as Chairman, brought up the seventh report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Meyer and Charlton Gold Mining Agreement), as follows—

Report considered.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Resolution transmitted by message to the Senate for concurrence.

I wish to state that the Select Committee on the Liquor Bill requested the views of the Secretary for Justice on certain evidence given by the Secretary for Native Affairs in regard to the delegation to the Department of Justice of the administration of certain provisions under the Bill affecting natives. As, however, the reply from the Secretary for Justice was received by the Clerk of the House after the committee had concluded its labours, I now lay it upon the Table.

Will that be printed with the rest of the evidence ?

I understand that the evidence given before the select committee is already printed. This report of the Secretary for Justice is merely an annexure which can be referred to the committee next year, if necessary.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I would even at this late stage of the Bill appeal to the Minister not to force this Bill through the House with the majority behind him ; because I think the Minister has learnt by this that the Fruit Exchange, which has done such good work in the interests of the fruit industry in this country since its establishment a few years ago, as an exchange, is entirely opposed to it, and it departs from the principles that the Minister himself enunciated last year when he introduced the Shipping Board Control Bill which passed through both Houses, and has worked admirably during the time it has been in operation. There is no doubt that, with encouragement, from what we have seen of the work of the fruit exchange, within a very short period of time it will occupy the same position in this country in regard to the development and advancement of our fruit industry, as the Californian fruit exchange occupies in relation to the fruit industry of California. We had thought that when the Minister of Agriculture held a conference in Pretoria, I think some time in December, that the influences outside the exchange which had been rather opposed to the exchange and were extremely opposed to the Shipping Control Bill of last session, had come into line, because, from the reports of the meetings that took place, the outside interests had voluntarily agreed to come into the fruit exchange and whole-heartedly throw in their lot with it. As you may remember one of the principal opponents to the shipping control at that time was the National Fruit Growers’ Association of South Africa, and I am surprised to find that after their members wholeheartedly, as we suppose joining the fruit exchange that members of the legislature especially in another place should have received a telegram which I will read to the House—

We know the attitude the association took up last year. Nobody knows it better than the Minister himself. It certainly does fill me and other people who take a deep interest in the fruit industry of this country with surprise, especially as we were under the impression that the association and the leading members had definitely decided to throw in their lot with the fruit exchange. The Minister during previous discussions gave it to be understood that the opposition to this Bill really came largely from the deciduous growers, and that the Bill met with the approval of the majority of the citrus growers, especially in the northern provinces. I want to point out that when the meeting called by the Minister of Agriculture took place the thing that really definitely caused the meeting to decide and the people present to throw in their lot with the fruit exchange was the unanswerable evidence that it was not alone the citrus growers who at that time had joined the fruit exchange, but that there were hundreds of fruit growers who, while not members of the exchange, had the fullest confidence in that exchange. At that meeting, Mr. George White, who represents the Kat River Fruit Growers’ Co-operative Association, and Mr. Allen Fitzpatrick, representing the Sunday’s River Co-operative Society, put on the Table proxies from over 450 individual citrus growers. The Minister has allowed it to be inferred that I and other people putting up an opposition to this Bill are actuated by motives other than those of a sincere desire to assist the fruit industry of this country and to see the fruit exchange strengthened in every possible way. I would like to ask the Minister, when he seemed to imply that in the northern provinces everyone was satisfied with the Bill, whether he has received a wire from the Rustenburg Growers’ Co-operative Society disapproving emphatically of the Bill so far as the constitution of the board was concerned. Has he also received wires of protest from the Karino Co-Op. Co., Ltd., the Koster River Valley Co.-Op Citrus Co., Ltd., the Sundays River Citrus Co-Op. Co., Ltd., The Woodbine Ko-Op. Citrus Maatskappy, Bpk., the S.A. Deny-drated Fruits Co., Ltd., the Kat River Co-Op. Citrus Co., Ltd., the Formosa Co-Op. Fruit Co., Ltd., De Kaap Co-Op. Citrus Co., Ltd., the Goede Hoop Co-op. Citrus Co., Ltd., Uitenhage district Citrus Growers’ Co-op., Ltd., the Natal Co.-op Fruit Export Co., Ltd., the Koonap River Citrus Co-op. Co., Ltd., the Hex River Valley Co-op. Fruit Growers Co., Ltd., The White River Fruit Growers’ Co-op Co., Ltd ? I have only mentioned these protests that the Ministet has received to show that these growers are entirely in favour of the board being constituted as it is at the present time and that the fruit-growers of this country must have a majority on that board, because the board is going to expend their money which is collected by a levy through the Agricultural Department, I also mentioned the other day that Maj. Anderson, who is at the present time a member of the executive of the citrus subboard of the fruit exchange, has been very strongly opposed to the Bill, and the House may like to hear a translation of a telegram sent by him in Dutch to Mr. du Plessis—

