I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I object.

I know I cannot argue the objection, but I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his objection. The whole committee were unanimous that it should be considered as soon as possible. A number of people are down here at considerable expense and the matter is of urgent importance. I do implore the hon. member to withdraw his objection.

I would like to point out we have not had an opportunity of seeing the select committee’s report. There are matters of considerable importance involved in this report.

We are doing nothing more than simply asking to amend the preamble of the Bill in order to enable a number of people who are here at great expense and inconvenience to get away.

I withdraw the objection if it is only for that.

I move—

so that we can go on with the consideration of the clauses in the Bill itself.

seconded.

Unless notice of objection to the report is given on or before Thursday, 28th February, the report will be considered as adopted.

With leave of the House, I would like to move that notice of motion No. 5 be taken first.

The hon. member must wait until the other matters have been disposed of.

I move—

seconded.

This appears to decrease the powers of the Auditor-General, and I should like a little more information about it.

In reply to my hon. friend, I have a statement here which I will read—

I understand from the Minister of Finance that this is in accordance with a request made by the provincial auditors.

After the revelations we have had during the recess, I should think that you would want to increase his powers, and not decrease them in any shape or form. I suggest that this matter be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts, so that it can be discussed.

I have no objection.

I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I move—

1. (a) the carrying into effect in full of the report of the Railway Hours of Duty Committee, 1927, with the addition of providing that each day’s work shall stand by itself for overtime purposes;
2. (b) the restoration of the 1923 rates of pay for railway servants;
3. (c) the increase of the minimum wage for civilized labour to not less than 10s. a day; and
4. (d) the restoration of the long service increment.

I object.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I have no objection to this matter being referred to the Government for consideration, but I do not want the Government to act until a report has been made to this House, and we have an opportunity of considering it. There have been previous cases in which action has been taken in connection with which this House has not had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter.

I move—

There are two points in this amendment. The first is to give additional representation to the commercial community on this board, they being particularly interested, and anything that benefits them must necessarily benefit the farmer. The other point is to set a term for which these members can be appointed. In the course of the second reading debate on this Bill the Minister twitted hon. members on this side of the House that they were not in touch with the wishes of the commercial community. I have a copy of that letter, and it says that the executive of the association unanimously agreed to support the general principle of the appointment by the Government as a shipping board, but enquired whether a deputation would be received to discuss certain details of the Bill, more particularly with regard to commercial representation on the board, and the extent of the statutory powers to be conferred by the measure. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the committee.

The matter is of such great importance that I cannot help repeating that the wool buyers, especially at Port Elizabeth, are exploited in a terrible way by the conference lines in carrying their wool. Therefore I want to strongly urge the Minister that one of the members to be appointed by him should be a member of the Wool Buyers’ Association.

What about the maize growers?

The Agricultural Union is appointing one member.

I move—

Hon. members may laugh, but workers are largely the consumers, and they are concerned with the effect of these charges on the price of commodities. I think they should have some representation on the board, so that they can put forward their point of view as to how these charges will affect the country.

I hope the Minister, when he replies, will remove some of the doubts felt in some quarters with regard to the incidence of the Bill. The Minister, I think, understands that this Board in some respects is welcomed by many of the chambers of commerce, and so long as the board is intended to act in a purely advisory capacity, and has no statutory powers in itself, I think there will be very little objection to it. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), and substitute the word “seven” for “six”, If that is carried, and the clause is otherwise unaltered, except consequentially, it will get rid of what is felt to be a blot on this Bill; that is to say, a Government majority on the board. Surely the Minister will understand that it is an anomaly to have a Government majority on a board which has to advise the Government, You have then the position of the Government advising the Government, which is absurd. The Bill will be welcomed so long as the board acts in a purely advisory capacity, and I can conceive that it will be of great assistance, not only to the Government but also to the commercial community, but in order to do that, the board should be representative of commercial and industrial interests, and of all those who are most affected. I want the Minister to assure the House that there will be no legislation directly affecting shipping matters; in other words, that the board will have no statutory powers whatever, and that their functions will cease when they have investigated and advised the Government as to the result of their investigations. I am sure that the Minister will add to the satisfaction of the community if he will make that point clear, that this board will have no statutory powers, and will not be able to do anything but collect information on which they can advise the Government.

I would like to deal with the Minister’s point that this board is to contain a majority of Government members, and, in order to test the feeling of the House, I move—

There is one very big industry, the second largest in the country, which the Minister has forgotten altogether—the Chamber of Mines. I take it the Minister is following the example of the Minister of Mines, and in this way is going to “keep the Chamber of Mines in its place.” It is ridiculous that with a very large industry which imports goods to the value of many thousands of pounds annually, as the mining industry does, it should have no say whatever in ocean freight questions. The Minister was very clear that the chambers of commerce supported him in the introduction of this Bill. I have found amongst my papers a report of a meeting held in December, 1927, I think at Pretoria. The report states, inter alia—

It is perfectly clear that the commercial delegates envisaged a board of persons interested in shipping in this country. To have a board such as is suggested by the Government, however, would be absolutely useless, as it would not contain representatives of all interests, such as the coal owners and Chamber of Mines, but it would have three Government nominees who might be anybody.

