moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table—

I have received a letter from Mr. A. V. Carter, Secretary of the Schreiner Memorial Committee, offering to present to the Houses of Parliament a bust of the late Right Honourable W. P. Schreiner, K.C., C.M.G. Mr. Schreiner was a member of the Cape House of Assembly from 1893 to 1900 and from 1908 to 1910, having held the office of Attorney-General in the Second Rhodes Ministry during the year 1893 and from 1894 to 1896 and of Prime Minister and Colonial Secretary from 1898 to 1900. Upon the establishment of the Union in 1910 he was nominated a member of the Senate on the ground mainly of his acquaintance with the reasonable wants and wishes of the coloured races. In 1914 he resigned his seat as Senator upon being appointed High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in London, which position he held with great distinction until his death in 1919. I am informed that the President of the Senate has received a similar letter and has accepted the bust on behalf of the Senate and I have to announce that I have accepted it on behalf of the House of Assembly.

Ik heb een brief ontvangen van de heer A. V. Carter, Sekretaris van het Schreiner Gedenkteken Komitee waarbij hij aan de Huizen van het Parlement een borstbeeld aanbiedt van wijlen Zijn Hoogedele W. P. Schreiner, K.C., C.M.G. De heer Schreiner was lid van de Kaapse Wetgevende vergadering van 1893 tot 1900 en van 1908 tot 1910, en bekleedde het ambt van Prokureur-generaal in het tweede Rhodes Ministerie gedurende het jaar 1893 en van 1894 tot 1896 en van Eerste Minister en Koloniale Sekretaris van 1898 tot 1900. Bij de totstandkoming van Unie in 1910 werd hij als lid van de Senaat benoemd voornamelik op grond van zijn kennis van de redelike behoeften en wensen van de kleurlingrassen. In 1914 bedankte hij voor zijn zetel als Senator bij zijn aanstelling als Hoge Kommissaris voor de Unie van Zuid-Afrika in (Landen, welke positie hij met grote onderscheiding tot zijn dood in 1919 bekleed heeft. Ik heb vernomen dat de President van de Senaat een dergelijke brief ontvangen heeft, en het borstbeeld namens de Senaat aanvaard heeft, en ik wens mede te delen dat ik het namens de Volksraad aanvaard heb.

moved—

seconded.

I want to propose an amendment to the motion before the House, but, before doing so, I want to say a few words. The Labour Party are not prepared to assist the Government in misgoverning this country, and that is the opinion of a great many of the people of this country. A great many people of this country are of the opinion that this Government governs for sections and sections only. Now, I hold that the amendment I am going to move will have the support of many members in this House, who have the interests of the natives at heart. The Chamber of Mines for many years past, in which they have had the assistance of the Government, have always been on the look out for cheap labour. To-day, I want to try and prove that they have plenty of native labour in this Union to work the mines and the various other industries. There are many hon. members in this House who honestly believe that it would be impossible to get native labour for the mines unless you imported many of the natives working on the mines. I want to contradict that. I want to try and prove that the reason the mines have gone out of the Union for labour is not that there was insufficient labour in the Union, but that they wanted labour as cheap as they could get it. They wanted labour as cheap as possible.

Well, quite right, and I hope the hon. member will, too.

But this is against the very best interests of the Union. They got the Portuguese East African native. It was not that he was a better native, but that he was more docile, and could be had at a cheaper rate than the native of the Union. But hon. members in this House remember that two or three years ago they were not satisfied even with the cheap and docile Portuguese. They wanted to go to Central Africa. There was a big field for native labour there, very docile labour, which they could get even at a cheaper rate than they could get the Portuguese, proving that they want to employ the very cheapest native no matter what he is, or where he comes from.

They all get the same wage.

I will try to prove that my hon. friend is wrong. It is not a question of all getting the same wage, it is a question of what rules the wage the men are going to get, and by the importation of Portuguese natives to keep the wages down. In dealing with this amendment I want to read extracts from men who are very capable of passing an opinion of the recruiting and supply of native labour. These men are right at the heart of a very thickly populated part of the Union where there are, I suppose, about 1,000,000 natives. They have held conferences and discussed this question time after time, and I will just read to the House a few extracts of the opinion of those men from the 1923 report of the Transkei Council’s Annual Report, in which the Chairman of the Transkei Council says—

This was the annual meeting and a great deal of discussion took place on this very important question. A Mr. Harries, a member of that Council, speaking on this subject said—

“Another reason why the Portuguese East boys were preferred was that they were more docile.” He emphasized that. That proves that in the Transkei, at any rate, there is a feeling that the Chamber of Mines wants to penalize the Union by employing these natives, and what I want to prove is that the mines have been responsible for the lack of boys going up to the mines at various times. This is what Mr. Harries says—

Then he goes on to state that by the action of those who were responsible for the recruiting of the natives that they are continually stopping all the Transkei natives and the natives get dissatisfied, go back to their homes, and do not feel disposed to come up again when wanted. Here is the considered opinion of a native councillor at the same conference. What does he say on this subject? He says—

That was the opinion of a native councillor. Another very important person in the Transkei, a Mr. Whitfield, was at this very same Congress, and what was his expressed opinion? I will read it—

Now there is much more of that information that one can get from this book proving that it was purely lack of organization. Here is the opinion of a Kokstad paper which I am sure is not hostile to the Government nor hostile to the Chamber of Mines. It is not a Labour paper or a Communist paper. It is a paper which is friendly to the Government. It stated that it thought that half a loaf was better than no bread and that the Chamber of Mines had disorganized recruiting in the territory and that the Chamber of Mines were out for the employment of Portuguese labour. It stated that the Chamber of Mines was responsible for the lack of boys coming up from the Transkei, and that what prevails in the Transkei I have no doubt prevails in other native centres. What is proved by these cuttings is that the Chamber of Mines has never been anxious to employ Union natives and have taken every step possible to disorganize recruiting so that they could bring pressure upon the Government in order to bring in these natives. Now, why do they want these Portuguese natives? They want these Portuguese natives simply because they are cheaper, and when I say cheaper I will prove that it is by getting a large surplus of natives from Portuguese East Africa. That keeps down the wages of the natives in the Union on the mines.

The hon. member wants native wages increased.

Many members of this House have one outlook in life. In whatever industry they are engaged upon they look round, and their whole idea is to get the very cheapest labour they possibly can, no matter whether it is white or black, or whether it improves or tends to increase depression throughout the country. I want to take up the point that the native is wanting more money. I am in favour of the native getting more money and I do not think his getting more money will ruin the mines or affect the mines. No one should prohibit the native from improving his code of living.

Catching votes; what about the colour bar?

The Prime Minister met a deputation of ministers of the Dutch Church the other day and he said he did not think that we were getting fair value for the money we spend on education, and if the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) is an example of the product from our universities then I quite agree with the Prime Minister. The native has every right to improve his position. Every one who is acquainted with native labour in this country knows that the natives are organized and that there are very intelligent people among them who are educating the native up to a higher standard of living. For them to obtain that higher standard of living they must be paid a better wage than they are getting to-day. [An Hon. Member: “What about the colour bar”?] Is it not true that many mines are paying very handsome dividends to-day? But, in dealing with South Africa, we are apt to deal with the mines only. From the discussions in this House one would believe that the mines were the only industry in this country.

Is the hon. member in favour of the colour bar?

I have always been told that there is no colour bar.

Who told the hon. member that?

The colour bar as I understand it is that a native cannot come into this House and represent their views, and I am sure if they had one of their own representing them in this House they would be better represented than they are to-day by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart). That is your colour bar which keeps the natives in bondage, and they have to send apologies to this House to fight for their rights. I am in favour of removing the colour bar out and out, but is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) or his party in favour of it? Let us remember this when dealing with the colour bar, it is a dangerous thing to deal with, and you do not know how it is going to affect many of us. Every member of this House should look at this question from a broad point of view as to what is best in the interests of the country and to realize it is far better to have our natives and coloured people and white people well-paid than to have a few magnates making hundreds of thousands a year.

Hear, Hear.

They are doing all right, and think that everything in the country is all right. To-day things are very, very bad in this country, and it is by this continual agitation and pressure which is brought to bear on the Government to allow this cheap labour to come in in place of our own natives that is responsible for a good deal of it. I attended a congress of natives, I am not afraid to say it, a congress of the Native Workers’ Union, and let me say this, I was ashamed of my own limitations when I heard many of those natives put their views before that congress. There were natives there presenting their views in a way compared to which very few hon. members of this House could do. Are we going to keep this nation back? The educated natives who are working amongst the native ranks are striving to improve their position. The way in which that congress was conducted would have been a credit to any Parliament. Can you hold a people back like that? There is no doubt about it that this compound system may be good for the mines, but it has been the means of reducing the standard of living in this country. It has produced monopolies, it has been the means of even depressing the mercantile community— this system of getting hold of our natives and putting them into a compound, and the mines buying practically everything they require. The other day, when we were discussing unemployment, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) got up and bombastically stated that the mines bought so many thousand bags of mealies for the natives in the compounds. But has he ever looked at it from the point of view of the welfare of the whole community? Would it not be better if these natives had the money and the freedom to buy where they liked for what they required for themselves? You ask the mercantile community on the Rand if it would not be better for the whole country for the natives to have a free hand. What we want is freedom in this country for labour.

What the hon. member wants to do is to get their votes.

That is what your party is out for.

That argument is very apt, for if there is any member in this House who knows how to get a vote and how to buy a vote it is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey). This is a very important question, and I only hope and trust that this House is going to seriously consider this amendment of mine. I want to appeal to hon. members who sit in this House by virtue of the native vote. When I look in that corner, I see some members who would not be sitting there but for the native vote. I ask the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) what attitude is he taking on this amendment of mine?

What amendment?

Never mind, the amendment will come later on. By continuing the importation of Portuguese natives, those natives for whom these hon. members have been sent to this House to look after their welfare, are starving. Thousands of natives in the Transkei to-day are in a very unhappy position. They are wanting work; prepared to work on our mines; but no work for them on account of the imported native. If there is any member in this House that should insist and fight on every occasion for the protection of the native, then it is the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart). I think the hon. member will agree with me, as I do not suppose there are fifty white voters, who voted for the hon. member. He is placed in this House by the native vote of the Transkei. I appeal to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) to support this amendment I am bringing forward. [Hon. Members: “What is it?”]. Members are very, very anxious.

The hon. member does not want me to sign a blank cheque?

Then I come to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister holds a dual position. He is the Prime Minister of this country, and is a very busy man. He also holds the position of Minister of Native Affairs. Minister of Native Affairs of the natives in the Union. In that position he has to look after the interests and welfare of the natives of the Union. I will ask him if he is doing that when he quietly allows the importation of the Portuguese native? He is the person really responsible, as by one stroke of his pen he could make it illegal for any native to be imported into the Union. I will ask him if he is doing his duty to the native of the Union when he allows them to starve by allowing the importation of natives from Portuguese East Africa? Did the Prime Minister, when he was aware that the natives were starving some two or three years ago, stop the importation? No; he allowed them to come in. I suppose he will go through the Transkei and inform the native there that he is doing everything in his power to elevate, to lift up the native; in common with the rest of his Cabinet is he doing that, is he doing his best, for the natives of the country. The natives believed in the Prime Minister, but their belief is beginning to be shattered— a wonderful change is taking place in the native’s mind, and he is beginning to ask questions. How is it, they ask, that the Prime Minister is allowing this importation. They are beginning to think and reason, and I would not be surprised when the Prime Minister visits the Transkei he will be asked this question: You tell us that you are a friend of the native, you tell us that the Government is a friend of the native, and, at the same time, you allow other natives to come in and take our living away when the position is serious to-day; we want work and cannot get it, how can you be our friend. Only last week the Chamber of Commerce in East London was discussing the question of recruiting for the mines being stopped. It is argued that if you stop the importation of Portuguese East African natives, you are going to close down the mines. This is a bogie, and we have to see that the work in the Union must be done by the natives of the Union. We want freedom of recruiting. I have read extracts from the Rand papers stating that if recruiting was confined to the Union, the mines would be short of native labour. This is the Chamber of Mines’ version and is not correct and cannot be proved. We have plenty of natives in the Union. The natives will flock up there voluntarily if they are properly treated, and the employment of only Union natives on the mines will improve trade in our own Provinces. In view of this, is the Prime Minister going to concur in the starvation of our own people? The natives and the people of the country are watching, and they want a reply from the Prime Minister, knowing that he is the head of the Native Affairs. The Prime Minister is responsible, and they look to him and not to the Minister of Mines and Industries to reply. They are looking to the Prime Minister to reply as to what is going to be the policy of the Government. They say: “We want the reply from the one who is the head of the Cabinet.” The country wants to know the policy of the Government, and they want to have that enunciated by the Prime Minister and not by the Minister of Mines and Industries. The natives want it and the white people want it. I am not asking anything unreasonable when I ask that we should take steps to at once make it illegal to have natives imported. There are ample numbers of natives in the country, natives physically fit, who wish to come to work on the mines, but who cannot get a chance. For that reason I am going to move the following amendment. I only hope that the hon. members opposite will vote for it even though it means the defeat of the Government. Surely there is something greater and far nobler in fighting for the welfare of our natives who are placed in our care, than supporting a Government when that Government is failing to protect the interests of a poor section of our people. I ask you to say at once that the importation of natives should be made illegal, and you do that by supporting my amendment. I move—

seconded.

It is delightful to find that the disadvantages of recruiting in Portuguese East Africa have at last penetrated the minds of the people of this country. The speech of the hon. member is full of well rounded periods and quotations from authorities. I myself wrote a letter on the subject to the Johannesburg Star last June from which the hon. member appears to have cribbed some ideas. The hon. member has said one thing which is perfectly true and I personally have no hesitation in confirming it—that for a considerable period the Chamber of Mines or the Native Recruiting Corporation have deliberately fooled with the supply of native labour with the deliberate view that the supply of native labour should become a monopoly—that they should be the only channel through which natives could come forward. That is perfectly true and I will say that the only body that has stood by the natives in the matter has been the Government. I remember a speech made by Mr. Buckle, the Chairman of the Chamber of Mines, last year. It was published in the papers at the time of the Transvaal South African Party Congress held at Johannesburg. It was a speech in which the Government was violently and bitterly attacked because the Government had dared to insist that in no circumstances was a certain quota of boys from Portuguese East Africa to be exceeded and that most of the boys employed by the Chamber of Mines should be recruited from among the natives of South Africa. I had the good fortune to be in Johannesburg at the moment and at the Congress, sitting near the Minister of Mines, the then acting Minister of Native Affairs. I spoke to him and he said he was not going to be turned aside by any threats of the Chamber of Mines from what he believed was his duty to the natives of South Africa, but his hands were bound by a portion of the people who were in favour of the maintenance of the colour bar, the preventing of the natives getting a chance of other than ordinary work or of higher pay.

Don’t be silly.

Is there not a barrier to the native doing so? Is that not the effect?

That is rubbish. There is no colour bar.

Is not the charge made against the Chamber of Mines of having last year deliberately tried to break away the colour bar. Let the hon. member go to Johannesburg and tell a meeting there that there is no colour bar and see what will happen at the next election.

Again, don’t be silly.

Coming to more recent times. At the time I had the honour of telling the minister of a series of negotiations which I personally had, I might call them negotiations, with the Chamber of Mines, and I think it only fair, in view of the way in which this particular charge against the Government has been brought forward, to say what I know about this. The traders, the native recruiters, and the public generally in Tembuland and the native areas, have been very much concerned over a number of years, at the gradual restrictions put on recruiting in that territory. I have not a shadow of a doubt that the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart), is right when he says that it is deliberate policy on the part of the Chamber of Mines to recruit anywhere but in the Union. I have no doubt on that socre whatever. It is a subject which one can deal with at great length, but I do not propose to do so here. They have deliberately attempted to avoid recruitment in South Africa, they have deliberately annihilated any other form of machinery which was calculated to bring boys forward, and the last machinery went by the board when they smashed the Hadley contracts. At that time I had interviews of a semi-private nature with the leaders of the Chamber of Mines, with those who were authorized to speak on behalf of the Chamber of Mines. And I suggested then that in order to secure for all time a fair minimum quota for Union labour, we should have a round table conference, and among the names which I suggested was the name of a magistrate, who was quoted here to-day. That magistrate raised the matter at the General (Native) Council meeting, and what was read here was the debate which occurred. The magistrate was a free agent, but as far as it was instigated, I instigated it.

Fancy!

Yes, I am glad I did, and if I had realized that the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart), took the interest which he displayed to-day, I would have given him a copy a year ago, and he could have read it then. To the Chamber I put up the idea that, as far as possible, we would get in no natives whatever from Portuguese East Africa, and as a first step we would try and decide by consultation what was the amount of labour which could be put up from Tembuland and from the Cape generally for use on the mines, and we came to the conclusion that we could put up a minimum of 68,000. And I put forward a proposal that what we should get from the mines was a guarantee that they would take the minimum of 68.000 from us, before they should take anyone from anywhere else. Then we were met with two statements from the Chamber. The first was that to a considerable extent the native from Tembuland was not a mine native, but a surface boy. We were met by another statement, and that was that the Union boys would not enlist for nine months, but only for six months. The answer to that was that first of all he would become more useful as a mine boy if he would enlist for nine-months, and I volunteered then that I for one, and many others, interested in the matter, would do our utmost and would stump the country and persuade the native that to better himself, so that he would become a better mine worker than the Portuguese native, he should’ come for nine months. The economy point so far as the Portuguese native is concerned, enters here—that he comes for nine months and that his railway fare has to be paid only over that period, whereas the Union native who only comes for six months, is in consequence more expensive. In that way the Portuguese native works out cheaper. This conference, which was only tentatively arranged, fell through. It fell through about May last year. It should have been held in June, and when I saw Mr. Buckle’s attack on the Government, I became persuaded— I won’t quote Mr. Buckle’s words now, but I will refer members to the statement of the Chamber of Mines—I became persuaded that the conference had been deliberately dodged that there was a bona fide desire, or rather a mala fide bona fide desire on the part of the Chamber of Mines to try and produce evidence that they could not get sufficient boys from Tembuland. And the way they were doing it, was by refusing to consult with us, and then going in for the see-saw policy which the hon. member has referred to— calling for so many boys and then saying they did not want them. I wrote to the papers, I wrote to the Johannesburg Star, stating clearly what my view on that subject was. But I only claim to have been one little cog in the wheel. The salvation of native labour in South Africa, and I state it here freely as I did the other day during the unemployment debate, was that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines stood very firmly on the question when the Chamber of Mines came along and said “We cannot get sufficient boys from the Union, so we must exceed the quota of natives from Portuguese East Africa.” The Government said “We will not let you do it.”