To which Mr. du Plessis replies—

This was entirely what I said the other day.

Will you lay that telegram on the Table ?

I will lay it on the Table in Dutch as it originally came. I said I was perfectly certain that when Mr. du Plessis made that statement he understood so far as the administration of the shipping board was concerned that practically all the expenses would be borne by the Government, whereas the only expenses borne by the Government are the payment of the three menmbers nominated by the Government, and everything else in connection with that board has to be paid by levy on the products of the fruit growers of this country ; and irrespective of any mistakes made or of the extent of those charges the growers have no redress whatever. Even at this late stage I want to protest in the strongest manner possible in the interests of fruit farmers and certainly in the interest of co-operation, in which I am backed up by the position taken up in Queensland, in which it is distinctly laid down that it must be kept out of the hands of the Government. Under the circumstances I do hope that the Minister, realizing as he must realize that the majority of fruit growers are entirely opposed to a step which will utilize their funds without their having any say in it and which will strike a death blow at the prosperity of the fruit exchange, which has been doing such good work in the interest of fruit farmers, that even at this last moment he will not use his majority to force this Bill through the House against the views of the vast majority of individual fruit growers in this country. With regard to the telegram from the fruit growers association, that association does represent a few of the large interests, but I say that they are gradually selling those holdings to small holders, and it is the small holders whose voice I want to have. I can hardly understand hon. members opposite, who have been so strongly in favour of protecting individual producers that they should be a party to assisting in the passing of a Bill which is likely to take control out of the hands of the Fruit Exchange and indirectly place it in the hands of strong combinations. Perhaps the Minister will tell me who he proposes to make the members of this board. I understand he is considering appointing Mr. le Roux as chairman and Mr. Dyason as another member. These are things causing the greatest anxiety in the minds of fruit growers. It is not a political opposition ; it is a genuine opposition, and I am certain I am voicing the views of the vast majority of individual fruit growers who are extremely afraid that their interests will be placed in the hands of big combinations.

I do not intend to address the various unsatisfactory phases of this Bill. I may say shortly that as far as the country is concerned this Bill was conceived in darkness ; it was carried through in darkness, and I think this is the only time it has really seen the light of day. I shall not refer to the merciless conduct of the Government in the way they have forced through this measure regardless of the rights of the people represented by this Parliament. That is well known to the country. When we take leave of this Bill we enact a pernicious principle that in future the control, which is properly vested in the producers and practically a very large part of the business of the producers, is taken out of their hands and placed under State control—of a board mainly composed of Government nominees. This is a proclamation to the world that the farmers of South Africa are either unable or incompetent to manage their own affairs and business. The Minister has come forward and endeavoured to buy the support of the farming community by, after grave criticism on this side, putting forward an amendment that the Government will pay the salaries of the board. I ask, have the farmers of this country ever refused to pay the salaries as long as they have the control and the responsibility of management? I would say, what right has the Minister, without a proper enquiry and due consideration, to inflict this upon the State, and that without the request of the farmers themselves? When this Bill was in committee I moved, in the small hours of the morning—the committee stage was taken at 1 o’clock, after we had sat all night on the Senate Bill, and I see now from the newspapers that the very points that we raised—

The Senate Bill is not under discussion now.

