground or property belonging to Europeans, or the right of occupation, which was not possible under clauses 4 and 5. In the Transvaal or Natal the Minister can issue permits allowing Asiatics to occupy ground or premises which were formerly occupied by Europeans. In other words, the Minister is given this right to allow penetration by Asiatics as regards occupation to develop further. That is the power which is given to the Minister. As regards the taking over by Europeans of premises occupied by Asiatics, that is not dangerous, but the danger which arises here is that permits can be issued in conflict with the previous provisions to allow Asiatics to hire or occupy dwellings or premises which formerly belonged to Europeans. This danger is not imaginary, because we have the example of the Minister of the Interior who had precisely the same powers under the Pegging Act. Now, I should like hon. members opposite to give their attention to this aspect of the matter, namely, that the Minister of the Interior will again administer this Act with the same powers he had under the Pegging Act. That Minister went so far as to give Indians in Pretoria the right to penetrate into European areas. That being so, what guarantee have we that this same Minister will not once more by virtue of the provisions of this Bill misuse his powers as he has done in the past? We have no such guarantee. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would give us the guarantee that his Government or his Minister who handles the matter, will not act in that way, but he bluntly refused. That is the danger of this clause. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will not, before I put the amendment, himself consider amending this clause and if necessary the rest of the Bill accordingly, or even in Another Place, so that the power given to the Minister to issue permits will only apply to the issue of permits provided the person who by that means is authorised to acquire or to occupy such ground or premises is a European. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not consider that, because otherwise permits will be issued in contravention of clauses 2, 4 and 5. It will not be limited, as I stated, to the acquisition of ground from Asiatics by Europeans, bub by this means the areas which for the sake of convenience we call white areas will not eventually be able to be purified of Asiatics, but Asiatics will be able to penetrate there still further. That is true not only of Natal, but also of the Transvaal. I am again taking my own town as an example. What is true of Nylstroom is also true of the majority of other towns in the Transvaal. There Indians intermingle with the Europeans everywhere, not only in residential areas, but also as regards business premises, and my request to the Prime Minister is that he should have this Bill amended in such a manner that the permits can only be issued to Europeans, so that eventually we will be able to eliminate the Asiatics from those areas. In other words, permits will only be given to Europeans to acquire ground which is situated in European areas and which at the commencement of the operation of this Act is in the hands of Asiatics. If that is not done, not only will this Bill achieve very little, but there will also be the danger that instead of us having certain areas quite white eventually, the Act will be handled in such a manner that in those areas there will be still more intermingling than there is already. This is such a serious matter to me, the peneration of Indians amongst Europeans with all its fatal results, not only as regards the deterioration one finds amongst Europeans, but also in view of the economic weakening of the Europeans, that with all the power of my being I wish to plead with the Prime Minister that he should amend the Bill in such a manner that penetration will not take place any further. As I said, I think not only of the deterioration one finds amongst the Europeans as a result of the penetration by non-Europeans, but also of the economic deterioration, the economic harm done to Europeans when one allows Indians to penetrate amongst them. We know what the results are when Indians are allowed to enter into a European business centre or residential area. It immediately has the economic effect of lowering the value of the property of the Europeans as a result of this contamination, if you will allow me to use that word. The value of the property of the European, whether it is a dwelling-house or business premises, decreases immediately, apart from the unpleasantness of the whole situation. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to harden his heart and to take into consideration what up to now has been happening under the Minister of the Interior, who permitted Indians to penetrate into Pretoria and in other areas by virtue of the same powers which will be given to him by this Bill. Now, hon. members opposite must not say that those powers will be used in this or that way. They must not bluff themselves that these powers will only be used in the interests of the Europeans. The immediate past, the experience of the previous few years, has taught us the bitter lesson that if powers of this nature are given to a Minister who has no strong convictions on the question of the continued existence of a pure white race, apart from what his own liberal views might be, the danger exists that he will be affected by the influence exerted on him by Asiatics. We must not lose sight of the fact that, apart from the fact that some Europeans have no strong feelings about maintaining the colour bar between European and non-European, there is also the financial power of the Asiatics. [Time limit.]

*Mr. FOUCHÉ To me this clause is very clear. It provides that the Minister may, on written application made therefor, direct that a permit may be issued for an Asiatic to purchase land from a European in an area shown on the diagram as a European area. It is quite clear, therefore, that this clause makes provision for further penetration by Asiatics. I cannot imagine this clause having any other ultimate result than the final decision between Europeans and Asiatics in Natal, and that decision will be in favour of the Asiatics. We have these red areas on the diagram which are already pre-doininantly occupied by Asiatics, and then we have other areas of Europeans as shown on the diagram with regard to which most people believed that they would be areas for Europeans; but this clause with which we are dealing now has been introduced precisely to make provision for the Asiatic to be able to penetrate into the European areas. What will ultimately be the practical result of this? We know that today the Europeans and the non-Europeans in Natal are numerically equally strong. We know that the increase of the Asiatics is almost three times as rapid as that of the Europeans. It must be quite clear to us that on the part of the Asiatics there will be a greater demand for land than from the Europeans, that there will be a greater demand for permits to acquire land in the European areas. In terms of this clause, permits can now be granted. Eventually it can mean only one thing, and that is that in the years to come the areas which at present are regarded as European areas will become more and more red. I want to put this question: This clause, which provides for permits to Europeans to buy from Asiatics and Asiatics to buy from Europeans—has it been included in the Bill to provide that in the years to come the Europeans in the so-called European areas should acquire more land, or has this clause been included specifically to provide that the Asiatics will be able ultimately to acquire more land in the white areas? It must be clear to everyone that this clause was included in the Bill with the express purpose of not allowing the European to acquire more land in the European areas, but, on the contrary, to allow the Asiatic to acquire more land. It is perfectly clear to me therefore, that it can have only one result, and that is that the Europeans will be dominated in the white areas. The penetration of Indians is not being stopped. For that reason I am appealing to the Prime Minister to follow a different course, and to prevent the Europeans from ultimately being pushed out of these European areas. As the clause stands now, and in view of the rest of the Bill, it will only mean that there will be a retardation of the tempo of penetration of Asiatics, but it will not be stopped. Theré will only be a retardation of the tempo, and because the Asiatic multiplies so much more rapidly than the European, the clause can have no other result than that the Europeans in Natal will eventually be dominated. I believe that this clause 8 is the most condemning clause in the Bill as far as the Europeans are concerned, and that it will be a disgrace in the statute books of South Africa.

In dealing with an important point such as this, it is necessary for us to refresh the memory of the House and to recall the reasons given by the Prime Minister when he presented us with this legislation so hurriedly. Members will recall that the Prime Minister gave as the ostensible reason why he had to introduce this legislation so urgently and why he refused to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the whole matter, that the penetration had become so acute that steps had now to be taken. With that apparent reason he at any rate persuaded his side of the House to proceed with the measure at this stage. Now we come to this important clause, and what is the position under this clause? It gives the Minister of the Interior the power to promote Indian penetration into European residential and commercial areas. I am making a very serious statement, but I want to put this position to every hon. member on the opposite side and ask them to get up here and to deny it. This clause gives the Minister, who will carry out this Act, the definite power of not restricting Indian penetration amongst the Europeans, but actually to promote it. It is because we want to avoid the danger which this power in the hands of a Minister will mean to the European that we are asking the Prime Minister to reconsider this point. It is very clear and it has become increasingly clear during the course of this debate; it was also clear from the debate on the Pegging Act of 1943 that the penetration of Indians amongst the white people was proceeding and was on the increase, with permission and without. I am again making a very strong statement. I say that in spite of the law of the land, in spite of the Act of 1885, the Act of 1919, and subsequent Acts, the Indians have penetrated amongst the Europeans. It is a fact which the Prime Minister has admitted. It is also a fact which was admitted that in spite of the Pegging Act of three years ago the penetration has taken place. I want to recall the words of the Prime Minister in the debate on the Pegging Act of 1943, namely, that the Government of the day had to take steps and that the Indian penetration was to blame for such steps having to be taken. It was the result of penetration on the part of the Indians. Now I want to put this question and it is a very serious question. If the Indian population was able to penetrate in spite of the existing laws of the land, then I maintain that the danger does exist that these people will be able to overwhelm the Minister to such an extent that the powers given to him will be abused, with the result that further penetration will follow. That is no apparent danger, it is a real danger. Now I want to put the matter clearly once more. Under this Bill two areas are determined. The one area is the red area on the map. In this red area it is Ichabod to the European population who desire separation between Europeans and non-Europeans. Once again I am making a very strong statement. Every red spot on the map indicates an area where it will be Ichabod to the Europeans who desire separation of the two races. The Prime Minister says that these areas will remain mixed. They are intended to remain mixed. What is more, these red spots on the map are only the first step. Larger and larger areas throughout Natal will in future become red spots, and when they are made red at the discretion of the Minister, it will also be the end there of the European who is not prepared to live together with the Indian. That being the case, why does the Prime Minister not make a slight concession? Let him make a small concession to those who want the white areas to be white and who do not believe in mixed residential areas. Give the white man a place in Natal where he has the guarantee that no further penetration and intrusion will take place. I am not asking the Prime Minister anything that is unreasonable, neither is it something impossible. We are pleading on behalf of the white man in South Africa. Give him on the soil of his own fatherland, on the blood-drenched soil of Natal, a little place which he can be sure will remain untouched. What we are asking for is this: We are asking for a guarantee which will be based not on the discretion of a Minister, but on the law. That is why we say that the Indian in the white area should gradually leave that area and live in the red area. Give the white man an area which will be exclusively European and give him a guarantee that his rights will not be encroached upon through the arbitrary decision of a Minister. Right from the beginning we have made this plea to the Prime Minister that he should comply with the wishes of the European community and not in one instance so far in this Committee has he complied with the wishes of the European community as expressed here by us. I want to say once more that the position has become acute, especially in Natal, not as a result of the penetration of the European, but as the result of the penetration of the Indians. Year after year the Indians have penetrated further and ousted the white man from his living space, and we are asking now that such ousting should be put a stop to. It is not something unreasonable that we are asking for. We do not want the European to be subjected to penetration at the discretion of a Minister. We do not want to vest power in a Minister to perpetuate or to promote Indian penetration. Let us restrict it by law in order that the white man may have a place where he can be safe by law and not at the discretion of a Minister. That is our request and that is what we are asking for. It is a serious request and a reasonable one, and I want to express the hope that even at this late stage the Prime Minister will give us a definite reply and also the correct answer.

I am just rising to make it clear that we are not laying down a principle here. The principle has already been laid down in sections which we have agreed to. Sections 2, 4 and 5 lay down the principle that the one race may buy from the other race under a permit. We are not again arguing about that. That has been dealt with. What is being laid down here in Section 8 is how it shall be carried out, what the machinery will be, and it is provided here that the permit shall be issued by the Minister on a report from a Board which will be appointed for that purpose and which will investigate and report to the Minister. That is all that has to be decided here. It is purely a question of the machinery for the carrying out of a principle which has already been accepted, and we need not argue again about that principle. I have an amendment which I want to move to provide that the permit shall be put into effect within six months or else it lapses. It will, of course, be wrong and perhaps prejudicial to issue a permit which remains pending and which is put into effect years later. If a permit is issued it must be an urgent matter and it must be put into effect within six months or else it lapses.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) has moved an amendment which probably comes down to this, that the Minister will make the necessary investigation, that he will see to the publications and obtain the necessary information and decide thereon. That is his principal amendment. It seems to me that is the wrong procedure. The correct procedure is, as I shall move in an amendment of Clause 12, that this preliminary investigation, this assembly of material for a judgment, should be done by the Board. The Board should ask for the necessary information; the Board should gather all the material, and their report should be based on a full investigation of the facts. Then their report will go to the Minister, and the Minister will decide thereon. It is not for the Minister to investigate the case, it is not for the Minister to collect all the material; that is the function of the Board. I therefore think that the arrangement in my amendment is, if I may say so, better than that suggested by my hon. friend. It is not for the Minister to do the job; a Board has been appointed to do it, let them do it. I cannot accept the amenmdent simply for that reason. The substance of it is taken over by me in a later clause, but in connection with the proper authority, which is the Board. The hon. member has also moved a couple of minor amendments. He wishes to substitute “the” report for “any” report. I have no objection to that. If my hon. friend attaches any importance to that, I am prepared to accept “the” instead of “any”. But a little further on in sub-section (2) he wishes to delete “may” and to substitute “shall”. If my hon.‘friend reads the whole clause, he will see a discretion is left to the Minister. The Minister will have all this material before him. It will have been collected by the Board and embodied in a report, and the Minister will have to act on this report and give it his consideration. We say he “may” decide. Sub-section (2) expressly says that any matters which in his opinion are relevant to the question whether or not any permit shall be granted will be taken into consideration by the Minister; so evidently the whole object of this clause from its very terminology is to leave a discretion to the Minister on the facts that have been collected by the Board. Under those circumstances you cannot say “shall”. You cannot say a man may have to express his opinion and then also say he “shall”, because it is contradictory. I think the word “may” is the correct word in this connection, and I cannot accept the substitution of “shall” for it.

It is eminently desirable that at this stage of the proceedings publicity should be given to what has taken place, and although the Prime Minister is moving in Clause 12 to the effect that advertisements shall appear in a paper in circulation in that area, that is for the information of the public that the Board is about to consider this permit, but the Board has to make a report on that, and that report will not be published at all. The object of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) is therefore that at both stages of the proceedings there shall be publicity, and that the people most interested can have access to the Board’s report before the Minister decides what action shall be taken in regard to the permit. In those circumstances I would ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his objection to the amendment, and let us have all the publicity he possibly can. We know the Indian, and the better you know the Indian the more you will be prepared to counter any move he may make which will take him here, there and everywhere. It is simply with the idea of stopping up any loopholes that may occur owing to lack of knowledge of those interested which would result in the Indian getting in where he is not wanted.

The hon. the Prime Minister has just told us that the Minister will ultimately decide in which cases a permit will be issued and in which cases not. That is precisely our objection. No provision is made here that the Minister will be bound by the report or recommendation of the board. In the course of the discussion on this Bill, we find that clause after clausa is nullifying this principle which in the first instance we were prepared to accept, namely, that to a certain extent separateness and segregation is being achieved by the Bill. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to make a concession, he will find that an extensive organisation and structure will be created, but the executive power will ultimately depend upon one person, namely the Minister who administers the Act. Then we will have the same position as we have at present. Here in this House there are people who will lead the dissatisfied Indians, who will sit on the doorstep of the Minister to get permits from him if they cannot get them from the board. We know what the ordinary course of events is. Give the power to the board, provided it is satisfactorily composed. It will investigate the matter and it will have sufficient evidence on which to decide whether a permit should be issued or not. But as the provision stands at present, I am afraid that we will get back to the old position where the same things will take place. The Minister will be inundated with requests. They will live on the Minister’s doorstep and eventually he will take it upon himself to issue permits whether the board is in favour or not, and that is exactly what we wish to avoid. We want to avoid that and we want to try and bring about a separation between the races economically and otherwise.

The Prime Minister emphasised just now that the principle of the Bill has been adopted. I assume that that principle is separateness. The object and the tenor of the Bill is to prevent the penetration of Indians into European areas. The principle has been agreed to but this clause gives to the Minister of the Interior the right to undermine that principle if he desires to do so. The principle is to prevent Indians from penetrating into European areas, but this clause gives the right to the Minister of the Interior to allow Indians to penetrate into European areas. If we did not have the precedent in the past that the Minister of the Interior allowed Indians to penetrate into European areas, we would not have been so concerned. Then there would have been an excuse; then the other side could have argued that the object of this clause was to give to a European the right of occupation in cases where an Indian owned property in a European area which he surrendered, and to give power to the Minister to allow that by way of a permit. But we have had the precedent in the past that the present Minister of the Interior actually allowed Indians to penetrate into European areas. The present Minister is not a member of the House of Assembly, he is a member of the Senate. He is not responsible to an electoral division. He is in a position to disregard the wishes of the electorate of Natal. He cannot be called to account and for that reason the position is still more dangerous. I maintain that this Bill should be applied in order to make European areas out of European residential areas; that I admit, but as we know the present Minister of the Interior, we fear that the provisions of this clause may be used precisely to nullify the purpose and the aim of this Bill. It may totally undermine this Bill and we want to ask the Prime Minister therefore to take into consideration an amendment to prevent Indians in future to penetrate into European areas under this Clause. The Prime Minister emphasised that this Bill is in a certain way a compromise. In the first part of the Bill we are depriving the Asiatic of certain rights to property and in the second part we are granting the franchise to the Asiatic, but I am afraid that as far as the first part of the Bill is concerned and particularly this clause, we are watering it down to such an extent that it will depend upon the arbitrary wishes of the Minister who administers the Bill whether the provisions of the Bill will be carried out in the way we want them to be carried out. It has been left to his arbitrary wish. If he wishes to permit the penetration of Indians there is nothing to prevent him from doing so and I maintain, therefore, that if we give the franchise to the Indians in the second part of the Bill we should have a guarantee in the first part that the Indians will not penetrate into European areas.