Under what law?

And when they took that firm line, the natural result was that the Chamber of Mines put fresh life into the rather intentionally moribund organization of the Native Recruiting Corporation, and they got the labour. More than that, the traders of Tembuland and the people connected with recruiting there went to work, and in the majority of cases instead of nine months boys being a tiny minority, practically non-existing, in the majority of cases the boys from Tembuland have gone to the mines on nine months contract. It is perfectly true that a couple of months ago a few more boys presented themselves than could be absorbed from a particular area. What happened? These matters reached Parliament and reached me in the form of a complaint. Yes, they reached me more quickly than they reached the pseudo representative of the natives. The information came up here and it went before the Minister quite a fortnight ago. Certain complaints were looked into, and certain further guarantees were given that in no circumstances would there be any substitution allowed, of Portuguese East African boys for legitimate Union labour. Let me say this. The charge made by the hon. member, however well meant and interesting, is first of all, most of it, detrimental to the native. If he had been helping in the fight which has been going on for the last three years, we might have secured what we have been fighting for—a certain minimum. I am glad to see him now at last coming into the fight for the increased number. As far as we can do it, we want to get the number increased and we want to limit the number of boys from Portuguese East Africa.

Stop them altogether.

If you stop them altogether you must close your mines, because there are times when native labour from Tembuland cannot be got in sufficient quantities. That is a fact. [An Hon. Member: Is it? ] I would like to see that golden stream flow into my constituency just the same as any one else.

What a stream!

Well, it comes there all right. I have put the points in which the hon. member is right and those in which he is wrong, but I would like to go very much further, because it is near to my heart and I have been working very hard on it for years, but it is regrettable that this outburst should occur at a time like this when we are really further advanced than ever before. I would not accept the amendment in any case, because it is ill-drafted and ill-timed, but I do trust that now that the hon. member has had his eyes opened to the difficulties, he will combine with the efforts made by the people who represent the natives in this corner of the House in order to get continuity and to get a fixed minimum of South African natives for the mines on the Witwatersrand.

Before the question is put I should like, as the Minister in charge of Native Affairs, to put the position before the House, so that hon. members may know exactly what it is. First of all the motion of the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) assumes that the Chamber of Mines wants imported labour for the purpose of reducing native wages, for the purpose of keeping them down. He seems to overlook the fact, which is common knowledge, that the mine boys are paid better wages than are paid by any other industry in the Union. Now that is a fact, and I think he should know it, in any case he should have made an enquiry into the matter before basing his whole argument on a statement which is not a fact.

It is a fact.

Then the hon. member states that the mines can at all times get on without Portuguese natives and that the Union can supply sufficient natives. That is not my knowledge of the situation.

I will give the numbers.

My information is that during a part of the year there is usually a shortage of native labour. In the first part of the year when the Union boys are largely interested in agriculture they do not go forward to the mines, and there is a shortage. That was certainly the case in 1923, towards the middle of 1923, and during the first half of 1923 there was a surplus of natives on the mines on the Rand. The Government went into the matter, and then, as I announced to the House last year, restricted the number of natives to be imported from Portuguese East Africa by fifty per cent.

Under what law?

Under the powers which the Government has of doing so.

What law gives them that power?

I do not know that there is any direct law except that the importation of natives takes place under the Convention with the Portuguese authorities and that was under negotiation at the time, and, of course, a good deal of influence could be exercized in that regard, and, as a matter of fact, the first part of the Portuguese Convention, the modus vivendi has been extended for twelve months only, as the hon. member knows. The fifty per cent. restriction went on up to about August, 1923. Coming to the second half of the year a shrinkage of recruiting within the Union took place and the pressure became very strong to allow a larger percentage than fifty to come in from the outside. Before deciding on that matter, the Government appointed a committee of enquiry and the Director of Native Labour on the Rand along with the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg were sent down to the territories as a committee of enquiry to make full enquiries as to the available supply of native labour for the mines. They came back and reported that under no circumstances could they expect, until very near the end of the year, any marked increase of native boys from those parts, and the result of it was that the Government then said instead of limiting them actually to the fifty per cent., as was the case up to then, they would allow them to keep up the average. As the number of the Union boys on the mines decreased, they could increase some Portuguese, but as the boys from the Union were increasing again and coming in more regularly, they had to decrease a corresponding number from Portuguese East Africa—in that way keeping up the supply for the mines, but always giving the preference to the Union boys. What was the result? The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) has correctly stated that was very much against the grain of the Chamber of Mines, and a very strong attack was made on the Government for having taken this line. I have not wavered for one instant, and I am not prepared to waver now, to say that preference should always be given to native boys of the Union for the work of the Union so long as they are available. But when you have not got them, rather than close down your low grade mines and disorganize your industry, mines which may not, perhaps, be again opened, rather allow a few more boys to come in from Portuguese Africa. That is the wise line to take, and to confirm what I said from the first part of the year boys come in much more regularly from the Union. What happened at the beginning of this year? By January the stream of boys from the Union to the mines both voluntary and recruited—and let me say here what is overlooked, a very large percentage of the boys now coming forward to the Rand from the Union come forward voluntarily, and those people engaged in recruiting do not take note of that. When recruiting among them slackens off they jump to the conclusion that the mines are taking less Union boys, but it might be that there are more Union boys coming forward voluntarily—a fact which they calmly leave out pf view. By January of this year, there was a surplus of natives on the Witwatersrand to such an extent that it was found necessary practically to stop recruiting; the voluntary boys, which were coming in more readily to the mines during the first part of the year, were accepted. They were coming from all parts of the country; under those circumstances the Director of Native Labour, the Government official in Johannesburg, represented to me that now was the time to ask the Recruiting Corporation to restrict their recruiting in Portuguese Africa. After negotiations, of which the papers have been laid on the table of the House, we came to the conclusion that the most effective way of doing it was to stop recruiting in Portuguese East Africa during the month of February altogether, and the Recruiting Corporation fell into line with that. If at any time, and if it can be shown by the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) or those who support his motion, that the policy of the Government in giving preferences to Union boys is not followed out by the Chamber of Mines or the Recruiting Corporation, then a case can be made out; but, with the facts as they are, that they were prepared during the month of February to stop recruiting in Portuguese East Africa altogether at the instance of the Government, it does not seem to me that a case has been made out, and, under these circumstances, it seems to me that the motion of the hon. member is quite belated, and will not serve any useful purpose, and I should think the House should not accept it.

One would like to discuss this subject at very great length, but one is aware that most of the House and the country is very much concerned in another matter which we are going to consider later on this afternoon, so I shall make my remarks comparatively brief. The point in the whole question is this, and it is a point which is concerning not only my hon. friend the member for East London (Mr. Stewart), not only those intelligent members of the native population and the coloured people, but also the European population: whether the policy of the Government is heading towards a civilized South Africa or a huge Kaffir compound? This matter directly appertains to that issue. We indict the policy of the Government on these grounds: that though they have not been the initiators of the principle they are still wedded to the principle that this country is to be run on cheap labour, and that Government and Parliament have to take special measures to enable great employers to satisfy their wants with the cheapest possible labour they can get. That is a policy which in our opinion is fraught with disaster to this country. The symptoms are clear all round us. This matter which my hon. friend brings up is almost, one might say, the key to the position. This House will remember during the last four years how much the Government has been urged by the great employers to abrogate that limitation which prevents them extending their sphere north of latitude 22 deg. south. I give all credit to the Government for resisting that pressure, but may I express my suspicion that in coming to that decision I think I recognize something of the opinions which the Minister of the Interior has expressed in this House when he was in opposition, and I am glad his influence has been exerted. The position is radically unaltered so far as the principle is concerned. The Minister of Mines and Industries said that at the beginning of the year the Union natives were coming in abundance at the wage which was offered. Let me say in regard io that wage that the wage paid to natives by the mines was greater than in any other industry is entirely beside the mark. The point is that the wage is the lowest on which mining employers can supply their labour wants and obtain the needed labour supply. But the Government go out of their way to enable them to keep that wage at that level. The Minister said that at the beginning of the year they could get plenty of our own natives, towards the end of the year they could not. Those who are in the privileged position of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) and his friends, when there is someone’s services they desire to procure and cannot secure it regularly, there is only one alternative before us and that is to pay a sufficient wage to attract that fellow to work for us with the regularity we require. It is a principle in every civilized country.

Natives do not work for wages.

That is the greatest discovery the hon. member—

He works for glory! To get enough wages to buy a wife.

The hon. member’s interjection can only be dealt with adequately, if one were one of those lightning calculators, because if one would work it out, the implication of the hon. member’s remark, it is perfectly clear that we would not have a large enough population of wives for natives, in order to meet the demands. The native works for wages like every one else. The native has just as great a preference as we have, and as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) for a larger sum of money over a smaller one, and we contend that so long as the Government continues by this method to enable the level to be artificially kept down to that which will attract the least civilized men, they can attract in East Africa— for that is what it means—so long as the Government continues, that what will take place in this country is that the whole of our economic system is being gradually adjusted to the requirements of the least civilized participator in it. What we desire to see, on the contrary, is that the standard of civilization shall be the standard to which other activities and other standards shall adjust themselves. In our opinion there are no two alternatives before the country. This policy of the Government is not a policy which is going to lead us to anything else but ever growing misery to thousands and tens of thousands of people chequered by such events which we had two years ago on the Witwatersrand. I want to point out that the Minister takes great credit for the steps which he has taken to put a stop for the time being to importation from outside. An hon. member asks what is the difference between this importation and Chinese labour? Well, there is economically no serious difference, but that Chinese thing is a matter upon which hon. members over there desire not to be reminded. It is one of their past sins. I was saying that the circumstances under which this temporary suspension is taking place are that, as is well known, owing to the bad crops something approaching starvation is facing a large portion of the native population, and it is only that pressure which makes them accept that wage. As soon as that pressure is removed—the pressure of starvation—then the Minister is prepared again to introduce the pressure of the competitor from the barbaric districts of Portuguese East Africa. Whether you regard it from the point of view of the native, or the point of view of the coloured, or of the European in this country, the interests of this country demand in the most emphatic manner that this policy of shilly-shally and of adjusting things to a period of drought, and when that is past, reverting to the old course, must be put an end to. What we want is what the Minister refuses to give: an assurance that this action of temporarily suspending the importation of natives outside shall be revitted by legislation extending the limitation at present existing, so that once stopped, it can never again be resumed. The hon. the Minister says that there was no law under which he could stop them. We, particularly on these benches, look upon it as a most unhealthy state of affairs that in such an important matter as this the Government should have practically to ask these other people: “please stop this, because it is bad for the country.” If it is bad for the country the Government should have power under Act of Parliament, to put a stop to it. We shall take another opportunity of discussing this, but I don’t want to stand between the House and this other matter. As far as this is concerned, we shall vote for the amendment, and those who vote against it, will no doubt be able to justify their actions to those who sent them here. But whether they will be able to justify their actions in a way which is in consonance with the native intelligence and with their own conscience, is another matter.

moved—

seconded.

Bill brought up.

Mr. Speaker, before this Bill is read a first time—

The hon. member cannot discuss the first reading, he can discuss the motion for leave to introduce, or ask for a division.

Then I will wait, Sir, until you put the question.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a first time; and a division was called.

As fewer than 10 members (viz. Mr. Alexander, Dr. Forsyth and Messrs. Pearce, Snow and Stewart) voted against the question, the Speaker declared the question affirmed.

Bill read a first time.

moved—

seconded.

I hope the Minister is not going to insist upon such an early date. With regard to this Bill—we do not know the actual form of it—whatever the views hon. members may take, there can be no doubt that there is nothing which the Government has done since they have come into power that has raised so much hostility, feeling and resentment as the measure has done. The Bill which appeared in the Gazette, after what the Minister has said to deputations, will be radically altered, and it would be impossible if this date is agreed to that sufficient opportunity will be given for all those who are interested in this Bill to study it. I do suggest that this is one Bill where there should be no possible idea of rushing. The Hon. the Minister has stated that the Bill appeared in the Government Gazette before Parliament met. I agree that he was very early in publishing the first Bill—the more reason for allowing a longer period before bringing in this Bill. I would suggest to the Hon. the Minister the necessity of allowing as long a period as possible for hon. members and the country to study the Bill. If in order, I would suggest that the date be the 19th—that would give a fortnight. This would give sufficient time to all parties in the Union. This Bill has created comment not alone in this country, but in other countries, and has been the subject of criticism. I do not know if the Bill has been circulated by the Government in these countries. As regards London and India, I think the whole terms of the Bill should be cabled as a matter of courtesy to the Governments. It would save a great deal of misunderstanding if it was in the hands of the people in authority. I beg to move—

seconded.

The hon. member is unreasonable. This Bill has been before the country since the beginning of December.

Not this one.

It is altered in certain respects as regards the people to whom it applies, but as to the suggestion of sending it to London and India, it is quite out of the question, and I cannot possibly accept it. I think it would be reasonable to put the matter down for Monday, the 17th, which gives a reasonable time. With regard to the slight amendments in the Bill, the actual provisions are not altered, and the alterations were discussed with ‘the various sections of the people interested. I think it would be reasonable to accept the 17th.

I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. the Minister. As the hon. the Minister knows we are all rather full up with work and there is a good deal of legislation and I hope he will not be too obdurate as to time.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

seconded.

Is it because I moved the 19th that the hon. the Minister suggests the 17th? It would be much better to give a clear fortnight as has been done in matters of much less importance. A fortnight would give time for all sections to study the Bill.

Let me explain. It was not because the hon. member moved I took exception. Why should I take exception to his moving? I suggested the 17th as we do not know what work might appear on the Order Paper and it is not an unreasonable time.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to, and amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander dropped.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

I do not wish to take up time by advancing arguments which have already been advanced, and I only rise to ask the Prime Minister if he will give a statement on two points. The first is: Will he tell us exactly how the matter of maturation mentioned in Clause 6 is to be financed? From where are they to get the money? Facilities will be given to the Association and it is suggested that whatever financing takes place will take place through the Land Bank. Is the Government going to help the individual farmers who will require assistance in the way of advances, as the vintage of 1924 will not be matured into brandy until 1928, which involves an amount of sunken capital? Is it intended to give wine merchants the same facilities for obtaining money in order to take over the wine while it is maturing and until it is turned into brandy, as the Government is giving to the Association? The other point is: What steps is the hon. the Minister going to take in connection with Clause 13 dealing with the percentage of the producers represented by persons who were members of the organization who have resigned and whose resignations have not yet been accepted? Will the hon. the Minister tell us the position with regard to those men who have resigned? The hon. the Minister said the Wine-Growers’ Association would have to put their house in order and satisfy the Government before the Bill was passed. Something will have to be done to solve what will happen in the case of the large number of members who have resigned, but where resignations have not been accepted. They are only members in name. The Government might take some steps to see that there is, if possible, reconciliation between those who have resigned and the Wine Growers’ Association, and that the country can be satisfied that the Association represents those who produce 75 per cent. of the wine grown. If the right hon. the Prime Minister can tell us this, I think it would clear the air.

As een van die lede, wat hierdie Wetsontwerp verwelkom het staat ek nog op dieselfcle standpunt, en ek is bly oor die eerste stap in die rigting van kontrôle van ’n produk deur verteenwoordigers van die produsent. Daar word vir die waarheid beweer, en dit kan nie so van die hand gewys word nie, dat die optrede van de Kooperasie gaat in die rigting van die fabrikasie van ’n slegte artiekel. Ek wil hoop en sê dit publiek, dat die lede van die Kooperasie die bewering sal weerlê. Nie slegs deur te se dat dit nie waar is nie, dog deur hulle handelwyse in die toekoms. Een vloedryke lid van die Koöperasie, het verklaar dat hy verlede jaar 300 lêers wyn gemaak het om vernietig te word. Dit is voorwaat ’n treurige verskynsel en hy het £900 gekry vir daardie 300 lêers wyn. Onlangs sien ek in die verslag van onse Handels-Kommissaris op die Europese vasteland, die heer Spilhaus, dat daar vraag is vir onse rooi wyn in Duitsland en dat £7 10s. per leer daarvoor gekry kan word vry aan boord te Kaapstad. Ek wil daarom by die wynboere aandring en hulle vra, of dit nie beter is om twee honderd lêers wyn te maak van ’n gehalte wat goed verkoop kan word nie, as om 300 te maak wat vernietig moet word, lets anders wat tot my kennis gekom het, is dat van ’n sekere vereniging waarvan ek lid is, ’n jonge man van die naam Forrer die geld geleen het om wyn te gaan leer maak in Frankryk en Duitsland. Hy is verlede jaar, behoorlik gekwalifiseer, hier terug gekeer en het probeer om ’n betrekking te kry in sy lyn, maar hy kon niks te doen kry nie. Daarna is hy na Australië toe, wat by ons bekend is as ’n land wat baie graan en vee produseer, maar wat as wynproduserende land hier feitlik onbekend was, en hy het daar by die wynindustrie so’n goeie betrekking gekry, dat hy in staat was om die vir sy studie geleende geld in één jaar terug te betaal. Dit is waarlik nie aanmoedigend vir die wynboer nie en ek hoop dat die Wet, wat die wyn kontrôle in die hande van die Koöperasie gaat stel, bevorderlik sal wees vir die vervaardiging van goeie wyn. Daar is baie mense wat sê, dat hulle goeie wyn wil maak, en daarom wil hulle nie by die Kooperasie wees nie. Ek dink eerlik, dat as daar baie goeie wyn gemaak word, daar ’n mark voor te vind sal wees in ons eie land. Ek het enkele jare in Roemenië gewoon, wat ’n graan-produserende land is, en by die beste hotels kon men altyd eerste-klas wyn kry vir die ekwivalent van 8d. die bottel. Dit het gekom omdat in Roemenië baie goeie wyn gemaak word en omdat hulle ’n goeie artiekel produseer, word die goeie artiekel gebruik. Met hierdie paar woorde wil ek sluit, en hoop dat die Wet nou ’n sukses sal wees, eensdeels om stookwyn te kontroleer. Dis ’n eksperiment wat ons maak, een eksperiment waarby die kontrôle nou geplaas word in hande van die produsent; en in die twede plaas hoop ek, dat dit die produseer van goeie wyn sal bevorder.