I am using it only as a matter of argument, Mr. Speaker, and I am not discussing the merits of that Bill. The points which we raised then, which were considered futile, I see the Minister has surrendered in the Upper House. At 1 o’clock in the morning we were forced to take the committee stage of this important Fruit Control Bill, and at about 4 o’clock I moved that the Bill be sent to a select committee after the second reading, and according to my lights I used arguments to the best of my ability in support of that motion. The Minister then said that my arguments were mere claptrap and fulminations, as he called them. That is the way the majority tramples upon the rights of the minority, and the party standing for liberty, coupled with the cross-benches, passed through this measure in all its stages. To show the Minister when I adduced these arguments, that I had the support of the principal farmers behind me, I will read a telegram I received on Friday afternoon, too late for the report stage. It is from the Elgin Cooperative Fruitgrowers, Limited, and it reads as follows—

I hear an hon. member over there shouting— Molteno Brothers.

If Molteno Brothers have invested one penny in fruit culture they have invested over £30,000 in one farm, and they own 15,000 fruit trees. They have just finished at Elgin station cold storage costing them between £8,000 and £10,000, from which they wish to export direct to the ship’s side. The farmers representing this co-operative society—I have made a rough estimate—own 300,000 fruit trees, some have invested their all—and they have invested to the extent of a quarter of a million in the industry. By this Bill they are ruled out, and are given no consideration, and have had no proper hearing before the bar of this House—not even before a select committee. Clause 4 gives to that board the most extensive powers, under which the farmers would be liable to an unlimited degree for the costs incurred, contracts made and so forth, and they would have no say when those contracts are entered into. That was all forced through without the least discussion by this Government, who allege that they represent the farmers. In all my parliamentary experience I have never seen the rights of farmers or any other class of the community—but in this case we are dealing specially with the farmers —trampled underfoot as these rights have been trampled underfoot by this Government, and that without a call by the farmers for such drastic legislation. Is it a wonder that my constituents have no further confidence in this popular Assembly, and have at the last moment made an appeal to the Senate? I have sent this telegram to Senator J. P. Malan, who must have £30,000 spent on his fruit farm there. I shall ask him to do all in his power to protect and to represent the interests of the fruit farmers in Elgin and other parts of my constituency. The people of Villiersdorp have not had an opportunity to meet and discuss this. This is the way this measure has been forced through, and I say, therefore, to my great regret, that I am not surprised that the public is at present looking away from the House of Assembly after the treatment’ this Bill has received, and the people interested are seeking redress and protection in that chamber which the Minister of the Interior also wished to destroy. I hope, before this Bill becomes law, that the farmers will still have an opportunity of expressing their views, and after that, Parliament will have an opportunity of judging whether this pernicious principle, as embodied in this Bill, should be carried.

I also wish to join in the protests so eloquently voiced by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). At the least, what farmers could expect is that when their rights were being taken away they would have been consulted. They were not consulted before, and have not now been given the time to express their opinions. Up to the present we have not heard anything of a clear statement from the Minister why he has brought in this Bill. From his silence one would think that there is some sinister movement behind it. What is the reason for bringing in this measure, repealing the Act of last year, and taking the whole of the control out of the hands of the fruit farmers who are called upon to pay the piper ? It seems as if it is no use appealing to the Minister to stay this measure. We can make one appeal, and that it at the last hour tell us what is behind it ? We know that the farmers, through their co-operative associations, have shown us that they are most strongly against this Bill, and that there is nothing to be said for it. If the Minister cannot tell us why he has brought this Bill in, let him postpone the measure, and give farmers an opportunity of expressing their views after thoroughly digesting a matter which they are so much against.

I am not anxious to be charged with uttering fulminations or claptrap.

I have never made that accusation.