Mr. Chairman, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) that notice should be given when application for a permit is made. The only difficulty is that he wants this notice to be effected through the Board and not through the Minister. My difficulty here is this: What guarantee is there that any representations that are made to the Board as a result of this notice would be put before the Minister? It may be incorporated in the report of the Board, but there is nothing to indicate that it must be incorporated therein. It may be that departmentally the Minister may ask for it, I do not know, but I would like to have it quite definite on the Statute Book that when representations are made to the Board, when as a result of the new amendment application for a permit is made, that these representations should also be put before the Minister when he considers the issue of that permit; not only the report of the Board, but also the specific representations by the interested parties. I was wondering if the Prime Minister could not make that position quite clear in clause 8—the clause we are considering now—that the Minister may after consideration of any report made by the Board, and any representations made to the Board in terms of clause 12 (2), in his discretion direct that a permit be issued. These representations must not be pigeon-holed in the Board’s office, they must definitely be put before the responsible Minister in the last resort. I think that would go a long way towards meeting the point made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The interested parties should know of any application that is made, and they should have an opportunity of expressing their views on that application, and finally their representations on the wisdom or otherwise of the issue of such a permit should be brought directly to the notice of the responsible Minister.

This clause 8 is probably one of the most reprehensible clauses in the Bill. I say that because the separation contemplated by the Prime Minister in this clause, however slight that may be, is now totally nullified by this clause. The Prime Minister can be sure that Europeans will not continually come to the Minister for permits to take up residence in Asiatic areas. That will not happen, but he will receive requests daily from Asiatics for permits to take up residence in European residential areas, and that is where the danger lies. I want to draw attention to the clause itself. Clause 8 reads as follows—

Section 12 defines the functions of this Board. In the first place, the Board is constituted in such a manner that we feel dubious about it. This Board has to consider the applications for permits. Two of the five members, it is proposed, will be Asiatics. Now it all depends upon the attitude of one of the other three members. If he is a person of the calibre of the Minister of the Interior, then this Board will recommend to the Minister every application received from an Asiatic to enter a European residential area. There is not the least doubt about that. Then we will find this position as pointed out just now by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood). The position is now created in which all the other preceding provisions in the Bill aiming at separation can be undermined. To prove that we cannot entrust the administration of an Act such as this to the Minister of the Interior, I would like to explain to the Committee the matter mentioned here by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) relating to Pretoria, in order that every member may know what happened there and what the attitude was of the Minister concerned. I have here the report regarding the trouble in Pretoria. It says, inter alia, the following—

The whole area in the vicinity is occupied by Europeans—

Now we come to the matter which is so dangerous—

Now there we have had this position in Pretoria. Notwithstanding the fact that the whole City Council was opposed to the issue of a permit in that instance, the Minister to whom we are asked to entrust the administration of this Act today comes along, and he simply gives a permit to the Asiatic to enable him to penetrate there. It is clear that we on this side cannot entrust the matter to such a Minister. In any case, if we are aiming at separation by this legislation, as the Prime Minister has said, then this system of permits should not be allowed at all. In this regard I am completely in agreement with the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). On the one side there should be Asiatics, and on the other side Europeans. Now you are going to create further loopholes, and the danger exists today that under this permit system the European areas will eventually become red areas. There is no doubt about that. We find that this clause is most dangerous, and that, is why we ask, as the hon. member for Waterberg has asked, whether the Prime Minister cannot meet us in such a way that if this permit system has to remain, permits shall only be issued to Europeans to enable them to occupy properties, but not to Asiatics. If this Bill is to be passed with this clause, then the whole Bill of the Prime Minister will be of no use to South Africa. Separation at which he also aims, according to what he said, will become a farce. It already is a farce, and if this procedure is to continue for some years, it will get out of control also in the Transvaal as it has already got out of control in Natal. Whilst we are dealing with this matter now, let us see once and for all whether we cannot bring about separateness in South Africa. I want to agree with the hon. member for Boshof that however much the Prime Minister may implore us on this side to meet him in this matter, we cannot do it. We on this side will continue fighting until our aim is achieved, namely, separateness. To say the least, the Prime Minister is rather unreasonable. The Prime Minister does appear to have become obstinate. No matter how we talk and how we plead, he simply says he will not grant our request. We ask hon. members on that side of the House to realise the implications of this question. Every one of them sitting on those benches will be jointly responsible if this Bill is passed, and we shall reach the position in South Africa eventually where the matter will get completely beyond control. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Waterberg in asking the Prime Minister once more to reconsider this matter. This may be his last opportunity of saving South Africa from this evil. The attention of the whole country is today focused on this Assembly, and I hope that the Prime Minister will accede to our reasonable request, and assist us to save what can still be saved.

It is very clear that this clause, together with all the clauses relating to the permit system, changes this Bill to such an extent that it may be compared to a sieve with which the Minister is trying to stop the East wind. This clause 8 changes the Bill to such an extent that the whole policy of separatism is going to be destroyed. That is very clear. Moreover, by means of this clause the Prime Minister is placing a butcher’s knife in the hands of the liberalistic elements, in the hands of those people who do not care a scrap what becomes of South Africa; those people who are intent on making South Africa a hybrid race. Under this clause that ideal is being promoted. When we look at this Bill, particularly the first part, it is clear that this clause 8, with its permit system, is the Magna Charta of the interests of the Indians under the first part of the Bill. They have scored a greater victory in this respect than they have scored in South Africa for a long time, perhaps greater than they have ever scored in South Africa. I said at the outset that all this hullabaloo on the part of India in connection with this Bill is nothing but camouflage, the sole object being to strengthen the Prime Minister’s case. When we look at the implications of this clause I am more than ever convinced of that fact. We are acquainted with this system of permits and, particularly as far as the Indians are concerned, there is a very unpleasant history attached to this whole system of permits.

Order, order. May I point out to the hon. member that the principle of permits has already been accepted by the Committee and I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that matter at this stage.

I am merely linking it up with the clause itself. Even this clause 8 contains a message of warning as to our experience in the past with regard to permits. It is for that reason that it behoves us to pay particular attention to this clause. We are now going to have penetration on a greater scale than we realise as a result of this clause. It is merely creating an opening for penetration.

Order, order. May I point out to the hon. member that the principle has already been accepted in clauses 2, 4 and 5 and the hon. member cannot discuss the principle at this stage.

I am not referring to the principle.

On a point of order, may I just put it to you that clause 8 refers to permits which may be issued in connection with clauses 2, 4 and 5, and my submission is that the hon. member is in order in discussing the permit system and the effect of granting permits.

Clause 8 does not deal with the particulars of the permit system, the principle of which has been accepted under clauses 2, 4 and 5.

I say that an opening is now being created under clause 8 for Indian penetration to take place everywhere, particularly when at the head of affairs there is a Minister like the Minister of the Interior and his supporters; particularly when a Minister like the Deputy Prime Minister is at the head of affairs.

Order, order. That argument has been advanced ad nauseam.

Hear, hear.

You have advanced no arguments at all.

You are sitting there like a lot of sheep.

The fact remains that under clause 8 penetration may take place in every possible sphere. We visualise this great danger for the continued existence of our European civilisation, and we cannot repeat this warning often enough. As a matter of fact, the whole issue turns on that point. To us it is a matter of life and death. The fact remains that by means of this clause we are creating a position under which an Indian may obtain a permit enabling him to live next-door to a European, with the result that the moral standard of the European civilisation, of a section of the European civilisation, is at once lowered. It is the highest task of every government in our country not only to protect the moral standard of the European civilisation but to do everything in its power to strengthen and to build it up as much as possible.

The hon. member is again dealing with the principle of the Bill. I am sorry, I cannot allow him to do so.

In any event that state of affairs is being created by this clause and we want to sound a note of warning in this connection, and for that reason we ask the Prime Minister so to amend this clause that it will promote the ideal condition which is advocated by this side of the House and the whole population. I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister. In making a plea to the Prime Minister one often feels that it is altogether in vain; but he must bear in mind that by means of this clause he is creating a danger which makes the future of South Africa very dark and black. If the Prime Minister has the interests and the future of our nation and country at heart, he ought to accede to our request and so amend this clause that it will bring about proper separation between European and nonEuropean and protect the European civilisation.

The power which is given to the Minister in this clause cuts two ways. In the first place, he is given the power, notwithstanding the provisions of clause’s 2, 4 and 5, to allow Indians to buy land or to occupy sites formerly belonging to Europeans, in European areas. That is the danger. But it could work satisfactorily if this provision is administered by a Minister who stands for the purity of the races. It may then have a good effect, because under the provisions in clauses 2, 4 and 5 he could then remove the Indians. This danger of an infiltration into European areas can be warded off if the Prime Minister alters this clause as suggested in the amendment which I propose to move, namely, that this power will be limited in such a way that a permit can only be issued if the person who is thereby authorised to acquire or to occupy such land is a European; that is to say, if Europeans only are enabled to acquire or to occupy land in European areas, which has been occupied by Indians up to the present. I should like to move an amendment in these terms—

If the Prime Minister will accept such an amendment, the danger that we now fear can be completely eliminated, because in that case there can be no infiltration on the part of Indians into European areas. The Prime Minister refuses to accept this. In view of that, I want to move another amendment, and I hope he will accept this amendment, at any rate. The object is to provide that where there are Indians in any European area, whether they own property or whether they have the right of occupation in a European area, and an application is made by a European to take over the property of an Indian, whether it be to acquire ownership or the right of occupation, that in such cases the Minister may not refuse to issue a permit. As the clause now reads, the Minister may make use of his powers to refuse a permit where, for example, a European in Durban applies for a permit to buy the property of an Indian in a European area. Where a European in Durban or Nylstroom applies for permission to occupy a house formerly occupied by an Indian, so that the Indian will in that way be removed from the European area, the Minister has the right under this clause to refuse a permit. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will accept the following amendment—

I move that amendment. The permit system remains, but the amendment means that if a European applies for permission to acquire or to lease or to occupy a property from an Asiatic in a European area, the Minister must issue a permit. In that way it will, at any rate, be possible to remove the Indians from European areas. The permit system remains, but the Minister will be compelled to issue a permit where the person in favour of whom the permit is to be issued is a European. I, hope the Prime Minister will appreciate the reasonableness of this amendment.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is acting on the assumption that the responsible Minister will be so unreasonable as to refuse a permit where an agreement has been entered into between a European and an Asiatic in terms of which the Asiatic will sell or lease his land to a European. That is foolish.

We have had many foolish cases where permits have been granted to Indians, thus allowing them to penetrate into European areas.

This whole debate is tantamount to an attack on my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, and expression is given to it in the amendment which has been moved here. I cannot see any reason why, when an agreement has been entered into between a European and an Asiatic that the European will buy or lease land from an Asiatic in such an area, a permit should then be refused.

You will remember that we asked you not to approve of sales where the position is reversed, and you would not accept it.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has accepted one of my amendments, even though it is the smallest of all, the substitution of the word “the” for the word “any”, but there is some substance in it, because it seems to me that that will to some extent prevent the Minister from acting independently; the adoption of this amendment will prevent it. With regard to the second amendment the use of the word “shall”, the clause itself clearly indicates and anticipates that the Minister should take these different matters into consideration, and when it says that he may take into consideration the relevant needs of the races, etc., I thought really that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, as the author of this Bill, really intended that the Minister should do it, and it seems to me to be an improvement upon his draft to say that if it was intended that he should take these matters into consideration, the words should be in the imperative form and not merely permissive. It is, I submit, an improvement on the draft as it stands, and it carries out the intention, the obvious intention I should have thought, which the Prime Minister had. With regard to the third amendment, that is really a very much more important matter, because here the question at stake is whether the report which the Board has to make shall be made public or shall be kept private. One cannot close one’s eyes now, although we have not reached this clause, to the fact that this Bill as drafted, as it stands at present, intends to set up a very heterogeneous Board. It is to consist of members of both races who are appointed by the Minister and who will hold office for a fixed time. Now, the nature of these reports on the Board will be a matter of prime interest to the public as a whole, and especially to those who take an interest on behalf of the public in the properties concerned. The Prime Minister has replied to me on this question, but he did not devote any attention to this aspect of the matter. He relied upon his draft amendment to clause 12, which does not propose to do anything of the kind. The enquiry and the report which is made will be kept entirely private. Nor is it provided in the amendment as it stands that it will be as comprehensive as the amendment proposed by me. I believe that my amendment is essential and that it will improve the Bill considerably. As regards the composition of the Board, I would just like to say firstly that I disapprove of a Board altogether. I think it would be very much better if the Minister or the Government were responsible themselves for all these decisions. The idea of the Minister sheltering or shielding behind the decision or recommendation of some Board seems to me to be a slight upon our administration. All the advice given by the Board and all the information collected by it may equally well be collected by the Minister himself and by his department, and I prefer—and I think we would have greater reliance in—an enquiry made by the Minister and his staff than in such a Board. And that is one of the reasons why we think that if this report is to be put up by the Board, it should be made public, and rendered available to all people interested. That is why my amendment says that notice shall be given of the place and time where this report may be inspected by everyone interested. I hope this amendment will be accepted.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), because in the first instance it will facilitate the administration of the Bill. Moreover there will be less danger of loopholes through which irregularities can take place, because the Minister will then know precisely what to do. As the clause now stands it is being left to his discretion. I want to come back, however, to the Prime Minister’s argument for refusing to accept this amendment. He says he does not want to accept it because he regards it as an attack on the Minister of the Interior. This legislation will be in force long after the Minister has disappeared from the scene, and different Ministers in the future will be called upon to administer the Bill. I cannot therefore accept it as a convincing argument as to why we should not vote for this amendment. I think the Prime Minister should have a reasonable excuse why he does not want to make it compulsory. If he can advance a clear and reasonable argument we shall accept it and abide by it, but he has not convinced us at all that we ought to vote against this amendment.

I hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). I think there is ample evidence that such an amendment is highly desirable. The Prime Minister will probably remember the recent case in Durban, known as the Copper Case. Now, had that information been available to the public and the reasons stated for the granting of that permit, I venture to say that that permit would never have been granted at all. I was privileged to head a deputation to the Minister of the Interior of something like 25 public men and women of Durban who were highly incensed at a permit having been granted to this Asiatic to have occupation of a house in a European area. When the Minister of the Interior was asked for reasons as to why this permit was issued he said: “Well, the granting of this permit may be right, or it may be wrong. I really do not know and I am not prepared to say that this permit should not have been granted.” And then he said: “It has been issued and what can we do about it now? I can do nothing more now. This person has been given a permit to occupy the house and nothing more can be done.” I do suggest that had the information been available to the people concerned that permit would hot have been issued and it is to avoid such cases as that happening in the future that this amendment has been drafted. Though we will have very little faith in the board we do think some precautions should be taken to prevent any friction occurring when permits may be granted in the future. The Prime Minister knows only too well the stir that was caused in Durban over that case. They went so far as to say that 200 men in that area would see that those premises were never occupied. You can issue permits but if we are not going to be consulted and told the reason for the issue of these permits, if you will not take us into your confidence in this matter, we will see that the premises are not occupied. You say what is being attempted in this Bill is to obviate friction taking place in future, and what objections there can be to this amendment I cannot for the life of me understand. All the amendment asks for is that before the Minister makes his decision the people vitally concerned in that area will be able to see the report and also tender advice to the Minister, and be able to show—as I feel sure they will—that they must not accept the recommendation of the board if the board recommends the grant of a permit. That has been the whole cause of the trouble in Durban; permits have been issued and nobody has known why. Do not the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior agree that this amendment will prevent such an incident as the one that happened in Durban quite recently? There was no board in existence at that time, merely two individuals who made some recommendation to the Minister, who said: I do not know whether the permit should have been granted or not, I was advised it should be, it may be wrong, it probably was wrong, but the permit was granted and I can do no more. This will obviate cases of the kind recurring and prevent further trouble in Durban.