The Railway Department is not represented on the board at all. I move—

If we adopted the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), we would get ourselves into all sorts of difficulties. Agriculture would also demand that it should have an additional member, and where would we stop? I think commerce is very well represented on the board. Commercial men are in a fortunate position, because they can pass on the freight charges to the consumer, but the farmer is not so lucky. The industrialist, too, is not always in a position to pass the freight on. The position is very well met by giving one representative to commerce. The hon. member has also made the point that the wool and mohair shippers should be represented. May I point out to him that the wool and mohair shippers have made their representations, not through the chambers of commerce, but through their own organization. I do not know whether they are affiliated to the Associated Chamber. I am not prepared to agree to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), but I am prepared to give it consideration. The hon. member has again referred to the question whether hon. members on the opposite side are out of touch with commerce in this regard. I hold in my hand a letter in which the Associated Chamber clearly indicate that in regard to the principle of this legislation they are at one with the Government. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) sings quite a different song. He is opposed to the whole Bill. He wants only commercial and shipping men to be represented on the board. He refers me to a conference which took place in 1927 in Pretoria, but the hon. member seems to have overlooked the fact that the Bill itself was last year submitted to the chambers of commerce and, as a result of their consideration of the Bill, they agreed to it in principle. Only as far as the details were concerned did they welcome the opportunity of a discussion with me. But again the hon. member and his friends seem to be quite out of touch with commerce. That interview did actually take place, and I was able to meet the deputation to a very large extent, so that, as far as I could gather, on the main subjects they left quite satisfied. It was Mr. Mushet, of Cape Town, who led the deputation, and, as the result of our discussion, we more or less came to an agreement. I think the hon. member will agree that I was perfectly right in saying that hon. members opposite, were not aware of the real facts. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has moved an amendment in regard to the representation of the trades union congress, but the hon. member will appreciate that if once we start appointing to the board representatives of bodies representing consumers, we shall not know where to stop. The board would become such a big one that it would be quite unwieldy. The hon. member may rest assured that the three Government nominees who will be appointed will be public men with wide experience, and will be, in a real sense, representative of the whole of the country and the country’s interests, and certainly they will be selected, also, from the point of view of the consumer, who ultimately has to pay the piper. I regret, therefore, I cannot agree to that amendment. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has asked me to say categorically that this board will be purely an advisory board. I have no hesitation in giving that undertaking. Our whole object is to create healthy public opinion in shipping matters. The hon. member for Newlands has complained that the Chamber of Mines is not represented. I could mention many other bodies who also would probably like to be represented. But surely, as a prominent member of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the hon. member appreciates that the chamber also represents the Chamber of Mines. They do not. Their interests, as far as they are importers, are very well looked after by the chambers of commerce. An amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), that the Railway Department should be directly represented. I am quite prepared to give the matter consideration when the three Government nominees are appointed, but I would point out that the Minister of Railways, after all, has the final say, so that, as far as the Railway and Harbour Administration are concerned, they certainly have a very large say. I agree with the hon. member that a senior transportation officer of the Railway Administration could give good advice. I think that can be achieved by one of the three advisory members. I trust the House will now accept the clause. I regret I cannot accept the amendments.

I must thank the Minister for his clear categorical statement that the powers of the board will be purely advisory, but he does not explain why he finds it necessary to have this board so constituted as to have a Government majority on it. He tells us his desire is to have a healthy public opinion. We all desire that, but we know there will be a Government majority, and an occasion may arise when they do not represent that healthy public opinion the Minister has in view. It would not command that confidence which we should want it to have. The Minister did not deal with that, and it is generally felt, in the country, that there is a growing tendency towards undue Government interference in many matters. This is a case in point, and surely the Government want from this board, as far as possible, unprejudiced advice. I would like the Minister to reconsider that point and to accept the amendment of my colleague by substituting “seven” for “six,” which would largely meet the objection.

I am sorry the Minister is disinclined to accept my amendment, and I hope, even at this late hour, he will reconsider the matter. I quite agree with him that so far as the chambers of commerce are concerned, they are in the happy position that if the shipping people charge them too much for freight they can pass it on to the consumers. But the consumers, and particularly the workers, are not in that happy position. The consumers, on the whole, are not organized, but a large proportion, mainly the workers, are organized through their trades unions, and they are in the unfortunate position that not only are they charged extra for commodities in a case of this kind, but they are also in the additional unfortunate position that their wages are affected, not only by an increase in the cost of living. They, more than any section, are entitled to have representation on a board of this description, and I do not know why the Minister objects. It is not a board which has great powers; it is an advisory and informative board. I hope the Minister will consult his colleagues.

We have to leave ourselves entirely in the hands of the brokers and wool merchants, and we do want on an industrial board like this someone who knows something about the practice; we want a practical man on this board. The Government have not been too happy in the selection of members of the various boards they have appointed, and if you are going to appoint an advisory board, do, for heaven’s sake, put men on who know something about the business. Shipping is the most complicated business in the world, and if you put any Tom, Dick or Harry on the board it will be useless. I think the wool-growers are justified in their request for another member. One hundred and thirty thousand tons of wool to the value of £17,000,000 were exported from the Union, and that industry is at least deserving of some special recognition. As for the Chamber of Mines, it would be impossible if a member was appointed for him to attend the meetings at the coast. You must have coastal members.