I am anxious to avoid it, at all events. I can best avoid that by quoting the Minister’s own words and opinions on the matter. In April, 1925, the Minister said that the fruit exchange embraced people of thorough business capacity, and they proposed to give them the right to make shipping contracts. He went out of his way to emphasize that the last thing his Government desired to do was to interfere unduly in these matters. At that time he took up the very reasonable attitude that it was primarily the business of the Government to help on these matters, but not to take control of them, and he said that the Government had definitely decided that the membership of the board should be confined to growers, and that the fruit exchange should have a majority of the board. He went on to say that the fruit belonged to the growers, and not to the Government, and that no outsider would have any control of the board. But I cannot see that is reflected in the Bill. There seems to be a family likeness about most of the legislation the Government has been introducing of late, and that is the determination to have more and more power in the hands of the executive of this country. That legislation may be very well so far as it confirms this power of control ; but the real control of most matters would be left in the hands of the Minister or the department concerned. Last year the Minister said the board should represent the fruit producers, but he brings in a Bill diametrically opposed to that principle. Last year he said the business did not belong to the Government, and that the Bill of last year asked that the fruit producers should be allowed to control their own affairs. I would ask the Minister, when he replies, to explain exactly and precisely the reasons that have induced him to change his mind so completely since last year, and why he should be dragging the Government into a matter in which, in his own words, they have no business at all ? His remarks were fully endorsed at the time by the Minister of Agriculture, and no doubt the country will want to know the reasons that induced this great change to be made. I hope, if the Minister will not postpone the operation of this Bill, he will be able to give satisfactory reasons for his change of front and, above all, that he will disclose the names of the members of the proposed board.

I do not think the Minister has been very wise in the handling of this Bill. In the first place, as has already been stated, it is a complete change of policy, and he has never given us a complete explanation of his reason for introducing this Bill at all. The first explanation was that the hoard was going to be a corporate body that could be sued, but a board composed of representatives of the fruit industry would be in exactly the same position. In committee, the Minister let in some daylight. He referred me to a paragraph in the report of the Egg Commission which advocated a policy similar to that which is contained in this Bill. I believe the origin of the Bill to be this: That he wants to have a board to control, not only the fruit, but also the shipment of eggs, butter, cheese and so forth. If that is so, and I assume it is, why did he not explain this to the House at the start-off.

I did.

No, no. I want to be fair to ray hon. friend. He should have said at first that it was the Government’s intention that there should be one board of control for the lot. The second mistake is this. The Minister has been in this House for ten years, and he ought to know the temper of the House. This Bill is essentially one that ought to have been referred to a select committee. It affects private interests. Let those interests make representations, and then you satisfy them. If this Bill comes into operation, you will have suspicion right along, and it will take a long time to live it down. It would be better for my hon. friend to say that, seeing there is so much opposition, he will leave the Bill over, and bring it in next session and refer it to a select committee. It will give people time to think over it.

What about next season’s fruit ?

The existing board would continue to operate and would deal with it. I think we have had better results this year than ever before. I have exported several thousand boxes this year. There were one or two blunders, but on the whole this board has operated fairly well, especially as it is the first year. I want to give full credit to the chairman who has done remarkably well, much to my surprise.

I rise to contradict, to a certain extent, the statement made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), that an Act of this description is not in operation in Australia. Last year three Acts were passed by the Commonwealth Government on the lines laid down in this Bill.

He never said it.

Not directly, but indirectly. He quoted Queensland, and the impression would go forth that that was the custom in Australia. I would like to impress on the Minister the necessity for his going through with this Bill this session. The Government has been put to a great deal of expense in creating cold storage facilities for fruit, and it should keep control by appointing Government nominees representing each industry.

The hon. member has mis quoted what I have said. The Queensland board is a board elected by the producers of such commodities.

Not of the Commonwealth of Australia.

I do not propose to go over the whole ground covered here this morning. I would say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), how can he say there has been any misunderstanding about the constitution and operations of this Bill? The terms of the Bill are perfectly clear, that all these products are to be affected by this Bill, so that even if I did not say so—and I am perfectly sure I did say so—the Bill speaks for itself. I do not see that any good purpose can be served by going over the arguments raised.

