moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

May I be permitted to move formally, as an unopposed motion, having seen the Minister—

This is not a formal matter. I would like to know whether the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), has been informed by the Minister that he will accept this, with a view of giving effect to the resolution?

I cannot allow a discussion. This is entirely a formal matter. Has the hon. member any further amendment to those appearing on the notice paper to propose?

I only wanted to know if the Government is prepared to accept it.

I cannot allow a discussion. This petition is moved to be referred to the Government for consideration. I cannot prohibit the hon. member from speaking, but I may point out that the usual practice is when an hon. member asks to move a matter formally, after seeing the Minister, for the question to be referred to the Government without discussion.

I would like to know if the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has seen the Government on the point, and whether the Government has accepted the resolution with a view of giving effect to it. Surely I am in order in asking that. If the Government is prepared to accept it, I am prepared to sit down, but if the Government is not prepared to accept it, I would like to ask has the Government agreed to accept it? That is all I want to know. Surely the members of the House are entitled to know that. I am quite prepared to sit down if the Government will accept the resolution.

Then all I can do is to rule that the motion cannot be put now. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) must wait until his notice is reached.

I hope it will not lose its place on the Order Paper.

No, it will remain as it is.

stelde voor—

Hij zei: Ek gloo, dat ek met alle ernst kan sê, dat er vandag miskien nauweliks ’n onderwerp is wat so algemeen die aandag trek van die volk van Suik-Afrika. En ek dink, dat dit miskien een van die belangrykste vraagstukke is waarmee ons as ’n volk ons self kan besig hou. En dit is geen wonder. As ons rond ons sien dan siet ons reeds dat, ek sal maar sê, dat op kust, op die strand van armoede en werkeloosheid duisende het geland en war nog ernstiger is, duisende is besig daar deur die stroom wat andere daar gebring het geland te word. En as ons ons oog slaan op wat plaas vint in die Westelike Transvaal, die Westelike Vrystaat en die Noord-Westelike Kaap, dan siet ons dat daar duisende is wat nog nie in die stroom is nie, wat nog nie daar geland is op die strand van armoede en werkeloosheid, maar die wankelend staat om daarin te raak en deur die stroom meegesleep te word. Ons het dit vir jare al gesien en verskeidene poginge is reeds gemaak van tyd tot tyd namens die Regering, sowel as deur Kerk Genootskappe en andere private individuë om in overweging te neem wat gedaan moet word. Net kort gelee het ons ’n baie belangryke konferensie gehad wat baie ernstig oor hierdie saak geraadpleeg het. Ek sê derhalve dat dit ongetwyfel die kwessie is wat vandag meer die aandag trek dan enige andere kwessie en ek gaat verder en ek sê, dat ek nie gloo, dat daar ’n vraagstuk is van groter belang vir ons volks bestaan en volks welvaart dan hierdie kwessie van armoede en werkeloosheid. En nu laat my sê, dat ek dadelik by die Troonrede gevoel het toen gewag gemaak werd, dat die Regering besig is deur konstruksie werke, enz., ter hulp te kom in die verligting van armoede en werkeloosheid, ek sê ek het dadelik gevoel, dat die tyd daar is, dat ons as wetgevende liggaam, ’n liggaam van manne wiens roeping dit is om die belange van die volk te behartig en ernstig te behartig en wat die mag het om die volk te hulp te kom, hierdie kwessie in ernstige oorweging moet neem omdat dit ’n kwessie is wat waardig is om ons ernstige oorweging te ontvang. Ek dink dat onder die omstandighede daar geen kwessie is wat meer waardig is om oorweging te kry van die Wetgevende liggaam. En ek hoop dat die beraadslaginge en oorweginge van die Huis van die aard sal wees dat hul werkelik ’n leidraad sal voortbreng waardeur die Regering gelei kan word om tot een of ander oplossing te kom en van meer permanente aard sal wees en van meer doeldryvende aard dan die een aangeduid in die Troonrede. In die eerste plaas vra ek in die mosie dat die Huis sal beslis dat die Regering op ’n ernstige wyse haar aandag sal skenk aan die saak as wat tot hiertoe gedaan is; en in die twede plaas vra ek dat daar aan die hand genome word meer ingrypende, meer afdoende maatreëls as tot hiertoe die geval was. Ek sou graag wil nagaan wat sover in die grote saak gedaan is wanneer ons ondersoek of wanneer die saak ter sprake kom, dan vind ons altoos die oorsaak van armoede en van werkeloosheid so voor die hand liggende. Ons het hier oor en oor gehoor en in rapporte gesien dat die oorsake is luiheid, onbekwaamheid, onwilligheid om te werk, oorlogs-gevolge, stakings-gevolge, gebrek aan opvoeding en depressie. Ek beweer hier dat hoewel nog ek, nog enig iemand anders kan ontken dat hierdie almal oorsake is wat gelei het tot armoede en werkeloosheid, dat dit maar kleine oorsake is en ons werklik nog nie gekom is tot die ware oorsaak nie, wat die grond gelê het van die grote werkeloosheid in ons land, en ek vind dat tensy ons dit doen en naspeur, sal ons steeds bly waar die Regering gebly het in die Troonrede: by maatreëls wat wel versagtend werk, maar nooit aan die wortel van die saak raak nie. Ek wens op ’n paar belangrike punte hier te wys. Die eerste is dat die werkeloosheid en armoede in Suid-Afrika staat op ’n skaal buiten alle eweredigheid met die uitgestrektheid van ons land; buiten alle eweredigheid met die kleine Europese bevolking, maar bowen al buiten alle verhouding tot die ryke bestaansbronne van Suid-Afrika. En daarby kom ’n ander feit wat dadelik die aandag van enig een, wat belang stel in die vraagstuk moet tref, en dit is dat daar meer mense gedurende die laaste jare, meer blanke, Suid-Afrika verlaat het as wat hier ingekom het, en dat onder die wat Suid-Afrika verlaat het net gedurende laaste Oktober en November oor die honderd ambagslui was, as daar een ding is wat kensketsend is van die feit dat daar iets verkeerd is in ons land, dan is dit ryke bestaansbronne en nogtans geen bestaan vir Europeane. Wat Suid-Afrika aan ons sê vandag is: met al jou ryke bestaansbronne, met jou uitgestrektheid het ek geen plaas vir meer as anderhalf miljoen blanke nie. Dit is ’n feit en geen gissing. As ons daartoe kom, moet ons dadelik vra, wat lê daar aan die wortel van die kwaad? Dit moet ons oortuig van die fasiliteit van die maatreëls welke die Regering neem om die kanker te bestry. Die laaste ses, sewe jaar het ons meer as drie miljoen pond gespandeer om die euvel te bestry en wat het ons uitgevoer? Ons het leniging verskaf, maar om die kwaad teen te gaan, niks. Dit is duidelik dat ons sal moet sien wat die oorsaak is, moet dieper ingaan om uit te vind, en as ons dit kry, rus die verpligting op ons om toe te sien dat dit weggeneem word. Nou is die kwessie wat het ons vir die toekoms gedoen, om die vloed van werkeloosheid en armoed te keer? Ons het so ver gegaan, om geldelike toelaag te gee, ondersteunings, gratifikasies, pensioene. Ons het konstruksie werke gedoen, paaie aangelê en meer van die dinge. Nie een van die is