I move— For leave to introduce the Financial Adjustments Bill.

seconded.

I would like to ask my hon. friend when he expects members to be able to study these Bills. I think it is a grave reflection on the Prime Minister that important Bills like these are brought in at the tail end of the session.

I suppose some Bills must come in at the tail end of the session, otherwise we might as well adjourn at once.

You need not bring in three important Bills at the end of the session. I have never known in my experience such a state of affairs as exists to-day—the paper jammed up and fresh Bills being brought in. The House is very thin and no time is given to members to study these Bills. I was at a committee meeting this morning at 9, and I have been working ever since, and will have to work until 11 o’clock to-night. I think it is a discredit to the Minister to bring in Bills like these practically at the end of the session.

May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, for the balance of this week, it may not be necessary to sit in the mornings. There is no doubt a great deal of important work which is coming forward even at this stage of the session, and which we have very little time to study, and I believe there is an idea of not sitting in the mornings, so that we may have time to study these Bills.

No. I do not think that the work still to be dealt with is very much. It embraces matters with which the House is well acquainted. The work the Government wishes to go on with is contained in Orders 1 to 10 on the Votes and Proceedings. Therefore it includes all the Bills which have been before us from the beginning of the session.

How long do you expect us to sit ?

As long as necessary.

I do not think it will be necessary to sit longer than next Saturday.

There are still a number of important Bills to be dealt with.

No, they are small Bills, nothing of great importance. There are a few important matters, but they have already been discussed two or three times, so that I do not see that the work will occupy us longer than till Saturday.

I wish to take exception to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said about the introduction of these Bills. It has always been the practice for these Bills to come in practically at the end of the session. Listening to the hon. member one would think that the Treasury has been doing nothing for all these months. If we cannot deal with these Bills we might as well adjourn. I suppose it will always be necessary to have some work at the end of the session, and the hon. member has no right to make the remark about discredit to the Minister.

What about morning sittings?

I would point out—

I want to point out that the Minister has replied.

On a point of order, I would ask whether we can discuss the statement of the Prime Minister about the work.

Perhaps it will be best to raise that after the formal motions are finished.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time ; second reading to-morrow.

I move—

seconded.

Would this not be the proper time to point out to the Minister—

I want to remind the hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt) that this question must be put without amendment or debate.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move—

seconded.

I suppose I might reply now to the Minister of Finance. It is a matter of degree. A Bill might come in at the end of the session, such for instance as the Bill that the Minister has now mentioned, but there are for instance Bills like those in the first and second notices of motion where it is quite another story. The Minister seems to be determined to push through highly contentious Bills and let others which might be taken by consent wait over. I am perfectly certain that, except you have a few all-night sittings, you will never see the light of day as regards the Reserved Minerals Development Bill. Then take the Transvaal Precious and Base Metals Bill. That can never go through.

Why not ?

Because it will take too long to discues. I suppose you have got so much in the habit of steam-rollering things, especially by the Labour members. They want to keep it going. The Perishable Products Export Control Bill, which is opposed by the fruit growers of this country, is to be forced through. Bills which are highly contentious, it appears, have got to be steam-rollered

The hon. member ought to confine himself to the motion that this Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

I want to say that we have not had time to consider these Bills, because we have so many other matters to consider.

The Minister of Finance is in rather a hurry. I can thoroughly understand that my hon. friend does not desire these things to be discussed. I got up principally to protest that the Labour members of the Cabinet seem to be determined to steamroller things through I understood from the statement of the Minister of Justice the other evening that the Labour members were prepared to do everything that the members of the Cabinet suggested to them, even to putting through the Flag Bill.

Order!

It is quite true. That shows how subservient they are. But my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is entirely wrong. I do not want the wrong impression to go forth that the Labour gentlemen are exercising undue pressure. What I suggest is this, as we have a large number of Bills of a very important character, some of which have not been advanced through the second reading stage, and as the Prime Minister is, I presume, anxious to bring the session to a close this week, that he should drop everything in the order paper after No. VII and then No. VIII. Payment of Members of Parliament Bill and all the things that follow would disappear. Then I do not think that there would be much difficulty in my hon. friend bringing the session to an early close.

I want to point out again, in connection with what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has said about contentious matters coming forward at this stage, he mentioned No. 1, the fixing of the price of sugar. We have discussed this matter on six different occasions in this House.

And it will require some discussion still.

We are simply going to legalise the position which Parliament by its vote has adopted on five occasions already. As regards the second matter, the Financial Adjustments Bill, the hon. member knows that this Bill has always come up practically in the last days of the session.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I trust hon. members have now had an opportunity of perusing this memorandum which was issued by the Treasury in connection with the provisions in this Bill. Hon. members will remember that on previous occasions we discussed the existing position in regard to the provisions for the redemption of debt as laid down in the Public Debt Commissioners Act with reference to the disposal of revenue surpluses. I think the House is agreed on this point, that that provision as established during the past few years has not operated very satisfactorily. I gave the figures on a previous occasion to show what the actual amount was that has been redeemed during the last few years by means of this provision. The House will also remember that it was pointed out a few years ago when I took office that this amount we have been providing for was about £400,000. So if we have to rely in future on the provisions of the Public Debt Commissioners Act as far as these surpluses are concerned, and if the position continued, we would be nothing really beyond that amount. The position has been considered by the Treasury and the matter has also been dealt with by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and in accordance with the resolution taken and also with what the Treasury has found they are able to do at the present time and probably during the next few years, we now propose to lay down that in future a basic contribution of £650,000 will be made towards this fund. This is for a period of 40 years. That is not the only provision. We also provide for the payment of interest at 4½ per cent. per annum on any stocks held that have matured and then been cancelled until the expiration of that period. That means we propose to do much more than this contribution of £650,000. If we did that and applied the existing methods of the Public Debt Commissioners Act whereby stocks purchased for the surplus moneys should automatically be cancelled, we should during the period of 40 years be extinguishing debt to the tune of about £26,000,000 only, but through this cumulative method we will be extinguishing it to the extent of about £69,500,000, which hon. members will see is a very great improvement on the existing method. We also make provision that any windfalls that may come along will also be applied to the reduction of the debt.

Are you going to apply the surpluses ?

What I mean is that, for instance, we may continue to receive moneys in the shape of further payments by the Public Custodian in England. There is nothing which would prevent the Treasury or Parliament from laying down from time to time that any surplus moneys may also in future continue to be dealt with in this way. We have provided for the repeal of the existing provisions that we have for the disposal of revenue surpluses, but if Parliament finds that we have been incurring capital expenditure to any great extent and that it is necessary to do more than we propose here, there is nothing to prevent Parliament from disposing of the surplus in this way. The scheme will have the merit that it is laying down a definite method of dealing with the debt redemption without our scheme being interfered with when any of the existing loans mature for which we have established sinking funds. I submit that what we are doing here is a very considerable advance on the existing position. Hon. members may think that it is not adequate, that instead of bringing forward a scheme which has in the first place for its object the redemption of our dead weight debt, that we should have brought forward a scheme to deal with the whole of the debt position. That may be advisable, but I submit that at present we are not in a position to make a bigger contribution than we make here. In future we will simply have to try and curtail capital borrowings as much as possible, but hon. members must not forget that even this scheme will in probably 40 years not only extinguish our dead weight debt but also a considerable proportion of what I may call our productive or interest-bearing debt. We must always bear in mind that under the existing legislation these mining revenues shall not be applied towards general revenue but will go towards capital expenditure, and that provision in so far as these revenues exceed our unproductive debt—that provision operates in the same way as a sinking fund. At present these revenues are considerably in excess of the actual unproductive debt, so that is an addition to the provision which we have here. I think the House will agree that for the present at any rate what we provide here must be considered adequate. The Public Accounts Committee also dealt with the question of future unproductive debt; in other words debt which we incur which at present may be considered productive but which afterwards turns out to be a loss. It was suggested that we should undertake in these cases to make good those losses from revenue. As I pointed out at the time these questions will from time to time have to be dealt with by the House on their merits. It would obviously be no good to lay down now, by Act of Parliament, that these losses would automatically have to be met from revenue, because what is the use of that when you have for instance a deficit ? I hope we shall be very careful in future and avoid as far as possible incurring losses of this nature. Just take, for instance, this one position. Take the case of the loss we incurred in connection with the flour purchase. We have already debited to capital account some three quarters of a million in connection with that. Obviously it would be impossible to ask the Treasury to meet it from revenue in that way. We have now incurred a further loss as the result of the award by the arbitrators recently. I do not know what that loss will be, but it will be for Parliament to consider the position on its merits, and decide whether it shall be debited to revenue or whether it shall be treated in the same way as the similar loss when first ascertained. You cannot lay down a hard and fast rule in regard to that. There are certain other aspects of the matter which are dealt with in this memorandum and I do not think it is necessary for me to cover that ground again at this stage. I may say that if our financial position had further improved, if we could have postponed the matter for a longer time, we might find later on that it would be possible to do more than we do now. In view of the present position and the advance we are making on the existing position, I think the House will be satisfied that the Treasury cannot reasonably be expected to do more under the present circumstances. Considering all the facts, I submit that what we are doing is adequate, and lays down a definite scheme which would not be thrown out of gear when the repayment of these existing loans takes place when they mature.

I agree we ought not to postpone this, that is in regard to liquidation of debt. In regard to the flour loss my hon. friend knows that was very exceptional. I am alluding more to losses in the Land Department. Look at the amount written off only the other day. I want now to deal with the Bill itself. It is a Bill dealing with an extremely important matter, and I want to say again that I am sorry this has come forward at the tail end of the session. I will admit this extremely useful memorandum has helped matters a lot. Also let me say that as far as I can judge, the provision the Minister makes in the Bill is liberal. I think he has done well in regard to redeeming £69,500,000 in 40 years. I have no criticism to offer as regards that, but let me point out that he goes on two assumptions that are by no means certain to be carried out. For instance, this is a 40 years’ arrangement, but my hon. friend knows that you cannot bind future Parliaments.

But we have gone as far as we possibly can to tie it up.

A Minister of Finance is not going to be 40 years in that position. Some finance minister may come along in future and be in a tight corner, not in the very comfortable position in which my hon. friend is, and take the money. The money may be diverted to other purposes. The second assumption is more important still. The Minister goes on the assumption that the revenue from the Witwtersrand is to go on as at the present moment. The contribution from the Witwatersrand and the gold mines towards the revenue is very large. I have seen it put down as over 50 per cent. by Mr. Leisk, former Secretary for Finance. If this begins to fall off it is a very serious matter. Many assets which are now payable will become unpayable; population may fall off, and a very serious difference may be made to railways which today may be paying. Some of the legislation we have passed this session—in my opinion, tends in the direction of decreasing the out-put of the Witwatersrand. As a result of legislation in Australia, the gold fields of Kalgoorlie have become unproductive, and only 3,000 people are left there. The gold miners are asking for a subsidy of £1 per ounce, because the cost of working the mines has become so high that many have had to close down. The tendency in this country is unfortunately to increase the working costs of the mines. We have not got to the end of the 40 years yet, and we have not saved the sixty-nine millions.

I agree with what my hon. friend has said about this being an improvement. As to its not being able to bind future Parliaments, that can be said about any scheme. My experience has shown me how this can be got over. One has heard rumours about instructions that the collection of the income tax must be delayed a bit so that there shall not be a big surplus which has to be handed over. It seems to me that this scheme is rather favouring the present as against the future. It means that the country in thirty years’ time will be contributing considerably more than we are contributing, and the more debts you pay off the more interest you have to pay. It is an accumulation. It is an ingenious arrangement ; but might the Minister not even yet consider this: to treat the amount which is paid off as a building society loan is treated—throughout the whole term you pay the same sum per annum. It would throw an even burden over forty years on the country, instead of being an accumulating amount. I do not quite know how the Minister has arrived at this. Would the effect not be the same if a bigger amount was contributed per annum. This seems to me hardly a fair way of balancing.

I am glad that this effort which we are making has been favourably received by the House. I think it is generally recognized that we are making an advance in connection with this important matter. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said that we are not binding future Parliaments. That is so; but I submit this legislation will make it much more difficult for a future finance minister to escape debt redemption than the existing legislation does. Although we cannot take away the absolute right of Parliament to alter it, it will not be done so easily when this Bill is on the statute book. Then the hon. member says the position will be much more difficult when we do not get the mining revenues we get now. That is so ; but that is the case not only with regard to debt redemption, but when that event comes to pass we shall have to consider our financial position in other respects. But the receipts from the mining revenues are a surplus to our main provision. The hon. member is quite right in pointing out the serious circumstances in the future when that event comes to pass. We hope that the pessimistic rumours will not come to pass. As far as the point made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) is concerned, he will see that if his suggestion is carried out it will mean a larger basic contribution than at present. We have taken the maximum amount we can pay at the present time, and it will not be possible to accept his suggestion. We do not ask the coming generation to do more than we are doing. I do not think his point, that the present generation should pay more, is a serious point.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time ; House to go into committee now.

House In Committee :

On Clause 6,

Why change the definition of “bonds” to “short date stock ”?

The word “bonds” in the principal Act refers to bearer securities only, and this will correct a drafting mistake in the previous Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clause and title having been agreed to,

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

If there is a country where much ought to be done for the preservation of fauna it is South Africa. In the old days we had game in abundance, and game of a kind and of a beauty such as one could not find in any other part of the world. Unfortunately the inhabitants just as in other countries did not take into account that wild animals can ultimately become exterminated so as to entirely disappear. There are a few kinds which have already been totally exterminated, such as, e.g., the blue buck, which was formerly found in the Cape Colony, the zebras and the white rhenoster, of which there are still fifteen or twenty specimens in Natal and I think there is still a herd to be found in the Congo. As I shall show later, the preservation of our fauna is of incalculable value to the country, not only from an aesthetic point of view, but also from that of practical and material value. It is due to the farsightedness of the late President Kruger that we are to-day able to establish a park which will contain all kinds of wild animals that the country has produced, except the few kinds I have mentioned. In 1898 the Republic proclaimed the game reserve and subsequently it was enlarged by the Colonial Government which followed the second war of independence. I want to take this opportunity to give a special word of praise to Col. Stevenson-Hamilton. Thanks chiefly to his action the kinds of game that we require and which must be preserved are to-day in the park, and we hope they will so increase that later on they will run outside the park in which way by a means of the issue of permits the Provincial Government will have an opportunity of being greatly benefited by the shooting of the game. In 1912, fourteen years after the reserve was proclaimed by the late President Kruger, there were about 30,000 wild animals in it. To-day the number is estimated at about 130,000. That is the estimate of the chief warden of the park, Col. Stevenson-Hamilton, and is fairly accurate, even if it is of course merely an estimate. There are at present the following game: 65 elephants, 10 black rhenosters, 210 giraffes, 195 hippopotamus, 250 buffalo and all other species, such as zebra, koodoo, antelope, blue wildebeest, waterbuck, etc. As hon. members will have seen from the map I have laid on the Table, and from the schedule to the Bill, it is the intention of the Government to fix the borders of the game reserve by law. The northern boundary is formed by the Pafurie River, a tributary of the Limpopo, the western border is formed by Portuguese East Africa, the southern border by the Crocodile river, and the eastern border which is a little irregular is formed in accordance with natural boundaries, and the boundaries of farms where various interests had to be borne in mind. The area is about 2,400,000 morgen. Hon. members will admit that the ground must form one continuous whole, and that it must be large enough, particularly for animals who require plenty of room to move about. Hon. members will possibly think that this extended area is too large, but I can assure them that according to reports the ground there is not suitable for farming or grazing, except a part of the Sabie reserve, which can be used for winter grazing, and then there are farms in the so-called corridor which we are taking over from private farmers which are suitable for cultivation, but of the 2,400,000 morgen certainly 2,000,000 are unsuitable for cultivation or grazing and the land there is comparatively worthless. I also want to mention that the Senoetsie River has very little water and that only a few natives live in that area. It seems a dispensation of Providence that we have been given that locality to establish a national park in the interests of the preservation of our fauna. In America there are eighteen national parks, of which the largest and best known is the Yellowstone Park, which occupies an area of 2,142,000 acres or 3,348 square miles. It is the largest national park in America and I think the second largest in the world. Our park will be slightly larger, 2,400,000 morgen. The park in America is of greater importance. There are fossilised trees and fountains, and as regards animals, buffalo, “elfe ”(sic) and boars which are all in danger of dying out. But as regards variety of game it cannot compare with our park here. We have more game and a larger variety than they have. I only wish to say that the parks there are visited by many people who pay to see the animals, because in one year I notice the revenue to the State was 1 million dollars. Last year 750,000 people visited the parks, 62,000 of whom visited Yellowstone Park. We cannot of course expect the same number of visitors to our park. Our population is only small but yet our park should attract many people from other parts of the world as well. I shall take care that the park is advertised so that foreigners are also attracted here. America has had much trouble in establishing a park, and the fact that we are having so little trouble to-day is due to the farsightedness of President Kruger. I just want to give a few figures with reference to America to show what great value the parks there appeared to have. In 1889 the number of bison which were formerly present in the steppes in millions was reduced to 1,091. The preservation of the fauna from extinction is only done in the existing parks. There were millions of the American carrier pigeon breed and in one city according to return in two years’ time 16,000,000 of these birds alone were sold. They are now extinct. There was, e.g., the “white tailed deer” of which in 1875 there were only thirteen left, but owing to supervision it was possible in 1897 to give consent to the shooting of 150, and in 1909, 5,261 to a value of 86 thousand dollars. We must remember that if a species is once exterminated then there is an end to it for ever. Dr. Gordon Hewitt, consulting zoologist to the Canadian Government, in his work “The Conservation of Wild Life in Canada” expresses this admirably. I echo every word of it. He says—

That is perfectly true, and if we do not do the same thing here then wild animals will be lost to posterity who will have the right to regard us as vandals. Apart from the aesthetic point of view the preservation for posterity is at the same time a preservation of material value to us. In America we see that every year that much game is sold, last year to an amount of 3¾ million dollars in the State of New York alone. Then the skins of the wild animals as is well-known are much better for riems and whips, etc., than those of tame animals. The wild animals are, therefore, a great asset to the country. The point that we shall also get revenue from the park will especially please the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) although he too will certainly from an aesthetic point of view be in favour of the Bill. I propose calling the park “The Kruger National Park.” I do so because I think that we owe it to the farsightedness of the late President Kruger, that we are now able to assure the park established by him of certain continuance. But for him I trunk much of the fauna would have been lost. I consider it a great honour for me as his relative to have the opportunity to day to complete his work and to establish a national park for the future. Now hon. members will see that besides the benefits already mentioned it will also be possible to capture and sell some of the wild animals. This is regarded of so great importance in America that there is a national park service under a chief inspector, and I think we ought to do the same here. In the first place we must fix the boundaries by legislation. I think that is very necessary. We know that the Sabie reserve was 2,800,000 morgen in size, but it was reduced to just over 2,000,000 morgen. Now we are adding a small piece, and the total area becomes 2,400,000 morgen. As long as the alteration of the boundary is in the hands of the Government the Government will always be exposed to being pressed by supporters to alter the boundary. Politics must be kept out of it. The danger is especially great before a general election that political influence will be brought to bear on a Government. Therefore, I further propose the appointment of a board of control consisting of people who represent the interests of the whole people. That board will have full control in its hands. It will be incorporated and can sue and be sued. It will appoint its own officials, make its own regulations, and control the park, and in a word act as the controlling body which has charge of everything in connection with the park. The board of control will consist of ten members serving for five years. Every year two will retire. I propose that eight members shall be appointed by me, one by the Transvaal Provincial Administration (because the park is in the Transvaal) and one to be appointed by the Wild Life Protection Society. As members, however, will see provision is further made that when both Houses of Parliament resolve to declare any area as part of a national park then the province wherein the national park falls may also nominate a member, and Government in that case will appoint one less. This will, e.g., happen with regard to the Cape Province if the Addo reserve falls under the national parks. I put a sum of £7,000 on the estimates last year, as hon. members know, for the improvement of that reserve as regards water and bore holes, so that the position there is now much improved. Eventually we shall, therefore, get so far that each province will appoint a member, the Government four, and the Wild Life Protection Society the tenth member. Hon. members will see that it is proposed that the members of the board shall not be paid except for current expenses, such as travelling expenses. I want to say that the persons on the board should not actually make anything out of it. The revenue from which the board will meet the necessary expenses consists in the first place of £4,000, which I will put on the Estimates as an allowance, and in the second place the provincial council of the Transvaal has assured me that they will give £3,000 per annum. That makes £7,000. and the board of control will further get revenue from the fees paid to visit the parks, from hotel and shop licences, if hotels and shops are subsequently erected, from money obtained by the sale of game and the skins of animals, and from fines which hon. members will see are severe against killing animals there. The revenue will come from those sources. Further, I hope that there will be people who have made their money in South Africa who will give donations, and I can assure the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that such donations will be welcome. I hope that the revenue later on will be so large that the board will be able to meet the expenditure from it, so that the Government and the provincial council will no longer need to contribute. As the revenue from the sources I have mentioned increases the subsidies will be reduced. If later on there is any surplus from the sources of revenue which the board has, then it may possibly be arranged later that the surpluses will be paid into the Treasury. There is another point, viz., that officials shall be appointed for the park by the board of control. At the moment there are a number of officials, but they will now go on pension (in three months according to the Bill). The board may appoint them again, and may also provide for pensions, but then it is the board’s own matter, because it is given a free hand to act as it pleases in this matter. If Government officials remained there there would be officials of the board, and of the Government, and then the board would not have the control it ought to have. I want to say that the board of control will have full right to make any regulation with reference to the officials and any other matter connected with the park. Hon. members will see that the officials will have the right to arrest persons inside the park and within a mile of it without a warrant, because if they have to go one hundred miles to get a warrant from a justice of the peace, then the person they want to arrest will be gone. Then I want to say that the park will not become a danger in consequence of tsetse flies. I was assured by the officials of the game reserve and of the W.N.L.A. that there were no tsetse flies south of the Great Sabie River in the territory of the Mozambique-Beira company, and that mules and horses had never suffered at all there. I intend, however, to appoint an entomologist as a member of the board of control, so that this matter can receive attention. As it will be impossible to properly fence in the park, strong provisions are being made that no one may enter it without the consent of the board. I propose if hereafter roads are made in the park in order to show the game to visitors that the visitors shall arrive at one entrance and go through the park by indicated roads under the supervision of officials. I 3o not think it is necessary to say any more about the Bill, and I trust that hon. members will agree that what we are doing will redound later to our credit. The game there are fulfilling a good role, because they differ from tame animals in that they do not cause the veld to wash away as tame animals do. They preserve the veld in this respect, because that they do not make footpaths which are subsequently converted into sluits. There are also magnificent natural scenery and vegetation in the park which will come under the control of the board. I hope that when the work is completed there hon. members will have the time to go and look at it. It is already worth the trouble to go and see that neighbourhood.