Motion put, and the House divided.

Surely the Minister is not going on with a very important Bill of this nature at this late stage of the session. The proposal involves some millions, so we are informed by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). The Bill has been on the paper for months, and yet it has been left in abeyance until the last day or two of the session. The industry will surely not come to an end before next session. Important legislation of this nature should not be passed at the end of the session, and I oppose it on principle, because it is wrong to the people and interests concerned, that a matter of this importance should be debated in a House as thin as it can possibly be.

Have you ever found that a full House makes any difference to the nature of a discussion of a technical matter ?

This is an extremely important measure ; it affects a very important industry, and will affect the revenue of the country to a very large extent.

The Bill has been on the Table for two years.

But we have not had a discussion. The Minister is to blame.

If the hon. member wishes to persist in opposing the Bill at every stage, let him assume the responsibility. The first part of the Bill is new, and as regards the second part, any contract is subject to confirmation by Parliament in terms of the 1919 Act. The first portion is only to facilitate matters. The only bone of contention really is the last part of the Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

“ Series” is a sub-division of a parcel. Can the Minister now say to a buyer that the owner of a parcel can compel him to take the whole series? If the Minister is bound—

he will be mixed up in difficulties delightfully.

I hope the Minister will not agree to the amendment; it is bad enough that the Bill should be forced through the House as it is.

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has lost sight of the fact that the present Act provides that the diamonds shall be taken in the series whenever it is the custom of the trade. Instead of that the discretion is proposed to be vested in the Minister to say that the diamonds shall not be taken in series in certain cases. The Minister will consider a dispute, should one arise, and will have to come to a just decision. Of course, it is not a very pleasant task for the Minister, but as the present Act is very imperative, it was thought desirable to give discretionary powers to the Minister, and I think that is a very fair and very material departure from the Act. I hope the hon. member will not press his amendment.

To make the Act workable in the interests of the cutters, the Minister should accept the words “or otherwise ”. Supposing a cutter says, “I want a particular stone to cut ”, the owners will say, “Rather than have any trouble with the Minister we will let you have what you want ”, and the latter will not have to take what he does not want, at a price which he cannot afford to pay.

Does the custom of the trade refer to the diamond-cutting or selling?

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

One of the objections to Clause 3 which was urged by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) is met here, and was intended to be met. Some time ago I intimated my intention to propose an amendment of this nature. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) was not at the time in the House and when he made his speech he was unaware of these amendments. Hon. members will see that there is a provision that diamonds under a carat in weight that are exported are to be remnants of diamonds completely cut and polished by such cutter in the Union. Then we may export the remnants, otherwise he might just scrape the stone and export it. Then further the export duty which we refer to lower down will be increased proportionately, if there is an increase of the ten per cent, export duty. As I pointed out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), any contract that is completed pursuant to this will be subject to ratification by Parliament in terms of section 7 of the present Act, which provides that—

I would like to remind the Minister that in ten days’ time he will have been in administrative authority for two years and promised diamond-cutting in this country is as far off to-day as the day Government started, and this Bill is not going to assist the diamond-cutters to any great extent. Under Section 7 of the present Act the Minister has complete and absolute optional control of the whole business. Therefore, I ask him to take out the words “not exceeding one carat in weight,” in line 49. Why should we tie these cutters round and round with red tape ? Licensed buyers can send a stone of any weight they like, but we say to the unfortunate cutter—

What object is there in putting all these restrictions upon the cutter whom we wish to encourage? First of all, he is to be discouraged in every possible way in regard to licences. Now we put on this restriction. I want the Minister to recognize that the big financial interests against him on this Bill do not want diamond-cutters in this country. The Minister seems to fail to recognize that fact entirely. These monopolistic interests could have had 10,000 cutters here any time these last twenty-five years if they had chosen, but unfortunately, the advice which he receives makes the position of cutters almost impossible. Supposing the cutter has splints from his stones and it does not suit him to cut these pieces, why not allow that cutter to send two, three or even four carat remnants? The whole thing, as far as diamond-cutting is concerned, has become a complete farce, and the Government is listening to the big interests, the diamond-cutter not getting a show. I would like to see this restriction removed and I will therefore move—

I cannot put the amendment without the Governor-General’s recommendation, as it would have the effect of increasing taxation.