First amendment, proposed by Col. Stallard, put and agreed to.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. J. G.

Strydom, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—48:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That the word “may” in line 76, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Hum phreys.

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wilkens, J.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the second amendment proposed by Col. Stallard dropped.

Remaining amendment proposed by Col. Stallard put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 9,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as printed—

1. (3) The Governor-General may, at any time within a period of twelve months after the commencement of this Chapter, in like manner excise a defined area from any area described in the Schedule, if land of not less than an equivalent acreage is simultaneously under sub-section (2) declared to be an area in respect of which the said sections do not apply.;

in line 22, after “(2)” to insert “or (3)”; in line 24, to omit “province concerned” and to substitute “said province”; and to add the following proviso at the end of sub-section (4):

Provided that any such provision which, before it lapsed, was contained in the title deed of land in an area which is excised under sub-section (3), shall revive as from the date of the excision.

I want to move the amendment which stands in my name on page 461 of the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) Parliament may declare any area in the Province of Natal to be an area in respect of which the provisions of sections two, three and four shall not apply, by amending by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Schedule referred to in sub-section (1), provided that no such amendment shall be valid unless the approval of the Administrator of the Province concerned has first been obtained.

The object of this amendment is, in the first place, to remove the difference which now exists between the Transvaal and Natal. As far as the Transvaal is concerned the position is that no new areas may be declared as prohibited areas unless it be by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As far as Natal is concerned, it will be seen that in clause 9 it is now laid down that the Governor-General is in a position to do this, and all that is necessary is that he must then consult the Administrator of Natal in the matter. I think it is important that there should be uniformity in connection with this matter. This is a very important matter. It affects the expansion of the areas which may be described as exempted areas,* and since we already have an existing position in the Transvaal, I think it would be a good thing, as far as Natal is concerned, to make the position uniform and to bring it into line with the position which has existed in the Transvaal from 1885. That is the first reason for this amendment, but there is a further reason, and that is because the existing clause gives the Government of the day the right to amend this Act. The schedule to the Act, which sets out the exempted areas, may be amended by the Government, and I feel that in placing this legislative power in the hands of the Government, it represents a serious encroachment on the rights of Parliament. Here we are giving legislative powers to what should be the executive authority. I know that there is a tendency in that direction. But I think we should try as far as possible to put a stop to that tendency on the part of the Government to assume legislative power. We are not dealing here with the ordinary case where it may be said that it does not greatly matter whether the Act will in effect be altered by the Government or not, but we are dealing here with a very important subject in giving this power to the Government. This means that in respect of the schedule the Bill may be amended without Parliament hearing about it at all or without Parliament’s approval. What is required is not even that the executive committee of the Natal Province must approve of it; all that is required is that the Governor-General, before extending this important schedule and placing new areas under the exempted areas, must consult the executive committee of Natal in that regard. It is only necessary for him to be able to say: “I have heard what the executive committee of Natal had to say in that regard.” I take it that by “Administrator” the Prime Minister means the executive committee of Natal, not the Administrator personally. I take it that the rule which is laid down in the Interpretation Act, which says that when reference is made to an Administrator, the Administrator together with the executive committee is meant, applies in this case as well. If one assumes that, it means that all that need be said here is that the Governor-General, that is to say, the Government has consulted the executive committee but no more. I do not think that is sufficient protection. Parliament is, of course, the supreme legislative authority. Parliament must be able in all cases to amend the law. It can alter the schedule to this Bill at any time in the customary manner by means of a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament, but I do not want to stipulate that in this case. I think it will be sufficient if there is a resolution by both Houses. Instead of leaving it to the Government as such, we want it to be done by means of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. But if we depart from the usual procedure to bring about such an amendment of the law other than by means of a new Act, there must be some protection, and for that reason I am moving in clause 9 that such a resolution can be passed by both Houses only if the approval of the Administrator of the province concerned has first been obtained thereto; in other words, before there can be any extension of the schedule it is necessary in the first place to have an investigation instituted by the Board. The Board must examine the position and make a recommendation. In the second place the executive committee of Natal must approve, and thirdly both Houses of Parliament must pass it. This is a fairly safe guarantee to ensure that the schedule will not be tampered with unnecessarily without giving wide publicity to the provisions of the schedule, that no new areas will be added to the schedule until such time as all three bodies have functioned and functioned properly in the matter. I do not think it can be said that we are setting aside the supreme authority of Parliament, because I ask that the approval of the provincial executive committee must first be obtained. I do not think that is the case. What I do contemplate by means of this amendment is an acknowledgment of the provincial interest in this matter, without a denial of the Parliamentary authority. The approval of both will then be necessary. We must admit that the extension of these areas indicated in the schedule is a matter of great provincial interest, but at the same time we must also recognise that Parliament is the supreme authority, and Parliament therefore can still amend the schedule by means of legislation against the will and the wishes of Natal. But if Parliament seeks to do it merely by resolution, the approval of the provincial executive committee of Natal must first be obtained. I think that is asking a very little. The only object is, as I have said, to safeguard the principle that legislative power should not be given to the Government. I am sorry that the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) is not present to lend his support on this point to my representations. Then I want to deal for a moment with the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). I just want to say that his amendment goes further than mine.

Order, order. The amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has not yet been moved. It is not yet before the Committee.

I refer to the amendment standing in his name. I am prepared to give preference to his amendment over and above the amendment I have moved, because his amendment goes further and it also gives the power to both Houses of Parliament not only to extend the schedule, but to reduce it, and I am moving my amendment as an alternative to his. If he moves his amendment and the House is not prepared to accept it, I ask the House in any case to be prepared to accept mine. My amendment simply reads that those areas which are indicated as the exempted areas may not be extended unless both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution to that effect, but I am quite agreeable, and I shall give preference to it, that the schedule may also be reduced, not only that it may be extended, but that it may also be curtailed if Parliament so decides. I move the amendment standing in my name.

I move—

1. (a) the Minister shall consult the Administrator and the Executive Committee of the Province;
2. (b) the Minister shall publish a notice in two successive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the district in which the fixed property concerned is situated, setting forth the purport of the proposed proclamation and inviting the local authority concerned and all other interested persons to make representations in favour or against the terms of the proposed proclamation on or before a date to be specified in the notice, which shall be not earlier than 30 days from the date of the first publication thereof; and
3. (c) the Minister shall take into consideration such representations, the matters which he must in terms of section eight consider, and the report made by the Board under paragraph (b) of section twelve.”

It will be convenient to the Committee to have both these amendments before it at the same time. It will be seen that to a great extent, but not all the way, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and I have covered the same ground. The amendment I propose to move, however, covers ground which I do not think it covered by his amendment, and it will be convenient if I state now what my amendment proposes to do. The clause in question deals with the setting aside of exempted areas, where there may be competition between members of both races in obtaining ownership and occupation of a property there situated. The setting aside of these areas is of the first importance, and under the Bill it is of a two-fold character, firstly, in respect of the areas already set aside in the schedule—and it is proposed to set aside these at once—in respect of two areas enquiries have been made for setting aside fresh areas. The object of the amendment moved by me is to prevent the immediate operation of the setting aside of these areas in the schedule, to prevent this immediate automatic action, and to wait until a proclamation has been issued after proper enquiry before these areas mentioned in the schedule are set aside, and to give an opportunity for the expression of objections in respect thereof. That is one object. The other object I had in view in drafting this amendment is to secure that before any fresh area is set aside there shall be not merely an enquiry, but that the matter shall be brought before Parliament. In this I am entirely at one with the hon. member for Fauresmith. We both entirely agree upon this, that Parliament should be the forum in which the setting aside of new areas shall take place. The Bill as it stands, in that respect, seems to me to go very far indeed in giving powers to the Minister after what is merely a private enquiry as to the pros and cons, and the people who enjoy property today and who attach considerable value to their property may find that their property is suddenly included in these areas. This may effect very materially indeed the value of their property. It seems to me that this is very high handed action indeed, and if it becomes necessary to set aside some fresh area, assuming that we are going to accept something like this Bill in the form in which the Committee has already approved of it, in those circumstances we recognise that fresh areas will have to be set aside. Now, before other areas are set aside I submit that there must be the fullest enquiry, with opportunities to all to lodge objections and opportunities for consultation by public bodies, and finally, the determination should rest in the hands of Parliament by resolution of both Houses. Therefore, what I propose in my amendment here is this, that the declaration shall not be issued and the setting aside shall not take place unless the following requirements have been fulfilled. I refer to consultation. The Minister shall consult the Administrator and Executive Committee of the province. I included the Executive Committee because I am not quite clear whether under the law the Administrator necessarily has to consult with and attain the approval of the Executive Committee, and therefore as a precaution it is desirable also to include the Executive Committee. Secondly, I propose that the Minister shall publish a notice for two successive weeks in the newspapers as to the proposed proclamation and invite all interested people concerned to make representations. I hope I have made the object of my amendments quite clear. Let me say that there is a very great feeling of resentment at the setting aside of these particular areas without the persons affected having had an opportunity to make representations about it. From my own constituency I have had the strongest possible representations made and a petition with a very large number of signatures attached to it was lodged with me against the inclusion of a certain district in the exempted area. If this Bill takes effect in its present form there will be no possibility of those inhabitants having their objections heard. The areas now scheduled were settled, I understand, with the greatest secrecy. No-one was informed before the Bill was published and the maps disclosed that that particular area was going to be included, and still less did they know what the operation of the Act would be. The amendments I propose will have the effect that all the proclamation issued will have to be published and an opportunity given, after hearing representations, for altering or amending them. If that is necessary now in respect of the areas already set aside in the schedule, is it not much more necessary that a similar enquiry and a determination by Parliament should take place before any fresh area is set aside? A resolution of the two Houses of Parliament could be easily taken. I am not asking in this amendment for a fresh Act of Parliament. I am proposing here a very reasonable procedure, the holding of an enquiry and getting a determination which is backed by a resolution of the two Houses of Parliament. [Time limit]

I should like to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and in this connection I should like to point out that there are two definite principles contained in it, practically the same as those contained in the previous two amendments, namely, that the Administrator of the province should be consulted. I feel that the Administrator of the province is the person who is acquainted with the facts, particularly as far as’ the Asiatic question is concerned, and I do not think anyone in the House will be opposed to, the retention of a provision that is already in the Bill before us, namely, that he will be consulted before any steps are taken in connection with the exempted areas. During the past few days we have seen how dangerous it is to leave such important principles in the hands of the Minister or of the Government. This power under clause 9 constitutes a danger if left in the hands of a Minister. It may result in’ his actions being severely criticised and condemned in Parliament, which is the proper body to whom such an important principle should be entrusted. As the position is at present under the Bill, and more specifically under clause 9, it is being left to the Government, that is to say, the Govemor-General-in-Council to establish the exempted areas, exclusive of course of the northern districts of Natal, for the exclusion of which I am responsible. It is a power which has such far-reaching implications that in my opinion —and here lies the difference between my amendment and the other two amendments —it should as far as practicable be in the hands of Parliament. Except in the areas stipulated in the schedule, of course, it is a matter of urgency to fix the exempted areas, and if we are to wait until Parliament assembles before fixing those areas, it may lead to great inconvenience, particularly as far as the Asiatic section of the population is concerned. It is for that reason that I am leaving aside the question of the establishment of the first areas by proclamation, but thereafter I should like the establishment of new areas to be left in the hands of Parliament, that is to say, both Houses of Parliament. That is the difference, and I think in practice it will be much better than the two amendments which have already been moved. In principle these two amendments do not conflict with my amendment, but I think in practice, since expedition is required, my amendment is much more effective. I therefore move—

1. (3) No proclamation shall be issued—
   1. (a) under sub-section (2) or (3) unless the Minister has consulted the Administrator of the said province; or
   2. (b) under sub-section (2) except with the prior approval, by resolution, of both Houses of Parliament, unless, in the case of any such proclamation in respect of any area within any municipal area (other than a municipal area within which any area or any portion of any area described in the Schedule is situated) it is the first proclamation having reference to that municipal area, or unless it is a proclamation issued for the purpose of sub-section (3).

I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). The difference between his amendment and that moved by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) is that in the case of the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid it is intended that none of the precautions called for in the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) shall be applied to the scheduled or exempted areas coloured red in the diagrams accompanying the Bill. The amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) requires that all those areas, including those coloured red on the maps, shall be subject to the same procedure, that objections shall be called for and that every opportunity shall be given for discussion of the suitability or desirability of these areas being set aside as exempted areas. In other words, none of the red areas shall be considered as final. In view of what has happened in the selection of these red areas, the secrecy with which that was done makes it imperative that people should have an opportunity to offer their objections, because I am informed on the very best authority possible that these areas were marked on the maps by a firm which was sworn to secrecy in regard to these markings; that everyone employed there was prohibited from disclosing to any living soul what areas were being marked out. Now, that is the very reverse of the proposal made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). His amendment requires that before these areas are included in the schedules the procedure of calling for objections shall be gone through and that every feature of publicity contained in his amendment shall be followed. The Administrator and the executive committee shall be consulted; notices shall be issued in the newspapers circulating in these areas calling for objections or support in relation to the proposed areas. Compared with the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid, the amendment of the latter becomes ridiculous, if he will excuse my saying so. It simply means that for the future the most perfunctory procedure shall be followed. No specific terms are laid down by the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid in regard to the nature of the notices drawing attention to this matter, and we shall find these areas being approved of before any objections can be lodged. The greatest possible care must be taken to invite persons who own these properties to lodge objection to their properties being included in the infected area, as I call it, before that fatal action is taken. It means the severance of these people from their homes, possibly from the places where they were born. Otherwise they will have to sit still and see, that with the speed of lightning, and before they have any opportunity to protest, their properties will be included in the exempted areas. Personally I should have preferred that a separate Act of Parliament should be passed whenever a further crop of exemptions may be contemplated, because they are bound to occur with the appointment of a Board such as is proposed by the Minister. I am opposed to the Board, I am opposed to the slackness and the slovenliness with which these areas are going to be permitted to be proclaimed. I am therefore in favour of the greater precautions proposed by the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). They represent the minimum precautions that should be observed, and I hope this House will indicate its support, and that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will realise the reasonableness of this being done. After all, this House is engaged in a process which may rob thousands of people of their homes, which they may be required to evacuate in face of the flood of penetration that will drive them from their homes and the homes of their forefathers. This is no light matter. It may be regarded as a light matter by hon. members sitting here in comfort and legislating in a way that may affect people who regard their homes as the most precious possessions they have in the world.

Is that why they sell them?

That is not the case; in many instances they are to be robbed even of the opportunity of getting a fair price for them should they be compelled to sell; they can only get the lowest possible prices.

Penetration can only come if some European is prepared to sell.

The hon. member lives in another province, and is entirely out of sympathy or understanding with those who see their homes going. Many of these Europeans have been driven out by the action of some contemptible person who began selling because he possibly had some affinity with an Asiatic, or was offered a great inducement, or sellers have had to succumb because their position was rendered intolerable by the presence of conditions that could not be endured any longer; and it is no use trying to deflect my argument by a futile objection. I am dealing with a class, with the deserving people of Natal who are going to be compelled to be included in these exempted areas. The anti-Asiatic clauses which their forefathers left by their wills to protect them are thrown aside by this compulsory method of stripping them of the very death-bed wish of their fathers that the property should belong to the heirs and descendants in perpetuity. Without being willing to sell, they are being made to part with their property in conflict with the will of their fathers, and in hundreds of cases the anti-Asiatic servitude derives from the written will of the father. That land has been left a legacy to them, and to many of them it is regarded as sanctified by the wish of their father that they should continue to have possession of that land, and that it should not be permitted to pass into the hands of Indians. Now this Bill is coming along today and saying, “That is all nonsense, you have to get out or suffer the consequences.” No alternative is offered these people, and the least we can do is to call for objections, to call for their representations, and never on any occasion, even the present occasion should we agree to an area becoming an exempted area unless it is done by resolution of this House. [Time limit.]