You can take the members of Parliament there for a tour.

The place will be a first-class holiday resort and will draw a large number of visitors from Europe which will be to the benefit of the country and of the railways. The establishment of a national park will thus, in every respect, æsthetically and materially be an advantage to the country, so that I can unhesitatingly propose the second reading of the Bill.

I only rise to give my blessing to the Bill and to congratulate my hon. friend, the Minister of Lands, on the realization by him of an aim he has cherished for years. I think the large majority of the public will be thankful to him for introducing this Bill by which we now know that there is a chance of preserving for posterity one of our institutions which was in danger of being destroyed. I am also pleased that the name of our great State President will be connected with the park. President Kruger was one of the great hunters of South Africa ; but, at the same time, a great lover of our game, and I think that the right step is being taken to-day, to perpetuate his work and to connect his name with it. We have in South Africa a number of people who take little interest in these things. There exists a feeling amongst a part of the population that we cannot develop the country and, at the same time, keep the game alive and increase them. They seem to have declared war against the game, and they devastate and exterminate it, with the result that fauna of the greatest and rarest value are more and more exterminated, which still continues to-day, and an example of which I saw myself some years ago. Not so many years ago there existed in the mountains beyond Piqutberg the equus quagga, which is supposed to be the ancestor of our horse. During our lifetime the last of them was shot in the mountains of Piquetberg and later, when I wanted the skin returned, which is to-day in the museum in Munich, Germany, they asked me to pay £1,000 for the skin. This quagga is possibly extinct. Possibly he is still found somewhere in the Kalahari, but probably he no longer exists. Our country is rich in rare animals and, in view thereof, the old Transvaal Government in republican days established a game reserve which has developed until to-day it is the most beautiful collection of fauna which is to be found in the world. I do not think that anywhere else on the African continent the same sights, as regards wild animals, are to be seen as in the game reserve in the Transvaal. The reserve, however, is constantly in danger of being destroyed in times of drought, e.g., if persons want to trek there for grazing, etc., and, therefore, I am so glad that we shall have a law on the statute book providing for the continuance of the magnificent fauna probably forever. My desire has always been to go further than we are now doing by reserving a large stretch of country throughout the Union, Rhodesia, Portuguese territory to Central Africa, so that the animals could move about from north to south and from south to north, in country which would run from South Africa right up to the Equator. Of course, that is not possible at present. Rhodesia is not in the Union, but the day may possibly still come that we shall be able to have a game reserve which will run from the Union to the Equator. The public will be thankful that the matter is completed in this way, and I hope that, in the future, it will not be meddled with, and that it will now be regarded as disposed of. I want to say a word of hearty acknowledgment of the services of Col. Stevenson-Hamilton, who has been warden there for practically his whole lifetime. He has a great love of game, and is an expert of the highest rank. He has devoted his life to the work, and given all his love and service to the building up of the game reserve. If it is now finally established as a national park of South Africa, then in the length of days it will remind us of his great services in connection with its establishment. I heartily support the Bill.

So far as I have been able to discover, only one national park has been created by Act of Parliament in South Africa, and that is in Natal. That park is noted for its magnificent scenic grandeur, but it has no faunal wealth worth mentioning. Certainly this is the first time a measure for the establishment of a national park has been introduced by the Union Parliament, and I therefore look upon this as a highly important and auspicious occasion, and consider myself very fortunate in being able to speak on and in support of this Bill. An historical record of the life of fauna in South Africa would make melancholy reading. It may be summed up in the words—

Reference has already been made by the Minister and the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to the varieties which, by reason of this slaughter, are extinct, and to some varieties which are on the verge of extinction. Where game once existed in countless thousands, the countryside is now, alas! a lifeless waste. This slaughter has been going on for a long time, and it has, unhappily, not altogether ceased. A few years ago we had those senseless drives in the Lydenburg district and in the Umfolosi game reserve, which did not reflect much credit on the people who participated in them. So bad was the slaughter in the Orange Free State, that about half a century ago an ordinance, No. 3 of 1872, was enacted, imposing heavy penalties for the killing of large game for the mere purpose of trading in the skins. The latest outrage in the direction of senseless and ruthless slaughter is one that happened in the northern Transvaal only last year. I happened to be in London at the time, and received a communication from the secretary of the Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire directing my attention to this, and asking if nothing could be done to stop it. This association is one which does not interfere with the preservation of fauna in the dominions It consists of sportsmen, scientists and public-spirited citizens, who, by co-operation and advice, are assisting in this noble work of the preservation of the magnificent fauna which is to be found throughout the British empire. The journal of this association is a book which is well worth reading, and I hope, now that we are on the eve of having a national park worthy of the name, that at no distant date we shall have a journal of our own, and by interchange of communications with the parent journal in London, great good and mutual advantage will be derived. The secretary of the society in London enclosed in his letter to me a cutting from “The Times,” dated 29th July, 1925. I am not going to read this lengthy cutting, but it refers to the immense slaughter which was going on in the northern Transvaal, and it stated that the people of the district feared that this indiscriminate shooting would result in the destruction of all large game in this area of 6,000 square miles, and that in the wholesale destruction of the larger fauna of the north, the people were sacrificing their biggest asset. I must say that the recital of these happenings in the Union brought a blush to my cheeks, as a South African. I told the secretary of the society that I could hardly credit the statement, but on my return to South Africa I would investigate the matter. I regret to say that I found that it was for the greater part only too true, and that all varieties of large game had been ruthlessly slaughtered, such as sable, roan, koodoo, riet buck, and, more particularly, wildebeest. I state this simply to show what a danger the fauna of this country is exposed to, through the extermination of large game under the present control. What happened in the north-eastern Transvaal might well have happened in the Sabi Reserve. It is intensely gratifying to find that once for all the fauna of this country will be secure. I think this is a fitting moment to pay a tribute of recognition to those who have materially helped in bringing about this great work, and I speak here, not for myself, but as the representative of an association which has existed for about 25 years, and with which I have the honour of being associated ; indeed, I was its first chairman. That association has done a great deal of good and useful work towards the preservation of game. I refer to the Transvaal Game Protection Association. I should like to express my unqualified delight that this park is to be named the Kruger National Park. There is no doubt that President Kruger, by his proclamation of the 29th December, 1897, and the Volksraad, by a subsequent resolution in 1899 saved for posterity the fauna of this country, and I trust that in the near future some worthy memorial, some monument will be erected in the park to commemorate this great act of President Kruger’s, say on Pretorius Kop, or some other conspicuous place, a monument which countless visitors from other lands will view with admiration and respect, and which future generations of South Africans will gaze on with feelings of gratitude and veneration. The association for all time of the name and memory of this great and rugged old voortrekker—himself a mighty hunter in his day—with the world’s greatest faunal reservation—both in extent and variety—appeals strongly to the imagination. A tribute of praise has been paid both by the Minister and the hon. member for Standerton to the work of Col. Stevenson-Hamilton. That work is perhaps known to me more than to the Minister by reason of my long association with the Transvaal Game Preservation Association. There is no doubt that the appointment of Col. Stevenson-Hamilton has been a singularly happy and fortunate one. A man of retiring and unassuming disposition, a man of extensive reading and wide culture, a man endowed with a scientific mind, a trained field naturalist, the author of a classic on "The Animal Life of South Africa,” and many other treatizes. An ardent lover of nature in all its aspects, alone has made it possible for Col. Hamilton, for a period of about 25 years, to have lived in a country which, although exceedingly healthy and pleasant in the winter months, is certainly in summer rife with malaria, and in some areas communicates blackwater fever. The zeal and energy which the warden of the reserve has put into his work have inspired those under his control. The result is, that although this large area was and is being patrolled with an inadequate staff, the large and varied fauna mentioned by the Minister is to be found in the Kruger National Park. The desire to have a great national park in this area is, with many of us, not a new-born inspiration. Numbers of us have worked for this for many years. The Transvaal Game Protection Association has striven continuously to attain this end I know that on more than one occasion I have been its spokesman. When we found that we had in the Minister a genuine enthusiast, and one who was determined to introduce legislation, the question of a suitable name for the park occupied our thoughts. What did the warden think ? His life’s work was on the point of realization. His thoughts would naturally turn to the old pioneer and president who had secured a place of refuge, a sanctuary, for the hunted and harassed fauna which he, the warden, so dearly loved and cherished. In a letter to me dated the 29th December last, he said he considered the most fitting name to be—

One is pleased to see that the name which the warden had in his mind is the one which the Minister has given to the park. I would like to briefly refer to what two countries have done in regard to game preservation and national parks. Let me first, however, just mention that before the late war broke out the Russian Government proposed to set aside 850,000 acres for the preservation of two varieties of fauna, bison and ibex. The building of towns and villages would be forbidden, and neither farming nor mining operations would be allowed. Let us take Canada. The preservation of wild life in Canada will forever be associated with the memory of the late Dr. Gordon Hewat, scientist and author. A strenuous and successful champion for the protection and preservation of fauna and avi-fauna. Canada has ten national parks with an area of 8,917 square miles. In addition there are provincial preserves for game and wild life in all provinces. The Dominion and provincial reserves cover an area of 37,704 square miles. Well might Mr. Campbell, the representative at the Wembley exhibition last year of the Canadian exhibitors be in a position to inform me that the government of that Dominion makes thirty million pounds sterling annually out of tourists. Take the United States. This vast country was fortunate in having a strenuous and successful champion for the preservation of its wild life as Dr. W. J. Honaday, a man of great erudition, author and naturalist. Here I want to refer to the “National Parks Bulletin,” dated May, 1925. From this very informative and interesting journal it appears that the Federal parks are 19 in number with an area of 11,387 square miles. The total number of federal and wild life refuges, including national parks, is 111. The policy in regard to national parks was expressed in these words by the secretary of the Interior—

The Minister has said that the importance of wild life in our park exceeds that of any other country. This invaluable asset with its great economic and aesthetic importance is unknown to most people in the Union. The Minister by this Act has unlocked a great natural treasure repository, and it will be for the board of trustees to make known to the world this valuable asset by which great wealth will accrue to the state in the future. The park is unknown to most members even of this House, and to give them a glimpse of the delight and instruction it affords, I would like to read one or two sentences from the last annual report of the warden. It is to be regretted that this very informative and intensely interesting report has not been printed and circulated among members. The report is a very exhaustive document and deals with a variety of interesting subjects, and it gives a vivid picture of the conditions and of the park. It says—

What a magnificent training ground will be here afforded to students of natural history. A proper appreciation of the delights and educational value of nature study was expressed by the dauntless and heroic Capt. Scott in his last message. With death staring him in the face Capt. Scott writes to his wife—

Few things make a stronger appeal to the human than to see wild life under its natural conditions, and there is no doubt that thousands of visitors will flock from abroad to see this magnificent park of ours. The board of trustees which the Minister has appointed under the Bill will be a very necessary and useful body. One of its chief functions will be to get money as the park must be made easily accessible to visitors and travellers ; we must have good roads, good rest houses and good hotels. The cinematograph will enable us to show our goods, and I have no doubt that a considerable amount of money will be forth coming for the purposes of this park. It will then be made the attractive show place of this sub-continent which it undoubtedly is. Last year I dwelt upon the economic value of the park in the sense that game areas now depleted may be re-stocked. This has happened in America and it is now possible under licence to shoot thousands of heads of game annually in places and States which were at one time depleted of game. I should like to join in congratulating the Minister on being the instrument of securing for all time to the people of the Union this great asset. He has hereby rendered a great service to posterity. I know the many difficulties he has met with, but by patience, persistence and perseverence and, above all, by his urbanity of manner and by tactful handling he has made a good bargain for the State. On behalf of the Wild Life Protection Society of South Africa, which has absorbed the Transvaal Game Protection Society, I beg to thank the Minister for the recognition of the work that Society has done, by giving it the right of nominating a member of the Board of Trustees. On behalf of the numerous public-spirited women and men who have long waited for this park, and have waited in suspense, I beg to thank him. The Bill, which I have studied very carefully, I consider a very good one. It will be possible for the board of trustees to obtain money from private sources, which it will not be possible for the Government to do. It has given me unbounded satisfaction and pleasure to speak in support of this motion.

Amongst all the congratulations I only want to say a few words which will, perhaps, sound a discordant note, but I want to say something in connection with the name of the so-called park. The name Kruger National Park is undoubtedly very good English, Kruger National park is certainly not Afrikaans. I want to say that it gives cause for constant annoyance that the Afrikaans' Acts are merely translations. I am convinced of it that if the Minister were to draw up the Bills in Afrikaans as I hope will be the case in the future, such crying anglicisms will not appear in our Bills. I hope that the word game reserve will be retained. I have just looked at the titles of the various Bills and it gives occasion to constant and great annoyance. You have here, e.g., Promotion of the Iron and Steel Industry Act. 1922 Amendment Bill ; Public Debt Commissioners Amendment Bill ; Cape Fixed Establishment Servants Removal Validation Bill; The particular words are indeed Afrikaans, but the composition of the title is not Afrikaans. It is possibly less Afrikaans than Chinese. Then there is: Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act, 1916, Amendment Bill. I want to appeal to the House, and in the first place to the Minister, to put an end to this sort of thing. We have, to everyone’s satisfaction, acknowleged Afrikaans as an official language of the Union, but we cannot rejoice at this murdering of the language. Without going into the merits of the Bill I want to ask that the high esteem we feel for the name of President Kruger and the love that we have for our language shall be given expression to by altering the name in the Bill. I hope the Minister will not be satisfied with anglicisms and misnomers occurring in the highest legislation of the country, and I hope, therefore, that Afrikaans will have its fullest rights in this and in other Bills.

I am sure that all sections of this House and of the public will welcome this Bill. I do hope the Minister will consider that they have not done enough, but add to the schedule by next year, and I hope that by that time he will make a sanctuary of the Addo bush, and will add the Free State sanctuary, which we instituted two years ago there, but which is not yet statutory. I hope he will think of Natal, and make the Umkuzi and Ndumu sanctuaries statutory. Take the case of the Addo bush—shooting licences are issued in that sanctuary to shoot buffalo, which is as rare an animal as the elephant is to-day, and are found to-day only in the Addo bush and the Umfolosi reserve. The Minister will remember that in the Winburg area, we set aside an area in which there are blesbok and springbok, that is in a precarious position in that it is not statutory. A portion of the Kalahari may, with advantage, be also set aside. I do hope the Government will not rest on its laurels in this matter. I agree with the other speakers in congratulating the Minister of Lands on the excellent work he has done in this connection.

After the clear explanation by the Minister of Lands the words of appreciation of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the clear, clever and instructive speech of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), it is not at all necessary for me to say much. I have, however, a special reason for also expressing my pleasure because the central portion of the park is situated in my constituency. I have pleaded every year for the establishment of such a park and I want to express my gratitude and appreciation that we have got so far as to create a national park. As the Minister said, the best, largest and most beautiful collection of fauna that there is to be found in the world is collected there. The large Yellowstone park in America may excel it in natural beauty, but as regards the variety of animals it cannot be compared with our park. I think on this occasion a word of thanks should also be expressed for the work done by the Provincial Administration and the Executive Committee of the Transvaal Province, because the work commenced by the old Republican Government of the Transvaal continued by the interim Government has been prosecuted with great success by the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Were it not for the measures taken by them for the protection of the game reserve it would not be in its present condition, and as regards the game in the reserve there can be no doubt that for variety and numbers there has been much progress in the past twenty years. I was, myself, one of the persons who, on various occasions, accompanied shooting expeditions to the present game reserve, and so far as it is in my district I know it very well. I must, in one word, deny what was said by the hon. member for hospital (Mr. Papenfus) with reference to the devastation and destruction of game. My experience of the shooting expeditions in the Transvaal is that every skin was properly taken home and usefully employed, and as regards the meat, in so far as it was not consumed by the natives accompanying the party it was taken home, and biltong, etc., was made of it. Be this as it may, I think that we have now got to the point of fulfilling the object towards which we have striven so long. The question which should occupy us now is how to regulate the visits of the public in the best way. Where the best places are for roads, hotels and resting places and from which railway, from the Selati or the Delagoa railway ? Therefore, it is such a good act of the Minister in creating a board of control which can go into all these matters and take the control of the park on itself so that the park shall not be controlled by an officer sitting in an office in Pretoria, but be properly looked after by a board of control of ten persons, who will, of course, all be people taking an interest in this matter. As far as I have read the Bill, the Minister has provided for all possible eventualities in connection with the preservation and use of the game reserve. On behalf of my district also, I want to congratulate the Minister on his scheme.

I just want to say a few words of thanks to the Minister for the introduction of this Bill, and I think Ministers will congratulate him on the name selected for the national park, because President Kruger was the first man to make provision for protecting the game in South Africa. In this respect therefore his name ought to be kept up. I feel that one of the difficulties of the board of control will certainly be, where there are farms on the borders of the reserve— how to protect the people on the borders against the wild animals. In recent years they have unquestionably suffered damage by wild animals, e.g., lions who have dome over the border of the reserve. That is definitely a fact and it will be a difficult task to properly protect the people. However, I want to thank the Minister for the Bill.

I want to express my acknowledgement for the good reception of the Bill. I do not think I need add anything to what I said in introducing it. An hon. member has enquired about future parks, and if they will be dealt with in the same way. He was apparently not in the House when I spoke because Clause 2 provides that such places as the Addo reserve can also be made a part of the national park by the resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The hon. member for Pretoria [North) (Mr. Oost) has commented upon the name of the park.

Why not “Game Reserve”?

Park is just as good as Game Reserve. We called it the Sabie Game Reserve from the beginning and I think the name Kruger National Park is quite right. As for his remark about the titles of the Bill, the Clerk of the House will probably give his attention to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time ; House to go into committee now.

What fees are provided for in line 60 of this clause?

If people want to visit the park, the board may find it necessary to impose a small fee, and when officials accompany these people they may also have to charge a certain fee for it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I see the Minister proposes to purchase land inside the park. What does he expect to have to pay ?

I have practically settled this question but there are still five or six farms belonging to private individuals. If I cannot come to agreement with them, I take powers here to expropriate these farms for public purposes. The price will be the price fixed by the Land Board. I think I will be able to settle with these people without resorting to expropriation. The trouble was that I could not find some of the owners. With the exception of five or six matters have already been settled.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

It seems to me there is something contradictory in this clause. Under sub-section (b) it is unlawful to take into the park any weapon, trap or poison, but subsection (c) provides that any dangerous animal may be killed in defence of human life. Suppose a dangerous animal attacks a visitor, and he is not allowed to take any weapon into the park, how can he defend himself ?