I want to say that it is remarkable that such a representation as the hon. member (Mr. Hay) has made has never been made to me by any cutter. There has never been any objection to the restriction.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

seconded.

I object.

Amendments to be considered to-morrow.

I want to call the Minister’s attention to the amendment which is made to Clause 2. The former part of the clause gives the lessee or licensee of land a right to get a prospecting licence and also a lease, but the amendment which he has made provides that such lease or licence shall be terminated on the expiration of the lease or licence. Assuming a lessee obtains a lease of minerals on his land ; he has not obtained a Crown grant but he applies for a Crown grant and, as soon as his lease is determined and the Crown grant is issued, his mineral lease drops to the ground, according to this amendment. I hope the matter will be looked into closely in another place. It affects my constituents very closely in relation to land held in Northern Natal. It seems to me that this clause ought to go on to provide that, on obtaining a Crown grant, the lease shall be renewed or, at any rate, a new lease shall be granted, but, as it is, it seems to leave the licensee or lessee in the air. I do not know whether it is covered by some other part of the Bill, but I have not been able to find it.

I think it is in order. The object of this is to prevent lesssees from getting mineral leases and then dropping the title to the surface. The whole object is that, as I stated.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On amendment in sub-section (1) of Clause 3,

There seems to be something wanting in this clause. The former part of the clause provides that an owner or lessee shall, on the discovery of minerals, be entitled to all the rights and subject to all the obligations and penalties, but the proviso which has been added reads—

If he has become liable to penalties or obligations, he seems under the proviso, to be able to escape the penalties by failing to take out the Crown grant. I think the Minister should look into that.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I do not know whether the Minister has seen the point I raised. It seems to me to be a difficulty at the present time.

So far I have not been able to follow the point. The clause seems to me to be in order.

My point is that the licencee or lessee may have incurred obligations, such as to pay a share of the profits, or pay a licence to the Government ; he may even have contravened the law and incurred penalties. This provisio will enable him to escape his obligations simply by failing to take out the Crown grant.

The point seems to me, can a person be a licencee or lessee who has not yet paid a Crown grant ? The person who has not taken out a Crown grant seems to be in a better position than one who has.

He cannot be a lessee or licencee unless he has taken it out.

Sub-clause 2 provides that he can.

Remaining amendments in sub-section (2) put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

In lines 54 and 55 the amendments occurring are too high and should come after the words “title deed” in line 57; and in line 54 after the words “title deed” I should like to insert “licence or lease ”, I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On amendment in line 41, Clause 8.

I want in line 41 to restore “second” instead of “first” schedule.

In line 33 should it not be “second ”?

No. The second schedule has to deal with the conditions of the leases.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause 11,

I would ask the Minister to go into this proviso which is added. It is rather complicated. The clause refers to the discovery of base minerals in the Cape Province, and not to discoveries by the owner, but general discovery which may be made by anybody. In the proviso, in line 55, it says—

The discovery may be made by some other person, and it seems to me the Minister’s hands are tied, and the intention is not carried out by the wording of the proviso.

Any other person would be a trespasser, and would not be allowed to discover.

It does not say so.

It is in the principal Act.

You cannot make a legal discovery unless you have a right to be on the ground.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Before I put the question that the Bill, as amended, be adopted, I wish to point out that in Clause 1, sub-section (2), line 15, it reads—

and then it says—

There is something obviously wrong there.

I propose that “1898” be omitted.

Perhaps the hon. Minister may think it best to put it right in the other place.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment.