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 492; it is an amendment to the Prime Minister’s amendment—

Provided that any such provision contained in the title deed of land situated in an area described in the Schedule shall not lapse until the expiration of a period of twelve months after the commencement of this Chapter and then only if such land is not situated in an area excised under sub-section (3).

In moving that amendment, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his amendment, because it completely answers the case made out by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), but my difficulty is that if the House were to accept the Prime Minister’s amendment in toto there may be some serious anomalies. The Committee will agree that once this Act is passed all anti-Asiatic clauses that exist in regard to properties in a scheduled area will lapse. The Prime Minister has provided that application can be made and the Governor-General can excise certain properties from these areas. But the difficulty is that though the application for the property to be excised may be successful, in the interim period the Act will have nullified the anti-Asiatic clauses. The Prime Minister in his amendment provides that the anti-Asiatic clause shall be reinstated. But in the interim period some Europeans, by virtue of the fact that the anti-Asiatic clause has been removed, may sell their property and then on the excision being made effective you will have the position that an Indian will be living in a property which is subject to an anti-Asiatic clause on account of the anti-Asiatic clause being reinstated. That is a serious position to arise. The Indian will be in possession of this property in conflict with the law, or he will have to be made to evacuate it. My amendment provides that the title deeds of land situated in any of these areas shall not lapse for a period of 12 months. I mention 12 months because it is the principle that evidently the Prime Minister has accepted in his amendment, and I believe if the Rt. Hon. gentleman will accept my amendment no serious anomalies will be created during the interim period.

I wish to move a short amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) —

The only difference between my amendment and the other is that we both feel that when any new area is proclaimed it should be with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The hon. member for Vryheid stipulates unless it is the first proclamation”. I say: No, if the proclamation is issued after three years it must be by both Houses of Parliament. One feels there is not likely to be a proclamation within two or three years after this Act is passed. It may be fifteen years before we have a change. …

What a babe in the wood.

It should be both Houses of Parliament who would give the decision.

I think it may be useful to the House if I refer to the clause as it stands here and as it is affected by my amendments and the amendments proposed by some of the other hon. members. The clause as it stands declares in the first place that the areas in the schedule to this Bill are exempted areas and that they will therefore be exempted, free areas, without further proclamation by Parliament and without further enquiry. I shall come presently to the additional clauses but I am keeping now to the areas mentioned in the schedule. They will be exempted areas in terms of the Act without any further to do. In this I follow the procedure we adopted in the case of the native Bills. In the case of the native Bills an enquiry was held by the Beaumont Commission which established the areas that should become native areas, and the subsequnt legislation, without further enquiry or action by Parliament, adopted those areas and made them native areas, just as here we are making the areas in the schedule exempted areas. The areas in the schedule have been enquired into. They have been enquired into by the Broome Commission and also by the Mitchell Commission, the Postwar Works Commission thereafter, and the areas inserted in the schedule are based on these enquiries of these two commissions. We take them and we put them into the schedule and we declare them to be free areas, exempted areas under this Bill. It was found in dealing with the native legislation that there should be some opening for amendment of these native areas so settled, and provision was made in the native legislation that the opening should be reserved to make changes, to excise areas from the schedule, provided that other areas of equal size and value are substituted for them. That was the procedure adopted in the case of the native Bills. The areas set out by the Beaumont Commission were passed by Act of Parliament, but an opening was made in the Act that these areas could be altered on further enquiry and that certain excisions could be made provided there was substituted areas of equal size and value. Hon. members will see I have moved an amendment which provides for these means of excision and substitution. I am simply following the procedure of the Native Acts. There will be this power of making excisions and substituting further areas. It is quite impossible for this House, for Parliament, to enquire into the details of these schedules. The details deal with a large number of properties and areas, and it is quite impossible for us to deal with them. We must have this power of excision and substitution after proper enquiry, just as was done in the case of the native legislation, and that is done here. I think that this step will overcome a lot of the difficulty which is felt. I see a number of amendments to the schedule. It is quite impossible for us to amend the schedules here. We have no power—we have no means of doing it.

We have the power.

Theoretically yes, but it is not a practical step; it is not practical in Committee to deal with these schedules. They must be properly enquired into as they will be under my amendment, by the board, which will make recommendations to the Government, and thereafter the excision or the addition will take place which the Board recommends. I think that is the proper procedure to follow, as it was followed in the case of the Native Acts. So much for the schedule. We need not go into the amendments to the schedule. They will be considered at the proper time in the way I have described. The schedule only includes exempted areas in respect of Durban, Maritzburg partly, Port Shepstone and Glencoe, but of course there are a number of other towns in Natal in regard to which the Broome Commission could not make enquiries, and they have made no recommendations. We had no guidance at all there, but it is clear in regard to these two towns it may also be necessary to set aside exempted areas. The provision in this Bill is that the Government can take action there, but the action shall be through the Board. Immediately after this Bill is passed we shall appoint the Board. The Board will go into these cases of new exempted areas in respect of these other towns that have not yet been dealt with by the Broome Commission. They will make enquiries, they will make recommendations to the Government, and, according to the Bill, the Government will act thereon and the Governor-General will declare them to be exempted areas. In that connection the question arises whether Parliament should not deal with those cases, whether some action by Parliament either by way of resolution or otherwise would not be called for before such additional areas are set aside, and it is with this point that the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid deals. The amendments moved by the hon. members for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) require Parliamentary intervention, in respect of these new exempted areas to be created in regard to other towns not dealt with in the Bill. In that respect the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) has moved his amendment, which draws a distinction between the two cases. The first case is that of all these towns where exempted areas for Indians and others can be set aside, and provides that in the first selection so made it should not be necessary for Parliament to intervene, they should be approved as a matter of course. To this the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) has moved an amendment to the effect that Parliament should not intervene in first selections, that is, in the first areas set aside in regard to these other towns; but in the second case we should intervene after a period of years, say three years. Those cases that are settled after enquiry by the Board and action of the Government should not come before Parliament. Those are cases that may be considered on a par with cases in the schedules, and they should be dealt with after enquiry by the Board. They should be dealt with by the Government, and the Governor-General will proclaim them as exempted areas, and of course the Provincial Administrations will be consulted. But in respect of other areas which may be set aside in future—there may be additional areas which in the course of time may become necessary to be set aside as exempted areas—Parliament will intervene. The first areas to be set aside do not require the intervention of Parliament. The examination by the Board and the action of the Government would suffice. But in regard to future expansions which may have to be acquired, in these cases Parliament should intervene, and the action of Parliament will become necessary. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that on the whole I like these amendments. Parliamentary intervention should not be called for in the first instance, in the first areas that are set aside, because I must confess frankly that I am afraid there will be great difficulty in getting these areas through Parliament in future. There are signs of great reluctance to set aside any areas which are necessary, and with the difficulties surrounding Parliamentary action, I myself think that these first selections to be made during the next three years ought not to come before Parliament, but should be dealt with by the Government after proper enquiry, and I therefore give my blessing, for what it is worth, to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid, as amended again by the hon. member for Paarl. The result will be that in the future these exempted areas will come to Parliament for ratification but in regard to the immediate period before the House, Parliament need not intervene. I think that is fair, and I recommend it to the Committee.

Is that time limitation sufficient?

Yes, it is expected that within three years this Board ought to be able to deal with the remaining cases not yet dealt with by the Broome Commission. This Commission cannot get these areas into the schedule, but it is anticipated that three years will be a proper period for the Board to investigate these towns, and recommend the exempted areas in respect of them.

There is another amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) which I think is also an improvement. Hon. members will see that I have added a proviso at the end of section 4, which deals with the question of reservations on the title deeds, and it is laid down there that in respect of those exempted areas the reservations on the title deeds shall lapse. There would be no sense in continuing with the reservations in the title deeds in respect of these exempted or free areas where anyone may live. I have put a proviso in this form—

This proviso deals with the case of excisions, which I have referred to, and it is quite clear that these discriminatory reservations should go, because they are now taken out of the schedule, and if they are taken out of the schedule, they should be lapsed. The whole position should be restored in toto, and this proviso which I have moved, and to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has moved an amendment will provide for that. His amendment reads as follows—

On the whole I am inclined to think that the amendment of my hon. friend is preferable to the phrasing of mine, and I therefore recommend it to the attention of the Committee. Well, I hope I have made the position clear, Mr. Chairman. There will be the Schedule which now becomes law, but with the reservation that excisions can be made from the Schedule after proper enquiry, and also provided that equally suitable areas are set aside.

Within twelve months.

Yes. With regard to new areas, these will be set aside after due enquiry by the Board and proclaimed by the Government—after consulting the Provincial Administrations, and the first areas set aside, those that have not yet been investigated by the Broome Commission, will not require parliamentary ratification. But any extended areas will necessitate the intervention of Parliament to approve such areas. I have as far as possible followed the procedure which we adopted in regard to the Native Bills. It is quite impossible for us here in Parliament to deal with the Schedule by way of amendment. The Schedule can be properly enquired into, and we have, by the constitution of the Board, provided for such enquiry. I have tried to follow that procedure and principle as far as possible, and I now move that the clause, with the amendments which I have proposed, and the amendments I accept of the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Durban (Point) be put to the Committee.

I take it that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister withdraws his amendments to sub-sections (3) and (4).

Yes.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by the Prime Minister on sub-sections (3) and (4) were withdrawn.

I have listened with surprise to the reasons the Prime Minister advanced why he cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard), namely, that Parliament must give its assent before new areas can be established as exempted areas under clause 9.

Yes, the first areas.

I am dealing with the first: the other is of less importance. May I ask the Prime Minister why this difference is being made between the Transvaal and Natal? In the Transvaal there is provision both in existing legislation and in the present Bill to proclaim areas where Asiatics may become the owners of land, but in regard to the Transvaal the decision rests with Parliament. In the Transvaal the Government cannot simply determine Indian areas where Indians can buy land.

But the law in regard to fixed property was entirely different in the Transvaal.

But the idea of areas under clause 9 is to give Indians an opportunity to buy land in Natal, and hon. members on the other side represent it as if the areas eventually will become Indian areas.

They have this right now.

In the Transvaal such areas can only be created if both Houses of Parliament decide on it.

Because the Indians did not have the right before in the Transvaal. They have it now in Natal. It is an entirely different case.

But the fact is that in the Transvaal it is regarded in such a serious light, this throwing open to Indians of land belonging to white people, it is such a momentous matter, that it may not be done unless both Houses of Parliament approve. And now we come together and the Government here assumes the power of its own free will to take a portion of Natal and give it to the Indians. Under the provisions of this clause the Government could eventually give the whole of Natal to the Indians.

No.

Is it possible?

When I listen to the Minister of Finance all things are possible, and if I follow aright the pliable and compliant member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) all things are possible to him as well. This is the implication here. I have mentioned the case of the Transvaal. Now the Prime Minister gives as an illustration the Native Trust and Land Act. He says he is following that example, but that is not true. He is only following the basis of the Native Trust and Land Act in so far as it pertains to exchange. The Native Trust and Land Act, 1936, lays down that the Government can exchange land in exempted areas or in native areas for land of the same extent and value, but the Native Trust and Land Act nowhere lays down that the Government, apart from exchange, may proclaim new areas as native areas. There is no such provision in the Native Trust and Land Act. Such a thing can only happen if Parliament decides to make further areas available to the natives, because in the Native Trust and Land Act not only are native areas and exempted areas defined, but the extent of the land is laid down in that Act. Consequently it is not correct for the Prime Minister to say that he is simply following the basis that was laid down in the Native Trust and Land Act. I maintain that to give to Indians today land that belongs to Europeans in Natal is of such high importance that the representatives of the people must be informed of it and they must decide on it. It is not that I am averse to your giving certain areas to the Indians in Natal. On the contrary, it is our policy to effect complete separation as between Europeans and Indians. But to leave it to the free will of this Government to give land in Natal to Indians, and that in such a manner that Asiatics and Europeans can buy in a mixed way time and again, I say this is such a drastic measure that it may not be left in the hands of the Government. That power must be in the hands of Parliament. Consequently I hope that that power of Parliament will not be taken away from it. Here the power of Parliament is being taken out of its hands. The ratification of Parliament is being asked in respect of the first territories that appear in the schedule, but if subsequently the Government wish to give any areas to the Indians, it can do so without Parliament having any say, and it is to combat that dangerous position that the hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) have put these amendments. Let me turn for a moment to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid, which the Prime Minister will accept. What does the hon. member’s amendment say? As amended by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure), an amendment that was accepted by the Prime Minister, it now comes down to this: When an area has to be given to the Indians in Natal for the first time it is not necessary for Parliament to give the approval. But that is most dangerous. Should that area later on be expanded the Prime Minister will come to Parliament. But that is less important. More dangerous is the initial determination of new areas because the Government has the power to paint Natal completely red from one end to the other, and it wants to have a free hand to do this; it does not want to do so under the control of this Parliament. As I have stated, the amendment that the Prime Minister has now accepted is a highly dangerous amendment because the most serious harm can be done in just that way, by the first proclamation of new areas. This is a dangerous position. I hope therefore that this House will not agree to this power being taken out of its hands. What is now proposed represents an absolute encroachment on the whites and the powers of Parliament and the Prime Minister gave his reasons why he is taking the power out of the hands of Parliament. He let the cat out of the bag. Have hon. members paid attention to what he said as to why he would not place this in the hands of Parliament, or rather why he is taking the power out of the hands of Parliament? His reason is that great difficulties will be experienced in inducing Parliament to approve of such measures. Because he realises there will be great opposition should areas be allocated to the Indians in an injudicious way, he wishes to take it out of the hands of Parliament. Have hon. members heard why the Prime Minister wishes to take it out of the hands of Parliament?

The same thing was done in connection with the native legislation.

I have just said that in connection with native trust land no such power was given to the Government. The only power that was given was the power to exchange but no power was given to the Government to determine new areas in respect of native trust lands.

There was the enquiry by the Beaumont Commission.

But the fact remains that Parliament did not regard their enquiry as final and that the Act made provision for exchange, but no power was accorded the Government to proclaim new areas. Certain limits were imposed. New areas could not be defined by the Government. If new areas had to be fixed the Government had to come to Parliament. But now the Prime Minister wants to give the Government the right to extend the Indian area as it chooses from day to day, and that is not fair towards the Europeans of Natal. I hope that the Prime Minister will give in on this point and that he will realise the reasonableness of this amendment that proposes to allow the power to remain in the hands of Parliament. This is nothing else than right and proper towards the European inhabitants of Natal.

