Under Standing Order No. 40 (Private Bills) every petition in opposition to a Private Bill must be presented not later than three clear days after the first reading of the Bill. The South African Society of Accountants (Private) Bill was read a first time on the 12th instant, and the time for presenting petitions in opposition therefore elapsed last Friday, the 15th instant. I now find that two petitions in opposition to the Bill, one from A. S. Hooper and the other from Messrs. Fairbridge, Arderne & Lawton are among those presented this afternoon. Both these petitions were, however, deposited with the Clerk of the House last Friday, when it was discovered that the first petition was irregular, inasmuch as the petitioner signed, not only on behalf of himself, but on behalf of others who had not signed the petition, while the second petition was not signed by the petitioners themselves, who are resident in England, but only by the Parliamentary Agents. The irregularity in the first petition has now been cured by the omission of the words “and on behalf of his said partners,” and, basing my opinion on a precedent established in the late Cape House (V. & P. 1906 pp. 179-180), I think that the irregularity in the second petition can be cured by the Parliamentary Agents depositing with the Clerk of the House the telegraphic authority from their principals, on whose behalf they signed the petition. I am informed that this telegraphic authority has now been deposited with the Clerk, and in the circumstances would recommend that indulgence be granted in both instances.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

When this debate was last adjourned, we had had the honour of listening to a series of speeches of a critical nature, four of them I think. One by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), one by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), one from the military member on the Labour benches, the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), and one from the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). In those four speeches there was an absolute minimum of anything constructive. One idea, and one idea only, was put forward, and that was this that the Government was to blame for anybody that was not in employment. All the speeches which succeeded the Minister for Lands did not attempt to deal with, in any way, what he had said. He had given categorical instances where on a very considerable scale the Government had provided work for men who were willing to work. He gave these instances and showed what it had meant in the way of the rejuvenation, in the rehabilitation of men who were prepared to work on piece-work, and do a full day’s work and an honest day’s work in order to retain their self respect. He had shown that, and he was met with nothing but jeers from the opposition. It is that extraordinary dearth of constructive policy on the part of the opposition that has been so fascinating a study all this session. All this session we have had nothing constructive at all, in fact, they have been taking it lying down all the time. It is because of that, that I for one have tried as a purely intellectual proposition with possibly inadequate data, though I do not think the operation necessary required intellectuality, to see exactly why this motion was brought forward in this way, because it was not brought forward to propose any remedy, or the remedy would have been proposed. It was not really brought forward to attack the Government, or the speeches subsequent to the speech of the Minister of Lands would have attacked his specific remedy which were in being. Therefore it must have been brought forward for some other reason, and I cannot help feeling that the display of bad temper shown by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), which members in this House will remember, a horrible display of temper when he found the debate was petering out before he had had an opportunity of speaking; when the Prime Minister accepted the motion as such—the platitudinous, obvious and very sound motion which has been moved in this House—it was then, when the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) lost his temper at being unable to let himself go on his favourite subject, that I then realized exactly the basis upon which the opposition to the Government is being run by the combined parties this session.

Wat het dit met die debat te doen?

The position would seem to be this. The one party has pledged itself not to deal with the question of secession, the other party has pledged itself to leave any question of comparative socialism severely alone, and that means that at a certain stage the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) could not assume the frock coat of the constitutional lawyer, dearly as he would have loved, and that the “red flag” could not be waved from those benches. The unemployment question, as raised by the hon. members, without any attempt to give a specific suggestion as to how they are to deal with it, was simply deliberately aborted, and the hon. member knows that perfectly well, and I think will acknowledge it. What has happened is something like this: the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has refused in terms of the pact to introduce his usual dogmatic moton about constitutional relations and left it to the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) to introduce it. That is why the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) was on the Prime Minister’s track on the question of the higher status and all the rest of it in the earlier part of the session, because the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) would not introduce it. That is why conversely we found the leader of the Nationalist Party the other day introducing the unemployment motion without any facts, without anything whatsoever except pure hypotheses, and with an absolute non-appreciation of what the Government had been doing. You will find that absence of facts wherever you go. You will find the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) attacking the Government by questionaire to find out what the position is regarding unemployment among the natives. He is keen on learning a fact that he ought to have known from the very beginning as a member of Parliament, and that is, that the Government has protected the native of South Africa from unemployment by watching very carefully and pertinaciously, despite the efforts of the Chamber of Mines, our alleged friends, who tried in June to get rid of that quota—the Government has watched this quota and it has prevented more Portuguese natives being brought in. The Government has steadily compelled the employment of the Union native in what practically might legitimately be regarded as the perquisite of the Union native. The Government has got into hot water with the Portuguese authorities who do not like that, and who have very likely made representations elsewhere; but for the fact that the Portuguese are bound by their contract, have certain limits, and cannot contract for more, we might even have been charged with an unfriendly act. So far has the Government gone to prevent unemployment among the natives. But the hon. member does not understand that. He is asking questions for a party interested in Johannesburg on behalf of the Portuguese native. Then the Government by continually, in season and out of season, has been employing white men, after having made adequate and reasonable provision for the employment of the natives. It felt it could legitimately keep the native off the railway development, and they have put Europeans on that. If you look at page 123 of the “Debates” you will find that a question is asked whether the railway development at Hercules, wherever that is, is being carried on with the sinews of the white or the black man. This is typical, it is as usual white labour, the member should know it, but he hopes for the worst and asks the question on inaccurate facts. These men are only good for platitudes from their leader, and erroneous questions founded on non-existent facts from the rank and file. One of the important contributions to this debate was by the military leader of the party, who said that the great trouble with the working class of South Africa was, that they were haunted in and out of season by the fear of unemployment. I do not want to deal with the rising generation, that is another question, but I want to say this with regard to unemployment to-day, the Minister of Lands has found work, is finding work, and is ready to find work.

At what price?

Hon. members on the other side of the House rarely pay £25. I believe there are members who will bear me out on this. Do hon. members on the other side usually pay more than £25 when they get labour? Let me say this: they sweat them for all they are worth. There is no greater sweater of labour than the labouring man who has risen. The Minister of Lands has found work, and is ready to find work, and the Government has shown that it recognizes the divine right to work. What is not recognized is the infamous right to play at work which would put an intolerable burden on the real worker who would be slaughtered. The Government has from time to time made determined efforts to create increased opportunities to assist the youth of South Africa by developing industries, but from the other side they have met with nothing but obstruction. When we had a definite opportunity—unfortunately I was away—

As usual.

On the only occasion I was away at Uitenhage—and it was within my 15 days—and I was not on full pay! On that occasion a Bill was introduced, with the idea of establishing a permanent industrial board, which would be able to find work for our sons and daughters, yet the leader of the Labour Party, not appreciating his duty to the unemployed, was raising irrelevant questions to cut the heart and body and soul out of the Bill. That was the way the opposition is encouraging industries. Again, while the Government were advancing the steel industry in Pretoria and elsewhere, an interesting gentleman, who edits a labour paper, was putting in paragraphs, pointing out what the Government was losing on the steel industry. I do not believe any member of this House is going to cavil in the case of fair and reasonable protection when the industry is going to give the young people of South Africa an opportunity of getting employment. The hon. members opposite ask at what price. The Government of the country cannot subsidize more than a living wage. The Government was out to assist industry, agriculture, etc., and we will do all that is possible. The South African Party are doing infinitely more than talking—action and work. Hon. members always fail in this matter, as they cannot differentiate between talk and action. As the Labour leader said, they fear unemployment. They want to be employed on the Government benches on this side, that is the political unemployment that they dread. But many of the hon. members opposite are unemployable. As I have come to that point, let me say that in the case of those who are unwilling to work, we would do well definitely to deal with them as they are dealt with in Holland and Belgium, and in Germany before the war—by the creation of labour colonies. [Interruption.] It is typical of the gentlemen opposite that when you make an allusions to the Labour Party they laugh and sneer. I emphasize that in this debate on unemployment the difference between the parties is, that on their side they are out for votes—what they want is to catch a few votes, while what we want is to find employment for those employable and to extend the South African nation. We are not mere sectional visionaries, though I know that the hon. members opposite are anxious to take the place of the Government. I believe that the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) is honest and believes what he says. He would not get a portfolio, so is probably one of the few of the people honest in their convictions. No! I am not talking about previous convictions—I mean his present honest convictions. In conclusion, let me remind the House of the one real point made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). who, I am sorry, is not in his place in the House, and who introduced the dear old parish pump into the debate. He is very much exercised in his mind as to why the work in connection with the Government building at Red Hill had not been proceeded with, pointing out that the Government were to blame for some of the unemployment. If the Government had rushed in and performed the work with the unskilled labour available, they would be breaking all the established trade union rules. Then there would be an opportunity for the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) and his colleagues for again criticizing the Government. In the circumstances, I think the House will appreciate the real meaning and effect of the resolution which was accepted by the Prime Minister in all good faith, with the addition of the words “and people,” and they will also realize the manner in which the proposal has been met by both of the parties opposite.

Dit is nie my voorneme nie om die edele lid vir Tembuland (de hr. Stuart) op die voet te volg in sy poging om een van die mees ernstige kwessies in ons land op ’n spottende manier te behandel nie. Hyself sal besef dat sy manier van optree hierdie Huis nie tot eer strek nie, en dat ’n onderwerp so as werkloosheid, wat die volkslewe raak en nie beperk is net tot die Hollandssprekendes nie, maar ook tot die Engelse sprekendes hom uitstrek nie op so ’n ligvaardige manier behoort behandel te word nie. Dit word o.a. bewys deur ’n kennisgewing wat die Regering uitgevaardig het. Die Regering het gesê: “moet nie na Engeland gaan nie, om werk te soek.” Dit is bekend dat in Engeland meer as ’n miljoen werklose is, en dis te begryp hoe groot die vat is wat werkloosheid op hierdie lewe van die Engelse moet hê dat hul nou gaan werk soek in Engeland. Indien daar nog ’n ernstiger verklaring nodig was, is dit een van die Minister van Lande. Hy sê dat die Regering reeds vir 80,000 siele sorg en ons weet dat daar nog baie ander werklose is wat geen behoorlike bestaan het nie. Ek vra of dit nie die ernstige aandag van de Huis verdien nie. Voordat ek ’n paar aanmerkings maak op die meriete van die mosie, sal die Huis my toelaat ’n paar verklarings van die Minister van Lande te behandel, omdat hy spreek as verantwoordelike lid van die Regering en dus namens die Regering. Hy verklaar—

Is dit nou waar? Indien ja, dan sal elkeen moet simpatiseer met die Regering en met die Minister. Die Minister beweer dat daar geen konkrete voorstelle gedaan is nie, dog hy moet weet van die Konferensies, wat oor die vraagstuk op Cradock, ’n jaar gelede, en nou weer op Bloemfontein gehou is en waaraan baie vooraanstaande kerkmanne en andere persone deel geneem het. Meen hy, dat hulle ook nie met konkrete voorstelle voor die dag gekom het nie? Ek noem hom een—

Ek stem toe dat dit ’n saak is wat nie met ’n pennestreek opgelos kan word nie. Maar ek sou graag van een van die Ministers wou hoor wat die politiek van die Regering in hierdie verband is? Daar is gevra dat so ’n Raad aangestel sal word om die saak in sy grond te ondersoek en die Regering met advies te dien. Ek kom tot ’n ander verklaring van die Minister van Lande. Ek appresieer die lof wat hy uitgespreek het aan die adres van die Kerk. Hy het egter twee aanmerkings gemaak in verband met Kakamas wat ek hier graag wil voorlees—

Is dit nie ’n feit nie dat die 70 famielies plakkers was, mense wat nog nooit grond gehad het op Kakamas, en dat hulle van die platteland af daarheen gevlug het, in die hoop om daar grond te kry, dog enkel om te bevind dat daar geen grond beskikbaar was nie, omdat alles opgeneem was. Die Kerk kon hulle dus geen grond gee nie. Is dit nou billik om te sê, dat die Kerk van Kakamas geen sukses gemaak het nie, waar hy tog moes geweet het dat die genoemde mense diesulke was wat geen grond had nie, en terwyl dit ’n feit is dat Kakamas werklik ’n sukses is. Die meeste wat daar grond het, het daar ’n sukses van gemaak en welk reg het die edelagbare Minister dan om te verklaar dat die Kerk gefaal het in daardie onderneming? Die Kerk het daar ’n moeilike taak gehad en gelyk reeds gesê, in die meeste gevalle het die erfhouders geslaag. Niemand wat daar kom, of hy sal die Kerk dankbaar wees vir wat daar gedaan is. ’n Ander verklaring van die Minister is—

Ek is daar seker van dat daar niemand in die Huis was, wat nie diep teleurgestel was met die oppervlakkige verklaring van die Minister in antwoord op die betoog van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). Die aanmerking het hy gemaak nadat dit lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) vir ongeveer ’n uur besig was om ’n uitleg te gee van wat hy bedoel met beskaafde arbeid, n.l., arbeid waarby ’n man ’n fatsoenlike lewe kan maak. Waar wil mens ’n beter beskrywing daarvan hê? Dog die Minister maak homself en die Regering daarvan af met ’n oppervlakkige verklaring van die aard. Die Minister het verder gesê—

Vergelyk hierby die rapport van die Departement van Boswese. Die Hoofamptenaar verklaar op bladsy 338—

Die groot beswaar teen die bosplantasies is die moeilikheid dat die mense geen geleentheid het hulle finansiële toestande te verbeter nie. Die Minister het laat uitkom dat die vroue en kinders dikwels gaan help in die werk en indien hy beself, dat hul gedronge is om dit te doen deur die drang van omstandighede sou hy nie so ligvaardig oor die zaak praat nie.

Die vroue hou daarvan om hulle mans te help en dit doet hulle geen kwaad nie.

Die lid daar oorkant het seker nog nooit in sy lewe met ’n pik gewerk nie en weet dus nie wat dit beteken wanneer ’n vrou met ’n kielhouer moet gaan werk nie. Indien lede aan die oorsy dink dat dit is wat ons van ons vroue moet verlang, dan laat ek hulle daarbij. Spreker verwys na ’n ander verklaring van die Minister waar hy herhaal die verklaring van die Eerste Minister, te Pietermaritzburg gedaan, dat een uit elke tien boere deur die Regering daar geplaas is. Die edelagbare die Minister kry sy informasie uit de rapport van die Departement, waarin staat dat 89,000 mense op die wyse begunstig is deur die Regering. Waarom nie die waarheid gesê me, dat nl., baie onder daardie begunstigdes mense is wat stukke uitval grand gekoop het.

Ek hou vol, dat daar 10,000 mense deur die Regering op die land geplaas is.

Maar wat ek sê blyk duldelik uit die rapport.

Daar is nie tien in die Unie nie.

Maar hoe kan die edelagbare die Minister dit nou sê? In my eie kiesafdeling is daar alleen meer as tien. Maar waarom nie gesê, dat daar ook baie onder die begunstigdes is wat in dorpe woon. Waarom nie gesê, dat die getal ook die mense bevat wat hulle plase verlaat het, terwyl ook diegene wat opnu in hulle plek gekom het in die getal is opgeneem? Ek kan die Minister die syfers van die Rapport gee, waaruit blyk dat in die 89,000 die almaal ingesluit is. Die Minister behoort die feite te gee soos die Departement self die ook opgee. Daar is nog ’n hele groep andere klasse waar ek die Huis nie mee wil lastig val nie. Die Minister is so self-tevrede, so wonderlik self-tevrede. Hy het al die stelsels van die wereld ondersoek en kom vir ons nou vertel dat sy eie stelsel beter is as enige ander. Maar as hy ’n bietje dieper sal ingaan op die rapport van sy eie departement, dan sal hy sien dat die toestand alles behalwe bevredigend is. Ek wil die Minister nog ’n besondere geval noem, ’n geval waar hul noual sewe jaar besig is, ek bedoel Lamotte. Wil die Minister ons net laat weet hoeveel van die mense daar geëmployeer reeds al gehelp is aan grond? Ek sal die Minister die antwoord gee: nie een nie. Die posiesie is, dat daar omtrent veertig van hulle so in hulle gesondheid gekrenk is, dat hulle nie meer kan werk nie. Die departement het nie die minste ko-ordinasie met ander departemente. Ja, die Minister gaap nou en dis dan ook geen wonder nie dat dinge so verkeerd is. Die Minister moet ’n bietjie dieper op die kwessies ingaan en ander lede ook, dan sal hy vind dat die toestand baie ernstig is. En wat is nou die grondoorsaak van die slegte toestand? Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) en die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) het dit duidelik aangetoon en dis nou die plig van diegene wat die uitvoerende mag in hande het om verbetering aan te bring. Die grondslag van die probleem is die behoud van die mense se gevoel van self-respek en eie waarde. Mnr. Speaker, dis die behoefte veral ook op die neersettings. Hulle vra om geleentheid om weer selfrespekterende burgers van die Maatskappy te word en ’n behoorlike lewe te maak. Die mense is nie onwillig om te werk nie. Die mense wil seifs—die Minister het dit self gesê—snags werk. Hulle vra maar ’n geleentheid om hulle te bekwaam en ’n behoorlike lewe te kan lei.

How is that to be done?

Die direkte antwoord daarop vind die edele lid in een van die besluite van die konferensie te Bloemfontein gehou, wat aan die hand gee die benoeming van ’n raad wat hom sal besig hou met die ondersoek van die kondiesies in samenwerking met die Regering. Kan mens iets meer konkreets verlang? Aan die boere moet meer hulp gegee word. Wat het Mnr. Clegg, direkteur van die Reserwebank, gesê. Dit, nl., dat ’n groot oorsaak van die moeilikhede lê in die finansiële stelsel wat ons in Suikafrika het, dat die boere nie genoeg hulp kry van ons kommersiele banke nie. Dis ’n feit dat as die boere die hulp van die banke die meeste nodig het, dan kan hulle dit nie kry nie. Solank die man goed is, kan hy hulp kry. Agteruitgang en bankrotskappe is aan gebrek aan regte hulp toe te skrywe. By die behandeling van die probleem moet besef word dat een van die grootste dinge wat nodig is, is ’n behoorlike uitrusting vir die stryd van die lewe. Hoe kan mense wat nie behoorlik toegerus is, hulle beetaan in die stryd van die lewe, wat al moeiliker word maak? Landbouonderwys is nodig en wat is die posiesie nou? Die Minister van Finansies, die Regering, gaan heen en kniehalter ons Prowinsiale Administrasie. Met watter gevolg? Die besuiniging, die inkrimping benadeel die onderwys. Die Minister gaan heen en sê, dat die volk te veel opvoeding het, en dat ons nou moet inkrimp. Wat is die posiesie egter b.v. in die Kaap Provinsie? Op ons skole is daar jaarliks omtrent ’n vermeerdering van 5,000 kinders gewees (ek praat van blanke kinders). In 1921 was dit nog 7,000 op die platteland skole, daarna het dit gedaal met 1,800 en in 1923 is daar ’n agteruitgang van by die duisend. Vandaag is daar nie alleen stilstand nie, maar agteruitgang. In distrikte soos Kuruman loop daar honderde van kinders rond wat nie op skool is nie. As die Minister die gevalle wil ondersoek, sal hy pynlik getref word. Dis feite wat vasgestel is. Die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) ken die toestande daar en sal dit kan bevestig. Is dit dan ’n wonder dat die blanke bevolking die stryd nie kan volhou nie in Suidafrika. En is die edelagbare die Minister vir Lande bekend met die toestande van die neersetting in Otterford in die distrik van Humansdorp? Die mense is daar neergesit met hul famielies. Maar weet die Minister dat vir meer as ’n jaar lank daar geen skool gewees het vir die 200 kinders van die neersetting?