If the hon. member will look at sub-section (b) of subsection 2 he will see it provides for the conveyance, through the park, of any article mentioned in paragraphs (b). That means he can, by permission of the board, have firearms. A person can travel in the park with firearms by permission of the board.

That is not exactly my point. How can a man defend himself if he has no weapon ?

Under subsection (2) of Clause 16, permission is given to convey through the park articles which would include firearms.

Provided you don't leave the train.

No, the necessary provision will be found in paragraph (c) of sub-section (2).

When a visitor goes to a national park he does not expect to be attacked by wild animals and he therefore does not apply for a permit to carry weapons. Should he be attacked suddenly he might have no means of defence.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Schedule and Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

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

I move—

The Bill deals with the extension of the Matubatuba-Pongola line, which was sanctioned by Parliament last year. The distance of this line is about 4 miles. It is proposed to carry it over the Pongola River. In terms of an arrangement come to with the Swaziland Administration, they will contribute £10,000 towards the construction of the line. The estimated cost of the proposed line is just over £67,000. Hon. members have before them the full report of the Railway Board on the matter and they will also remember that the necessary funds have already been voted by Parliament in the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The principle of the construction has, therefore, been approved of and in view of the fact that the line is at present under construction and that it will be a pity to cease construction and afterwards come to Parliament with a short extension, I think it is advisable that we should deal with it in this way and authorize the extension of the line as now proposed.

I have no objection to this Bill and I think under the circumstances the construction is justified. What I want to know from the Government—we have not got it yet—is how about the natives who are going to be employed on the work of construction? We have seen it stated in the papers more than once, and the attention of the Minister has been called to the fact, that the natives employed on this line are suffering from malaria and suffering very badly indeed. As far as I can understand it appears that the bulk of these natives come from the Transkei or Pondoland, at any rate from some healthy district, and they very soon become victims to malaria, etc., on this line. I would ask the Minister whether any change is going to be made in regard to the natives who are going to be used on the construction of this line. Immunized natives can easily be got from the other side of the border and it is not right that we should go on using natives who are subject to malaria for the construction of this line, when we can get Portuguese natives who are accustomed to the climate and the country and who can stand this work.

I would like to raise a matter which is rather important in connection with the construction of this line and that is in regard to the building of the bridge over the Pongola. It has been customary in the past for the Railway Administration to set its face entirely against any co-operation with the provincial authorities in the building of bridges which may be used jointly as road bridges and railway bridges. The railways on the North and South Coast lines in Natal cross the mouths of large rivers and if the Administration would join its forces with the provincial authorities in the building of joint bridges those structures would be much stronger and as a combined operation they would cost much less to construct than they do at the present time. We have several cases on the North Coast line where road bridges have cost many thousands of pounds to construct and the railway bridge and the road bridge are only a few hundred yards from each other. It is going to be infinitely difficult for the railway authorities to find money to construct bridges in this part of the world and it seems eminently desirable that in a case such as the present one the Railway Administration should join forces with the Provincial Council. Had there been some co-operation between the Railway Administration and the Provincial Council I think that some of the bridges which have been swept away would most probably not have suffered that fate and the country would have been saved a considerable amount of money. I am informed that the cost of the construction of a joint bridge would not be nearly so great as the cost of constructing two separate bridges and that it would be much stronger and have the possibility of withstanding floods.

I would also add a word to the request made by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), but I want to do it more from the point of view of Swaziland. Being the district of my birth and where I was brought up, I know the conditions that prevail there. At the present moment any settler wishing to come down from Swaziland to that part of the Union in which the railway is to be built has to go round by Piet Retief and the neighbouring districts. I do not think it is unreasonable to request that, whilst this bridge is being constructed, it should be constructed both as a road bridge and a railway bridge. It will mean a saving of probably 200 or 300 miles to individuals coming down to that part of the Union and it would probably mean that you would get an increased road traffic.

I wish to supplement what has been said by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller). Immediately north of the Pongola River a large number of returned soldiers have been granted allotments by the Swaziland Government and they will probably desire to have their cotton conveyed by wagon to the cotton ginnery, which is on the south side of the Pongola, and it will be absolutely essential that they should have access to this bridge for their wagons in order to transport their cotton to the south side of the river. I have had representations from a large number of these settlers in Swaziland and, as we all hope that Swaziland will be incorporated in the Union at some later date, I trust the Minister will see the wisdom of acceding to our wishes in this matter.

I would like to have some explanation in regard to Clause 3, which states that the cost of construction—

We know that there are certain funds in the hands of the administration, the Renewal Fund, Betterment Fund, etc. This clause seems to me to be somewhat ambiguous. We have had some experience in regard to electrification in Natal where locomotives were bought out of the Renewals Fund. The cost of construction of this line to which Parliament has agreed should not come, so far as any part of it is concerned, out of the Renewals Fund.

With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown), I may inform him at once that this railway will not be constructed out of the Renewals Fund. It will come out of capital money authorized by Parliament. If the moneys-authorized are not sufficient, it will be possible to draw on other moneys which have been authorized for railway construction purposes. As to the question of constructing a joint rail and road bridge, as far as the railway authorities are concerned they have merely to do with the question of getting this railway over the bridge. If a joint road and rail bridge is to be constructed, that is a matter which either the provincial authorities or the Union Government will have to take up and then come to an arrangement with the Railway Administration. This would not be a provincial bridge, because it connects two provinces. Natal and the Transvaal. The Union Government would have to consider the matter and then come to the necessary arrangement with the provincial authorities. The people who would be primarily interested in the construction of a road bridge over the Pongola at this particular point would be Swaziland. I might point out that last year provision was made for the construction of a road bridge over the Pongola at a point higher up the river. I admit it would not help those people for whom hon. members are pleading. I have no doubt that the whole matter will be considered as to whether a road bridge will be necessary at this particular point or perhaps higher up to meet these particular people. I presume that if the railways construct towards the Swaziland border, the Minister of Railways would prefer to carry the produce of the Swaziland people over his railway and not allow it to come over a road bridge to the ginnery. As far as the question of the natives is concerned, it has been admitted that in regard to the natives employed by the railways proper precautions have been taken and that there has not been an abnormal death rate as far as they are concerned. The trouble has been with the natives of the contractors. I think that has been due to the very abnormal season which we had last year. If the position is so deadly, I wonder what will become of the poor cotton planters in this area. There are thousands of natives to-day engaged in cotton planting and a lot of White people working there and, at any rate, as far as last season is concerned there has not been a heavy mortality in that part of the world. Last year was quite a normal year. I do not think the position is so bad as has been made out. The death rate this year has not been high at all, as far as the natives, even the Transkei natives, are concerned.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time ; House to go into committee to-morrow.

Hon. members on the Opposition side have challenged hon. members on this side on the question of the abolition of the Senate. I think one can realize, after listening to the fight, the sham-fight, that has been going on on the S.A.P. benches this afternoon, that they are very happy about this Bill still preserving for them the government of the other House to prevent this House from carrying out the wishes of the people. I wonder what attitude they would take up if it were proposed to abolish the other House. I can imagine the rafters ringing with the cry of “revolution” if the Government had ventured to introduce a Bill to abolish the Senate. That is one of the reasons why we have not asked the House to waste time in discussing a Bill which, in reality, does not touch the fringe of the subject. The only clause of the Bill which is of any value at all is this Clause 2, because, at any rate, the effect of Clause 2 as it stands at the present moment will be to some extent to check the waste of time and the waste of expenditure which is going on in the passing of necessary legislation in this country. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has given us what, I must admit, was a very interesting constitutional statement on the position, but he has quoted authorities on the constitution which might have applied 50 or 100 years ago, but which certainly are not applicable to the conditions of this country. He has waxed eloquent about the respect which is due to that other House and about the attitude which we are adopting in clipping the wings of the other House as something that is unworthy. That seemed to me to come very badly from the hon. member, for he was the very first one to grasp the opportunity of getting out of that dignified atmosphere and coming to this House. His presence in this House is an indication that he is speaking with his tongue in his cheek when he talks about the position of the Senate. He seemed to resent, as other hon. members of the S.A.P. seem to do, the suggestion that came from these benches that the other House, with all the respect which is due to it or which should be paid to it, has really been in the past and is to-day simply the instrument of the S.A.P. I may mention two Bills, the Wage Bill of 1918 and the Apprenticeship Bill, measures which in the other House were thrown out at the behest of the S.A.P. We know that all the different parties have their caucuses, and it is reasonable to assume that, when that Wages Bill was introduced by the S.A.P. Government into this House, it was introduced as a result of a caucus that was held in which the Senate members of the S.A.P. participated. That was their position in connection with that Bill, it was their position in connection with the Apprenticeship Bill and it was their position in connection with legislation out of which the present Bill has arisen. I have stated that it was the result of a decision taken by the S.A.P. caucus. I am prepared to admit, perhaps in fairness to the S.A.P., that, although the decision was taken in that particular caucus, it emanated from outside sources which were interested in securing the policy of cheap labour in this country. I regret very much that the Government has not gone very much further and been logical in reference to this matter, and said that the other House must be done away with. The hon. member for East London (North) quoted the Bryce report on the constitution, and told us that the real value of a second chamber was to find out the minds of the people. I am quite prepared, and I am sure the Minister is prepared, to accept the challenge on that basis, that the real value of a second chamber is to find out the minds of the people, and, accepting that principle, we ask has the other House ever acted on that principle and ever attempted to find out the minds of the people ? Were they ascertaining the minds of the people in 1914 when the late S.A.P. Government carried through measures which were entirely unconstitutional, and the Senate very quietly and very obediently and very humbly put its seal on the Indemnity Bill of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)? Were they carrying out the principle of finding out what are the wishes of the people of this country in 1922? As long as the S.A.P. were in office, the other House simply put their seals on everything that came from the S.A.P. caucus. In reality the position of a second chamber, whether in this country, in England, or elsewhere, is not to urge the Government to more expeditiously carry through legislation in the interests of the masses of the people, but to act as a check in the interests of vested classes, a check againt anything which may be considered as hasty legislation. That has been the history of the House of Lords. I hope the Minister will not accept any amendment which in any way still further entrenches the powers of the Senate, and that he will go through with this clause.

I have seen recently in the papers that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has been addressing certain public meetings in Johannesburg. Apparently he has forgotten that he has left Johannesburg and the atmosphere of public meetings and come down to address this deliberative Assembly.

made an interjection.

If you will assist me, Mr. Chairman, in keeping the Deputy-Chairman in order, I will try and get on with what I want to say. Apparently the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kentridge) is still under the impression that he is addressing a meeting in his favourite purlieu in Troyeville from his favourite stand, the soap box. We want to hear his views on this measure. The hon. member for Troyeville is one of the root and branch men whom the present Bill does not satisfy. Probably he would abolish the Senate altogether. That is a logical and that would be an understandable thing. This Bill practically goes all the way to abolish the Senate and this clause that he loves so much does all that he wants, because if this Bill becomes law the Senate is de facto abolished so far as its real say in the affairs of this country is concerned. I have no doubt that if he consulted his colleagues they would like this House abolished also, but I do not think the hon. gentleman is a constitutional authority and, though it may be bad taste on my part, I would prefer on these questions to take the views of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). A great deal has been said, especially by the Minister of Mines and Industries, about the will of the people, and a lot of cant seems to be talked in this debate about the will of the people. Just let us examine what is the function of a second chamber. If it is merely to express the same will as is expressed by the House of Assembly, then there is no necessity for a second chamber. It is surely brought into being so that it may check the expression of the will of the people as the Assembly thinks that will should be expressed. Why do you keep the Senate? It is because it shall be a house of review, because it may, on different matters, express a view different from that of the Assembly. If the Assembly itself expresses the popular mind it only expresses, possibly, the popular mind for the moment. In very many matters the popular mind may have one opinion to-day and a different opinion six months from now. The popular mind very often means the mob mind, and there are all sorts of dangers arising from the hasty passage of legislation through this House, and it is the function of the Senate to stop that.

Yes, the Indemnity Bill.

There are all sorts of dangers, and since the Minister who has just interjected joined the Cabinet, that danger has become more apparent. We know that in the United States they have a Senate which is elected by a totally different vote, in a totally different manner, for a different period, from the House of Representatives. Why is this? Because it is not always right that the popular mind should be expressed by another House. Why was it laid down by the Fathers of the constitution that the Senate should sit for ten years and not necessarily be dissolved at the same time as the Assembly ? Because it was thought essential that the Senate should have differences from the House of Assembly.

That is your twelfth speech to-day.

I shall go on and make twenty-four speeches if necessary, on this particular clause, and thirty-six if necessary, and the hon. member will not make the slightest difference. The only way he can stop me from protesting is to move the closure.

That is what you want.

What I want to do is to try and convince the hon. gentleman who is interrupting. Of course, if he is not open to conviction then I should say the popular mind of the people is singularly unhappy in its expression as evidenced by the selection of the hon. gentleman. I shall not be deterred by any remarks of that sort, because I think we are discussing one of the most important pieces of legislation, and I think it is singularly unfortunate that we are forced to do it in the concluding days of the session. I hope this House, and certainly hon. members on this side, will not allow this clause to go through without the fullest discussion.

You want to keep us here all night.

I do not care if we are here until this time to-morrow. I may tell you we have not yet touched the fringe of this Clause 2. We have only been discussing it for half an hour so far.

We have been all the afternoon at it.

We have only just commenced to discuss the most important clause in this Bill, Clause 2. I do not know where the hon. gentleman has been. What are we asked to do ? This House has already agreed to Clause 1. What does it provide? It provides the Governor may dissolve the Senate within 120 days of the dissolution of the Assembly. It provides that nominated members go out with the rest of the Senate, and that they also go out on the resignation of the Prime Minister. Is that not enough ? Does it not give the Government a power to mould the Senate according to its own ideas? Does it not give it power to get a servile, complacent Senate? [Time limit.]

It is surprising to find sensible men on the Opposition side of the House professing to believe that senators do not decide all-important questions on party lines. They know better. Rightly or wrongly we have the party system of Government in South Africa, and rightly or wrongly on all important matters of policy we vote on party lines. Why, I can remember, I think it was in 1923, Major Hunt, who could no longer tolerate the attitude of the South African party in regard to its policy on unemployment in this country, crossed the floor and voted against the Government. The South African party not only hounded the Major out of the party, but subsequently hounded him out of Parliament, It is all humbug, and perhaps the biggest humbug of all is the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige).

Order ; withdraw.

That is not a Parliamentary word.

Well, perhaps the least sincere man in the South African party is the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige).

The hon. member is not allowed to impute insincerity to any other hon. member.

I will withdraw the word “humbug.” Although I believe it; I won’t say so in this House.

Withdraw.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member in order in technically withdrawing an expression and at the same time informing the House that he believes in it ? I understood these expressions had to be withdrawn unreservedly.

The hon. member should withdraw the word without any qualification whatever.

I merely wish to draw attention to the foolishness of the hon. member for Caledon in appealing to the Minister to give way to the demand from the Labour benches and bring in a Bill to abolish the Senate. If the Minister did do so I believe (to parody the words of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) it would be a case of—

The majority of the Labour party, at all events, would subscribe to abolishing the Senate altogether. Now that the House has agreed to the first clause of this Bill, the second clause, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary. Why should we perpetuate the farce of joint sittings ? Every member knew exactly what the result of the last joint sitting would be. Every South African party senator, nominated and otherwise, voted with the South African party against the Government on the Colour Bar Bill. The second clause is necessary if the Senate is to be constituted in keeping with the first clause of this Bill. I join with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in hoping the Minister will insist on the Bill going through as printed.

I want to support the amendment and to move as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Brig.-Gen. Byron—

I have a very grave reason for proposing these words. Recent events have shown that whatever opinion we may hold regarding election to the Senate there is a grave necessity for maintaining untampered the right of the Senate to delay legislation of doubtful wisdom, and that has become more necessary than ever. Now that the existing safeguards have proved so ineffective to prevent the passage of legislation which is utterly opposed to the will of the people, the Senate requires to be strengthened rather than weakened. It was no doubt present in the minds of the fathers of the constitution that in the case of a continued dispute between both Houses the Government of the day would have referred the matter to the arbitrament of the people of the country. That is recognized as the right and democratic course in other countries. In Australia it is particularly provided in the constitution. In that country it is provided that after the Senate has twice rejected a Bill the dispute shall be referred to the people. It further safeguards any question of an alteration of the constitution by requiring that the referendum to be in favour of the alteration shall contain a majority of the whole of the electors of the commonwealth, and in: addition, a majority of the states voting in that matter. In this Bill the Government proposes to act in an entirely opposite direction.

Is not Australia a federation ?

Precisely, and still it requires that safeguard.

Still! I should say because of that.

Australia is a country of one people. How much more necessary is it in a country of such diverse character as the Union of South Africa.

This is a Union.

Even the safeguard of publicity given by a joint sitting is to be taken away. We know the supposed cause why this Bill is brought before this House, but we are beginning to ask, what is behind it and all this hurry ? The Government is under the impression that once it is in power, it can work its sweet will irrespective of the wishes of the electorate, and it is empowered to make the most fundamental changes in our constitution —as this Bill shows—without any mandate from the country. We have reason to ask particularly in view of the Flag Bill, and of the declaration of independence made by the Prime Minister, if this Bill passes, what is before us?

A duty on sugar.

The Prime Minister has made a declaration of sovereign independence so plain and unequivocal in its terms that if our senses had not been dulled by the sophistries of the National party, it would have fallen as a thunderbolt on the people—particularly the people who have given the Prime Minister support under the belief that he regarded secession as a national calamity. If this section passes as it stands, one more obstacle is removed from the path of the National party, and it becomes possible shortly to pass a Bill to carry out the policy of the Prime Minister. On behalf of the people of Natal, speaking with the full support and on the advice of all Natal members sitting on these benches, I say the time has come to call a halt to these political sophistries. We challenge the right of the Prime Minister, or any Prime Minister, to make a declaration of such a nature affecting the very basis of our constitution. Natal disagrees—

That has nothing to do with the question before us.

On a point of order, the hon. member is trying to show that this Senate Bill is part and parcel of the same policy.

I am trying to point out that if this Bill passes the policy of the Prime Minister will be implemented—

If the hon. member is going to pursue that subject I will have to ask him to sit down.

Am I not in order in pointing out the effects of this Bill, and what we regard as possible under the Bill, and the motives of the Bill ? May I call your attention, Sir, to the effect of this clause? A Bill may pass through this House and become the law of the land without having been referred to the people, and to bring about a change in the constitution. We see that the Prime Minister’s declaration at Stellenbosch, if it were implemented by this Bill, would, under this Bill, land us in that condition. If the Prime Minister goes to the Imperial Conference—

I think that I have made it quite clear to the hon. member that he is not allowed to go into the merits of any other question than that before us.

I want to express to you what Natal is feeling will be the effect of this particular clause under discussion. That is what I am trying to point out. Here is a Bill introduced in the last week—the last three or four days of the session. It has never been before the country, and has never been considered. One of the greatest alterations is being made in the constitution without the people being at all consulted. We have it from the Labour party that they would welcome the abolition of the Senate. They would welcome anything that would keep the Pact in power. When Natal entered the Union, the constitution of the Senate was explained to the electorate at the time, and it was on the basis of the Senate at that time that Natal entered Union. Any change in the constitution without any reference to the people of Natal is a breach of the fundamental consideration on which Natal entered Union. [Time limit.]

One cannot come to any other conclusion except that the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) is proposed with the sole object of sowing bad seed in the country and arousing suspicion that this Bill was introduced with the intention of causing still further difficulties for them in Natal. From the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand, the speeches of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black-well), the remarks of my right reverend friend (the Rev. Mr. Rider), and from the attitude of the Opposition to-night and during the past week, it is clear to me that their opposition is made for no other purpose than to sow dissension in the country, and to create suspicion among the English-speaking people against the Government. The whole agitation has been started in the last few days with no other object than to throw up a smoke-screen to allow the idea to take root that South Africa is in danger, and that the Government is busy depriving the English-speaking people in South Africa of their rights. We are not going to allow ourselves to be dictated to as regards our legislation by the Sons of England or any patriotic society. The Free State has always co-operated with the other provinces in the Union and has never yet opposed legislation, although the South African party so governed the Free State that there was no Free State Minister in the Cabinet. To-day, however, there are those in Natal, or shall I say among the representatives of the society which is sowing bad seed in the country, who want to threaten us. The day will come that South Africa will reap the bitter fruit of the agitation which has been started. We want cooperation between the Dutch and English-speaking people, but we are not going to allow ourselves to be dictated to by the Sons of England. There ought not to be any obstruction, such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is making.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have been accused of causing obstruction all the afternoon. I ask you to protect me, sir.