Ek sou waarskynlik nie gepraat het nie, maar na die toespraak van die edele lid vir Ceres (die hr. Roux) voel ek, dat ek ook ’n paar woorde moet sê. Dis gelukkig nie ’n party-kwessie nie. Ons het die reg om te verskil. In plaas dat ek, soos my vrind, dink, dat dit ’n praktiese Wetsontwerp is, tot heil en seën van die wynboere, dink ek net die teenoorgestelde. Ek dink dis ’n klad op onse wetgewing. Ek kan nie een voorbeeld van so ’n Wetsontwerp vind in onse geskiedenis nie. As daar een is, sal ek bly wees as die edele Eerste Minister my dit sal noem,—waar die Regering sulike regte as onder hierdie maatreël gee aan ’n private maatskappy, ’n monopolie van beheer oor so’n belangrike artikel, ’n reg wat die Regering self nie sou wil aanvaar nie. Nog nooit gedurende die 250 jaar, dat ons land bestaan as ’n blanke kolonie, het ’n Regering gedoen wat met hierdie maatreël gedoen word nie. En as dit nou nog ’n maatskappy was, wat hoog aangeskrywe staan by die wynboere, dan was dit ’n andere saak. Ek wil niks sê teen die maatskappy self nie, maar teen die bestuur. Ons het getuigenis gehad voor die Selekt Komitee omtrent sekere direkteure, wat my laat voel dat dit ’n skande is, dat sulke direkteure aangehou word. Daar is drie direkteure, minstens drie, wat voorgee dat hulle die wynbou wil help met alles wat in hulle vermoë is. En die eerste manier waarop hulle dit wil doen, is om pryse vas te stel. Tog het daardie direkteure sorg dat hulle self nie onder die reels van die Kooperasie val nie. Drie direkteure het kontrakte aangegaan met kopers wat hulle uitsluit van die bepalinge van die Wet.

Wanneer het hulle die aan gegaan?

Een in 1914, wat vernuut is in 1920, twee na die Kooperasie reeds gestig was, jare daarna. Terwyl hulle self die pryse vasstel vir gewone boere, kry hulle self ’n hoër prys. Ek kan nie verstaan hoe die Regering kan heengaan om ’n monopolie te lain sulke hande nie. Daar is glad geen voorbeeld daarvan, sê ek, dat dit ooit gebeur het. Ek dink dus nie dat die Kooperasie tot die groot heil en seen gaan wees wat die voorstanders voorspêl nie, selfs nie al was die direkteure ook beter as wat die getuie voor die Gekose Komitee vertel dat hulle is. Sover as ek berigte gekry het, gaan daar nie ’n oorproduksie vanjaar wees nie. Die opbrengs gaanvanjaar omtrent 60 persent wees van wat dit verlede jaar was. Een van die vernaamstewynboere het vir die Selekt Komitee vertel, dat die produksie sal wees tusse die 50 en 60 persent. Die pryse sal waarskynlik ’n bietjie styg deur die vermindering in produksie, maar nie deur die werk van die Kooperasie nie onder die nuwe Wetsontwerp. As die Wetsontwerp nog ’n verbetering van die wyn bedoel het, dan sou daar nog iets voor te sê gewees het. Maar dit bestendig inteendeel die posiesie van sake, wat baie te betreur is. Daar is ’n sekere lid in die Huis, soos die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux) gesê het, wat erken het—hy skaam horn nie om dit te erken nie—dat hy wyn maak om vernietig te word, en soos hy dit doen so is daar honderde van andere. Die produksie van wyn het in die laaste jare toegeneem, soos die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) gesê het, met 43 persent. Hoekom is dit so toegeneem? Omdat die Direksie van die Koöperasie gesorg het, dat alle boere wat ver buite woon en nie die wyn na die mark kan bring nie, £3 per leer kry om hulle wyn te kan laat uitloop. En nou sorg die Wetsontwerp dat daardie oorproduksie bestendig word. Die Direksie van die Kooperasie kry hulle ondersteuning meesal vanmense, wat wyn laat uitloop. Dis nie waarskynlik dat die Direksie die ondersteuning van daardie boere sou kry, as dit nie was dat hulle die geleentheid kry om teen ’n winsgewende prys die wyn te laat uitloop jaar na jaar nie. Een van die edele lede van die Huis het laaste jaar £900 gemaak met wyn wat hy vernietig het en ek hoop dat hy die vorige jaar ook omtrent £900 op daardie manier gemaak het. Natuurlik is hy ’n groot ondersteuner van die Wetsontwerp. Verder dink ek ook, dat dit heeltemal ’n heel verkeerde beginsel is om kontrakte wat reeds gemaak is te verbreek. De hr. Frans Joubert, een van die grootste wynprodusente, het gesê, dat dit vir horn nodig is om een of meer jare vooruit kontrakte te maak, om stabiliteit te kry in sy pryse. So is daar verskeie boere wat vir vanjaar se oes, miskien ook vir verdere oeste, kontrakte gemaak het. Hierdie Wetsontwerp wil al daardie kontrakte vernietig. Is dit billik? Daar word geen rekening gehou met hoeveel kontrakte daar is en wat die kontrakte is nie. Alles word vernietig. Onder sulke omstandighede is niemand veilig nie. Dan nog ’n punt. Die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (die hr. Alexander) het gevra, wat ek ook al gevra het: wat gaan die Regering doen om te sorg dat dit moontlik gaan wees om die brandewyn vir drie jaar te bewaar? Ek het dit te vergeefs gevra, Dit is verpligtend onder die Wetsontwerp om brandewyn drie jaar te bewaar voordat jy die mag verkoop. Daar is wel ’n klein kwalifisering—ek erken dit—maar dit effekteer die saak maar weinig. Dus die gevolg gaat wees dat boere, die Kooperasie en andere mense wat hu] brandewyn wil verkoop, verplig word om dit drie jaar lank te laat lê. Hoe moet hulle dit doen? Daar word geen voorsiening voor gemaak nie. Waar gaan die boere die vate vandaan kry om die brandewyn so lank te bewaar? En die boere wat brandewyn te koop het wil dadelik hul geld daarvoor hê. En nou mag hulle dit pas oor drie jaar verkoop. Die Regering het hier gehandel sonder vooruit te kyk. Nou vra ek, gaat die Regering met geldelike hulp die Koöperasie, die wynkopers en wynboere te gemoet kom? Gaan die Regering hulle in staat stel om die brandewyn te bewaar? Dan is daar ook nog ’n ander punt van belang. Sover ek kan verstaan, is die Kooperasie op die bodem, en ek vrees dat die Kooperasie bankrot gaan tensy daar groot verandering kom in die manier waarop die Direk sie te werk gaan. Op die laaste balansstate het hulle, om aan te toon dat hulle nog in ’n gesonde toestand is, £150,000 geskrywe as bate, maar vergeet om daarby te set dat dit bate is van ’n bankrctte boedel, die boedel van Winshaw. Die £150,000 is op die boek gekrediteer as ’n baat. Dan kom daar ’n pos van £35,000 aan die kredietkant op die balansstaat voor. Toe navraag deur die Ouditeur gemaak is, wat die £35,000 beteken en waar die voor staan. is geantwoord, dat dit ’n foutjie was, asof dit niks beteken nie. Die £35,000 staat daar as ’n baat, terwyl dit eintlik aan die anderkant mses staan. Dit is die werk van die Direksie aan wie die Regering vandaag die grote kon trôle gaat gee. Dis dinge wat bewys is deur getuie voor die Gekose Komitee. Ek betreur, ek wil dit nog weer eens sê, die Wetsontwerp en wil nou nog vir die laaste my stem daar teen laat hoor.

Ek is jammer, dat die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) weer opgestaan het en dit nie by eerste referensie gelaat het nie. Ek glo, dat die toespraak wat hy nou gemaak het, nie sal bydra tot die goeie gees, waarin die Wet gepasseer is deur die Huis. Maar dis nie my plan om te antwoord op die beskuldigings van die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) nie. Ek glo nie dat dit nodig is nie. Ek wil net die edele lid vir Kaanstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) antwoord op twee punte waarna hy gerefereer het. Die twee punte is beide hier in die Huis bespreek by die Komiteestadium, toe die edele lid nie hier was nie. Beide punte is geopper deur die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) en is toe besproke. Ek wil net kort aanhaal wat ek by die geleentheid gesê het. Wat betref die finansieer odder die bepalinge van artiekel 6; so is dit die posiesie, dat ons bevind het, dat onder my ou artiekel, soos dit in die Huis gebring is, ’n finansiele reëling sou nodig wees en ’n finansieer van die Regering miskien sou nodig wees om die artiekel uit te voer. Maar soos dit nou verander is en afgebring is, sodat 25 persent van brandewyn nie vir 3 jaar gehou word, is dit nie nodig om sulke voorsieninge te maak nie. Die wynhandelaars en die Vereniging is dit daarmee eens dat soos die artiekel nou is, dit uitvoerbaar is en die no-dige finansies gevind kan word. Dus is dit nie nodig vir die Regering om iets in die rigting te doen nie. Wat die andere punt betref: “Wie lede is, welke wyn onder die wet sal val om te bepaal of 75 persent van die wyn verteenwoordig is deur lede van die maatskappy, wil ek sê, dat dit natuurlik ’n pure wettelike kwessie is waaraan die Minister van Finansies sy aandag sal moet gee en sal moet beslis wie onder die statute van die kooperasie lid is, of bedank het, of nie lid is nie. Die Minister van Finansies sal dit moet uitvind voordat besluit kan word of 75 persent van die wyn in die land verteenwoordig is deur lede van die maatskappy en dis nie nodig vir ons om op die kwessie vandag in te gaan nie. Dis ’n kwessie wat op sekere gronde beslis sal word.

Motion for the third reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

moved—.

He said: The most interesting features of this measure, I suppose, are the things which are not in it.

Quite so.

And although it is not strictly relevant to the provisions of the Bill, I suppose the House and the country would wish me to explain the position of the Government as to the non-inclusion of these matters. Hon. members will have seen now the extremely limited scope of the Bill, and I am sure that even the hon. member for Edenburg (Mr. Beyers), has not found any difficulty in mastering its details. This means, Mr. Speaker, that the Government does not see its way to bring the recommendations of the Provincial Finances Commission followed by the recommendations of the Education Administration Commission into operation, and that these reports will have to be shelved, at all events for the present.

As was to be expected.

The hon. member speaks as if he is disappointed; I am sure that in fact he is extremely pleased. Well, I am not pleased, and I may say at once that it is with a feeling of profound regret that I make this announcement, and that the Government has come to this conclusion. It must seem to be a lame and impotent conclusion after all the investigations which have been made, and after the result of these investigations. It must seem a lame conclusion in face of the existing state of the provincial finances and of the substantial improvement which was promised in the whole system, by the report. I am afraid that this result must inevitably cause bitter disappointment and grave misgivings in the minds of many thinking people, in all parts of the country, who have been hoping to see much needed reform introduced in our provincial system. Now the report, which we know as the Baxter Report, the report of the Provincial Finances Commission, which, if I may say so, is a record of thorough, competent and most useful work, I suppose as useful a contribution to our stock of political knowledge as has been made by any Commission for years past—that report proved conclusively, and it has been confirmed by the investigations of the Education Administration Commission, which first sat under the Chairmanship of Professor Lawn and afterwards under Professor Hofmeyr, it proved conclusively that the provincial finances and expenditure had got completely out of hand. The expenditure has risen out of all proportion to the resources of the country, and if it were allowed to go on, it would land the country into ever increasing difficulties. In order to find money—I quote from the findings of the Commission—for this inflated expenditure, objectionable methods of taxation, in many cases overlapping Union taxation have had to be resorted to. Now the Commission proposes to reform this state of affairs first of all by safeguarding the Union sources of taxation, secondly by limiting the liability of the State, of the Union, by doing away with the old £ for £ basis under which the Union never knew what it had to find and had no control whatever over the provincial expenditure; thirdly by putting the subsidy to the provinces on a sound and businesslike footing, the footing of a grant per child going to school —that is the subsidy for education—and lastly by throwing on the provinces the responsibility for finding the rest of the money which they spend through a specified and restricted list of taxes. I said last year, when the report had just come into our hands, that the Government accepted that report in its broad principles, and I still say so, indeed it is difficult to see how any reasonable person can fail to appreciate the enormous advantage, both to the Union and the provinces, by the substitution of a capitation basis instead of the old £ for £ principle. You could not possibly, after adopting that basis, have the cry raised about children being kept out of school because for each child going to school there will be a grant given, and in as much as this changed basis, the adoption of the capitation basis, is the foundation of the whole provincial financial report and the provincial executives as far as I know agree to that, adopt that, with the exception, I had better say it at once, of Natal, but I will come to that by and by—well in view of what I have just said, in view of these considerations I have to meet this afternoon an obvious question, and that is “if these things are so, why then do you not adopt the report?” Now I have to answer that question, and I propose to do so. The answer is that while the report in its broad aspects commends itself to the Government, and while I for my part—in fact we all do—regret that we are missing this opportunity of making a better start in the management of our provincial finances, it has been made abundantly clear to us that neither the provinces as provinces, nor the country as a whole are prepared to accept the findings of the Commission at this stage.

Is that so?

I thought the hon. member would say that.

Would hon. members on the opposition benches vote for it?

Wait and see.

We met the administrators and not merely the administrators, but their executives, in conference. My hon. friends the Ministers of Railways and of the Interior were with me. We met the delegates in conference and we thrashed out during the four days the whole of this question in all its phases. We put to them the comparative budgets that would present themselves under the new system as compared with the existing system. In the figures I am going to give the House I shall try to confine myself only to what may be called the leading figures. In the figures I mention now the prospect of economies is left out. I take the figures agreed upon between ourselves and the Provincial representatives for the budget for the year 1924-’25, that is the next financial year. The figures worked out in this way. Leaving out the grants that the Government may make for the next few years and taking the funding of their deficits for the next ten years, then the application of the report, with this slight modification and the retention by the Provinces of auction duty and by the Transvaal of the native pass duties, would work out as follows for the year 1924-’25 for the Provinces: The Cape would have a deficit of £478,000, Natal £286.000, and the Transvaal £849,000. You say this is large, but you must remember that the provincial taxpayers would be saved £1,515,000 of money they pay in taxes now but which would be remitted. The Free State would have a deficit of £173.000 so the total of the provincial deficits would be £1,786.000. Under the present system the deficits would be as follows: The Cape £555,000, under the new system recommended by the Commission the Cape would get £600,000 of subsidy more than it does to-day). Of course it would also abandon its licences. The proposal of the Commission is that commercial licences and the turnover tax should be made Union taxes on a uniform basis, which is a most desirable thing. The nett result in the Cape would be if it gave up the taxes, the deficit would be £478,000, whereas under the existing system the sum would be £555,000. Natal, which under the new system would have a deficit of £286,000, would have only £83,000 under the existing system. That difference is largely accounted for by the fact that Natal is the only province which would get less subsidy under the application of the report than it received to-day. Natal’s reduced amount is because of the smaller number of school children for whom a grant would be given. In the case of the Transvaal the amount would be £393,000. The Free State will have £47,000 deficit under the one proposal, as compared with £173,000 under the other. There would be a difference in favour of the existing system on these figures of £708,000. But under the report the provincial taxpayers would be relieved of taxation amounting to £1,515,000. These objectionable taxes will all go. But to balance their accounts for the year the Provinces would certainly have to effect economies or to tax to the extent of £1,786,000. The Union Government would have to increase the amount of the subsidy and they would have to impose taxation probably in the nature of uniform licences. I want to emphasize that in giving the House these figures no allowance is made for economies. The Commission anticipated an immediate and substantial economy in many respects. Take for instance teachers’ salaries, which the Commission said were on too lavish a scale, and a scheme is now proposed which will effect these economies, but over a considerably longer period than the report anticipated. With regard to our conference with the administrators, we put these comparative budgets to them and worked them out in detail. After four days of discussion it was made clear to us that the feeling of the representatives of the Provinces was not merely passively resistant but actively hostile to the adoption of the report in some of its essential features and that legislative action if it were to be taken by the Government in that direction would have to be imposed by Parliament in the teeth of the opposition of the united Provinces and the majority of the people. They were all of them (except Natal, as I have said), in agreement with the capitation system, and they were all (except Natal, and, to a limited extent, the Cape) in agreement with the proposed scheme of payment per pupil. The Commission worked out the reasonable cost per head for primary and secondary education on a basis of average attendance as follows: they recommended in the case of the Cape and Natal £14 per child; the Transvaal £16 7s. 6d.; the Free State £15 8s. The Transvaal and the Free State accepted these figures, but the Cape said it ought to have as much as the Transvaal because of its larger area. The Commission had found the Cape expenditure per child ought to be under £14 but they recommended £14. The Cape, however, said it required the same as the Transvaal. Well, when we came to Natal we had a surprise. The Transvaal, which is regarded as the most expensive area, was recommended £16 7s. 6d., whereas Natal said that its present expenditure per head was £26 8s. and that it could not possibly do with a penny less. I commend this astounding statement to the taxpayers of that Province. When the Natal representatives were asked how this was possible seeing that the Transvaal was going to accept £16 7s. 6d., and the Transvaal is the most expensive place of the whole lot, they said they regarded it as due to fact that they had a more efficient system of education.