Dis ’n saak vir die Prowinsiale Raad.

Ja, maar die Regering gaan heen en krimp die finansiële magte van die Prowinsiale Raad in en maak dit onmoontlik om uit te brei. Laat ek die feite verder gee. Daar is van die 200 kinders vandag 146 op die skool. 60 loop nog rond. En weet die Minister hoeveel onderwysers daar is? Daar is drie om vir 146 kinders onderwys te gee as daar nie verandering kom in Otterford nie gaan dit ’n broei-plaas word van meer arme blanke. En die Minister doen net asof die hele vraagstuk so heel gemaklik is, so heel eenvoudig Daar word baie oor gepraat, maar daar moet wat gedoen word. Mnr. Speaker, jaar na jaar, die Minister weet dit, het ek in my korrespondensie met hom die noodsaaklikheid bepleit van beter en meer onderwys op die neersettinge, en om die burgers geleentheid te gee om ’n stukkie grond te kry. Maar ek wil nie die indruk wek, dat ek van opinie is, dat die neersettinge nie goeie werk doen nie. Vir menigeen is dit ’n uitkoms gewees om werk te kan kry, al is dit maar teen 6s. of 7s., maar dit kan tog nie beweer word dat dit die bedoeling is dat die mense daar sal bly nie, dat hulle hul heel verdere lewe daar moet slyt nie. Nee, die doel van die neersetting behoort tog te wees om kweekplase te wees om manne te maak, nuttige burgers van die maatskáppy. Laat hulle nie in wanhoop daar nie. Baie van hulle loop weg in wanhoop, omdat hulle geen vooruitsigte het nie. Hoe goed hulle ookal is, en hoe goed die werkverskaffing by die aanleg van spoorweë en besproeiïngswerke ookal is, daar moet tog ’n verandering kom en die mense moet die weg gewys word waar hulle die geleentheid kry om weer ’n behoorlike bestaan te vind. Ek wens die edele Minister wou ’n bietjie na die spoorweg-arbeiders in Touwsrivier gaan kyk en sien onder watter kondiesies hulle werk. Die proses van verarming en versinking wat vandag plaasvind, is nie beperk tot een klasse maar tot alle klasse. Die saak moet aangepak word. Ek wil toegee dat ’n deel van die publiek meer kan doen.

Dis die eerste maal dat ek dit hoor.

Ek sal die edele Minister netnou daarop antwoord. Die publiek en veral die grondeienaar doet nie genoeg nie. Ek sê dit nie vir die eerste maal nie, ek het dit hier gesê en daar buite. Sulke voorbeelde as die van Nylstroom wat hier in die Huis genoem is, word van harte toegejuig. Ons grondeienare kan meer doen, maar ons moet nie die moeilikhede van ons grondeienare onderskat nie. Baie kan niks doen nie. Hulle word self gedruk tengevolge van droogte en sprinkane en hulle het self ’n seer karige bestaan. Nee, die Minister mag hom nie, verskuil agter die publiek nie. Die Regering bet die uitvoerende mag, hulle is ten regte of ten onregte deur die volk gekies om te regeer. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het voorgestel om aan die mosie toe te voeg “en die volk,” maar volk is so vaag, jy het ’n deel wat wil help maar jy het ook ’n onwillige deel onder die volk. Die Regering moet leiding gee om die moeilike kwessie op te los. Ons het aangegee dat dit gedoen kan word deur ’n raad te benoem op non-politieke lyne.

What are you going to do?

Mnr. Speaker, nou is ek al dertig minute besig om te së wat gedoen moet word en nou kom daar ’n edele lid en vra wat jy moet doen. Ek word werklik byna hopeloos daaronder, maar my beroep is gelukkig nie op die edele lid daar nie, maar op die Minister, om die moeilikheid op te los en ek hoop dat om tot ’n praktiese oplossing te kom, hulle, d.w.s. die Regering, die leiding sal neem. Dan sal hulle vind dat die volk ook meer dit sal doen. Die Regering, as die uitvoerende mag moet duidelik sy plig besef. Die blanke beskawing staan op die spel. As die Eerste Minister so praat oor blanke beskawing in sy toesprake, dink ek dikwels, dat die edelagbare die Minister daarmee nie ernstig is nie. Ons sien dat vele uit die land vlug. Hulle gaan na Engeland waar groot arbeidloosheid heers om arbeid te vind. Hulle kan hulle maag nie eens hier vul nie, om nie te praat van ’n behoorlike lewensbestaan te vind. Dis geen gemaklike kwessie. Al sou ook die edele lid vir Smith-field (Gen. Hertzog) Eerste Minister wees en die Nasionale Party aan die hoof van sake staan, dit sou ’n baie moeilike kwessie bly, maar die kwessie kan opgelos word as die behoorlik aangepak word. Maar dan moet die Regering dit nie langer van hom afskuif nie, daar moet maatreëls geneem word. Ek vra die Regering om te sê watter maatreëls hulle gaan neem in verband met hierdie saak vir die toekoms.

What would you do if you were Minister of Finance?

Ek sal daar geen notiesie van neem nie. Die saak is van so’n ernstige aard, dat die behandel moet word bo alle party politiek. Die Regering behoort handelend op te tree in die saak.

I regret very much the turn this debate has taken. I did hope when the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) introduced his motion, that we would have a non-party debate, because I feel that this question is a very vital one, and I hope that this House will thoroughly thresh out the matter in a non-party spirit. I also sincerely trust that the Government will realize the seriousness of the situation. The whole House, I am sure, were delighted to hear from the Minister of Lands the splendid efforts that were being made by the Government to find work for those who were not employed. Everybody is grateful for what is being done, but I do feel that these measures will help to alleviate, but they will never solve the problem of unemployment. All of us, whether drugless-healers or not, I am sure, will agree that “prevention is better than cure,” and I think that the time has arrived when some measure should be adopted to prevent this evil. The time has arrived for a forward and comprehensive scheme in this respect. Has not the time arrived for a national housing scheme, which would give employment to tens of thousands of people, both white, coloured and black? I know that something has been done in this direction through the Provincial Council, but the little they have done is like a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the country at the present time. To-day you have many hundreds of youths, sons of railwaymen, who are anxious to enter the railway service, but can find no employment. Why not enlarge your mechanical workshops and manufacture in this country everything that can be made here that is used on the railways?

The wrong party!

The wrong party! I am quite certain of this, that the South African party is quite as capable of doing that as any other party.

Why don’t they do it?

I know that the difficulties in some places are due to the drift of the country youth to the town, and I would suggest to counteract this evil, that experimental farms be established in various districts, especially where there are irrigation works, so that the country youth can be taught farming in a practical, scientific and up-to-date manner, and so keep him in his proper sphere of life. There is another avenue where employment could be found, and I am quite sure that this will appeal to the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, and that is in the eradication of the jointed cactus in the Cape. I know, too, that this is also a matter for the Provincial Council, but I feel that if nothing is done in a few years it will take millions of money to eradicate. I am sure if a progressive and expansive policy is adopted with regard to unemployment, we would find that, although it may be a little expensive at first, it would be cheaper in the long run, and it would in time absorb all the unemployment, whether white, coloured or native, as on this vital question we have our responsibility to the coloured and native as well.

This afternoon when the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) got up in the House I thought he was bringing up a cure for unemployment, but I think the House was very sadly disappointed indeed. He complained that we had criticized the Government, but had done nothing to eradicate the disease.

I didn’t.

I would like to know what value the hon. member’s contribution was this afternoon. Did he say anything in his contribution that would stop unemployment? Did he say anything that is going to solve the low wages paid even to the native? This is something which my friend could protect in this House. What do we find? We find that the native wage in this country is regulated by the wage paid to the Portuguese and other imported natives.

You are wrong.

Now, wages are regulated by the Chamber of Mines, and they base upon what wages are to be paid to Union natives on what they can get Portuguese natives for.

You are wrong.

By what it can import natives into this country; and what wages are they paid? A starvation wage? The other day I read of an accident down at the elevator, the fifth native killed, and I also read in the paper about the wages paid. We find the natives there paid, on most dangerous work, the handsome sum of about 3s. 6d. per day. Now, when this paragraph appeared in the paper, the question of Mr. Littlejohn Philip was before the House and I find that the daily wages of the 200 natives employed on the building of one elevator at Cape Town, is just equal to the daily sum paid to Mr. Littlejohn Philip. When this motion was before the House the Prime Minister spoke for a short time and put in a subtle addition when he said include “and people.” How many of the people have got a say as to how their livings are to be earned in this country—even in this House, what has it got to say? Very little indeed. If it was left to the people of this country and they took a referendum as to whether the Government has failed or not. Without hesitation the decision would be that the Government had failed—[An Hon. Member: “What about the natives?”] The hon. member is so impregnated with the natives that he knows little of the white men. He has got the native on the brain. I want to deal with the question seriously. I think every member in this House should consider this matter in a very serious manner. This unemployment question is one of the most serious that this House can be called upon to deal with. I am interested in the land question and this is a big factor indeed. We know that thousands of men are leaving the land and coming into the towns. Some years ago I held a position and had a good deal to do with these men coming into the towns. I asked many of them: would it not be better for them to have stayed on their farms where they were employed, and they answered my question as follows: I have not been able to remain on the farm because my family is growing up. I have my boys and girls and there are no opportunities for them.” I say if we are going in for closer settlement we should go in for it on different lines than in the past. People want more social life and if you are going in for closer settlement you must have markets near by and there should be opportunities for these people—[An Hon. Member: “Bioscopes?”] Bioscopes or temperance lectures if you like. The question which is agitating a large number of people—what are you going to do in this matter? If you were in a town you would find hundreds of men and women coming along asking if it was possible to do something to get their sons into employment. This shows how serious the position is. I know a man, a Government servant who holds a fairly good position; he had a son and two daughters. The son had matriculated, he had hunted high and low in East London to get jobs for them. This man got six months’ leave—he went to Australia with his wife, son and two daughters. He got employment for the three of them when only three days in Sydney. To-day he is working again for the Government, and will work until such time as he gets his pension. He will then leave for Australia, where he will stay with his family. What I want to emphasize is that men have been forced away from this country. Every year 16,000 children are leaving school, and what chance is there for them? This is a serious matter and should receive the serious consideration of the House. I have experience of this, and can speak from my experience. It is claimed that there are cycles of depression and progression. That is an accepted theory of many in the Government party to-day. When the period of depression comes along, what is usually done? The first thing done is to retrench—men are thrown out of work, others work on short time, and wages are reduced. I hold that this principle is entirely wrong. Every man thrown out in the street means not only unemployment for himself, but starvation for his family. These men are not able to buy what they produce. That is the position. Bad trade is brought about by bad wages, unemployment and things of that kind. For every man you throw out on the street helps to put another man on the street. To-day compare the Union with other countries, you have here a million and a half of whites. What is the position of that million and a half of whites? Very great numbers of them are living on the borderline of starvation, and their spending power is practically nil.

They cannot buy luxuries.

These people cannot purchase what they really require. That is an absolute fact. Factories are closed down in this country, they are closed down in and around Cape Town, because your people have not got the money to buy what they require. You ask any man who runs an industry in this country and he will tell you that this is an absolute fact. Then come along to our coloured and native population. How do they fare? Are they in a position to purchase things they require?

The colour-bar keeps them out of jobs.

The colour-bar be blowed. What is the colour-bar?

A party business.

They are employed at a wage upon which they can hardly live. The native would like to buy the things he requires, but he cannot, he cannot improve his status of living.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) says he cannot get a job as a printer.

The Chamber of Mines, two years ago, brought about such a cut in wages that the men on the mines cannot buy what they require. You will say “Nonsense” to this, but every Chamber of Commerce along the Reef has passed resolutions protesting against the action of the Chamber of Mines, and saying that the Chamber of Mines are paying such low wages that the miners cannot keep their wives and families in decent comfort. This proves that we are on the wrong road.

You always believe the Chambers of Commerce.

They reflect the opinion held by the commercial community. I would just as soon believe the Chamber of Commerce as the Chamber of Mines. I would like to ask if it took a man with a pound a day in 1914 all his time to keep his wife and family under fair conditions, how is that man going to keep his wife and family on a pound a day at present, when the cost of living is twenty-five to thirty per cent. higher than in 1914? I will give you another instance. Senator Hoover, the Minister of Food in the United States—I believe he still holds that position—speaking in New York, said that 1923 had been the most prosperous year the United States had ever had. Business had been Better, the volume of output had been greater. He stated that the social standing and the social life of every individual in America had been of a much higher standard in 1923 than it had ever been before. He stated wages were higher, and through the total population of America being able to buy what they actually required and have some degree of comfort, they were able to consume about 75 per cent. of the total output of American products. Thus proving that unless your people are paid an adequate wage, then you are not going to have the consumption of your goods that you should have. The Prime Minister went home to England. I believe he went searching for markets for our goods, for our meat and for our fruit. A very laudable thing indeed, but at the same time there was a market right in this country. There are practically 500,000 people who want three times the meat they can get to-day, ten times the fruit, and perhaps much more clothing than they are able to buy to-day. But they have not got the money to buy these things, and they have to go without them. Five hundred thousand people in this country cannot get anything like the meat and the clothes they require, and they have to go without them, because they have not the money to buy them. This is due entirely to the mismanagement in this country. You have a country here to-day governed by importers. You have a country which wants to import everything which the people require, and it is a shocking thing to find that here, in a country which should be one of the wealthiest and best regulated in the world, you have a larger proportion of white people starving than in any other country in the world. If there is any man in this House who will get up and say that these conditions have been brought about by the people themselves, he will be a bold man indeed. They have been brought about by the Government failing in its duty to give these people a right to live. We give protection to industries in this country, and I have always voted for that, because I want to see industries started here. I want this country to produce practically everything it requires, but where the Government fails is that, while they give protection to industries they do not give any protection to the men employed in those industries. How many industries have failed in this country just because those who started them had their eyes glued on profits, and inefficient, cheap labour? What has been the consequence? Some of those factories have had to close their doors. You want a Wages Board in this country that will regulate the wages of every industry, and if you did that, your industries would prosper better than they are doing at the present time. You ask us what should be done to cure this? Let me say this. I am one of those who believe that the banks have had a great deal to do with unemployment in this country, because they have withdrawn the credits of manufacturers, and manufacturers have been compelled to dismiss men. The banks are the people who rule this country, and the Government are right in the hands of the bankers. Let any man who does not believe that, go and make enquiries to-day, and he will find I am correct. My hon. friend for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) dealt with the question of railway workshops. We know that the Government import very large quantities of material into this country in the shape of wagons, coaches, engines and boilers, whereas these articles could be made in this country. If any hon. member has read the Select Committee’s Report on Railways and Harbours for the year 1923. I would refer them to page 32, where I asked Sir William Hoy the following question—

The answer given was “Yes.” It was stated that one of the objections why that was not done was that the capital outlay to enlarge the workshops and better equip them with the necessary machinery would be two or three millions of money. But if that outlay was going to enable the Government to employ two or three thousand more artisans then the Government should have done it. We were prepared to spend five or six millions of money to induce Rhodesia to come into the Union, so why not spend money to enable men to earn their living on reproductive work? On page 9 of the Select Committee’s Report it will be found that Sir William Hoy said—

These figures showed £1,800 in favour of a coach built in this country. That is the considered reply of the General Manager of Railways, it took Mr. Hoy a couple of days to go into the figures. Therefore I contend that the Government have failed in their duty, for it has been pointed out again and again that they could have built what they require in this country. Here is another cutting from a paper. A Natal paper of the 13th February. It is as follows—

Now it has been proved conclusively that we can manufacture these goods in this country. If we can do so, why has not the Government expended the necessary money? This is no new thing. This question has been fought out in the Select Committee of Railways and Harbours. We have gone into it year after year, and the same answers have been given over and over again that you can build just as cheaply here as you can import.

Cheaper.