bereken om die oorsaak van die kwaad te verhelp. Nie één nie. Alles is eenvoudig versagtingsmaatreëls, net versagtingsmaatreëls en ons het daaraan millionen gespandeer. En op die ou end word die getal al groter wat sak in ’n toestand van armoede en werkeloosheid. Nou wens ek hier vanmiddag te wys op wat m.i. voorkom onder die hoofoorsake wat die toestand van armoede en werkeloosheid te skep, en ek doen dit omdat ons destebeter kan sien en opdat ons Regering destebeter kan sien waarop die aandag te konsentreer, om die nodige remedies te kry. Ek gloo ons het dit maar min gedoen in die loop van die laaste paar jaar en nog nou. In die eerste plaas gloo ek dat een van die voornaamste oorsake die onsekerheid van bestaan in die boerdery bedryf is. Is het nie opvallend dat vir jare en jare byna al die werkeloosheid, al die armoede onder die Hollandssprekende boerekinders was? Ons het hier gehoor van luiheid en onbekwaamheid en al dergelyke meer, maar, Mnr. Speaker, nog nooit is die nodige aandag daaraan gegee dat die eientlike wortel van die kwaad is geleë in die onsekerheid, die wisselvalligheid van die boerelewe en die bestaan van die boerelewe. Nog nooit het dit meer geblyk dan in die laaste jare en in die laaste jaar ook, waar tog nou honderde en duisende wat kortgelede welvarende boere was, gelukkig op hulle boereplaas, van die plase gedryf is deur natuurrampe, deur droogte, deur veesiekte, sprinkhane en wat dies meer sy. Nee, dis nie luiheid, nie die onbekwaamheid nie wat die boer gedryf het tot armoede en werkeloosheid, maar die groot kwaad is die onsekerheid van die boerlewe en boerbedryf. En ek het reeds jare gelede daarop gewys, op die toestand waartoe ons nou geraak het, dat in Suid-Afrika onder die arme en werkelose nie alleen nou die Hollandssprekende maar ook die Engelssprekende seksie behoort, daartoe gedryf omdat die toestand op so ’n wyse in die land aan die verander is, dat ook hulle sal vina, dat nie die nodige bestaanslewe daar voor horn is nie. Om dit nog duideliker te maak, laat ons kyk in die bees-boerdery, wat is die toestand vandag? As ons ’n bietjie ’n paar jaar terug kyk wat betref die skaapboerdery, toe duisende en duisende van skape deur die droogte omgekom het, en wat eens ’n florerende bestaan oplewer is nou weg, heeltemal weg, En dan die voolstruisboerdery, ons weet wat dit is. Die mielieboerdery wat die laaste jaar ’n oes het geken soos miskien nooit tevore in Suid-Afrika, die is vanjaar een van die rampsalige wat ons vir die laaste tien of twaalf jaar het. Daardie wisselvalligheid in die boere-bedryf is die oorsaak van armoede en werkeloosheid, en as ons vra, wat moet die toekoms wees en wat kan ons doen, dan moet ons hierdie punt in die oog hou. En mag ek net Mnr. Speaker wys wat bestendigheid in die boerdery beteken? Ons kyk net ’n bietjie hier aan die kus. Die wynboerdery, die vrugteboerdery, ook die graanboerdery. Wat ’n verskil hier, waar jy plase het, wat noual vir honderde van jare vas staan in famielies en wat gaan van seun tot seun. Hier vind jy ’n toestand van opvoedheid en verfynde beskawing soos jy nerens sal vind nie in die dele van die binneland nie waar die onsekerheid en wisselvalligheid bestaan. Helaas het mense in die binneland nie die geleentheid om die nodige fynheid en beskawing aan te leer nie. Ek kom nou aan die tweede punt, maar laat my se, dat die derde punt waaraan ek straks kom, die mees belangrijke is. Die tweede punt is die onsekerheid, die onsekerheid van bestaan, in ons industriële lewe. Het ons al ooit die vraagstuk van onsekerheid van die diamantnywerheid en die goudnywerheid in verband gebring met ons arm blanke bevolking en met die werkeloosheid in Suid-Afrika? Dis die twee grootste nywerhede in ons land, die diamant nywerheid en die goud-nywerheid. Ons ken die toestand waarin die diamant-nywerheid is. Noueliks is die werkman in sy plaas en beskou dat hy voorsien is vir die res van sy lewe, of daar kom ’n terug-val in die diamant-handel. So ook in die goud-nywerheid. Duisende wat vertrou nou ’n vaste bestaan te het, is more werkeloos en arm. Ons nywerheid is onseker en daarom is alles onstandvastig. Selfs die bestaanslewe, die arbeidsveld, ens. En telkemale word daar honderde of duisende—was dit nie 18 maande gelede 4,000?—gestoot in die vloed van armoede. En nou kom ek tot ’n ander punt en ek beskou dit as die grootste en die gevaarlikste oorsaak van armoede en werkeloosheid in ons land. Dit is so geweldig en so gevaarlik dat as blanke Suid-Afrika nie die nodige maatreëls gaan neem nie om die te keer, daar vir blank Suid-Afrika net een weg geskrywe is en dit is, dat blanke Suid-Afrika sal moet wegtrek of haar beskawing sal moet prys gee. En die oorsaak is, dat daar in Suid-Afrika nie die nodige arbeidsgeleentheid is vir beskaafde arbeid nie. Daar is op die gebied van ons nywerheid geen arbeidsveld vir ons seuns nie. Waarom nie? In die eerste plaas waarom nie? Wat voorgeval het agtien maande gelede aan die Rand is heeltemal karakteristiek vir die antwoord: Omdat daar geen bestaansgeleentheid vir blanke arbeid in Suid-Afrika is nie. Daar is nog altyd die nodige verlokking vir ’n sekere getal om hierheen te kom, maar die feit is dat Suid-Afrika geen arbeidsveld het vir sy maar ander half miljoen sterke blanke bevolking nie, en dat elkeen afgewys moet word wat nog meer inkom. Daar is dus in Suid-Afrika maar weinig meer veld vir beskaafde arbeid. Ons moet kies in Suid-Afrika, die blanke man staan voor die keus vandag, en elke jaar dat hy dit uitstel, sal hy met meer geweldigheid voor die keus gestel word, ons moet kies of ons die beskawing van die Europeaan in Suid-Afrika gaan verruil vir onbeskaafde arbeid, of dat ons op ons beskawing bly staan. Is dit vir my nog verder nodig om daarop te wys hoe seer die toestand van werkeloosheid en armoede ons aandag nodig het. Ons hoor vandag nie alleen meer die geroep vir hulp van die Hollandssprekende deel van die bevolking, maar—soos ek verwag het en in die Huis enige jare gelede al het aangekondig—ook van die Engelssprekende deel en ons hoor die Hollandssprekende koerante en ook Engels-sprekende koerante uitroep: “What shall we do with our sons?”—“Wat sal ons doen met ons seuns?” Dit kom van alle kante en waarom? Omdat op die Europeaan die groot las rus van die handhawing van die beskawing van Suid-Afrika, die groot las om te midde van ’n onbeperkte, onbeskaafde wereld om sigself te handhaaf en die beskawing van ons land te handhaaf, in die konflik tussen beskaafde en onbeskaafde arbeid. En ons het altyd gesien en telke male ondervind dat in die stryd die beskaafde arbeid die onderspit delwe, en daar is geen sterker bewys dan wat plaas gevind het op die myne agtien maande gelede. Nee, ons moet op die standpunt staan dat die witman in Suid-Afrika, in die arbeidsveld van Suid-Afrika, ’n reg van lewensbestaan het en verhinder moet word dat hy gelyk kom te staan met die naturel. Sal daar een enkele persoon wees, wat kans wens, dat die witmans-loon vir hande-arbeid sal wees 2s. per dag in Suid-Afrika. Mnr. Speaker, ons vind dat dit nie kan nie. Onder die omstandighede sal die witman moet sink tot die peil van die naturel, en dit is ongelukkig wat daar geskied as ons om ons heen sien, en ons voel ongelukkig daaroor. Dit vind plaas met my, dit vind plaas met elke lid van die Huis. Ons is feitelik altemaal even skuldig.