J do hope the Minister will accept the alteration from six to seven, and that the extra member will be representing the farming community. You will have commerce and industries getting a member each, and these two are practically interlocked—one industry. When this Bill was under discussion by the Chamber of Commerce, a very illuminating remark was made by one of its members. He said: “We do not want low freights, but we want stable freights.” Where does the farmer come in? The commercial man does not mind what the farmer has to pay and what his requirements cost the farmer, or what it costs the farmer to export his produce so long as he is enabled to calculate his profits on a stable freight rate. Take the matter of wire, mentioned by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). Freight has been increased from 10s. to 31s. 6d. per ton, but no complaint is voiced by the commercial men. The agricultural community has a right to a bigger say on this board than the Minister is giving. Industries add £40,000,000 to the raw product, and the mining industry exports between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000. The agricultural industry, producing between £80,000,000 and £90,000,000 of wealth, is entitled to greater representation. Agriculture should have two members on this board instead of one, and should have its due, and the Minister will only be doing bare justice to the agricultural industry if he accepts this amendment.

Although I heartily agree with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), we must be reasonable. The Bill expressly says that one member shall be nominated by the South African Agricultural Union. The Union as to 90 per cent, consists of the agricultural community, and, therefore, they will undoubtedly nominate a farmer.

Yes, but I want two.

But the wool buyers are not represented and, therefore, I move, as an amendment—

And what about the fruit and maize farmers?

As a general rule, I do not attach much importance to advisory boards. I was a member of one—the advisory board on the cost of living—and this board used to advise the Cost of Living Commission, which in turn advised the Government—and the Government took no notice of the advice. But at the same time, if we are to have an advisory board on shipping, or anything else, the board ought to be as representative as possible, and I further submit, if we are to have members representing organized commerce, organized industry and organized agriculture, surely to goodness we should have a member representing organized labour. That I think is only reasonable and fair. I am at one with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in desiring that the actual consumer should be represented. Unless the Minister is prepared to give us an assurance that at least one of the three members of this board to be nominated by the Government will represent organized labour, then I am afraid I must support the hon. member’s amendment. I think the Minister should consider this.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that we are here to help him. If there is one thing that has characterized this discussion, it has been the Minister’s reasonableness. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig-Gen. Byron) represent more than half the wool exported from this country. I think that this very important interest should be represented. We know that the bulk of the wool trade in this country is done by brokers, who very honestly represent the interests of the producers, whose confidence they hold to a very large extent. It is their function to do the very best they can for their clients. Surely there can be no objection to this very important section of the community being represented on this board. I think the Minister will agree that I am not exaggerating when I say that there is a tendency to put on these boards brilliant young men with a university education, but who lack the necessary experience.

Where can they get the experience?

By making mistakes and paying particular attention to lessons thus learned. With their theories they are only on the road, and have not travelled very far. We want their theoretical knowledge backed up by practical experience, and the Minister will, therefore, be well advised in accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member who has just spoken. I appeal to the Minister not to vitiate the reputation of this board in advance.

I beg to move an amendment—

This amendment will permit of two members being nominated to represent the Agricultural Union, one of whom should represent specifically the wool-growers. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

I think the House must be satisfied with the discussion which has taken place. I appreciate very much the spirit in which it has been conducted. The danger in connection with the amendments that have been moved is that they depart from the constitution of the board as laid down in the Bill. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has put forward a strong plea for the farmers, but what about commerce and industry? Are we prepared to extend the membership of this board, so that it would become such a large body as would destroy any good it might set out to do? I am not prepared at this stage to commit myself about the Government nominees, but the Government will study very carefully the interests of all sections concerned, more especially those of the consumers. If I were to bind the Government to appoint a representative of the trades union congress we would also have a demand for the appointment of representatives of other organizations. It will be better to leave the matter to the Government, who will constitute the board so as to carry the necessary weight. The whole position is surrounded with difficulty, but the Government will endeavour to get the very best men available. One hon. member has said that he does not want Government interference. Take our harbour advisory boards, they comprise some of your best commercial men, and are quite free.

Then why do you want a Government majority?

Surely hon. members appreciate that we are responsible to Parliament and to the country. If we appoint men to the board who are not really fit, we are subject to parliamentary criticism.

I am afraid you have not touched my point.

I want the responsibility of the Government to Parliament to be maintained, and if you have an advisory board, it is necessary that at least one-half of those members should be appointed by the Government. I trust that the House will not insist on increasing the number of members, because, if that were done, various interests would press for more representation, and ultimately the position would become quite impossible.

Question put: That the word “six” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—60.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Babson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers. E. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekliuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, 0. S.

Noes—42.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first part of the amendment proposed by Sir William Macintosh dropped.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Jagger withdrawn.

Remaining amendments, proposed by Sir William Macintosh and by Mr. I. P. van Heerden, then put and negatived, and amendments proposed by Mr. Kentridge, Mr. Stuttaford and Mr. Gilson dropped.