Surely then it was the duty of the Government, not yesterday, but years ago to have extended their locomotive shops so that they could have built all their locomotives and carriages here. We have been told about the steel trust—as if the Labour members have anything to do with it. I say that it is the duty of the Government to have established these steel works themselves, and I think that these steel works will never be established unless it is done by the Government. We say that there is plenty of work in this country if the Government will only go the right way about it, and the right way is to see that we manufacture, or build what we require, at our own workshops. To-day you have 8,000 boys who cannot find work here in the country. They are breaking their hearts here; they are walking about the streets having nothing to do. You are breaking the hearts of the parents, and yet some hon. members tell us that we use this debate for political capital. I do not use it for political capital. I have too many friends who have suffered from unemployment, I have too many friends who have the picture of unemployment daily in front of them, they may be thrown out of work at any time. And how many working men have been able to save enough money to keep themselves when they are out of work? Unemployment is a most vital question. It affects a tremendous number of people in the country. Instead of the country going forward it goes backwards. The House knows what is happening. There are artisans leaving our shores every week. There are family men leaving this country because the outlook is black for their children. I say that this question has to be tackled and tackled scientifically. It is no use us saying: “We are putting men on afforestations or railway works.” When you put these men on relief work, what is their status? They earn just about enough to keep themselves, their wives and families have to be supported by charitable organizations. There are charitable organizations in every town supporting the families of men who are on relief works. I do not agree that they are relief works. Construction of railway lines is a big national thing, it is developing this country, and the men on the works should be paid a wage which should enable them to keep at least themselves, their wives and families, and to enable their wives and families to live in a degree of comfort. That is not so to-day. The moment a man goes on relief work he is looked down upon, he is paid the miserable pittance of 6s. 8d. or 5s. per day. How can he keep his family on that? He lives away from his wife and family, he buys from some shopkeeper in the neighbourhood of the relief works, and his wife and family are a drag on charitable organizations. Those works are works which develop the country, and the men employed on them should be paid a rate of wages which will enable them to live in a decent standard of comfort. We have too much cheap labour. Our eyes are glued on cheap labour ail the time. It is cheap but inefficient. What is the position in Australia? In Australia the work is done by men who are paid decent wages on which they can keep themselves, and it is the same everywhere else. The curse of this country has been that we have our eyes glued on the cheapest labour that we can get. The natives are here and the coloured men are here with us, but, unfortunately, they are paid such a low wage that their value as a purchasing unit is of very little value to the country. If we pay these people better wages, it will be better for everyone concerned. That is the position and, as has been said before, there are many ways whereby you can employ the men who are at present out of work, at wages that will enable them to live up to a decent civilized standard. Every town in this country is crying out for hospital accommodation. They are crying out tor houses, they are crying out for many things that are absolutely essential to the welfare of the people. Why not build these things? “No money!” That is the cry you are met with all the time, no money! There is plenty of money. As I have said a few minutes ago we were going to get five or six millions to bribe Rhodesia. Five or six millions would build the houses and hospitals required. It is nonsense, absolute nonsense, to tell this House that no money can be found. This country will find the money. I do not believe there is one man in the country who would object to finding the money if he knew it was going to be spent on reproductive and essential works. If the Government had the desire and went to the country and stated that they wanted six millions of money to build houses, hospitals, and to build schools I do not believe one per cent of the electors of this country would object. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people would say that these works are absolutely essential and should be carried on. I think the Minister of Lands has entirely failed in his duty. The Prime Minister has failed in his duty. In fact, the Minister of Railways has failed in his duty. They were aware of these facts, aware that we should, and are able to build our own wagons and coaches in this country, and they failed to provide the money to extend and equip our workshops. They were prepared to spend a few hundred thousand pounds on relief works, but they were not prepared to face a big scheme, the one scheme that was going to bring about a far better salvation for this country and for the workers. They did not want to face it. They are controlled by the financiers; there is no doubt about it that high finance holds its hand heavy over the country. The Government are not allowed to do anything unless those who hold the finances right in their hands allow them to do so. This country wants to get rid of this menance. That is why so many of us are anxious to test the feelings of this country for we know we have the country behind us; they want something nobler and better than just looking after vested interests and profits. They want a Government who are going to look after the interests of the people as a whole and that is what the Government has failed to do. For that reason I agree with the motion brought in by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog).

Ons, en enigeen wat belang stel in die land, voel dat dit ongetwyfeld die ernstigste saak is wat enigeen van ons kan besig hou, en dat dit ook die ernstigste aandag verdien van die Huis. Dit spyt my, as jy oplet wanneer ’n saak van die aard bespreek word, wat so hoogs ernstig is, om te sien dat daar nie die werkelike erns by die lede is nie. Dis ’n kwessie wat die bestaan van ons volk bedreig. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het die voorstel ingedien by die begin van die sessie en ek dink die rede waarom hy so haastig is, is die erns van die toestand in die binneland, met die oog op die ongekende droogte en die sprinkaan-plaag. Die toestand is vandag ernstiger as ooit tevore en ek gaan saam met die edele lid vir Uitenhage (de hr. Bates) wanneer hy se: “prevention is better than cure,” en ons plig as Huis Met, is om middele te vind om te sorg dat die getal armeblanke in die land verminder. Laat ek dit sê, ek kom van die noorde en ek is seker daarvan dat daar boere is wat tot vandag welgesteld was, groot boere wat nou bedreig word met bankrotskap. Ek is jammer om te sê, dat ek seker daarvan is dat daar vanjaar meer bankrotskappe sal wees as ooit tevore. Non vra die Minister wat gedaan moet word? Dit wys dadelik op die swakheid van die Regering op daardie banke. Hulle sê voortdurend van die kant van die Huis, dat ons iets konstruktiefs aan die hand moet gee. Ek wil iets aan die hand gee. Ons het ’n Landbank wat sy bestaan geregverdig het tot op die oomblik en wat nog geen pennie verloor het nie. Instede het die Landbank—glo ek—’n half-miljoen pond profyt gemaak. Ek wil in alle erns met die Eerste Minister praat en hom vra om in die belang van die boere die Landbank in die eerste plaas genoeg fondse te gee, in die twede plaas meer mag aan die Landbank te gee, en in die derde plaas om die beperking van £2,009 op grondvoorskotte weg te neem. As ’n persoon b.v. 2,000 morge grond het, dan help dit vir hom niks om na die Landbank te gaan nie, want hy kan alleen £2,000 kry. Ons moenie vergeet dat die grond vandag bykans op sy laagste is nie, en dat by so ’n besigheids-transaksie die Landbank nie verkeerd kan gaan nie. Op die manier sal ons die mense, wat nog ’n bestaan het op die land, terug hou om van hulle land weg te gaan. Ek sê nogmaals, ek ken die toestande in die noorde. Boere wat vandag as welgesteld beskou word, sal gedwing word om nog hierdie jaar te verkoop of bankrot te gaan. As ons die kwessie verder ernstig wil behandel, moet ons sien dat mense wat verdienstelik is en wat dit verdien, moet grond kry. Ek het nog altyd bywoners op my plaas gehad en my ondervinding is, dat as die mense net ’n helpende hand kry, dan word hulle manne. Vandag is die posiesie so dat bywoners hulle lewe kan maak, maar nooit grondbesitters kan word nie, want hulle kan nie die een-vyfde van die bedrag wat vooruit betaal moet word, bymekaar kry nie. Dis tyd dat die Regering die mense gaan help. Nou wat die arme-blanke in die stede betref, wat gaan ons met die mense maak? Daar is party van hulle wat te graag terug wil kom na die land toe en ons moet sien dat die mense gehelp word. Hoe en op watter manier? Dink ons net ’n bietjie aan die riviere, die standhoudende riviere in die land, b.v. die Vaalrivier. In die droogste tye het die nog altyd geloop. Die Rand Water Raad het daar ’n dam gemaak en ek dink die Regering behoort so ’n dam te bou driemaal so groot. Daardeur sal duisende van famielies aan goeie grond gehelp kan word. Ons het water, grond en mense. Nou ek hoop die Regering sal die saak in oorweging neem. En dan as ons die mense gebring het op nedersettings, behoort ons naar die kinders van die nedersettings te kyk. Industriele skole moet gebou word, waar vakmense kan gekweek word, en ek gaan sover om te sê dat desnoods elke setlaar, wat op die grond kom, moet die Staat die reg gee om van sy kind ’n man te maak, om ’n ambag te leer. Dan is daar ’n sekere klasse in die stede wat nie meer na die land wil gaan nie. Kan ons nie iets doen vir die mense nie? Ek dink as die Regering die politiek van beskerming volg vir die bevordering van ons nywerhede en industrieë wil aanpak, sal ons industrieë kry in die land wat duisende aan werk sal help. Neem b.v. die United Tobacco Company. Hulle produseer ’n lukse artiekel en gee werk aan 800 tot 1,200 mense en neem b.v. die Buchanan Lekkergoed Fabriek, hulle produseer ook ’n lukse artiekel en employeer omtrent 700 mense. Ons is ’n mielie produserende land en die opbrings kan gemaklik verdubbel word. Daar kan baie by-produkte gemaak word van die mielie, watter by-produkte ons nou importeer. Daardie industrie kan baie uitgebrei word, baie mense sal werk daar kan vind en as die Regering die industrie beskerm, sal ook genoeg markte daarvoor gevind word. Dis ’n paar dingetjies wat ek noem. Daar is nog baie andere. Jy hoor nou ooral, wat gaan van my kind word, en jy weet werklik nie vandag waarvoor jy hom moet laat leer. Ek wil hê dat ons kinders meer prakties opgelei moet word. Die onderwys-siesteem in die land is absoluut verkeerd. Kinders leer dinge wat hulle nooit in hulle later lewe nodig het nie. Ons moet ons kinders meer praktiese opvoeding gee, sodat hulle iets kan doen as hulle die skool verlaat. Daar word gevra, wat moet ons doen? Die Regering moet daarvoor sorg, dat daar ’n arbeidsveld is vir die wat wil werk en elkeen sal met my saamstem, dat dit hier nie is nie. Ek het verskillende briewe ontvang van jong seuns wat matriek gemaak het en zelfs B.A. en wat nie ’n betrekking kan vind nie. Is dit nie ’n treurige toestand nie? Dis die plig van die Staat om arbeidgeleentheid te gee aan die wat wil werk en wat geleer het, Ek voel die toestand is baie ernstig en vernaamlik in die binneland en ek hoop, dat die Regering sal met die oog daarop die saak in oorweging neem. My klag teen die Regering is, dat hy nie ernstig is nie. Terwyl enige lede vanmiddag hulle sienswyse oor die saak gegee het, was die ministers-banke leeg. Hulle het gepraat voor leë banke. Ek herhaal, ek voel die Minister van Lande is nie ernstig nie, maar ek hoop, dat die Regering nou met ’n skema sal kom om die gewigtige toestand op te los en wat my betref kan hy seker wees van my volste ondersteuning.

Members will recall that last session the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) gave us a very sporting sight when he moved the vote of no confidence. He stepped across the floor of the House and shook hands with the Prime Minister. The sportsmanship of that action sent a thrill through some of us; it reminded one of the old prize-ring gladiators of ages past. But this time we find the hon. member bringing in this motion, prepared, no doubt, and handed to him by his friends and supporters, the Socialist Party.

Don’t be silly!

No doubt this motion was meant by the Socialist Party to be a vote of no confidence in the Government on its policy on the poor white and the unemployed. It was a motion similar in intention to the one moved by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), about a fortnight ago on General Smuts’ speech in Johannesburg. That was the first sniping motion, and this is the second. The first one went off and burst, damaging the National and Labour Parties and enhancing the prestige of the Government. This one will have the same effect. I desire to congratulate, first of all, the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) on the spirit he showed in introducing this motion, I would at once say, a most valuable motion. In the first place, this motion, and motions like it, bring the Government to reason and prevent them governing the country on a loose rein. Secondly, it is a valuable motion, because it mobilizes the better minds of South Africa on the greatest problem in the country to-day, and the greatest problem for the future, that is, the poor white and the unemployed problem, and inextricably bound up in this problem is the problem of the coloured and native question in South Africa. The poor white and unemployed question is caused by contact in labour between whites, with coloured, and natives, and so long as you have the native and the coloured man, so long will you have unemployed and poor whites in this country. I, personally, am of the opinion that the policy in regard to the coloured man is a policy of education, of advancement and improvement, and finally, of absorption by the white race. With regard to the native, the policy must be that there should be absolute protection from the native on the white preserves. If hon. members will call to mind, they will see that ten years ago in the Cape Colony the proportion was one native voter to 5.7 white voters, to-day the proportion is one to 3.37. Those are figures which hon. members must well bear in mind when they are considering the native and coloured policy of this country. The days for a policy of expediency, as far as the coloured and native are concerned, are past. A well-defined and well-thought-out policy is imperatively necessary at no distant date in South Africa. Thirdly, this is a valuable motion because it must, after the hon. member for Smithfield (Gem. Hertzog), listening to the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) making his speech, and other members in the corner, convince him that party warfare has carried him into dangerous ground and into dangerous company. I can imagine the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) waking up in the morning and being very anxious before seeing the newspaper, saying to himself: “I wonder what did old Creswell say last night?” because it must on many occasions have embarrassed him. In this motion, at any rate, he showed a moment of chivalrous feeling. He stated that we were all equally to blame that we had not contributed as much as we should towards the alleviation of unemployment, or done whatever we could for the unemployed. It was discussed from all sides of the House in a non-party and disinterested manner until the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) made a most regrettable speech. His intervention, as a speech, was at once for the purpose of making political capital out of the misery and squalor of the unemployment of the country. His speech and that of the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart), go to show that the methods and policy of the Nationalists and Labourites are divergent.

And Tembuland.

The speech of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) was full of conviction, full of ideals, and brimful of illusion. Most South African politicians whenever they have an opportunity try to make political capital out of the Witwatersrand gold mining industry. The majority when speaking of the gold mining industry talk the rot of their lives, and I am only surprised that the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) did not give us a better contribution than he did. His bias against the industry at once makes him partial against the industry, and he would do anything against it so long as he could damage it and make political capital out of it. Any proposal brought forward must be judged as to how much employment it would give, and how much it will relieve the unemployed. It must also be taken into consideration whether it can be economically a success, because any proposal brought forward that is not a success economically will not endure. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) as a remedy, wishes to stop the importation of Portuguese natives. That is the best miner there is on the Rand, and he said you will get enough native labour in the Transkei. I want to ask hon. members to ask themselves, how will the white unemployment be relieved by substituting a Transkei native for a Portuguese native? That is the point: how will that remedy unemployment? I would like the hon. member to explain it. Does the hon. member desire to raise the native labour wages in this country? During the last three years, the wages have been raised 12 per cent., which have necessitated the addition to the native labour bill of £185,000 a year. If native wages are increased, ultimately it will mean a reduction of white wages, for you come up against economic facts. If the hon. member desires to create a scarcity in native labour, it will be reflected as the natives are reduced, as a fall takes place in the number of native labourers on the Rand, so the numbers of white workers on the Rand decrease. As the native increases, so the white men employed on the Rand increase. It is reflected right through South Africa, and the first to feel the change and shortage of labour are the farmers. They are short enough now and have a depleted supply, a very inefficient supply from the point of view of work. Now, I would like to ask the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) does he desire to close down the mines and so add to unemployment, because if you raise the cost of production by very little you will at once close down a large number of mines on the Witwatersrand. I would ask him to remember what it will mean to the mines on the Witwatersrand. Take the E.R.P.M. and the Randfontein Estate. These two mines alone have spent in working costs £31,000,000 sterling since they paid a dividend, and judging from subsequent events, I doubt very much whether they should have ever paid a dividend. At any rate, on the Witwatersrand you are working a lower grade ore at a profit than in any other part, of the world. You are working to-day a four and a half dwt. rock; that means an increase in the life of the Witwatersrand goldfield of something like 30 per cent. To give one instance, in the Geduld Mine they brought 2,500,000 tons of ore from unpayability into payability by reduction of working costs. That is in one mine. Now, if any policy or theory is brought forward it must be proved by established fact The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), never attempted to show that you could work the mine cheaper or as cheap by white labour. I want to know if it is in the interests of South Africa that half of the mines should be closed down, which they would be if you attempted to substitute white for coloured labour on the Witwatersrand. The hon. member had his opportunity. He made a gallant effort on the Village Main Reef, 20 years ago, there to work at 5s. a day for white labour and failed; the mining houses are spending thousands every year in trying to improve machinery to reduce the working costs. Would they not, if possible, use white labour if it were cheaper or even as cheap, if they could only do it.

No.

There is a Labour Government in Australia and the mines are worked with white labour. What do you find in Australia through high working costs, by working mines’ with white labour? The miners working on the mines have been reduced from 70,506 in 1901 to 17,680 in 1922. The gold mining industry is a perishing industry in Australia. The working costs in 1918 were 36s. 5d. per ton, and in 1922 they were 53s. 8d. per ton. That was with white labour, and they had to reduce the wages in 1922. The men in Australia to-day are receiving 13s. 6d. per shift, as against 20s. on the Witwatersrand. Now, then, that means that you have a perishing industry in Australia, and you have white wages in the Witwatersrand 50 per cent. higher than in Australia. In South Africa, too, you can have a very flourishing gold-mining industry if proper and sympathetic treatment is meted out to it. Now all industries come up against hard economic facts. No industry can be worked on an uneconomic wage, and no successful strike can ever overcome these facts. A strike as a remedy only kills the livelihood of the people. The last strike on the Rand—the strike in the gold-mining industry—proved to the whole of South Africa that South Africa depended on the gold-mining industry. All trades, all industries, agriculture, everything was stopped, and all employment depending on these industries was thrown out; and it all went to show that a flourishing gold-mining industry meant a flourishing South Africa, and as the goldmining industry stopped, as the stamps were stopped one by one, so South Africa felt the effects, and went through a period of great trouble and difficulty and quickly advanced to adversity. Now I want to ask hon. members to bear in mind that out of 39 millions, which were produced last year, 31 millions were spent in this country in dividends and in wages. Many hon. members on the opposite side seem to think that all the shares in the gold-mining companies are held overseas. Let me say that in the gold-mining areas—the Government areas—half the shares are held in this country. So if you hurt the gold-mining companies, you hurt the shareholders in this country as well. Let me remind the farmers that 500,000 bags of mealies were consumed on the Witwatersrand and 3,000,000 lbs. weight of meat. The farmers have the very best market they can hope to find there at their very door. Why destroy it? Why hurt the industry? It will do more good if hon. members will only realize what that industry is and if they will only treat it more sympathetically. Let me say this: the gold-mining industry is now in its prime. During the last five years more money has come into the country than has ever been the case in the last ten years previous, and it is just in the beginning, and if hon. members will only take that into consideration, and if we continue as we are doing, I believe the area known as the Geduld area will be leased, which will mean an initial expenditure of something like two millions. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) spoke of a higher civilization. He said that to get the whites in would mean a higher civilization—a higher civilization when they have to work or 6,000 feet down. I do not see much higher civilization there. If the future of the white race in South Africa and higher civilization means and depends on occupation 5,000 or feet down, then I am afraid that we are not going to have much of a white race here. That disposes of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell)—that disposes of his convictions, his ideals and his illusions. The hon. member’s mentality on the gold-mining industry and his views thereon remind one of a Chinese expression: “He is a man who wishes to burn down his house in order to roast a pig for the table.” That seems to be the mentality of the hon. member on the question of the gold industry and most things. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) told the House that the people were drifting from the country to the towns, only to find the town inhabitants, unskilled and skilled, out of employment. It is true that that is taking place in most parts of the world. The hon. member said that farming was a difficult profession. I know—I have been farming myself—and I have always been up against depression and difficulties, such as drought, locusts, poor markets, etc.; but you can also account for the fact that people are drifting into the towns because the attractions of the towns are greater. You have the cinematographs, shop windows and other attractions of town life; and then the intellectual sons of the farmers take to other professions such as law, medicine, politics, etc. Hon. members opposite have taken to politics, in fact there are living examples opposite of how the farmer loses his farm and drifts into towns. There is only one thing and that is we must do all, we can to get the boer back who has been driven off the land, back on to the land again, whether rich or poor, there must be a large scheme for land acquisition, either by expropriation—that is at a fair price—or purchase, and get the right class of tenants. The people who are on settlements are not fit, and they will never make prospective landlords. I am in favour of the Land Bank being extended, and mobilizing of the credit of the State, I am in favour of reorganizing the Land Bank to fill the situation.

Hear, hear.

I am pleased to see that the hon. member agrees with me.