Hear, Hear. There we agree.

Ja, ons is feitelik altemaal even skuldig, maar die tyd het gekom dat ons moet besef dat ons eie bestaan en wat ons verskuldig is teenoor ons kinders in die toekoms ons noop om plaas in te ruim vir die beskaafde arbeid in Suid-Afrika so dat beskaafde arbeid in staat sal wees om te konkureer met onbeskaafde arbeid.

Hoor, hoor.

Ek is bly te sien dat die Minister van Mynwezen met my instem. Ek is bly. As ek daarin slaag am dit by ons tuis te bring hier in die Huis dat dit ’n volstrekte noodsakelikheid is dat daar moet opgetree word en dat daar nie meer tyd verloor moet word, dan sal ek dankbaar wees dat ek hier die kwessie voor die Huis het gebring. Ek kan goed verstaan dat men my sal vra “maar wat gee U aan die hand?” Ek wil weer aan die hand gee wat ek reeds elders het geuit, dat volgens my mening die enige oplossing vir die stand van sake hier lê, dat jou Regering wat regeer namens blank Suid-Afrika, wat in die eerste plaas daar staan om die witman te handhaaf, en die beskawing van die witman, dat die Regering die voorbeeld sal stel dat in die Regeringsdiens die beginsel sal aanvaard word, die arbeid daar is vir die beskaafde arbeider. En op die spoorweë behoor dit ’n vaste reël te wees, dat jou beskaafde arbeid die voorkeur sal hê. Ek hoop hier later op terug te kom. Die wet waarop ek hier wys is noodsakelik en in die groot belang van elkeen, in die belang van elk ras in Suid Afrika, maar ek wil dat die Regering dit in die eerste plaas as ’n vaste beginsel sal aanvaard, en nie as ’n wispelturige besluit nie van tyd tot tyd. Ongelukkig het hierdie besluit en die beginsel maar net van tyd tot tyd aangeneem geword. Oorleë Minister Sauer, ons weet hoe hy dit het geneem, maar elke maal sodra daar ’n geldskaarste was, sodra as daar iets verkeerd was ekonomies of finansieël, het die Regering dit as ’n rede gebruik om af te stap van die beginsel. Ek verklaar dit nogmaals, ons moet op die beginsel werk dat ons blank arbeid sy bestaans geleentheid sal gee en as ons net alleen op die beginsel werk wanneer dit ekonomies in ons belang is, dan kan ons dit maar net so goed laat staan, dan kan ons dit maar net so goed uitlaat. Want dit sal dan die gevolg hê dat telkens wanneer daar ’n ongelukkige periode kom, die mense aan wie ons ’n bestaan verseker het, weer uit die werk sal word gestoot en weer in armoede en werkeloosheid gedompel, en die naturel sal dan weer in sy plaas geset word en die onbeskaafde arbeid sal weer gebruik word, maar more wanneer U weer welvarend is dan begaan u weer dieselfde onregvaardigheid teenoor die naturel, en die witman neem weer sy plaas in. Ons het hier te doen met ’n saak van sulk oorweldigend belang dat die Regering dit moet, dit behoor te aanvaar as een van die beginsels van sy politiek beleid op die Spoorweë en elders en laat my dit sê—dis geensins my doel dat die Regering sig allenig sal bedien van Europeaanse en kleurling arbeid en niet van naturelle arbeid—dis allermins my doel. Die naturel kan baje goed gebruik word, maar ek sê dat die naturellearbeid nie gebruik moet word daar waar die witman se dienste gebruik kan en behoor te word, daar waar die witman van Suid-Afrika ’n lewensbestaan kan maak. My twede punt is dit. Dat waar jou Regering vergunninge skenk aan mense of aan maatskappye, daar moet die Regering sien, en dit moet een van die voorwaardes wees dat arbeids geleenthede aan beskaafde arbeid gegee sal word, dat daar onbeskaafde arbeid nie gebruik sal word nie net omdat dit goedkoop is, maar dat beskaafde arbeid daar sy geleentheid sal kry. Dan in die derde plaas, jou industrie, of dit mynindustrie is of wat soort industrie ook, hul moet hul deel neem in hul pligte net soos iedereen bly sal wees sy deel te neem in sy pligte, en hul moet op dieselfde manier hul pligte doen. En daar is sekere arbeids velde, daar is sekere takke van industrie waar beskaafde arbeid behoor gebruik te word. Ek is daarvan oortuig dat as dit op redelike wys onder hand geneem word, dat dan arbeids geleenthede geopen sal word en arbeids velde verkry vir duisende en duisende wat vandag nie sulke geleenthede besit. Nee, ek is daarvan oortuig dat tensy dit gedoen word ons sal kry wat ons vandag het maar in groter getalle en in groter mate, jou armoed sal toeneem en jou werklose sal vermeerder, en diegene wat hier in Suid-Afrika is sal doen wat hul nou doen, hul sal uit Suid-Afrika uit trek om elders te gaan om ’n bestaan te maak. Ek wil net hierop wys. Is daar iets onbillik of onregvaardig daarin dat die beskaafde man in Suid-Afrika sal vra, sal eis om in staat te wees die benodigde arbeidsveld te verkry voor sy beskaafde arbeid teenoor die onbeskaafde? Ek se dadelik dat my bestaan, my self bestaan is hoër as enige andere rede wat opgebring kan word, en derhalve kan die mense in Suid-Afrika, die blank bevolking, kan met reg teen enig persoon se dat die bestaan van die Europese bevolking van Suid-Afrika, die beskawing en die bestaan van die beskawing van die witman in Suid-Afrika is die hoogste vereiste wat gestel kan word. Maar dis nie nodig vir ons om ons daarop te beroep. Ons behoef net vir ’n minuut daar die saak te beskou om te sien dat dit nie allenig in die belang van die beskaafde man in Suid-Afrika is, maar dat dit so seer, indien niet meer so in die belang van die onbeskaafde naturel is, om hierdie stap te neem, namelik ora die bestaan van die witman te beveilig. As die witman môre hier uit moet gaan, as sy beskawing hier môre moet eindig, wat sal dan met die naturel gebeur? Wat sal die posisie wees? Ons behoef net te sien wat die posisie honderd jaar gelede was. Ons behoef net te let op wat toen het gebeur, wat het gebeur tot aan 1836 met die naturelle? Ons kan sien hoe hul elkander uitgemoor het en hoe hul hongersnood gély het. Hul het toe niks afgeweet van die aangenaamhede wat hul vandag het. Dis die witman wat hul dit het verseker en die witman sal moet voortgaan hul dit te verseker. en ek sê, dat daar aan niemand in Suid-Afrika ’n onreg word aangedoen as ons die posisie opneem dat ons op die punt vas staan en beslis is. Gee aan beskaafde arbeid sy regmatige plaas en handhaaf beskaafde arbeid teen onbeskaafde arbeid. Daar sal altyd groot geleenthede wees vir die so genaamde onbeskaafde arbeid, Laat my toe dit te sê. Dis een van die redene waarom ek altyd geinsisteer het en waarom ek vandag nog voel en insisteer dat tusse naturel en Europeaan, of laat my sê tussen beskaafde en onbeskaafde—nee tussen die naturel en die Europeaan, met die kleurling aan die ander kant, daar ’n sekere skeidsmuur behoor te syn, ’n skeidsmuur waardeur die vrees wat vandag sig by die witman moet opdring vir die naturel, weg geneem word; en dit sal ons die geleentheid gee as die heersers van Suid-Afrika om reg te handel by die naturel. As ons dit doen, dan sal ons in staat wees om die nodige stappe te doen om sodanige voorsiening te maak dat wat ons in die witman se gebied doen in verband met beskaafde arbeid, dieselfde sal in die naturelle gebied gedoen word waar sy arbeid beskerm sal word teen die van die witman. Dit is wat ek sê aangaande die belange van die verskillende klasse deur middel van die maatreëls wat ek aangedui het. Ek het daar reeds op gewys dat die Staat nie anders dan gebaat kan word daardeur. Maar laat my toe om nog hierdie verdere rede te gee. Die Staat is in die eerste plaas deur die Regering gebaseer op ekonomiese en finansiële factore. In ander woorde as daar één ding is waarop nadruk gelê moet word, ’n Regering, ’n behoorlike Regering vereis die inkomste van die land te handhaaf; kan dit in die belang van die Staat wees, om die Europese bevolking toe te laat om te sink tot die diepste armoede; kan dit in die belang van die Staat wees om toe te laat, dat die gedeelte van die bevolking, wat die grootste bron van inkomste van die land is, in diepe armoede sal versink en totaal sal wegval as ’n bron van inkomste? Nee! Ek wil daar nogmaals op wys, dat ons wat verantwoordelik is vir byna alles wat in Suid-Afrika plaats vind, ons, die witmanne, ons moet hier die vraagstukke in die oog sien en ons moet so spoedig moontlik die nodige stappe doen. Ek wil hier weer op wys. Daar is niks nuws hierin. Die Regering het die kwessie van tyd tot tyd opgevat, maar in ’n onsekere en huiverige manier. Laat my toe te wys op wat die Regering van die ou Vrystaat het gedoen. Wat het daar plaas gevind? Toe one vrinde in Natal besig was die koelies in te voer met die doel om onbeskaafde arbeid te geniet en om geld te maak, toe werd die kwessie voor die ou Vrystaatse Volksraad gebring. Hul het ook gebaat kon wees daardeur, deur die koelie in te laat kom, maar die ou Volksraad het “nee” gesê en hul het ’n wet deurgeset en hul het gesê “daar sal geen Asiaat toegelaat word binnen die grense van die Vrystaat. Wie het reg gewees, die Vrystaat of Natal? En wat is die posisie van áie Vrystaat vandag teen die posisie van arm Natal in die opsig? Ek sê opsettelik “arm Natal,” want werkelik ons moet simpatiseer met Natal en ek dink Natal sal alles wat ons kan doen waardeer om haar uit die posisie te red. Die Vrystaatse Volksraad het verder gegaan. Toen die feit bekend het geraak dat die Basuto en ander naturelle arbeiders besig was na die boereplase te gaan en om die boere te verryk deur soon toe te gaan en op halftes en ander dele te saai, wat het plaas gevind? Die Huis moet verstaan dat dit iets was van die grootste belang vir boere in die oostolike en noordoostelike dele van die Vrystaat. Boere het baie daardeur kan verdien, maar wat het die Vrystaatse Volksraad gedoen—en vir geen andere rede behalwe om die beskaafde arbeid te vrywaar teen die onbeskaafde arbeid—die Volksraad het dadelik ’n wet deurgedruk waaronder hul saaiery op dele verbied het. Hul het seifs verder gegaan omdat hul ’n blanke bywoner klasse het wil hê, en omdat hul blanke mense op die boereplase het wil kry en nie naturelle nie, hul het die plakkers beperk sodat baie daarvan die verskillende plase het moet verlaat. Daar was baie boere wat sterk daarteen was gewees, maar die Vrystaatse Volksraad het uit boere bestaan, en hul het “nee”, gesê “in die belang van die witman moet dit gedoen word en hul het dit deurgeset. En ek vra nou “wat is die posisie van die Vrystaat vergelyk met die van die Transvaal. Dis nie nodig vir my bier om na Natal te gaan. Hoe seer is die Vrystaat nie hier deur gebaat nie en hoe veel bet dit nie vir die blanke bevolking gehelp nie? Ons het hier nie te doen nie met ’n nuwe beginsel maar met ’n ou beginsel wat aangeneem was as ’n middel van selfverdediging en ons word hier vandag opgeroep, meer nog as daar ’n beroep was gemaak op die ou Vrystaatse volksraad, om weer op te tree en om stappe te doen vir ons eie verdediging. Ek wens nu ten slotte nog ’n paar woorde te sê; ek denk dis die geleentheid wat ek te baat moet neem want dis in nau verband met wat ek hier bet gesê en ek wens iets te sê aangaande wat die ed, die Eerste Minister in Europa gedoen bet omtrent die Asiate. Ek wens hom die versekering te gee, dat hij die waardering van geheel Suid-Afrika het in sy optrede.

Ja, dis ’n baie goeie ding. Ons is bly dit te hoor.

Ek voel, dat die Eerste Minister daar in Europa gevoel het in verband met die kwessie net so as ek voel oor die kwessie wat nou voor die Huis is, net so as ek voel oor onbeskaafde arbeid. Wat hy daar gedoen het en die grond waarop hy sy posisie geplaas het is presies die grond waarop ek die posisie plaas, dat ons in Suid-Afrika moet optree teenoor naturelle arbeid en ander arbeid wat nie naturelle arbeid is. Dis die grond in die geval van die Asiate, dis nie ’n geval van onbeskaafde arbeid of van onbeskawing teen beskaafde arbeid of teen beskawing, maar dis ’n geval van ’n beskawing wat so vreemd is vir ons beskawing, dat ’n botsing noodlottig sou wees, nie minder noodlottig nie dan ’n botsing tussen beskawing en onbeskawing. En ek sê daarom, dat ons nou van die geleentheid gebruik moet maak en ons moet nie iets doen nie waardeur ons die posisie van die Europeaanse bevolking in Suid-Afrika in gevaar sal bring. Ek is bly, dat ons die optree van die Eerste Minister kan waardeer en ek is te meer bly omdat dit pas aan die onderwerp wat ek vandag voor die Huis het. Ek wil niks verder sê nie, behalwe dit: laat ons ophou te praat van hierdie kwessie van armoede en werkeloosheid as iets van voorbygaande aard. Die oorsake daarvan is permanent, en ons kan die oorsake nie stop nie, maar wat ons moet probeer is om die oorsake te matig; vernietig kans ons die oorsake nooit, want die oorsake is permanent en die gevolge van die permanente oorsake sal als permanent met ons bly, net so as die oorsake. Ons het die verleë voor ons. Dis nie van hierdie jaar of van verleë jaar dat hierdie kwessie opgekom het, maar feitelik van af die tyd dat ’n arbeids veld nodig het geword vir die seuns van die Hollandssprekende landeienaar van die boereplaas af; die kwessie het opgekom en die kwessie sal voortgaan so lang as die boereplaas nie in staat sal wees om al die seuns en die dogters van Suid-Afrika op te neem; en ons sal die posisie nooit terug kry, die posisie sal nooit weer moontlik wees, maar die stand van sake wat ons hou sal altyd toeneem, sal altyd sterker word; ek hoop dat die bespreking van die mosie nou voor die Huis bepaal sal word tot die noodsakelikheid om iets te doen en dat ons iets sal kry wat die posisie sal verbeter. Ek stel nou die mosie wat in my naam staan voor.

seconded.