I agree with them.

From that position they were not to be moved. They said there was no room for adjustment, no margin for arriving at a proper figure, and that £26 8s. was the irreducable minimum. This will give you some sort of idea of our initial difficulty in this matter, but as we went on to discuss other essential features of the report the difficulties increased, especially when we came to the restriction of their taxing powers concerning which I am bound to say there was unanimous opposition.

And quite right, too.

In the case of the Transvaal the new subsidy would have meant £340,000 more; in the case of the Free State £20,000 more, and in the case of Natal £180,000 less. In each case we indicated the Government’s intention of making suitable provision for special grants during the transition period as recommended by the Commission. In the case of Natal, and possibly of the Free State, they would have required some special treatment. There was a general disposition to accept the basis as such on the part of three of the Provinces, but none of the four was prepared to abandon any of their taxing powers. Well, now I come to one of the principal difficulties with which we were faced. In the restricted list of taxes which is recommended as being proper to Provincial authorities undoubtedly one of the most important features is the proposed resort to a rate on immovable property. Let me say a word or two with regard to this matter. In the first place the Commission looked to considerable economies being carried out in every direction, and they laid down how Revenue could be obtained from certain defined sources of taxation. These were as follows: Liquor licences, dog, fish and game licences, wheel tax, racing tax, hospital fees and the immovable property tax, but the most tangible and weighty of them all was the rate on immovable property. It would not be necessary, as the Commission pointed out, for one or two of the Provinces to have immediate resort to this particular source, but there can be no doubt—and it is what I have to face this afternoon on behalf of the Government, it was what we had to face at the Conference— there can be no doubt that when other sources have been exhausted for obtaining local revenue there remained this great ultimate source—a tax on immovable property. That being the case, we had to enquire into the attitude of the Provincial authorities in this matter, and I found that this proposed rate on immovable property was still as much of a red rag to a bull as it has always been. [An Hon. Member: “Natuurlik.”] I do not accept it being “natuurlik.” I advise the hon. member on this point to consult the views of his allies in the corner.

Why does the right hon. the Minister not do it?

We were assured by all the Provincial Councils’ Executive Committees that such a levy would not be passed by any Provincial Council.

It was passed by the Transvaal, but you cut it out.

I said that such a source might be tapped by local bodies for purely local purposes as has been done in the Cape for years past, where £400,000 per annum is obtained from this source. With regard to a matter of this kind, one cannot help having the feeling that there is a great deal of prejudice against it, but still, we have to take stock of it, and have to meet it. Even this tentative proposal of mine was rejected, and to those who may think that this is a peculiar idiosyncrasy of the Boer, let me say we found no opposition to this suggestion greater than the opposition of Natal. Natal told us that if such a proposal were brought into the Natal Provincial Council, not a single member would vote for it. I make a mistake. There was one exception, Mr. Fahey, the Labour member, said he would vote for it. Well, now, Sir, that is the position. I am convinced that, whether rightly or wrongly, by what happened at the Conference and otherwise, the country is not yet ripe for this particular method of taxation and it would be perfectly futile for us to attempt to impose it as the feeling is to-day in this country. After all, one can only move on practical and practicable lines and to go on under these circumstances with a proposal such as this it would be simply hitting our heads against a stone wall. I go further and say this, that as things are to-day in South Africa, there is no Government, there is no alternative Government that would be elected by the people of this country that would pass this legislation. It is not a question of this Government; it is simply a question of the feeling of the people of the Union to-day. That being so, the Government must face the facts. We have, very unfortunately indeed, to face these facts which stare us in the face, and the result is that the Provinces must go on their existing basis, and it will be left to them to put their damaged houses in such order as they can manage to do. The result also is the production of this undersized infant before you to-day. Even this starveling, however, has evoked a tremendous storm against its very restricted and perfectly innocent provisions. Let me deal with one or two of those. There are two principal features of the Bill. One is that which provides for uniform scales of salaries for teachers, and the other is that which deals with the funding of the deficits of the Provinces. Let me take the matter of the teachers’ salaries first. We have been attacked in regard to the Bill itself and the non-inclusion of certain things by the mercantile element of the community. I have a good deal of sympathy with them. We are now being attacked in regard to teachers’ salaries by the idealistic element, who display a great deal of practicality in the representations they made on their behalf. There was a great deal of business in it. Well, Sir, to a very large extent those storms almost negative each other. Let me deal with this particular portion of the Bill and give the House the genesis of this provision. The Governor-General is, under Clause 2, to prescribe the scale of pay and allowances for teachers on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. It has been abundantly demonstrated that the lack of uniformity resulting from each of the Provinces framing its own scales has been in the main responsible for forcing up teachers’ salaries to an unduly lavish extent, and encouraging provincial competition for the services of teachers. The Provincial Finances Commission, in their report, refer to the need of uniformity. They say that it was important that the Provinces should not be in a position of competing with one another by the offer of higher salaries to teachers, and the Administrators and heads of education departments have informed the Commission in their evidence that in their opinion such uniformity is desirable. The Provincial Administration have previously attempted, by means of an inter-Provincial Conference, to secure uniformity. They failed completely in that effort, and the Commission recommended that the Government should secure this uniformity by Act of Parliament. I think we must all agree, and there is no doubt, that it is the view of the Provincial authorities, that this uniformity in the pay of teachers is a most desirable thing. As I said, they have made efforts to secure it amongst themselves, but they have not succeeded. The provision in this measure is made really at the request of the Provincial authorities. It can only be done by Act of Parliament. I come now to the provisions which are proposed to be made. There will be an ultimate saving to the Provinces generally of about £400,000 a year if these uniform scales are laid down. That is the calculation of the Public Service Commission. We have already had an enquiry by the Public Service Commission with the assistance of technical advisers from each Province, and the result of their investigation as to the scales and recommendations is embodied in the document which I have already laid on the Table of the House. You will see from this report that the scales are laid down on a coastal basis. They carry local allowances in the same way as is done in the Public Service. In one or two cases the Provincial Administrations, we understand, would desire to discuss some modifications. A deputation waited upon me a few days ago from the Teachers’ Association, who raised various points of objection. They said a maximum was fixed here and no minimum. They said I was pointing the finger to the Provincial Administrations as to the line they ought to take. They are wrong. A minimum is fixed. The Bill provides that the scale of pay given to teachers shall be the scales recommended. These scales are limited both as to the top and also as to the bottom, and the Provincial authorities cannot depart from these scales either way. They cannot change into a lower scale. Those scales can only be modified by the Government upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. But there is a point which was raised by the provincial authorities, and they take up this attitude. “We do not like”—and nobody was stronger than the Free State representatives—“we do not like having to give up any part of our prerogative. These are matters which are within our rights, and we do not like to give them up at all, but we do consent to this provision for a uniform scale because we see that cannot be obtained in any other way.” But they said and the Cape and others agreed: “Do not take away any more of our control over these matters.”

What about sub-section (2)?

What subsection (2)?

Read it.

If the hon. member will wait, I will deal with all these things. I want to make clear to the House what the provisions of this Bill really mean, and this is my proposition, that except in so far as the laying down of a certain scale of salaries is concerned, there is no interference with the present position.

Read sub-section (2).

I will come to that in due time if the hon. member will allow me to say what I have to say. What I said to the House was this, and I want hon. members to follow me, because if there is any point which it not clear but may be shown to be unfair to the teachers in the provisions of this Bill, I am perfectly prepared to consider it. I say that this matter is at present entirely in the hands of the provincial authorities. They can change the scales, drive the scale down to anything they like or put them up to anything they like. The teachers to-day are entirely in the hands of the provincial councils; they can make any arrangement of any sort. The Bill says that there shall be a certain scale of uniformity laid down, and you are not to depart from that scale, but except that you cannot depart from those scales, the management of the teachers is left as it is in your own hands. Now we come to the next point. The first point that might be argued as a departure from what I have said or as inconsistent, is the provision that any province that finds itself in a condition of financial stress, may provide for a general percentage reduction of the pay of all its servants. So it can to-day. There is no addition to or taking away of the powers of the provincial authority. It can do that to-day. That power is left; it may not touch any scale, but it can say as anybody else can say, that in time of financial stress we intend to reduce your pay for this year by so much per cent.

In time of affluence it cannot give them more.

Pull them down, but not put them up.

You cannot take away from a provincial council that power. It seems to me that what is going to happen is that hon. members are now going to develop a fight between the teachers on the one side and the provincial councils on the other because provincial councils are asking for these powers. They are asking us not to take them away.

Why should we not have a fight?

The power which is left to them they have to-day, and it is left to them to provide in time of financial exigency for a general reduction of salary. But that is to be limited to one year; they are only to be allowed to do it for a year, and the scale comes into operation again automatically unless a new ordinance is passed the year after, so that the provincial council will in each case have to repeat this thing if it is necessary.

Have they power to increase?

Can they double income tax?

I come to the position of the existing teachers. There it is said there has been a breach of faith because whereas terms were made that the teachers should be dealt with on the same basis as the public servants of the Union, in spite of the new scales that have not been observed. Now I want to consider this matter carefully for a moment and let me just, if I may be allowed to do so, refer to what the Public Service Commission said—

and they do recommend that though they also recognize that the administration’s ability to pay must be the determining factor. Who has to decide this question whether the new scale to be laid down has to apply to existing teachers or not? This Parliament? It, of course, is not the proper body to deal with that question; the proper body is each provincial authority. [An Hon. Member: “What will become of uniformity?”] You will get in the Bill uniform scales to work to, and this in future will be very much better than in the past. The Government leaves the acceptance or rejection or modification of the recommendation of the commission to the proper authority, viz., the provincial authority in each case. Where is the breach of faith? With whom is faith broken? The Public Service Commission in its consultation with these gentlemen said they were going to recommend this; that has been done by Parliament for the Union Public service; Parliament is the proper authority for the Union public servants; the proper authority in this case is the provincial council, and the Bill leaves the decision of the subject as to the teacher entirely to the provincial authority. There is, however, one point that to my mind was made by the deputation which saw me and that was that at the end of Clause 2, I think in the proviso, to Clause 2, sub-section (1), it was laid down that the existing teachers shall be paid their present salaries unless the executive committee otherwise decides. There has been a partial mistake made in this respect, and I said I would have the matter enquired into. It is not an error so far as the Transvaal is concerned, because by the Provincial law of the Transvaal these matters are dealt with by the executive committee, but in the Cape it is not so; here it requires to be done by ordinance, so I propose to rectify what certainly is not as complete a statement as it should be by providing for the action being taken by the proper authority. Well now. Sir, I think I have dealt with the principal objections that were raised to this proposal. I come now to the deficits. The Provinces have accumulated deficits on their revenue accounts and it is quite clear that in some cases, especially in the case of the Cape, these deficits cannot be carried on to next year’s revenue account, as it is perfectly impossible to dispose of them in one year. In both the cases of the Cape and Free State the deficits have become something of an incubus and we propose to fund them for a period of ten years and provide for redemption and interest being paid on that basis. Well, now in the case of the Cape, the figure reaches for a provincial council the stupendous one really as a running deficit of £1,600,000. That is made up of Provincial Revenue Fund £900,000, School Board deficit £600,000 and stores in hand £100,000. It is not part of our business today to go into the question of the origin of these deficits and who is to blame and so forth One can leave that to the investigation of others. In the Free State it is anticipated that during the financial year the accumulated deficit will be something like £150,000. The deficit in Natal amounts to something like £30,000 in respect of the year 1922-’23. I am glad to hear that the account for the current year will be likely to balance. In the case of the Transvaal the deficit has arisen only during the current year but, as we propose to recover the money spent in refunding the Transvaal poll tax on natives, we propose to take the two amounts together and fund them. I think hon. members will remember that a poll tax was imposed there and it was held in the Courts that that collection was ultra vires so far as natives were concerned. No action was taken by the Province to return the money and we took upon ourselves to see that that money was returned and we propose now to recover it. So that they will have £290,000 deficit— £230,000 of their own ordinary deficit and £60,000 in respect of this poll tax. As a matter of fact, of the total of these deficites which is £2,070,000 we have already voted £862,000. We voted last year for the Cape School Board deficit £600,000, and coloured education £12,000. That was for the year 1922-’23. In 1922-’23 we had to vote the Transvaal poll tax £50,000 and that leaves us £1,200,000 still to vote. Well, I only want to say this: These figures which I have just given the House cannot but impress every thinking, reasonable man in this country, with the urgent need which the situation reveals of resolute steps being taken to effect substantial economies. Hon. members smile. You take the position of our Union. We have, as compared with last year, presented to the House this year reduced estimates and we have reduced the estimates in the total in spite of the fact that we have had to provide for a number of inevitable increases, such as payments for the increase of interest on debt, but we have actually reduced administrative expenses by £365,000. In times like these the Provincial authorities have presented us with estimates which are a quarter of a million more, so that one cannot help thinking that the lessons which our present circumstances and the circumstances of the last few years should have taught us, have not really sunk into the minds of our provincial people, who have not grasped the necessity for dealing properly, thoroughly and courageously with the whole question. There can be no doubt about the scope for reduction This is the finding of the Baxter Commission and it is abundantly confirmed by the Hofmeyr Commission to show that there is a large field for the justifiable reduction of expenditure. I am bound to say that when we met these provincial representatives in conference we hardly received encouragement in this respect. The Cape expressed its willingness to do something and the Transvaal said it could do something but not much—probably about £100.000. The Free State, I think it is only right that I should say, were the least unsatisfactory about this matter and were much more prepared to face the situation and see what could be done in this respect than the representatives of the other provinces. In Natal (I am sorry to have to quote my own province so often) it was said they could not save a penny.

Well done, Natal!

Well I am afraid that the present situation of our provinces will have to be faced in a very different spirit, if it is to be saved. There still seems to be a sort of idea abroad—although the light seems to be slowly dawning—that there is a boundless purse from which they can draw to spend money in extravagance—aye, even on education. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of extravagance and that extravagance has been found by the Provincial Finances Commission in their report. I fancy, however, that the provinces are beginning to feel there is something in these recommendations as to the necessity for economy, but I am afraid that to a very large extent the people in this country regard this matter in the wronglight. I am sorry to say that people in the Cape Province, as well as people elsewhere, have been living in a fool’s paradise, and have not been meeting the position either by reduction in their expenditure or by any other means. These things are very difficult, and or course they are very unpopular as well. But unless they are dealt with, and dealt with in the right manner, we shall never get the situation right, and the financial position of the provinces instead of improving will become much worse than it is to-day. It is in the hope that the figures and facts which have been brought prominently to the notice of the provincial authorities, in the conference, will induce them to approach this question in the right spirit, as to what is necessary to place them on a sound basis, and that they will realize, unless they want to plunge into a regular financial debacle they must do their utmost to bring about economy—it is with this hope that I move the second reading.

Ek stel voor—

Dit spyt my baie, dat dit al so laat is. Ek dink die hele Huis voel al taamlik moeg teen half-ses, maar ek wil die edele Minister van Finansies die versekering gee dat ons met die grootste belangstelling sy toespraak aangehoor het en ek dink die hele Huis sal met my instem, dat wat hy gesê het vanmiddag besonder belangrik is. Maar het die edele Minister wel besef welk figuur hy hier vanmiddag geslaan het by hierdie verklaringe in die lig van sy verlede as Minister van Finansies en in die lig van die verlede van hierdie Wetsontwerp, dit betwyfel ek. Maar ek betwyfel nog meer of die edele Minister besef het die lig wat hy vanmiddag het laat opgaan oor sy kollega’s en die Regering. Na wat hy hier gesê het behoort daardie Regering nie een dag langer aan te bly nie. As hulle enig die minste self-respek had, dan sou hulle die eerste beste geleentheid nou vind om te gaan. Ek dink dit moet ons almal verbasend getref het dat die edele Minister vanmiddag so eerlik was, want gewoonlik hou hy meer van uitvlugte dan van reguit. Die edele Minister kom hier vanmiddag en hy sê: “Ons het niks om voor julle te bring nie. Ek en my Regering, ons staan by die Baxter-rapport, maar nou sal mens vra: ‘Hoekom het die Minister nie die Baxter-rapport gebring nie?’” “Ah,” sê hy, “omdat die land dit nie wil hê nie.” Weet die edele Minister, besef hy wat hy daardeur verklaar het? Dit, dat die Regering nie langer die volk daarbuite representeer nie. Dit is ’n duidelik erkenning dat die Regering nie meer die volk daarbuite representeer nie, en nog wel op so’n gewigtige onderwerp as dat wat ons vanmiddag bespreek. Die gevolg is, dat hulle voort gaan met die politiek wat wat is? Wat hulle nie in staat stel om iets te doen nie, behalwe net die een ding om weg te hardloop. En weer komplimenteer ek die edele Minister, dat hy so eerlik en reguit was. Waarom sê hy het ons weggehardloop? Natal. Natal wou dit nie he nie. Het Natal dit wou gehad het, dan sou die edele Minister met die Baxter-rapport gemok het. Natal wou dit nie en die Minister moes weg hardloop. ’n Treuriger toestand kan ons land nie in verkeer nie. En waarom ek dit sê? Wat word in die tussentyd van jou opvoeding? Gaos. Dis wat die edele Eerste Minister self verklaar het die ander dag toe hy daar ’n onderhoud gehad het met sekere predikante omtrent onderwys. Dis feitlik waar op sy verklaring neerkom. Nou ek sê, ’n treuriger toestand kan ons nie indink, dan waar ons in sit vandag nie. En as dit nou maar net op die een onderwerp was, maar die edele Ministers is net so magteloos, net so impotent, in andere sake as op hierdie punt. Ek verwag, dat ons in die Huis nog hierdie jaar, nog volgende jaar iets anders kry dan louter lapwerk, en tot hier toe was alle lapwerk knoei-werk. As die edele Ministers nog enige gevoel van self-respek het, dan sou hulle darem ’n bietjie bloos oor die bespottelike posiesie waarin hulle vanmiddag verkeer. ’n Maand gelede, of nee, ’n paar weke meer, voor die opening van die Parlement werd in die Troonrede die volgende verklaar—