I would like to express my alarm at the decision of the Prime Minister to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). I have already expressed my attitude to the whole of this measure. And I had an idea that the Prime Minister himself was not too happy about it, hence I was satisfied that he was not prepared to make this Bill any worse than it was when it came to the House. But the amendment accepted this afternoon will definitely in my opinion aggravate the worst features of this Bill. The Prime Minister put into the Bill that additions may be made to the areas exempted from the provisions of the Bill by consultation with the Administrator. He has now agreed to limit that by suggesting an amendment about the range of which I am not quite clear, since it is a combination of what was proposed by the hon. member for Vryheid, and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). As I understand it, open areas, which will be established in the course of the next three years, will be exempted from Parliamentary endorsement. I gathered that the Prime Minister believes that all the remaining areas which the Commission is authorised to enquire into can be decided upon and scheduled within three years. He may be right about that, but when that is done we are now going to accept in this amendment a further limitation upon the possibilities of establishing areas which will be open to Asiatic settlement. In this matter, of course, my approach is entirely the opposite of that of the hon. member for Waterberg (J. G. Strydom), but it is supported by the Prime Minister’s statement which was quoted by the hon. member for Waterberg when he said that to put such matters to this House would lead to endless difficulty. The Prime Minister himself foresees endless difficulty in getting initial schedules for areas for Asiatic settlement through this House. I may say that the Prime Minister there speaks from long and deep experience of what happened in regard to the native areas. He is there facing one of the problems of this Bill which I raised in the second reading debate, the problem of ever getting Europeans to decide upon areas which shall be open to occupation or purchase by the people whose rights are limited by this legislation. No-one who has been associated with the work of the native trust will deny the difficulties of that situation. To get any European community to agree to the release of an area for occupation or ownership by a non-European group whose rights are limited by this type of legislation is a Herculean task. We saw what happened in this House in regard to the Feetham resolutions in respect of the Transvaal. They were introduced and at once opposed and they never got through this House at all. That is what will happen if we leave this question of the extension of open areas to the endorsement of this House. I am saying here, with the weight of my experience behind me, that if we want to do any measure of justice that is possible within the framework of an Act of this kind, we can only do it if we are prepared to leave the responsibility to the Administrative officials to whom you are proposing to give the authority to investigate the circumstances. They will have the responsibility of investigating the reasonable needs of the Asiatic population. They will already be hampered by having to get the approval of the Administrator who will be extremely sensitive to European provincial opinion—and as if that is not going to be a difficult enough method of getting extensions to these schedules, it is now proposed that the approval of this House must be obtained also, and we know what the results of that will be. Every proposals made, presumably on the basis of careful consideration, when it is put before this House, will become a battle ground of conflicting European interests. There is no hope, in my opinion, of doing any justice to the community who are our wards under this Bill if we are going to throw them into the political arena every time they need more room for their legitimate needs. I hope very sincerely that the Prime Minister will reconsider his decision in regard to these amendments which he has indicated that he might accept. I think that if he accepts them he will be going back on the stand he has so far taken in this Bill. I hope that he will stand by what he said and not make the position any worse. The need to obtain the approval of Parliament will lead to endless trouble and will definitely create continuous political friction every time this issue is raised. The situation is not the same as in regard to the Native Land Acts. There the amount of land is already defined and all that is necessary is that where you are taking away parts of what was the old native reserves you have to come to Parliament in order to guarantee the substitution of areas which are of equal value, and we know how that works. We know how it worked last year in the case of one area, Makoba’s location. There is no guarantee of justice in this provision. As a matter of fact, I was also alarmed by the Prime Minister’s own amendment in regard to the possibilities of excision. I see that the Prime Minister himself is proposing that areas may be excised from the existing schedules, and alternative areas put into their place. I should have liked to see the addition of one phrase—“areas of equal economic value”. We succeeded in getting this sort of provision introduced in the Native Land Acts in regard to native land, that land of equal value to the native community should be substituted for any land it was proposed to take away. In this regard, the economic value of the land is more important than its acreage. In dealing with this question, we have to bear in mind the economic development of the Indian population, and their economic development tends to follow two lines which are different from those of the natives. One is market gardening, and the other is trading. For both these purposes, it is important that their land should be situated near areas inhabited by Europeans. I can understand the intention of the Prime Minister’s amendment, but I think that the Prime Minister should consider this aspect of the matter. But in regard to this other question of land to be added for future Indian occupation and purchase, I think the Prime Minister will be making the gravest mistake if in the final draft of this Bill he accepts the amendments put up by the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Paarl.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister to go back in his mind to the question of the scheduled areas. The significance and importance of solely by this Act declaring that these red areas are exempted areas is far-reaching. I gather that the Prime Minister is not prepared to reconsider that, except for the promise of the amendment which he is moving, that within a period of 12 months the Governor-General may excise some portion of this area if a corresponding area, corresponding in acreage, is transposed. I take it that the fact that the Prime Minister is moving that amendment shows that he is alive to the very grave character of the legislation which he is introducing to deprive people of well-established rights without them being heard, and indeed that is of such an outstanding character that I do not think anyone in Parliament, or out of it, can avoid seeing it. Starting, therefore, from the point of view that the Prime Minister thinks that there should be some remedy for that, I wish to put this to him and the Committee: the proposal he makes is no remedy at all. Who is to set this machinery in motion? Take, for example, some occupier of some house in some street in any town. The obligation is thrown upon him, who is the owner of the house, an ordinary householder, to put in motion the machinery which is going to get the Governor-General, which means the Cabinet advising the Governor-General, to excise this particular piece of ground and at the same time to substitute some other piece of grond. That is the obligation thrown on the householder. It is a duty which he cannot discharge. The ordinary householder could not discharge that duty. I do not know how the small householder can possibly be expected not only to put up reasons of such a comprehensive character as would lead the Governor-General-in-Council to excise his particular holding and at the same time to mobilise information which would justify the Governor-General in substituting some other area.

That has repeatedly happened in the Native Acts.

The Prime Minister is now comparing a farm in a country district with the property of an ordinary householder in an urban area. I do not think that the one can be cited as an illustration of how the other would be affected. I think my point is correct, and that it should be clear that it is beyond the capacity of the ordinary householder to satisfy the conditions which would lead to the Governor-General exercising his power. He cannot do so. It would have to be done by a municipality or an association, an organised group with considerable power and with funds at their disposal to obtain advice, to make plans, and to get valuations, etc. No individual householder could possibly do it. The householder would have to move his municipality and try to get them to take it up, and the difficulties in the way of an individual or even two or three of them doing that is overwhelming. It would be a great exception if it ever happened. I wish to stress this fact very much, that the whole machinery which the Prime Minister is putting forward as a remedy throws the onus on the wrong person. Under the amendment of the Prime Minister, ground privately owned can be put into the exempted areas and the onus is thrown on the owner of the ground to prove that his land should not go into that area and that there is some other ground which should go in in its place. Why throw that onus upon the unfortunate individual who is a plot holder in a particular street? The Prime Minister knows, as all of us who have had anything to do with public affairs know, that the onus of proof is a point of tremendous importance, and if the onus lies on one side or the other it often renders the other side incapable of proceeding further with the matter. I appeal to the Prime Minister in the remedy which he has proposed to what he recognises is a real point of difficulty, and not to put the onus on the wrong party. In the amendment which I am proposing the onus is put on the other party. A proposal is made, but anyone who wishes to object, or any body of people, can raise an objection, and before the ground is put into the exempted area there has to be an enquiry, a discussion and consideration of the objections of every individual concerned. Surely that puts the onus of proof upon the Government which is proposing to take this action, and is that not right? I say that first of all to say: “We are putting your ground into this exempted area where your anti-Asiatic clause goes by the Board and where anyone may buy and sell freely, and you have to prove your case,” is wrong. Surely that cannot be justified. I shall deal with the point I was discussing when interrupted by the time limit, that opinion is very widespread and intense. I believe many members of Parliament have received this telegram from the Dutch Reformed Church, which reads as follows—

The Dutch Reformed Church as compared with any single individual is a very powerful body. They may be able to get the excision. But if they are able to do it, surely a poor person should not be prevented from doing it because he cannot face up to the enormous onus he is called on to discharge and which is necessary before the Prime Minister’s machinery can be brought into operation. I have a petition signed by a very large number of my constituents in Maritzburg, protesting most strongly against the inclusion of this area of Mountain Rise. Why should that area be put in without the residents being consulted or having an opportunity of putting their case before the Minister? ETime limit.]

I did not think that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister would accept amendments to the Bill, other than his own, which were on the Order Paper after the Bill had passed the second reading. Apparently, however, when the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) comes along, the Prime Minister feels moved to accept his amendment. I cannot allow this particular amendment to go through without adding my protests to those which have already been voiced against its acceptance. What will this amendment involve in practice so far as any additions to these exempted areas are concerned after the first determinations have been made? It would involve this: that however carefully a matter may be enquired into, however full the evidence that may be heard, for and against, by a Board whose duty it is to enquire into these matters, however strong the merits of the case that may be established, nevertheless the finding that is arrived at can be undone by this House; that is the proposal which is involved in this amendment. Quite apart from practical experience of similar legislative provisions which I, at all events, have had, I want to present to this Committee this general contention, that where you have an issue to be decided by enquiry and on evidence, this House of Parliament is not the proper body to discharge the function of decision. That is what lies at the whole root of distinction between a legislative body, which this House is, and a judicial body such as the Supreme Court Bench or the Magistrate’s Court. There was a time in the bad old days when Parliament did discharge —it was not so in this country, but in the country from which our parliamentary institutions were derived — when Parliament did attempt to exercise functions which in their fundamental character were judicial. The name of “impeachment”, the memory of that phrase, recalls how Parliament, though formed on different lines to any judicial or quasi-judicial body, was called upon to pronounce on the rights of individuals. What is the purpose of giving any power to extend exempted areas? It is to meet the expanding needs of a community. To meet needs which cannot be foreseen today. And that is why I do value the preservation of some element of elasticity in matters of this kind. Once that is admitted, that there is need for the reconsideration of the exempted areas from time to time, it seems to me that the needs of the community affected should be considered on evidence and a decision given on evidence. Admittedly, the Minister, advised by this Board, will not discharge what are strictly judicial functions in the sense that the Supreme Court does, but he will discharge quasi-judicial functions, and in an age when more and more functions affecting the individual are relegated by Parliament to quasi-judicial bodies, it is all the more important that these quasi-judicial bodies should be placed by the House in a position to make an independent decision uninfluenced by other than the merits of the case in the matters that come before them. That is the principle which is at stake in the acceptance by the Prime Minister of this amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid. I want to return to my original contention, that any House of Parliament—not this particular House composed of members sitting here at the present time—any House of Parliament anywhere is unfit to discharge functions of a judicial or quasi-judicial character. And why must that be so? Because the vast majority of the members of the House, from the very nature of the duties that fall on them and their duty to their constituents, from the character and composition of Parliament, cannot know the merits of the case and cannot be in a position to decide. My mind also goes back to the case which was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), when there was a question of the excision of a certain native area, the case of Makoba’s Location. A vote was given by the House which, except for one or two members—like the hon. member sitting over there who is a member of the Native Affairs Commission—really knew nothing about the history or the merits of that particular matter. I cannot stress that point too strongly. The only protection this community can have under machinery such as is proposed in this Bill is that protection which comes from the impartial investigation into the merits of the particular case and the particular locality concerned; and to vest in Parliament the right to undo the results of that investigation, I submit, is a virtual withdrawal of that protection to which I have referred. So far as the amendment relating to the revival of anti-Asiatic servitudes is concerned, it seems to me tantamount to saying that the property owner in an exempted area, if there is an anti-Asiatic servitude on his property, should on that account have a claim to excision. If land subject to an anti-Asiatic servitude was originally included in the area, presumably it was included with good reason. I do want to stress, however, that my main objection, as I have stated, is to this attempt to confer on Parliament quasi-judicial functions. I remember the case, soon after I came to this House, when an attempt was made by the late Mr. Stuttaford, then Minister of the Interior, to induce the House to accept what were known popularly as the Feetham Resolutions, by which a certain number of stands recommended by the Feetham Commission for exemption from the Gold Law were to be exempted. Mr. Stuttaford put the case, and the hon. member for Fordsburg, then Mr. Schoeman, at that time an enthusiastic supporter of the United Party … [Time limit.]

I should like to follow up the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in respect of the amendment proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister. It is not often I find my thoughts running parallel to those of the hon. member for Cape Eastern, but on this occasion it is a case of “twin souls with but a single thought”. It is in reference to the passage where it is suggested that acreage should be exchanged for acreage. I foresee a great danger in that, in fact it is almost an impossibility. One would have a board suggesting that a certain area should be exchanged for another area perhaps five miles away. The one area may be worth £500 and the other may be worth £5,000. I earnestly suggest to the right hon. gentleman he makes an addition to his amendment of clause 9 to the effect that not only acreage but value should be taken into account. I suggest that is a reasonable amendment to the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and I hope he will agree to it.

I should like to say that I feel the point put forward by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), looked at from an impartial point of view, is unanswerable. If we are going to enter into this question of limiting further exemptions, whether today or in three years’ time, if we are going to limit the possibilities of exemption as the needs may grow by providing for every case having to come to this House, it means that we are putting an end at the end of three years to the very conditions laid down in the clause of the Bill which provides for certain things being taken into consideration. We know by practice that in every instance, whether it be municipalities or other public bodies, where an attempt is made to establish a certain area for non-European people, the Europeans in that particular area exert so much pressure upon their member, whatever may be his Views, that he is forced to give in. So it means there will be no possibility of the provision-bad as it is—which has now been accepted in the Bill being improved and extended in time; if anything, it will become worse and more restricted. And I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister, when he reconsiders the position, as I hope he will, will realise if he is going to start accepting amendments of a limiting nature from here, there and everywhere that the administration of this Bill will become more difficult than it will be under its present form and he is likely to tear up the principle he has accepted in this Bill and which many of us have unwillingly accepted. I hope he will reconsider the position from the point of view of considering the possibility of retaining the clause as it stands and not throwing the onus on a legislative body to become an administrative and investigating body.

I Should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Maritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). I give preference to his amendment and next to that of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). I do this because those amendments make for a simplification of the whole position and for securing greater uniformity in our legislation. Why should a difference always be made between province and province? I do so in the second place because those amendments are an admission of and give effect to the universally accepted principle that is contained in the policy of this country, namely that we should not leave such matters to the will of the Minister but that they must be placed under the highest authority in the country, namely both Houses of Parliament. In the third place I am doing so because these amendments contain a guarantee that the treatment of this important matter will not be carried out injudiciously. When we regard the Indian legislation in this country we can only characterise it as a labyrinth, and the acceptance of the principles in this clause merely signifies that a few more rooms are being added to that labyrinth. It is the general policy of this country and one that really stands superior to all party consideration, that this important matter of setting aside certain areas shall be left in the hands of the highest authority in the country, namely both Houses of Parliament. The principle has been admitted by all parties in the country when legislation in connection with natives was piloted through the House. That legislation also contains the principle of a resolution being taken by both Houses of Parliament. We find that not only there but also in connection with the Indian legislation applying to the Transvaal.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I was indicating that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister should, in connection with the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg and the hon. member for Fauresmith, by accepting them give recognition to a principle of policy which is universally recognised in our country. If the Prime Minister does not accept these amendments it implies that he is violating the generally recognised feature of policy in connection with our racial problems. It is a violation of an important principle in regard to which unanimity exists in our country. What is more, the setting aside of separate areas is an extremely delicate matter. If there is one matter in connection with which we should act prudently and judiciously it is this, and consequently it is necessary that it should not be left to the free will of a statutory Board with a Minister, but that it should be left in the hands of the national authority in our country. As I have stated, it is a delicate matter, and it may be a source of continuous friction and agitation and racial clashes. It should consequently be taken out of the field of purely political considerations, sectional considerations, of a single Minister. That is absolutely necessary. Hence we propose that procedure should be instituted of such a character that proper control will be exercised so that problems will not be created unnecessarily. As the clause now stands it will not portend the solution of problems step by step, but on the contrary its implications are simply the creation of new problems step by step, of additional problems. It will not be long in operation before the Prime Minister will experience the unpleasant reactions. The solution of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) is no solution at all, it is a farce. If his amendment is adopted it implies that the matter can simply be bungled as badly as one can imagine, and only then will the measure proposed by the hon. member for Vryheid be put into effect. In other words, the whole matter can first be botched and then an attempt will be made to solve it. If you are in real earnest to obviate all possible racial collisions and to assure the largest measure of contentment, then the amendments of these two hon. members must be accepted. They represent the only solution, and I again earnestly plead that the Prime Minister should meet us to some extent in connection with this clause, and that he ought to accept these amendments, because the clause offers no solution at all. The reason the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister mentioned why he would not leave the matter in the hands of Parliament but wished to place it in the hands of a Minister is precisely the important reason why it should not be left to the free will of a statutory Board and the Minister and the Government but to both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Prime Minister will again give the matter earnest consideration for the sake of the important principle which has been accepted by the whole of the nation as the policy of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the Prime Minister explaining the basis on which he is founding this Bill. He compares it to the Native Land Bill of 1936. Now, in that Bill certain areas were set aside for native occupation only. Areas are not being set aside for Indian occupation only in this Bill. The areas, which are defined and printed in red on the maps are areas in which everybody is allowed to reside, without let or hindrance, and I submit that this is a very marked distinction, and that the one does not suit the other. What I have to contend is in connection with sub-section (4), which states that any restrictive clauses in a title deed in an area which is defined as an open area automatically lapse. Now, the Prime Minister has accepted an amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer), deferring the abolition of the nonEuropean clauses until the Bill has been in operation for twelve months, but he has also accepted an amendment from the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), and I confess that I can scarcely understand exactly what is meant by that amendment. It seems rather complicated, and quotes clause 2 and clause 3.

It has been substituted by one from the Prime Minister.