Ek dink die Huis is seker dank verskuldig aan die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), nie alleen omdat hy ’n mosie van soveel erns voor die Huis gebring het nie, maar ook voor die gees, waarin hy die saak ingelei het. Ek dink dat niemand hier hom kan beskuldig dat hy in ’n party-gees opgetree het, of dat hy enige byoogmerk op die oog het daarmee nie. Almal kan bereid wees om hom daarvoor te bedank. Ek is nie een van diegene wat dink dat die armeblankekwessie niks met party te doen het nie. Solank as die Regering in verband daarmee ’n pligte vervul het en die plig gedoen of versuim kan word, solank sal en moet dit ook ’n politieke saak wees, maar aan die anderkant wil ek erken dat die kwessie van toenemende armoede in die land ’n kwessie is wat dieper gaat as partypolitiek. Ons verskil, hoe diep dit mag wees, is niks meer nie as ’n golfslag aan die oppervlakte van die see. Hier is ’n saak wat die toekoms van Suid-Afrika en van ons as volk raak, en as ons dit bespreek moet ons dit nie doen in ’n partygees me, maar met die oog gevestig op die blywende belange van Suid-Afrika. In die mosie word die woord “werkeloosheid” gebruik maar die term is nie genoegsaam om aan te dui wat die werkelike toestand is waarmee ons te doen het nie. Daar is agter die werkeloosheid heelwat ander dinge waarop ons die oog moet vestig en wat die oorsaak daarvan is. Indien ’n oplossing van tydelike aard is, sal die armoede more, oormôre weer terug keer en wel in verskerpte vorm. Wat is die toestand? Ek weet nie of die lede met aandag gelees het nie die rapport van die Sensus Departement oor die laaste tien jaar. As hulle die moeite wil doen, sal hulle nie alleenlik verbaas staan nie, maar die feite is seker genoeg om hulle en iedereen wat dit siet met die diepste onrus te vervul. Laat ons neem die feit dat volgens die Sensusopgawe daar ’n geweldige toestroming van blanke is van die platteland na die stede. Dit is nie alleenlik ’n feit nie, maar geskied in so ’n geweldige mate, dat gedurende die tien jaar waaroor die Sensusopgawe loop, die blanke bevolking verminder het in vier-en-neentig distrikte, en dat van 1911 tot 1921 nie minder as sewentig duisend die platteland verlaat het en na die stede gegaan is. Dit op sigself genome, en gesien by die lig van die feit dat ons ’n groot land het en dat voortdurend gesê word dat dieselwe digter moet bewoon word gee te dinke. Dit is ’n ernstige feit dat in nie minder as sewe distrikte die blanke bevolking verminder het met oor die duisend; dat in fyftien distrikte hierdie bevolking verminder is met meer as eenkwart; dat een distrik verminder is met meer as een derde en een met byna twee-vyfde van daardie blanke bevolking. Dit is die toestand sover as dit betref die toestroming van blanke mense van dit platteland af na die stede toe. Saam met hierdie uitroeiïngsproses, gaat gepaard ’n ander; dit is die ewe merkwaardige verskynsel van die verdwyning van die kleurling bevolking van die platteland. Ons vind dat in die Kaap Provinsie en die O.V.S. in vijf-en-sewentig distrikte ’n vermindering van kleurlinge van die platteland ook plaasgevind het, deurdien hulle na die stede gaan en dit is merkwaardig dat ook hiermee gepaard gaan ’n toestroming van naturelle in die blanke man se gebied. Laat ons liewer op die syfers ingaan: in die plattelandse distrikte van die Kaap is die bevolking verminder en hulle plek is ingeneem deur drie-en-vertig duisend naturelle. In die Vrystaat is die blanke bevolking verminder met oor die sewe duisend en hulle plek is ingeneem deur ag-en-sewentig duisend naturelle. In Transvaal is die boere bevolking vermeerder met een-en-veertig duisend, maar daarby is mee getel die uitgeroeide boere wat op die delwerye ’n bestaan probeer maak. Maar teenoor die een-en-veertig duisend is in Transvaal ingekom naturelle tot ’n syfer van nie minder as twee honderd en vyf-en-veertig duisend. Wat bedui daardie syfers? Dit kan geen oordrywing wees nie, want dit is geneem uit ’n Sensusverslag. Dit dui aan die kolossale trek, die afsakking wat daar gaande is van die platteland na die stede, en dat daardie plek ingeneem word deur naturelle uit die naturellgebiede. As ons die syfers van die sensus sien, dan beteken dit dat Suid-Afrika nie in staat is ’n groter blanke bevolking te dra nie. Hoe meer hier geimporteer word, hoe meer mense is daar wat die land verlaat en gaat na die stede toe, ook daar is die verlore terrein van die blanke aansienlik; van 1916 tot 1921 is die blanke employees in die industrieë vermeerder met 59 persent, maar die van die gekleurde met oor die neentig persent. Dit toon aan dat ooral die blanke man aan die kleurling grond verloor; dat hulle ekonomies uitgeroei word. Dit is die toestand, waarme ons te doen het en die land het reg om te verwag dat ons dit ernstig sal behandel, dat ons die beskawing sal protekteer. Wat is die oorsaak? Sommige sê depressie. Dit kan gedeeltelik so wees, maar daar kan iets meer wees. Die Sensusopgawe gaat oor die jare 1911-21 en sluit in die jare van die oorlog, wat omtrent die beste tydperk was, wat die boere beleef het. Die depressie kan geen invloed gehad het op die syfers nie, want hierdie depressie het in 1921 eers begin. Dit kan ook nie wees nie dat droogte die hoofoorsaak is nie want die gegewens sê dat die vermindering van die blanke het nie plaas gevind in die droogste distrikte nie. In die droogstedele van die Kaapprovinsie soos Gordonia, Namakwaland, Vanwyksdorp en Calvinia sal mens vind dat die blanke bevolking toegeneem het, maar dat die vermindering veral gebeur in Barkly-Oos en Queenstown vlak aan die grens van Tembuland, in Fiksburg en een van die beste dele van die Unie, in Ladybrand. Die vermindering toon eenvoudig aan dat die agteruitgang is nie ’n kwessie van droogte nie, maar van distrikte aan die grens van die Naturelle-gebied. Dit kan nie gebrek aan opvoeding alleen wees nie, hoewel dit seker ’n faktor is want konsekwent deurredenerende son ons moet vind dat die natural beter opgevoed moet wees as die blanke, en dit is die geval nie. Wat is dan die oorsaak van daardie agteruitgang van die blanke bevolking? Ek dink daar is net een oorsaak en wel een van ekonomiese aard. Dis die onbillike kompetiesie onstaan deur die teenwoordigheid in een land van beskaafde, en onbeskaafde en halfbeskaafde mense. Die onbeskaafde leef op ’n veel laer peil as die blanke. Hy steur hom nie aan die eise wat aan ’n beskaafde persoon gestel word nie en leef baie goedkoop, en as die beskaafde mens genoodsaak word om met daardie soorte te kompeteer, dan word hy gedwing om een van twee dinge te doen: Hy moet of weg trek of ook gaan leef op die voetvan die onbeskaafde en hy is gedwonge om ’n arme blanke te word. Sewentig duisend in tien jaar is ’n groot getal. Dit is werkelik die toestand in Suid-Afrika, soos ook die Sensuswet aantoon. Ek wil die Huis nie ophou nie, maar as ons tot ’n behoorlike begrip van die saak wil kom, sal ons uitvind dat dit verbeter moet word deur wetgewing. Ons sal moet ophou om ’n negatiewe houding aan te neem en die skouers op te trek so as die Minister van Mijnwese in ’n onlangse toespraak van hom gedaan het toe hy verklaar het dat die armeblanke kwessie sigself moet oplos. Sommige mense dink dat dit deur filantropie kan opgelos word. Hy kan daardeur in ’n beter huis gebring word en op andere maniere gehelp word, maar die agteruitgang van die bevolking moet stop aan gesit word. Die oplossing is ook nie in immigrasie nie, want onder die teenwoordige toestand verlaat meer lede van die permanente bevolking, wat landbouers is, die land as wat daar met al ons middele om immigrante te trek, sig hier kom vestig. Maar die wortel van die kwaad is daardie kompetiesie vir die beskaafde mense teen half beskaafde of heeltemale onbeskaafde. Ons sal eenmaal daartoe moet oorgaan om hieromtrent wetgewing daar te stel om die blanke te beskerm teen onbehoorlike kompetiesie. Die middel is segregasie op ’n billike manier, sodat geen onreg gedaan word nie aan die blanke of aan die anderkant teenoor die natural nie. Daar is nog een saak, as ons die blanke bevolking teen die proses van verarming wil beskerm, sal ons ’n voorwaartse stap moet neem, wat betref die landbou bevolking in die algemeen. Ons kan daar nie uitkom nie, want anders word die boerebevolking uitgeroei. In die eerste plek moet gesorg word vir opvoeding, want dit alleen sal die mense in staat stel om die geleenthede te sien wat daar vir hulle ope staat, en om van dieselwe gebruik te maak. Die boer leef geisoleer, hy leef eensaam, en as dit nie gebalanseer word deur iets anders, sal dit dodend werk. Iedereen moet deur opvoeding voorligting in kontak gebring word met die beskawing en die volkslewe in die algemeen; en daardie kontak moet hom inspireer tot hoër strewe. Daar is sommige van die Europese lande wat in die opsig ongetwyfeld kan dien as model vir ons. Dit is, om die boer in die boerevak ’n opleiding te gee. Ons het landbouskole en ek twyfel nie, of hulle het al veel nut gedoen in die rigting, en dat hulle nog veel nut sal doen, maar dis seker ook waar dat die inrigtinge net die doel het om eksperts te kweek en nie om die landboubevolking as ’n geheel op te voed. Daar het jy Denemarken wat ’n model is in die hele wereld, Mnr. Speaker, en daar word byna elke boere-seun en boere-dogter vóór hulle op hulle boerdery gaan in een of ander skool op goedkope manier in die laudbou onderrig. Deur daardie onderrig en opvoeding van die landboubevolking is in Denemarken opgebou die perfekte stelsel van ko-operasie, waarvan Denemarken vandag beroemd is, en daardie kooperasie help die boer om in kontak te kom met die verbruiker en ’n regmatige aandeel te kry in die vrugte van sy arbeid. Ons moet ’n groot voorwaartse stap doen in die rigting, of die boerebevolking van Suid-Afrika sal hopeloos uitgeroei word. Mnr. Speaker, ek sal sluit deur nog net die aandag daarop te vestig—en die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het dit ook reeds gedoen—dat daar gedurende die reses in Bloemfontein ’n belangrike kongres het plaas gevind. Ons het hier in die land naturellerade bestaande uit ’n aantal persone wat hulle werk daarvan maak om die belange van die naturel te bestudeer. Die rade het ’n statuaire status, ’n statuaire bestaan, en dis hulle plig om jaar na jaar verslag te doen aan die Parlement omtrent naturelle-kwessies en aan die hand te gee stappe wat moet gedoen word om die belange van die naturel behoorlik te behartig. So behoort daar ook ’n statuaire raad te bestaan vir die bestudering van—laat ek dit noem—die armblanke vraagstuk, op ooreenkomstige wyse as die naturellerade die naturellesake bestudeer en ek hoop die Regering sal maatreëls neem vir die instelling van so ’n raad. Ons kan nie die hele kwessie van die armblanke-vraagstuk in één jaar oplos nie, ook nie deur één wet nie. Daar moet verskillende maatreëls jaar na jaar geneem word en die raad kan dan aan die Regering stappe aan die hand gee om tot ’n oplossing te kom en waar ons industriële segregasie moet hê, soos die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) ook het aangetoon, planne te maak om stappe te neem in die rigting van segregasie. In segregasie wat nie alleen billik is teenoor die blanke en die kleurling, maar aan die anderkant ook billik is teenoor die naturel.