The use of the word “obstruction” is not unparliamentary, unless there is clear imputation that it was wilful.

I was raising points which your own Prime Minister replied to. On a point of explanation—will the hon. member allow me ?

I did not want the apology of the hon. member, because he has already made twelve speeches this afternoon, and now wants to offload the thirteenth on us poor people. I am not so anxious to hear the hon. member. The hon. member for Zululand now makes an amendment to that of the hon. member for East London (North) (Gen. Byron), and it is just as absurd as anything in the world, because it aims at nothing else but to create suspicion in the country against the Government. I am bitterly sorry that such methods are being resorted to because, on its merits, the Bill is very fair.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) has accused this side of the House of sowing discord. Well, all I can say is that, if sowing discord means fighting very deliberate and flagrant attempts to create the worst form of disunion in the country that can possibly be made, we are guilty of sowing discord. But this party will never stand by while the whole of its traditions and principles for the last 20 years have been flouted by measures which, we have the utmost reason for believing, have been largely introduced for sowing discord in this country ; measures which have succeeded to an unparalleled extent in re-opening the old wounds amongst the people of this country, who gradually were approximating, in a peaceful manner to the harmony absolutely vital to this country. We have the hon. member for Maritz-burg (Mr. Strachan) pouring oil on the troubled waters. He talked about being kept there till Christmas. I should have thought that in view of recent events he would like nothing better than to be compelled to stay here as long as possible—whether till Christmas or later. When he talked about the example of Major Hunt, we could not help thinking that he left a little bit out of the history of Turffontein. He omitted the little episode that took place afterwards, when the present member for Turffontein came in in place of Major Hunt, and if ever a man was sold a pup I expect Major Hunt thinks that he was the one. In connection with the particular clause, I should like to know the reasons for this Bill being rushed through this House at the last moment. There is not a single word in the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament about the reformation or alteration of the Senate. What is there in the history of the past of the Senate that has raised the question of urgency in connection with this Bill ? I am in agreement with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that there is no justification in the past for this urgency. No, you must look to the future to see the cause of this Bill. And I share with him to the full his apprehension as to the motives behind the Government’s action. In the memorandum prepared in connection with the conference on the future constitution of the Senate, members will find on page 122 and onwards a very interesting summary of the position in its various aspects in regard to the Parliaments of the Empire and foreign countries. On page 124 we find a summary in regard to Australia and New Zealand as well as the Union and, in both, provision is made in the case of a deadlock between the two Houses that the matter must come, not only before the Assembly, but before the Senate. This Bill provides a procedure which leaves out two of the important safeguards in our constitution as it is at present. The clause not only cuts out the joint sitting, but also the second stage before the Senate ; in other words, the Senate has no opportunity of again considering its position in the light of continued opposition by the Assembly to the Senate’s proposals. I find from this memorandum, as an example, that in France, Switzerland and the United States, when there is a deadlock between the two Houses, a conference is arranged, and if that does not succeed in bringing agreement, the whole matter drops. I would like to ask whether the Government have a precedent for this clause.

In the British House.

No, that is on a different footing. What we do want is something more than the safeguard in this clause which will enable the Government, with their majority in the House, to bull-doze the Senate. This Bill is a compromise between the two extreme wings of the Pact ; the wing that wants to abolish the Senate and the other which wishes to curb and shackle the Senate and make it a docile Government machine. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has several times said that the Senate is a mere party machine. If the Senate at present is capable of being used as a party machine, after this Mill is passed through, it will be capable of being used as nothing else. The Senate is to have one opportunity of dealing with the matter, and one only, and, as the clause stands, if the House of Assembly passes a Bill and the Senate rejects, fails to pass or passes it with amendments, they have nothing more to do with it. [Time limit.]

In reply to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) who speaks about having two chambers all over the Empire, I want to say that the empire is progressive, because the latest country we have in the empire is Rhodesia, and they distinctly and deliberately left out the second chamber. This shows the way in which progressive men in England are thinking on this particular question, and when our friends from loyal little Natal come along here and try to put up a smokescreen with regard to the second chamber, we refer them to a far more loyal country—Rhodesia. Far more men went from Rhodesia to the war than went from Natal. The hon. member for Zululand, of course, is not worrying about the Senate ; nor is the hon. member for Rondebosch. What they are worrying about is something that happened last week. The South African party thought they had a stick to beat the Labour party with, but they will find it a broken reed that will bruise their own hand. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says the second chamber should be a check. He must admit that even the present Senate has never been a check, but a joke, from beginning to end. It has turned out legislation like a sausage machine. If you took the Votes and Proceedings yon would see that in the last few days of the session they turned out lots of Bills, because it was a South African party machine doing what the Government of the day said. They were sitting in the caucus of the South African party, and were told exactly how to vote. That is why the public do not take any interest in the Senate. If you go on to any political platform and talk about the Senate, there is a loud roar of laughter from the audience. This is only blank cartridge that is being fired.

We are afraid you are loading up shells for the future.

I will not call this debate obstruction, but the Opposition is trying to make the country see that the Government is altering the constitution, although the Opposition does not worry about the Senate as a Senate. That body is really the handmaid of the South African party, which has used it any way it likes. When, in 1922, after the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) shot and hanged people, the Senate passed an Indemnity Bill to save the political necks of the South African party—its political souls will never be saved. The people are not worrying about the Senate, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is speaking with his tongue in his cheek. The people are not worrying about the flag. The only people who are doing that are those in Natal. In a sensible place like Bloemfontein they know nothing about the flag. I hope the Government will go further, and next session abolish the Senate altogether.

The hon. member said that the constituency which returned the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) must have suffered from a lack of a sense of humour. The good people of Bloemfontein (North) must have suffered from an over developed sense of humour. I do not know whether to admire most the impudence or the ignorance of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan). He dared to accuse me of obstruction over this Bill, although I have spoken only once on the first clause and twice on this clause. Does the hon. member deny the importance of this discussion? If the Bill had been introduced a couple of months ago the hon. member would have found nothing untoward in the Opposition desiring to discuss it fully, but the truth is the hon. member is tired and wants to go home. It is because the Government is trading on that desire that it has introduced most contentious Bills in the last week or ten days.

We are quite prepared to sit another fortnight.

In that case the Prime Minister might restrain some of his followers who are becoming impatient because matters of fundamental importance are being discussed adequately.

Get back to the Bill.

If you are not prepared to take an interest in the discussions, at least you should not interrupt members who are prepared to do so. The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) asked—

But can we envisage the future? [Interruption.] In the event of the Government having a small majority a joint sitting of both Houses would be a very effective check. I always under stood that the Labour party was democratic, and had annual parliaments in its programme.

No.

Under the Bill a Government might have a majority which might be put into a taxicab, but for five years it can exercise its own sweet will and the only check is that a Senate may reject a Bill, but in the following session it is automatically passed into law. Section 19 of the Act of Union says that the legislative power of the Senate shall be vested in Parliament—the King, the Senate and the House of Assembly. In so far as His Majesty’s participation in our proceedings is concerned that seems to be almost a shadow, and the Bill will make the Senate a shadow, so Parliament will consist of the Assembly only, and a snatch majority may rule the country for five years. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) is behaving like a cad.

Is the hon. member in order in saying that another hon. member is behaving like a cad?

I must confess that I did not quite catch the remark, but if the hon. member did say that I must ask him to withdraw it.

I said it under great provocation and I withdraw it. The hon. gentlemen have succeeded in dragging me away from the point ; I was trying to argue the matter seriously, but apparently that does not appeal to them. Suppose we had an election two years from now, say on the flag issue and suppose a party was returned to power which was out of sympathy—economically speaking— with the majority of the electors, yet for five years it could legislate without let or hindrance, and without any check from the Senate. [Time limit.]

I would like to reply to the arguments used by the last speaker. I really think we are not keeping our eye on the facts. Don’t let us forget that the Senate after all consists of only 40 members—a mere handful. The case we have to contemplate is this—that the two parties in this House will be fairly evenly divided. As it stands to-day, for instance, you have a combined Senate and Assembly which will decide, upon a second rejection of a Bill by the Senate. In the first place do not let us forget that this combined session may take place, and ordinarily will take place, within a very short time after the second rejection of a measure by the Senate. Naturally, if your Government knows that it has not got a majority at a combined sitting it would not have a combined sitting, but when it does have a combined sitting it would practically be held within any period of from nine to twelve months, that is, from the end of the one session to, say, the middle of the next. Practically, therefore, you will only have in all these things a delay of one year. Suppose the Opposition in your Senate has the majority vote. We already take it for granted that the other side is the Government side, and that the Government side is in a majority of at least one. Think how many of your senators will be members chosen, more or less, in the same proportion. Add to this that your Government in future will have the nomination of those eight. Then you see at once that there will not be many instances in which your Government will be in the minority in a combined House.

Why have this clause?

Let us take the case where you have the Senate combined with the Opposition in the majority. May I ask my hon. friend just to consider what that would mean. The greatest conceivable majority on the other side will be about five. Because of this majority of five in the Senate, with a majority of at least one here, the decisions of the majority here, although it is a majority of only one, are nevertheless, the decisions which you must presume to be more in accordance with what is the will of the people than is the case in the Senate. I am not speaking for any party interests here. I am speaking for the future. You have these five men in the Senate, who have been elected by a previous Parliament combined with the previous provincial councils. In the case I am taking you must take it that you have your nominated members. Is it really worth while for the sake of five men, the biggest conceivable majority that one can think of in the Senate, not only to stop this for the first year, but in the second year you are going to stop it and then you are going to have a combined sitting, or rather you will not have that combined sitting because they are in the majority, but is it worth while because of a few members like that to have your legislation which has been passed two years in succession through this House, rejected? I think we are really attaching far too much importance to this question, because we are looking upon it as if the Senate will be there with the large majority which we may take as being the majority of the country when, after all, all that your senators can do will be to say that they are responsible to their consciences and to their reason. But then I say this, if we really are to submit the legislation of the country to the consciences and the intellectual capacities of five members of the Senate—well then, I would far rather depend on the majority of those representing the people, those who have been sent by the people to come here and represent them. A good deal has been said here about the combined session. In what way is the combined session going to assist us? As I said, your combined session will only be called when your Government knows it will have a majority there. Surely in that case it is far better to say when a Bill has passed this House for the second time—

We had a combined sitting here the other day. Is there any member here who will say that that combined sitting was of more value or more instructive or assisted us more than a discussion simply by the members of this House ?

Oh yes, it focussed public opinion on the matter.

That is exactly where, to my mind, the danger comes in of such sittings—

In other words, if you want to stir up agitation in the country, it is an excellent thing for the Opposition. The very fact of this body being called together, being something that really occurs, gives some eclat to the occasion and that is exactly what we ought to avoid. If we cannot reach the public ear, if we cannot reach the public imagination by what we do, especially if this House cannot do it after a year previously it had discussed the whole matter and had heard the Senate from A to Z on that matter, if it cannot after twelve months after considering all the wisdom that had been poured out on that subject during the previous days of discussion, then I think our last meeting here has shown the inefficacy of this combined sitting. We came together here. Every inch of the benches was occupied, but how many could speak ? How many did speak ? Only a few—necessarily it must be so. But to think that that did any other good, except that of stirring up feeling outside—no. I do not think any one of us will really say that with any sincerity. [Time limit.]

I find it somewhat difficult to follow the argument of the Prime Minister as to the detailed working of the joint sitting if this Bill became law ; but this is quite clear, that the Government in this Bill is using two separate weapons against the Senate. The first is contained in the first section, and deals with the personnel of the Senate, and I think the Government, after the change which we have passed this afternoon, has the fullest and amplest powers to see that the Senate in future is moulded according to public opinion in this country, and the opinion of the majority in this House.

As it always has been.

Even more so. Under the South Africa Act, it was possible to dissolve the Senate together with the House of Assembly. And now the Government has taken further powers, and can dissolve the Senate separately ; after a general election has taken place, a Senate which has not been dissolved before can also be dissolved. The Government can therefore ensure that an election of the Senate will take place, and the character of the Senate will be very much what the character of this House is. That has been followed up by the further alteration that the Government can nominate eight members. The result is that under Clause 1 there is the amplest power to see that there is no recalcitrant majority in the Senate. They have got, as far as humanly possible, complete control of the Senate. I should have thought that was enough. It goes very far indeed—I think it goes too far—but let it be enough. Now the Government goes further in Clause 2, and they deprive the Senate of a further power, that is, the power of joint deliberation and decision in cases of difference. I think that is a very far-reaching inroad on the power of the Senate, and I would submit this to the committee, that we are dealing here with a matter of very far-reaching importance. It is not an ordinary matter ; this is a matter of the constitution of this country, and the powers of the two branches of the legislature. The Prime Minister knows that this matter was taken very seriously at the National Convention, and for this reason—we had in South Africa big colonies and we had small colonies ; we have big provinces now, and we have small provinces. Here in this House these provinces are represented on an entirely different basis ; I mean that the numerical results work out quite differently. You have the Transvaal and the Cape Province represented in this House by 51 members each, whereas the two small provinces are only represented by 17. An agreement was made in the National Convention that at least in one branch of the legislature there should be equality. We must look upon the Senate from that point of view. It represents one of the fundamental facts in the constitution of South Africa, which is not merely a matter of party majority ; it is a matter of giving the smaller provinces the same adequate voice. In the Senate there is provincial equality. The biggest province has not greater representation than the least, and that power is largely wielded in the joint session. In the joint session, they all come together and they all vote. In the joint session the Free State has the same power of voting as the Transvaal or the Cape Province. We come now to the point where there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses. Through the provision in section 63 of the South Africa Act, you have safeguarded far more adequately the power of the small provinces than you would if this new clause goes through and section 63 disappears. I mention this only to show that we are dealing with a matter of far-reaching constitutional importance in the last stage of the session without adequate consideration and without the opportunity of thoroughly going into the matter. I would appeal to the Prime Minister, after the very drastic power taken under section 1, a power of moulding the personnel of the Senate in such a way that it is representative of the opinion of the majority in this House and the opinion of the Government—after that drastic power, I do not think we should go further and also attack the powers of the Senate in respect of joint sittings, because, as soon as you do that, you go very far indeed. You upset what was a very grave consideration in the minds of the people who settled the South Africa Act.

According to your own reasoning, there will never be a necessity for joint sittings.

There may be. It is difficult to foresee in these matters. The Prime Minister talks about a majority of five. I see many other possibilities. It is the unforeseen that happens. We can only honour and keep in reverence the fundamental provisions that were made in the South Africa Act. I do not talk of details, of the small points here and there in the South Africa Act, which are alterable; but here we have the position that the Free State and the Transvaal are on an equal basis, as far as the Senate is concerned, and to-night we are passing a section, the effect of which will be to break away from that principle. So it appears to me, and it will require very solid argument to get away from the position as I have stated it. Under the circumstances, I would appeal to the Prime Minister not to go on with section 2. He has whatever he wants in section 1. Do not let us go further. When the people in this country begin calmly to reflect over the effects of our legislation, they will find we have done something which went entirely beyond what was contemplated by the South Africa Act, and what was not really necessary under the circumstances of the case. If there is a necessity for reform, that has been carried out under section 1. Do not let us go further. [Time limit.]

I think that the Prime Minister’s reasoning has been based on two fallacies. Surely it needs no argument at this stage of the debate to say that one of the chief reasons for the existence of a second chamber is to afford a constitutional means of delay. The Prime Minister assumes that with a majority of one the Government of the day was representing the will of the people on a particular question that was being discussed in Parliament. Very recent history might have shown him the fallacy of that argument. When a great matter comes before Parliament and the country, it is not only wise but necessary that the public should be informed of it. It is informed in the usual way by the press.

In the “usual way.”

Let the Minister of Defence remember we are discussing a very serious subject in which the press, as on most other subjects, has to bear its part, and I do not think it is fair argument or fair reasoning —we are not on the platform now—to assume that education of the public by the press, and by speaking, is necessarily agitation. I was unable to follow the allusion of the Prime Minister to a joint sitting. I understood him to say that there would be no joint sittings in future, except in the case of money Bills, and then during the same session. One case where there should be a joint sitting is in a matter concerning the relations of the two Houses, which should meet in consultation when any change in the constitution is contemplated. In France when any such change is contemplated, both chambers meet in one body, called the National Assembly. We must remember that history all through has proved that there are great dangers attendant on unicameral legislation. No assembly is infallible. Often we have been indebted to the hon. the Senate for making necessary corrections in which we have concurred when the Bills came back to us. It is important that the Senate should have great moral weight with the community, and that moral weight will arise from its composition, and particularly the way in which it is used by the Government. No stream can rise higher than its source, and no Senate can rise higher than its members. I do not think the Senate, with those threats being held over its head, is likely to be composed of a personnel which we hope to see. We have the experience of Senator Langenhoven saying within the walls of this House that under certain circumstances rather like those now proposed, he would not care to be a member of that body. Is there a single instance in modern history in which a second chamber has rejected a measure on which the minds of the people have been ascertained ? I do not know of it. If that be so, what is the necessity of all these changes ? I would supplement the appeal of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to go no further in this matter. I would cheerfully drop my amendment if Clause 2 did not stand part of the Bill. I move—

I moved that without a full knowledge of the circumstances. Perhaps I may be allowed to withdraw.

With leave of committee, motion withdrawn.

I have followed with great patience the arguments that have fallen from the South African party side of the House, and I must frankly confess that they have only succeeded in confusing the issue. We have had the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) arguing that by means of this clause certain rights which have been given to the various provinces as to representation are taken away. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was asked to reply to that point and carefully avoided dealing with it, and the reason is not far to seek. Because there is no provision either in the clause before us, or the clause which has been passed, which in any way alters the ratio of representation of the various provinces. The method of electing the senators remains the same as previously. The same constituencies elect the senators. But the confusing part is that the right hon. gentleman and most of his supporters have been arguing against the provisions of Clause 2 because they do away with the joint sitting, and yet the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) abolishes joint sittings and agrees with the provisions of Clause 2 except on a matter of detail.

The amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is an alternative which we regard as better than the provisions of the Bill. I have looked further into the point which I raised before the suspension hour and I find there is a great deal in it. Under the original section 63, when a Bill comes to a joint sitting—I want the Minister to understand that if this clause is adopted the Assembly in the future will take the place of a joint sitting—the power of the joint sitting in dealing with this Bill is qualified in these terms :—

Therefore the joint sitting is confined to the Bill as last proposed. That is why Mr. Speaker was perfectly correct when he drew up the rule that the motion should simply be—

But if the Minister adopts the Bill as here proposed now, then he will see that there is no qualification. [No quorum.] For the sake of argument let us presume that this Bill, with this clause as printed, will go to the Senate and not be amended, my argument is that if the House of Assembly next session passes the Bill, there is no qualification of the mode adopted in the passing of that Bill. The Assembly can contend that they have the right to take the Bill de novo and take first reading, second reading and Committee stage. They would claim that they have the right to amend that Bill in Committee; that is to make amendments which, of course, the Senate would not have had an opportunity of seeing when the Bill was before them in the first session. In order to prevent that, section 63 lays down clearly a restraint upon the joint sitting, namely that the joint sitting could only discuss that Bill as last proposed by the House of Assembly. I would like the Minister to look into this point before he decides that I am wrong.