Oh, I am delighted to hear you say it.

If the hon. member will only listen he will hear me say it again. Now I want to say this. The Indians in this country also create a large amount of unemployment. Let hon. members go to the Western Transvaal. The other day I was talking to a merchant trader from there, and he said: “I want to sell out. All our sons are not brought up to carry on the business, as the competition of the Indians is unfair, and we are keen now on selling, but unfortunately, where the Indians have knocked us out, the Indians are the only purchasers, because no white man will purchase where he has to compete against the Indians.” One sympathizes with the Indian’s pride being hurt, but with us it is not a matter of pride, it is a matter of life and death. If the Indian Government wishes to go and boycott us—well they can continue with their boycott, but the policy of this country must not be reversed, and we must see to it that the bread of the whites is not taken from them by these people.

Hear, hear.

Why not? I suppose the hon. member agrees with me.

What about sane competition?

Yes, sane competition! Will the hon. member bear in mind what the tommy said to the sergeant-major: “When I am speaking to the organ-grinder I want no blinking monkey to chip in.” If the hon. member will only keep quiet and not chip in he will hear something. Now the cost of living is another great thing to create unemployment in this country, without products it should be much lower. There is a great deal of exploitation in the sale and distribution of foodstuff which means unrest and instability. Taxation in its incidence creates unemployment. In the Transvaal you have all sorts of taxes. There you have the Provincial Council taxing right and left, you have the Government taxing, and you have the local bodies taxing. The hon. member talked of capitalists. Well, I will tell the hon. member that you will have no prosperity here unless there is some sympathy shown to the industrial capitalists here. There is no sympathy there.

Poor fellow.

Well, the hon. member has never provided a single shilling for development of industries, so he should keep quiet. The National-Labour combination of the Transvaal have now produced a position under which the man in the town pays £5 to £1 paid by the man in the country. Nearly five times, as much is paid by the man in the towns. The taxpayer is being robbed by that combination. They are enthroned in robbery. I know it is almost impossible to abolish the Provincial Council, but if you do not abolish them they will ruin South Africa. If you have a rich colony like the Transvaal, how can a province like the Free State, which is not so rich, compete in the matter of the education of the children? You create dissatisfaction in the Free State. And you have a position that many families trek from the Free State and Natal to the Transvaal, where they get better facilities and cheaper education. Well, you have freak legislation in the Transvaal, you have the employer’s tax, under which a man if he starts to open up an industry—which would mean more employment—the more labour he takes the more he is taxed. Then you have the corporation tax—a tax on corporations which have brought 100 millions into South Africa. Then you have the auctioneers’ tax, introduced by Mr. Kretchman, the Labour member. The farmer pays the auctioneers’ tax, and hon. members sit there on the opposite benches and co-operate with the people who are taxing the farmer on every possible occasion. That is a legacy which the Nationalist-Labour pact in the Transvaal Provincial Council are leaving behind them. Then you have the railways—and they tax the people in the interior. The rates and charges of the Railway are concentrated on the people living up-country—the inland people who are developing the country, they are the people who really pay the railway rates. The Railways control the life of the nation. But the Administration sit there, and as an industry flourishes or goes down, so the Administration treats it—keeping the hand on the throat of the industry. The time has arrived when one must consider the position of the railways. The farmer pays the railway rates. Every bale of wool, every bag of grain—the farmer has to pay the charges to the coast. It is not the consumer who pays, but it is the farmer who pays, the price which the consumer paid is determined by the world’s market prices. The poor whites are being employed on the railways, and cost the Railway Administration £500,000. This should come out of general revenue. These high railway rates mean extra charges, and the basic industries of the country feel it; everything should be done to reduce charges if, you want to make a success of your basic industries, fanning and mining. I shall give you an instance of what is going on now. Take coal, one of the largest and best paying trades of the Railway.

Is that your hobby?

Coal Estates sold coal for £364,549 and the Railways charged £506,002 to distribute this coal throughout the country—that is to say, that the Railways charged and collected forty per cent. more than the coal owners received as payment for the coal. Now take a small article, allumino ferric—I do not know quite what it is, but they want it at the Rand Water Board at Vereeniging. It costs 7s. 11d. per 100 lb., delivered on railway at Durban, and the Railways charge 8s. 1d. per 100 lb. to take it from Durban to Vereeniging, that is 2d. more than the actual cost of the article. That is the way in which the Railways encourage industries. I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not here, but let me tell him that all the producers throughout the country are squealing, whether they are producing gold, diamonds, or monkey-nuts, they are all squealing, and I would like the Minister, instead of trying to wipe off this two million deficit over one or two years, to reduce it over five or six years, and start reducing the rates at once. That would give much more business to the Railways than you are getting now. The Government can assist largely in alleviating unemployment in South Africa, by giving protection to South African products and to South African industries. South African markets should be protected for South African industries. But what do they do? They do not treat our industries in the way they should do. We hear a great deal of talk from Ministers about the protection of our industries. They show great amount of sympathy. There are industries in this country which are languishing and dying through sheer want of protection. I can give plenty of instances to show that for the last eighteen months they have been trying to get some protection. They have so much sympathy that they cannot move. I hope that when one of these industries dies the Government will send a wreath with the words on it “with great and deep sympathy”—and I am certain that the epitaph will be “suffocated by too much sympathy.” There you have the Board of Trades and of Industries in this country That is the Board which has to look after all industries in this country—but what does one find? The majority of the members of the Board are free traders—[An Hon. Member: “Nonsense!”] I know what I am saying; I do not speak about things which I know nothing about. The officials who advise the Board are free traders. Now how can you have a Board of Trade and Industries, which is supposed to look after the industries, which is there for the purpose of protecting the industries, consisting of free traders? If they are free traders, how can you expect them to give protection? One knows that the Minister of Railways is a free trader, too, and he, through the Railways, can do more to create industries and to keep them going than any individual in South Africa; but he is a free trader like all the members of the Board. There is only one remedy, and that is to sack the lot. Yes, sack the lot. You will never develop the industries of this country so long as you have a free trade board. The Government can do a great deal, but private enterprise can do a great deal more, but you will never get anything done by private enterprise until you create confidence in the country. There is a want of confidence, and credit and confidence go together. South Africa, which is hardly scratched, requires capital. But if the credit of the country returns, I am quite certain that money will flow here. Yet, I should like to know how there can be any such confidence when one sees how the hon. member for Smith-field (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) have acted when any trouble has taken place. Their action has never been helpful—it has been unfortunate and harmful. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) went down to Smithfield the other day and had a brain-wave. He said the Prime Minister was going to drag South Africa into another war. He said, get your military ready, causing a want of confidence. But the hon. member, together with the hon. member for Stamford Hill) (Mr. Creswell) have created more unemployment in the last ten years than they are ever likely to remedy during the rest of their lives.

Where?

It is a great tragedy, this unemployment, but the Government should take this opportunity of making better roads and more roads, and give a better transport system. We want railways built in the country, but not political railways, railways which meander through the veld. There is the projected railway into Zululand, which will benefit South Africa financially and economically, but not provide much employment for whites. The East Rand Proprietary Mines, which have been asking for assistance for the last two years, give more employment to whites than ever the cotton-growing will do for the next ten years. What is also very badly needed is a system for organizing the native. Take the ordinary kaffir boy “January.” He helps in the kitchen for twelve months, the next six months in a racing stable, then the next twelve months he is down a mine, and the following twelve months he is nursing the baby for recreation. How can he be efficient? The Government should take the native and train him to work at one job for a time and so get proper work out of him. There are, as hon. members know, very few skilled workmen in this country. For, unless a person has done unskilled work he cannot be skilled. The white man in this country must also work, and renounce the idea that work is kaffir work, for, if he does not, then South Africa will continue to “spout” poor white for the rest of its existence. White men and women must work or go under. No country or individual has ever been successful without work and hard work. We are, I know, up against a big problem. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) says that we want organization and inspiration, but I say we not only want inspiration, but perspiration. South Africa might be saved with organization, inspiration and perspiration. We are up against a great problem, but the greater the problem the greater the energy and determination is required. This is a time when everybody should put their heads together, and look to the best interests of this country. There is great work before the manhood of South Africa.; there is a great work in the restoration, exploration and development of the large hidden and unhidden resources of this country.

I agree entirely with the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) when he says we should put our heads together and consider this matter from a national standpoint. I felt very hopeful myself when I heard the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) speak on this subject the other afternoon, from the manner in which they presented their case. If there is one thing which seems to be necessary it is, as the Prime Minister has intimated in his amendment to the motion, that the public should also be interested. The Government cannot move alone in this matter. No Government can advance ahead of public opinion. But what is to be the state of public mind in this country, when this matter is being dealt with in this House on Party lines? There are three parties in the House representing three different classes of public opinion, and if there is no agreement inside Parliament there can be no agreement outside. First of all we must get the people of this country interested in the matter, and get them interested, not from a party standpoint, but from the standpoint of business. What the hon. the Minister stated the other day in regard to what the Government are doing in this matter should convince everybody in this House that the Government is doing everything it can on sound lines to effect a solution, and these are attempts which have never been made before. And they are succeeding. But the attempts which are being made to deal with this are purely from a rural standpoint. They teach the unworkable the dignity of labour, they place them first on the railway constructions then in afforestation areas and afterwards weed some of them out and place them on the land. There is plan and method there, energetically pursued, and hope for the workers. But it is the urban aspect of the question which fills me with alarm. It is the great cities of the world that have governed and made the countries of the world. London, Paris, St. Petersburg, all have done this, and it is the towns of this country which will govern this country ultimately, whether they be white or black. We come there to the point of economic contact between the races, the economic aspect where the native or the coloured, the native principally, is elbowing the white man out of the ordinary skilled trades in which he is engaged. I am going to give chapter and verse of this statement. I am going to the highest authority to show this House that the white race in this country is losing ground. I am going to take you to an appendix of the last year book written by Professor Lehfeldt, professor of economics—who is doing a national service in dissecting the individual censuses of the Union. Regarding the position of white employment in the Cape Peninsula, he writes—

Now this is during the period of our greatest prosperity from 1915-1916 to 1920-1921, a period of five years when the exports of this country were booming, when we were obtaining a price for our products which we are never likely to obtain again; when the budget of this country was showing a surplus, and during this period of our greatest prosperity the proportion of white employment in our industries of the Cape fell from 43 to 36 per cent in the Cape. What was the position in Port Elizabeth. Professor Lehfeldt writes—

The position in Durban is shown to be as follows—

The only centre in which the proportion of European labour has been maintained is the Witwatersrand. There the proportion was fluctuated round 41 per cent., I am not here speaking of the mines, but solely of manufacturing industries. I am convinced that the mines are useless to us in assisting to find a solution to this question. This then is the broad result that although the total number of employees during these censuses have increased, and the value of industrial production has grown, the number of Europeans working have proportionately diminished. In the years 1915-1916 the proportion of whites employed in the industries of this country was 39 per cent.; in 1920-1921, after a period of five years of greatest prosperity, it fell to 35 per cent. or a loss of ground equal to more than 10 per cent. This is an appalling state of things: during a period when industries were flourishing there is a decrease to the extent of 10 per cent. in the employment of Europeans, what is going to be the position during these years of depression? These statistics only cover the period up to 1921, and for the last two or three years the figures are not yet available, but I say that we cannot disregard these facts and figures—they are a careful analysis by one of the most painstaking economists in the Union, employed by the Government for the express purpose of the analysis of our industrial statistics. If during the period of these five years, during which we had the most prosperous industrial period, we lost 10 per cent. of the white employed, what is going to be the position within the next 20 years in the Union? The white skilled worker is being slowly but surely elbowed out, and we shall find that industry has passed into the hands of non-Europeans. It seems to me that something more has to be done—it is obviously necessary to do more than in the past. The extracts I have quoted show that what we have done is obviously wrong; we are losing ground under the present methods. If we want to help in the future the white population in the industries we must obviously tackle the job in a different way than in the past. What has been our policy? On page 155 of the last Departmental Reports is to be found this astonishing statement, made by the head of the Labour Division—

That statement is a confession of ineptitude. I profoundly disagree with it. It is treating the matter as though it were an infectious disease, and the physician dare not approach the bedside of the patient. If during all these years we have been unable to develop a policy, it is about time that we put our heads together and did so. Therefore, I think it is most essential if we wish to do our duty to the country that we should avoid party recriminations which does not help us further. If the Minister is unable to develop a policy, it is because we cannot get unanimity in this House. To tackle this question properly restraints must be applied, money must be spent, and sectional interests may be threatened. If the parties cannot agree together and are constantly attacking him for applying restraints or threatening sectional interests, they are not acting in the best interests of the country. I want to analyse the position, as disclosed by Professor Lehfeldt, and I do not propose to criticize the position without putting forward some practical solution. The Minister stated the other day he was constantly getting some fanciful theories, but no practical suggestions. I wish to make a practical suggestion, one which I made last year. A suggestion is practicable or impracticable according to the quarter whence it comes. Suggestions from the back bench are not received with the respect which some of us think they are entitled to. My suggestion was to subsidize or protect some new white key industry. What is the cause of our failure to maintain the proportion of white labour in our industries? Two things. My first is, it pays employers better to employ cheap coloured labour to white labour, and he prefers to employ cheap labour because it pays him to do so; he is out for profit, and he employs therefore the native instead of the European. This is one of the views we must at first tackle. The second point is the antipathy of the white man to do what is called “kaffir work.” These are the root causes of the whole trouble. If we can on examination of them find a solution then surely we can in some way get out of the rut. In dealing with this matter we can adopt no heroic measures. We must recognize things as they are. If we wish to protect white sphere of industry we must proceed as we would in the protection of any industry. We must adopt a common-sense everyday method. When we wanted to create a boot industry in Port Elizabeth, we put a 30 per cent. duty on all boots imported so that the boot industry in Port Elizabeth flourished. If we want employers to employ whites in industry we can protect them against loss in that white industry and they will flourish. Let me explain. We have a concrete example in the sugar industry of Queensland. There the sugar industry was run by Kanaka labour. In that country they subsequently found it necessary to create a white Australian policy as they had close on 30,000,000 Javanese a couple of days’ sail away, and millions of Asiatics casting longing eyes on Australia ready with the slightest encouragement to flood over the borders—so they created a white Australian policy, and the result was the disappearance of the Kanaka, who were all repatriated. In order to do that, they had to protect the sugar industry, and they put a tax of £6 a ton on all sugar grown by white labour. I do not propose that you should apply that principle to the sugar industry in this country for two or three reasons. In the first place you cannot get rid of the native by transporting him overseas. And, we must be just to him. He has a right to be employed in the existing industries. But we can create new industries for whites only without in any way penalizing the native, and we can do it in this way. By creating a new white industry. I do not hold with the opinions of many men, that the native in this country is ever going to be equal to the white man in intellect. We are the outcome of generations of civilization. Industry could be created calling for skill and intelligence, and such industry could be protected on the understanding that only white labour was employed. This industry should be protected, or even subsidized in which we could train the untrained and unskilled white in this country until her ultimately passed out as a skilled man. I will take the iron and steel industry as an instance. For many years we have been playing with this question. We have been trying to create an iron and steel industry; we have miserably failed. Why? Owing to the lack of necessary skilled labour, and because there is no market in sight for the surplus products. I do not fear that a market would not be found on the continent of Africa. I believe that the natural market for South African manufactures is the continent of Africa. There we will find a sufficient market for our iron and steel production. Surely we can subsidize steel and iron in the same way as the Germans subsidized their steam ships—on the condition that whites only are employed. If we are anxious to make an effort to assist a section of our population, this is one of the channels which you should be prepared to take. The second aspect is the antipathy of the white man to do kaffirs work. In this country there is no road to the skilled ranks. In other countries a plumber learns his trade by carrying the tools of some other plumber; doing little jobs here and there until he becomes a skilled journeyman. The native does that work here and we are not going to revolutionize that aspect of things; but we have an illustration of what might be done in the great factories of the world, such as in the iron works of Yorkshire. There the line between skilled and unskilled is not clearly drawn. It is heavy work and the unskilled can pass that line from the heavy unskilled work to the higher branches as he becomes more skilled. The percentage of juveniles employed is small. I do not refer to the iron and steel industry only, there are other industries which could be established. I know people who are willing to create a wire-drawing industry in this country, which I am informed, although I do not know if the figures are correct, would save us the importation of a million and a half pounds worth of wire a year, and they would be willing to do that with sufficient protection and only employ whites. I merely throw that out as a suggestion. I see salvation along these lines. We could create on a countryside to-day near the sources of supply, near abundant water, near the coal fields, and near the iron which is lying in the ground, white industries, and village life could spring up around them with the amenities and social life which would come along. There would be some hope in life; something to live for, something to look forward to, for thousands of people in this country, who are at present paralized by the inaction of the people of this country. This can only be done in this way; no Government can do this. If the opposition came into power to-morrow they would not be able to do it without the help of everyone in this House. It is a national policy; and along the lines I have suggested. I am convinced that if there is to be any solution whatever to this question it will never come by recriminations or by holding up the efforts of the Government in power to scorn, but by putting our heads together and finding a solution.

I have seen so much misery, so much poverty, so many homes broken up through this demon of unemployment recently, that I feel this House could not debate any subject at the present time which needs debating more and which needs a solution more than this does. On a previous occasion, when I spoke I made a suggestion: that was that the Government should appoint, or the House, with the consent and co-operation of the Government, should appoint a Select Committee, a non-party Select Committee, to go into this question and see if we could not get a solution. That did not meet with the approval of the Government, and I made another, which was that the Minister of Mines and Industries, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister for Lands should form a committee in order to try and find a solution of this problem of the unemployed and the poor white. I am sure if those three Ministers really seriously tackled this question, they could find a solution if they gave the time to it. When the Government wanted to retrench, when the Government wanted to cut down wages and salaries, they soon found the means of getting a committee together. Very soon! And that “Geddes” Committee went very vigorously to work. But in connection with this question there is hesitancy on the part of the Government to form a committee. It has been handed over to the Minister for Lands to deal with. The Minister for Lands has done good work in that he has proved to the House and to the country a fact I stated some time ago, i.e.: that these men are not lazy, that they are not sluggards. On a previous occasion I said that if you gave these men a ray of hope they would work. They would not work for 3s. or 3s. 6d. a day, but when you put them on piece-work at a fair rate, they would. What do we find? We find the Minister of Lands coming here and telling us, and that these men will even work at planting trees in the night by lantern light. These same men. Why? Because he has put in their way the possibility of earning a decent living wage. He says he has proved it to be economical to use white labour on the railways on construction work; now, if that is a fact, and I know it is, why doesn’t the Government come right out and use white labour and pay the men a decent wage? Pay them a proper wage and say that is going to be the policy of the Government in this matter, not to regard these construction works as relief works, but as national works in the interest of the whole country. When we want to find a solution we have to examine what are the causes of unemployment. Now, one of the principal causes of unemployment, no doubt, is the awful conditions on the land. Another is the lack of policy on the part of the Government in connection with industries. Another is that when men come in from the farms they come as unskilled labourers, therefore they come into direct competition with black and coloured labour. We have to find a solution to that, and I hope that the Government will agree to appoint this Select Committee to assist in regard to the motion of the hon. the leader of the Opposition. We do not want it to end here; we do not want it to end with a debate in this House. We want to see something done. I agree with much that has been said by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), and I agree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) when he said that these discussions did good in keeping a tight rein on the Government and in keeping them thinking in the right direction. I am quite sure none of us want to approach this subject from the purely party standpoint. I think the majority of members want it to be made a national question, at the same time that should not debar or deter any hon. member on whatever side of the House he sits, from facing the facts as they are, and if he considers that the Government policy is wrong, he should say so. If it is going to be treated as a national question, that is the way to deal with it, and it is not a matter for hon. members opposite to be touchy about. Hon. members should say what they mean in this connection. What is the Government’s policy in connection with industries. When the right hon. the Prime Minister came into power, when he took over the reins of Government, I remember the hopes that we had, that he was going straight ahead with the policy he enunciated. I remember those hopes were high throughout the country. We all looked to him to carry out his promises, and I believe he would have carried them out if he had not had to carry so much deadweight in his Government.