I must say that we on this side of the House welcome the sympathetic spirit in which the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has discussed this subject. The Government would be very callous indeed if it did not treat the matter sympathetically, and it welcomes the very high tone struck by the hon. member. I think, however, that a motion of this sort should have complied with one simple essential. I did expect that the hon. member would have given us some concrete suggestion for a remedy. The hon. member has given us a very interesting academic dissertation on the subject, but I do not think that even the hon. member’s best friend will tell me that he has given any concrete suggestion as to how to deal with this very comprehensive and complicated subject. There is no subject with which I am acquainted on which there are so many well meaning theorists, and on which there is a wider gulf between theory and practice as on the subject of unemployment of poor whites. There is scarcely a day when I am not waited upon or written to by amiable theorists bringing forward schemes to solve the problem, each suggestion more fantastic and impossible than the last. I have waited in vain for any man to come forward with a practical solution, a better solution than the Government has in operation at the present time. I have waited in vain for anyone to come forward with any solution other than that the Government should somehow or other solve the problem while the public sits by and looks on. I cannot divest myself of the conviction that on the question of the unemployment problem and the poor whites the public is not pulling its weight. Conferences and congresses are being continually held on the subject by churches and other public bodies, long and earnest discussions take place—“they hold great argument about it and about, but ever more come out by the same door where in they went”; and not one single practical concrete suggestion has emerged. There is always one certain factor about these gatherings, the deliberations invariably end with a resolution putting the whole of the responsibility on the Government, and thereafter the delegates go home with the sense of duty satisfactorily performed. I need only point at the speeches made this afternoon by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). Very interesting indeed, but once more, not containing a vestige of a practical solution of the subject. Let me say that in my experience there is no royal road to a solution of this problem; there is no universal panecea for this evil which is eating into the body social. The bulk of the people in this country consider that the one solution is “back to the land.” It is quite natural. Most of the unemployed and most of the poor whites come from the land, and it is very natural for any one to say “back to the land,” but I would like to point out a few of the complications and difficulties which have faced us in the past and which are facing us in the present. There are only two bodies who have attempted to solve this problem of placing poor whites on the land. These are the Dutch Reformed Church and the State. The Dutch Reformed Church has spared neither time nor money, nor energy, nor thought, on this great subject. They have done their best to try and solve this problem, but before I tell hon. members what the Government has done towards solving this problem I would like to tell them what the Church has done and how the Church has fared. I trust that no member will think that I am trying to cast blame on the Church. I am in constant contact with the committees which are dealing with the matter, and can testify to the unselfish altruism which animates them. They are doing their best. It will be as well if I give the House the experience which the Dutch Reformed Church has had with regard to this question, so that hon. gentlemen inside and outside the House, who are so fond of thinking that the problem can be solved by mere resolutions, may realize what the Church and State have had to face. Let me tell you what the Church has done and tried to do. The Dutch Reformed Church has concentrated on two large settlements in order to help the unemployed and the poor whites. The Church started at Kakamas first of all. We presented them with 52,000 morgen of land. The Government lent them something like £30.000. but the settlement has been unable to repay a penny of that loan, and after 30 years it was necessary for me a few months ago to remove no less than 70 heads of families from Kakamas to prevent their starving. Again I mention this not to cast any blame on the Church. I as Minister of Lands am the very last here to throw a stone at any one engaged in land settlement. I know all the heartbreaking disappointments, and the slow progress one has to face, but I mention this merely to show hon. gentlemen how difficult a subject it is, and how very little hope there is of solving it by resolutions at congresses and conferences. Let me take the next example. The Dutch Reformed Church started with a settlement with Government assistance at De Lagers Drift We placed at their disposal 8,000 morgen of land, mostly under irrigation. The Government invested in that settlement something like £42,000. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) a few days ago had occasion to direct the notice of the House to the fact that there was a famine at De Lagers Drift. The Dutch Reformed clergyman who was in charge of the settlement writes in a recent number of De Kerkhode—once more I am mentioning this not out of enmity to the Church—I appreciate their efforts, but to show the difficulties they have had to contend with and with which we as a Government have had to contend with in a still greater degree. The clergyman in charge of De Lagers Drift writes this:

and so on, a most harrowing tale, and, as the Prime Minister said a few days ago, we have recently had to send money to the Church to help things on. I mention that to show the difficulties the Church have had to deal with. Hon. members on the other side of the House will be interested to hear what a very staunch Nationalist clergyman has to say on this same subject. I harp on the subject because I cannot help feeling that the hon. members are too academic; they give us much theory, but no real assistance. The Rev. Theron, of Coligny, a very ardent Nationalist and a very ardent worker in the interest of the poor whites, writes this in a newspaper run by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). He says:

and he goes on:

I regret to say that in only one centre of the Union, namely at Nijlstroom in the Transvaal, have the agricultural public shown any signs of recognising that while there is a duty on the Government there is a greater duty on the public in solving this matter. In Nijlstroom a public meeting was held and a committee was appointed with which the Government is cooperating, and a list is being made of every poor white in the district. This committee goes round the district to the farmers and landowners and brings pressure to bear to take at least one poor white on his farm, and they guarantee that in a few months there will be no poor whites left in the Nijlstroom district. If that were extended throughout the country, if the public, especially the agricultural public, were to recognize their duty on the subject I do not think there would be an unemployed or poor white left in the country. If one in every six land-owners in the Union were to take a poor white family there would not be a poor white family left in the country. I would like to quote to you an even greater authority on the subject—a few extracts from a pamphlet written by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) on this same subject. I have not quite followed his argument this afternoon. He seems to contradict what he wrote some time ago. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) writes:

The hon. member then goes on to give a very lucid and learned dissertation on the history and origin of the poor white with which I will not trouble the House. It is worth reading. The hon. member says that:

I hope the hon. member will impress that on his party.

I quite agree with him.

I do not know what the hon. member means; it seems to me a typical example of discussing the matter academically. What I would like to direct the attention of the House to is the solution of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) because it is directly contradictory to the views of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). I think the two members should put their heads together and come to some unanimity on the subject. The hon. member writes:

I do not think that is what the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) said just now. I may be mistaken, but it is certainly not what the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) said:

That was the only solution propounded by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), but as far as I understand him it is just the opposite to what the hon. member for Smithfield said just now.

What is the date of this pamphlet?

I do not know, but it is to be had at the Burger office for 6d. I read it very carefully and it is a most interesting and sincere attempt to solve this question. But I would like the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) to remember that when he writes these pamphlets he ought to be consistent and remember what he has written, because what he states here just now, as far as I can understand from his somewhat involved wording, is directly contradictory to the solution as propounded in his pamphlet. But there is no solution in the theory propounded by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). He made frequent use of the term “beskaafde arbeid.” I frankly do not know what he means by it, and I think he should have given us a definition of it. Does he mean by “civilised labour” that the labour must be civilised or the labourer? If the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) for instance, means that the pick and shovel work is uncivilised he should say so, because he opens up a melancholy vista for the white man in this country; if by “beskaafde arbeid” he means skilled labour and that no white man ought to do unskilled labour, and it is the only deduction I can draw, then our future as a white race is indeed melancholy. I ask again what could he have meant by stating as he did just now that the white man must do only “beskaafde arbeid”—civilised labour? I take it he means by “civilised work” skilled labour. He has, therefore, propounded the extraordinary doctrine that the white man must not do unskilled labour. If that is the case the white man is doomed in this country. I mention these aspects of the case to show the difference between theory and practice in this extraordinarily complicated subject. I would now like to tell the House quite briefly what the Government has been doing on the subject. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) seemed to infer that we have done nothing but dish out doles and put people on pauper relief work. If the House and the country is under that impression I can only say that I welcome this motion, and I think it is high time that the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) or someone else afforded us this opportunity to say what we have done, are doing, and will do in the future. In the past it has been the traditional policy in South Africa to deal with the unemployed and poor white by way of doles, put him on relief work, give him pauper relief, put him on work for a few months, and when the work is finished he had to leave there as poor in worldly gear as when he came, and poorer in worldly outlook, because the fact of putting a man on relief work tends still more to sap his morale. All over the world experience has shown that doles and pauper reliefs are no remedy to the question of poor whites and unemployed. I agree with the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) on that, but join issue with him when he says we have not recognised and should recognise this fact. We have the accumulated experience of several decades stretching back to the old Republican days that relief works are not a permanent settlement of the unemployment malady or poor white problem, and so the Government resolved on the daring step of revolutionizing the whole policy of the unemployment problem. We started on the assumption that the white man can be employed in South Africa at an economic wage on unskilled work. I understand from the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) that it cannot be done, but that is exactly what the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) says ought to be done and, as he says, is the only solution of the poor white problem; that the white man should be able to do unskilled work in this country at an economic wage in competition with the native. That is what the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) stated in his pamphlet and that is the assumption on which we act. We assume that it is possible for white employers of labour in this country to use a white man for unskilled work and to make it pay. Accordingly we did this: We resolved to employ white labour on all our Government constructions, and we initiated what I consider to be one of the most important national experiments that has ever been attempted in this country. Of the 21 railways sanctioned by Parliament some time ago we have built 13 entirely by white labour. We have built them efficiently and expeditiously, and the estimate for all these railways was based on native labour. As the House knows we built all those railways by white labour and we kept within the estimate for native labour and what is more we paid the men on those railways a civilized wage.

A living one?

A civilized wage. Yes, I think a living one. Let me tell the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that the average wage on all the railways works out at 8s. 1d. per man per day. I am not saying it is a princely wage; I would not like to say I would like to live on it, but taking everything into consideration it is much more than a white man can earn on any farm, and it is much more than he can earn on most industries in this country. I repeat it is not a princely wage; I would be very sorry to have to live on it, but the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) must remember that is not the maximum, but it is the minimum average—the average over-all wage.

Including overseers?