I want to say a few words at this stage in connection with the debate, and about the amendments proposed by hon. members opposite. I may say in general that much of what was fully discussed as the second reading and which I have already answered has again been mentioned to-day. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to go into all those points again. At the second reading I tried to make clear the necessity for the addition of Clause 2 to Clause 1, viz.: that one could imagine the circumstances being such that the majority of the Government in the House of Assembly was not so great as to prevail against the majority against the Government in the Senate, and in that way the Senate which does not directly represent the people could make its wishes prevail in a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament over the House of Assembly which directly represents the people. That is undoubtedly an unsound and undemocratic position. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked what necessity there was to the Bill seeing that the will of the House of Assembly has so far always prevailed. As the position is to-day, no trouble is caused, because the majority of the Government in the Assembly is large enough to carry through the wishes of the Government in a joint sitting. Circumstances may, however, be different, as I have shown. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said that we had lowered the Senate by this Clause, and by the removal of the right of effectively baulking the will of the House of Assembly, as we limit the powers of the Senate to delaying legislation. It would certainly be a humiliation of the Senate if the Senate was elected by the people as the House of Assembly is. In France, where the Upper House and the Chamber of Deputies are elected by the people it would be humiliating if one were subordinated to the other because both represent the people. It would have been the same in the old Cape Parliament, because both the Upper and the Lower House were elected by the people. That is not the case, however, in South Africa to-day because the House of Assembly directly represents the people whilst the Senate does not. If the powers of the Senate are restricted to delaying legislation it cannot be said that it is humiliating the Senate. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) made a great deal of the fact that the various provinces are equally represented in the Senate, and he said that the smaller provinces in that way had great influence in the joint sitting, an influence which was being affected by the Bill. As I understand the South Africa Act it was never the intention when giving equal representation to the two smaller provinces to give them relatively greater power as regards legislation in the joint sitting. As I understand the South Africa Act it was only a slight acknowledgement of the federal idea which was made in the composition of the Senate, but not to give the smaller provinces greater power in the joint sitting than what they are actually entitled to according to their numerical strength. I now come to the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I think that the amendment is a fair one and I shall accept it on condition that the hon. member defines more clearly what an ordinary session is. The words “ordinary session” may lead to misunderstanding because Parliament may meet twice a year or oftener. I therefore suggest that the hon. member after “ordinary session” should add “at which the estimates of expenditure for the nfiancial year are considered.” Those words occur in the Act for the payment for members of Parliament, 1916. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has an amendment on the order paper in which the chief point actually is that he wishes us in every respect to follow the example of the English Parliament Act of 1911, with regard to the House of Lords, in other words, that the House of Assembly shall have the power of finally passing legislation, overriding the Senate, if a Bill is twice rejected by the Senate, and has been passed by the House of Assembly for the third time. I think that that is quite unacceptable, because it must not be forgotten that the House of Lords is in a different position to the Senate, and that the method indicated in the English Act referred to of making the will of the House of Commons prevail over the House of Lords is not the only salvation. As, however, I have already shown, the English Government is always able to get a majority in the House of Lords by creating additional peers. The position is different here and, therefore, we are justified in going further than the English Act, as we do in Clause 2. If, in addition, we also accept what the hon. member for East London (North) proposes, then it makes the position actually worse viewed from our standpoint than what the existing Act provides, because according to that a Bill can be placed on the statute book the year after its first rejection by the Senate. The period is only made longer by what the hon. member proposes, and it therefore makes the position worse rather than improves it. In the discussion hon. members opposite forgot that according to this Bill an amazingly great power is left to the Senate, viz.: to compel the House of Assembly to dissolve, because in this Bill the power of the Senate in connection with financial matters is left untouched. If the Senate has the power of getting a majority for its point of view at the joint sitting in the same session after the rejection of a Bill by the Senate then the Government is effectively hindered in its administration of the country, and forced in consequence to dissolve the House of Assembly and appeal to the country. A very large power is given to the Senate here and I think hon. members opposite have forgotten to refer to it in the debate. The amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) can also not be accepted. He proposes that when the House of Assembly has passed a Bill for the second time, and according to this Bill it is sent direct to the Governor-General for approval, overriding the Senate, it should be passed by a majority of at least ten. That would be an important departure from the ordinary rule that the will of the majority must prevail. I now come to a point mentioned by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). He says that Clause 2 of the Bill means that it will be possible for the House of Assembly when the Bill is being considered for the second time after its rejection by the Senate to pass it and put it on the statute book by passing by the Senate with important amendments which were adopted by the House of Assembly on the second occasion. Let me point out to the hon. member that the provision in this respect is taking over exactly as it is in the South Africa Act.

I know that.

The hon. member acknowledges that, and he will admit that the same procedure will be followed in Clause 2 of this Bill as is now followed when there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses. As the Bill now stands, five steps have to be taken in the case of conflict before the Bill can be put on the statute book. The House of Assembly passes it and the Senate rejects it in the first session. In the following year the Assembly passes it again and the Senate rejects it for the second time and thereafter there is a joint sitting. This Bill cuts out Nos. 4 and 5, and only the first three remain. The hon. member for Caledon will know that when the electoral law came before the House of Assembly for the second time this very point was mentioned, viz: whether the House of Assembly had the right according to present practice of passing amendments at the second consideration. It was then decided that the House of Assembly did not have the right.

Section 63 of the Constitution clearly says—

What is meant by it is that if the House of Assembly has once passed a Bill and the Senate amends it—in the case of the electoral law the amendment was not acceptable—then the Bill comes before the Assembly again and that is the last time when it is considered in the House of Assembly with the amendments proposed in the Senate. Some amendments made by the Senate are agreed to by the House of Assembly and when the Bill came for the second time before the House of Assembly the latter could not again make amendments. That will be the position under Clause 2 if the House of Assembly for the second and last time gets a Bill before it, even if there is no joint sitting. The explanation of the hon. member for Caledon is not right.

Why is it not put in for safety sake ?

If the hon. member for Caledon wants to insert something the House can consider it at the report stage. If it makes the matter clearer it will be accepted.

Why do you not do it?

I do not consider there is any danger, and therefore I am not proposing it. The hon. member thinks there is danger and if he wants to make the position safer he can introduce a motion.

In view of what the Minister has said, I shall move my amendment in the form indicated by him, vix.—

It is very regrettable that the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels), should have made the bitter attack which he did on the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and have imputed to the hon. member for Zululand that in making his speech he did so with the intention of raising racialism and of stirring up racial feeling and strife. I do not think there is any member of this House whose thoughts were further away from doing such an act than was the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). We have always known that he has at all times done all he possibly could to engender a spirit of unity and harmony between the two races. I take the strongest exception to the uncalled for imputation made by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels). The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) was only voicing the feelings of the vast majority of people in Natal. The Minister when speaking on the second reading said that a great many people in the country would wish to do a good deal further in regard to reforming the Senate, and that such reform would have to be left over to a later occasion. Then he went on to make the vital and serious statement that the Bill left untouched the basis of the representation from the different provinces in the the Senate. People in Natal have taken the strongest exception to these remarks. What is at the back of the Minister’s mind ? Is it that the time will come, and is not far off, when the basis of representation in the Senate is to be altered. I say deliberately that Natal would never have gone into union had it not been that there was to be an equal basis with the other provinces of representation in the Senate. That was one of the cardinal points upon which, at the Convention, Natal members stood. The Minister tells us that the basis of representation of the various provinces will have to be considered. I say that is a most serious statement to make, and one which is necessarily perturbing the minds of the people in Natal. The change which is being made here is a radical constitutional change which is going to alter the whole basis on which the legislature of the country can be passed as an illustration, take the Liquor Bill and provisions for the supply of liquor to natives being introduced in such Bill. It is possible there may be only a small majority in its favour in this House. But in the Senate a majority against such provision created by a proportion of Senators on the Government side voting with the Opposition. In that case the Bill could be passed by this House if there was no joint sitting. Senators who are even nominees of the Government may be strongly opposed to legislation providing that liquor may be sold to natives, and if there was a joint session, no such legislation could possibly be passed. I say that the vast majority of the people are opposed to the doing away with the joint sittings. The joint sitting is a most important factor where at any time the Senate should disagree with legislation introduced and passed in this House. Why should that right be taken away? I say if it came to that stage that the Senate, with its majority on the Government side, voted against a Bill, and in joint session such bill was rejected it would be the duty of any Government to go to the country. That would be the constitutional way of dealing with an important disagreement. The weapon which the Minister is now trying to legislate for, is a dangerous weapon. It is unconstitutional and is not in the spirit of the Act of Union. I feel bound, speaking on behalf of the people of Natal, to oppose this clause with all my might.

There is just one point I would like to correct the Minister on. He seems to think that the effect of the amendment I have put on the paper is to merely delay a measure for two years, but it goes further than that. It prevents the Government from rushing legislation through, not perhaps in two years, but in two weeks, or even less. There is another aspect of the matter. The effect of this Bill will be as follows: The Assembly passes a Bill ; the Senate make certain amendements, either important or comparatively unimportant, but as far as the Senate is concerned that is the last they will ever see of the Bill, unless the Assembly chooses to return it to them, concurring with their amendments.

It is only by a Bill being referred to the Senate for a second time that it dawns upon them that the amendments they have made may be considered of vital importance. I do not think that is really the intention of this measure, but it will certainly have that effect. They will consider whether the amendments they have made are of sufficient importance to be insisted on and, therefore, compel the further measures provided by the constitution. That will certainly be the effect. In many cases Ministers have taken advantage of amendments being made in Bills in another place.

It may be no fault of the Senate that they cannot deal with a Bill, as legislation may come in toward the end of a session. I move as an amendment—

Those words are in the original Act of Union, but in this departure from that Act it will only be fair to the Senate not to inflict this indignity upon them where they have probably had no say in the matter. It might be impossible, for instance, to deal with a Bill at all owing to a late rush of work.

The Prime Minister has said that there was no thought of party advantage in this particular measure, that he had no eye on the present, but he was thinking only of the future, and he wanted to protect the position not of his own ministry, but of future ministries. If this is so, I am puzzled to know why the Bill has been introduced so late, and the Ministry is so intransigeant with regard to amendments, and forcing the Bill through—having section 1 through, they want section 2 through. The Minister must not mind if members on this side are particularly suspicious, especially with regard to section 2, and feel that the object of section 2 is to force legislation through which they know would be unacceptable to the Senate and to the country. Why this indecent haste ? If we are legislating for the future, or for all time, the case for delay is overwhelming. I must tender my apologies to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), but I did not understand the point he was putting. Most of us do not like the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), but it is better than the Bill. We would sooner have Clause 2 scrapped ; because it is quite unnecessary, in view of section 1 having been adopted. The hon. member for Troyeville said he did not understand the point made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in regard to Natal and the Free State. When Natal and the Free State came into Union they came in on this distinct understanding, that they should have in regard to the Senate, equality of representation with the two major provinces.

For ten years.

But now they are told that the Senate is to be emasculated and to become a mere registering body, and so that safeguard is being removed. If I may say so, it is not only in regard to the joint sitting, but with regard to the functions of the Senate generally. The Senate ceases to function efficiently if this is passed ; because it has always a sort of sword of Damocles hanging over its head. This Bill actually goes so far as to insult the Senate, because it says in line 31—

Surely it would have been much more honest to have said here, if the Senate rejects a Bill and the House of Assembly passes it a second time—

It, in effect, tells the country that the Senate do not count for anything. Rather than adopt this sort of devious dodge, why not honestly come out into the open and abolish the Senate ?

I would like to.

I can understand that attitude, but I cannot understand the attitude which says—

That seems to me to be unfair. The Prime Minister said that you might have a Senate with a hostile majority of five and an Assembly with a Government majority of one. In that case, the Senate will simply refuse supply. A joint sitting is provided for and must be held the same session, and then the Government will go out. Hence the case which the Prime Minister endeavoured to set up, to show the need for this clause, destroys itself. It is absolutely unnecessary to go out of the way to proclaim the helplessness of the Senate as is done in Clause 2. [Time limit.]

Is it too late to appeal to the members of the Opposition to refrain from continuing the course they have been following for the last few months ? They have been prepared to set black against white, and to set the two white races at each other’s throats.

Nonsense.

And on this question they are prepared to set province against province. Are we to think that no price is too great for the South African party to pay in order to return to power? Cannot they set the interests of the nation above those of party ? As far as the amendment is concerned, the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) wishes to delay legislation for three solid years before it can be placed on the statute book. Hon. members opposite have talked very glibly about the other House being made a cipher by this Government and being made the sounding box of the House of Assembly. For the last 15 years, ever since Union, the other House has been a recording box, a rubber stamp, for the South African party. On one occasion when, by the efforts of members on the cross-benches and the Opposition, we practically forced the Government to pass the Wages Bill, what happened then ? The hon. gentleman who now represents Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) told me as soon as that measure passed this House it was not going to pass the Senate.

It is not true.

And it did not pass the Senate, because the South African party did not want that Bill to become law. Now that we have a change of Government, they want to continue that position. Why have the nominated members of the Senate attended the caucus meeting of the South African party ? The South Africa Act never intended that the nominated members of the Senate should attend the caucus meetings of any party. During the short life of this Government the Senate has held up two measures which had the people of South Africa behind them. On two important measures it has acted as a stumbling block in the way of legislation. During the whole time that the South African party were in power the Senate acted as a party machine and, if they are now being made to act as a party machine, they are at least being made to do it openly and honestly in the eyes of the community instead of doing it in secret, while pretending to be a body that is acting in the interests of the community as a check on hasty and ill-considered legislation.

The somewhat sanctimonious tone of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Waterston) is rather out of keeping with his past record. It surely becomes him ill to come to this House and lecture it about the unconstitutional acts of the late Government. He seems to forget his famous resolution in the Johannesburg Town Hall for the calling into being of a provisional Government, and the declaring of a republic. He comes here to tell a different tale to-day.

You seem to forget 1914.

I am dealing with the hon. member’s record for the moment and, as he reminds me of 1914, he seems to have forgotten that in 1914, before he was deported, he urged the men to stand together and, if necessary, to have a general strike of all the workers of South Africa, or a revolution.

I do not see what that has to do with the Bill.

I wish to refer to what was said by the late Mr. Maurice Evans, one of the members of the Natal House, when the Act of Union was being discussed in the Natal House of Assembly. He pointed out that one of the most important provisions was that for the joint sittings now being abolished by the present Government. He said—

The provision in regard to the Senate was one that Natal legislators regarded as one of the most attractive features of Union. Mr. Evans said—

We have the opinion of other legislators. At that time the Natal House of Assembly was constituted very much as the present House of Assembly is constituted. In other words, the Government was not representative of the people. This Government was not elected on a clear programme ; it was not elected as a Government at all. It is a composite affair joined together after the election, the electors having been deluded into supposing that the Pact was going to end as soon as the election had taken place.

Nothing of the sort.

These men in Natal were holding the constitution up to the light. The late Mr. Kirkman said in the Natal House of Assembly—

He also said, and I commend this to the notice of the Minister—

I agree with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) as to the danger of the doctrines we have heard preached in the country recently, and the possibility of these doctrines being translated into practice against the definite views of the people of our province. Certainly the introduction of this Bill bodes no good for the people of Natal, and I am surprized that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), in that tone of levity that characterizes his utterances, welcomed the Bill, and said that opposition to it constituted a waste of time.

I would like to make a few remarks about the statement made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), which has now again been made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I understood the hon. member was a member of the Parliament of Natal.

No.

I knew he was not a member, or he would not have made the statement he did. I am going to appeal to the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Glen. Byron). The right hon. member for Standerton said something to the effect that if this had been passed before Union neither Natal nor the Orange Free State would have come into Union, or had they known that such a Bill was going to be passed.

He said that was one of the understandings on which they came into Union.

What is the argument of the right hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) ? The hon. member for East London (North), the Prime Minister and myself were members of the Free State Parliament, and we went through this clause by clause and line by line. We did find that we could have eight members of the Senate. We were told that after ten years the whole of the Senate might be wiped out; we came in under those conditions ; and Natal did the same. Those are historical facts, and if the hon. member will look up the speech made by Mr. Moor at the dinner to the Convention members, at which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) were present, he will find that Mr. Moor said—

I ask my hon. friend to go to the Hansard of Natal. I ask the hon. member to show me in that Hansard where any member got up and said he understood the Act to mean that in ten years’ time we could not have our rights taken away from us. They accepted the ten years. We went in with our eyes open, and it is not right for a responsible member like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to stand up and set province against province. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) always puts up a good fight for his province, and I respect him for it, but it is not right to say that Natal is against this thing, because Natal understood it clearly, and Natal is going to gain more in the end by the South Africa Act, because Durban is probably growing faster than any town in South Africa. To tell the country that Natal is being penalized under this Bill is not fair. As one who was a member of Parliament in a small province at the time, I say we went into this thing from all sides, with a view to protecting minorities, and we agreed that we should have a Senate for ten years. Under this constitution, the Senate can be abolished under section 25. The hon. member for Weenen (Mai. Richards), who is not present, was a member of the old Natal Legislature, and he would tell us that in his House this question was never discussed. They took it with both hands, that after ten years all their senators could be wiped out.

Where do you get that ?

Look at section 25. Is there anything to stop this House from wiping out the Senate ?

Section 25.

I ask the fathers of the Convention. There are two of them sitting on the front benches. I ask the constitutional lawyer en this side of the House.

I never listened to anyone so full of misinformation as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Bar-low). He has been quoting from his memory an after dinner speech made by some member in Natal. I will quote from Hansard and quote the Prime Minister of Natal, on the discussion on the South Africa Act before the referendum took place among the people—a thing you did not have in the Free State. The Prime Minister of Natal stated—

The matter was voted upon in the House of Assembly in Natal, and a motion that the proposal for the constitution of a Senate be expunged was negatived by 26 votes to 4. After this a referendum was taken, and Natal decided to enter the Union. If hon. members opposite feel the time has arrived when the constitution should be changed in this respect, then they should go to the country about it. Obviously that is the right step to pursue, but don’t tell us that Government represents the will of the people on a matter like this, when the people have never discussed it. The Labour members say they would rather do away with the Senate, and they think that this Bill is a step in that direction. Why not be honest about it ? If you want to do away with the Senate come out in the open and say so, but don’t resort to a subterfuge and allow people to think they have a safeguard in the Senate, when such a safeguard does not exist.

What safeguard has the Senate ever been ?

Tell me what legislation has been passed which the Senate ought to have rejected.

When the South African party overrode the most fundamental rights of citizens secured to them by Magna Charta by deporting men without a vestige of a trial—that was the one golden opportunity for the Senate to show that it was something more than a rubber stamp for the Government of the day.

We will imagine that the Senate failed on that one question. Can the Minister give me another one?

Quite enough.

Well then, there is such a thing as the will of the people of South Africa having been represented on that occasion.

Do you mean to say that that was in accordance with the will of the people of South Africa?

If a referendum had been taken on a question like that the Minister might have found that the country was against his view. It has been an argument throughout the whole of the evening, particularly by the Prime Minister, that the Senate must necessarily consist of two parties. He has assumed that the Government might have a majority of one. No one seems to have imagined such a state of things arising in the near future that there may be a number of parties in this House balancing one against the other and where the voting of the Senate may be on anything but party lines. The chief virtue of a joint sitting is that it focusses public attention on what is happening. I do not believe that in the framing of any constitution when a second chamber is set up, anyone would consider that a Government, after having come into disagreement with the Senate would so cling to office as to refuse to test the will of the people by going to a general election on it.

For the last hour or so we have heard a lot of things about Natal. I hope the Minister will not take any notice whatever of the speeches made by the Natal members of the South African party. I do not believe there is a single person in Natal, except those party hacks who are paid to do it, who is losing a minute’s sleep about the Senate. The ordinary man in Natal is not in the slightest degree interested in the fate of the Senate or the South African party machine. If there was a referendum in Natal, there would be three votes to one in favour of the abolition of the Senate. We have heard a great deal about the rights of the minority being protected by this clause in the South Africa Act. I would like to mention what has happened in connection with a minority on the provincial executive in Natal. It is laid down in the Act of Union that the provincial executives shall be elected by proportional representation; this is carefully put in for the purpose of securing the right of the minority to representation on the provincial executive. During this council a member of the Labour party was elected on the Natal provincial executive by the vote of the Labour members with the assistance of the Nationalist members. Unfortunately, the Natal representative on the executive had to leave the provincial council. His place was filled, not by a Labour member, no, the rights of the minority on that occasion were entirely ignored by the South African party. They deliberately used their majority to put in another South African party member. He was the organizing secretary of the South African party in Natal. We are asked to be honest: if the Natal South African party members are honest they will say that what they are doing to-day is to fight for the Senate because it is a South African party machine. The only thing I am sorry about is that the Minister has not abolished the Senate altogether. It is a cumbersome and unnecessary adjunct to our legislature in this country.

We know that whenever the Labour party get into a tight corner, they always have to take refuge in the deportation question. When they have no other argument to bring forward, the deportation argument comes in very handy. It might be useful to recall the facts in connection with this. Does the Minister of Defence know that the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) voted in support of the deportations? He was not the only Nationalist who voted for that. Take the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter). He also supported the deportation; Senator van Niekerk, when he sat in this House, also supported it. Then Mr. Wilcocks also voted for it, and the Minister of Lands also. These are to-day the friends and the allies of the leader of the Labour party. I hope we have got to an end of that business. That is the position and I hope hon. members realize it. If there is one man who can draw upon his imagination at any time it is the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). If there was one thing to which Natal and the Free State attached importance it was the Senate. There is nothing said about abolition in the constitution, and if anything had been said Natal would not have come in If any member of that Convention had hinted that at the end of ten years the Senate would be abolished, I do not think Natal would have come in. We know perfectly well it is the experience of the world that the Labour party— the revolutionary party, I should call it—are always in favour of taking away the checks on legislation. In his last speech the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has been drawing very extensively upon his imagination. There was no mention in any shape or form by the founders of the constitution that the Senate would ultimately be abandoned.