1 Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

The clause prescribes the duties of the board, which include investigating any matters relating to ocean transport, and whether the freight charged by any ship-owner on any particular commodity exported from the Union, is prejudicial to Union exporters as compared with their overseas competitors. The object of my amendment is to focus attention on one or two matters which the board should consider at the same time. The board should take into consideration the capital cost of the ships, the expense of working the ships, whether they can obtain full cargoes to and from South Africa, and also the cost of supplies which shipowners must purchase. If the board is to be of any service at all, it must look all round the question and must take the points to which I have referred into consideration. I put forward the amendment entirely on my own initiative, for when I was in office I had to look into the question of shipping in connection with mail contracts. With regard to the capital cost of ships, a frame steamer bought secondhand for £20,000 might be able to carry maize at 15s. a ton, although the market rate might be 20s. a ton. The board might come to the conclusion that if this tramp steamer could do the work for 15s. the legalized rate should be no more than that figure. This would be unfair to the regular liners. Apart altogether from the mail steamers, which do not lay themselves out to carry big cargoes of maize, the steamers that regularly ply to South Africa cost anything from £200,000 to £500,000. That surely ought to be taken into account by the board when they consider the question of freights. A tramp steamer, after roaming the world, may turn up and carry a cargo of maize for 15s. a ton and the board may say: “If that is possible, that is the market rate, and the regular liners are charging much too high a freight.” The other point is the cost of working a ship. We know the ships that call regularly at South Africa are manned by Europeans, who are paid a reasonable rate of wages. There are many ships, especially tramp vessels, that are manned by coloured men, Lascars and others, making in some cases very good sailors. They are very cheap, and ship-owners use them very largely. One of these vessels may come here and take up a cargo very cheaply and their prices might be compared with the freights of vessels employing only Europeans. We do know vessels coming to South Africa very often have to leave on a fixed date, and have a good deal of empty space. I was informed of a case the other day where a steamer left Cape Town for England with 2,000 tons of empty space. That is a matter which should also be considered, because I am told that in the South American trade, where the quantity of maize and other produce exported is, perhaps, eight or ten times as much as ours, the vessels are much more likely to get full cargoes than on the South African trade. Then there is the question of supply, and that brings me to the question of coal. The Minister knows he is charging on an average 14s. 6d. a ton to carry coal from the Natal coalfields to the port if it is used for bunkering steamers, whereas coal for export is only charged 6s. 8d. I think that is a matter which ought to be taken into account by this board. I know that in some parts of the world coal is cheaper and also in others it is dearer than in South Africa. Coal is a very important matter in the cost of running a ship, and that and other things that ships require in this country ought to be considered by the board. It does not, cost a penny more for the Government to carry; coal to Durban for bunkering purposes than to carry it for export purposes. Five of the P. & O. steamers have recently been diverted from South Africa to the Suez Canal route. The more steamers that come here the better, because our exporters will get better rates and more space, and instead of keeping up these high rates on coal, I think the Minister should reduce his rates so as to induce steamers to come to this country. I do not say the P. & O. steamers left South Africa entirely because of; the price of coal. I am told that on the Suez Canal route the cost has recently been reduced. Canal dues are lower, and coal is cheaper than it was. Our Government has done nothing to attract steamers to call at our ports.

I am afraid the hon. member is wandering far afield now.

It is in connection, with my amendment, but I will not pursue the matter of coal. I only want the Minister to look at this amendment with a favourable eye. I am quite sure he wants the board to consider all these factors, and if they will do that I think they are more likely to arrive at a just recommendation, and one which might be acted upon, than if they did not. I know shipping-freights form a very complicated matter, and I am sorry there is no shipping man on the board, but if the board is to be of any real value, I think they will have to consider the matters to which I have referred in my amendment,

I am sorry my hon. friend has brought this amendment forward. I do not see how you can get over what is laid down in Section 2 (e). As to the price of coal, it may be a high price, but you cannot charge the same price for bunker coal as you charge for export coal. The hon. member knows there are three rates on coal brought down to Durban, the local rate, the bunker rate and the export rate. It all comes down on the same train in many cases, but you have to charge for your coal what the traffic determines, and if you charged the same rate for bunker coal as for export coal, there would be no export trade left. It would kill it entirely. I would certainly support the Minister in what he has in the Bill, and not look at what a ship costs. Surely, if we can get a cheap freight from a tramp steamer, we shall take it and be glad of it too.

I move—

The best pressure that can be exercised on the shipping companies would be the publication of the reports of this board, in the same way as the reports of the Board of Trade are published, so that the general public will know what is happening. If this amendment is accepted it will be in the interests of the public as a whole, of consumers and of business men themselves, because there will be a check.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Reyburn—

The hon. member’s amendment is somewhat on the lines of one I had already drafted. I think it ought to go a little further. When the second reading of this Bill took place I saw fit to say that this was only the beginning of the legislation and that complementary legislation would follow on this, and that the salaries of members would be £1,500 a year. The Minister thought fit to interject “stupid, nonsense.” I see that the word “stupid” has not appeared in “Hansard,” but the word “nonsense” has not been edited. While I am prepared to confess that much knowledge is centred in the Minister, I am not prepared to confess that all knowledge is centred in him. In support of the allegation I made at the second reading, let me quote what appeared in the “Commercial Bulletin,” in the February number—

Here is a board which will hold enquiries and is going to dive into the private business of certain people; the Minister is becoming inquisitive. He wants to know what they are doing too. The reports of these enquiries will reach the Minister, and if he is not satisfied he will introduce further legislation. He said he was desirous of getting healthy public opinion, but how is he going to get it unless the public know what these reports are?