Mag ek die edele Minister vra: Was dit wat bedoel was? Dan behoort die Regering horn te skaam oor die belediging aangedoen aan die Goewerneur-Generaal, om horn in sy Troonrede daarvan gewag te laat maak. Maar hulle het die skaamte-gevoel nie meer nie. Daar is net een ding waaraan hulle dink, wat hulle vra—en ek dink ons het daar genoeg voorbeelde van gehad—hoe dat hulle hulle setels kan behou en hoe hulle kan voorkom om iets te doen waardeur stemme gaat verloor. Ek vra die Huis as die edele Ministers enige respek vir hulle self het, wat sou hulle dan gaan doen? Hulle het gesê, ons is voor die Baxter-rapport en daar sou hulle niks oorgebly het as die rapport in te bring en te sê, ons staan of val daarmee. En nou kom hulle na ’n maand en twee weke na die troonrede en hulle is bereid om die mees plegtige afkondiging wat hulle gedoen het binne ’n paar weke te laait vaar. Ja, ek wil nie die vergelyking maak “met die stert tussen die bene,” maar ek wil maar net sê soos dit gewoonlik gesê word, “al wat jy siet is net stof.” Niks as stof nie. Die edele Minister vanaf die eerste minuut wat hy hier opgestaan het vanmiddag, het hy ons almal laat voel, hier sta ek, ek sta op vir my verdediging vanmiddag, ek moet my verdedig, ek gaan my verdedig en hy het hom verdedig. Hy het gekom met ’n geskrewe verdedigmg. Hy het tog noer gevoel genoeg gehad om te weet dat dit ’n ernstige geval is, ’n belangrike probleem en hy het dit daarom op skrif gestel, om nie te vergeet alles voor die Huis te bring wat hy kan inbring. Hy het sy beste gedoen, maar dit was verbasend hoe dat hy besig was om al die klein dingetjies aan te haal, wat niks beteken nie en wat hy anders nooit sou aangeraak het nie. Ons ken die metode van die edele Minister van Finansies om te kom en te sê, ek het hier ’n klein wetjie en ek hoef daar nie veel oor te sê nie, dis maar ’n wetjie van nie veel betekenis nie. Dit sou hy onder gewone omstandighede gedoen het. Maar vandag het hy die noodsaaklikheid gevoel om te kom en stof op te jaag en te kom probeer om deur niets betekenende dingetjies die aandag van die Huis af te trek van die eintlike saak waarom dit gaan. Ek kan die edele Minister die versekering gee, dat die Huis die erns van die saak voel en dat ons die edele Minister kan dwing om tot ’n punt in die saak te kom. Ja, ek kan goed sien dat die edele Ministers lag, ek waardeer dit so goed en wil sê waarom. Ek is oortuig daarvan dat die Regering die eerste die beste geleentheid wat hulle kry sal neem om weg te hardloop. Hulle is nie mans genoeg, nie eens mans genoeg om by die wetsvoorstel te staan nie. Hulle mag nie eens daarby staan nie. Laat ek dit sê, of hulle weg hardloop daarvan of gaat staan.

Ons gaan staan.

Hulle is gewoon om te hardloop. Toon my aan waar hulle gestaan het. Ja, hulle staan as daar geen gevaar is nie, dan staan hulle, maar ek kan hulle die versekering gee, dat wat hulle doen, en hoe hulle ook hardloop alles sal net bydra tot hulle uiteindelike nederlaag. Hulle is sover dat hulle geen enkele saak meer kan aanpak nie waardeur hulle gevaar loop om stand te moet hou. Ek wil vir n oomblik nagaan die geskiedenis van hierdie saak om te sien wat gelei het tot die afkeuringswaardige posiesie waarin die Regering van middag is. Hoe die laksheid van optrede uitgeval het. Vyftien jaar gelede werd deur Unie Akte aan die Regering opgedraag en daartoe ’n kommissie aangestel, wat rapport sou uitbreng en uitgebreng het, dat die Regering sou oorgaan daartoe om die finansiële verhoudinge tussen die provinsies en die Regering te reël en vas te stel. Vyftien jaar gelede. Vyftien jaar het die edelagbare die Minister gehad om te oorweeg wat hy voor die Huis sou breng en wat hy gebreng het is niks. Ek moet verklaar, dat enige man, die nog enige gevoel van selfrespekt besit, sou bloos. Wat is daar gedaan? In 1913 is daar ’n Wet gepasseer, waarby die posiesie van die verhoudinge tussen die provinsies en die Unie vasgestel werd. Die Wet sou in wese bly tot 1917, om alsdan weer in oorweging geneem te word. In 1917 is die Wet verleng tot in 1920, en toe is die Wet verlengd vir ’n jaar. U siet in elk geval hulle handel nie eers in die gees van die Troonrede nie, waarin voorkom wat gedaan moet word— dit word eenvoudig as ’n warm patatta neergegooi. In 1921 werd die Wet opnuut vir ’n jaar verleng en toe is die Regering daartoe oorgegaan dieselwe enigsins te amendeer deur die magte van die Provinsiale Rade in te kort en bronne van inkomste te ontneem. In 1922 werd met luide trompetgeskal die Wet opnuut verleng—vyf keer in veertien jaar tyd, of om juister te wees, ses keer in die dertien, voertien jaar. Ek simpatiseer met die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, wanneer hy verklaar: “Daar is geen regering in Suidafrika, wat wetgewing sal indien, om daardie sake te regel nie.” Nee, daar was nog nie een gewees nie, wat daartoe in staat was en met sekerheid het die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies beweer dat hierdie Regering daartoe nie in staat is nie. Dit is sover as ek wil gaan. Ek wens te sê, dat die rede waarom hulle dit nie kon doen nie, is omdat hulle so geknoei het in ander opsigte, sodat daardeur die weg hiertoe versperd was. Hoeveel maal is die kwessie van finansies verknoei deur die mense, wat hier so glad kan staan en praat. Aan die Prowinsiale Rade is ontneem die subsidie, welke hulle onder die regeling van 1913 gegee was en dit sou hulle nie ontneem geword het nie, was dit nie wegens die toestand, waarin die Unie self verkeer nie. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies en sy Regering is verantwoordelik en as hulle dit nie kan oplos nie, is dit omdat hulle sigself in so’n posiesie gestel het, dat hulle dieselwe—die provinsies—geen reg kan laat wedervaar nie. Dit is onregvaardig om die Provinsiale Rade ook wegens verkwisting te kritiseer, hulle sal ook wel ’n sekere mate van skuld hê, maar lank nie soveel as die Unie Regering self nie. Die Unie Regering was die laaste liggaam, uit wie se mond so’n beskuldiging moes kom. Wie was oorsaak van die verkwisting van die Provinsiale Rade, van die verhoging van ambtenaar salarisse? Dieselfde Minister van Finansies, wat hier op die bank sit en die verkwistende manier, waarop hy met geld omeaat. Om te sê, dat die basis van 1913 nie geskik is om op voort te werk nie, ontken ek. Daar is net één weg om reg te doen aan die Provinsiale Rade en dit is deur terug te keer na die basis van 1913, dieselfde te probeer verbeter waar nodig, maar nie deur af te stap van daardie basis nie. Een ding is seker: toe in 1910 die Unie Akte gepasseer werd, was dit die bedoeling, dat solang die Provinsiale Rade belas sou wees met die sorg vir opvoeding, die Unie Regering daardie Rade in die posiesie sou stel om die nodige fondse te verkry om behoorlik te sorg vir daardie opvoeding. Maar die stap, waarop die Minister van Finansies nou uit is, is om hulle dit onmoontlik te maak, asof hulle strafmeesters was. Ek moet sê, dat as ons sien wat plaasvind met onderwys en hoe aan strenge bande hulle geleg word, dan wens ek te verklaar, dat ons kan nie spoedig genoeg al die moontlike doen om daardie onderwys te red nie en daar is tewens geen sterker bewys van die onbekwaamheid van die Unie Regering nie, as hulle optree teen die Provinsiale Rade. Dit is duidelik, dat hulle hele politiek hierop gebaseer is: ons is in geldelike moeilikheid en een van die dinge, waarop besuinig moet word is onderwys. ’n Leer, wat volstrekt nie nuut is nie, maar ons mag nie maatreëls neem tot nadeel van die kind nie. Hier gaat die Unie Regering en foorseer op die provinsiale onderwys ’n doodmakende bepaling. Laat ek korteliks aanhaal wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister verklaar het, net ter bevestiging van wat ek geseg het; dit is wat hy enkele daê gelede geseg het aan ’n deputasie van predikante in ’n onedrhoud met hulle. Daar het hy verklaar—

Ek wil aanneem, dat daar veel van waar is. Hy gaat verder—

Die toon van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister hier is: “Ons doen te veel aan opvoeding.”

Ons gee te veel uit, ons spandeer teveel aan onderwys.

Nee. Ons gee nie teveel uit nie, maar veeleer net die teenoorgestelde, want ons weet, dat daar veel kinders is, die geen opvoeding kry nie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sê, dat dit geen oplossing is nie en waar kry mens die geld daarvoor? Maar dit is nie die fout van die Provinsiale Rade nie; daar vind in alle departemente verkwisting van geld plaas en een van die ergste maniere van geldverspilling is die grote gebouwe, wat opgeset word teen grote koste, veel te groot vir ons land. Maar ek wens hier onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister te breng, dat wanneer hy verklaar dat ons meer studente aan Universiteite het as, na verhouding, veel ouer lande en dan b.v. Holland, dat hy een seer voorname ding vergeet en wel dat wat ons universitair onderwys noem tot by en met die B.A. graad geen universitair onderwys is nie en dat as iemand in Holland aankom met die B.A. tietel, dit beskou word as die toegangsreg tot vakonderwys. Ek geloof daarom, dat ongeveer die helfte van onse studente sal moet afgaan van die getal, welke gereken word tans hoër onderwys te geniet. Ten twede moet niet vergeet word nie, dat voorsien moet word in alle hoër onderwys, ook vir die naturel. As hy dit uit die oogpunt beskou, sal die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sien, dat hoër onderwys nie is soas in een van die andere lande.

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

Mnr. die Speaker, ek wens dadelik in aansluiting by wat ek besig was te sê, nog een aanhaling te doen uit wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister aan meergenoemde deputasie van predikante gesê het—

Wat dadelik hieruit blyk, is dat volgens die sienswyse van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, is hy nie iemand die ten gunste daarvan is, dat onderwys in hande van die Prowinsiale Rade sal wees nie. Dit is een van die griewe, wat ek voel teenoor die Regering, dat hulle die moed nie het nie om, as hulle reken dat een of ander maatreel noodsaaklik is ’n reg, ’n moedige besluit te neem en te se: ons gaat dit volg en indien die land en die volk nie met ons is nie, dan stap ons uit en laat iemand anders in onse plek kom, die die politiek van die volk uitvoer. Die eerste beginsel van party-Regering word daardeur uitgedruk. Ek kan verstaan, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou lag, want hy het nog nooit getoon dat hy die minste begrip het van wat party-Regering is nie en sover het hy nog altyd die indruk gegee, dat party Regering niks anders is nie as jag op posiesies en setels. Dit is ook die eerste indruk welke die edelagbare die Eerste Minister tydens die onderhoud gegee het, gelyk blyk uit daardie woorde—

Waarom het die edele lede van die Regering nog nooit onderneem om daardie “reform” teweeg te bring nie? Daar is net een antwoord, hulle sou die stemme nie kry nie en daarom het hulle die moed nie. Dit is een grief wat ek teen hulle het, want intussen laat hulle toe, dat die sake van erg tot erger gaan, en dat die onderwys te gronde gaat. Ek wens kortlik te sê, dat die hele politiek van die Regering, soas die nou bestaat, sy strekking wys deur hierdie wetgewing, en wat sal uitloop op die dood van die Prowinsiale Rade en ten twede op die dood van die onderwys, meer bepaaldelik van die landelike onderwys in Suidafrika en ten derde, dat dit onmoontlik gemaak word vir enige self-respekterende man om sy lewe te wy aan die onderwys in Suid-Afrika; dit is feitlik niks anders nie as die verbanning van onse beste Suid-Afrikaanse kragte uit die onderwys. Die Regering is besig om die Prowinsiale Rade dood te maak, deur politiek dood te bloei. Alle belangrike stappe sedert 1913 wys dit aan en geen kragtiger bewys is nog gegee nie as hierdie Wetsontwerp, waaruit blyk dat hulle bedoeling is, soas aangetoon deur die worde geuit deur die Eerste Minister. Maar die indirekte gevolg daaruit is, dat hulle besig is om die onderwys te verstik ten einde hulle doel te bereik van die Prowinsiale Rade tot niet te maak, wat hulle nie die moed het om openlik af te skaf nie. Terwyl hulle nie ’n oplossing aandurf wat nodig is nie, is hulle besig die onderwys te verstik en dood te maak en dit is wat werklik plaasvind. Ek het gesê, dat die op trede van die Regering neerkom op die verbanning van elke man van self-respek, met inisiatief en idealisme uit die onderwys. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het smalend gepraat van idealisme in verband met onderwys, maar as ons een ding moet waardeer is dit idealisme by mense van die onderwysersvak; mense wat toon dat hulle bereid is om opofferinge te doen, bereid om ons volk op te bou en ons sal ook die idealis in die toekoms steun en aanmoedig. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het verklaar, dat die idealiste van die ideaal praat as datgene wat hulle self graag wil en hulle sal die onderwys vir ons red, as ons te sleg is. Of bedoel die Regering dat die Prowinsiale Rade uit domkoppe bestaat? My indruk is, dat daar net een ding is om die magteloosheid van die Regering te verklaar en dit is, dat hulle nooit die moed het om hulle politieke beginsels te handhaaf nie, maar altoos hulle toevlug neem tot opportunisme en die vraag, hoe sal ons onse posiesie handhaaf? Ek het my voorgestel, dat dit grappig word as hierdie Huis sien al hulle bewyse van magteloosheid, wat hulle voortdurend aan die dag leg en dan moet vra, hoe sal hierdie Regering tot ’n bevredigende oplossing geraak omtrent die finansiële verhouding tussen die Unie en die Prowinsiale Raad? Die oplossing welke hierdie Wetsontwerp voorstel is ’n treurige poging om die meer in ooreenstemming te bring met die Suid-Afrika Wet en met die werkelike wyse van onderwys. Ek wens die Regerings lede te vra of dit teveel is wat ek vra en ek wens ’n beroep te doen op die edelagbare die Eerste Minister en te vraag om te toon dat hy bereid is, en mans genoegd, hy en sy Regering, om te voldoen aan die vereistes van ’n behoorlike, fatsoenlike party-politiek. Dit was nog altoos n eerste beginsel van ’n behoorlike party-politiek, dat die Regering ’n vaste politiek sal he op die vernaamste sake van die dag en dat as die politiek verskil van die van ander partye, dat die Regering die fatsoenlikheid sal he om, as hy sy politiek nie meer kan uitvoer nie, omdat die volk daarteen is, te sê: ek verteenwoordig die volk nie meer nie en neem ontslag. Die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sit en lag, maar hy het nog nooit verstaan wat beginsel is nie, maar was nog altyd ’n aanhanger van opportunisme. Ek wens te vra of hulle bereid is, na die erkenning van vandag deur hulle kollega van Finansies, dat hulle nie meer die sienswyse van die land verteenwoordig nie, daar dit blyk uit die feit dat die land hulle belet om voort te gaan, te sê: ons gaat uit. As hulle nie in staat is om dit te doen nie, dan is dit die grootste lafhartigheid en die grootste jag op setels, wat ek nog gesien het. [Een Edele Lid: “Wat jaag die edele lid agter?”] Nou vra ek die lede aan die oorkant in hoeverre gaan hul sig medepligtig maak aan die veragtelike sienswyse van die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou; aan die skending van alle beginsels van ’n behoorlike Regering? Aan die Regering die te lafhartig is om, waar hulle weet dat hulle die land nie meer verteenwoordig nie, om ontslag te vra. Welke Vryheid bly daar oor vir ons in ’n land waar soiets moontlik is as wat ons hier sien gebeur? Ek het die reg om ’n beroep te doen, nie slegs op hierdie kant van die Huis nie, maar ook op die oorkant—ek begryp goed dat die edele lede vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers), en Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) hiervan geen begrip het en ek doet ook daarom geen beroep op hulle nie, want hulle het nog nooit enige gevoel geopenbaar vir demokratiese instellings nie, maar ek reken dat daar nog lede genoeg is wat weet wat ’n behoorlike demokratiese Regering is en wat nie—en te vra of hulle nog instem met die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies en so ja, dan seek: afskuwelik. Want dan is daar vir ons nog net een ding in die vooruitsig en dit is loutere despotisme; die despotisme waarvan al meer keer blyk gegee is deur hierdie Regering en mog ons behoed bly vir verdere bewyse van die despotisme.

seconded.

I think the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) was in one sense a little hard on the Government when he accused them of having no policy. They have done their best to try and kill the provincial councils. They have that policy. He is quite right in a formal sense that the Bill displays an utter lack of policy in itself, but they have a policy which is to kill the provincial councils if they can. They have always, ever since they lost control in one of the provincial councils—in the Transvaal—done their best by lopping off in the interest of their friends certain areas of revenue and putting “Trespassers will be Prosecuted” over the property of their friends, diminishing the possibilities of revenue and placing upon the provincial council the necessity of imposing taxation which was unpopular.

The poll tax, for instance.