In line 26 to omit “to that effect” and to add at the end of the clause—

I only want to explain the alteration which has been made in Clause 1, firstly, in the definition of “change of Government.” In my opinion and that of the lawyer we have consulted, it is quite clear that such a definition is not necessary. There are, however, other lawyers in this House and in the Senate who differ and accordingly think that it is better to remove all doubt and to define the sentence. Then there is another amendment made by the Senate, viz.: not to make the nominated members of the Senate automatically retire upon a change of Government, but only when there is a change of Government notified by the Governor-General in the Government Gazette. If, therefore, the change of Government is not notified in the Gazette by the Governor-General (i.e., the Government) then the nominated senators do not retire. I think that this alteration is an improvement.

What about the second part ?

I explained that. The second part means that the seats of the nominated senators shall not automatically become vacant upon a change of Government Gazette. If, therefore, it is not notinotice of the change of Government in the Government Gazette. If, therefore, it is not notified in the Government Gazette the nominated senators continue. I think that is an improvement. As it is here I think it is a little capable of misunderstanding.

seconded.

I have a great deal of difficulty in following the latter portion of this amendment. We have defined a change of Government by saying that it occurs whenever you get a new Prime Minister. That is a question of fact. If there has been a change, the intention of this Act is that the nominated senators go out, but apparently the question of fact is to be made dependent on the action of the Government in inserting some notice in the Gazette. In other words, there may have been a change of Government, but it is not to be considered as such unless you put it in the Gazette. It appears that these Senators are to be given a sort of suspended sentence, and that their vacation of office shall depend on two conditions, first, a change of Prime Minister and secondly, a notification in the Gazette. It appears to me to be reducing things to a farce, and putting in something that should not appear in the constitution. I move, as a further amendment—

seconded.

I do not agree with my hon. friend behind. I understand the position under this definition to be that the Government defines a change of Government as meaning a change of Prime Minister, and when the Prime Minister, who is the real source of Government, changes there is a change of Government. The definition provides that even then the nominated senators will not eo ipso vacate their office, but only vacate their office if the Government wants a change and makes this notification in the Gazette. That means a formal notification to the senators that their time of office has expired. If this definition is to stand, I think there is something to be said for the amendment moved in another place. I am sorry the Minister has not gone further, and in deference to the very strong opinion expressed in this House, and another place, dropped the last part of sub-section (3), namely, that the nominated senators should vacate office on a change of Government. If he had done so, this Bill would have stood and been accepted by the country too, but I am afraid the Bill as it stands now, and as it will pass-through Parliament, will not be a final settlement of this matter, or be accepted as such. The matter is sure to recur, and this is sure to be looked upon as a makeshift. I am sorry the Minister has not dealt with the matter cleanly and on statesmanlike lines, and that we are likely to have an amendment passed now that will not be looked upon as a final settlement. I ask my hon. friend not to press his amendment, but to leave it open to the Government to make this notice in the Gazette. There may be a change of Government, and they may not wish to eject these nominated senators, and this gives them a second line of thought to fall back on.

I would like to draw the attention of the leader of the Opposition to the position. If the first clause—

The hon. member has seconded the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) assumes that by mere publication in the “Gazette” the Government can, in effect, create a change of Government, but that is not so. There must be a change of Government, but before the nominated senators vacate their seats there must, in addition, be a notification in the “Gazette.” There cannot be a notification in the “Gazette” unless there has been a change of Government in terms of this provision. The hon. member’s argument was that the Government could merely, by notification in the “Gazette,” create a change in the Government, or declare that such a change had taken place. That is wrong. There must be a change of Government, and, moreover, the Government must by formal notification in the “Gazette” notify that a change has taken place. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the words should be omitted altogether, I understand my colleague has endeavoured to meet the objection. It was to meet the sort of case which took place when Gen. Botha died and the right hon. member became Prime Minister.

The Minister of the Interior was more reasonable in the Senate than he was here.

They used much better arguments there.

With leave of the House, amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.