No, the workers; the white workers on our railways over-all. I admit that some of them were only earning about 1s. per day; I admit that we made miscalculations and mistakes. It was a new venture in this country, and in some cases the men were unable to come out, but these little preliminary difficulties are smoothing themselves out, and the experiment of the railways has proved a remarkable success and we have succeeded beyond our fondest hopes. We are proving with railway construction that unskilled work, manual pick and shovel work, can be done by a white man at an economic wage. I do not know of any unskilled native labour which has been paid at that rate up to now. It is piece-work, of course. The House realizes that the crux of our experiment is that the white man has to work at economic rates. Under the old day-pay system the poor white remained a poor white and a slacker; under the new system the poor white in South Africa has proved that he can work as well as any labourer in the world. It is remarkable to see how these gangs can work under this system. They have an incentive to work, and they are working. But railways come to an end. We are building the remaining eight railways with white labour, and I am sure they will be built as expeditiously by white labour as the other railways were, and they are also based on the estimate of native labour. But railways are a temporary measure, and they are being completed with remarkable rapidity. We look upon railway construction as a training ground, and so our railway experiment has been extended to a larger sphere—it has been extended to our foresty programme. On these afforestation settlements we have introduced piece-work. At present we have eight forestry works in full swing, and I hope this House will sanction a still further increase for this reason: The timber produced in the Union is under 5 per cent. of our requirements. Private enterprise, as a whole, cannot go in for afforestation, because it takes twenty-five or thirty years to get a return. Only the Government in practice can go in for afforestation. A white man trained in a forestry settlement earns a living wage, he lives under civilised conditions, he gets a cottage and free medical attendance, and he puts in a good day’s work for a good day’s wage. The earnings are from 7s. to 21s. per day. Not a princely wage, it is true, but the labourer on the forestry settlements gets a cottage, medical attendance, and as much garden as he wants. Above all, he lives in healthy surroundings, and he has a future. He can live on that settlement and become a permanent forester or he can go on a farm. We hope to link up with this scheme a system of redrafting men back to the land in conjunction with a Bill dealing with irrigation rights in the Union, which we hope to bring before Parliament. These men can either become foresters, or are redrafted back to the land. In Germany, in the Black Forest and in the forests of France they have a large population of hereditary forest workers who form a very important section of the nation. There is no reason why we should not do the same in this country, and take a large section of the unemployed of the right type and the poor whites and give them work on the forests. With the support of the public, and the support of this House we can absorb, and are absorbing a very high percentage of the unemployed and poor whites on afforestation, and there is no reason why we cannot extend almost indefinitely without undue pressure on the taxpayer. We are building up a valuable national asset in the shape of timber, and at the same time creating an even more valuable asset in the improved social conditions of our poor white element and our unemployed. These men are going to become respected citizens of the Union instead of living the degraded life which has been their lot in the past. The chief value of the work in connection with these forests lies not so much in the expansion of our timber development and the good we are doing to the men there, but lies in the example we are setting to the public. We are showing that the white man can be employed on unskilled labour at piece-work. There is no doubt about it that the greatest cause of unemployment of the poor whites in this country are those briefly touched upon by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), and that is because the white man has not done unskilled labour in the past. Unskilled labour has been looked upon as being below the dignity of the white man, and it was said with some truth that we were becoming a nation of overseers. The chief value of our forestry work and our work on the railways has been to show the public of the Union that the white man can hold his own as an unskilled worker at a civilized wage. On our forestry settlements some of these men after a few months have been earning 21s. a day. Of one we were told he was a ne’er-do-well and he was unemployable; to-day I have had to stop him from working too hard. He wants to go on Sunday with his wife to plant trees and at night he goes out with a hurricane lamp to work on the mountains. I do not say it is desirable that a man should overwork himself, but it is an amazing feature, an amazing thing that these men whom the bulk of the country thought was unemployable are overworking themselves. When these same men borrow a hurricane lamp and go out into the mountains to work at night, and want to work on Sunday, it is hard to believe that they are the same men whom we have brought out of misery. He is earning his money, he is not on poor relief, he is not a pauper, but at the end of the month he gets his wage, throws out his chest, and looks you in the face. But this does not exhaust all that the Government has been doing. Apart from our work on the railways and the afforestation department—I may say that working in the afforestation department we have a thousand heads of families, families comprising 5,000 altogether—we have subsidised unemployment in every province, we have built the entire Hartebeestpoort Scheme, and where unemployment was on the downward grade, there is an upward turn at present. In addition to that we have unemployment bureaus in every large centre in the Union, and we have placed thousands of people in jobs through our railways’ exchanges. We are spending £160.000 on child welfare, which is to deal with the children of the poor whites. And above all in connection with this work we are doing, we are placing men on the land under the best possible conditions. We are having setbacks and disappointments just like our co-worker, the Dutch Reformed Church has had disappointments, but one out of every ten landowners in the Union has been put there by the Government. They and their dependants number 60,000 souls. We have put on the land over 60,000 souls in addition to our subsidised work in regard to forestry and railways. The number we have thus been able to deal with fluctuates between 6,000 and 8,000 workers per annum. We are at this present moment looking after something like 80,000 souls, and more than 6 per cent. of the entire white population of the Union are being cared for not as paupers but as people who are being given a future by the activity of the Government. While I have no objection to the wording of the hon. member’s motion, I think the motion was almost unnecessary. Everything he refers to in this motion is not only being done but most of it has already been done. I may be asked “You have told us what you have done, but what are you doing in regard to the future?”—[An Hon. Member: “You said we had turned a corner.”] Yes, so we had, but we are not responsible for the drought and locusts. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) cannot expect us to control the weather. We were round the corner until the drought intervened. That has set us back. That being the case we have had to cope with this unfortunate position. It is a question of money, but it is possible to expand this forestry work doubly, trebly and quadruply. I cannot conceive of anything sounder than the extending of our timber assets in the way that we are doing. We are going to do all our Government work on this system. I know hon. members opposite do not like piece-work, but it is helping to solve the poor white question, and that is our second largest problem in this country. At present we are on the high road to success. I have been on the central committee for unemployment for over three years, and the work has been very strenuous, and at times very disappointing and heartbreaking. But looking back on our activities during the last three years I can say this that if we started over again to-morrow we might be able to remedy minor faults but we should just do the same thing again. It is a sound policy, it is the only policy which will solve the poor white problem and the problem of unemployment. I have followed what has been done in Germany and Canada as regards unemployment, but there is no other civilized country at the moment having regard to the size of cur population and our resources, there has been no more done for the poor white than is being done in South Africa at the present day.

I would like to congratulate the Minister in the first place for the difference in his attitude this session compared with last session when he treated this question as a huge joke.

I never did.

I say I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Minister for his changed attitude on this question. The hon. the Minister admits quite frankly that we are faced with a very great problem in South Africa in regard to the unemployment question. May I ask whether the Prime Minister was correctly reported in a speech in England a short time ago when he said South Africa was a happy land and there was no unemployment?

No.

All right, I accept the Prime Minister’s assurance. In connection with this question, we have had in this House hon. members standing up here frequently complaining of the workers “go slow” policy. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) and others have always been full of complaints of the labourers and decreasing output, but all these things which they have complained of is due to the fear of unemployment. Some hon. members said the other day that we were restricting the number of apprentices in different trades and occupation. Again, the reason for that is the fear of unemployment. If you have a tremendous number of apprentices it means that these apprentices are employed and the artisans are unemployed. The agitation for shorter hours, the greater mass of agitation among the workers is this fear of unemployment. We hear a great deal about the great strike in 1922 and the driving force behind that strike, but the reason why it occurred was again the fear of unemployment, the fear of thousands of men being driven from work and driven into the relief works of South Africa. The hon. Minister has complained that the Opposition has not provided a remedy, but no matter what remedy is put forward on this side of the house it would not be accepted by the Government. Suggestions have been repeatedly put forward from these benches but they have never been accepted by the Government. Why? Because the outlook of the Government is entirely different from the policy that has been expounded on this side of the House; the outlook of the Government is that industrial undertakings should be worked on the basis of the lowest possible working costs and the highest possible profits for the few. You are not going to solve this problem on those lines. It is a question of the point of view, and if the Government are going to attempt to solve the problem of unemployment in South Africa and simply retain the advantages of the big financial interests which exploit South Africa for their special benefit, we shall have the unemployment problem with us for ever and a day. That is the reason why the Government will not accept the solutions put forward by this side of the House. We are putting forward a solution to absorb the great mass of the men in this country, providing openings for the future of the country and entirely eliminating the question of whether it is profitable for this or that individual, but whether it will benefit the great mass of the people of South Africa. That is the difference. It is a difference in outlook. If the Minister is prepared to accept a Select Committee on this question I can assure him he will get many constructive ideas upon it from members on this side of the House. The Minister has stated that he waited in vain for a practical solution of this question. I would draw the attention of the House to the Government’s land policy. It is a thing which is necessary in the interests of the people working on the land in South Africa in order to see that the agricultural industry is stimulated and progresses. The thing that is necessary is finance. Yet the Government has instructed the Land Bank which to-day possesses a great deal of power to work in the interests of the farming community—yet the manager of the Land Bank dare not take any action to bring the Bank into conflict with the interests of the private banks of South Africa. We say that the Land Bank should be working in the interests of the agricultural community and everything should be done by the Government to see that every facility is provided for the people who are on the land. The hon. gentleman says that the solution of the problem is placed upon the shoulders of the Government, and rightly so. What is the Government in power for? What are the members of the Government receiving their salaries for? It is not for us, the other people, to provide the necessary brains to carry on the work of the country. Why should the Government which pretends to possess all the talents in this country, why should they not come forward and do it for themselves? The hon. member has been going about this country in the recess telling the people about the dangers of the Labour-Nationalist pact, and says that if you are going to put these people into power, jointly or separately, it will mean ruination for South Africa. He says the only possible Government for South Africa is the South African Party. If that is so, why are they not solving these problems? If the hon. members over there will just vacate those benches and let someone else have a chance of running the country, I feel convinced that you will have a solution of these questions. This country then will not be the happy hunting-ground of the financier. I ask the Minister if the Government has done all these good things that he has mentioned in the interests of the people, why is it that thousands more people are leaving South Africa than are coming into it? [Hon. Members: “It is not so.” “Your census says so.”]

It does not say so.

Well we are told so in the press. [An Hon. Member: “Do you believe everything you read in the press?”] Now we have the little cherub here. No, I do not believe everything that I see in the press. So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to give the Government every credit for everything good that they may do, and I am sorry indeed that the Government are not doing more in the interests of the people of South Africa even if it means waiting a great deal longer for the Labour Party to come into power, because after all we place the interests of the people of South Africa before party. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister states that if every farmer in South Africa were to take one poor white family we would have no unemployment in South Africa. He stated that if every farmer took in a family, there would be no unemployment in the country. [An Hon. Member: “There would be no poor whites in the country.] Naturally, there would be no unemployment because there would be no poor whites. But what will happen if the farmers do take them on to their farms and simply say, “We shall provide you with a home and employ you to work on the farm instead of the native.” What will happen to them? Does the Minister say that the farmer will follow the same policy as that adopted by the Government and pay them the cheapest rate for their labour, 2s. 6d. or 3s. a day, the same as the Government pay for their labour? It may be that even that is more than the farmer pays at present, but that does not excuse the Government continuing with their policy. The Minister has stated that if the white man only does skilled work in South Africa then the white man is doomed. We agree with that. We entirely agree that there must be openings in this country for the thousands of people in South Africa that are at present growing up in the country, for the future generations, who will not be capable of earning a livelihood as skilled artisans and professional men. We cannot all be skilled artisans and members of the different professions. But the position is this, if the white man in South Africa has to do the unskilled work at 3s. a day the white race is doomed and you cannot save it, just as it will be doomed if they leave the semi-skilled and unskilled occupations to the natives. It is just as much doomed in the one case as if you adopt the other course. He stated that they can be employed at an economic wage on unskilled work. I am not a very important member of this House; I only represent the workers, but I ask the hon. member what he means by an economic wage. What does he consider to be an economic wage? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will reply to this question when he replies to the debate.

I have already told you that in my speech.