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). He must appreciate that the owner of goods is not concerned whether his goods are carried in a luxurious passenger liner or a cargo vessel; and the only effect of his amendment would be, it seems to me, to give an indication to the board that they were expected to take into consideration the capital cost and the cost of working of these expensive liners. Does the hon. member suggest that there should be differentiation between the rates of freight as between a cargo vessel and a luxurious liner? If not, he will see it would be most dangerous to adopt this amendment. I must point out further to him that there are many other questions to be considered by the board beyond the questions he has raised. The clause is a general one. With regard to coal rates, I think another opportunity will probably present itself for discussing them, as well as the withdrawal of the P. & O. liners. Let me say to the hon. member that I do not think the high bunker coal rates have anything to do with it, but these liners are being converted to burn oil. It is common cause that in Great Britain, owing to the conditions there, ships can coal at very low rates. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) correctly pointed out, it is necessary to charge differential rates on different classes of coal carried. With regard to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), I see no objection to laying the reports on the Table. We want to create healthy public opinion. It may be embarrassing where the Government has not accepted a particular recommendation, but the House should be informed and have an opportunity of discussing the matter. I am prepared to accept his amendment.

What about my amendment?

I think the addition made by the hon. member is a good one.

What if the report is made 14 days after the House commences its sitting?

I do not want to delay this discussion, but when the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) refers to high salaries, on what does he base it? The members of this hoard will act in an honorary capacity I am quite sure. We will pay out-of-pocket expenses. But it will not be an expensive board. As to his remarks about the “Bulletin,” I need only say that Parliament may in future have to deal with this matter in a more comprehensive manner. I have previously indicated the policy of the Government, We are not prepared to let the country be bled by the shipping interests, and when the Government finds it is not able to negotiate a satisfactory contract in the interests of the country, we shall come to the House for further powers. Having now negotiated a satisfactory agreement, I think we might very well leave the question.

You may have a case of the board fixing a rate charged by a tramp steamer, manned by a coloured crew, carrying produce at three or four shillings less than the current rate, and then saying that the regular liners should carry the same produce at the same rate. Some tramp steamers are likely to charge lower rates than the ordinary liners.

I should like to point out to the Minister that if he accepts the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), he will be tying his hands to a very large extent, as he will have no option whatever in the matter. There may be many cases in which, administratively, it may be undesirable to place certain information before the public, as, for instance, when important negotiations may be pending in regard to a mail contract. In those circumstances the Minister might, if the report of the board were made public, be very seriously inconvenienced. This responsible body of business men should have an opportunity of requiring that their reports should not be made public. There are occasions when very confidential information may be extracted from shipping companies. I think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) is really unnecessary. I cannot believe it is sound to argue that because it costs so much to carry goods to such a port overseas, it should be so much less for cargo carried to Union ports. These are matters which will have to be gone into. Under the terms of Clause 3, this board can determine what information it desires to have from the shipping owners. It has been a feature of our legislation that we do not employ drastic powers of this kind in order to embarrass people who are carrying on their business properly. Why should we penalize a particular industry in the manner proposed under this Bill without applying it also to the wholesale merchants, the lawyers and others? I can well imagine that if the Bill is passed in its present form, whereby it is competent for this board to extract particulars regarding profits, and to publish them you may find difficulty occurring. The Board of Trade and Industries does not, in making its investigations, disclose particulars as to profits, which are made the subject of a confidential memorandum. We have the same principle underlying our income tax law. A clause of this kind will be construed as a method of penalizing this particular industry, and if the Minister wishes to take steps in that direction, let him put it—the grounds for such a policy—before the House, and we can discuss it. I put it to him very strongly that he will be tying his hands by accepting this amendment. I move, as a further amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Reyburn—

I should like to see the Minister add the words “or unless the Minister otherwise decides”.

I hope that, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter), the Minister will adhere to his decision to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), and that he will adopt it in its entirety. The hon. member who has just sat down objects to investigation of private business, but the working class has to submit to that every day in the week. I trust that the Minister will not be led away by the plausible, clever and ingenious arguments of an hon. member who is connected with high finance. This is a matter of public concern, a shipping board matter, and if high finance is afraid of some information on delicate points being laid on the Table of the House, there is all the more reason why the Minister should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo in its entirety.

I do not think my hon. friend need be afraid of the statements made by the hon. member across the way. I do not think the board will disclose information of a private nature. They will, of course, come to certain conclusions after obtaining information. Shipping companies have not refused to disclose to the Government information desired, but we do not make an incorrect use of it. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter).

Amendments proposed by Sir Thomas Watt and Mr. Nathan put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Coulter and Mr. Reyburn put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I notice that among the functions of the board there is no specific reference to compiling lists of passenger fares. Will the Minister tell us whether the clause, as it stands, will cover that duty?