The hon. member did not quite seem to see the point of my reference to the deportation. As regards the fact that the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) and others supported the deportation, he seemed to leave out of sight the fact that we live under a system of party Government. They were elected to support the party of the day and they did suport them like loyal members through thick and thin. It is supposed to be one of the principal functions of the Senate that when not only the Government party but the Opposition party are absolutely prepared to violate every constitutional principle, then that is the time that they should stand for the constitution. I would ask the hon. member to remember those days for a moment. The party to which he then belonged, at the general election had asked for the suffrage of the country as the party standing for the flag and for the country against the danger of the Dutch party. Under the shelter of that flag which they always used to make party capital, they were prepared to violate every noble tradition which that flag stands for.

May I ask the Minister to return to the Bill.

I was trying to make it clear that the Senate on that occasion had failed absolutely in its duty. I was pointing out one of those cases in which not only the Government had gone wrong but the Opposition had entirely neglected its duties. The Senate entirely failed. Ever since that they have been nothing but the machine of the South African party. The Convention wanted and intended that the nominated senators should be persons who would be men of distinction and not mere party nominees. What did these nominated members do ? When a change of Government took place at the last general election they did not even wait to see whether the legislation introduced by this Government was something of which they could approve. Before the Government had proposed one single line of legislation these nominated senators left their seats on the Government side of the House and took their seats on the Opposition side of the House and showed themselves to be mere party nominees. The position is absolutely impossible. According to what one hon. member said recently, the South African party caucus could decide at any time that their majority in the Senate should reject the Appropriation Bills and force the country to have a general election, although the country might not want it, simply at the will of the minority. This Bill is going to make the Senate more in conformity with the lower House. Again a divided opposition—to talk about the joint sitting being the very palladium of our liberties, and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) tabled an amendment abolishing the joint sitting altogether.

Only because he cannot do anything better.

It is most amusing. The hon. member for East London (North) proposing it as a pis aller.

I would like to remind the Minister that I prefaced my remarks by saying that I did not think my amendment is making a bad Bill into a good one, but it would make a bad Bill one not quite so bad.

We are thinking it would make a good Bill a little less good. We know perfectly well what all this long discussion is for.

What is it for?

To enable the “Cape Times” in the first place to have another of its splendid articles about what the South African party is doing, and to make a splurge to show the country that it is doing something. I very much regret that we gave them that holiday on Friday night to enable them to go to the jamboree.

One of the most amusing incidents that happened this session was the unctuous rectitude with which the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) gave his support to the interjection by the Minister of Defence to the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). I was not in the House in 1914, but I followed the debates and I took the trouble to look up the division lists. The hon. member during the second reading debate on the Indemnity Bill (Hansard, page 623) said—

I do not see what that has to do with this Bill.

It has this to do with it—that the Senate is being attacked because, when a former occasion arose for its interference, it did not interfere. That is the gravamen of the charge made all the evening against the Senate, and that charge is supported by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) and all members on his side. I am showing that when the Senate acted in the way it did, it was supported by the hon. member for Bethlehem and his friends. The hon. member for Bethlehem went on to say—

I have no objection to the hon. member casually referring to it, but he must not read the speech.

I am not going to read much of it, but to read enough to show how relevant it is. I know the hon. member does not like it.

I told the hon. member not to continue in that direction If he continues to do so, I must ask him to resume his seat.

I did not understand you to do so, but if you do, I must question your ruling. If you rule that I am not to read this extract, I move that you take Mr. Speaker’s ruling on this point.

What is the point?

I have already explained the point—

I will write it out.

That is not the point. I said I did not object to the hon. member referring casually to the attitude adopted by the hon. member but I refused to allow him to read the speech.

Do I understand that it is your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member cannot refer to speeches that were made in 1914 by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels), the statement having previously been made by the Minister, whom you allowed to continue and to formulate the argument, that this is one of the reasons why Clause 2 of this Bill should be adopted by this committee, that statement of the Minister of Defence being supported by the hon. member for Bethlehem ? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) quite properly, as I thought, proceeded to point out that the hon. member for Bethlehem took an entirely different view in 1914. And the hon. member, to prove that, simply desired his right of quoting from certain passages from Hansard which referred to statements made by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels).

I move—

I shall have a fair copy made and bring it up to you.

I will have to make the position clear as far as I am concerned. It is not merely a matter of quoting. I told the hon. member I had no objection to his referring to a certain attitude, in passing, adopted by the hon. member ; but I held that the reading of speeches was not in order, as the subject was quite irrelevant to the clause under discussion.

As a matter of explanation—

I do not want any explanation.

Mr. Chairman, I understand—

Will the hon. member resume his seat ?

The statement contains an assertion which is not a statement of fact, namely, that the present Government were in favour of the deportations.

Motion put and agreed to.

House resumed :

The Chairman stated the point which had arisen in committee, and that the committee desired to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling thereon, and that he had accordingly been ordered to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I may add that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) not only quoted from, but read, speeches which I considered quite irrelevant to the clause under discussion, and because of that irrelevancy I called him to order.

We had been debating this Clause 2 for some time, and a number of speeches were made from the Labour benches attacking the Senate. In particular they said that for fifteen years the Senate entirely failed to function in failing to throw out the bills dealing with deportations and the Indemnity Bill. When the matter was again raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), the Minister of Defence actually interposed and made the same charge against the Senate, being supported by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels). I have looked up Hansard and have found that in 1914 the hon. member for Bethlehem made a strong speech in favour of the Indemnity Bill and the action of the Government of the day in regard thereto. I had not quoted more than the first two sentences of the speech when I was pulled up by the Chairman, and was told that I was entirely irrelevant. I endeavoured to show that the quotation was entirely relevant and was an entire answer to the charges against the Senate. Then I was told I might proceed and the Chairman said I might refer to the action of the hon. member for Bethlehem but might not quote his speech. I did not appreciate the difference between referring to his action and quoting the reasons he gave for his action. I submit that his speech is relevant to the discussion.

I would like to correct one or two statements made by the hon. member. No charge was made that the Senate had failed to function but a reply was made to hon. members opposite, who stated that the Senate was being turned into a rubber stamp for the Government. The hon. member stating that the Minister of Defence was supported by the hon. member for Bethlehem would lead Mr. Speaker to believe that the hon. member for Bethlehem made a speech, but all he did was to say “hear, hear”. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated that he only quoted two sentences from the speech ; well, they must have been very long sentences indeed. He was reading for some time. The Chairman said that the hon. member must not read the speech. He did not prevent the hon. member from quoting from the speech. The hon. member was starting at the beginning of the speech and going right through to the end of it.

I only wish to make this point, that I think that the account we have had just now from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) the Chairman, and my hon. friend there (Mr. Waterston) is very illustrative of what I believe to be the rule, that the chairman of committees when the House is in committee has the full responsibility of guiding the deliberations of the committee and keeping them within bounds, and that it is a rule of the House that the Chairman should be supported in his endeavours to keep the discussion within reasonable limits of relevancy to the matter in hand. I submit that that is the rule which would govern in this case.

In the arguments adduced in support of the Bill now before the committee, the charge made against the Senate was that it had been acting as a South African party machine and as the main proof of that it was stated that the Senate, at the time, put its seal upon the Indemnity Bill. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black-well) then brought forward in his argument that a large number of members opposite who now form the National party, at that time supported and voted for the Indemnity Bill, amongst others the hon. member for Bethlehem. He quoted in support of the attitude of the hon. member for Bethlehem a speech delivered in 1914. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will not go out of your way to interfere with the Chairman’s ruling, but I submit to you that this is a very important point. If the facts are clear to you as stated, I think you will not as the highest court of appeal, follow the advice given to you by the Minister of Defence, but you will, as far as possible, maintain the rights and liberties of members in committee.

I think it will assist you in coming to your decision, if you are able to decide for yourself whether the portion read by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was relevant or not, if I read to you a short extract from the speech which has occasioned discussion. The hon. member read as follows—

At that point the hon. member was interrupted and was not allowed to complete the next sentence, which reads as follows—

May I say that there was more than that read from the speech of the hon. member. There was a reference in the quotation read by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to the Labour leaders. I hold that if the Chairman had not stopped the hon. member he would not have been able to keep order in this House, because the hon. member went on to read things which were not at all relevant to the debate. If he had been allowed to proceed with this quotation every member of the House would be allowed to read every speech that was made on the Indemnity Bill.

I just want to say that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) did not read out the extract which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) read. He read a part which suited his purpose. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout commenced to read what I said with reference to the remark of the Minister of Defence. It was a question about the Senate, where the Senate acted wrongly and according to him it was that the Senate had approved of the deportation of the Labour leaders in 1914, to which I said “Hear, hear.” Then it suited the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to quote a speech which I made in 1914, just after I was elected as a member of the South African party in the House. In the speech which suited his purpose I supported the Government about the deportation. But the hon. member read a long part of the speech upon which the Chairman said that he could not read the whole speech. In his well known manner the hon. member then demanded to have the Ruling of Mr. Speaker.

It must be quite clear from the discussion which has just taken place that it is quite impossible for Mr. Speaker to say whether the extracts quoted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) were relevant or not. Without going into the merits of the case I must say, however, that the quotations now referred to appear to have very little to do with the Clause before the Committee. The discussion only goes to show-how salutary the rule is that the Chairman himself must maintain order in committee and decide what is relevant. Under the circumstances I do not propose to interfere with the Chairman’s ruling.

House in committee :

Mr. Chairman stated Mr. Speaker’s ruling to the committee.

I hope before this clause is passed that the Government will hark back to the time when the Senate first came into being, that it will remember the convention spirit.

I have been looking up the official minutes, and I find that it was laid down during the Union Convention that the functions and duties of the Senate were chiefly these. In the first plate the Senate was to act as a house of review. Secondly, that the Senate should hold a particular responsibility for the native interests. It seems to me that Clause 2 violates both these fundamental reasons which called the Senate into being. Clause 2 makes the Senate a mere subservient tool of Government. It deprives the Senate of its right of review and it takes away the ability to assume responsibility for the protection of the natives. Let us take the position of the natives. The first time the Senate assumed that responsibility in regard to the Colour Bar Bill, the Government tries practically to abolish the Senate. We find that the Government has completely overlooked the atmosphere and spirit in which the Senate was created. Take the money Bills. The ability of the Senate to act as a house of delay is abolished. We find that under Clause 2, any money Bill thrown out by the Senate can be passed by us during the same session. In the second place we find they can no longer assume responsibility for the natives. The third chief cause for creating the Senate was in order to hold the balance between the various provinces. It was felt during the Convention that the Transvaal and the Cape were the big brothers, and that they had to act fairly towards the Free State and Natal. The Cape delegates acted generously in putting the representation of the Cape in the Senate on a par with the two smaller colonies. I quote—from the official minutes—to show that it was one of the great ideas underlying the creation of the Senate that the Senate should hold the scales of justice equally between the provinces, and the intention, more particularly, was to safeguard the Free State and Natal. It is a curious commentary that to-day the Free State members, especially the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels), are the chief instruments in abolishing that safeguard. It was held that it was a sacrifice on the part of the Transvaal and the Cape, but there was a universal desire for fairplay towards the two smaller provinces. It was held that they should create a body as free as possible from party passion, which would take a calm non-party view. If, in the Union Convention there was prolonged and heated discussions before coming to a decision, I ask what right has the present Government to rush in with a clause like this at the last moment. If the Union Convention had to spend weeks on that particular point, surely the Government should think twice before pushing a Bill like this through without any mandate from the public. The account goes on to say there were those who held the view in favour of political partisanship. Clause 2 is going to make the Senate a body of political partisans. (Time limit.]

I move—

Upon which, Gen. Smuts called for a division, and the committee divided:

On a point of order, it appears that I have paired.

The hon. member may rise now.

The point is that I did not know that I was paired. It is the first I have heard about it. I want to explain it to the House.

The committee does not recognize pairs.

On a point of personal explanation—I can explain it.

Question put: That the words “If the House of Assembly passes any Bill and the Senate rejects ”, in lines 25 and 26, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which, Gen. Smuts called for a division, and the committee divided:

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) moved the deletion of the clause.

The hon. member cannot move the deletion of a clause ; he may vote against it.

Question put: That the words “or fails to pass ”, in line 26, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

I move—

I object.

Amendments to be considered at the next sitting.

I hope the Minister will not ask us to go to the next Bill at this time of the night. We have all had a very hard day, and we have entered upon another day, which, I hope, will not be as hard. We did a great deal of important work yesterday in passing several Bills through various stages. I think it will expedite the work of the House for the balance of the session if we are dealt with fairly, and we are not asked to consider such an important Bill as is now before us at this time of the night.

It was clearly understood between the parties on Friday, when the Government was asked to consent to the adjournment of the House at 6 o’clock that evening, that the House would take one further stage in regard to both the Senate Bill and this Bill. The leader of the Opposition knows that if we do not take one stage now, the passage of this Bill might be endangered. I suggested this evening to the Whip on the other side that we might take two stages on the following day, but that was not acceded to, and under the circumstances the Government has no choice but to proceed.

House in committee :

On Clause 1,

I move—

1. (4) The chairman and the ordinary members of the Board shall receive such remuneration and allowances as the Governor-General may determine.
2. (5) The remuneration, allowances and travelling expenses of the chairman and the ordinary members of the Board shall be paid out of the Railway and Harbour Fund.
3. (5) The chairman and the ordinary members of the Board shall not be regarded as being included in the Railway and Harbour or Public Service of the Union.

The amendment speaks for itself. It is to meet the objection from various sides that the rate paid by the exporters will be used for the payment of the persons appointed by the Government on the Board of Control. To meet that point the Government is prepared to pay the salary and travelling allowances of the three nominated members from public funds.

What is this going to cost ? Is it going to be charged against the railway account ?

That, of course, is a matter which will be decided later on when the Bill has been passed. I cannot at this stage say what the cost will be. It will probably be in the neighbourhood of £3,000 to £4,000.

I would like to ask whether, if we take the Minister’s amendment now, it means that sub-section (2) automatically passes.

No, the whole section is before the committee.

I have an amendment that comes before that. I have not moved it before, because I understood it was likely that the Minister would have listened to the suggestions made by the representatives of the fruit growers through their exchange. He has himself pointed out it would be monstrous that anyone should be placed in the position of controlling the produce of fruit growers except their representatives themselves. I would like to move—

1. (2) The Board shall consist of an independent chairman appointed by the Governor-General and six representative members, of whom two shall be representatives of the citrus fruit industry, two shall be representatives of the deciduous fruit industry, and two shall be representatives of the egg and poultry industry, such representatives being in each case appointed by the central co-operative organization which controls or represents the particular industry concerned: Provided that if at any time the Governor-General is satisfied that the quantity of any other kind of perishable product exported from the Union justifies the addition to the Board of representatives of that kind of perishable product, he may call upon the central co-operative organization which controls or represents that particular product to appoint two representative members of the industry which produces or deals with the aforesaid perishable product to be members of the Board, and upon such nomination being duly made the persons so nominated shall be and become additional members of the Board. Such Board shall sit as a full board when required for the common interests and in panels when the interests of any one or more industries are concerned.
2. (3) The chairman shall be appointed for such period and upon such conditions as the Governor-General may determine. The representative members shall each be appointed for a period of 12 months at a time.

I presume after the position the Minister took up last year, in which nobody fought more strongly for the right of the fruit farmers in this country to protect and control their own products, and for which the Minister received a great deal of consideration from all sections of the fruit farmers, that he would have no objection to accepting the amendments I have now placed before the committee. That amendment simply suggests what the Minister last year himself suggested, and I do not think that there have been any cases that should have led up to the Minister altering the views he held last year. I think it was clearly pointed out that the farmers of this country desired to control their own industry. The Minister of Agriculture, a few months ago, rapidly called a meeting of the deciduous and citrus fruit growers, and representations were then made to them with a view of getting all fruit farmers into the fruit exchange, and certain arrangements were made whereby a deciduous board and a citrus board amalgamated in a central board representing the whole of the fruit exchange. The proposal the Minister has made in connection with this board to make it a board of Government nominees, strikes a vital blow at the principle of co-operation in this country. The Government have allowed us to understand, and the Minister of Agriculture made an appeal to develop the cooperative spirit. I maintain, if the Government is not prepared to accept an amendment of this sort, that he and his Government are striking the strongest possible blow at cooperation in this country. We know that last year there was a considerable attack made upon the principle of co-operation. I can hardly think that the Minister could allow himself to assist in an effort to destroy cooperation in this country. I do not know whether the Minister has read the admirable brochure issued by Mr. Powell, of Transvaal University College. Copies have been issued and sent throughout the country. Under the circumstances, I do hope that no matter what the circumstances may be that have guided this change of policy, the Minister will not allow himself to be used as an instrument for striking the biggest blow it is possible to strike at an organization like the fruit exchange. The Minister knows that the fruit exchange included 90 per cent., if not more, of the fruit growers, and that it is not their desire that the regulation of the shipping of their products should be in the hands of a board nominated by the Government, and they should have the control of their own industry. With regard to the payment of the members of the board, the Minister forgets that in Clauses 11 and 12 the expenditure in providing contracts and providing space must be made by a levy from the producers themselves.

It is their produce.

And this is your board, and not their board, which is going to administer their business. What influences have been at work that the Minister has deliberately departed from his policy of last year ? Does he think that he is going to satisfy them by saying he will pay the salaries of the chairman and ordinary members of the board ? Is the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) in favour of a proposal of that sort ?

Yes.

I wonder what he is going to tell the citrus growers of Barberton when he goes back to them. Maj. Anderson, who speaks for the citrus exchange, is entirely opposed to this, and I think very wisely. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) does not say whether his constituents are in favour of this clause. I am a Barberton fruit grower myself, and I assure him a few of us are in favour of it. His attitude is typical of other members on that side, who are docilely following the Minister.

I suggest that the hon. member does not use the word “docile,” which has been ruled out.

I am astonished. I accept your ruling.

I suggest that you use another word.

The Minister owes an explanation of the extraordinary somersault he has turned since last year, when he said that the fruit produced belongs solely to the producers, and not to the Government. What right has he to force this board on them without their consent and wish ? Surely something must have happened between last year and this year to explain this extraordinary change. It is complete nationalization and socialization of the fruit industry.

In the interests of the growers.

Surely the growers know their own interests. If you apply it to the fruit growers, why not extend it to everything, and have a Soviet Government at once ?

You will hear what the views of the growers are—the growers want it.

I would feel in a most humiliating position if the Government were going to control my citrus. Why was the Minister so convinced last year that it is the growers' fruit and not the Government’s?

Isn’t it that still?

No, it is so no longer. So long as the export, shipment and everything else is taken out of our hands. It is worse than the Diamond Control Bill. It is an exceedingly undemocratic system to say the least of it. I have never known such a Bill passed in regard to the agricultural industry in this country. The South African farmer is an individualist, and has always insisted on the right of running his own business. I take it that the ruling in regard to the word “docile” only applies to hon. members of this House, because the Minister seems to think the farmers are going to be so docile as to have this Bill, which is against the desires of the fruit farmers of this country.

The majority of the farmers are more far-seeing than you.

I do not agree with you. They dislike having the control of their business taken from them. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that he would make it very awkward for me, but if he comes to my constituency he will find that I am not so “docile” as what he thinks. The hon. member wants to appear in the House as a fruit grower in Barberton, but I will not say how many oranges have already been planted on his plot at White River. I can tell him that I am also an orange grower. The hon. member asks what the fruit growers there think. The Minister received a telegram from Captain Elfin, as chairman of the Komatipoort Farmers’ Association, in which he approves of the entire Bill. As the hon. member knows so much about orange farming at White River, he presumably also knows that I have received a telegram in which they protest against paying the salaries of the three Government members of the board out of the levy. The difficulty is, of course, removed by the amendment proposed by the Minister. To show that the Bill is not only approved there, I want to say that in the latest edition of the “Argus” I notice that there was a meeting of the Paarl Farmers’ Association, at which one hundred farmers were present which resolved, after a discussion during which no unfavourable criticism was made, that the meeting entirely approved of the Bill.

Who was the chairman ?

Mr. Joubert.

Is he a fruit exporter ?

Yes.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) let the cat out of the bag the other night when he spoke about jobs for pals. I also felt that it would be difficult to expect the salaries of the chairman and two other Government nominees on the Board of Control to be paid from the levy made on members of the exchange, but now that the Minister has proposed this amendment, I may say that 90 per cent. of the fruit farmers will be quite satisfied with the Bill. As the Minister has gone so far in the amendment, I want to ask him if he will not go still further and allow the office expenses of the Board of Control to be paid by the Treasury. I do not think they will amount to much, and it will be consistent with the reasons for the amendment. Hon. members opposite apparently assume that the Board of Control will consist of three madmen. They always assume that the Government will appoint people who know nothing of the work, and have not the least concern in or knowledge of it. I assume, as the Government is going to appoint and pay the members, that it will be a guarantee that the Government will see that competent people are appointed. Where they are not au fait the special representative of the department of the fruit industry can assist them when necessary.