Weight has been lost since then; we are lighter now.

We find that there is a very great deal of dissatisfaction and disappointment in the country over this question. I have here the Family Magazine, a paper published in South Africa which is devoted to the interests of the home, the farm, the factory, and the state and this is what they say—

That is the opinion of an independent paper, not a party political paper. I think every member will agree in this: unless we get industrial development in this country, as promised by the Prime Minister some years ago, South Africa will never progress as it should. I have here a report; Mr. Hancock, the President of the Chamber of Industries, made on his return to Johannesburg, after a trip throughout the country recently. Mr. Hancock, I believe, is a supporter of the South African Party. He said—

Remember that is the opinion of the Chairman of the South African Chamber of Industries. Here I have the remarks of Professor Freemantle, who was Acting Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries during the absence of Sir Howard Gorges. He said that—

When we have men of the standing of these making such remarks in connection with the Government’s Industrial policy, then I think we should take notice. I feel if the Government were to go forward with a progressive policy in this connection then we would go a long way towards solving this problem of unemployment. We should provide some sphere of work where the boys and girls leaving our schools to-day would find employment instead of their having to go to other countries in search of work. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) gave us an instance where a man in the Railway Department had to send his wife and children to Australia where the children got work three days after their arrival. I know of a man in Johannesburg who tried to get suitable work for his sons, but could not. What happened? These boys were beginning to almost get into the state of poor whites, the father said their characters were being undermined, not being able to get work they were beginning to become satisfied to be kept by their father. He sent them to Australia with their mother, they arrived in Adelaide and within a week of their arrival they obtained permanent work. Now I hold that this country could do the same, could provide work if we had big industries. It is industries we want. In connection with the farming question, there is no doubt that a great deal of the trouble is due to the parlous conditions of the land to-day. I do not say that the Government is responsible for those conditions in so far as hail and drought are concerned. We find up in the North especially, and in the interior of this country where you have a sparse rainfall and a one crop planting season, where if you miss that season there is poverty, there we find that these men are drifting off the land, through no fault of their own, into the towns. When they arrive in the towns there is no work for them except the relief works, and they sink lower and lower in the scale of civilization. In fact many of them sink so low that even the kaffirs look down upon them. I heard myself, in this town some coloured people jeering at other coloured people and calling them poor whites. That shows where some of our poor whites have got to. I think this is a matter which should be taken seriously, not only by the Government but by every member of this House and every white person in the country. I have made a suggestion to farmers and landowners that they should give the bywoner work on the share system, but even the land owning farmer is getting a rough time now. I have heard from the Western Transvaal of what has taken place there. There thousands of men have left their farms and gone to work on the diamond fields, and disease has broken out on the diamond fields. There is nothing national being done in this matter. Nearly three thousand farmers went insolvent during the last two years, and others on account of the tobacco tax and other things, have drifted away from the land. Some time ago I suggested that the Land Bank should be allowed to take deposits. But no fear. There was immediate trouble upstairs when that suggestion was made. I know perfectly well that a small percentage of the money paid into the bank is withdrawn, but most of it remains there. I give an instance where a man sold his stock in Johannesburg through the municipality. He got a cheque on the National Bank, and paid it to his account also in the National Bank. Under such circumstances very little money is really drawn out of the bank, and in the same way a land tank could be financed if you would only allow the farmer to place their deposits there. These are practical suggestions, and I know some people’s corns will be trodden upon, but they are none the less practical suggestions because of that. New South Wales has recently been in just such a position in regard to its farming community as we are here. Fortunately their rains came just in time for their wheat season, but in our country the rains have come too late for the maize season, and the result is you are going to have great distress among the farmers. Many of the farmers have their land bonded up to the 2,000 limit with the Land Bank. When they want more money from that bank they can’t get it. When they go to commercial concerns they have to give an option of purchase over their farms in order to get a second bond taken up. Thus farms fall into the hands of speculators. Is that good for the country? When a deputation went to Sir George Fuller, the Premier of New South; Wales, recently, to ask him to finance farmers who were overtaken by drought and crop failure, he was sympathetic, and said he considered it to be a national duty to help the farmers under such circumstances. He said the Government would view the situation sympathetically, and assistance would be rendered through the Rural Industries Board in every case known to be deserving. Last season over 3,400 farmers had been assisted, and every case had been dealt with on its merits. Early in the coming year, said the Premier, officers would be sent to districts where they were required in order to help the farmers to make out their applications. Let me quote further in his own words—

Now there you have the Prime Minister of New South Wales taking this matter very seriously, so seriously that he said the Government regarded it as a national duty, and he sent men out to the country to assist the farmers in order to avoid delay. Bishop Long, of Bathurst, said—

The three political parties in New South Wales found themselves in complete agreement on this matter of assisting the men on the land, and they agreed that it is sound business, in the interest of the State, to finance farmers who are overtaken by drought and crop failure. I ask our Government to do something in the same direction. If the Government would not work in such water-tight compartments, I am quite sure that more could be done. The Agricultural Union has been asking the Government to appoint district agents, men who would be the guides, philosophers, and friends of the farmers, advising them how and when best to plant, what to plant, and how to get the best out of their soil. Although the Minister of Agriculture is sympathetic he cannot get these men appointed, the Minister of Finance says “no.” That shows that it should be made the Government’s policy to do what is absolutely essential should be done; and you should not have one Minister pulling one way and another Minister pulling a different way. We get lots of promises from the individual Ministers, but we can get nothing done by the Government. That is what makes so many of us tired of approaching the Government at all. A constructive policy is lacking. What did the Minister of Railways do? At a time when the Government was sending round a document asking the Municipalities and Chambers of Commerce and all big concerns to keep as many men employed as was possible—at that very time, the Minister of Railways was sacking men wholesale, and was it any wonder that one influential Chamber of Commerce replied, “practice what you preach.” Now in the Sunday Times, which from my experience I consider to be a South African Party paper, there appeared an article some little time ago, headed, “Blacker and Blacker.” That article pointed out that South Africa is getting blacker and blacker, and said—

Now that clearly shows that each Minister is working in a water-tight compartment, and it does not matter what may be the professed policy of the Government, it has none. Each Minister does what he jolly well likes. While that is being done, and the Government being constituted as it is, with one Minister a crusted free trader, and another an ardent protectionist, and still another one a milk and water protectionist, I am quite sure we are not going to get very far away. Until the Government as a whole lays down as a policy that they are going to encourage industries, in spite of the pulls which come from here and there from amongst their own supporters against the establishment of industries; I say that until you get that, and until you get a progressive policy, which will do everything possible to keep the farmers on the land, you will achieve nothing. Some people cry “back to the land”—I say, “keep those who are on the land, there first,” They are daily drifting away from the farms. With these few words I sincerely hope that the House will find a solution of this problem. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) says that he does not think that the Government pays enough attention to the common sense of the Back Benches. I have had reason to say that before. I do hope that the Government will appoint a Select Committee on non-party lines to go into this whole matter. I am prepared to help in whatever way I can, in order to assist in finding a solution.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

I had hoped that the importance of the subject, if not the importance of the speaker would have resulted in a bigger and more punctual attendance here to-night. I am supporting the attitude that it is desirable that the people, as well as the Government of this country, should become interested and remain interested in this problem of unemployment, because if only the Government of the country is to be interested, then we would find ourselves in the position of the army, where the general wants to do all the fighting himself and leave the troops to look on. I think the majority of hon. members will agree that no matter how good a Government you have in power, that Government cannot do everything itself, and must rely on considerable assistance from the people of the country. Consequently, I submit that the importance of this problem and the serious issues involved, justify us in claiming that every individual in the country should be asked to do his bit and pull his fair weight in the harness. So far, it has appeared to me, without at all discrediting the efforts of various speakers, that the advice put forward has been something in the nature of, might I say, the “drugless” suggestions, and just as, in my opinion, the drugless healer compares with the qualified practitioner in much the same way or in much the same insipid manner as the non-alcoholic drink compares with that containing a moderate portion of alcohol, so I think the suggestions that have been put forward to the Government have failed, inasmuch as they have not that effective application which one would like to see in a matter of this kind. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) struck the right note when he said this was a matter of sufficient importance to raise it above mere party issues, and I agree that that should be the attitude that this House should take up. So important do I consider this question that I think, if the House were to drop all other legislation for the remaining four or five months and devote that time in committee, free from the crack of any party whip, to a solution of this problem, it would be time well spent. So far as this country is concerned, the problem is more complicated, I submit, than in any other civilized country. Here we have the problem not merely of the white, but the problem of the coloured, and the black, and we have, as some hon. members might not be aware, in one part of the country a colour bar operating against the black, and in another portion of the country a colour bar operating against the white. My particular problem to-night is not that of the general question: my particular problem is the problem of the white. We have in this country a comparatively small population of whites, and we have a comparatively large percentage of those whites who are not merely unemployed, but unemployable; the question, so far as they are concerned, is a question both of unemployment and of their becoming submerged. Now I know that in standing forth and agitating on the question of unemployment from the standpoint of the white man alone, I am disagreeing with a number of members in this House, and also with large numbers of the community. But I submit our duty begins with the men of our own race, and until we are satisfied that we are doing our duty to them we cannot stand forth as champion of the natives. I stand here to urge the question of unemployment mainly from the standpoint of the white man, and the viewpoint of others reminds me of the attitude of those in European countries who support, through their influence and money, missionaries for the natives of South Africa, India and elsewhere, whilst they forget the great distress that exists at their own doorstep. Pounds they will spend on missionary effort 6,000 miles away, but not one penny for the uplifting of their neighbours. Consequently I say our first duty should be to the men of our own race, recognizing always we have also a duty to those of different colour. May I ask the hon. members who represent the Cape what they are doing for the white men here? And what are they doing for the white men in the Cape Peninsula? One can see the result in the human derelicts to be found in the sequestrated portions of your beautiful gardens any time during the day, they are to be seen wandering aimlessly on the Parade, gazing with eyes from which hope and ambition have long since departed, across the waters of Table Bay to that vast Hinterland of Rhodes where lies the Transvaal. They are also to be seen from any of the Sea Point Trams spending the evening of their days in the old Somerset Hospital amid it sordid surroundings. I submit in the Cape we hoped to find something better for the white man than that he should be wandering aimlessly about with no one interested. How many of the honourable gentlemen who have their comfortable homes in Sea Point, Muizenburg and elsewhere, have any idea of the conditions of their fellow men who have been spending the last few sweltering nights in the slums of Cape Town, which should be one of the finest cities in the Union; but you have allowed it to become a city of slums, smells and boarding houses “where every prospect pleases and only man is vile.” And if we go among the farms what do we find? We find that there is no employment for the poorer of the whites, no effort to keep them on the land, they are forced into the cities and towns of the Union, adding to the unduly swollen ranks of the unemployed, where their future is hopeless and their fate tragic. You will not find the slightest encouragement or help given to establish the white men on the farms by the landowners. This is too big a price for a Great White South Africa, yet they can spend thousands of pounds on propaganda in the lobbies of this House, the best legal representation and most expensive technical experts are not too good to explain to honourable members here for the session that the interests of the landowners are endangered by the actions of the present Government, while they are doing nothing to assist in putting those people on the land. Take the position on the Witwatersrand, from where members come down here—members who have rightly to be considered as progressive members. We come down to tell hon. members from the Cape, Natal and the Free State about the “law-made deserts” of the Witwatersrand and the slum conditions that are forced upon us; and, like the Ethiopian of the Scriptures, we ask you to “come over and help us” by passing the amending Gold Law in such form as to enable us to remove these abuses. We try to explain to hon. members how we can find additional employment, and absorb our unemployed by converting these “law-made deserts” into smiling homesteads, and altering those slums into healthy habitations if we are given the opportunity. We appeal to the hon. gentle men to help us by assisting in amending the existing law and how are we handicapped? Other hon. members also come here from the Witwatersrand and tell you about the position of the poor landowners, and cry out against any encroachment on the rights of the freeholder. We appeal to hon. members here to help us, and to see that we in the Transvaal are enabled to do our duty to our fellow-citizens through the medium of legislation. The health and welfare of 200,000 white men, women and children are concerned, and yet you are asked to give priority of consideration to the inalienable rights and unassailable titles of holders of land before you are to consider the rights of those who have to live on the land. This question has expanded much beyond the problem of previous years. One time we were told it was a question of unemployment of the unskilled, as the majority of white people out of employment were those unskilled or without professions. To-day it is not a question of unskilled men, but a good percentage of skilled artizans are finding it difficult to get employment, and, owing to the system of education, many of the younger men who are annually leaving our schools in thousands are finding it extremely difficult to get employment of any kind. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) stated he had many cases where the sons of friends and acquaintances of his could not get employment. Personally, I have cases of my own intimate acquaintances who do not know what to do with their sons, and seem to have not the slightest chance of getting them apprenticed, and in many cases these are lads who have passed their school examinations with distinction. So far as this country is concerned, the position is most strange and unaccountable, as here we have had excellent material to work upon so far as the white people are concerned. You have the descendants of three of the most virile races in Europe—the Hollander, the French Huguenot, and the Anglo-Saxon, and surely a combination of these should produce the finest race in the world. Yet we find to-day we have over 100,000 people who are commonly classed as poor whites, and in the circumstances I think “there is something rotten in the State of Denmark.” We are told that one of the principal things the Government should do to assist is by the establishment of industries, and, at the expense of offending the susceptibilities of my Cape friends, I may say that the creation of industries at the coast only seems to have provided a close coloured preserve. If the establishment of industries itself would solve the problem, then there should be no unemployment problem in England, Germany, or the United States. Surely in these greatest industrial countries in the world, experience has taught that the creation of great, closely-populated industrial cities, instead of solving the problem, has made it increasingly difficult to handle. Take your great mining industry established on the Witwatersrand. That industry employs directly some 21,000 white men, and as a result of its establishment has provided employment for many more in ways incidental to mining. The gold-mining industry has not, however, on the Witwatersrand resulted in doing away with the unemployment problem so far as this country is concerned. It has not resulted to the slightest extent in decreasing the difficulty of solution. As a matter of fact, the growth of the mining industry has created more problems, and is a serious source of trouble at times, and if not handled carefully, will result in a festering sore on the body politic. We ask so far as the Witwatersrand is concerned that the Government may do two things. That is, remove the difficulties, the obstacles in the way of land settlement, then we also want every encouragement to be given to individuals or groups of individuals who are desirous of opening up new gold mining areas or new claim areas. As to agriculture, legislation and financial grants up to the present seem to have failed, and if one goes through the records of this House he will see that considerable sums are spent each year in the fostering of agriculture—yet we find there is very little amelioration of the conditions and little assistance in solving the problem of unemployment amongst the whites. In spite of the figures given by the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt), regarding insolvencies, I feel a great deal could be done by the captains of industry as well as by agriculturists themselves in absorbing more white people of this country, and so prevent that race suicide which will continue to take place unless we solve this problem as well as the kindred problem of the poor white. One might refer to state insurance against unemployment and old age, but that is too wide a field to discuss here, but I would remind the Minister and the House of the custom of sending a deputation from Johannesburg each year to tell him of the large amount of unemployment in Johannesburg. I was present at a deputation a few days ago, and I found the Government capitation grant is 2s. a day for the men employed by the Johannesburg municipality. Something very different requires to be done before you can expect these men engaged on relief works under Government or local authorities to manifest any great pride of race or patriotic sentiment. If the sense of ownership be only developed to the extent that the individual may reasonably expect to have one day selected for his use, a plot of land six feet by three then you cannot expect any enthusiastic glorying in his citizenship. There is a tendency to go to church on Sunday morning and agree with the pastor when he says that “the poor we have always with us,” but in agreeing, do we agree it is right that it should be so? This is a pessimistic attitude which we should seek to overcome, and none should agree with Swinburne when he says: “there is no help, for all these things are so, and all the world is bitter as a tear.” The world undoubtedly, and especially our portion of the world on the Witwatersrand, is “bitter as a tear.” But we do not admit that the world should be as bitter as it is, because we think if every individual does his best he shall see that bitterness to a great extent removed. We have been in the habit of looking upon this matter from the standpoint of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account, and considering whether suggested cures will pay or not. They may not pay from the standpoint of cash, but undoubtedly a little attention to this matter and a little more concentration on a solution to-day would add considerably to human welfare and happiness. If we do not take up a different view point on this matter, if we do not deal with it from the standpoint of the welfare of the human race then we will continue to see our white race degenerate in this country, and we will continue to wonder why such fertile fields exist for the propagation of the doctrines of Bolshevision and anarchy.