I have no hesitation in giving the assurance that in terms of Clause 2 the board will have that power. The board will have power to investigate any matter relating to ocean transport. It seems to me it is clear that that will cover passenger fares.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I notice that a most unusual position appears in this clause. As a rule, when it is desired to confer upon a board powers to discharge any function, those powers are specified in the Bill, but here it is proposed that by regulation the Governor-General shall prescribe the powers that shall be vested in the board. The seriousness of that is seen when it comes to the next clause, which enables the board to provide for a fine of £100 for failure to comply with any such regulation. We are practically giving the Government of the day a blank cheque whereby by regulation this board can be given powers which are not set forth in the Bill. I have in mind the case of a ship’s agent who may be representing either a casual line or a regular line. That agent may have very limited powers and duties. He may be authorized to receive freight, and to book accommodation for passengers, but beyond receiving the passage money or freight, he may have no means whatever of obtaining information which may be called for from him. Whatever these regulations may be, they should not render a ship’s agent liable to a fine for failing to comply with regulations for securing information from him, when he has no means of getting such information. I move—

You may have cases where lines are calling with more or less frequency at our ports, and where information is called for from an agent which that agent cannot furnish.

I cannot accept the amendment, for, if so, all ship’s agents would be able to escape responsibility. The Government is not taking any power under Section 3, it is the board.

But the Governor-General makes the regulations.

That is so. The penalties will be imposed not by the board, but by the courts, and if an agent can satisfy the courts that he is not able to supply the information, no court will find him guilty.

The Minister now says the object is to enable him to penalize the agents.

Quite, if he has the information.

The argument of the board is that the agent should have the information, but suppose the office of the company is outside the Union, the clause could be used as a lever to compel an agent to obtain information from his principals. I press my amendment.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens is very reasonable indeed. Many agents are not the employees of the shipowners they represent, but are often merchants and other firms at the ports, and they have no power except to arrange for freight and passengers. It may be impossible for the agents to have the information which the board may ask for, and it is wrong that they run the risk of being penalized on that account.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment, because it will be impossible for the board to function if it cannot obtain the information.

Surely the agent would not be punished but the shipowner, if he does not supply the information.

That is not what the Minister of Railways and Harbours says.

The definition states that “shipowner” means any person owning, or for the time being having any control over or in respect of any ship engaged in the ocean transport of goods or passengers to, from or between any ports in the Union, or having the control or disposal of space on any such ship. The case I have in mind is the control of space.

If you were to exclude ships’ agents, the whole of the working of the Bill would become impossible, as agents would be able to say they could not supply the information, although they might have it in their possession. I do not say they would, but there is the possibility. If shipowners do business with South Africa they should see that their agents have all the necessary information.

They do not know what the board might ask for.

We are going to have a reasonable board. If the agent has not the information available, then no charge can be made against him, because if a charge were made the court would find that there was no wilful neglect on his part.

I move—

The object of this Bill arose in connection with the old fort at Berea, which has been in the occupancy of the trustees of the Durban Light Infantry since 1907. We have been in negotiation with them for a long time, and I thought the best way to get over the whole difficulty would be to pass a short Act like this enabling me to transfer ownership to the National Monuments Commission on certain terms, and the terms will be that the trustees of the Durban Light Infantry will remain in possession, exercising all their present rights, so long as they keep the place to the satisfaction of the commission. It is one of the few places in this country where the site of an historic event is really beautifully kept up. The interest taken in it by Col. Molyneux in particular has been wonderful. In the Act setting up the National Monuments Commission it is provided that their property is not exempt from rates and taxes, so at the committee stage I propose to move an amendment rectifying that. There are other places of great historic interest that may be disposed of in the same way.

Why has my hon. friend made arrangements to transfer a piece of land out at Muizenberg? It is really an exorbitant price he is asking from the people down there. I am told you are asking £60,000 for the ground.

I hope I shall get it.

It is no credit to the Defence Department. I know perfectly well that the department could get something for it, but they should not ask a price like that.

Are you sure we are asking that price?

Well, what are you asking for it? Why cannot my hon. friend try and do a fair deal with the municipality? Surely there are other things he may require in exchange for it. This piece of ground has simply grown in value by the efforts of the local people.

Do you sell your property on those terms?

I think they ought to get a fair deal. I think my hon. friend should charge them a fairly reasonable price, and he ought to be content with that.

I sympathize with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and as an act of grace I think the Minister might reconsider the matter. With regard to these historical monuments, I am glad the Government is setting an example like this, and I hope it will be followed by a large number of other people—persons who are in possession of places of historical interest. I hope they will remember the purpose for which the Historical Monuments Commission exists. It has been very active, and has been doing a very great deal of work in connection with matters of historical importance, which we ought to value very highly indeed. I hope the Government will follow this out when it comes to a matter of donations.

I hardly think that it was ever intended by the Imperial Government when they sold—or rather donated, which would be the more appropriate word—this property for a very small sum, that it should be simply dealt with for commercial purposes. The land has become for many years subject to what may be called a public servitude. It happens to be in the heart of Muizenberg, and no other land is available for the purpose for which this land is used. I do think that the City Council, having spent the large sums it has on the land, could reasonably think that at no future time would its occupation be disturbed. I take it that the Minister proposes to sell the land to the public and obtain the best he can for it.