I understood the Prime Minister had withdrawn it. Well, in that case, I do submit that all these amendments, in so far as the non-European servitudes are concerned, are taking away rights which Europeans have had, and which they have had inserted in their title deeds; and with one fell swoop to deprive everyone in these defined areas of rights which have existed for many years, and in some cases have existed for only a short time, seems to me to be very drastic indeed. I cannot see that there is any necessity for these servitudes lapsing. If everybody is agreed to buy and sell in these defined areas, then the mere fact that there is a non-European servitude in a title deed will prevent the passage of property from European to Indian control and ownership. I see no reason for it. If the owner wishes to remove the servitude from his title deed, he can do so by application to the Supreme Court. I can quote a case in Port Shepstone which happened only in December last. There an application was made to the Supreme Court to remove from a title deed this non-European clause which restricted occupation and ownership to Europeans. I submit that if anybody wants to remove the servitude from his title deed, the proper thing is to apply to the Supreme Court, and advertise in the ordinary way in the newspapers and the “Government Gazette”, as was done in this case. But this sub-section (4) lapses practically every nonEuropean servitude where the property lies in a so-called defined area, an area which is free to occupation and purchase by a European or Asiatic, and I would ask the Prime Ministr to consider seriously whether this sub-section (4) should not be left out altogether, and the matter left to the ordinary law of the land to take out the servitude if it is desired. There is really no reason for lapsing these non-European clauses in the title deeds, and I do ask the Prime Minister to consider very seriously deleting the subsection. We have gone to no end of trouble on the South Coast of Natal to insert a large number of these servitudes in title deeds in the past, and even in the last six months. There are 33 in Scottburgh alone, and a large number have been inserted at Warner Beach and in the area between Amanzimtoti and Illovo. A large number have been inserted in the last six months, and all for nothing if this sub-section remains. It has cost the people there money. It costs on an average £2 2s. to get these servitudes against their title deeds registered in the Deeds Office, and I would submit that these people have rights which should not be taken away from them.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to appeal to the Prime Minister not to make things even more difficult than they are at present. We were hoping that this Bill would give us a certain amount of relief, but any benefits we might receive from this Bill will be offset by the difficulties in which so many péople will find themselves. I would like the Prime Minister to bear in mind the difficulties of the average person in Natal, the ordinary householder, in the free areas. We have had it thrown at us that if we in. Natal had been more civil to the Asiatics, there would have been no trouble. Well, we have gone to a tremendous amount of trouble to persuade people in certain areas to have the antiAsiatic clause inserted in their title deeds, and it has been a very expensive matter. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) mentioned the sum of £2 2s. Well, if he has been able to get legal attention and the other facilities necessary in this matter for £2 2s., he has been most fortunate. In the cases I know of, where people tried to save European areas from Indian penetration by inserting this anti-Asiatic clause in their title deeds, it cost something like £8 8s. or £10 10s. each. If we are going to ask a European who is in possession of a house in a free area to go to all the expense and trouble necessary to comply with the regulations, I am afraid he will say that it is quite impossible for him to undertake these legal costs to save his property, and it would be far better for him to sell out and clear out, as so many of them have already done. Literally hundreds in Natal, rather than go to all the trouble of endeavouring to save their property from Asiatic penetration, have taken the least line of resistance and sold out, saying that it was useless trying to battle against odds so great, and when they see what is envisaged in this Bill, I am afraid the result will be that they will sell out and clear out. I have not yet had it explained to me why this is necessary. Should it not be optional in these three years for anyone to say: “We will forgo the anti-Asiatic clause in the title deeds”, because the Government can say: “Well,’ you have the anti-Asiatic clause in your title deeds; you can forgo them if you like”, but do not make it compulsory. In all these free areas the anti-Asiatic clause must go immediately this Bill becomes law. I see tremendous hardship resulting from that, and I would be very glad if the Prime Minister or any other member would explain to me why it is not possible for the subsection to be deleted. We had a case in Durban quite recently where a man had a property in an Indian area and could not dispose of it to a European. His only hope of getting rid of his property was to get rid of the anti-Asiatic clause in the title deed. He was going to apply to the Supreme Court, but pressure was brought to bear on him not to go to the Supreme Court, as we thought he would be establishing a very dangerous precedent, and if he were successful there would be hundreds of others in Durban who would immediately do the same thing. I have had strong representations made to me to prevent, if possible, certain of these free areas from being proclaimed free areas. A few years ago, just before the war, they were predominantly European areas. The Asiatics have penetrated into these areas, and under this Bill they become free areas, and they should not be free areas. What is my reply going to be to my constituents in this matter? The area that I represent has been more affected by Asiatic penetration than any other part of Durban. I have had strong representations made to me to have these areas put back where they rightly belong. The position is, that where we have gone to such trouble to persuade people to go to the expense of having this anti-Asiatic clause inserted in their title deeds, they now become null and void. They have no value whatsoever, and I would appeal to the Prime Minister not to cause us more trouble in Natal. This Bill will affect Natal, and practically Natal only. The Transvaal will be affected only slightly, and I do not want people in Natal to turn round and say: “You have passed a Bill in Parliament, but the advantages we receive are offset by the disadvantages contained in the Bill.” I would be glad if I could explain to the people whom I represent that there is no real reason for the anti-Asiatic clause completely disappearing from their title deeds in the free areas, and I hope the Prime Minister will make it possible for them to remain as they are, but if a person is desiring of disposing of his property to an Asiatic, the anti-Asiatic clause in his title deed may be waived.

Mr. Chairman, by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure), the Prime Minister has made himself guilty of inconsistency. We are pleading for the principle that an important matter like this, which can override a clause in a title deed, which can set aside the wishes of a testator, is a matter which should be dealt with by Parliament. That is the principle for which we are contending. Now the Prime Minister wants to have that done by the Government. He wants to take what is really a legislative function out of the hands of the Legislature. He wants to keep the matter in his hands and the hands of the Government. He accepts the joint amendment of the two hon. members, and the effect of that amendment is that he is prepared to subscribe to the principle for which we stand, that this is a matter for the legislature, but he is only prepared to subscribe to it three years hence. Where is the logic, and where is the consistency? If it is a sound principle it is a principle which should be adopted immediately. It is not a principle which should be adopted only three years hence. One wonders why this three years. The hon. member for Paarl has stated there may be another government in three years’ time. Well, if that is the reason I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Paarl. There would be some sense in it. There will be another government in three years’ time.

Another Parliament, not another government.

All right, another Parliament, it comes to the same thing. But if his amendment Had been that for the next three years Parliament should approve of the areas, and after three years it would not be necessary, there would have been some sense in it. One knows that the new government and Parliament that will be here in three years’ time will be more aware of their responsibilities in matters of this kind; but it is precisely the next three years that is the dangerous period as far as this Bill is concerned, because if you have a principle in operation during the next three years, it means that the Government can do whatever it likes. You have three years in which to do it, and you cannot be called to account. It is not a matter which will come before this House again. It is a matter for the Government, and the Government alone. ’ That is the first point I want to make. If it is a sound principle, it is a sound principle not only three years hence, but a sound principle now. I go further and I say that if we have the present Government and the Minister who will probably be responsible for the administration of this Act, it would be criminal negligence on the part of this side of the House to allow this power to be vested in that Government and that Minister. Now, let me go a little further and say that not only do I protest against the fact that the Prime Minister wants this power in the hands of the Government, but I protest even more strongly against the reason for which he wants that power in his own hands. It is a reason which I submit is fraught with the gravest dangers to democratic government in South Africa. I do not know whether hon. members appreciated what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon as to why he wanted this power in his hands. He said that he wanted the power in his hands for the next three years because, if he brought any further extensions of these exempted areas before the House, they would not be accepted. In other words, the authority of this supreme legislative body has to be flouted. He wants the power in his own hands because he knows, or he fears, that the House and the will of Parliament, will not be in agreement with the will of the Government. That is the effect of what he said, and I would be failing in my duty as a parliamentarian if I did not rise to register my protest against such a tampering with the principles of democratic government. I think this is a far-reaching declaration on the part of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and I can merely say that if members on the other side are prepared to submit to that argument, to that reason— that we must give this power in the hands of the Government because Parliament will not do what the Government wants it to do —then I say it is the most damning admission on the part of the Prime Minister that he is prepared to set aside every principle of democratic government in South Africa. I feel for that reason one has to be even more on one’s guard against the power the Prime Minister seeks for his Government. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) “is it possible?”—when the suggestion was made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom)—that the whole of Natal or the major portion of Natal can be splashed red? Is it not possible, is this not the red light that the Prime Minister wants that power for his Government because he is aware this House will not pass it? He has admitted that. For this reason I must protest not only on the ground that it is contrary to the principles of democratic government that in a matter of this kind we should be giving legislative authority to what is the executive power in the land, but still more do I protest against the reason the Prime Minister has given for wanting this power in his hands. I am sorry the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), two hon. members who have pleaded most earnestly for the principle of government by Parliament instead of by the executive, are not in their places tonight to raise their voices in unison with mine in protesting against this inroad into the democratic foundation of the Union. I may just add this, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept our amendments, either the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) or my amendment on this subject, if he wants this power in his own hands we shall be compelled to vote against this clause. This is a clause for extending the exempted areas, and we would rather say there should be no extension if he wants to have that power in his own hands. Then let the position be: These areas Parliament is prepared to exempt tonight, let them be exempted areas, but we are not going to allow the Government to usurp what is the right and power of this House and we shall be compelled to vote against the clause as it stands now.

It is quite evident from the discussion which has taken place on this clause that the clause itself is of a most difficult kind. It sets out to override previous clauses which have been passed in this Bill. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 that have been passed will be found to deal specifically with restrictions in favour of the stoppage or the suspension of further transactions between Indians and Europeans for the purchase of property. Clause 2 contains specific restrictions of that kind. Clause 3 deals with a restriction on the holding of fixed property in Natal by certain companies, and clause 4 with restrictions against the occupation of certain land in Natal. Clause 9, which we are dealing with, gives power for the overriding or suspension of clauses 2, 3 and 4. It says that the provisions of these clauses shall not apply except in areas described in the schedule. Let us examine how those areas were put into the schedule. I have said earlier in this debate that these areas were put into the schedule with the greatest secrecy. The holders of those properties were kept in complete ignorance of what was going on. The firm that was instructed to prepare these maps and colour them in red was sworn to secrecy, and was at liberty to tell no living soul what was going on. The whole of the plea of those who asked for amendments in regard to the method of setting apart exempted areas has been that there shall be full publicity, that all persons interested shall be notified by a notice published no less than so many days in the newspapers circulating in that area of the fact it is proposed to include their property in the exempted area. That is the very reverse of the secrecy we complain of. In spite of the remonstrances we have made, there is no single indication of the intention of the Government to give information in regard to the property of hundreds of people who have never had a hearing. Ón this question I can tell the Minister the name of the person employed in that respect, a distinguished man in the surveying profession, who rendered fine service in this war, and he was employed by the Government on terms of secrecy to prepare those maps without the knowledge of the owners, without the knowledge of any other person interested, so that the whole matter might be treated with the greatest secrecy and so that it should burst on the public without their having any previous knowledge of what was going on. We want to know why that attitude is maintained in the face of the pleas we have made—that not only should desirable publicity prevail in regard to future inclusions in an exempted area, but that we should begin from the beginning, and anybody who wants to voice an objection to their property being included in the areas already coloured red in the schedule should do so in the manner prescribed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I want to show how full of objection other features of this clause are bound to be to persons whose interests are threatened. One clause says the Governor-General may by proclamation in the “Gazette” declare any area in the province of Natal as an exempted area, to be coloured red—I suppose under the same terms of secrecy as prevailed, excepting for the perfunctory offer contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid for a certain amount of publicity during a certain period just immediately before the matter becomes final. There is no invitation to the public to object to these areas with sufficiently long notice to reach everybody. In other words, it is a wholly inefficient and unsatisfactory manner of dealing with the forfeiture of a man’s right to his land, because this is a forfeiture that becomes permanent and begins from the time his property is included in a doomed exempted area. No concession of any kind is made to the person concerned. I have indicated that in a large number of cases the anti-Asiatic clause has not been imposed on the property by the person in possession, but by his father before him, and it has been part of the disposition of the deceased testator’s property that that property should be protected by an anti-Asiatic clause. Without a word of any kind of warning, by stealth and by secrecy this property that has been inherited by the heir is included in an exempted area and doomed from that time onwards.

Without secrecy there will be a difficult position.

The hon. member does not know much about the subject, and I shall not take much notice of his raucous voice on this occasion. Sub-section (3) of the clause states that no proclamation of an area under sub-section (2) shall be issued unless the Minister “has consulted the Administrator of the province concerned.” I am not going to say that I have no confidence in the Administrator, but I am going to say this is worded very differently from the amendment of the hon. member which says that the Minister “shall” consult. If this section remains as it is, it is open for the Minister, relying on informal conversations, to say “I have consulted him.” He may have done so in a very perfunctory sort of manner, but where there is an injunction that he “shall” consult the Administrator and the executive committee, he is much more likely to do his duty formally and deliberately. An important matter is contained in sub-section (4), which provides that no provision discriminating against any race or racial group shall be inserted in the title deed—

We have in this section clause after clause of the most objectionable type. The section has a totalitarian effect on the property of people who in some cases have earned the property by the sweat of their brow. In other cases, it has come to them as a disposition under their father’s will, or the will of other forbears. [Time limit.]

It seems to me the effect of the hon. member for Vryheid’s amendment together with the amendment of that amendment by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) is going to have the effect of certain areas in Natal, whether urban or rural, being defined as exempted areas, and no one for a period of three years is going to have any voice in objecting or endeavouring to induce the Government to leave his property outside an exempted area. After that no expansion of that area and no curtailment of that area can take place without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and no separately defined area can be proclaimed without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. But for three solid years this precious Board is going to recommend to the Minister what areas in Natal in addition to those already defined in the map shall become free areas. I submit that to bar everyone in Natal from objecting to the inclusion of his property— whether it be small or large—in an open area, and to render any restrictive servitudes which may appear in his title deeds becoming null and void is asking really too much of the people of Natal. I should like to see that clause disappear altogether. After all, as I pointed out, there is no necessity for that clause in either area, no necessity at all. What I want to come back to is these three years during which no one has any right to say yea or nay to this precious Board when it recommends such an area in Natal, it may be several hundred square miles in extent for all we know, to become a free and open area. I certainly think that amendment should be made so that from the very outset, not three years afterwards, any new defined area shall be set out by special resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and then with that publicity we undoubtedly will get representations from the people. I understand from the Prime Minister that is exactly what he wants to avoid. The hon. member for Paarl has proposed an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) to extend the period of three years during which the Board may recommend to the Minister, and the Government may recommend to the Governor-General, by proclamation to define these areas, and no person who is in those areas will have had any opportunity of protest or guarding against his property being included in those areas until three years have passed: I do think that that is a hardship, and it is imposing on the people of Natal something the Legislature should never invoke. I do ask that the Prime Minister should look into that matter. In so far as the Board is concerned, I beg to move—

I have already given the Committee my reasons for my protest and that of my colleagues on these benches against the acceptance by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of the amendment by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), as to some extent modified by that of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). I have no intention of repeating those reasons. They are reasons which are well established in the constitutional experience of parliamentary government for many, many generations, and as no answer has been forthcoming to the considerations we placed before the Committee, we assume there is no answer and that this will be simply carried through by a majority without consideration of the merits of the points we have put. I do, however, wish to complete what I had to say when the time limit interrupted me. I think if no answer is to be forthcoming to the very grave considerations against these decisions by the Prime Minister that were put forward from these benches, we should at least know why at this stage an amendment should be accepted which fundamentally alters this Bill. As the Minister of Finance said in an earlier stage of this discussion, there is at least this to be said for the land tenure provisions in this Bill, that they are elastic. In other words, there is provision, after consideration and enquiry, for modifying the exempted areas in the schedule. That is what I take it he meant. In terms of this amendment, which has been subject to certain modification, after three years have elapsed it will be impracticable to carry this element of elasticity into effect. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) said the first three years was the period that counts. My answer to that is, as I have already submitted, such virtues as there may be in the elastic provisions, provisions that are open to modification, of the exempted areas, after due enquiry, lies in the very fact that this House cannot see into the future; we cannot foresee today what the future residential needs of the people affected by this Bill will be, and we have had practical experience in the past of how difficult it is for this House to adjudicate in a judicial spirit upon matters which require enquiry and evidence before they can be properly decided. As I was saying when the time limit interrupted me. Mr. Richard Stuttaford, when he was Minister of the Interior, tried to induce the House to accept the Feetham resolutions in respect of exemptions from the Gold Law applicable on the Witwatersrand. The Feetham recommendations for the exemption of certain stands had been arrived at after extensive enquiry in the course of which voluminous evidence had been heard and which had received the closest consideration by one of our most distinguished judges, a judge moreover who has been called upon in the international field to adjudicate in important arbitrations. Though the judge had given years of close consideration to the subject, there remained a provision of the law that the judicial recommendation could not be given effect to until the House passed a resolution. What happened? Hon. members will remember what happened. The late Mr. Stuttaford, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior, introduced the resolutions, and he put before the House the findings of the Feetham Commission. The hon. member for Fordsburg, who was then Mr. B. J. Schoeman, and who was at that time an enthusiastic supporter of the United Party, rose in his place on the back benches—he was sitting just behind where I sit now—and he objected to these recommendations as many of those stands were in his constituency. After one or two other members had spoken the late Mr. Stuttaford moved the adjournment of the debate, and that was the last, from that day to this, that we heard of those recommenations of the Feetham Commission. I see the hon. member for South Coast smiling with approval at the fate of those recommendations. Actually, a resolution was later adopted by which in a modified form, certain stands were exempted, but not the stands that were included in Mr. Justice Feetham’s report. I refer to that as a precedent of what happens when you interpose between the finding of a body that has to take evidence and make enquiries a provision that it is subject to confirmation by resolution of this House. I am not blaming the individual members of this House, or of Parliament, that sat at the time when the resolutions came up; it comes back to the point I tried to make at an earlier stage, that Parliament is a body which by its very character is unfitted to discharge judicial or quasi-judicial functions. I cannot make that point too strongly, because that really was the reason those particular resolutions to which I have referred were not carried. In terms of this proposal, after three years we are likely to have a repetition from time to time of the sort of debates that have gone on in connection with this Bill. The board is given three years within which it has to define these areas. Any human being, any board comprised of human beings, knowing that Parliament is going to pronounce on the whole question in three years’ time, will not touch any contentious matter but say: We will leave that matter to Parliament to be decided in the future; and the result of this will be a repetition of debates such as we have had on this Bill. As I have already stated, I am not going to repeat again the arguments that have been advanced in all seriousness, in all gravity, from these benches, against these proposals, but I do ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give them the consideration I submit that they deserve.