I am perfectly sure that we are just as anxious to approach this question of unemployment, equally with other members, in a non-party spirit. But if one may judge from the speeches which have been made by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart), the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey), and even the Minister himself, I think it will be recognized that to approach it in such a spirit is practically an impossible thing. Now a year ago, in an evening debate such as this, I ventured to suggest that the Government should use the recess by appointing a non-party committee to investigate the whole of this unemployment question, and if they were serious in finding a definite solution, it might be that that non-party committee would make suggestions and present facts to the Government which might guide them in finding the solutions suggested. But it has always seemed to us here, to my colleagues and myself, that any suggestions for a solution to this question that were not strictly within the limits of the Government’s policy, were altogether unacceptable. And I remember on that occasion the press was good enough to emphasize the point of view that had been laid down, but in spite of the publicity given to it, and the suggestions made, the Government has never at any time availed itself of the opportunity, outside the limits of their own strict policy, to investigate this question of unemployment with a view to a real solution. Now, if they want co-operation to find a solution of this question how can this be done? The only co-operation, it seems to me, that the Government requires is the co-operation which is within the policy just laid down, and I contend that any party which seeks to co-operate with a Government of that sort is betraying the people of South Africa. There is no possible solution along those lines. To be perfectly frank on this matter, the Government, we believe, have accepted and laid down a certain policy. Now the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) in the midst of a good deal of mud-slinging, disclosed this little bit of light. His solution of this problem was the palliatives laid down by the Minister of Lands. That was the main burden of the solution. He was perfectly satisfied and content that the Minister was dealing with this question. But while the Minister is dealing with it, the unemployment question in South Africa is increasing every ay. That is no solution. We are simply offering a palliative for a trouble that already exists, but we are not dealing with the question of unemployment and its causes. Is it possible to co-operate in the solution of the problem when a policy like that is offered, which we know can never solve the problem at all. I submit that co-operation along those lines is an impossible thing. Now we take the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey). When we have disposed of his very rude remarks—he said in one breath that we were to protect the shopkeepers, the business community against the unfair competition of the Indian. Everyone will agree that such protection is necessary, but he had already said that he refused any protection being given to the white man against natives imported into our territory for the express purpose of lessening European employment. That is entirely inconsistent. When the hon. member has laid down a policy like that, then any attempt at co-operation is impossible. We have the case of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) who made a very interesting speech. And he owned, and gave us figures to prove, that the door was Being gradually closed to European employment in this country, that gradually there was a lessening of employment in the various fields of industry, and his figures proved his contention. After he had made that statement, and given us two causes for this lessening of European employment in the industries of this country, he made this statement, “That the European would not do kaffir work.” Well, as a general thing, I do not think that is true. I think it is an unfair and a ridiculous statement to make, that in this country the European; will not do what he says is kafir work. The position is this, that the European is not prepared to enter into that work at kafir wages. That is the real position, and the kafir wage is fixed at a standard which makes it impossible for the European to enter into that particular field of the work of this country. So to co-operate with a party that accepts this principle, or any body of men who accept these principles as a solution—I say there is no solution, and co-operaion is, under those circumstances, useless and impossible. I venture to say this, that between us and the Government, with its present policy, there is to-day a very definite cleavage and a very definite conflict; a very definite conflict with the Government’s policy of finance, with the economic policy of the Government, and with the industrial policy of the Government. And to co-operate on this basis, so far as I can see, makes it an impossible and impracticable matter. Now, I want to repudiate the statement that it is our business to provide this Government with a means of solving this particular problem. I maintain that it is the Government’s business to take the lead, the initiative in the question of solving this unemployment problem, to give the House a lead and to give the House a lead on a definite policy in the direction of solution. We have our policy, but the policy which we believe we have, will mean many definite changes in administration, but in any case it is an honest attempt to grapple with the unemployment question in all its far-reaching implications. At any rate our policy is a practical attempt to deal with the question for all time to come. That is our contention, and we think that we shall never solve this question by continuing this process of alleviating a little here and there. The distress, as it is to-day, cannot be dealt with in that way. Now, sir, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) quoted just now exactly what was said a year ago. “The poor we have always with us.” I remember hearing similar quotations again and again. I very rarely hear a man quote the whole of the passage. The passage is: “And whensoever ye will, ye may do them good.” They always quote the first part, “the poor we have always with us,” and indicate that any attempt at a final solution is inevitably doomed to failure. Well, sir, many of us do not hold that view. We believe that a pessimistic policy of that kind is an acknowledgment of the bankruptcy of statesmanship, that it is a policy which does not appreciate the possibilities that lie in the reorganization of our industrial life, either in this or in any other country, and reorganization in such a manner as would bring the greatest good to the greatest possible number of people. But what is more serious to us, is this—that in Parliaments in these days, there seems to be a tendency to evade such means of dealing with the problem, the out-of-work problem, as will really open a door of hope to the thousands of people who are suffering, suffering very much, under the present state of distress. Not only the people who are out of work, but the people who live in the constant fear that any day they may be thrown out of work, and that there is practically no class of work through which they may be able to earn a living. We are all aware of the difficulty that faces any Government in tackling this problem, under existing conditions, as we find them in this country, or in any other country to-day. We believe that the present methods of industrial and commercial enterprise are entirely responsible for the conditions that are known to us, and that we see before our eyes to-day. Now, sir, the position is this: Hon. members are pledged, if I am not mistaken, to the maintenance of these conditions. They are pledged to the extension of this system, and from the beginning, if we read the story of industrial development, we shall find that unemployment has ever come in the wake of the present method of industrial life; unemployment is part and parcel of the whole system. If I am not mistaken, a year or two ago a Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain said that it was necessary, in the interests of regulating wages, to have a million or so of unemployed.

Who said that?

I believe it was Mr. Austin Chamberlain. It was stated in the press that it was necessary to have a floating population of unemployed for the purpose of regulating wages in industries. That has been the policy of those who have advocated and pressed for the enlargement of the present system of private enterprise for gain. Now what happens in this country when a settlement on these lines is tried? If the Government is here to maintain and enlarge this system and support it, and didn’t they support it at the time of the strike, and after the strike? Have they not supported it in this country and are they not supporting it to-day? If they are pledged to support this system then it seems to me that that pledge is incompatible with the solution of the unemployment question, and we see no hope whatever of finding a solution, and we say that the Government schemes will only be in the nature of palliatives, which may bring a little relief from time to time. That is what we feel about the whole matter, and we say that such a policy will throw hundreds of men on the industrial scrap heap. I do not want it to be said for a moment that I do not appreciate the humanitarian feeling which any hon. member may have, who is seeking a way out within the confines of the system in which he believes. I believe that many men are aware of the dire troubles that come in the wake of unemployment, and they are anxious to see that it shall be lessened. Humanity brings us at least to that point. Rut I am just stating that in our opinion, after carefully considering the whole position, it is incompatible with that system in which hon. members believe. Those are genuine convictions and so long as the people of this country, whether they be Europeans or coloured or natives, are at the mercy of industrial adventurers, who are working only for private gain, well then the result will be that we shall have unemployment, that we shall find no definite, no real solution of the problem. Now having said that, just for a moment or two I want to look at the facts as we have them before us; the position of unemployment here in South Africa. The position is very difficult indeed, and one has nothing in the way of facts and figures to support one. I understand that we have a very considerable unemployment problem here in South Africa. The Government figures do not help us very much in this matter, the reason perhaps being that there is something very radically wrong with our whole system of registration. Our white labour bureau just takes those who come and register, but there seems to be no means of getting at the proper figures, with regard to unemployment right through the country, for many people never come near a registration bureau. The difficulty therefore is this, that we cannot get the numbers of the unemployed in their relation to the population. One and a half millions of Europeans are in the country—I suppose the working units would be about 300,000 if we take the figures of other countries, one-fifth or so of the population, to comprise the working units. Now I am given to understand on fairly reliable authority, that we have 20,000, right through the Union, of unemployed, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000. Hon. members have stated that we have about 120,000 poor whites in South Africa. The Minister has told us that we have from 6,000 to 8,000 employed on relief works. I believe the Prime Minister’s figures were that we have something like 16,000 young people leaving school every year, and that we can only find openings for some 8,000. I have a statement here from the Rand Juvenile Advisory Board which says that out of 2,000 young people employed, by the time they are 18 years of age you have 500 of them unemployed. They enter blind alley occupations, not occupations in which a man can work and earn his livelihood. I am given to understand that in Johannesburg there is a system in many places, I do not know whether it applies to other centres where girls go to work; they are taken on in batches and they work for 6 months at very low wages and then they are turned out and another batch comes in, and they go to swell the unemployed. That was brought to my notice by people who know what they are talking about. There is unemployment amongst the teachers, and amongst European girls generally a large number of young girls cannot get employment. So the position is very serious. That means that in the Transvaal the people are feeling that the position, the outlook, is so black that many are contemplating taking the first opportunity of selling out and going to another country where they have some sort of hope of getting their young folk into employment. The picture which is given to me is somewhat black and pessimistic, but those are the facts as put before us. Hundreds of parents to-day see no outlook here in South Africa for their children, and they are looking to other lands, because the outlook is so desperately black, that they do not see that there is any solution which is forthcoming to help them or their children. Now this is a state of things which we know has very definite causes. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) came for a moment or two under the lash of the honourable and versatile member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) because he had dared to state the policy which he has held for many years, and which he still firmly holds, that we are on an entirely wrong line in this country with regard to our industrial development. Now the position, as far as I am able to see it, is, that we have accepted very definitely the policy of the big financial and commercial exploiters of South Africa, and we have accepted a policy which is not good for this country, and which is not concerned with the future development of South Africa—is not concerned a bit about closing the door of occupation for Europeans, or coloured and natives ultimately. It has no far-seeing outlook on this question, but it simply employes coloured people and natives, because they are cheap labour, labour that is easily manipulated, and has no outlook for the future development of the country, and for the fixing of civilized standards for Our population. They are not even concerned with fixing the European standard as the true standard, so that the coloured man and native may aspire to that, rather than that the European should be forced down to the lower one. Now the basis in many of these industries is, what an hon. member calls the kafir wage, as he was pleased to describe it in this House. If that is to be the basis of industry, I ask what hope and what place will there be for an European civilized population in South Africa? We are sacrificing, under that policy, the civilized population to the selfish, greedy interests of those people whose policy is opposed to the best interests of the country, and I believe the Government accepts it. If so, they are sacrificing, for political expediency, the best interests of the people of South Africa. If the Government accepts that policy, and it seems to me that, practically speaking, the Government has accepted it—

Never.

Well, they are practising it; wherever you go they are practicing it, and if that is accepted in its entirety, and if that is to be the future basis of industry in this country, it spells ruin for South Africa. It means the closing of the door of hope to every advance of civilization, and it means the European population may have only an outlook which is as black as night in South Africa, so far as their own advance is concerned. I hold that no country is faced with the same problem in exactly the same form as South Africa. The native people are in a certain stage of development. I saw a figure the other day which stated that 90 per cent. of the native population was living barely above the stage of tribal life. They are a simple pastoral people, and we have dragged them out of their pastoral life and pursuits into industrial conditions to which in our opinion they are not equal, and to which it was not desirable we should bring them. Now the captains of industry to which the hon. the member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) referred, have taken advantage of the workableness of the native; of his imitative capacity, and the fact that he is easily managed, to draft him into these industrial conditions because it suits their own purpose, and what they want is a small European force to train and superintend him, and to bring him to something like a workable unit in the industrial life of South Africa. Now we claim that by that you are doing the native no good. We claim that you are making into very little more than a kaffir compound; that you are killing initiative in the white worker; and that you are robbing the European man of the training ground that he has the right to have for his development in industrial life. That is the position that we take up. Now, take the European skilled man. To a certain extent he has been protected in the past by what we accept as being an artificial barrier. That barrier has gone; but he is still protected to a certain extent, because he is a skilled, and on the whole an efficient, man, but that position is challenged. The native is coming in; the trouble is not that the native is coming in, but that he is coming in at a pay that is impossible for the European man, to live on. That is the position. If you take the drill-sharpeners’ position on the Reef, it is not that the native has come into that work, but that the native accepts pay on which the European cannot live. He has cut out the European and not improved his own position. That is the position, and it is becoming steadily another industry. They are challenging, not the European right to live, but the European standard of life, and that is the fault we have to find with the Government’s acquiescence in this policy. In the unskilled field of labour where the Europeans certainly have greater efficiency, the wages offered him effectively close the door to him there. What is an economic wage? The economic wage to which the Minister of Railways refers, is a wage that you can get a native or a coloured man to work for, and what is expected of the European? It is that by superior skill, and speeding up, and many other devices, those men should be able to outstrip the native and earn a little more, but the economic wage is, for the European, to be brought to the native level. Now, If he has accepted those terms, what can it mean? We contend that he leaves behind him all that he has gained by his organization work, and suffering for one hundred years. All that he has gained, and we believe that you have put back race development physically, mentally, and morally; we believe that you are putting back race development, and you are even bringing your own kith and kin to the level of those who, through the toil of fifty years, have just reached the level they have attained. I know from experience what this unemployment really means in so far as it reflects upon the people concerned. I personally, do not care to think very much about the past, about all the evil that was made-through victimisation and many other things to bring homes as it were to destruction, and that is what has happened in homes in the past, and is happening in homes to-day even in South Africa. It means the undermining of the health of the children; it means the lessening of their educational advantages; it (means ultimately undermining the whole morale of the nation, it degenerates the moral standard of the people, this out-of-work condition does, and I do not think that all the hon. members have faced it, except, perhaps, in this way, that it has affected their purses, and the claims upon their generosity. But its social implications are greater than we think. Hungry men become angry men, and some of these men become very angry, and we know that ultimately they become the victims of plots that upset the established order of society. We have seen it in this and other countries, and I think that if we look at the whole conditions of the unemployed into which they are drifting, we as a community cannot tolerate or sanction those conditions, if we are even true to our humanitarian instincts. They are the breeding ground, as an hon. member said, for extremism, and can we wonder, when a man has to look into the faces of those who are part and parcel of his own life, and see the condition to which they are drifting, and face the facts which unemployment brings. In the desperate state to which men are driven by these conditions, do we wonder that many times they are driven into extremes that they would not dream of at any other time. As conditions exist to-day in the various countries, through a century of commercial and industrial development, we know that it is going to be a fairly difficult process to get back to any decent state in which we shall eliminate this question of unemployment. We know that what has to be done cannot be exactly drastic or revolutionary, and we know that such measures will upset and even aggravate the problem itself. But we have suggested and given a serious and preliminary reforms and changes of policy, which the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) outlined in his speech, a change of policy which would go in the direction of the ultimate solution of this question. A country like this should have no unemployment. I say that a country with such a small population of Europeans should have no unemployment. At present the European is the great factor in the unemployment question. The coloured man has not been troubled to any great extent. But I am told to-day that unemployment is making itself felt, as the natives are cutting the coloured men out, and I venture to suggest that in another few years, that that will be a cause of unemployment among the coloured people. It is inevitable that under the present system the unemployment problem will extend from the white to the coloured, and then from the coloured to the natives, and in the end matters will be worse than now. This is the inevitable consequence of the system under which we live. I believe in dealing with the natives now. We have an opportunity of doing something as far as they are concerned. It appears foolish to me to hear it said that we have improved him very much by bringing him from his own land, and from the conditions under which he lived, where there was no unemployment question, and bringing him in, at this time when the keenest industrial conflict is making it awkward for the native to understand the system under which we live and work. He is not equal to it. The best thing we could do in this country would be to enlarge our native reserves, get the native back on the land, give him the opportunity of working there. To cut down as much as possible the bringing of natives into the industrial sphere and to do away with indenturing. If this is done you are automatically dealing with the question of unemployment, and you will not get unemployment amongst the native or the coloured man. Automatically their problem can be solved and automatically it serves to solve the problem of the Europeans. Then there is the question as to whether cheap labour increases the cost of production. Experience in Australia and America where they employ the highest qualified men, where they use their brains and organizing ability, shows that they can work cheaper than we can. Skill and organization in industries show that they beat us in the world’s market even with our cheap labour. If we bring skill and brains and organization, and if we train the best class of men we shall considerally improve industry in this country, and we will solve the unemployment question at the same time. I can say from my experience on the Witwatersrand, and I have watched carefully from one end of the Reef to the other, that 30 per cent of the native labour is loafing. It is not organized, and it is not used under the present conditions. They would be used to better advantage if they were back on the land from which they came.

Dit is algemeen as reël aangeneem deur hierdie Huis, dat ons, as ons die kafferkwessie behandel, dit glad nie op party lyne sal gebeur nie, en ten aansien van die oplossing van die arme blanke kwessie meen ek dat ons ook nie die gedragslyn moet volg nie, en die Nasionale Party stem met die lid vir Zululand (de hr. Nicholls) saam dat dit so moet bly en dat ons dit moet beskou as ’n Nasionale vraagstuk en nie as ’n party vraagstuk—dat ons dit moet hoog hou bokant alle partypolitiek. Dit is jammer dat sommige lede dit nie gedaan het nie, en veral die lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) het uitlatinge gebesig, wat sterk aftekeur is. Hy het eers verklaar, dat die mosie van die lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) ’n sameswering is tussen de Nasionale en Arbeiders Patry. En de oomblik daarna wens hy die opposiesie-leier geluk daarme, dat hy die saak nie as ’n partykwessie behandel het nie. Hy het my herinner aan ’n spotprent, wat ek in 1911 in ’n koerant gesien het en waarop die edele lid vir Stellenbosch (de hr. Merriman) afgebeeld staan, aan die eenkant sy teenstanders telyfgaande met ’n knuppel en aan die anderkant sy vriende toetakelende met ’n sambok. Hy wil in die rondte speel en het die Minister van Spoorweë beskuldig dat hy met te hoë tariewe die toestand vererger en die Regering, dat hulle met te losse teuels die land bestier. Die Minister van Lande het homself goedkeurend op die rug geklop met die goeie stappe, wat die Regering geneem het om die arme blanke kwessie op te los, Hy verklaar, dat die Regering sekere dinge ter hand geneem het; ten eerste landneersetting, ten twede onderstandswerke en ten derde het hy gevra, welke planne gee die mosie aan die hand. Laat ons daardie punt in oëskou neem. Wat landnedersetting betref sal seifs die sterkste ondersteuner moet toegee, dat dit nie ’n ongekwalifiseerde sukses was nie, veral as ons neem die neersettings in die boswereld in Kaapland en Transvaal. Dit is ver van alle spoorweë en middels van kommunikasie, wat dit moeilik en duur maak om hulle produkte van die hand te sit en die grootste is wanneer hulle gedurende ’n paar agtereenvolgende jare ’n misoes het, soas in die Transvaal pas gebeur het. Hulle moet nie net die koopsom van die grond betaal nie, maar ook rente op die koopsom. In sy nood gaat so’n man eers en verkoop ’n klompie beeste en naderhand weer ’n verdere paar en as die man eendag uit nood daar weggaan, is hy armer as wat hy daar gekom het. Ek sal op die punt nie te diep ingaan nie, want die Minister het mij beloof om wetgewing voor te stel tot verbetering van die toestand en vermindering van die laste en ek hoop dus, dat daardeur die posiesie van die mense op die neersettings sal verbeter word. Ten twede is daar die onderstandswerke. In die eerste plaas ag ek dit ’n verkeerde politiek om ’n te grote aantal mense op die soort van werke te hou. Die strewe moet wees om hulle so spoedig moontlik weer daar weg te kry, sodat hulle nie meehelp om die oplossing lastiger te maak nie. In Westelik Transvaal is ’n groot deel, wat tot die werklose behoort; nie arme mense nie, maar grondeienaars, wat tengevolge van die droogte nie kon ploeg of saai me. Nou kry hulle werk op die spoor, maar wat is die betaling? Vir permanente wege is dit 10d. per kubieke jaart. En daarop moet so’n man homself en sy famielie onderhou. Jy kan hoogstens vier kubieke jaarts per dag maak; dit is my verseker deur iemand wat die soort van werk gedaan het en dan is nog ’n voorwaarde dat die grond nie te hard moet wees nie. Die man moet vir sy implemente betaal op die koop toe en ek vra, of dit iets is waarop die Minister kan trots wees. Dit is onmoontlik om daarmee uit te kom en tog is daar meer applikasies om die werk te kry teen die karige lone as wat daar werk voor is. Waar dus die Regering die mense met onderstandswerke help, behoort die loon hoog genoeg te wees dat die man sy famielie kan onderhou, sonder om honger te ly. Dit is dus nie helemaal nutteloos nie, maar bied geen oplossing nie. Die Minister vra welke praktiese planne daar aan die hand gegee is om dit te verander. Die kongres wat te Bloemfontein gehou is deur die Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk het praktiese voorstelle gedaan. Maar daar was geen enkele verteenwoordiger van die Regering nie en dit was tog hulle plig om daar verteenwoordig te wees. Ek het ’n Blouboek hier, waarin baie praktiese planne aan die hand gegee word. Dit is gedateer 6 Mei 1921, dit is die Twede Tussentydse Rapport van die Werkeloosheid Kommissie, wat bestaan het uit die here H. L. Lindsay, C. J. Clark, Jac. L. Hamman, J. H. Conradie, A. Crawford en W. J. Parrack. Hulle plan is dieselfde as die van die Kerkkongres, nl. die instelling van ’n Raad van bekwame praktiese manne, wat al hulle tyd sal bestee aan die toepassing van die middele wat hierin aan die hand gegee word. In die rapport sê hulle—