I ask him whether he cannot reconsider the matter. I gather he is not definitely committed to selling the land. There is such a strong feeling amongst the inhabitants there that I ask him whether he could not take a leaf from the book of the Minister of Lands and give another opportunity of negotiating on more reasonable terms. The Minister of Lands in 1925 was confronted with the same difficulty, with regard to some land between high-water mark and Beach Road, Muizenberg, which was Crown land. It was competent for the Minister to have sold it at quite a high price, but he preferred, and his action was much appreciated at the time, and reference was made to it in this House, to allow that land to pass to the city for the benefit of the citizens in perpetuity. Here we have another case where land has been let out, not for the use of wealthy citizens and not intended for a small section, as is suggested.

interjected a remark [inaudible].

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) can play bowls there if he wishes to—there is no restriction. I would ask the Minister to realize the local circumstances and rather than have us to move an amendment to the schedule of the Bill or raise the point in a more specific form, he will not give the assurance that he would at this eleventh hour be prepared to negotiate again. The action of the Government would be appreciated, and after all, they would not sustain much loss on this particular transaction. They must have done handsomely out of the land acquired from the Imperial Government. I happen to know that the land at Fort Knokke, which used to belong to the Defence Department and is now used for betterment works by the Railway Administration, is very valuable, and is regarded as a source of future profit to the Government. At all times, since the Union Government acquired this land at Muizenberg, it has been used for semi-public purposes. If the ground has been used in ways which are not sufficiently democratic, let the Minister put in a condition. In that regard, in his conditions of sale, I do say that a hard, sordid spirit should not prevail in dealing with this matter, and the Government should realize that this land is used by citizens generally for purposes with which it should not lightly interfere.

I cannot understand the parochial attitude—or rather I can—adopted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Here is a piece of land offered to the people of Cape Town, and they will not buy it.

The price is unreasonable.

They could buy it for a reasonable price. Quite a large number of people from up-country are ready to buy that ground and cut it up into residential plots. What is Cape Town doing with its land? If you come down from up-country to Muizenberg you have to pay enormous prices. There are only forty or fifty people using that piece of ground to-day. It is used as a bowling green once or twice a week. They have one or two tennis courts and a putting green there. The people of Cape Town do not take the slightest interest in it except to see how much they can get out of the people from up-country. There are people who come from up-country, particularly a certain section, who are frowned upon when they use that ground at Muizenberg. Why does not Cape Town buy the land in the same way as I and other people have to purchase the land we require? I had to buy my farm from the Government. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) has referred to the piece of land between high- and low-water mark. Well, what have they done with that—they have destroyed one of the finest beaches in the world and shut out the view of False Bay. Ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and others who have bought homes there what they think about it. It is the vandals who are at work. They have destroyed the beautiful mountain, and cut down thousands of trees to build a hospital and a university. They get everything so easily here; now they come along about this ground at Muizenberg. I think the Minister is quite right in this case, and that he should get a fair price for that piece of ground. No doubt the people of South Africa would like Cape Town to get it, but let Cape Town pay a fair price for it; it cannot expect to get it for nothing. Not even socialistic governments do that sort of thing.

I agree with the previous speaker in the view that the Government should try and meet public bodies in these matters, but at the same time the Government should make a stipulation in regard to the sale of this ground that there should be no exclusion of the public.

I think that the idea of the Minister of Defence in selling this ground shows a want of public spirit. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) will not accuse me of being parochial, as I live 650 miles away from Muizenberg. I go there sometimes, however, and find it is very congested. Indeed, the only piece of land remaining is that in regard to which the Minister is trying to drive such a hard bargain. By doing so he is setting a very bad example to other people in the country. In England people are continually giving valuable pieces of land for the purposes of public recreation. After all, the Government got that land for nothing. If at the time that the British Government was handing this over to South Africa, the Cape Town Municipality had approached the British Government, the latter would have given it to Cape Town free. The Government should give this land to Cape Town free of charge in the interests of the health of the people, but, of course, stipulate whatever conditions it likes. I am surprised that the Minister should attempt to drive such a hard bargain in view of the fact that he says he is always out for the good of the people. The Minister’s action undoubtedly constitutes a very bad example.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) and the hon. member who has just spoken on this matter (Col. Sir David Harris) are barking up the wrong tree. The Cape Town Municipality took good care to get a very good price for the land which we purchased for extending the post office. Reference has been made to this land being a gift from the British Government. When the British Government handed over to us we took all responsibility, and the British Government withdrew altogether. The final upshot of the negotiations was that the land was made over to us—to a large extent it was a donation— on the understanding that it was to be put aside as land to be used for defence purposes, and that any of the land that was not required for defence purposes we could sell. It is a trust. Most of this discussion seems to be quite irrelevant. If a Government department or a public authority wants the land, we are always open to deal by private treaty, but in the case of anybody other than a public authority, we have no option but to put it up to public tender. Soon after I got down here I had a very large deputation from the City Council. I explained the position to them, arid one gentleman raised the question which the hon. member opposite raised, that the increase in the value of the land was not made by any effort on the part of the Government, and I asked that gentleman whether he would dispose of his own ground on the same terms. If this land is not required for defence purposes, then I must get the best price I can. We send an independent valuator to value it, and we insist on getting as near market value as possible.

No compensation.

They have had the land for 15 years without paying rent, and there is no compensation payable. I have not the right to dispose of this land. I must get the value of the ground.