With whom did the Minister consult as to the bringing up of the Bill—did he consult with the chairman and the board he appointed last year ?

The Government nominated Dr. Geldenhuys chief of the division of the Economies and Markets of the Agricultural Department, Mr. Smith who is in charge of Shipping in the Railway Department, together with Mr. le Roux, the Chairman of the present Control Board, and asked them to conduct an investigation and bring up a report. They brought up a report which was considered by the Government whereupon the law adviser was asked to draft a Bill.

Am I to understand that Mr. le Roux, the Chairman of the board appointed last year, drew up, in consultation with other people, a Bill before he had consulted his brother members of the Shipping Board of Control and the members of the fruit exchange? If he did that, it was unworthy for anyone to do who had the confidence of the fruit growers.

Nonsense.

Am I to understand that this gentleman drafted a Bill without first consulting his colleagues on the Shipping Board of Control ?

He was not asked for their views, but for his views obtained in consultation with the officers.

Was it not his duty to consult ?

I asked for his views. The responsibility is here.

That won’t wash by a long way. If Mr. le Roux, the chairman of the Fruit Shipping Control Board, consulted with representatives of the Railway Department and the Department of Economics, did he do that without consulting the fruit exchange?

I said the Government appointed these three members to investigate the whole position, and to report to the Government, and the Bill was then drafted by the law adviser, and submitted to the Government on the principles which the Government laid down.

The Minister has said exactly what I have said in other words— that this Bill has been drawn up by three persons, of whom the chairman of the Shipping Board of Control is one.

I never said that. These three gentlemen were asked to investigate the position and they reported to the Government, which then decided as to the principles on which the Bill was to be drawn up, and the law adviser was asked to draw up a Bill.

I must be very dull to-night, or the Minister is in such a difficult position that he does not like to explain. I understand that upon the recommendation of the three gentlemen named, the Government instructed its legal draughtsmen to draw up the Bill.

Now you have it right.

Did the chairman of the board, before he made his recommendation to the Government, consult the other members of the Shipping Board of Control or the fruit exchange?

You are putting the question quite wrongly on the facts.

The Minister may be a bit clever, but he is not sufficiently clever to mislead me or the fruit farmers when I ask a plain and simple question. Did the chairman of the Shipping Board of Control consult his colleagues on that board or consult the fruit exchange before he made the recommendations on which the Bill has been drawn up?

I do not know, because the chairman was not asked to consult the fruit exchange or his colleagues. I do not know whether he did, but he was asked to advise the Government, together with the two officers I have indicated.

The Minister has given me the information that he possesses; It would be very interesting before this Bill goes through further stages if the Minister would find out—

Why should he?

Because I want it, because the fruit farmers of this country want it. The chairman of the shipping board of control is representing me as well as other fruit farmers in this country, and he has received the full support of the fruit farmers of this country.

And he deserves it!

I do not think he does. I say hesitatingly that he has not deserved our support if he has gone behind our backs and assisted in making recommendations to draw up this Bill without consulting us, who are the people whom he was supposed to represent.

That is an unworthy accusation.

I am making that accusation, if it is correct. It is unworthy of the chairman of that board if he has made representations to the Government which have caused them to alter their whole policy without considering that question in consultation with his colleagues and without reporting to the people whom he represents.

We are responsible.

When the Minister was opposed in the Senate he said—

The Minister, when he was opposed, made the most admirable defence of the fruit exchange, and was in favour of putting into the hands of the exchange the control of the shipping board. Now he acknowledges that, outside the fruit exchange which he fought for last year, he has consulted three people one of whom is the chairman of the board, and until this Bill is drafted he has not given the fruit exchange an opportunity of expressing their opinion. Since then the Minister has met the representatives of the fruit exchange. The members of the fruit exchange have had a large meeting in Cape Town, and by 64 votes to 9 they were absolutely opposed to the principles of this Bill and said that they would far sooner have the control in the hands of the fruit exchange or their representatives, and pay every penny of the money that was necessary than have it made a Government organization. By the principles of this Bill, you are striking the most serious blow that it is possible to strike at co-operation in this country. Mr. le Roux, or anybody else who made a proposal of that sort, was acting diametrically opposite to the principles of cooperation. Who is to be the chairman of this board. [Time limit.]

I was really expecting to hear some satisfactory answer from the Minister, but his answers so far have been most unsatisfactory. One would have expected from the Minister to learn that this matter had come from the fruit growers, or that when he had had the Bill drawn up he had submitted it to the different co-operative fruit growers’ societies, but this has not been done. We do not know where the Bill comes from, or why it has been introduced. The matter has been taken entirely out of the hands of the fruit growers, and you are now going to give this board enormous powers. The fruit growers have never been consulted. They have not asked for this Bill. Last year the Minister gave the fruit growers the greatest assistance by passing the Fruit Export Control Bill. We are not told why this Bill is being brought in now, and last year’s Act is being repealed and bringing in this Bill without saying why. The Government say that they have consulted the chairman of the board, an excellent man, as far as I know, and that they have consulted a shipping official and one of the officers of the agricultural department. Are we to understand that this Bill has come from these men.

It has come from the Government.

Well, it has come from the Government, but these men had to investigate and make the suggestions. The Bill has been drafted on their suggestions, and without any consultation with the fruit growers. It is all a matter of the selling the fruit of the producers, and we have not had any evidence at all as to where things have gone wrong and why this Bill. I would like the Minister to tell us what has really caused this. You are repealing your act of last year and the people really concerned do not know why all this is done. All the power has been taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of a control board. Powers which we did not last year give to the fruit exchange we now propose to give to an outside board who are not representative of the fruit growers in any way whatever. If the Minister could tell us why this is being done it might remove the opposition, but without that explanation the Minister cannot expect anything from us but opposition. The reasonable way to act was to consult the fruit growers. A great deal has been made of the resolution taken at the Paarl Farmers’ Association meeting on Saturday—an excellent body of men, but not all fruit growers. It is the fruit growers’ voice we would like to hear and not the farmers’ associations. There are fruit growers’ cooperative associations in every farming centre where fruit is grown for the market, they ought to have been consulted.

As a member of a co-operative society of fruit growers and as a member of the Cape Fruit Exchange I want to say that I entirely agree with the Bill. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has several times said that the Bill would have the effect of killing the co-operative movement in the country. How does the hon. member arrive at that? The fruit growers will be able to co-operate just as well as before, because only the shipping of fruit is to be controlled by the board. That also occurs in the case of mealies.

Who pays?

The Government pays just as is now proposed. What will the fruit growers pay more now than they did two years ago when the shipping was regulated by the fruit exchange ? A levy was then made on the growers, but as the fruit exchange has to provide shipping space there was great confusion every year, and this confusion was only avoided last year after the appointment of the Board of Control. If this Board of Control under the Bill is appointed, we shall not have that confusion. On a co-operative basis it will be possible to make advance purchases of packing material. With regard to the marketing and sale of fruit, much more can be done. We require an impartial Board of Control which will see that the fruit is sent to the best places. We must prevent what happened in the past when co-operative societies sent four or five shipments to the same market causing great loss to the farmers. The dissatisfaction, the agitation which there is in connection with this matter, originated in Cape Town. Letters were sent from there to the fruit growers in all localities. I was in Mossel Bay when the report came and I must say that at first I nearly died of fright, but when I got here and found what the Bill actually was it became clear to me that it was only an agitation started here. I spoke to a few fruit farmers myself, and they are in favour of the Bill. I tried to find out what the view of the exporters of eggs was and they entirely agree with the Bill. That applies with reference to large egg circles, perhaps the largest in the country with which all the districts in my neighbourhood are affiliated.

I think we are establishing a very grave precedent. Here we have the fruit-growers of South Africa after having been enticed into a certain system by the Minister, without being considered having their previous rights entirely jettisoned without their consent of their approval. There is no doubt the fruit-growers as a whole are opposed to this innovation. No real reason has been advanced for the complete reversal of what happened twelve months ago, and this has as a matter of moment to other provinces for if it is the fruitgrowers who are getting it in the neck to-day it may be the wool growers who are going to catch it next week and after them the cotton-growers, the cheese-makers and so forth. The Minister has not advanced any reason why he should come to this House and ask us to reverse a policy which has hardly been long enough in operation to be properly tried, and against which so far there has not been advanced one valid objection. I have here a letter written by a responsible fruit-grower who said he was present at the meeting called by the fruit exchange in Cape Town. He writes—

He gives his opinion of those who were in favour of it, and it is not a flattering one. He goes on to say—

I say again we are establishing a very dangerous precedent, and the objections to it have already been most eloquently advanced by the Minister himself, who in his speech in this House only last session raised all the convincing objections he could against the adoption of the key policy he is to-day advocating.

I cannot understand why people concerned in this matter which embraces so important a principle have not been consulted. A commission was appointed by the Government which cost a lot more money, but what I object to is that the rights of the producers are taken out of the hands of the producers and given to the Government. It is a dangerous thing to take the interests of the farmers out of their hands and put them in the Government's hands. I want to ask the Minister why it is necessary to force this Bill on the people and why there is such urgency with it. In all other legislation the Minister tries to consult the persons concerned. Why not here ? Why is the matter not postponed? I always thought that the Minister was maintaining the interests of the farmers, here, however, I do not know what to think. The people have not been consulted and I am very uneasy about the matter. I do not want to drag in politics but I am opposed to the interests of the farmers being handed over to the Government. The Government has already taken too much work out of the farmers’ hands. How many boards are there and how much do they not cost ? I do not believe the intention here is to create jobs for pals, but I know why the Government is saddled with people who talk all day long about looking after the interests of the farmers, but who are nothing else than spongers who only want to get money out of the farmers. This creates annoyances and I think the matter should in any case be postponed.

We have been bored by listening to the inaccuracies of hon. members opposite and it seems as if they think that if a thing is repeated it is the truth. That is, however, not correct. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has said a great deal that has nothing to do with the clause, and he has also admitted that he knows very little. Nearly all the fruit farmers in the country desire and ask for control, those who belong to co-operative societies and those who do not. The difference between us and hon. members opposite is as to the way in which the control ought to be exercised. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) knows that a difference of opinion can be worked up about anything in the world, and I think that he understands that well. He probably knows more about it than of farming, although he has had to do with farming for a fairly long time. I would rather not ask him how many dividends his company has paid since 1895. The question is whether the farmers who have considered the matter are satisfied with the composition of the board of control. I speak for Ceres, and it is one of the most important fruit districts as regards deciduous fruits and I can say that not only those belonging to the co-operative society, but also those outside of it are in favour of the method of control proposed in this Bill. Hon. members know the proverb—

and it is felt that the board which consists of fruit-growers will not look after the interests of all to the same extent. It is so easy to look after your companion’s before you look after the interests of those who are far away. As a representative of the fruit farmers I am in favour of an impartial board who will see that the interests of all and not only of some are looked after. All of us have an interest in the fruit industry and it is therefore right that the State should also take part in looking for a market for the produce. The State does a good deal to advance the marketing of other industries, why not in this case as well? The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) complains about the funds coming from the Treasury, but how much is not spent by the State for pushing industries in which he is interested?

Nothing.

If the hon. member says that then it shows that he is irresponsible.

He sells everything to coolies.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has tried to frighten the fruit growers with the Soviet, but I can tell the hon. member that the people of Ceres will not be afraid of his bogeys. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that the Minister should have consulted the fruit-growers. The opinion of Mr. le Roux, the chairman of the board of control that had experience last year in the shipment of fruit, was asked. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) made the gratuitous statement that the present chairman “has managed very well” and the hon. member for Worcester also said that he was an excellent man. What fault then have they to find ? That is surely the sort of man who ought to be consulted. The fruit-growers in my constituency are in favour of the Bill and I want to assure the Minister that it will not injure co-operation. We know of two meetings of fruit-growers that considered the Bill. There were nine persons in favour of it at the Cape Town meeting and sixty-four against, and at the Paarl meeting there were one hundred persons in favour and none against it. Thus out of one hundred and seventy-three persons one hundred and nine were in favour and sixty-four against, and as far as we know at the moment most of the fruit-growers are in favour of this method of control. I make bold to say that all the fruit-growers in a year or two’s time will be in favour of having an impartial board of control, because that will be best in the interests of all.

There seems to be a bit of mystery around this Bill. I do not understand, in the first place, what the Minister means by jamming it through the House at this hour of the session. It has not been on the paper long, and surely my hon. friend has other Bills which he introduced some time ago which he still lets lie on the paper. Take, for instance, the Bill which is badly required, the Railways and Harbours Pension Fund Bill.

The employees do not want it this year.

They wanted it very badly when I was in office. Then there is another Bill put forward by the Minister of Labour, the Work Colonies Bill, which one of the Labour members was asking for the other night. But a Bill which is not wanted in its present form by the fruit farmers is steam-rollered through the House. We have had no satisfactory explanation. Why is this Bill put forward at this late hour of the night ? It is not fair. There has been a good deal said about those people who support the Bill and those who are against it. I defy the Minister to find a more representative gathering of fruit growers than the one held the other day in Cape Town, when 64 voted against the Bill and 9 for. I would like to ask the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) whether Sarembocks are in favour of this Bill ? You cannot say what the opinion of these people is, and there is another point—how was the case put to them? Was it put by an advocate of the Minister’s? There was no question that the most responsible and largest fruitgrowers in the Western Province are against this Bill. I think I am justified in using the expression, that my hon. friend has bought over a lot of support for the Bill, because he is going to pay the salaries of the three ordinary members of the board. At first he intended that the fruitgrowers should pay for the board; now he has changed it, and makes the Railway Department pay. What has the Railway Department got to do with it? That has got support in certain directions for the Bill from fruitgrowers who do not know that, under Clause 14, they have to take all the risks from any action of the hoard. They can enter into contracts at the risk of the fruitgrowers, charter ships and the like, and it is an expensive business to charter ships, all at the risk and cost of the fruitgrowers, and they are not consulted, and have not even a hand in the appointment of the board. And yet you can come on them for any loss that may accrue from the actions of this board. That is absurd. Shareholders always have the right to appoint directors, and yet in this case it is purely a Government board appointed by the Government, and the fruitgrowers have to pay the piper. The biggest part of the fruitgrowers do not know that. They think, because certain officials are to be paid by the Government, that no further claim will come upon them. I agree with what my right hon. friend, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), said about the acts of Mr. le Roux. I have great respect for Mr. le Roux. He was asked by the Government to investigate in conjunction with two officials who knew nothing about fruit. What did Mr. Smith of the Railway Department know about fruit-growing ?

It is a question of knowledge of shipping.

Yes, but in connection with fruit; and what did Dr. Geldenhuys know about fruit-growing? Furthermore, Mr. le Roux is paid by the fruit exchange at present, and yet he does not consult them, as you would naturally expect him to do. And yet it is proposed to appoint him as chairman of this board. He will have lost all their confidence when he could be appointed by Government to make certain investigations and never said a word to his colleagues on the Fruit Control Board, who have been working with him for 12 months. The Bill came as a thunderclap to them when it came out. He is not the proper person for the position simply because he will not join the conference of fruit-growers. Why has the Minister departed from his declared policy of last year when he said it would be wrong for the Government to step in and take control? No one knows the origin of the Bill. [Time limit.]

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt —

We have heard a lot about the fruit industry, but there is also a dairy industry in this country, but no steps have been taken to ascertain its views. Although the butter and cheese exports have in one year totalled £125,000, the dairy industry has no representation whatever on the board. Unless it is directly represented on the board that industry will not be satisfied. As it is we are put under the domination of a board consisting of representatives of other industries and Government nominees, and are liable for our share of the expenses, yet we are to have no say in the management of our own affairs. I would ask the Minister to provide for proper representation of this industry on the board which is to be constituted.

Perhaps the Minister, having heard the discussion and having realized how serious the opposition to this Bill is, not in the House alone, but in the country, will accept the appeal made to him by the fruit exchange, and will drop the Bill for 12 months. The Shipping Control Board appointed last year has worked admirably well. Does the Minister agree to that ?

Up to a point.

The board succeeded in securing space on the Australian boats for our citrus fruit at a time when, but for those facilities, that fruit would not have gone forward. Before the appointment of the board attempts had been made to secure one-third of the cool storage space on those steamers for one company, and had that attempt been successful, it would have ruined the citrus industry. The board chartered the “Roman Star,” which conveyed 100,000 cases of oranges to Europe, and thus relieved the congestion. But for the arrangements the board made last year, the deciduous fruit growers in the Western Province would have been in a serious position. The board chartered the steamer “Edda”; the fruit shipped by it obtaining prices which were far better than originally anticipated. What are the reasons against the wishes of the exchange and the farmers to have an opportunity of discussing the Bill before they are led away by statements made by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) and Ceres (Mr. Roux), who are conveying the idea that the Government is altering the Bill.

I never said anything of the kind.

The fruit farmers have become responsible for thousands of pounds by means of a levy on their fruit. Is it not fair that the people who pay the piper should call the tune? What right has the Government to step in ? We have bureaucracies enough in this country, and Governments are not always successful bodies in business arrangements. We fruit growers in this country are very nervous indeed of this board of control which is now to be appointed, because it is going to have the power to deflect our fruit from one port to another, and if they are not taking over the sale of the fruit, I do not think it will be very long, if these things go on, before other arrangements are made to compel us to sell our fruit through certain channels. I want to know why the Minister has changed the whole of his tactics, and who has asked him to introduce this great change. In regard to Mr. le Roux, I would like to say again that he was chairman of the board of control, and that he was paid, not by the Government, but by the fruit farmers of this country. It was universally acknowledged that he rendered very good service, but I do take exception to the fact that, from what the Minister has already told us himself to-night, Mr. le Roux, the chairman of the Shipping Board of Control, for every operation of which the fruit exchange, by law, was responsible, should have made representations to the Minister for the purpose of drawing up a Bill to alter completely the character of the Shipping Board of Control without consulting his fellow members on the board and without consulting the fruit exchange of South Africa, whose servant for the time being he was, because they were paying him for the services he rendered. Will the Minister deny that members of the fruit exchange have approached him and asked him to withdraw the Bill, or that it was pointed out that the fruit exchange is busy with its reconstruction, and that he was asked in the meantime to hold over this Bill ? Why has the Minister refused to accept the appeal of the fruit farmers of this country? [Time limit.]

May I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that there is not a quorum.

proceeded to count the committee.

There is a quorum present. There are two hon. members asleep on the back benches.

Is the hon. member in order in referring to me as being asleep?

The hon. member for Waterberg may proceed.

When last year the Bill for the board of control was before the House, I was the only one who opposed it. I could not agree that the interests of the fruit farmers would be properly looked after if the fruit exchange had a majority on the board of control. Unfortunately, the Minister and the majority of members held a different view, and the Bill passed. I am very glad that the Minister this year goes back on the principle which was then argued. We felt that perhaps the greatest part of the fruit producers did not belong to the exchange, and those people felt that they were not being properly treated. Therefore, I demanded an independent board of control. Now we are getting such a board. The board will consist of Government officials and representatives of the fruit farmers. If we listen to the arguments of some members opposite, it looks as if the fruit of the farmers is being attached and dealt with at will. According to the proposals of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), the board of control can sell the fruit when and where it wishes. We, however, only give it the control over the carriage of the fruit by train and ship. It is true that the board can say to what harbour the fruit shall be sent, but that power the fruit exchange already has, to say that the fruit must go to Rotterdam instead of to London. They must have that authority in the interests of the farmer. Hon. members opposite apparently want the producers to have the control of the transport and the shipment, but they know nothing about it. Hon. members make out as if people who can transport fruit should be producers. If the Government officials do not look after the interests of the farmers, we can call them to account in Parliament. [No quorum.] Hon. members opposite say that the Minister is forcing the Bill through against the will of the farmers. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), who represents many fruit farmers, said that the majority of the farmers were in favour of it. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) said the same. A meeting was held at Paarl, and the majority there were also in favour of it, I think they were all in favour. I represent the most important citrus district in the Union, a district which in a few years will produce just as much as the rest of the Union. The Zebediela Estates, great fruit exporters, are in favour of it. That is a syndicate composed of farmers. The farmers of the northern provinces think that the agitation proceeds merely from the Western Province because the farmers here are afraid that our fruit will also be exported, and that it will compete with their market. Consequently, we are in favour of the Government having the majority on the board of control.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has asked me about butter and cheese, and said there is no provision made for their representation on the board. But the Governor-General has power at any time, when he considers it is necessary, to include a member for butter and cheese and other industries. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in regard to Clause 4. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is under a misapprehension when he said that under Clause 14, the section giving the power to the Governor-General to frame regulations with regard to diverting fruit from certain ports, that that is a very serious point to which strong exception is taken by the exchange and the exporters of fruit. He is wrong on that point, as he is on many other points. I have had discussions on many occasions with the fruit exchange, and they have all admitted that some such power is necessary.