Yes, because they cannot tax the hon. member and his friends. This agitation for the abolition of the provincial councils undoubtedly emanates from quarters which always support the party which is in power on the other side. The Government took the next step and appointed a commission composed entirely of their own political friends. They were not going to run any chances, on the nature of the report, and their commission produced just the report they wanted. Everything was proceeding as merrily as a marriage bell. The Governor-General’s speech was drawn up and in portentous terms it was stated that this matter was to be dealt with. They then called together the Administrators and executives and they thought, “now, we will get it through,” Then I suppose it must have occurred to them for the first time that these provincial councils were bodies elected by people not unlike ourselves. That they were the same people who sent representatives to this House. And when they found that in spite of the efforts of their friends, and the well worked-up clamour to bring (provincial councils into contempt and disrepute, that the people of this country did not want their provincial councils emasculated they then bring forward this foolish little Bill. It reminds me of that episode in the play “The Private Secretary” which amused us when we were younger, when the curate came up with every appearance of violent indignation and said “I will give you a good hard slap.” What is the position of the provincial councils? The National Convention set up the Provincial Council. I must say it was one of the weakest points in the deliberations of the National Convention—one recognizes its difficulty. It tried by one piece of machinery at one and the same time to placate those old colonial and state patriotisms, and at the same time set up a local government body. From a local government point of view it has undoubtedly its defects. You can hardly call a council in which the member for Kokstad meets the member for Vryburg at Cape Town a local government council. From the other aspect of placating old local patriotisms these councils do not differ from similar bodies elsewhere. In other countries they are faced with precisely the same problem. Here we have unification. Others have adopted the federal system, the difference being that under unification the central body delegates definitely limited powers to the subordinate bodies, and under federation the reverse prevails. We have been singularly unfortunate as we have started with the Provincial Councils charged with important functions and responsibility for the primary and secondary education of the citizens. In addition they are charged with other responsibilities, such as roads, etc., but the most important is the responsibility for the proper education of the youth of this country. I think I am right in saying that the first real element of discord was when the governing party in this House lost control over the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, which they have never regained, and from that time onward it has been one struggle between the Government and the local policy. Between the policy desired by the majority of the people of the Transvaal and the policy of the Government and its political supporters. The result has been that the Transvaal Provincial Council has been continually embarrassed and obstructed. How did the Government meet the position? They cut down their revenue and appointed a commission, as I have said, and what has been done? What was suggested by the Provincial Council of Natal was to have a meeting of delegates from the Provincial Councils. To have, in fact a kind of replica as the National Convention, so that in an atmosphere as free as may be from party spirit, they should work out some solution of the difficulty. I attended with others, as a member of a deputation appointed by meeting of parliamentary members and members of the Provincial Council of Natal, on the Minister of Finance, and got very little satisfaction from them. I want to recall to the House that the people who sent us to the House are precisely the same as those who sent representatives to the Provincial Council, and for us to take up an attitude that the people of the Transvaal, Natal, the Free State and the Cape in their wisdom sent members to the Provincial Council who were not competent is a piece of arrogance on our part. If I may judge from the last Provincial Council election they had more political sense than in 1921 when they elected as the governing party the party which sits over there. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has dealt with the Bill, and in his speech he has said a great deal that I had proposed to say. With the amendment he proposed I am in hearty agreement, but I propose to put forward another amendment—

[An Hon. Member: “What about land tax?”] The hon. member belongs to a party now happily defunct—the Unionist Party—who had an item in their programme to that effect, but who never gave effect to voting on it in this House. If you propose a land tax—a tax on improved land values, it would be supported, but you would do nothing of the sort. As I have pointed cut, the most responsible duty of the Provincial Council is education. And here we have a Bill, the second clause of which seems to constitute nothing but an insult to any teacher who looks upon the teaching profession as his life’s work. You are lowering the status of the profession altogether. Let me say that the Minister of Finance took up a dangerous position in regard to this when he sneered at them as idealist. As far as I understand it teachers with a certain idealism agreed to a proposal, and that idealism which has been taken advantage of by the Government. If my information is correct, they wished to meet the difficulties of the country through their representative who met the Public Service Commission. They met the Public Service Commission, and agreed to certain considerable reductions in some provinces to get a fair standard evening up difference. Cape Town was to have 2 per cent. increase on the present rate. Natal 25 per cent. lower, and Orange Free State 20 per cent., and the Transvaal 6 per cent. Having got that concession, the Government comes along with a proposal that the Cape should get 2 per cent. less, Natal 29 per cent., the Orange Free State 18 per cent., and the Transvaal 11 per cent. Having got a little concession from the teachers they proceeded to squeeze them further. What I want to say is that under sub-section 2 no teacher is safe. What you want to say in effect is, we are going to abolish any competition between the different provinces. The hon. the Minister of Railways is a tremendous lover of competition. To his mind competition is the only way to secure progress in this world. If the Transvaal or the Free State decided to set a higher standard of education than other provinces on what principle do you debar them from doing so? Why should we be debarred in Natal from having the very best teaching staff if we wish to do so and are willing to pay for it and the people and the Provincial Council are prepared to support it.

Unfair competition.

Education must give way like wages to the low grade mines I suppose.

They are not all high-grade mines.

What we want is to have high-grade minds, and that is what the Government wishes to prevent. Clause 2 of the Bill states—

1. (а) teachers drawing salary and allowances on scales in operation immediately prior to the commencement of this act, or
2. (b) all teachers.”

This is not an unreasonable thing. Why should they pay? On many occasion I wish that the law and customs of this country allowed us to apply the same principle to private affairs. It would be so convenient to be able to say after accepting services that I would not pay the price I had contracted, and that not having the money, was a sufficient reason to absolve me from obligation. On what justification or grounds are you going to levy a double income tax on a man because he is in your service? Is it because this House and Parliament have got into the habit of looking upon a man in the public service, because he can be docked of his salary as fair prey, and thus avoiding taxing classes and persons who could better afford to pay, by diminishing the emoluments of our servants. And there is no more reason for the Government to levy a special tax upon them by reducing their wages than there is for a private person who has received services, to refuse to pay for these services, and the sooner this Parliament gets out of the habit of dealing with the public service, whether it be a railway, Government or Provincial service in that manner and regarding them as fair prey in order to reduce expenditure, the better it will be. The real effect of reducing wages in this manner amounts to nothing more nor less than levying a special tax on this class of the community who are in that employ, so as to have to avoid raising the income tax or any other tax for that matter which falls generally on the whole people. All the Government does is to penalize these people whom they have under their thumb and whom they are able to control. The fact of the matter is that this Bill is going to be a really serious blow at education in this country, because under these terms it is perfectly natural that you are not going to have men coming into the service in which they are clearly told: “Yes, these are the terms, but if at any time the province is hard up, the Provincial Executive can, instead of taxing people, reduce your wages.” If you want to have good men entering your service, you want to have these men, being able to depend on the conditions of their service. I am very anxious to see how the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan), the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. Henderson), and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Greenacre) are going to vote on this matter. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Greenacre) is very judiciously away and I should not be surprised if some of these gentlemen stopped away until this debate has concluded. At any rate, I shall be very curious to see whether they will support the Government and back up a policy which is a a very thinly veiled attempt at whittling away the powers, the bargain which was made at the time of Union, namely, to keep the control of education in the hands of the Province. I have the honour of representing one of the Natal constituencies, as the Minister of Finance does. I would like the Minister of Finance—and I am willing to challenge him— to go to Natal and announce clearly and above board what his policy is. I think the Prime Minister said the other day that we were trying to do something which was not quite honest and straightforward, but let the hon. the Minister discard subterfuges and tell the people of Natal that his policy is to whittle away the provincial control of education and to fetter their control of education. Natal, I think, will have very strong feelings on that subject.

They have here, too.

And then another point in this Bill is this. Will someone tell me, perhaps the Prime Minister will, to whom the teachers are to look for redress in the matter of their scale of salaries? Are they to look to this House? No, if it is raised here we shall be told that it is a Provincial matter, and if it is raised in the Provincial Council they will be told, “We are very sorry, but this was arranged by the Public Service Commission.” It is placing them in between the devil and the deep blue sea—with profound apologies to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). But there is a difference in the sense in which I am using the word and in which it was used by the hon. member. Well, I hope that this Bill is about the last straw which will break the back of these patient camels, the electors of this country. Patient they have been, in spite of the Prime Minister and his forcible methods. Very patient, but I think when they get the chance they will show that they want no more of this. To conclude, I want to say that this is bad for education. I do not pose as an education authority, I am simply a man of common sense, but I cannot conceive of any strong teaching body being built up in this country, a body of teachers with real esprit de corps, a body that will be a real asset to this country, a body of self-respecting men—I cannot see how under a Bill of this kind you will get that, a Bill which says that there is no security for them. I want the Government to give up altogether this idea that they are going to get rid of Provincial Councils by this kind of thing, by making them unpopular. I admit it is a difficult question, but I believe that all these matters can be satisfactorily solved if, instead of having these things inquired into by a commission of their own friends, instead of the Government looking upon these things in a manner in which party interests come before education and Provincial interests, if, instead of that, they had adopted the suggestion of the Natal Provincial Council to call together the representatives of the four Provinces and see whether, by discussion with the Government and their own Parliamentary members, something in the convention spirit could not have been done after the experience of fourteen years to get things on a more satisfactory and workable basis. I now move my amendment.

seconded.

The amendment appears to me to be a direct negative. I will not decide now, however, but will give the question further consideration.

There is a good deal of difference in the two speeches to which this House has listened this evening. The main difference between them is this that the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) never came to the Bill at all. He was very eloquent and very forceful, and he was very vituperative on the Government indeed, but he never came to the Bill, whose second reading he was dealing with. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) did deal with the Bill, and I shall therefore just touch on the point which he brought before the House. His point was this—his main point was this—that the Government are making an attempt under this Bill, and the Government have been making an attempt for a long time to undermine the arrangement that was come to at the time of Union and to do away with the Provincial Councils, and he said that this Bill was another indication of this policy of the Government. Then having said that, he came to Clause 2 of this Bill in order to prove his thesis. And what was his proof? The whole argument of the hon. member then was that the Government was allowing under Clause 2 that freedom, that power, that authority to the Provincial Councils which hitherto they had been enjoying. The Minister of Finance this afternoon showed that the whole difficulty that arose under Clause 2 was to effect the object of similar salaries all over South Africa for teachers, to combine that object with the other object of leaving the Provincial Councils a free hand within the scope of their authorities.

Only to reduce.

The Minister of Finance did his best this afternoon to show that that was the object which the Government had to achieve, and Clause 2, as it stands, is to effect that object.

One way only.

With regard to the first object, there is unanimity all over South Africa. If there is one thing in this whole controversy about the Provincial Councils and about education, if there is one thing about which there is practically a unanimous feeling in South Africa, then it is this, that teachers’ salaries should be made similar, should be co-ordinated into one system all over the Union. Everyone is agreed about that. The commission reported on that, They reported that that was the unanimous feeling which they found all over the country. The teachers are unanimous on that point, and it is the one point on which everyone is agreed. That therefore is an object in this wide area of controversy, which is embraced by this Provincial system, that is one point on which the public of South Africa generally are agreed. What was the method which the Government tried to give effect to by this policy. They appointed a special expert commission to go into this matter. The Public Service Commission, who are very competent to deal with this question. They already have had a great deal of experience in regard to the public service generally, not only the Union public service but the public service of all the Provinces. They undertook this problem in order to see whether the same could be effected in regard to teachers’ salaries. Associated with them were experts from the various educational departments of the Provinces, and this expert body which had done this work for the Union and the Provinces already so far as the public services were concerned, then agreed to deal with the question of teachers’ salaries. And they were unanimous with the experts associated with them from the Provinces in recommending the system which is embodied here in Clause 2. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) now says “Yes, but the exact recommendations of the teachers were not followed.” The scales which are to be laid down are lower than those which are put forward by the teachers. Does the hon. member see anything extraordinary in that?

Yes, I explained it.

No, but what to me is a significant thing is this—not only was the Public Service Commission agreed but the technical experts from the various technical departments of the Provinces were all agreed, and unanimously agreed, on these scales provisionally recommended by the Public Service Commission. I have dealt with that point, and I want to add this that the public were agreed that that was a proper way to give expression to the principle, and the Government have followed that principle, and that principle is embodied in Clause 2. But now we came up against a snag. As soon as this was so, as soon as uniform salaries are to be laid down for the whole of the Union, the provincial authorities appeared on the scene, and the Provincial Executive said “where are we, where do our rights come in? We surely have some rights. We agree to uniform scales, but in laying down a uniform scale, do not go a step further than is necessary, and do not take away any of the powers of the provincial authority in regard to diminishing or affecting teachers’ salaries.”

Yes, the Government only diminish.

This power should be left them. We have done so, and now the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) says we are undermining the Provincial Council system.

Hear, hear.

We leave them where they were. In the absence of legislation, as the Minister of Finance has explained to-day, the Provinces anywhere in South Africa have the right to pass such legislation in regard to teachers’ salaries. They could diminish salaries; they could decrease them; they could deal with them as they liked, and that appeal is left them with this exception, that the absolute principle of uniformity is laid down, but laying down this principle and establishing a uniform scale all over South Africa, the freedom which the Provincial authorities should have to legislate for further regulating salaries is left to them. No, I think the hon. member, when he attacks us for undermining the provincial system, and Clause 2 is an instance of that policy, shows just the reverse of what he really intends, because what he criticises in Clause 2 is just our attempt to maintain that authority of the Provincial Council which they have hitherto enjoyed.

Why Clause 2 at all? The whole public wants uniformity. Why not leave it to the Provincial Councils to legislate?

Because it is admitted that the four Provincial Councils between themselves cannot get uniformity. That is admitted; they have tried, they have made the experiment, and it is impossible for four different bodies to legislate from four different points of view and arrive at uniform legislation. For that reason they appeal to the Union Parliament to establish that authority. But at the same time to leave their powers unimpaired as far as possible after that principle has been affirmed; and that is exactly what has been done in Clause 2. The teachers object, but they object simply because this power is left to the Provincial authorities. The teachers do not want this freedom of action left to the Provincial Councils.

They object to the scale; they say it is a breach of faith.

The Minister of Finance has said what the position is. Provisional scales have been notified, hut here objections have been raised to those scales on the side of the provinces, and no scale will be laid down until the question has been thoroughly gone into by the Public Service Commission—only thereafter will the Governor-General adopt it. The whole question of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) is therefore a false one. He is attacking the Government for undermining the provincial council system, but the reasons he gives shows that this Clause 2 really supports the Provincial Councils, which they have in authority at present. To come to the speech of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog)—he said the Government has done nothing but run away, always running away. For 15 years we have been running away.

We are still here!

Yes, the Government is!

But the Government is not remaining here!

This must be a slow and languid process, this running away. He says we have never stuck to any position, never shown any courage, never seen anything through—only this policy of running away. I assume for the moment that the hon. gentleman is right in holding this Government responsible for what has happened in all these years since Union. I won’t argue on that position. It is not necessary, perhaps, if I did so he would say I was once more running away. Assuming he is correct, I would say this—that this Government, during that period of the last 12 or 13 years, has had to face in this country and the world, as difficult situations as has ever been faced in history. We have seen all those situations through.

Only this one!

We have never shirked our duty when we were faced with very difficult situations. We did not retire into our shells for fear of losing favour with the people. No, we never curried favour with the people, we did the most unpopular things any Government could do and we saw these situations through, and that is why, after 15 years, we are still in these seats—running away! The people of this country know these things, that this Government has had to face an awful ordeal; not for one year, but for many years, fighting the difficulties that have to be grappled with, and they know that according to our lights we have shown whatever courage can be shown by a Government in facing the situation and trying to solve them as they could be solved.

Is that a swan song?

I have heard that swan song for many years now, and the hon. member will hear it for many more years. When I saw that division here this afternoon, when I saw this party here dragged like dead cats at the tail of the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart), I made up my mind that however anxious one might be to get away from this position, it was impossible. No, sir, that vote this afternoon will be followed all over this country, and pondered in the back veld, not only in East London, but all over the country. I want to come to the argument of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). “Always running away, never facing situations, never solving them, always running away.” What is the proof? He mentioned this subject with which we are dealing as a proof of our treatment of the provincial system. He said that fifteen years ago a mandate was given to the Union Government by the National Convention, and in the South Africa Act, to establish proper financial relations. He said all these years had gone by, always “knoeiwerk” (muddling) and always “lapwerk” (patching), never any serious attempt to deal with these questions, and we still have to wait, we still have to wait.

Is the attempt serious at this moment?

Then I was waiting anxiously to hear what was the view of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) on this question. I thought that he himself had had the same opportunity to think out these matters as I and my colleagues had had.

We had not commissions, had we?

They had more leisure, much more time; they have had fifteen years cogitations; after twelve years of complete freedom and irresponsibility the hon. member could have thought out some scheme of provincial relations, and what was his solution? He said that act for which the present Prime Minister was responsible in 1913, in his opinion, is the right Act. Now, there you have it. We have been accused of “knoeiwerk” and “lapwerk” and yet the hon. member has not got further, and has done nothing better than what I, as Minister of Finance, did in 1913, in that Financial Relations Act.

If the right hon. gentleman had only applied it!

I want to go back to that. The hon. member has now arrived at the position I was in ten years ago.

Pity the right hon. the Prime Minister did not stop there!

Ten years ago he fought this Bill, his party fought it, but now he has come to teh conclusion after all these years that this Government was right. The Act of 1913 is the only solution. I brought forward that Bill in 1913.

And you ran away in 1917!

Unfortunately, I was not here in 1917; I could not run away. I had run very far at that time, the hon. member will, perhaps, remember that I had run away 6,000 miles to do my duty, whilst others were doing their best to thwart the Government. I think the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) had run away with me then; his history has been a sad history since, but he did his duty then and I will give him credit for it. The hon. member for Smith-field (Gen. Hertzog) has arrived at that spot, and the country sees that he is ten years behind the Government, and in another ten years he will find that this Bill, which his is vipiturating to-night, is the best Bill under the circumstances. What was this “lapwerk” en “knoeiwerk”? We find that these two parties sitting over there, and who form a majority in the Provincial Council in the Transvaal, had embarked on a policy of taxing the native and a policy of singling out for penal legislation and taxation the mines of the country. Every hon. member in this House knows that the Union’s financial system rests very largely upon the mining receipts.