Die Kommissie gee aan die hand dat die losse goed en vee onder verband sal kom, totdat 1-5 persent van die koopsom afbetaal is. Nou is dit so, dat slegs diesulke gehelp word, wat dadelik 1-5 persent kan betaal. Die Kommissie beveel aan, dat as ’n bywoner een-vyfde van die koopprys kan betaal, hy grond sal mag koop met hulp van die Regering. Ten twede dat die Regering proefneersettings, sal begin in al die Provinsies. Dit is ’n plan wat ek reeds vroeger aan die hand gegee het, dat, nl., die planne op die proef gestel sal word, dat vir die werk betaal word en genoegsaam aan die man uitgekeer om te leef, maar die res kom aan die Regering. Blyk dit dat iemand geskik is, dan word aan hom grond toegeken. Is hy nie geskik nie, dan moet daar dwangkolonies opgesit word, waarheen diesulke gestuur word. Dit is reeds drie jaar gelede, maar ek glo nie dat enige plan reeds op die proef gestel is nie—[Een Edele Lid: “Daar is reeds verskeie planne uitgevoer.”] Nee, nie een nie en as die Regering regtig van plan is iets te doen, dan sou hulle tog seker die aanbevelings van hulle eie Kommissie uitvoer. Deur ’n vriend van my is aan die hand gegee, dat die Landbank groter fondse ter beskikking sal kry om die mense op die platteland te help. Daar is baie wat grond het, maar wat verarm is en arme blanke sal word as hulle nie gehelp word nie, en as die plan uitgevoor word, sal die aantal minder word. Dit is iets, wat die Regering in ernstige oorweging moet neem, want dit is mense wat in die meeste gevalle deur droogte en die sprinkane uitgeroei is. Hulle moet gehelp word teen ’n lae rente, anders sal diesulke, as hulle deur skuldeisers opgedruk word tot die arme blankedom afsak. As die Regering nie dadelik aandag daaraan wy nie, siet ek ’n ernstige toestand voor die deur. In die hele Westelike Transvaal is die toestand so ernstig as hy ooit kan wees. Vele mense het twee en drie oeste agter mekaar niks gekry nie en as ’n man van die produksie van die land moet leef, dan weet ons wat dit beteken en ons moet hulle probeer help, voordat hulle verlore gaan. Ek vertrou dat die Regering sal toesien, dat groter somme vir die Landbank op die Begroting geplaas word en dat die mense op billike terme sal gehelp word. Ons voel almaal, dat die arm-blanke kwessie ons volk diep raak en nie alleen die man wat arm is, maar almaal moet daaronder ly. Die deel van die volk wat arm is ly daaronder, die deel wat nog nie arm is ly ook daaronder, want ons is één volk. Dis hoog tyd dat die vraagstuk die grootste aandag kry. Dit help nie om daaroor te praat en te debatteer, maar die saak moet aangepak word. Die Regering kan seker daarvan wees, dat enige maatreël waamee hy sal kom, as dit ’n goeie maatreël is, dan sal hy die voile ondersteuning kry van hierdie kant van die Huis. Die bedoeling is om die kwessie op te los op breë nasionale grondslag, sonder party politiek. Ek kan die versekering gee, dat enige maatreël wat die Regering sal opbring sal deur hierdie kant van die Huis behandel word op die grondslag.

I should not have intervened in this debate, but for the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) this afternoon. It was a speech of considerable interest, as is always the case when the hon. member speaks. The hon. member told us that he had a solution of the problem. So long as he spoke in generalities, I agreed with him. He said this should be debated as a non-party matter, and be free from recrimination, and in these two things I think with him. But when it came to his practical solution, I was filled with amazement, because his solution was founded on an entirely wrong principle and a, wholly false analogy. He said just as you have protection in industry, you must have protection of the white people of South Africa. He took Queensland as his analogy. We know perfectly well that the problem in Queensland was of an entirely different nature to the question of white and native workers here. In Queensland they imported large numbers of Paupe Island labourers; and when these people became a menace, it became the duty of the Queensland Government, as the latter saw it, to take measures in order to protect its own people against unfair foreign competition. He argues from that that there should be a similar protection in this country, but not against foreign competition: against competition based on colour. It came down to that as we understood him. He suggests the creation and protection of certain key industries for white labour alone. In other words, he is going to add to the very difficult colour bars we have already; he is going to add a new colour bar. That is exactly what it came to. A colour bar in which the white man of the country shall be protected against the coloured man of the country, both of whom are taxpayers. And he thinks that by so doing we will eliminate unemployment. To stop unemployment for the white, he is going to create unemployment for the coloured. If that is put forward as a practical solution for the unemployment problem of this country, I must register my protest against it as being an absolutely impracticable and unjust proposal. I feel very strongly on that. It is Unjust that at the expense of one class as taxpayers you should protect another class of taxpayers against them.

Are you not doing that on the railways at all?

No. A number of white men are being employed on the railways to-day as an experiment at higher pay, and it is being seen whether they are justified in receiving that pay by the work they are doing. And you are not creating a colour bar at all, because you are giving both white and coloured avenues of employment. I have listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux), who at considerable length told us they had a solution. I do not wish to make this a matter of party recrimination, but the hon. member in his remarks said the Government has no solution. He said nothing has been done: and spoke of the Government’s proposals as “palliatives.” We on this side of the House are taking as much interest in this question as we possibly can, and I have listened to Labour members, from the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) down to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux), but what practical contribution have we had from them towards a solution? Nothing, except this, by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux), who said—

I wonder what the unemployed think of such a solution as that. They ask for bread and they get a stone.

You give them that stone.

When they ask us in all good faith, and in all earnestness, each to throw into the common stock his ideas and his views as to the solution, then the answer from that side is “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

You will not accept our suggestions,

The hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) says: “We will not cooperate owing to the financial and industrial policy of the Government?” He has told us: “We are charged with not assisting the Government in this matter.” And what was his answer? “It is not our business to provide the Government with a solution.” Again in effect he says: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Those people who are doing all they can to put a party complexion on this matter are the very people who say “we have a solution, but we hug it to our bosom, and we keep it in our pockets, and we shall wait until the time comes because in view of the industrial and financial policy of the Government it is not our business to give assistance in this matter.” The hon. member speaks of a system to which the Government is pledged. I challenge any impartial person who heard the speech of the hon. member to-night to say that I am putting an unfair complexion on his words. Here is a very big problem; I believe it is very much exaggerated, but at the same time I say it is a very big problem. But how can you do anything if hon. members take that line. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) said that the Government and this side is pledged to a system of unemployment, that a system of unemployment is part and parcel of our policy and he quotes someone from elsewhere as saying that it is good policy to keep a million of people unemployed. What earthly good is that kind of tuppenny-halfpenny talk? If they have a solution, then for God’s sake let them give it to us. They can have all the credit they want for it. They can advertise themselves. They have their Hansard, now let them come forward and make their suggestions and forever they can go forward and claim they have solved this problem. They have their Hansard now, which they were so anxious to have. Let them come along with their solution if they have one. Many of us are watching developments in other countries. We have our policy, which has been put forward by the Minister of Lands in a very clear manner and nobody in this House has been able to suggest anything more practicable or anything better than the Minister has done. No one has been able to put forward anything better, than the Minister has done in punting these people on the land in the way he has done. I have been watching the wholehearted energy with which, in similar circumstances, similar parties in opposition in Great Britain and elsewhere, have similarly held up a great secret plan of solving this unemployment problem. But when they got into power, and are asked the same awkward questions as their predecessors as to the solution of the problem—they give just the same answers as their predecessors. And I venture to say that if the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) ever gets into the Minister’s seat, he will just gives the same answers and I shall be very much surprised if he does not get very much the same criticism that he is making to-day. That sort of criticism is rather futile. But what did the speech of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) amount to to-night? It practically amounted to a denial of the right of the coloured man in this country to get a fair wage like the white man in this country.

No, that is not so.

Yes, it is so. And then he talked of the economic wage and about a fair standard of living. It came to this—his suggestion was a denial on the part of the Kafir or the coloured man to get his fair share of the work on the mines or anywhere in competition with the white man or to have a fair chance or opportunity to get work. And then he told us that you cannot alter the evil until you alter the present-day system. People who talk like that know perfectly well that they have no solution at all and that they will never have one until the Greek Kalends. When they talk of altering the system, do they think of Russia? The system was fairly well altered there. Is there no unemployment there? In Russia you have the most cruel example of the effect of theory translated into practice. You have the most cruel example of the effect upon the dupes who believe that by the mere stroke of the pen you can solve the problems of the day. No, we know perfectly well the difficulties of the situation. We believe that a discussion of this kind will help to lead to a solution if people from all sides of the House fairly and squarely put before their fellow-men the ideas which they have as a contribution towards that solution, and put forward the schemes which they would themselves suggest. On that basis we should have some hope, but without that (here is absolutely no hope. We know that the problem is a very difficult one. It is an urban one as well as a rural one: so far as it is an urban one it is complicated also by the fact of the drift from the land. There are one or two ways in which a solution can be helped. The one is to make better means of access to the country, opening up the remoter parts by roads. But there is one point which has not been touched upon. I have felt that it is one of the most serious factors which has led to unemployment. That is our system of entail by which a big piece of land, capable of supporting many families is, from generation to generation, it may be two, three, or four generations held up, and as a result you have large tracts of land perfectly capable of supporting many, held by only one or two persons who are not able to work that land. I am sure that we would be doing good service if, through the Government or by private members, legislation were introduced by which that would be impossible. That is one serious and big factor in creating poor whites and unemployment in our land. But, coming to the way in which the unemployment problem is dealt with, the Government is providing work on railways and afforestation. Now that work appeals to everybody, or ought to appeal to everybody, and that deals with the able-bodied unemployed. But you have a large number of people who are over age or not fit to take up work offered on the land or on the railway. You also have people who, rightly or wrongly, are tied to the place to which they belong. They perhaps ought to be willing, but they are not willing to go and leave their families behind. You have a large number, particularly in urban areas, of people who belong, say, to the shop class, who are absolutely unable at a late period of life to adapt themselves to the kind of work which the hon. the Minister of Railways and the hon. the Minister of Lands provide for the unemployed. These are the class of people for whom I believe the problem is not insoluble, but for whom a solution has not been arrived at. I put on one side the floating population which you have in such a town as Cape Town, of people whom you may call the stiffs, who go round once a week to get Salvation Army tickets. There is a considerable number of people of this kind. The Lord help them. They are by nature ineradicably unfit for doing work of any kind. Those are the people who perhaps could be dealt with in compulsory labour colonies They are able to work, but they will not work. They have not got the will. There is some psychological factor which prevents them from doing the work which they should do. That might be dealt with by compulsory labour colonies. But the problem is to deal with the elderly and unfit, and those who are not willing to leave their families. Take the case of the person earning about 15s. a day. He will not go to the Minister of Lands to get 5s. a day to keep his family. He might be quite wrong, but I think we must have a little sympathy with him when he prefers to stay in town, where he may have the opportunity of getting work and reinstating himself in the position which he may have temporarily lost. That is the kind of man with whom we must sympathize. In addition to that, is the man who, we will say, may have been a clerk in a drapery establishment, and is absolutely and entirely unfitted to do the class of work provided by the Government. That is a problem which I believe the Government will set itself steadfastly to try to solve. The difficulties are great, We know the system of doles is as bad for the individual as for the State. That has been proved over and over again. It has never been suggested over there.

What’s that?

Doles.

No, no!

Even the system of relief works has its objections. You provide enough only for men to keep body and soul together. The Government does not want to make money out of them, but there is no other way to provide for them, except by providing work at an uneconomic scale.

What?

I said short of providing work on an uneconomic scale.

What’s that?

To do work at a wage which the work is not worth. If you put a man on work, and the work is worth only 4s. or 5s a day, and you pay 15s. a day, you are paying an uneconomic wage. But we will not enter into that discussion. I for one quite realize from my own point of view that relief works are useful to a certain extent, but on a very limited scale. But you have to limit the application as far as possible, and then you go back to the real problem, every time: what are we to do for the class of man who is able to work and is entitled to earn good wages if he could get the work which he is able to do. What are you to do for that man, and for the other man whose job is purely and simply an indoor one? He is unfitted by his occupation and life for an outdoor life. That is the residuum of the proposition which we really and fairly and squarely have to face. I believe that the Government has done splendid work in trying to face the problem. By pressing on with afforestation we are not only dealing with the unemployment problem to-day, but are building up a great legacy for posterity. I am unable to give a solution. I am not like those who have a solution which they will not give us But I do believe we could put our heads together, and put our ideas into a common stock and help the Government, instead of using this thing as an attack as a means of offence. We can come to a solution in our own way. I only wonder what we are debating. Here we have a motion before the House which we can all agree to. The right hon. the Prime Minister has accepted that motion with a little amendment which the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) was apparently prepared to accept until the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) objected. What the position is I do not know. I take it that the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) is going to accede to the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, and in that spirit I believe we have got the right declaration (although it is academic) of the position, viz., that it is a problem that must be taken into serious consideration not only of the Government, but of the whole of the people of South Africa.

Daar is al baie oor diemosie, nou voor die Huis gepraat, maar daar is altoos nog iets oor wat kan gesê word. Dis ’n baie moeilike kwessie, die arm-blanke-kwessie-en die vraagstuk is nou at byna elke jaar voor die Huis gebring, maar dit bly daarby. Alleen met saamwerking in die Huis van almaal sal ons alleen tot ’n oplossing kom. Maar van tyd tot tyd word die arm-blanke kwessie in die Huis gebring as politieke munt.

Og kom!

En ek sê, as dit op die wyse gedoen word, dan kan geen oplossing gevind word. Ek is baie bly, dat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) die mosie ingedienhet en ook dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister dit daar bygevoeg het “en het volk.” By die oplossing van die arme-blanke kwessie kry jy drie klasse van persone wat gehelp moet word. Die eerste is die arm-blanke bywoner van die platteland. Die ander is die wat loon trek en werk soek teen loon en as hy die werk kry dit wil doen. Die derde klasse is die wat nie wil werk nie. Wat gaan jy met die klasse maak? Daar is die moeilikheid. As jy vir hom werk gee of werk vir hom kry, dan sê hy, dat hy die werk nie verstaan nie of vra so ’n hoë loon, dat die werkgewer hom nie kan aanneem nie. Daar lê die moeilikheid om die-derde klasse van persone tegemoet te kom. Nou neem ons eers die klasse, wat ons bywoners noem, en wat by die grondeienaar werk of wat grond huur en ’n hoë huur betaal ook. As hulle ’n bietjie onder-steuning van die Regering kry by dat wat hul van die grondeienaar ontvang, dan sal hul gehelp wees en in korte tyd selfstandig word. My ondervinding met die klasse van persone is, dat as hulle ’n bietjie gehelp word, dan gaan hulle voorentoe en is nie langer op die Regering se drempel nie. Maar die ander klasse wat nie op die manier gehelp kan word nie, moet werk vir verskaf word. Maar daar moet fabrieke in ons land gestig word, waar die persone werk kan vind. Ek stem toe, die Regering het al baie gedoen om die mense aan werk te help, maar hy is nog nie op die punt waar hy moet wees nie. Daar is baie moeilikhede. Die arm blanke was voor ons en sal daar na ons ook nog wees. Maar dis ons plig om iets te doen vir die arm-blankes waar ons mee te doen het in ons leeftyd. Die mense moet gehelp word. Daar kan baie fabrieke in die land gestig word, waar die mense sal werk vind. Maar die kwessie is die klasse van persone wat nie wil werk nie en ek gaan so ver om te sê, dat die Regering met die saamwerking van alle partye seifs die mag gegee moet word om hom by die kraag te pak en te bring op ’n plek waar hy moet werk en dit vir hom duidelik te maak dat hy moet werk as hy hier wil lewe. Ons het hier oorvloed van goeie gronde. Die hele wereld lê nog oop, wat moet bewerk word en waarom dan al die geld uitgegee vir werkeloosheid? Laat ons die mense help en vir hulle ’n stuk grond gee, ’n span osse, landboumasjienes en ’n huisie en laat hul dan die grond gaan bewerk. En hul kan rente betaal op die geld wat nodig sat wees om hulle op gang te help. Maar as ons voortgaan om van tyd tot tyd gelde beskikbaar te stel vir arm-blankes, dan sal ons die vraagstuk nooit oplos nie. Dis heeltemaal onmoontlik. E‘k sê, ons moet nie die arm-blanke kwessie gebruik as politieke munt nie. Dan gaan ons bly waar ons is. Van beide kante moet saamge-werk word om die beste planne te vind om die werkeloosheid op te los. Die Regering het al baie dinge geprobeer, soos die aanleg van spoorlyne, besproeiïngswerke en nog enige andere dinge meer. Maar ons moet die derde klasse wat ek genoem het opvoed om ook te leer werk en hom bybring, dat as hy nie werk nie, hy ook nie kan leef nie. Maar op die manier soas dit nou aangaat kan dit nie aanhou nie en die mense word ook moeg en wil sien dat van die baie gepraat iets ten uitvoer gebring word. As ons op die platform verskyn, word gesê wat gedaan kan word en as die persoon in die Parlement kom, staat hy maar daar en praat weer. Laat ons saam werk, opdat die kwessie opgelos word. Die bywoner is van die soort wat nog wil werk; daarom is hy nog op die platteland en nie in die dorpe of op die spoor nie. As so ’n man ’n kleine ondersteuning kry van die Regering, sal hy ’n selfstandige man word. Die man wat grond huur kry ook swaar en ook hy moet op die Regering terug val. Hy het geen vee nie en leef van die produksie van die land en ons weet, dat dit in ons land ’n dobbelspel is: een of ’n paar jaar gaat dit goed, maar dan kom die jare weer dat hy niks maak nie. Hoe die Regering die planne sal beraam, weet ek nie, maar die arme man, wat nog op die platteland is, moet, gehelp word dat hy selfstandig kan word.