Nobody objects to that.

The hon. member has represented that a tremendous power is given into the hands of this board.

I never said any such thing. May I just explain? What I say is this. What we do object to is a board of nominees of the Government deciding the ports to which our fruit shall go. We want our own people, in whom we have confidence, to be able to make the arrangements themselves.

This is typical of the right hon. member. Of course, he does not agree with the manner in which the board is constituted, but that is not the point here. The point is that the power given in Clause 14 is strongly objected to by him, in order to bolster up the very weak case he has set up. All the fruit growers and exporters admit that there should be a power of that sort. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) talks as if this board is going to take possession of the fruit which is to be exported, and as if it will become the property of the board. That is quite wrong. All the board does under Clause 4 will be the power to deal with it in regard to shipping and no more. The disposal of fruit will be left entirely in the hands of the exporters. The statement I made last year that the fruit belongs to the growers has been raised again. I say so still. The fruit remains the property of the producer, and all the board does is to control the shipping, and that is very necessary.

Nobody denies that.

If that is admitted, we come hack to the one central point, namely, the constitution of the board, and there we frankly disagree. But why raise all these extraneous matters, which simply cloud the issue? If hon. members will refer to the Australian Act dealing with dried fruit, they will see that under that Act a board is appointed on the same lines as we propose. This is in the interests of the growers in the country. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) and others have raised the point that if you do this for fruit to-day, you may have to do it for other products in the future. But surely they realize the difference between wool and fruit or butter or meat. Here we are dealing with perishable products which must be exported in refrigerated holds. That makes the shipping of these products such a difficult and technical matter. What does the hon. member suggest ? That we should leave it to a body constituted by the producers? When the Minister of Agriculture held his conference of growers in the Transvaal and peace was declared, I thought that there would be real peace.

Why not abide by their declaration ?

The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is so continually interrupting that I have to interrupt him. I think he will have another opportunity of addressing the committee

After those negotiations in Pretoria, we should have peace in regard to the fruit industry. Mr. Sturrock is very strongly in favour of this Bill, and I could mention other leading men in the country who are in favour of it, such as Mr. Kayser of Port Elizabeth. I do not know what Mr. Schlesinger’s opinions are, but probably as a keen business man he would be in favour of this Bill.

You have not told us why you have changed.

If you want a repetition of all the arguments used in the second reading debate, it would waste time. I have on many occasions said that the old board was an advisory board, and nothing more than advisory. It was not a corporate body.

The fruit exchange.

As far as I understand, the directors of the exchange are in agreement that the body which is to be established under the terms of this Bill should be a corporate body, and have the power to sue. Under this Bill the board will have full power to sue and to be sued, and will make the contracts for the exporters. There is the further reason—I do not say hon. members do it deliberately, but they seem to forget it—while the old board dealt with fruit only, this board will deal with all perishable products. For that reason it is necessary, while giving representation to the different interests, we should have one central body, which is able to follow a policy of continuity so that you may be certain that the policy followed by the board year after year will mean fair play to all persons who export perishable products from this country. I move as an amendment—

*The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) asked if the office expenses could not also be paid by the department. It is not possible to go so far. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) asked why the department should pay the allowances of the three members. My answer is that the department of Railways and Harbours has the very greatest concern in the proper handling and the well regulated export of our perishable produce. Therefore it is of the greatest importance to the department that the control should be exercised by an independent board consisting of members who are well acquainted with business. When, however, it comes to the office expenses I must say that it is difficult to place them to the charge of the Railway Department, because the board does not contain only members of the department of Railways and Harbours. The office expenses ought therefore to be defrayed by the body as a whole. I should like to tell the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the Government is not prepared to allow the Bill to stand over. It is necessary in the interests of good export. The hon. member for Paarl has disappeared. He represents a very important fruit district but he remains quiet. I do not know where he is. If I understood the member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) correctly he is not so much opposed to the Bill, but wants more enlightenment. I do not know whether he still has any objection, but I may say that as regards Worcester I have not received any representations either for or against the Bill. Hon. members seem to be under the impression that I have acted simply on the recommendation of the commission. I submitted the proposals to the fruit farmers and persons concerned in the export of eggs and other perishable produce and I am convinced of it that in general the producers are in favour of the Bill. An important point is that the small producers are also being protected. The creation of the board of control is not only in the interests of the large companies but also of the small producers of whom there are many interested in this matter.

It is a pity that the Minister has not answered the question that has been put to him, by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and by myself. What are the reasons that have caused him to depart from the policy of last year ? It is a fair question to ask. The Minister has not given me any information whatever on this particular point and is departing from the advice that was given him by the fruit exchange. With the general principles of the Bill, the fruit exchange agrees. But so long as you are dealing with our fruit, and we have to pay the levy on our produce, it is only fair that we should appoint members on the board. The Minister sees that this is an entirely different Bill from the Bill brought in last year. If the Minister will read the Bill he will find that the clause makes no provision for the representation of egg societies.

They approve of this Bill.

The co-operative egg societies have just as much right as the fruit exchange to be represented on the board of control. The proposal of the fruit exchange is that all co-operative societies should be represented on the board. Why did the Minister introduce the Bill without first consulting the growers ?

That question has been asked over and over again.

I will continue to ask it until the Minister gives me a definite reply. I am not representing myself, but the fruit farmers.

That is not the question. If the hon. member will repeat things over and over again I shall have to stop him.

Have I not the right to press the Minister to give me an answer when he is forcing the Bill through the House at three o’clock in the morning ? This is not the first time I have stood for defending the privileges of this House.

Order! Does the hon. member wish to impute that I am curbing the privileges of this House.

I am not saying anything of the sort. My hearing is quite good, and you need not address me so loudly. Am I within my rights in asking the Minister to give me a definite statement as to the reasons why he is introducing this measure. You say, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the question over and over again, and if you rule that I cannot ask it again, I bow with all respect to your ruling. What I want to ask the Minister is why he did not consult the fruit exchange and the fruit farmers before he forced the Bill through.

It is not only the hon. member, but several other members who have asked the question, and I understand the Minister has answered it. If the hon. member asks that question again I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

I am not going to ask the question again, but so far as I am concerned, I do not understand that the Minister answered me. I want to point out to the Minister that the board urge that the Bill should be withdrawn.

I have given you my reply.

Do you consider that the Shipping Board have not carried out their duties in a proper manner, or have not been of great assistance to the fruit growers ?

I have dealt very fully with that whole question.

I don’t think the Minister has—I think he has evaded the question in every possible way, and that is why I representing the biggest and most successful citrus-growing district in the Union, the fruit growers in which are intensely opposed to the Bill, I consider I have the right to oppose the measure in every way I can.

I want to ask the Minister whether the fruit farmers are treated with so much contempt that the Bill is read for the second time at 3 a.m. and at 4 a.m. the committee stage is taken. Hon. members opposite may possibly grow a few fig trees, but nothing else. I speak here as a representative of two-thirds of the deciduous fruit growers in the Cape Province. The farms of the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the Rhodes Fruit Farms are in my constituency, and a great deal of fruit is exported from them. I am certain that the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) does not represent one of the fruit farmers in his constituency.

I am certain.

The hitch has arisen because the Exchange made a blunder in not giving grapes the preference to other fruit when Keiffer pears were exported in accordance with the order in which the fruit arrived in the cooling chamber. I admit a blunder was made, because deciduous fruit such as grapes should have been exported after it had been the full time in cold storage. It is, however, absolutely a political matter here and the Minister is being dictated to by a few hon. members. I always thought that the Minister was democratic, but I find out to-night that he is autocratic.

I move—

That is not fair.

Upon which the committee divided:

I think the time has arrived when we ought to report progress and ask leave to sit again. Some of us have been in the House for 18 hours. There are also the officials to be considered. I move—

For the rest of the Bill it is practically an agreed Bill. Hon. members have pressed me all the evening with regard to the fruit exchange.

Oh, I don’t accept that.

May I point out to the Minister that he is entirely wrong about the Bill. Clauses 11 and 12 make provision that all the expenditure, save payment for the three members, falls upon the fruit grower and the poultry farmer.

Do you suggest that when they discussed that with the Minister of Agriculture and myself, we did not realize it ?

If the Minister will just keep ills temper! He has been so used to getting his own way with the docile maority behind him, that he is now getting a bit irritated. Prosperity and responsibility have rather turned the hon. gentleman’s head. It is incorrect to say that now that we have passed Clause 1, all the contentious clauses have been passed. Clause 11 is one which is most strongly objected to, because the board does not represent these people.

So far from this being an agreed Bill, in Clause 14, paragraph (h), the Minister himself tabled an amendment, withdrew that, and substituted a more intricate provision which we have not seen before.

It is an agreed Bill because we have consulted the exchange.

We meant an agreed Bill in this House I do ask the Minister to agree to report progress and ask leave to sit again. There is also the zone amendment.

If the hon. member wants a further reason, it is the reason given by the Whip on the other side on Friday afternoon.

That is stretching it a little bit too far. I made arrangements on Friday afternoon for carrying on the debate—

On a point or order. Are we not now considering Clause 2?

The question is now whether we shall report progress and ask leave to sit again.

There were two conditions attached to the arrangements: that the Government should proceed with the work, and we would give facility to pass one stage for this particular measure.

We have not had one stage yet.

But there was another condition—that you should not overload the paper before this was reached. In accordance with the arrangement we have taken five other measures, each through one stage, and now you become vindictive on the last one. The fact of the matter is, the Government wants to force that through, and because an arrangement was made on Friday afternoon, the Government wants to dragoon the House and the country. There is no other word for it— it is simply vindictiveness. Everybody is inconvenienced by it—the officials and the press. The person most inconvenienced will be the Minister himself—he will have to go on with his work.

Why do you waste time like that?

It is saving time to bring the Minister to his proper senses.

Upon which the committee divided:

One of the reasons which the Minister has given for the complete change in his policy is that the board must be an entity and be able ti sue and be used. Why could not the hoard constituted of representatives of the fruit industry have been in exactly the same position?

The Minister tells us that this is an agreed Bill ; but the whole Bill is subject to Clause 1. In Clause 2 you give the board the right to sue and if they lose the case who must pay for it? The fruit farmers. And they have no say, and are not represented on the hoard. It only proves the miserable principle we adopted under Clause 1.

The hon. member may not reflect on a resolution of this committee.

The Minister must take the responsibility under the Bill. We can only protest against it, as conduct which I have never seen in all my experience in Parliament, apart front what has taken place to-night. I go further and say that the farmers of this country have never been treated in Parliament as they have been treated by the Government.

Will the hon. member confine himself to Clause 2 ?

The farmers are called without their consent and request to pay for losses in which they would have had no voice one way or the other.

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I repeat that it is important that there should be permanent members on this board ; because the board becomes a corporate body, and in order to ensure continuity of policy, it is necessary that the board should be constituted as laid down in Clause 1. As regards the fulminations of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), this Government takes the responsibility for this Bill, not the Opposition.

The clause under discussion contains the only trace of humour I have been able to find in the Bill, for after creating, in Clause 2, a body corporate capable of suing and being sued, he provides in Clause 13 that no liability shall attach to the Government or to the board which cannot be sued ordinarily for its obligations. Therefore it is almost futile and almost farcical to call the board a body which can be sued. Last session we had the Diamond Control Bill and I thought the Minister would have benefited by the discussion on that measure when we had legislation dealing with another primary producer.

The question under discussion is Clause 2.

It is difficult for me to confine myself to the clause if hon. members interrupt me. Is the Minister afraid to support the doings of the board? First he takes away from the growers the control of their produce and having created a body corporate says that it must not be sued. An action of that kind practically robs the producer of his product and then declines to accept responsibility for all the consequences that flow from it.

I move—

Why not put the whole Bill?

Upon which the committee divided:

I move—

We have been so helpful to the Minister that I am sure he will be prepared to look favourably upon that suggestion.

I won’t accept that motion now.

May I ask the Minister exactly what Clause 3 means. This board is to have the power to appoint all sorts of people. Who is to pay those people ? And who is to have control of them ? Are they going to be civil servants? If they are to be civil servants one would have thought that the civil service commission would have a say in the matter. Apparently this hybrid board is to have the right to appoint civil servants, fix the terms and conditions of their employment, and fix their remuneration.

See Clause 11.

The Minister told us that this was an agreed Bill. As far as I remember Clause 11 says it is to be paid by a levy on

The hon. member cannot discuss Clause 11.

I will accept the Minister’s reply as answering the question. I have asked who is going to pay these people.

I am not going to repeat it any more. I have told the hon. member-he is not allowed to continue discussing Clause 11.

I am not going to discuss Clause 11. I can quite understand that the House and all the functionaries are getting rattled.

Will the hon. member withdraw that imputation.

No, I will certainly not withdraw that. Why should I withdraw it? It is a plain statement of fact. I ask the Speaker’s ruling whether I am entitled to say that not only members, but functionaries, are getting rattled.

Does the hon. member withdraw “functionaries” ?

No, and I claim the Speaker’s ruling on the subject.

If the hon. member does not withdraw it I will ask him to leave the Chamber.

No, I claim the Speaker’s ruling, if the chairman orders me to withdraw the word “functionaries” I will say if the functionaries are not rattled the House at any rate is getting rattled at the unprecedented attitude of the Government in forcing a Bill of this sort. This Bill seems to me a child of darkness.

I want to put this question clearly. Do I understand the hon. member to impute that the Chair was included in the officers getting rattled ?

No, I have withdrawn the word “functionaries.” I have said the House is getting rattled. It seems to me the morale of the Government is breaking down.

May I ask the hon. member to confine himself to Clause 3?

That is what I am trying to do, subject to these interruptions, for which I claim the protection of the Chair. The Minister has told us that these functionaries are to be paid by a levy on the fruit growers. Neither this House nor the fruit growers have any say in the remuneration these people are to receive or the number. We are signing a blank cheque at 4.30 in the morning. They are a party of somnambulists on the other side. Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs to come to? We are to give them unlimited opportunities to appoint as many officials as they like at whatever salaries they like! They can hire offices anywhere! As far as I can see Europe is going to be divided into a zone system. There is nothing to prevent the board from assigning offices in every town in Europe, and from appointing an army of officials. It is pretty obvious that the unfortunate growers are going to pay for all this. I must protest. This is going too far ; this seems to he the limit. I hope the Minister will give us some further explanation as to the extraordinary provisions in this clause. It is playing with the House to tell us it remains our fruit after taking these very wide powers. The growers won’t have a shred of control left over their own products. (Time limit.)

I should like to invite the Minister’s attention to the wise judgment of the board of the land bank on this question. In the annual report they remark on the satisfactory nature of the control of the fruit control board. They say—

We find the Minister embarking on a totally different venture in which he gives enormous powers to the board. If the land bank saw fit to approve the arrangements that have been made—and we have the greatest confidence in their judgment—surely the Minister might have been content to have been guided by that opinion. We find him instead appointing a board with very much enlarged powers over the heads of the farmers, and all these things are being done without any authority from the growers. I do appeal to the Minister not to harden his heart on the subject, but to abandon the very extensive powers which he purposes to take for the board under this section.

I move—

The position I take up with regard to this Bill is that it is a child of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and it seems only to be right that he should look after his own infant.

The amendment is out of order. It is the levying of taxation.

I would recommend it to the Minister. Perhaps he will move it in. It is on the lines of his other valuable amendment to the Bill in Clause I.

I may point out to the hon. member that not even the Minister may move such an amendment.

The Minister should apply to the Governor-General for his recommendation. This Bill is going to be a great charge on the industry, which has to pay for all the mistakes of this board of three people who know nothing about the business.

That discussion is now out of order.

In section 3 which gives very wide powers to the board, only in (a) does it say—

Where the board is given further powers in (b), (c) and (d) and also other powers at the end of the section, there is no responsibility to anybody. They can do as they like, and not even the Minister can interfere there. Their powers are very great and as the section is worded neither the Minister nor the fruit growers can exercise any control, the board can do as it likes and no one can question its action.

Clause 3 deals with the powers of the board when dealing with their ordinary functions. Clause 4 deals with priority.

I think the Minister is making a mistake there. I certainly understood that the Bill gave the Minister power to control.

That is under Clause 4.

I understood that the Minister would have an ultimate say.

The Minister of Agriculture under Clause 9 guarantees these contracts.

As it seems to me that the conditions as to payment are governed by Clauses 11 and 12, I move—

I may not mention Clauses 11 and 12 owing to your ruling.

What the hon. member may move is that Clause 3 stand over until the end of the Bill. I did not rule that the hon. member may not mention Clause 11. He may not discuss it.

I move—

Now that we have seemed to come to a spirit of sweet reasonableness, perhaps the Minister will agree to this reasonable proposal, which will give him time to read the clause. Because the Minister says this clause does not refer to shipping, he says we must go to Clause 4. But if the Minister will read the clause, he will see that it does refer to shipping. As the producers will have to pay for it, I think it is very necessary that we should take this clause after we have gone through the Bill, and especially after we have discussed Clauses 11 and 12, which provide for the levy which the growers must produce to make provision for these contracts. Will the Minister tell us whether the chairman and members of this board are to be permanent officers ?

The question before the committee is that the clause stand over.

Under Clause 3, the board has very serious powers. But Clause 13 frees the board and others from liability for acts done where there is bona fide conduct. People might be stupid and blundering and yet be protected. Those concerned should understand what responsibilities they are giving to these people and what rights are taken from themselves.

There is no doubt that farmers, when they read Clause 3 and see about these immense powers, will be filled with alarm and despondency.

The question now before the committee is that the clause stand over.

The more I see of this Bill, the more it seems necessary for Clause 3 to stand over. Clause 13 throws a very lurid light on Clause 3. We have asked the Minister repeatedly to give us some information in regard to whether the personnel appointed by the board are going to be permanent officials, as, if so, I should like to know why the board is going to have the appointment of them, and not the Public Service Commission ? As the Bill stands, I do not see how the Minister can reply to these queries. This Clause 3 leaves us very much in the air.

I move—

Upon which the committee divided.

I referred to the Minister just now in regard to this clause, and when I spoke to him he referred me to Clause 9. I questioned whether the board had the power to act under the authority of the Minister. If I remember Clause 9, it lays down that the Minister—

The hon. member (Dr. de Jager) cannot now discuss Clause 9.

I am not going to discuss Clause 9; I am going to discuss Clause 3. Clause 9 does not give the authority to the Minister. If under Clause 3 the board has concluded a contract for shipping—

I move—

Upon which the committee divided.

moved an amendment in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I think we ought to take these things seriatim. The powers given are very large, and it is extremely important.

I move—

[On the question being put]: Although the procedure does not allow me to protest, I protest openly against your conduct. [Interruption.]

I order the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) to leave the House.

[The hon. member left the chamber.]

I join in that protest.

[The hon. member left the Chamber.]

May I move that we report progress—

I have not finished yet.

Surely the Chairman cannot refuse to accept a motion like that.

Order! The amendment moved by the hon. the Minister to insert—

Do you accept the closure ?

I put the motion that the question be now put.

This is reducing parliamentary procedure to an absolute farce.

On a point of order, is it competent for you to order any member out of the Chamber whilst a division is proceeding ?

If the hon. member wishes to withdraw his motion he can do it.

I object to his withdrawal of the motion.

We want to know where we are. The procedure of this House is being reduced to an absolute farce.

There is no debate now. I am quite prepared if the hon. member who moved that the question be now put withdraws it—I am prepared to accept such withdrawal, with leave of the committee.

Have I any right to object to its being withdrawn?

I do not remember your putting it to the voices, Mr. Chairman.

I am putting it now. The question is that the question be now put.

Motion put and Dr. de Jager called for a division:

Upon which the committee divided:

On a point of order, can you put an amendment after the question has been put.

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

I understood the closure was applied to the amendment and not to the clause.

No. Even if there were ten amendments, I have to put the lot.

Clause, as amended put, and the committee divided:

In view of the necessity to have the Order Paper printed—

And no other reason ?

Unless the House now adjourns, it will be quite impossible to have the Order Paper ready by half-past ten, and for that reason I now move—

The motion was agreed to.

Well, we have beaten you to a standstill.

We will take you on again to-morrow, old buck.