I move—

And, notwithstanding the suspicious attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) over the announcement of the Governor-General’s consent, the hon. member will be glad if I state what the contents of the Bill are. As hon. members know, it was my policy, as Minister of Lands, to get rid of all the old and small irrigation works which were built years ago in the Cape Province. The reason is that for years we have incurred expense in connection with them; the very smallest things have come before me all this time, and the expense in connection with the schemes was considerable. The Van Wyk’s Vlei settlement was established in 1883, and since then it has caused nothing but expense. In 1926 we had already passed two Acts for irrigation schemes of a similar nature, and, since then, we have got quit of them, and there is no trouble. The people at Van Wyk’s Vlei have already been repeatedly consulted on the contents of this Bill, but, unfortunately, many of them were, in the first instance, opposed to it. The divisions proceeded from local circumstances, but I recently again sent two officials there, namely, the chairman of the Land Board, Mr. Faure, and Mr. Schneider. After consultation with the local people the latter unanimously agreed to the Bill in its present form. The difficulty was that in that case we had to do with two kinds of plots, namely, arable plots and garden plots, but the difficulty was overcome by instituting a board of control with three grain farmers and three horticulturists as members, with the magistrate—who could be regarded as an impartial man—as chairman. I need not go into details; the place was established in 1883, and a dam, with a catchment area of about 800 square miles, was built. The rainfall, however, is only about 6½inches. Originally the area was thought to be much more, and it was even divided into 308 plots of 10 morgen, and 145 of 400 square feet, but at present there are only 50 of the arable plots and 26 of the garden plots which are being worked. With a good rainfall, up to 1,000 morgen can be cultivated, but most years the rainfall is so small that very little ground can be worked. A proposal was made to cut a furrow, but when the scheme was enquired into, it was found to be impracticable. The capital account now amounts to £26,000, of which £822 must be deducted as the amount which came in under the old Cape Government and the Union Government for the sale of arable plots. Hitherto, not a penny interest has been paid on the capital expenditure. We have this expenditure every year, and the whole settlement would have long since been abandoned if it were not for 67,000 morgen which is used as grazing ground, and another 27,000 morgen which is suitable for the same purpose. It adjoins the other ground and makes it possible for the people to exist. The Bill provides for the appointment of a local control board which will have to see to the maintenance of the work, the division of the water, dealings with the ground, with the approval of the Governor-General, etc. The division of the commonage into sections will take place if at least three-quarters of the registered owners agree to the division and the Governor-General approves.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

The reason for doing this is not because there is anything extraordinary in these amendments, although they are very important with a view to the proper administration of the Act, but I think it would expedite matters very considerably if it were referred to the select committee where they could go into it. I, therefore, move that the order be discharged and the Bill referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

seconded.

I hope the Prime Minister will take care to expedite the Bill, so that we shall get it through this session. There is so much of importance in it that it would he a great pity if it did not go through this session.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is a very short Bill and consists, as hon. members will see, of only three sections, each section dealing with a separate amendment of the original Act. They can be put very briefly. The first section amends the existing Act in this respect, that it simplifies a matter of the transfer of land granted under the original Act. Under the original Act it has become so expensive to make certain transfers that it has been found necessary rather to apply the Glen Grey Act to these people. Section 2 is another short amendment of the existing Act. The original Act provides that the holdings can be disposed of only as one whole, even where they consist of two different lots, residential or agricultural. It has been found advisable to allow these people to dispose either of the residential or the agricultural lots. Unfortunately, under the definition of the original Act this cannot be done as the holding has to be looked upon as one. In order to give these people the right to sell either the one or the other, this amendment is necessary. It is also to meet the requirements at these mission stations. Section 3 has to do with the getting hold of the necessary fees which have to be paid by the people at these mission stations. As the Act stands at present, the only way of doing that is by attachment of the property. Now we have so many of these institutions in which we have not to do with the owners, but merely the occupiers, and you cannot attach the property because the property does not belong to the occupier, and there is no way of getting the personal taxes from these people. Section 3 provides that if a defaulter does not pay within a certain time, then he can be ordered to leave the property, and if he does not do so, he can then be dealt with under the law. I do not think there is any necessity for me to further explain this Bill.

I move—

Although on the face of it this matter seems to be one of some difficulty, I do not think the position is very difficult to understand. The position at present is that there are three classes of ships in South Africa, namely, ships for defence, mines and industries, secondly, the ships of the Railways and Harbours Administration, and, thirdly, tugs, dredgers and other harbour craft. The first class does not fall under the Merchant Shipping Act, but classes 2 and 3 do come under that Act. A ruling has lately been given by the Board of Trade that all ships owned by the Union Government must be regarded as coming within the category of his Majesty’s ships, that is within the meaning of the Imperial Merchants Shipping Act, which applies to all ships registered in South Africa. A clause in the Imperial Shipping Act provides that all claims for salvage must be made through the Admiralty. All that this Bill provides for is that we shall be placed in the position of claiming for salvage services on our own behalf. I may say that that Act makes provision for colonial administrations to legislate themselves out of that Act, so that all we are doing now is to place ourselves in the position which that Act contemplated.

I think the point cropped up in connection with salvage services rendered by the Railway Administration as to whether they had a right to make any such claim at all. Provision does appear to be made in the imperial statute of 1894 for the repeal by a dominion such as South Africa for the repeal of these particular sections.