I remember the Minister for Railways put forward his statement in connection with this question. He considered an economic wage, a wage at which a native would do the work; that is to say, the cheapest possible labour he can get hold of for that particular job, and that is what he considers to be an economic wage. When we asked him if one of those gentlemen was prepared to come and act as Minister of Railways at a salary of £50 per annum instead of £5,000 per annum, he did not answer. The question is that it depends upon the point of view. When he talks of 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. as wages for semiskilled work I would point out that later on we will be faced with competition in the commercial lines, in the professions, the crafts and the sciences in South Africa, and the time will come when those classes will be faced with the same problem in South Africa, and, as they changed their tune in connection with the Asiatic problem, so they will change their tune in connection with this problem. The white worker was told to compete with the Asiatic at 2s. 6d. or 1s, 6d. per day. When that was done we heard nothing of the Asiatic menace, but when the Asiatic developed and entered the commercial sphere we heard a great deal about the Asiatic menace. The time is coming when a low form of civilization is going to take root in the commercial life of this country, and I ask if you will be able to erect barriers against it. You will not join with the worker to get a square deal with the uncivilized worker; you will not stand by the worker, and by-and-by you will be faced with the same problem in South Africa in con-connection with the native and the coloured man that you are faced with by the asiatic in the commercial and professional life, and when that time comes it will probably be too late. The hon. the Minister stated that they decided to employ unskilled labour on railway construction. Is he aware, in spite of his statement, that the average wage is 8s. per day, that most of those men state that they work all God’s hours. It is not because they love the work and want to work all those hours, it is because they are compelled to work those hours in order to try and eke out an existence. It is a fact that these people are only able to make £5 or £6 a month, which is not sufficient to pay the landlord. We say that so far as railway construction is concerned as it affects the white and semi-skilled labour, that you are breaking the hearts and souls of the people of South Africa and you are degrading your own fellow-countrymen. Any man who gets into touch with these people will find that that is a fact. Take the question of the Hartebeestpoort scheme. A few years ago when I visited Macleantown I met an hotelkeeper named Nixon. I am giving the facts correctly. When I saw him there as proprietor of that hotel, he was as fine a specimen of South African manhood as anyone could wish to see. Then I saw him later on—this is no joking matter—on the Witwatersrand. He told me that he was employed on the mines. The last time I saw that man, I was in Johannesburg a few months ago, I saw two down-and-outers shuffling across the street in rags; one had his shirt pinned with a nail and the other with a safety-pin, and one of them spoke to me. It was this man Nixon, who was unable to get work after the strike. He had gone to Hartebeestpoort and he had come back from the works a physical wreck. He said he was earning 3s. a day, and although he only had to work six days a week he had to live seven days. He was charged 1s. per meal. He had three meals a day, and that took away the 3s. he earned during the six days and he had to starve on Sunday. This man told me that the only thing he was waiting for was to get into the Chronic Sick Home in Johannesburg to die. We are not bringing this forward from a party point of view or to hit the Government. We want to solve the problem in the interests of South Africa. We say that relief works instead of being relief works should be headed “Schemes of National Development.” The Minister says he is doing a good thing for the country in the matter of afforestation, which cannot be left to private enterprise because it does not pay private enterprise, and the Government should take up the scheme. They should take up schemes, all schemes of national development, and employ the people of this country at a living, civilized wage on which these men can maintain themselves, their wives and their families, and do their duty to their children, so that their children shall not become members of the submerged tenth of South Africa—[An Hon. Member: “How much?”] If I were to judge the capacity of many workers to-day on the Hartebeestpoort, or who are working unskilled on the railways by the mental calibre of gentlemen opposite—[An Hon. Member: “Tell us how much?”] If hon. members will have some patience with me I shall be prepared to tell them how much. I never shirk the issue. Mr. Speaker, a commission sat in South Africa some years ago, and that Commission decided then, when the cost of living was down at the 1914 level, that the lowest wage on which a man could maintain himself, his wife and family, as a civilized human being in South Africa, was £25 a month. I am prepared to take it at that. I have had the bitter experience in this House that these questions are looked at from the point of view of party and not from the point of view of principle or the interests of the people. If hon. members are only prepared to take up that £25 minimum, they will get our hearty support. If they will not I will ask them to tell us on what they consider, as a minimum, a wage should be based so that a man can live in decencey and maintain his wife and family. The hon. gentlemen are out to get the greatest possible profits out of industry, and do not care anything whatever about the interests of the people. The policy of South Africa and of the industries of South Africa is to build up industries on the cheapest possible labour and never mind the best interests of the community. The Minister stated that the Government were paying the Children’s Aid Societies and other organizations in this country—thousands of pounds to these institutions. He quoted that they paid sums to the Church, the Children’s Aid Societies, and other organizations. That is a point on which we again come to grips with the Government. We say that, so far as the Government’s policy is concerned, they are doing nothing in the nature of prevention of these evils. They are doing nothing at all to cope with these evils in the matter of prevention, but are giving a sop to be a salve to the wounds. That is where we come to grips with the Government. I stated here a few sessions ago that we considered that one, if not the main, root of this question is the question of finance. The Government have themselves, by their policy and the measures they have introduced, upheld the ownership and the control of the credit and exchange of the people of South Africa by private enterprise. One of the first things the Government ought to do in connection with the unemployment question in the interests of the people is to get a grip on the credit of the country. While municipalities are prepared to do everything they possibly can, everything in the way of development—new roads and various other things, we find that the municipalities are handicapped for want of finance. If the Government will institute a State Bank and see the credit is used for the people, give us currency and sufficient purchasing power, they will be going a long way towards a practical solution of the difficulty. So far as the people of South Africa are concerned and compared with the people of Australia, the people in Australia are much better off than the people in this country, mostly because they have a State Bank used in the interests of the people. When the Government are taking steps in the interest of the people, this is one they should take at the earliest opportunity, that is to see that a State Bank is instituted. The whole outlook and the policy of the hon. members on the Government benches and their whole point of view is entirely divergent from the point of view of the members on this side; they put forward nothing that would injure vested interests, and they are out for the people’s flesh and blood.

Ek wil nie op hierdie stadium op die debat ingaan nie; ek geloof nie dat dit nodig is na die brede basis waarop die edele lid van Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) die mosie gestel het. Ek is bereid sy mosie aan te neem maar wou net die wenk gee dat aan dieselfde toegevoeg word die woorde “en die volk.” Laat ons nie slegs die aandag van die Regering, maar ook van die volk vestig op hierdie belangryke saak. As die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) hierin wil toestem dat die woorde daaraan toegevoeg word, is ek bereid om dit aan te neem namens hierdie kant van die Huis. Die Regering het baie ernstige en belangrijke werk wat nie kan wag nie en daarom doen ek hierdie voorstel.

I did not quite catch the remarks of the Prime Minister. Do I understand he desires closing the debate, and agreeing to accept the motion?

That was the promise. I was saying to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) that in view of the spirit in which he introduced his motion, the Government is prepared to accept the motion without having a debate beyond to-day. But I was making a suggestion that after the word “Government” should be inserted “and people” so that the question is remitted not only to the careful and serious attention of the Government of this country, but also to the people who have a very serious obligation in the matter. If the motion is amended in that form I should be prepared to accept it on behalf on the Government.

I presume that having addressed you, Mr. Speaker, I must continue with my remarks. The position which the Prime Minister took up is not at all the position we take up. I earnestly hope that the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) will not accept the addition. I can only confirm the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Waterston) that the matter is one for the attention of the Government—the Government is responsible, and the Government’s policy is responsible The Prime Minister has indicated that he does not propose to give further time to this discussion. Well, I would move the adjournment of the debate if I had the assurance from the Prime Minister that he would allow the debate to go on to-morrow, because the debate is on a subject calling for serious attention and concerns more thousands of people than any other subject this House could discuss.

What about natives?

This unemployment question concerns native people as well as whites. If I move the adjournment of the debate, will the Prime Minister say we can have it tomorrow?

No.

What does he propose?

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I must say it is very difficult to give Government time for the continuation of the motion. You will see that the debate almost petered out on several occasions, and it is petering out almost now. We have very serious work before us, and I do not want to delay that work which is essential and necessary. If the motion was put on the agenda there is very little chance of reaching it on a Government day. It would have to take its chance, and the hon. member knows there will be little chance of it coming on at all.

I hope hon. members will avail themselves of this opportunity whether we stay on here until midnight or to-morrow, while this question is being debated. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) in opening the debate spoke on the subject in a manner which impressed the members of this House with the intense seriousness and the national importance of this matter, and the Prime Minister calmly informs us that he cannot possibly afford the time for further discussion. He wanted to discuss matters giving preference to wine farmers and giving preference to those associations. We on this bench would probably prefer that the motion as put forward should have been phrased with some expression of disapproval of the Government’s bad policy with regard to this question. We are in this position in the House—in any motion which voices disapproval of the Government it is made a party question, and is outvoted. Here has been tabled a motion which is more or less censuring the Government, and the Prime Minister thinks the matter is of such little interest that one little afternoon is sufficient to discuss it. I must do my best to carry out the spirit of this discussion and discuss things on their merits. There are many aspects of this problem one would like to deal with. There is the aspect of the actual distress which exists and to which the Minister of Lands replied, but ignoring the remarks of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), confining himself to telling the House about the ointment which he is putting on the sore, without concerning himself with the causes of the disease. I want clearly and categorically to learn from the Prime Minister one thing. When he landed in Great Britain he had an interview with the Press Association, and that interview was printed in the newspapers of Great Britain—in Scotland, in Devonshire, Yorkshire and Plymouth, and he said, “There is no unemployment in South Africa.” The papers put up a headline, “A happy country.” That went through the length and breadth of Great Britain, and many of us in this country receive letters from people anxious to come here. The question I would like to put to the Prime Minister is: Did he make that statement? Do I understand he denies making that statement?

I am very glad that when the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) asked me that question and I denied it, he accepted it. Lest the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) did not accept my denial, I shall repeat it for his benefit.

The next question I ask is: Is this the first occasion that this statement has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister? Has he taken any steps to contradict it and to counteract the effect of that statement published throughout Great Britain? His words carry very far, and I am glad to see that the Prime Minister denies this report of his words. I read in the press a statement from the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon), who stated that the Prime Minister did not say that, but said there was no unemployment but that employment was provided by his colleagues for anyone who was out of work.

What I said was this: that the Prime Minister had said there was no need for unemployment in South Africa.

A distinction without a difference. Then there is the question of relief works, about which the hon. Minister spoke. I say that in the Government’s attitude towards the men employed they fail to take into account the facts. What relief is it to middleaged men unaccustomed to manual labour and to clerks who never did manual labour before and to be put on to dig and receive 3s. or 4s. a day at Hartebeestpoort?

What is your solution?