When I reached the time limit of ten minutes on the last occasion I was in the course of explaining what had taken place in regard to any enquiry that may have been made as to the justice of including the properties now shown in the exempted regions. It has been suggested that the enquiries made were as thorough as those made in connection with the native land delimitation that took place under the Native Lands Act. I happened to be one who served on a commission that was appointed in the late Gen. Botha’s time to investigate the proposed native areas set apart by the Beaumont Commission report and we were appointed to ascertain whether they were just and right and whether they should have been so included. That commission travelled throughout the whole of the area we were concerned with and in no single area did we fail to see the owners concerned, and they gave evidence which entirely recast the delimitations of the Beaumont Commission. Property to the extent of two-thirds of the areas had not been visited by members of the Beaumont Commission. We visited them for the first time and as a result of our visits we were obliged to eliminate a considerable portion of the Beaumont Commission areas which had been included. The procedure then followed was to describe some of these areas as released areas in the Bill and some as potential native areas, and in the end the areas delimited in Natal and set apart for natives were the areas which after ’full enquiry we had recommended. The utmost publicity was given to our visits and in that respect our proceedings differed totally from those followed by the Broome Commission or by the subsequent secret proceedings for the preparation of the red areas I have already described, where with the greatest secrecy exempted areas were set apart without the knowledge of the owners. I therefore challenge the right of the Government to deal in this manner with the property of the electors of the country, and I maintain that this clause is a thoroughly bad one. I want to move the deletion of clause 9.

First amendment proposed by Col. Stallard put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit. A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Fayn, A. O. B.

Fayne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

First amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “(2) The Governor-General may” in line 18, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—78.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Dönges dropped.

Amendments proposed by Col. Stallard on sub-section (2) put and negatived and new sub-section (3), proposed by the Prime Minister, put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “(3) No proclamation under” in line 22, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—49.

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—76:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Question accordingly negatived and subsection (3) omitted, and the remaining amendment proposed by Col. Stallard dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Faure to the new sub-section (3) proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and agreed to.

New sub-section (3) proposed by Dr. Steenkamp, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Neate put and negatived and amendment proposed by Dr. V. L. Shearer put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—75:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—48:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On clause 10,

I move—

I move—

This board is a very important and necessary board. It will depend on the board in large measure whether certain of the provisions in the first part of the Bill will yield the desired results or not. Consequently I wish to bring specially to the notice of the Prime Minister that by way of this amendment I wish to make the composition of the board such that it may answer its purpose and function efficiently. Under the clause we now have a board comprised of five members, two of whom may be Asiatics. What I am aiming at in my amendment is a European board, a board on which no Asiatic will have a seat. The most important reasons that I can adduce why I do not want Asiatics on the board are in the first place that there is a world of difference between the Indian’s conception of morality and that of the Westerner. Let me say at once that I am not deliberately casting any reflection on the morality, the moral conceptions of the Indian, but we have already heard from the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and other members what the moral ideas of the Indians are. I am merely stating the plain fact. In order to substantiate my contention I wish to read out what Professor Engelbrecht has said—

From this quotation it seems clear that the Indian frequently resorts to financial means to corrupt Europeans and to me it is a foregone conclusion that if he can manage it with Europeans in certain cases the danger will be even greater when he has to deal with people of his own race. Therefore I wish to propose that we should have a purely European board comprised of eminent and distinguished individuals who will be above all suspicion. I feel that the Asiatic representatives on the board will not be proof against the manifold demands that will be made on them by the Indians themselves, who will employ all sorts of methods to get their way. I therefore urge the appointment of a European board. But I have a second reason as well why we on this side do not want to have Asiatics on the board. We on this side of the House are protagonists of the principle of separation. From the start and also in connection with this measure we have made it perfectly plain that we stand for the principle of separation and consequently I cannot agree to mixed boards. In the second reading the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) tried by way of an amendment to institute segregation which would lead to complete racial separation. When this did not succeed we tried in the Committee stage to effect this separation gradually in a different manner We declared ourselves against mixed and higgledy-piggledy living and we are also against mixed boards. To us it is a question of principle. I am very glad that the Prime Minister is listening and if he adopts this no further discussion will take place on it. I hope he will accept the amendment.

I would be glad if the right hon. the Prime Minister would explain the necessity for his amendment wherein he inserts the words dealing with the number of members of the board “not more than five members”. Does he contemplate the board may have fewer than five members; may it be possible to appoint only three members or two members? I feel it is a point on which we should know exactly what the intentions of the right hon. gentleman are. If it is “not more than five” it may be three or two or four, and I feel there is a weakness there which should be cleared up. Before the right hon. gentleman replies I would also like to deal with sub-section (2). There we have the position where the five members are appointed, one of whom “shall be designated by the Minister as the chairman of the board”. There has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the necessity for a high standard of membership on that board, and I think we are all agreed that that high standard should be there, and particularly that the chairman should be of the highest standard available, a man who can detach himself from pressure from the one side or the other, and who will bring an independent mind to bear and decide a matter on its merits and on principles of common justice. So I wish to propose an amendment for the omission of sub-section (2) and substituting that one of the members shall be a judge of the Supreme Court who shall be designated by the Minister as the chairman. I think if the right hon. the Prime Minister will accept that we shall get a chairman of the highest possible standard. I do not want a retired judge, but one who is still functioning as a judge of the Supreme Court and who would devote his time to the job. The highest standard of integrity is found in our judges, and we have in them such faith and confidence as I do not think we shall get in respect of any section of the public service—very high though the standard of integrity is in the service—or amongst members of the public. There is no one whose integrity is less likely to be challenged than that of a judge of the Supreme Court. I believe the acceptance of my amendment would make all the difference in regard to the acceptance of the decisions of the Board in future. It is going to relieve our minds, and it will take a great deal of worry off the Government when they know they have that very strong support in the chairman. I hope that the amendment will be accepted, and I shall be glad if the Prime Minister will also explain the reasons for inserting the qualification “not more than five”. I move—

1. (2) One of the members who shall be a judge of the Supreme Court shall be designated by the Minister as Chairman of the Board.

The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) wants to know the reason for my amendment to limit the number of five members in the way I have done by saying “not more than five”. I may say it is the intention of the Government if possible to have a Board of five; but this amendment is introduced here as a precaution in case the Indians do not want to play, and do not want to take part in this system which we are founding here. The Committee knows there has been a threat, a fairly widespread threat, to boycott the whole system which we are establishing here, and it may be that Indians will refuse to serve on this Board, and it is therefore necessary to provide for that in the Act itself; and supposing the two Indian members do not want to join the Board, then the other three will be appointed and the Board will carry on and function. That is the purpose for which this amendment is made.

With regard to the second point the hon. member has made, I explained in the second reading of this Bill that it is the firm intention of the Government to appoint to the Board personnel of the highest standing and of unquestionable integrity. There is no question of it. But the proposal which the hon. member makes will not work. There will be a great deal of work for this Board; it will be a whole-time job. If the Board is to discharge the functions that are being entrusted to it under this Bill, it will be a full-time body that will work from day to day. And under those circumstances a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be appointed. You cannot have a judge who does not carry on his judicial functions but who is only and merely a member of a Board. That will not work. The hon. member and the Committee may rest satisfied that not only as regards the chairman, but as regards the other two members, too, the Government will do its best to select men of the highest standing and of unquestioned probity and integrity and ability. Much will depend on this Board. This Bill when it comes into force will depend very largely on the ability and integrity of the members of that Board. If the Board functions properly, this Bill will be a success, and therefore it is absolutely essential to the experiment we are now trying that the Board members should be of the very highest character, but it is not possible to appoint a judge who is a full-time official and not a judge. But, even so, we shall be able to find men whose position and standing is such that their appointment to this Board will be quite satisfactory to this House. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Can you tell us about the appointment of the Indians, and whether you reasonably expect that they will serve on such a Board?

I am making this amendment simply as a matter of precaution. An opening is being made here with the best intention and with goodwill to the Indian community. We want to be fair to them, and we want to give them a place on this Board that will decide the important matters mentioned in this Bill. We are making this gesture and giving them this position. If they refuse to take it, then of course the consequences will be theirs and will not be ours.

*In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) I would just say this, that the Government cannot accept it. On neither of the two grounds mentioned by the hon. member can we accept this amendment. The argument he advanced in regard to the ethical conception of the Indian is not a ground on which we can refuse to admit them on to a body that will decide on their interests, their greatest interests. There is no doubt that when you are affecting people’s interests deeply, and as deeply as we are doing in this legislation, you must give them a say. It is our European ethical conception that, where you touch people’s rights as we are doing in this Bill, you must give them some say and the right to speak for themselves. That ground consequently does not carry weight. The other ground is equally ineffective, that it should be simply a European body. I do not believe one should drive the idea of separation to those extreme lengths. You are going too far and when you go too far you frustrate your own purpose. We wish to have separation in the social sphere; that is our European conception, but to apply it in every direction does not work at all. As hon. members know we Europeans do not refuse to trade with Indians. Their ethical conception and our European conception do not go so far as to prevent us having trade relations or financial or economic relations with each other. These exist on a large scale; and consequently it would be entirely wrong to drive the idea of separation so far as to adopt the amendment of the hon. member. If you go too far you defeat your own object and on both grounds that the hon. member mentioned I must decline to accept this amendment. Neither of these grounds should weigh with us and I cannot accept his amendment.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will recollect what our experience has been in connection with all committees which have been appointed in Durban previously in connection with the Pegging Act, and the various times we have endeavoured to persaude our Indian friends not to give us more trouble than was necessary in regard to penetration of the European areas. A number of committees were appointel. The Rt. Hon. gentleman will remember that the Indian community eventually boycotted the Lawrence Committee and I believe another committee has been set up. Our experience has been most unfortunate in connection with the committees which have been appointed previously. The Bill sets out that there shall be appointed a board consisting of five members who shall hold office for a period of five years. This board is to be appointed by the Government, and can be appointed overnight as it were, and in view of our past experience of boards and committees in connection with this matter, I would like to suggest to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that instead of a period of five years he should agree to the members being appointed for a period of three years. The board can do a tremendous amount of damage to the cause in five years, and as I understand the Bill no provision is made for dispensing with the service of any member of the board unless he is incapable or if he becomes of unsound mind or if he is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. As I have pointed out the committees which have been appointed previously have come in for a tremendous amount of criticism. If we are going to appoint the board members for five years I am just afraid that the members will feel: “We have been appointed for a period of five years and at the end of the five years we will have to go, so it does not matter much what we do in the meantime.” I feel convinced that we will get more efficiency from this Board if the members knew that in three years’ time, unless they do their jobs satisfactorily, they will not be re-appointed. As I have mentioned, the Government can re-appoint them overnight, and I would like to move, and I hope the Prime Minister will accept this—

That would meet the case and we would then appoint the members for three years. I feel perfectly certain that we will then get more efficient working from the Board with a three-year tenure. I am moving this amendment because in Durban we are definitely afraid of the workings of this Board. We feel that due to its composition it may not be as satisfactory as we feel it ought to be. It is all right on paper, but when it comes to this very delicate question of the Asiatic problem in Durban and the insinuations that have been made, I think the Government would be well advised to place itself in the position where it will be able to say: “At the end of three years we can re-appoint the members if they have been satisfactory, but if they have not been satisfactory we can dispense with their services after three years.”

During this debate we have had many disappointments at the hands of the Prime Minister in regard to his attitude, but as far as this is concerned things are going from bad to worse. Here we had an amendment from the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) asking that the Board, a very important Board, a body, as the Prime Minister himself has stated here, that will decide on important matters, should be comprised entirely of Europeans. The Prime Minister stands up and he refuses that request. Now I wish to remind the House that this afternoon we discussed this same question and it was mentioned that the Prime Minister on a previous occasion today denied the right to this Parliament to decide on this important matter. It was proposed today that the further demarcation of areas, just as was the case in connection with native areas, should rest with Parliament. The Prime Minister refused this, and he said that Parliament would not decide over the red areas as they have now been defined, but for a period of three years from now, when the whole matter will really be decided afresh and area after area will be demarcated —Parliament will not decide. In that period Parliament will have no right to decide and this Board will function, and together with the Minister they will actually do the work which should be left to Parliament. And this was the Prime Minister’s argument. Why has he refused Parliament the right to function during those three years? He said honestly that during those three years he would not be able to influence Parliament to accept those resolutions. In other words, he would not have enough people on his side to approve of these things. What is the intention then in regard to the demarcations in the first three years? And now he comes and refuses, as a matter of fact, that that Board that will have to function during that period, when Parliament may not function, should be comprised entirely of Europeans. The Board is to be composed of not more than five members, of whom two must be Europeans and two Indians, and the Government will appoint the chairman, and the Prime Minister makes specific provision in this clause that if the Indians wish it, two of them will be entitled to serve on that important Board. That Board has extraordinary powers. Let me put the matter in this way before I go further, and I want to put it very strongly. I do not think there is any hon. member in this House who can recall a single instance in the history of our people and of our fatherland where nonEuropeans have been appointed to sit on a Board that decided on the land tenure and the interests of the European in this country. If there is any precedent at all of this character in the whole of our history I should like to know it, because here we have two Indians being appointed to this Board and those Indians will now have to decide on the question of land tenure in so far as it affects the European in Natal. Could we have anything worse? It was mentioned here by the Prime Minister that in many respects he is in this following the procedure that was adopted in connection with native lands. Let me put it to the Prime Minister that in connection with the demarcation of those native areas every inch of those demarcations was decided by this Parliament. That decision by this Parliament was refused by the Prime Minister on the previous clause, and what is he going to do now? Now he is not only going to appoint that board to do the work instead of Parliament but he is actually placing two Indians on the board to do the work. The Prime Minister talks about ethical conceptions. Let me put this to him. This is the ethical conception of European civilisation in this country, that in this House no non-European will sit. It is the ethical conception of this side of the House that we only wish to have Europeans sitting here and here all the interests of all sections of the people are cherished and decided. Where does the argument arise that because their interests will be affected you must therefore necessarily appoint two Indians to the board? I wish to ask the Prime Minister why, as far as this matter is concerned, is he departing from the precedent that was established in connection with the laws of 1936 regarding native land tenure. Why is he breaking new ground here and appointing non-Europeans to define these areas? I have from the start of my speech stated that this House has very considerable powers. Let me now refer to the powers that this board has. I have stated briefly and clearly that this board will be empowered to act in an advisory capacity to the Minister and to decide on matters affecting land tenure of the European in the country. But let us refer now to the powers of the board. I wish to refer to the following clause, clause 12 (c) which runs as follows—

Under this clause the board is empowered to determine any areas in Natal in future as exempted areas, areas in which the Indian can buy as much land as he wishes. This board is empowered to recommend any territory in Natal for proclamation and to recommend to the Minister — even though the European may wish to live apart from the Indian — that such a spot should be exempted, and a board that possesses such power, that can infringe the common law and the tenure and rights of occupation of the European ought to be comprised of Europeans. Are we unreasonable in asking that such a board should consist of Europeans in this country? I should like further to refer to the fact that the Minister has the right under this Bill to confer other functions on this board. It has the right, inter alia, to enquire into—

Can there be any doubt that these are extraordinary powers that have been granted to this board and seeing these powers have been granted to this board, can we now agree that non-Europeans should also have the right to sit on that board. No, the argument of the Prime Minister that he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Brits, that he has a different ethical conception to what we have, that argument is the deciding factor in this big matter which is clearly put here, and I say without the slightest hesitation that the Prime Minister and the people sitting on the other side are heading for the destruction of European civilisation in this country and our plea is for the saving and the stabilisation of the rights of the European on the soil of South Africa that he has bought with his blood. That ground that the Prime Minister described as an ethical ground revealed a different basis of ethics to that we have accepted; we say that the European is there to exercise the Christian trusteeship over the non-European, but the European is not prepared to allow the nonEuropean to supplant him in his field in life. This question has been strongly put by one of our Afrikaans authors, who said—

We say no to that and the Prime Minister with his standpoint says “Yes”.