So does the right hon. the Minister’s party.

Why did the Minister not provide against it at the National Convention.

Well, we had not the wisdom and the foresight of the hon. member. No, sir, we find that these two parties who intend to govern the Union tomorrow, when they came into power in the Transvaal Provincial Council, proceeded to single out the native of this country and the mine owners of this country for penal taxation. [An Hon. Member: “Instead of the farmers?”] There was no question of taxing the farmers. It was a question of taxing these two. You heard the eloquent appeal for the native from the back bencher from East London, but I would ask the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) to read what happened in the Transvaal Provincial Council last year.

I did read it.

And he will find that these two parties, forming a majority in that council, embarked on a policy which the people of this Union would not stand for a single moment. This country and the people of South Africa will do its duty to the mine owner as well as to the black man. And that was why these amendments were made in the legislation of 1913. The power of punishing the native and the power of singling out the mine owner was taken away from these two rapacious parties, as represented in the Transvaal Provincial Council. I do not defend for a single moment the action of the Transvaal Provincial Council in levying a further £2 10s. on the native. The native had not been paying enough, in the opinion of these two parties, and that taxation had to be doubled. This House intervened, but I did not hear from those benches a word of defence of the atrocious action of the Transvaal Provincial Council in taxing the native like that. [An Hon. Member: “Absolute rubbish.”] Later on in 1913, after the years of so-called prosperity and inflation, when we got into the depth of depression, we had to retrench and economise in the Union, and the same principles of economy which were applied to Union administration we also applied to the Provincial administration. That was fair and just all round; nobody could object to it, and these are the two departures which we have made from the ideal system of 1913; to-night we are making a third departure.

What about the subsidies?

We are diminish ing our subsidies to the Provincial Councils to the same extent as we are economising in the Union administration. We are applying the same rule to the provinces as we are applying to our own people in the Union. These are the two main departures from the Act of 1913 and we go one step further to-night and say that so far as the provinces are concerned we will apply the same uniform system to teachers. The teachers are asking for it, the public are asking for it, and we are laying down that uniformity in the Act. We are doing this in the interests of education as well as in the interests of economy in this country. We cannot advance education in this country while one province is competing against another and drawing people away from each other. These circumstances should not be tolerated. While we have not attempted anything heroic. I think we have done that which is just. Nor do J think that this Parliament is called upon—we are reminded every day that this is a dying Parliament and a dying Government—

Why, did the right hon. the Prime Minister not know it a month ago?

Does the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) suggest that the Governor-General in his speech at the opening of Parliament said that the report of the Baxter Commission was going to be carried out?

Did the right hon. the Prime Minister know we were going to introduce this then?

Well, well, at this stage of the life of the present Parliament it would be unwise to bring about a funda mental change in the constitutional relations between the provinces and the Government.

Then does not the right hon. the Prime Minister think that this Parliament should come to an end?

We shall not try to put on the statute Book a change which will be looked upon by some of the smaller provinces, who insist upon the provincial system, something which they would regard as a breach of faith. We must be very careful in legislating in this country not to forget the fundamental condition upon which the two smaller provinces came into the Union. We know that neither of the two big provinces care a rap about the provincial system, and they were of opinion that the system we were creating was not a proper one. But the two smaller provinces came into the Union on the understanding that they would be given a system like this.

They would not have come in unless we had done so.

We are now dealing with the question of right and wrong. We have always to refer back to the transactions past and the roots from which these things have sprung. In view of the attitude taken up by the two smaller provinces, especially in the conferences we had with them, we came to the conclusion that it would not be fair to ram any particular ideas down their throats, and I am sure that the present legislation can be justified on every possible ground.

Die rede van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies by die indiening van die Wetsontwerp het maar ’n swak indruk gemaak, want die Hogedele Regering kom nie met ’n plan voor die dag nie en die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, moet ek sê, het ’n jammerlike figuur geslaan en elkeen sal ook moet erken, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ook nie veel beter daarvan afgekom het nie. As dit die beste reeling is, welke die Hoogedele Regering kan uitdenk, op die aanklagte van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), dan is dit maar swak. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het daarop gewys, hoe ons die belangrikste volksaak, wat daar wag op oplossing, laat sloer van die een jaar na die ander en hoewel die Hoogedele Regering verklaar, dat die posiesie nie so kan voortduur nie, doet hulle tog niks nie. Die antwoord van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister is, dat hy die argument, wat werkelik die deurslag gee, nooit aangeroer het nie, maar ’n rookskerm verwek het om agter weg te kruip; eenvoudig stofwolke is opgeskop om agter weg te hardloop. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister se fout is, dat hy nooit ’n aanval direkt tegemoet tree nie, maar wegloop agter ’n rookskerm, wat hy eers self laat ontstaan. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister weet, dat die aanklag van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) die belangrike onderwerp van onderwys is, maar hulle gee daarop geen antwoord nie en loop weg en die verdediging is, wat betref die voorstel in verband met die salarisskaal, baie swak, en swak opgestel. Die lede sal hulle herinner hoe verlede jaar die begroting van die Provinsiale Rade verklaar werd nie te deug nie en dat die Baxter-kommissie aangestel werd en te kenne gegee werd, dat dit feitlik die politiek van die Regering weergee, maar dat daar nog net ’n ander paar sake was, wat onldersoek moet word. Die volgende sitting werd te verstaan gegee, sou die Provinsiale stelsel moet verander. Dit word altyd uitgestel. ’n Paar weke gelede het ons soas die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) aangewys het, verneem uit die Troonrede, dat die Regering van plan is om die finansiële verhouding van die Provinsies op ’n vaste basis te stel en dit is erg flou van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister om nou te verklaar, dat hy bedoel het, dat dit die Wet was hierdie, wat ons voor ons sou kry. Die lede sal hulle nog herinner, hoe ons van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies verneem het, dat dit nie die belangrike Wet is, wat ons verwag het nie, maar dat hierdie Wet van baie beperkte omvang is. Toe die Wet verskyn, het almal ooreen gestem dat dieselwe van beperkte omvang was. Nogtans is dit ’n merkwaardige Wet om ’n paar redes; ten eerste om wat dit werklik bevat, soas die paar artiekels in verband met salarisse, en ten twede om wat dit nie bevat nie, en ten derde strek dit om die bewys te lewer, dat die Regering nie iets belangriks sal aanpak op hierdie stadium nie en wyders die bewys, wat dit verskaf, dat hierdie Ministerie sy sterkste oortuiging sal insluk om tog maar aan die bewind te bly. Vanmiddag is tereg deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) aangetoon, dat in 1913 die verstandhouding was, dat die oplossing van toe van tydelike aard sou wees, want die lewensduur van die Wet was bedoel om tot die eerste April van 1917 te strek. Daarna is die Wet geamendeer en werd die Wet van 1917 verleng tot in 1920, maar intussen het die onbevredigende aard daarvan geblyk en selfs ondersteuners van die Regering het hierdie verhouding afgekeur. Die Jagger-kommissie werd toe aangestel en het gesit; hulle het ’n lywige boekdeel opgestel, wat duisende ponde gekos het. Maar daar is niks aan gedaan nie. Het die Regering nie gevoel, dat die onbevredigend is nie en waarom dan daar geld aan gespandeer? Daarna het die Baxter-kommissie gekom met sy besluite en waarmee die Regering so opgenome was. Wat kry ons nou in die Wetsontwerp voor ons van daardie aanbevelings? Niks. Die belofte, dat die stelsel op ’n gesonde basis gestel sou word, daaromtrent is ons niks wyser geword nie, behalwe dat voorgestel word eenvormigheid in onderwyserssalarisse deur die hele Unie. Die berge was in barensnood en het ’n muisie tevoorskyn gebring. Dit is al wat gesê kan word van die Wet. En dit is nie te verwondere nie, dat die Minister van Finansies so ’n jammerlike figuur slaat: “they came to an impotent conclusion.” Welke verpletterende konklusie en ek dink ons het reg as ons verklaar, dat die Regering sy magteloosheid wys om enige oplossing aan te pak en dit strek alles om te bewys hoe die Ministerie gewillig is om sy sterkste oortuigings in te sluk om net aan die bewind te kan bly. Dit is duidelik dat hulle het opgehou om te lei en te regeer en wat ons van hulle kan verwag is doelloos dryf, weg van die mense af; hulle weerstandsvermoë sal ook volg. Dink die edele lede nie dat dit ’n vernederende posiesie moet wees nie, maar dit bly ’n feit, dat hulle alles sal insluk net om die setels te behou—hulle klou aan die setels vas, soas ’n koggelmander aan ’n klip. Die edelagbare die Minister het vanmiddag gesê: “The position has got completely out of hand and beyond the resources of this country.” Dit is wat sy opienie is omtrent die posiesie van die Provinsiale Rade. Hy vertel ons al die deugde van die Baxter-Rapport en sê dat hulle instem met die hoof-aanbevelinge daarvan, maar op die vraag waarom hulle nie daarby bly staan nie, word geantwoord: “The country as a whole is not prepared to accept it.” Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het gesê, dat hulle wat hierdie kwessie betref voor ’n steenmuur te staan gekom het. Dis nie ’n steenmuur nie, dis die stembus wat hulle in die oog gehad het. Begryp die Huis die betekenis, dat daar iets is, wat heeltemal verkeerd is. Daar het ons die Baxter-rapport, maar die Regering doen niks nie, omdat die volk buitekant nie instem met die politiek van die Regering oor die punt. As soiets in Engeland, die moeder van die party-sisteem sou gebeur, dat die volk dit nie meer eens is met die sienswyse van die Regering nie, dan sou hulle—ek is daar seker van— binne 24 uur hulle ontslag moet neem. Niemand kan ontken, dat ons feitilk op ’n dooie punt gekom het in verband met die prowinsiale sisteem en die verhouding tussen die prowinsies en die Unie. Daar is ’n groot seksie van die bevolking wat van die stigting van die Unie af nooit iets gevoel het vir die Prowinsiale Rade nie. Daar is ’n groot seksie wat daarop uit is om die Rade dood te maak. Die Regering is van dieselfde opienie om dit te doen, maar hulle doen dit nie op direkte maar op indirekte manier. Een van die foute wat gemaak is en wat in die toekoms herstel moet word is, dat die posiesie van die Prowinsiale State so herstel moet word soos dit gekontempleer is in die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika en dit is, dat as hulle verantwoordelik is vir dienste, dan moet hulle ook die verantwoording en beheer hê oor bronne van inkomste en die oplê van belastings wat hulle gegee is in die Grondwet, om die dienste te kan uitvoer. Maar wat gebeur? Die magte word van tyd tot tyd ingekort, die bronne van belasting word weggeneem, die subsiedies verminder. Telkens word aan die magte getoring. En vandag is daardeur die provinsies nie in staat cm die belangrike dienste van onderwys te vervul nie. En dat alles word gedaan onder die dekmantel van verkwisting. Van die begin af is daar getorring aan die magte van die Rade en as rede gee die edelagbare die Minister aan “verkwisting.” Ek wil maar net sê dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies tog seker die laaste is om die Prowinsiale Regeringe te kan beskuldig van verkwisting. Skielik is die edelagbare die Minister nou te gunste van besuiniging. Dis nog maar ’n paar jaar gelede, dat die edelagbare die Minister opgetree het as apostel van besuiniging. Maar toe die Prowinsiale Rade gesien het dat die skoen begin te druk, toe het hulle ook begin te besuinig en hulle het baie meer sukses gehad. Neem b.v. die Vrystaatse Prowinsiale Regering, wat reeds 2 jaar gelede op ’n uitgawe van een miljoen pond honderd duisend pond bespaar het. Ek dink, dan het die edelagbare die Minister nie die minste reg om ’n ander te beskuldig van verkwisting nie, want in dieself de tydperk is daar meer verkwisting gewees by die Regering. Die edelagbare die Minister beroep hom op die rapport van sy kommissie, wat hy aangestel het. Ek sou graag sien dat die finansiële beleid van die edelagbare die Minister sou ondersoek word deur ’n onpartydige kommissie van eksperte. Ek dink dan sou dit baie gemaklik wees om te wys op verkwistinge en ek glo dat daar meer aanklagte teen horn sou wees, dan wat sy aanklagte is teen die Prowinsiale Rade. Hier het ons ’n punt van diepgaand verskil tussen die geldmanne, die Regeringsondersteuners en die algemene publiek, wat deur hierdie Opposiesie verteenwoordig word. Die Opposiesie werk in die belang van die land. Die Opposiesie neem die standpunt in, dat dit nie ’n kwessie is hoe die uitgawes billiker gemaak kan word in verband met die opvoeding nie, met die onderwys in die land nie. Ons het vandag al gesien hoe niemand anders as die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gepraat het van die treurige toestand van die onderwys in die land. Die Kamer van Koophandel—en ons weet wat hulle intentie is se invloed blyk duidelik ten grondslag te lê aan die aanbevelings deur die personeel-kommissie en daarom is die teleurstelling so groot, dat die Regering nie kom met die Baxter-rapport nie. Dis die groot punt van verskil. Ons sienswyse is, dat die land met die groot naturelle-bevolking en die klein handjie vol blanke, verplig is om die onderwys te beskerm en nie te besuinig op onderwys en karig te wees in dié rigting nie, voordat elke blanke kind behoorlike opvoeding geniet en ons is nog lang nie in die stadium nie. En hier is die Regering besig om met die voorgestelde maatreëls ’n groot klap toe te bring aan die onderwys, deur die onderwysers-salarisse in te kort. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het vanaand gesê, dat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) sy aanklagte gerig het teen die Regering, maar niks gesê het oor die Wetsontwerp self. Ek wil ’n paar woorde sé na aanleiding van die Artiekel 2, en ek wil sê, dat as dit deurgaan, soos dit nou staan, dan sal ’n klap toegebring word aan die onderwys en veral aan die plattelandse onderwys, waarvan die nie gou sal herstel nie. Dis onbillik en onregvêrdig teenoor die seksie van die bevolking, wat hulle tyd en gawe gee in die belang van die opvoeding van ons kinders. As die Wetsontwerp ingedien was met toestemming van die Prowinsiale Administrasies, as hulle by die edelagbare die Minister gekom was daarmee, dan sou dit die enigste regverdiging wees vir die Regering, want dis sake wat by die konstitusie aan die Prowinsiale Rade opgedra is. Die dryfveer is om uniformiteit te kry. Ek het die laaste jaar, toe die saak onder bespreking was, gesê, dat daar maar baie min mense is wat nie vir uniformiteit is nie. Ek is ook vir die idee van uniformiteit. Ons erken almal dat die kompetiesie, wat bestaan het in die verlede tussen die administrasies in verband met onderwys, verkeerd was en dat dit wanneer moontlik, verhelp moet word. Ons sal enige billike maatreël steun as ons dit kan bereik, maar ons gaan dit nie bereik onder die Wetsontwerp nie. Ek ontken dit ten sterkste. Wat is die posiesie? Hier word neergelê—

Dit is die voorstel van die edelagbare die Minister. Ek wil hierop wys, dat in die eerste plaas die ernstige beswaar bestaat, dat so’n belangrike kwessie as die vasstelling van salarisse toevertrou word aan ’n heel andere liggaam, die Staatsdienskommissie, die Publieke Dienskommissie. Dis ’n baie ernstige beswaar. Die saak is van genoegsame belang, dat as ons uniformiteit wil hê, dat dit in die Wet bepaal word, maar die wet bepaal geen skaal nie. Die mense behoor in hulle professie ’n sekere mate van onafhanklikheid te hê, maar ons gee nou die mag aan die kommissie om ’n sekere skaal voor te stel en alhoewel die skaal waarskynlik aangeneem sal word, bepaal die wet niks daaromtrent nie. Die skaal kan voorgestel word deur die Kommissie en goedgekeur deur die Goewerneur-generaal. Die Regering sal van tyd tot tyd deur tussenkoms van die Staatskommissie die reg hê om die skaal vas te stel, maar wat kry oils nou verder? Die dryfveer is uniformiteit. Dis wat die edelagbare die Minister beoog. Maar, die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het dit ookal vertel, dat ons dit nie gaat kry onder die Wet nie. In die eerste plaas bekom die onderwyser, wat al in die diens is, geen uniformiteit nie. Sy salaris word nie aangeraak nie. In die twede plaas word neergelê, dat die Uitvoerende Kommissie in die Prowinsiale Raad die salarisse kan verlaag of verhoog van 10,000 onderwysers in die land. Die Uitvoerende Raad kan die skaal of verhoog of verlaag. Dan die posiesie van die onderwysers wat nuut in die, diens kom. Hier weer het men geen uniformiteit nie. Die Prowinsiale Raad en die Uitvoerende Komitee sal in tye van druk die skale kan verlaag. Wat kom dan tereg van die uniformiteit? Dus, Mnr. Speaker, as ek dit alles in aanmerking neem, dan sien ek nie die minste rede vir die Wet nie. Die uniformiteit wat onder Artiekel 2 word beoog, word nie verkry nie. ’n Ander groot beswaar is dat daar geen stabiliteit gaan wees nie in die salaris, geen sekerheid. Wat gaat die gevolg wees? Voortdurende agitasie in die land van die kant van die onderwysers, soos ons dit in die verlede gehad het. In plaas van al hulle aandag op die onderwys te bepaal, sal hulle altoos op die uitkyk wees wat die posiesie is. Daar word voorgestel, dat in tye van druk die Prowinsiale owerhede die reg sal hê om die skaal van salarisse terug te sit. Maar die grootste beswaar wat ek het teen die artiekel is, dat dit ’n wapen gee in die hand van die Regering, wat hulle in staat stel om die politiek van die Kamer van Koophandel uit te voer en die plattelandse onderwys dood te maak. Ek hoop, dat ek dit sal kan aanwys. En ek hoop, dat die edele lede aan die andere kant van die Huis dit sal verstaan en ons sal help. Een van die aanbevelinge van die Baxter-rapport is dat die aantal leerlinge in die plattelandskole minstens 20 moet wees Dit tref veral kinders in de Kaapprovinsie en in die Vrystaat. In Natal en die Transvaal is die getal vir primêre skole op die oomblik 20, in die Vrystaat is dit 15 en in die Kaapprovinsie is dit 10. Onder die aanbeveling van die Kommissie, sou dit beteken dat van die 20.000 plattelandse skole in die Kaapprovinsie 1,500 sou gesluit word en in gelyke proportie in die Vrystaat en Westelike Transvaal, waar die bevolking minder dig is. Dit is die aanbeveling van die Baxter-rapport dat die Regering die voorstel moet maak. Want wat gebeur nou? Die mienimum-salaris van ’n onderwyser in so ’n klas van skool gaat wees £135, opklimmende met £15, tot dit uiteindelik kan kom tot £335. Die aanvangsalaris vir so ’n skool met ’n mienimum van 20 kinders sal wees £135. Dis die aanbeveling van die Publieke Dienskommissie. As daar nie 20 kinders is ne, dan sal die mienimumsalaris proporsioneel verminder word. Dus as daar 10 kinders is, dan sal die salaris van die onderwyser £62 10s. wees. Die salaris word nie vasgestel in die Wet nie, maar dis die effek daarvan. Die skole met minder kinders sal nie deur dié Wet gesluit word nie. Dis ook nie nodig nie, want hulle doen dit net so effektief deur die salarisskaal te verminder. Ek kan nie dink, dat een enkele verteenwoordiger van die platteland hier in die Huis, dit sal toelaat, dat so ’n belangrike kwessie word oorgelaat aan die Publieke Dienskommissie nie, om die salarisskaal van die onderwysers te bepaal. Ons hele toekoms hang af van Onderwys in die land. Op die oomlik is nog nie eens al die kinders in die land op skool. Ons het nog nie eens die stadium bereik nie en ek sê, ons het nie die reg om te besuinig op onderwys, voordat elke blanke kind geskikte onderwys kan kry nie, om te kan bestaan in die stryd van die lewe. En hoe is die onderwysers behandel? Hulle het saamgewerk om uniformiteit te kry. En die onderwysers beskuldig die Regering nou van troubreuk teenoor hulle. Hulle is belowe, dat diegene wat in diens is nie geaffekteer sal word nie en dat hulle op dieselfde manier beskerm sou word as andere Staatsamptenare.