I will tell the hon. the Minister before I have done. I ask the Minister what measures has the Government taken to have public work done in urban areas? Has it been taken in hand? You know full well that the placing of men on relief works is exiling them from any chance of permanent employment as far as the man who is a skilled worker is concerned. In this House, in Committee of Supply, I asked the Minister to give a pledge that the post office and telegraph office at Red Hill should be carried out this year. He tried to put me off by saying, “Wait until the loan estimates come on.” I told him that he represented the Minister of Public Works, and asked him to give a promise. He gave that promise that the work would be proceeded with. This matter has been down on the estimates for several years now, and although the Minister gave me that promise in the House, that promise was only another scrap of paper. I say if there is one single piece of public work in urban areas for which the estimates have been passed by this House and not undertaken, the Minister has been negligent in his duties. In the Mines Department there is supiness and lack of alacrity. They should, if possible, try to get on with any work that is to be done. The Government seem to me to adopt to this whole question an attitude of intellectual carelessness. Unemployment and poverty are evils in themselves—grave evils, but they are nothing to the grave evil they betoken—the real peril which confronts our very national existence and the destinies of the people of South Africa. Everything is not right with us, and we are on the road that leads to a decay of European civilization. Unemployment exists in all European countries. It is customary to find a regular cycle of periodic unemployment, it being recognized that these cycles are inherent in our competitive industrial system. But the national aspect in those countries is different from here. There is a difference in such countries as Great Britain, Australia and the United States, where they deal with a homogeneous people, all belonging to the same race and civilization. Here the conditions are widely different. Here we have two races, one of the most advanced civilization in the world, while the other is merely emerging from barbarism. The two races are equally rooted in the country to-day, and lead to a condition of affairs, so far as unemployment is concerned, which is very undesirable. Excessive unemployment among the members of the higher civilization is something we can look upon in the same way as we regard unemployment in other places, but the conditions of increasing unemployment are such as to push the European below the civilization line. Under the arrangements which obtain in this country these unfortunate victims of our system are crushed down below that civilization line and lose morale, they lose hope, and they even lose the sympathy of a very large portion of the people of this country. You hear them alluded to, as in the words of that pamphlet by Mr. O’K. Webber, as “mean white trash”. We say on these benches that our quarrel with the Government party goes far deeper than the inadequacy of their relief measures. Our quarrel is that they do not recognize that of all the issues before this country this is the most essentially national issue for the people of South Africa. And we say that the inadequacy of their measures for relieving distress and their lack of national policy springs from the same lack—it seems strange to accuse the Prime Minister of lack of political courage—but I do accuse the Government of lack of political courage in this matter. The Government are content to pursue a policy of thrift, saying as the Minister of Lands has said “these things are beyond our control, these are phenomena in the ordinary course of nature like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.” I would just point out what seems to me typical of the Government attitude. I will quote from the Prime Minister’s speech in this House on 23rd June last, when he was speaking on the Imperial Conference. He said:—

There were 43,252 immigrants into South Africa in 1922 who were examined by no immigration officer, who had to produce no evidence of means. These were the European infants who were born in that year. What right have we to assume that there will not be the same proportion among these as in other countries of individuals who when they come to man’s estate will have to rely on their nerve, bone and muscle and rough work? And are we going to calmly acquiesce where we know perfectly that there can be under our system no hope and that the large proportion of those infants will only go to swell the ranks of our poor whites and unemployed when they grow up. We deny the very foundation of the Prime Minister’s position. There may be great problems owing to the co-existence of two different classes of men as ourselves and the Bantu, but they are not all due to the order of nature but to the foolishness of man as exemplified in this legislature. Is it inevitable that the uncivilized cheaper labour must oust the European? Is it inevitable that the European must go and the whole industrial system of this country shall be run according to an arrangement, the effect of which is inevitably to drive out the higher civilization. Just as good money will drive out bad so also will good civilization under the conditions we sanction, drive out bad civilization. We say to the Government your policy, your administration, your laws, to an immense degree have contributed the present state of affairs, and you are helping the current which is forcing so many to-day on the barren shores of unemployment in this country. You talk of these things being natural. Is it natural that you should make a special exemption in the immigration laws whereby the big industries of this country can get the cheapest labour it is possible to recruit? We have urged times without number that you should put a stop to this evil practice, but only last session the Government refused to accede. These things are not natural. They are enactments of our own which set in motion economic forces which have brought about the state of affairs which confront us to-day. At bottom the principle vice of the Government is this—and it is a principle which we upon these benches have fought incessantly in season and out of season, and, thank God, the country is awakening to the fact that there is something in what we have said. We say the vicious doctrine which the Government has set up must be once and for all done away with. That doctrine is that it is the duty of Government and Parliament to assist industrial employers to fill their demands for labour to get the cheapest and most uncivilized labour that they can. Some accuse us of our policy being against the native. Let me say this to them that the policy of helping employers to satisfy their demands by getting for them cheaper and uncivilized labour that can be obtained without the aid of special Government and legislative measures is as damaging to the native races and coloured races as it is to the European. When in pursuit of this policy, when at a vigorous turn of the screw some thousands of men were being swept into the street, and when at last thousands of men did their utmost to stem the tide, then they were put down by the whole force of the Government, and the Prime Minister scorned the statement of these men that they were fighting for the white man’s livelihood in this country. The Government and the Prime Minister have failed to grapple with the problem in Natal. The denial of political rights is not going to solve the question there. It does not touch the process of elimination of the European from employment which is in progress. I have seen no proposal from the Government to rectify this state of affairs. We for the last 11 years, for the last 14 years have been trying to arouse the conscience of South Africa on these matters. If things continue as they are to-day you are in danger of realizing the dream of Mr. O’K. Webber and leave in the South Africa of the future a million natives supervised by 50,000 skilled supervisors and a population of 500,000 poor whites. How does O’K Webber describe those 500,000?—“Mean white trash.” The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has certainly offered some practical suggestions and I wish to offer some as well. I myself hope that once the automatic effects of the reversal of the present policy begin to take effect, I hope that automatically a great number of our difficulties will be removed, but I do not say that any one particular line of policy is going to prove a panacea for this great problem of South Africa. I am certain that I stand on safe ground when I say that unless you adopt the principle that I am going to reiterate, all our efforts will be unavailing. For 14 years we have urged that the extension of European employment is essential to the interest of South Africa. When we last urged this we had a supine House to deal with, and it was referred to a select committee where it was buried. You cannot stand still. You will either go forward towards widening the sphere of civilized employment in this country, or else you will continue along a road which will mean a restriction and contraction of that sphere. We take it that it should be our definite aim to expand the European possibilities in this country. We do not deny the members of other races the opportunity of rising to the ranks of civilized life, but we are definitely clear on this point that it is our duty to extend civilized life and employment for our own people in this country. But there are two roads along either of which we have the choice of travelling. By no means can they be made parallel and leading to the same goal. You cannot go along the road to more civilized employment and also along the road to a cheap uncivilized labour system. If you go on helping those in whom the State vests the natural resources of this country, if you go on helping these people to get the cheapest and most uncivilized labour that can be found, then that pathway will lead to inevitable disaster. You cannot hope to extend the scope of civilized livelihood. We realize that that doctrine has got to be finally and definitely abandoned. We want steps taking for the abolition of this indentured labour system. In application of these principles there seems there are two essentials. The first is a firmness and steadfastness and a clear understanding by all parties that this is a policy upon which there will be no going back. Grasp the nettle firmly, and it will not sting, but grasp it lightly, like the Government are doing, and you will find trouble and nothing will be done. It is only by adopting such a policy that you will do good to the interests of South Africa. I hope this Government will soon come to an end, and we will treat any Government who acts likewise in the same way. If in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and every other country where Europeans live and work, they do so without the assistance of cheap labour, surely then in South Africa we are able to do the same thing. To all these technical arguments reply in common sense terms and say, “No.” I would ask the members of this House not to accept the Government’s attitude in regard to unemployment. On one side there is a path along which there is a damnation of all our hopes for the future. But on the other side there is another path which would enable us to pursue a policy in accordance with our duty and our wishes, and which will enable us to uphold European civilization in this country. If this is our ideal, then remember that the sands are running out. We have been tinkering with this question during my lifetime in South Africa and it is about time that the people of South Africa insisted upon a change. If the Government do not realize their duty, if they do not intend to take a course which is a reversal of their present tendencies, if they persist in their present policy of drift, then we are all free agents, and they must reconcile their attitude with their consciences. All we ask them to do is not to offend our intelligence by paying lip service to an inspiration which their acts show they do not share, and which by the policy they pursue, by the interests they foster, and by the habits they encourage, they are, day by day, month by month, and year by year, doing their best to make more and more difficult of realization.

Before moving the adjournment of the debate I wish to express my deep regret that the speech of the last hon. speaker, occupying the position that he does, should be so extraordinarily barren in purposefulness, so absolute futile in so far as suggestion was concerned. I have been listening to the most flowing oratory and I have been looking at the man delivering it, but he has been saying nothing. His first point was that his party for ten years had moved that the extension of European employment is essential. But that is what we all agree upon. The hon. member has lashed himself on this into a ferocity which is entirely misplaced. The second part is a statement that the Government has failed in its duty and the third is that you must be “firm and steady.” The fourth point was that you must “face the problem”—there is originality for you—and his fifth was that you “must not be put off,” and his sixth was—but this is all nonsense.

I think it is wrong to stigmatize what the hon. member has said was nonsense.

I beg the hon. member’s pardon.

It is immaterial what the hon. member says.

As regards the whites and natives, there is room for both in South Africa, and being the representative of a native constituency I intend to move the adjournment of the debate in order that I may have an opportunity of stating the question from the native point of view. I move—

seconded.

Ek hoop dat die Eerste Minister sal antwoord. Hier is ’n debat op ’n seer belangrike saak waaroor ons graag hulle sienswyse wil ken. Indien ons nou die debat verdaag, dan moet daarom die versekering gegee word dat aan die private lede die geleentheid nie ontneem sal word om hulle sienswyse uit te spreek nie. Ek hoop daarom dat die Eerste Minister sy invloed sal gebruik om die lede die kans te gee tot bespreking van die saak.

Ek wil natuurlik alles in my vermoë doen om aan die versoek tegemoet te kom, veral met die oog op die wyse waarop die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) die saak ingelei het, maar die Regering het belangrike werk wat dringende behandeling vereis.

Maar tog nie vanaand nie.

Ek besef dat dit onreg sou wees teenoor die edele lede van die anderkant om hulle die kans te ontneem. Ek sou aan die hand gee dat die geagte lid sy voorstel plaas op die ordepapier vir Donderdag. Dit sal natuurlik dan nie aan die order kom nie, maar ik sal dan sien wanneer dit wel opgesit kan word.

Ek neem dit aan.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 7th February.