We would like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to reconsider this matter of appointing a judge of the Supreme Court as chairman of this Board. We fully understand that the work will require a full-time official. We know the work to be tremendously important. Surely the Prime Minister can second a judge to the Board for this most important work. If the law will not allow that, we suggest that the law can be altered. If the difficulty is that there are no judges to second—we know that our judges are terribly overworked— then we suggest that there are men in Durban of whom I know, and there are men in Cape Town of whom I know, and the authorities must know of men in Johannesburg who are quite capable of becoming judges. If no fresh judge can be appointed for this purpose, we hope that the Prime Minister will be prepared to allow us ’to move that a retired judge take up this position. We have no wish to be obstructive in any way. We are rather afraid, though, that this most important Board will not be served as thoroughly as it needs to be. We know that Boards are very unpopular in South Africa. We have always had great men to choose from, but we do not seem to have chosen them always. A Board, to most people in this country, is a little body of demi-gods to whom one goes cap in hand from time to time to be told by them that your prayer cannot possibly be granted under any conditions whatsoever. That is what a Board is to most of us, and then we go home and find that that permission has been granted to our neighbours on both sides. We want to guard this Board against the low appreciation percentage in which other Boards are held, and we have great trust in a Board composed of judges. We want to suggest, moreover, that the work really and truly is of a judicial character. To weigh up accurately and exactly, as it needs to be done, the remedies and the rights and the wrongs, calls for legal knowledge and training. We suggest that the layman, however good he may be in other ways, is less competent than a judge to do this particular thing, and that is why we make this suggestion. There is another point. A judge of the Supreme Court is not easily swayed by sentiment. He will come to his decision on the facts and merely on the facts that are placed before him, a most desirable thing in this connection. Whoever is the adjudicator in these matters will be met by, or rather let me say will be surrounded with, a fairly fervent public opinion, and I say again that a judge is by nature almost and by second nature certainly, and by training a man who is superlatively able to set aside prejudices and come to a judgment on the evidence and nothing else. That point, we submit, is really and truly important. We want to ensure that all races are satisfied that when their affairs come before the Board, that Board will be competent and that it will have the necessary knowledge and that it will be impartial. We know that if this Board is to carry out its work, it must be very highly respected. We want people to come to the Board with the certainty that their case will be fully and fairly treated, and our point is that judges are more competent to come to a fair decision than any other person. That is the reason for this amendment.

Moreover, he is entirely dispassionate.

He is entirely dispassionate, and we do not know of any other grade of men who have the necessary qualifications to do that essential job. Everything will depend on the Board, and we are making an honest recommendation to appoint to the Board the strongest official who can be appointed.

We deprecate the action of our Prime Minister in laying down in this clause that he is going to set up a mixed Board on which Europeans and non-Europeans will sit round the same table. It hurts me deeply to think that such a proposal emanates from the Afrikaner nation which is anxious to see separation between Europeans and coloureds. It hurts me to think that a proposal of this kind should emanate from a great leader of the South African nation, a proposal under which Europeans and non-Europeans will sit round the same table in the same room. I most strongly deprecate it. It is humiliating for the Afrikaners to think that we have a Government in power which is prepared to appoint a mixed Board such as this to decide matters affecting the European population.

Your leader did the same.

He is making another faux pas.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) sat here for days without saying a word, and now that I am on my feet he wants to talk. If he wants to talk I shall sit down to give him an opportunity to make a speech. I deprecate the fact that an Afrikaner like the hon. member should give his approval to a proposal under which Europeans and non-Europeans will be thrown together., The hon. member ought to be ashamed to make such a remark. We as Afrikaners want to remain honest; we want to follow in the footsteps of our forefathers, and we must see to it that Europeans and non-Europeans do not intermingle in South Africa; and when we make a reasonable request to the Prime Minister we find hon. members like the hon. member for Rustenburg making remarks of this character. In this clause the Prime Minister is asking us to agree to the appointment of a mixed board. That is an indication that in the future the Prime Minister intends to show the people that he is wholeheartedly in favour of Europeans being thrown together in the same spheres of activity, and I feel that we as an Afrikaner nation cannot be satisfied with that. The people of South Africa have always shown that they do not want to associate with non-Europeans. For that very reason the Voortrekkers left the Cape Province and migrated to the north; but here the Prime Minister is placing a Bill before us in which we are asked to approve of Europeans and non-Europeans being thrown together. I deprecate it most strongly, and as Afrikaners it hurts us most deeply. I hope the Prime Minister will alter this clause and agree to the request which has repeatedly been made to him in this House and that he will see to it that some alternative is found which will bring about an improvement in the position. I think this is one of the points to which the Prime Minister as a grey beard and as a leader of the people should give his attention, that some alteration should be brought about. If Indians have to serve on this board, they should be given a separate board, and the Europeans should be given a separate board, but we do not want mixed boards, as is proposed here. I agree with the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) who introduced this amendment and I ask the Prime Minister in all civility to see that a change is brought about. If he does not do it the time will come when fathers and mothers with tears in their eyes will recall that they voted for this Prime Minister who is prepared to appoint mixed boards. I hope the Prime Minister will give his attention to my request and that he will accept the amendment. This is an important matter, and it is a matter of importance to the Europeans. It has been said here that it is the fault of the Europeans that the Indians have acquired property. The Prime Minister also stated that we must be satisfied with a mixed board because the Europeans trade with the Indians. It does not behove the Prime Minister to pride himself on the fact that the Afrikaners have erred in the past in trading with the Indians. He as a leader ought to realise that these things are wrong and he ought to put a stop to them.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister realises what the words “not more than” signify. I assume that the Asiatics will not nominate anyone and then an amendment will have to be made in Clause 11. Therein it is provided that three members form a quorum, but if the Asiatics have no representatives there will only be three members. But I wish to refer to another point. These are three members apart from the Asiatics. But there is nothing in the Bill that those three members must be Europeans. They may be coloureds or natives. There is nothing laid down either that the chairman should be a European. The Minister of the Interior may appoint a native, a coloured or an Asiatic as a chairman. The Prime Minister can laugh at that but let him look into the provisions of the Bill. In Clause 11 it is provided that three members shall form a quorum. Then those three members can appoint a chairman and they can choose an Asiatic. Then the chairman will be an Asiatic though he will not have been appointed by the Minister concerned. That is a rather serious matter. This is a board that can exercise all the powers that have been explained so well by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein).

What about bilingualism?

We can expect that from those members on the other side who fought an election over bilingualism and are now making fun of it. I do not think that the Prime Minister will give his approval to this. We hope he will see to it that the members are bilingual, although we have not proposed it here. But I would again point out that the chairman may be an Asiatic appointed by the board itself. I would further point out that it is not stated clearly that three members of the board should be Europeans. Natives and coloured people also live in the red areas. They will demand that their interests should also be protected. All sorts of possibilities exist. I would also refer to another point. The Asiatics get two out of the five members, or a representation of 40 per cent. Apart from outside the exempted areas Europeans also live in exempted areas and why cannot they receive larger representation? I would strongly urge that the Prime Minister should go into this matter again, especially the words “not more than” which are going to land them in difficulty. Furthermore he will have to do something in connection with the quorum of three if there are only three members.

I just want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) in a few words. I want to advance this one important argument. The Board will consist of five members, one of whom will be the chairman. When the Board is called upon to come to a decision, the position will be that it will never be able to approach the matter objectively. There will be two Indians on the one hand and two Europeans on the other hand, and the chairman may be a European. The position will be therefore that there will continually be a tug-of-war between the two Europeans and the two Indians. It will degenerate into a cat and dog fight and, moreover, the position will be that the proceedings of the Board will have repercussions on the two sections outside. It will develop into a very useful source of racial clashes and racial friction in the future. This is an extremely dangerous position. We are placing the chairman in the position that he will frequently have to cast a decisive vote, and it can be imagined that that will lead to an unsound position. If the Prime Minister wants to attain the best results he ought to accept this amendment, because we shall then have a Board of high standing which will be able to view matters objectively. Then there is the principle of separatism that we want to emphasise strongly. One is given the impression that the history of Joseph with his coat of many colours made an indelible impression on the Prime Minister in the good old days of his youth, because in his old age he is now making South Africa more and more multi-coloured. Not only is he making the surface of South Africa more and more multi-coloured, but he is making the Boards of the people more and more multi-coloured, and he is heading for a multi-coloured South Africa. I hope the Prime Minister will again give his attention to the amendment of the hon. member for Brits.

When the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister moved the second reading of the Bill he stated that the establishment of this Board was one of the principal features of this Bill, being a compensatory feature for restriction which was imposed on Asiatics in regard to their occupation and ownership of land. The amendment now moved by the Prime Minister is virtually an admission of the fact that the Bill is not likely to operate in the sense and in the direction that was first hoped by him. I suggested myself during the course of the second reading that it seemed to me that it would be much more advisable to have the Board established first and let things grow from that source, rather than to establish a fait accompli in the scheduling of areas and at a subsequent date to have an advisory Board which would then in future deal with any modifications or exemptions which might then be required in terms of the living necessities of the Indians. The fact that the Prime Minister now at this stage moved the amendment which he has moved, is, I repeat, a virtual admission on his part that the Bill will not work out as he first anticipated and that there is a distinct likelihood of not getting Indians who could be considered to be representatives of Indian opinion to sit on this Board. It follows from this that it is hardly a compensatory feature which the Prime Minister held it out to be. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) has now moved an amendment. Whether the Board is established for five or for three years is not of much material importance, but the argument submitted by the hon. member should be examined in relation to the amendment which was submitted by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). The hon. member for Durban (Central) submitted in this House that there have been committees set up in the past to deal with the very matter with which this advisory Board will have to deal with, and that the people of Durban expressed a lack of faith in those committees established in the past. It is quite true that there was a lack of confidence on the part of the European population of Durban in the establishment of that committee, and I think I hit the nail on the head during the second reading when I submitted that the reason why there was a lack of confidence was because of the absence of any real power which these people could use. A voluntary committee so established without the power to enforce any decision which they might come to, is doomed to failure from the commencement, and that, I submit, was the primary reason why there was an absence of confidence. There can only be real confidence in the advisory Board that is set up if that Board is given a judicial chairman, and I would like to urge upon the Prime Minister, in view of his own amendment and in view of what, to my mind, is a virtual admission that the thing will not operate as he first expected it would, that it becomes more essential and ever more necessary that we should provide in this Bill that a judge should be the chairman. The House recognises that in any contemplated selection the Prime Minister might make he would seek to get persons of unquestioned integrity and character. That would be expected of the Prime Minister, and we know that he would be guided by these necessities in making the choice. But the public can only have confidence, or be helped to have confidence, in the establishment of an Advisory Board if at the head of that committee there is a person who is surrounded with the authority which only a judge has. I would like to urge upon the Prime Minister that if he hopes this Board will function properly, and if he wants it to function as well as possible, he should provide in this Bill that the chairman of this Board should be a judge. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) has submitted the means by which it can be done. If it requires a further amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Rand, to ensure that a judge will be appointed, or even a retired judge, I am sure that we on these benches will be happy to agree more with that amendment, and on an indication from the Prime Minister that he is prepared to accept such a further amendment, such further amendment will be forthcoming. I urge upon the Prime Minister the necessity to provide in the Bill itself that a judge should be at the head of the Board if he wants the public to be satisfied with such a Board.

I think it will be admitted that we can hardly consider clause 10 without also considering clause 11. In clause 10, read with the Prime Minister’s amendment, it is provided that the Board shall consist of not more than five members, of whom two may be Asiatics. But in clause 11 there is a provision that the chairman can be absent, and in his absence the chairman shall be one member of the Board to be appointed by the Minister, and if he also is absent then the Board itself shall elect a chairman. I want to point out in connection with this number of not more than five members, that it may very well happen that the second chairman designated by the Minister may also be absent, and then we shall have three members present, two of whom may be Asiatics, and then the three of them are sure to appoint an Asiatic as the chairman, and he will have the casting vote, so that there will be two Asiatics and one European. That is not impossible. It is provided for in section 11 of the Bill, and I would suggest that this Board should consist of five members, each with an alternate, and that the quorum of the Board in that case shall be five and not three. I would commend this matter to the Prime Minister, because the matter was raised very pertinently during my recent visit to Natal, and this position was pointed out, and it was the subject of very strong adverse criticism, and in that sense I commend the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister.

I am sure the House will be indebted to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) for his amendment to this extent. I do not think the House will be indebted to him in regard to the voting that took place on the various amendments in the Committee stage, but I am very pleased to hear him say that the committees that were appointed by the Government in the past were an utter failure. He stated that one of the reasons why they were an utter failure was that they had no power to enforce any of the decisions they might have arrived at. Well, that bears out my statement that we should limit the period for which the Board is appointed to three years instead of five, because, as I mentioned when I moved my amendment, a tremendous amount of damage can be done in five years. But if the period is limited to three years, we can then get rid of that Board. The Government could get rid of it. But there is no provision today in the Bill for superseding the members of that Board by others, and no matter what action they may take, although the Board is subject to the Minister, we know that the Minister cannot be confronted by a Board which continually gives wrong decisions of which he does not approve, but has to put up with because he has no power to dispense with that Board. In this Bill we are prolonging the life of the Board to five years. If you have an Advisory Board or a committee, as we have had in Durban, appointed to settle these matters amicably between the two sections by having Asiatics on this Board as well as Europeans, and by coming to a solution in a voluntary way instead of forcing decisions on each other, all that will fail. I cannot see for one moment that the mere fact of having a judge as chairman will make the amount of difference that the members of the Labour Party suggested it will. I do not say that at all, but I do see the danger; I do see the danger of having a Board appointed for five years, able to do enormous damage to the cause we all have at heart. I welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo in this respect. He mentioned also that it would make very little difference whether they were appointed for three years or for five years. But if they can do a tremendous amount of damage in five years, they can also do much good in three years, and they can be reappointed. It may then be considered that they have carried out the intentions of the Bill and that they have proved a success, and that there is no reason whatever why they should not be reappointed. We in Durban are more vitally interested than anyone else, and I do make that appeal to the Prime Minister to limit the period to three years. This Board will have enormous responsibility, and it will be impossible to please everyone, but I do say that if they know that they can be discharged after three years they will try to do their best and endeavour to serve the interests of all sections, and not only the interests of Europeans, and when after three years they have done well they can be reappointed. But I see great danger in giving them a run for five years, not knowing what they will do or how they will behave.

At 10.55 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 11th April.