As jy so luister naar die debat, voel jy, met alle eerbied gesê, jammer vir die Regering en jammer vir die Volksraad, want dit lyk vir jou dat ons nie digter kom by ’n oplossing van die werkeloosheid nie. My skyn dit, asof die tyd gekom het dat ons ’n spesiale porte-folio of Minister moet hê vir werkeloosheid in die kabinet, wat weer sy Rade het in die land om ’n oplossing te vind. Ek vrees ons bekwaamheid lê hedendaags te veel in die pen en te min in die hand. As ons ons Volksraad in oëskou neem, dan vind ons dat ’n groot gedeelte van die lede hulle nooit te bekommer het oor hulle leeftog nie. Hulle leef onbesorg, seker daarvan om aan die end van die maand hulle vaste salaris te Kry. Ons praat baie oor ’n oplossing van die werkeloosheid-vraagstuk en dit laat my dink aan die Verlore Zoon, wat hom die hele dag bekommer het oor die oorvloed by sy vader wat hy het verloor. Nee, ons moet opstaan en die saak aanpak. Ons het die Vaalrivier. Die Vaalrivier is byna vir ons wat die Nyl is vir Egypte en wat die Ryn vir Duitsland gewees het. Ons het die Vaalrivier en door ’n aantal klein dammetjies aan te lê in die rivier, sal ons neersettinge kan kry wat ’n sukses sal wees. As ons net sien on die sukses wat van die 1½ miljoen pond gekom het, wat deur Johannesburg vir ’n barrage in die Vaalrivier gespandeer is, dan vra ons waarom nie daar in die Vaal dammetjies aan te lê wat baie sal meehelp om die werkelose vraagstuk op te los. En waarom word daar nie meer gedoen aan opvoeding? Soos my vert el word is daar op die diamantvelde in die Lichtenburg distrik alleen 300 kinders sonder skool. Die Regering moet nie langer stilsit nie, maar moet die miljoene surplus wat in die water sit, produktief maak, nuttig maak vir Suidafrika. En die Vaalrivier is een van die voornaamste. Dan het ek hier net ’n brief gekry van ’n persoon wat sy opleiding het aan die Glen Landbou Skool in Bloemfontein, ’n spesiale opleiding om met skape te boer en wat opgeleid is in wol en andere dinge meer op deskundige gebied en hy kan niks te doen kry nie. Die edele lid vir Standerton (Lt.-Kol. Claassen) het gesê, die Regering moet die mag kry om mense by die kraag te vat en aan die werk te sit. Maar wat nou omtrent die geval van die man wat ek net het aangehaal. Die man wil werk. Ek het na die Minister gegaan en hy het gesê, dat daar 14 of 15 deskundiges is in skapeboedery en hy het nie werk vir hulle nie. Nou vra ek die edele lid vir Standerton (Lt.-Kol. Claassen) wat jy in die geval moet doen en in duisend gevalle.

Wat omtrent die man wat sy plaas en skape verkoop het en nou by Hartebeespoort is?

Ons moet ons grond-stoffe hier verwerk en ek dink ons moet dit by wet verpligtend maak, dat die volk ons eie produkte moet gebruik en in al die dinge moet die Regering die voorbeeld gee, dat dinge wat hier kan vervaardig word nie word ingevoer nie. Dan sal daar meer geleentheid geskep word vir mense om werk te vind. Die oplossing lê nie alleen by die Regering nie, maar by die hele volk en ons moet van die geleenthede wat ons het gebruik maak en die Regering as leider van die volk moet weet wat hy wil en wil wat hy weet. Ons hoor teenwoordig veel van diktators. Dit sou ’n goeie ding wees as ons hier ook ’n diktator had, wat sou sê dit en dat moet gedoen word. Ek verenig my met die mosie, dat die tyd gekom het om te doen en nie langer alleen te praat nie.

At this late hour I do not propose to delay the House very long, but there are one or two things which I would like to say, and I hope the Minister will find them more constructive than the hundreds, both written and verbally, he has already received and turned down. I should like to express my appreciation at the remarks of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Malan). What has been done by the Dutch Reformed Church is very important, especially by the Rev. Mr. Smith in East Griqualand. When I was at Bloemfontein in August last, attending the Poor White Congress of the Dutch Reformed Church, I found that, almost without exception, the members of that conference were attacking the Government. Most of the speakers of course were Nationalists, but there was one man who got up, and he said: “Mr. Moderator, the fault is not as my brethren have been saying with the Government only, but the fault is with us. Our deacons, our elders and our ministers are responsible for a great deal of the ‘poor whiteism’ that exists in the country, and if they will only start and sweep clean in front of their own doors, then their districts and the whole of the country will gradually be cleared of the poor white.” I wish further to say that it is admitted on all sides that it is no good trying to solve the unemployment problem by palliatives. What we want to do is to prevent it in the future by organization, and we have to try and see beforehand what opportunities there are of giving employment. I read an article recently by a Mr. van der Berg, a Dutch economist, who said that the employer must be made more responsible, and that if he were made to bear a specified portion of the burden which falls on the community by unemployment in his particular industry, then he will have a commercial or pecuniary interest in the matter, and will find remedies for unemployment with the same keenness which he devoted to his business generally. One of my suggestions is that the Government should appoint a permanent unemployment commission, not a commission such as we have in connection with native affairs and railways, but an honorary commission, with the payment of their out-of-pocket expenses. I suggest, for instance, that there should be a board of 18, composed of three members from the municipal associations of South Africa, three to be appointed by the Government, three representative of the mining industry, three representatives from other industries, three from the various Chambers of Commerce and three from the various Trade Unions. If those gentlemen met round a table once a month presided over by one of the Ministers, I seriously suggest to the House, notwithstanding the levity of the member for Benoni (Mr, Madeley), that much good will be done in regard to finding remedial measures to prevent unemployment. I hope the Minister will take that into serious consideration during the present session. [An Hon. Member: “You are an optimist.”] If there were such a board sitting, they could, on the analogy of what was done on the western front by the Supreme Command during the war—moving an army corps or division to various points where troops were most needed—make arrangements that where there was a glut of workmen in one part of the country, they could be transported to a place where there was more need for them. [Laughter] This seems to be a source of mirth to the self-styled workers’ representatives, but rather would I call their attention to, and thank one of the members of the Labour-Party, the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston)—not now in his place—for the manly statement he made, that if the Government would appoint a select committee he would then make suggestions for the solution of the problem of unemployment. Again, there is the question of training workmen in some other employment besides their chief specialty. At present a man learns one trade; he is hidebound in that, and is like the man who was once offered a post on the Continent by Lord Palmerston. He was a very suitable man for the position, but when, at the close of the interview, the Prime Minister remarked, “Of course, you speak French!” he said, “No, sir, I do not speak French.” And he did not get the appointment. That man was like so many of our workers who know only one trade, being beguiled by the parrot cry, “One man, one job.” They should not only have one trade, but they should also possess a subsidiary one, allied or otherwise. With regard to the future generation, the Juvenile Affairs Board in their recent report say one or two important things. They express their—

Again—

There is also the point that there are busy and slack periods, sometimes depending on the season, as e.g., in the tailoring and painting trades. Could not the employment be better distributed if not increased by making the wages, say, 20’ per cent. less in the off-season or vice versa. In conclusion I wish to refer to the question of the relation between master and man. Between these two there should be absolute good faith. In partnership unless there is absolute good faith—reberrima fides—between the partners you cannot have co-operation at all. If there is a suspicion in the mind of the master or a suspicion in the mind of the man against the master there is always trouble. It has been proved by the finding of the Solomon-Brace Commission, 1922, that the mining industry has not been guilty of bad faith in this country. I submit that the decision of the Mining Industries Commission, consisting of Sir William Solomon, Mr. Brace, and other unimpeachable members was, that there was no unfairness on the part of the mines to the men in the way of wages. I say if the mining industry is going to go back on their attitude regarding the colour bar question we will have to re-consider the position and, if necessary, to legislate on the lines of the Mining Regulations recently declared ultra vires. The South African Party, the Prime Minister, and the other Ministers have stated publicly that the interests of the white workers on the Rand will be looked after. I have spoken to responsible leaders of the mining industry and they have told me that there was no idea of doing the white man down, as they are accused by Labour extremists of trying to do. We have heard here in the case of drill sharpeners that the work has been taken away from white men. But the drill sharpeners is an absolutely automatic job. There is an invention come out recently by which the steel is heated to a certain degree and automatically the bar of the jack hammer, or whatever drill it is, is thrown out so that there is no need to have a white man on the job at all. There is an invention found out recently with regard to the use of these jack hammers by which 1s. a ton will be saved in the working costs, and this will make a very great difference indeed, so that a mine like the East Rand Proprietary Mine has been able to dispense with 2,000 of its natives. That is all I wish to say at this late hour, but I would like to again express my regret that the rank and file of the Labour Party and of the Nationalist Party have not come up to the high ideals of the leaders of the Nationalist Party, but have resorted to the usual mud slinging at the Government.

I think that the Government, especially in view of the fact that so many of its supporters have endeavoured to impress on the House the tremendous importance of the subject, the Government in view of the fact, and because it is really an important subject, should be prepared to give a considerable amount of time and consideration to the subject. I am sorry, bitterly disappointed, at the manner in which the Government has treated this question from many points of view. The first is that the Prime Minister handed over the handling of the Government point of view of this question to the hon. member the Minister of Lands once more; that in itself, to my mind, shows a complete misconception of the tremendous import of the matter to the country. From our experience in the past, and certainly that experience has been considerably strengthened by the attitude of the Minister of Lands on this occasion, we have come to the conclusion, and the country must have come to the conclusion, that the Government has been merely looking upon this question in order that they may dismiss it at the earliest possible moment in that airy, breezy fashion which we are wont to associate with the Minister of Lands.

Absolutely wrong, absolutely wrong.

Now, I refrained from having anything to say to the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) whatever because if we want to put the hon. gentleman’s observations into a proper light from our point of view one would have to be offensive. That is one point on which we are disappointed. The people which he wanted to associate most intimately with this question, the people of South Africa, will in turn feel a very bitter disappointment at the attitude of the Government on the question. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister on this great question involving, as it does, the ultimate life of the nation of the Union of South Africa. That is common cause which everybody agrees upon, even hon. members on the other side of the House. What does the Prime Minister do? He gets up and says a few words, accepting the motion, provided there is added to the end of it “of the people.” I am only too happy to associate the people with this question, but unfortunately in a very painful sense indeed the people of this country are already associated with the question.

Too much so.

What I want to do is to associate the brains of the people of South Africa with this question. I want to direct their attention to this, and in that I am with the Prime Minister, because when the people of South Africa are acquainted with this subject and closely associated with it, the end of the South African Party is in sight once they realize, and we have every justifiable claim to say it is so. As soon as the people of this country realize the parlous position we are in, from the unemployment point of view which is due almost entirely to the attitude and actions of the present Government, just so soon will they relegate the right hon. the Prime Minister and his friends to the limbo of the past. Let us examine the position. Did the Government, or did the Government not, acquiesce in the discharge of 4,000 white employees from the gold mines from the Witwatersrand? They did, Sir. They did more than that. They were actively engaged in making that discharge effective. They brought out all the armed forces, big guns, aeroplanes, bombs, and heavy artillery in order to enforce it, and as soon as the people of this country, which are the people the Rt. Hon. the Minister want to associate with the Minister, as soon as they realize the far-reaching effect of that discharge, so soon will they execrate the Prime Minister and those associated with them. And when the business people of this country began to realize the effect of the withdrawal from circulation of the amount of money they will begin to understand the effect to this country of the discharge of 4,000 men on the Witwatersrand. The Minister of Mines and Industries, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) stated that the difference in white wages paid by the gold mines before and after the late strike was £318,000, that is, three and three-quarter million pounds. That three and three-quarter million does not represent the whole and complete effect upon the country of that discharge. That value is not its real value in the country. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is a conservative estimate when I say that you could amplify the intrinsic actual value of the money withdrawn from circulation when you apply it to its circulation value, and I say that the net result in the matter of circulation by the withdrawing of three and three quarter million is something between 30 and 40 millions per annum. Of course there is unemployment. Of course there is depression. The depression has not been sent to us from high; it is man made, and this country is stiffening from the result. I objected—I objected bitterly to the Prime Minister handing over the dealing with this question to the Minister of Lands, because I considered, and I consider that he is a man by temperament in the first place, by lack of knowledge in the second place and lack of experience in the third place, unable to cope with the situation at all, and by referring to the speech of the Minister, one will see that he dealt with a matter of such great importance as unemployment, a matter of the greatest importance to thousands of people, in an airy and unconcerned manner, without realizing the responsibility of his position. He told us, and he preened himself like a turkey cock on the manner in which the Government had dealt with that. I say that the Government has failed, has signally failed to touch even the fringe of it, and the Government stands self-condemned. The Minister of Lands made play of the fact that a tremendous amount of relief work was done. The Minister was extremely proud of this. He claimed that this system of relief works has been highly successful. In other words, we have to assume that the men concerned—he said so, in point of fact—are earning good wages, are at least keeping themselves in decency and comfort, and naturally, those who are married, their wives and children, and he made us understand that all is well in this State of Denmark of ours, as a result of the institution of these relief works on the railways. Let us see what a man can-cerned has to say. I received this letter only two days ago. The man said—

And that is what we want—first-hand information. He said—

We have heard a good deal from the Government through the Minister of Lands that perfect contentment exists at the relief works. Here we have the other side of the picture, and you can take it from me that here you have the correct position of what transpires at the relief works, and they should not be relief works. This is work of a public nature that is useful to the country. It is a necessary work that is going to make for the development of the country, yet we find that we have employed men who have been forced by the Prime Minister and his Government, and who should have been earning much better pay on to what is termed relief works. I ask what is going to be the position of South Africa, because these are not isolated cases—I think the Minister of Lands told us there were thousands employed in the work of this kind—and unfortunately our experience shows us that with the South African Party it will not be long before larger portions of the country are in the same unfortunate position. We have heard deliberate misrepresentations and even lack of truth on the part of hon. members of the South African Party side. [An Hon. Member: “Lack of what?] Lack of truth. Don’t you understand that? We have listened to a speech from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close.) He was only following out the lead given, and made precisely the same speech as another member of the party last year. They said that no solution of the question had been provided from this corner of the House and he made a deliberate charge against the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) that while he set out to solve the problem he did nothing of the sort. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) is perfectly correct when he says that it is not our province to find a solution. It is that party which is governing the country, and it is their place to find a solution. But they do not want a solution. They know perfectly well that immediately you have eliminated unemployment you have broken the power of the capitalist system in this country. What we suggest is this—that there shall be a complete revolution of the system under which we work to-day, the wiping out of that profit-making system and the substitution of a system of service for all. I am prepared to give you a solution, not like the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon), who desires to place men in a dual capacity. He wants to make a tailor a painter, but he did not suggest that a lawyer should occupy a dual position. Why not a lawyer-sanitary man? If this Government were honestly and sincerely desirous of ending this unemployment position they could even under the present system do so and could do it quite easily. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) stated that in order to get to the kernel of this matter, we should examine the financial system of this country and the financial system of the world. I do not want to deal with the whole financial aspect of this question because I have not time. I have got to be brief, but even though you have no right to expect it from us, we are prepared to offer suggestions. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) made an admirable appeal for a non-party discussion of this question and he was followed by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) who immediately made a violent party speech. The hon. member for Uitenhage said that this country wanted houses and he said let the Government start upon a house-building scheme, designed to meet the requirements of the whole community. A commission on housing reported a few years ago that the country was short then of 10,000 houses, and if it could be so described it was a normal shortage. The number has considerably increased since then, so let the Government commence building 10,000 houses for a start for the housing of the people of South Africa. What would that mean? It would mean that there would have to be brickmaking plants erected and hundreds of thousands, nay millions of bricks would have to be provided. It would imply as a necessary corollary the institution of State quarries and as we have got to supply our own timber, it would mean that we would have to go in for a very extensive system of afforestation. There would also have to be carpentry and joinery shops and cement works. Then there is land settlement. The way in which the Department responsible for land settlement has been conducting this has been foredoomed to failure. If the Government were to set to work upon a land settlement scheme properly instead of putting men on bare pieces of veld, there would be some probability of bringing their land settlement programme to a successful issue. As it is to-day, instead of helping the unemployment problem in this country, it is serving to accentuate the unemployment problem, and I commend that to the Government as another method of solving this problem, that when you have decided to lay out a land settlement area, the land should first be ploughed over the whole area, then fenced into holdings, wells or boreholes sunk as may be required, and homesteads built, and the whole cost added to the price charged and paid for spread over twenty years. Then there is your railway construction. I understand, though I do not know, whether my authority is a good one or not, but I give it for what it is worth. I understand that the General Manager for Railways, looking about this country from the railway development point of view with a large vision, considers to cope adequately with the necessities of the country in a matter of the railways. You would have, to spend at least £20,000,000 in building new lines. That in turn would serve to open hitherto unopened districts of the country and increase production, and place this country well and successfully in the markets of the world. There is a question of roads which the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) has touched on, and with that part of whose speech I entirely agree. Then there is that matter which I am always trying to bring before the House. The question of providing our own ships for carrying our own produce. There you would have vast opportunities for creating employment, and thus relieve unemployment. You would require rolling mills, steel manufacture, iron miners, coal energy, docks repair workshops, and our own sailors. Now you ask where we are going to find all this money? I will tell you how to find it.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.