Wie het die beloof?

Dit word my verseker. dat die Publieke Dienskommissie die versekering gegee het.

Het die edele lid die rapport gelees?

Die rapport? Ja, die het ek sorgvuldig gelees. Dit help nie om salarisskale vas te stel, wat na bo en onder gewysig kan word nie. En wat ookal beloof is, die rapport sê duidelik dat die Publieke Dienskommissie die skale na willekeur kan wysig. Waar ’n salarisskaal vasgestel moet word, daar behoor dit te gebeur by Wet van die Parlement en dit oorlaat aan die Prowinsiale Raad of die Uitvoerende Raad. Om die redes wat ek hier het opgegee, hoop ek dat die Huis die Wet nie sal aanneem nie en die voorstel van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) sal steun.

As the Transvaal has loomed rather largely in the discussion which has been going on this evening, I think I have a few words to say on the subject as I have been engaged on educational matters for some years in the Transvaal. None of us in the Transvaal are opposed to primary or secondary education being free. We welcome that, but we consider there should be some limitations on free secondary education. But I want to deal more particularly with what came from the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) when he said the Government here were trying to kill the provincial councils. Well, as far as I am concerned they cannot kill the Provincial Council in the Transvaal too soon. I would like to let this House into a secret in order to show the bona fides of the Government to try and Keep the Provincial Council in the Transvaal. At a by-election in which I took part a short time ago I spoke very freely, as I generally do, about the Transvaal Provincial Council, and I was carpeted and drawn over the coals by the executive of the S.A.P., who said: “Mr. Rockey, the Government are upholding the provincial councils system in the Transvaal.” As I feel the Provincial Council in the Transvaal has set the pace and has been responsible in some measure for the extravagance of some of the other Provincial Councils, I think it would be appropriate to give a few figures relating to its doings and misdoings during the past few years. When the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) said that since the Provincial Council in the Transvaal had got into the hands of the Labourites and Nationalists the Government has been trying to stultify their powers, that is nonsense. The Transvaal Provincial Council on primary education proposed to spend £1,500,000; on secondary education, £420 000; on technical education, £60,000; on coloured and Asiatic education, £35,000. The natives pay for their pass fees £352,000, and indirectly the natives pay a great deal in taxation, but the Transvaal Provincial Council have put down the magnificent sum of £45,000 to be spent on the education of the native, and then we have other items making altogether the total of £2,740,327 to be spent during this year and next year on education. It would be interesting to see how the growth of expenditure came about in the Transvaal. We were getting on very well until the Nationalist-Labour pact took charge of the Provincial Council. When the Labour-Nationalist pact came into power the growth of our education expenditure had risen from £834.000 in 1919 to £1.759 000 in 1920. In 1920 and 1921 to £2.399.000. in 1922 and 1923 it had gone up to £2,754,000. These figures are so huge, that they are hard to take in. The Transvaal, big as it is in area and small in population, had in 1919 and 1921 fourteen secondary institutions; in 1921 and 1922 twenty-one secondary institutions; in 1923 forty; and in 1924 forty-four. These institutions are out of all proportion to our population. The wasteful manner in which money was thrown about is better shown if I could just read you these figures which will show you how they are made up. The people of the Witwatersrand represent 45 per cent. of the total white population of the Transvaal, and they contribute 80 per cent. of the total revenue. The Revenue figures are as follows: Employers tax £180,000, Racing £117,000, Hospital fees £65,000, Transfer and duty £76,000, Licences £220,000, Native pass fees £350,000— Poll tax—to which we have the greatest objection—£345,000, Miscellaneous £33,000. The estimated expenditure for 1923-’24, General Administration £116,679, Hospitals, etc. £396.000, Roads, etc., £261,000, Education £2,740,327. I want to draw the attention of the House to the condition of the roads in the Transvaal. If there is one thing essential to our prosperity there, it is that there should be decent roads. It is not possible to drive a motor car from Johannesburg to Bethal without taking great chances of being held up. The roads have been neglected beyond all measure. The Main Reef Road is too impossible to speak about. It cannot be compared to any road in the world. It is not safe to drive a motor car along that road, and formerly it was kept in good condition. Take the road between Johannesburg and Pretoria. It is a disgrace to civilization. Money is not spent for the good of the country. Schools are being built all over the place, schools which never can be filled. I do not believe that any body of men could have mishandled the Government of the province more than the Transvaal Provincial Council, and they have been going from bad to worse. The figures show that they are going to spend £240,000 on roads and £2,700,000 on education, which is outrageous and not warranted by the number of people in the Transvaal.

I have listened with surprise to the remarks of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey), and I should ask him who elected the members of the Transvaal Provincial Council? I may remind him that those who elected the members of the Provincial Council in the Transvaal are the same people who sent him here.

The real explanation is the apathy of the Transvaal people at election time.

I sincerely trust that for the hon. member’s sake the apathy will not occur when the next election takes place for Parliament. Well, there was a very good percentage indeed of voters. But the Provincial Council of the Transvaal is what the people of the Transvaal asked for, what the electors of the Transvaal asked for. I am not here to defend the Nationalists or the Labour Party. I am not a member of either party, and I have not got a pact with either party; but it is a very amusing thing when one hears the speech of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) and others, and one bears in mind that these attacks on the Transvaal Provincial Council only began when the SA. Party lost their majority there. We never heard it before, but since they lost their majority we hear all these sins brought forward here.

I tried to explain that.

That shows how insincere these attacks are, and I venture to say that if the S.A. Party were to have a majority again to-morrow these attacks would immediately cease. Now to deal with the Bill before the House. I want to point out that it does not abolish the Transvaal Provincial Council— it does not abolish any of the provincial councils, and I suppose the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) do not agree with it because they want to abolish them all. The charge has been made against the Government that they have not got the courage of their convictions. Well, either they are hopelessly divided on this matter or otherwise the charge is self-proven. If the Prime Minister reads his Cape Times he will see that the charge there is the same from beginning to end in the leading article headed “A Rude Awakening.” His friends here are taking the Prime Minister to task for not accepting the Baxter Report. I would like to say something with regard to that later. But it seems to me that the hon. the Minister for Finance has himself proved the charge. He has appeared here and he has told us that the Baxter Report was the right thing, and he has told us that he would like to carry it out but he could not do so. He has admitted it. He came here and he talked in a contemptuous way about a malformed infant which he had to place on the floor of the House. He said in effect that he did not care how much we kicked it. He regretted having to bring it in. Although he admitted being the father, he practically said, “I shall put it on the floor and I do not mind how hard you kick it.” He said he did not like it, but he had to bring it in. He had had a discussion on the Baxter Report with the administrators and executives, and they did not like it, and the people did not like it, so he had decided not to bring that in, although he wanted to; but because there were prejudices of which he had to take account, he had brought in this Bill. Surely that is evidence that the Government has ceased to govern. Here the Government have for the second time the report of a commission, and they have failed to carry it out. Apparently they are afraid of losing votes if they carry it out. That is how one has to take the admission made by the Minister of Finance. That seems to me to be an admission of political bankruptcy. What is the policy of the Government? Are they in favour of abolishing provincial councils or are they not? Two members of the present Cabinet signed the report very strongly advocating abolition of the Provincial Councils in 1917—they were not then members of the Cabinet, but they are now. Have they changed their views about the abolition of the Provincial Councils? With regard to the Baxter Report, I would certainly not have supported any legislation carrying out such recommendations of that report as would impair education in this country, because it seems to me that education is on a higher plane than finance. If a country is unable to pay for the education of its children, then that country is certainly coming to a pretty bad pass; to say we have reached that stage in South Africa would be a lamentable confession of impotency and failure. We were certainly led to believe that the relations between the Union and the Councils were to be put on a permanent and lasting basis; we were led to believe that in the Governor-General’s speech, in spite of what the right hon. the Prime Minister said in a brilliant debating speech, which certainly does not deserve to live for a single day except as an able intervention in debate and a drawing of red herrings across the trail, which took us away from the point under discussion. Let me read what was in the Governor-General’s speech, if that is any indication—

There are no legislative proposals in relation to the Baxter Report at all. This Bill practically ignores the Baxter Report, and if that is held to be consistent with strong legislative proposals in reference thereto, then I say there must have been very few who heard or read the Governor-General’s speech, who thought this was the legislation which was to be introduced. But let us take it now that this legislation is what was referred to in spite of what the Minister of Finance says. Let us take this legislation upon its merits. The Prime Minister, in justification of the attitude of his Government has taken up in matters of the Provincial Council, said that the Nationalist Party had opposed him in 1913 very bitterly when he introduced the Financial Relations Act. Really this shows how much of a debating speech the Prime Minister’s speech was, as he evidently forgot that there was no Nationalist Party in 1913 when the Financial Relations Act came into force. There was no Nationalist Party then. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) possibly figured on that occasion prominently, but he was not a member of the Nationalist Party. The point is that the right hon. the Prime Minister stated that the Nationalist Party were the people who opposed it: there was no such party then, and that only shows how wide of the mark the speech was. We have got to get down to the fact that the cause of education is going to suffer very seriously if this Bill goes through, and I have had a resolution, as other members probably have, from the Cape School Board which seems to me to sum up the educational aspect of this Bill from a non-political body. I do not know which political party they individually support. They say—

That seems to be the situation as it exists in the minds of many other people besides the Cape School Board. Let us consider for a moment the Cape Province. It is said that too much money is being spent here on education, but many thinking people consider that too little money is being expended. No doubt there has been a too lavish expenditure on buildings, and perhaps if not so much had been spent on the particular type of buildings we might have had more buildings; but as far as money is spent on human material I do not think that anyone will say that too much has been expended; in fact, there are anomalies that ought to be cured. I will quote from a speech made by the Administrator of the Cape when opening the session in March last year. He said—

So the net result of a reduction of the subsidies was to turn thousands of children into the streets who should have been attending school. Yet it is said that too much money is being expended in education. The Prime Minister made a great song as to how they came to the support of the native in the Transvaal when the native was under the harrow of the Transvaal Provincial Council, but will the hon. the Minister of Finance tell us what the Government have done for coloured and native education? As far as the native and coloured people are concerned they have little to thank the present Government for as regards education. So far as the coloured people—other than natives—are concerned, there was the special advance of £12,000 to the Cape Provincial Council.

What about the £48,000 which was given to the natives?

I quoted the words “coloured people other than natives.” As far as the natives are concerned they had been most inadequately dealt with, except that an advance had been made to the Cape Provincial Council to improve native teachers’ salaries. These loans had no doubt improved the position, but does the hon. member say that the natives in the Cape Province get the same facilities for education as the European people? The reason why I have raised the point is because the Prime Minister posed as the saviour of the native people as against the policy of the Transvaal Provincial Council. The Prime Minister poses as the champion of the native people, but I would like the Minister of Finance to say what the Government has done for the natives? The Prime Minister said the Government had come to the rescue of the mine owners who were being punished by the Transvaal Provincial Council. Are we to take it that the teachers are being punished in this Bill? As to the position with regard to the mines, he said that the Government had to come to the rescue of the mine owners, as the mines were being punished—the punishment he referred to was the taxation of mining profits. The Act of Union did not protect mining profits from taxation by provincial councils, and, seeing that the mine owners had to be protected against the Transvaal Provincial Council, did it ever occur to the Government that they should also similarly protect the ordinary income tax payer? I say that the provincial councils have to conduct the affairs of the province, and they have not to answer to the Minister or to any hon. member for what they do, but to the people they represent. I repeat, I want to ask this question, if it was necessary for the Government to come to the rescue of the mines, why did they not consider it necessary to come to the rescue of the ordinary individual who had to pay income tax to the Union and the province? When it came to taxing the mining profits, twice the Government, of course, came tn the rescue. In this Bill the chief item of offence is the reference to the teachers, and when the Prime Minister spoke, I could not, for a time, quite understand whether he realized that the alarm has been caused, not by members of this House, but by the teachers themselves, immediately they saw that this particular legislation was being introduced. I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he has read the report of the meeting of the most respected teachers in the Peninsula—all entirely non-political? I think the Prime Minister must not be aware of the feelings amongst teachers that this Bill is looked upon as a degradation of their status. Then the Minister of Finance referred to the Question of a land rate as apparently one of tremendous difficulty, which rendered it impossible for him to go on with the Baxter Report. We have of course had a rate on immovable property here for years, but in some other parts of the Union they have not had such a rate. Surely the Government have either made up their minds as to whether a rate on immovable property is right or not, and if they have not decided this and are divided one can understand it, but as the Minister of Finance explains that it is such a reasonable thing one wonders why the Government have refused to introduce a Bill giving them the power to fix this rate on immovable property. There again apparently it is a matter of votes. The Minister of Finance and his Government apparently favour it. But they find it difficult to carry it through because the various administrations and executives, and especially Natal, would not vote for it. The longer one studies this very short Bill the more one realises that the Government absolutely declines to place on a sound and final footing the relations between the Union and the provinces. The Bill makes no provision for sound and proper education which the children of South Africa need. It makes no provision for fairplay for the teachers of the Union, it rather degrades the status of these teachers in Clause 2, and it makes it a very serious matter for them to consider whether it is worth their while continuing this very arduous work when they are open to such attacks as are being made upon them in this Bill. The Prime Minister has told the House that it is left to the Provincial Councils to reduce the salaries.

There are no scales fixed.

The scales were actually quoted at the interview. They are all here in this book which I have in my hand. The only point which was not known until this Bill came out was whether the Government was going to carry them into effect. I maintain that the, scales are all published and the teachers have had an interview, but one thing is clear and that is that they were left under one impression, and they were absolutely dumbfounded when they read the Rill. The Bill had come to them as a bombshell, and they look upon it as a breach of faith.

They say that they have been “sold.”

Yes, the Ministers say that it is left to the Provincial Councils to deal with the teachers’ salaries. But the Provincial Councils are given a hint very clearly to make a general reduction in the salaries of the teachers.

The hon. member knows quite well that the Bill does not mean what he says it means.

It seems to me that it is the duty of the Government to study toe relations between the provinces and the Union and place them on a sound footing, and to see that the teachers of this country should get a fair deal, and to make provision for a proper system of primary and secondary education, and everyone who feels that must vote against the second reading of this Bill.

I must first of all congratulate the Ministry in its very difficult, task of trying, as it were, not only to bluff this House, but in trying to bluff the electors of this country. It is quite evident when we read the Jagger and Baxter reports and the arguments used by the Minister of Finance in introducing

ERRATA.

WEEKLY EDITION No. 6.

Page 551.—In line 2 of Mr. Creswell’s speech—for “ the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuart)” read “ the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart).”

Page 553.—In line 26, first column—for “16th” read “17th

Page 559.—In the second column, the first line of Mr. de Villiers’ speech to read “†De hr. DE VILLIERS: Ik het met aandag ge.”

Page 572.—Under the heading “Industrial Conciliation Bill” in the first column, after the words “That the Bill be now read a third time” should be read the speeches by Mr. Sampson, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Giovanetti and the Minister of Mines and Industries, printed on pages 570 (second column), 571 and 572 (first column).

WEKELIKSE UITGAVE No. 6.

Bl. 551.—In regel 2 van de toespraak van de hr. Creswell—in plaats van “the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuart)” lees “the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart)”.

Bl. 553.—In regel 26, eerste kolom—in plaats van “16th” lees “17th”.

Bl. 559.—In de tweede kolom, de eerste regel van de toespraak van de hr. de Villiers te luiden “†De hr. DE VILLIERS „ Ek het met aandag ge-”.

Bl. 572.—Onder het hoofd “Nijverheid Verzoenings Wetsontwerp” in de eerste kolom, na de woorden “That the Bill be now read a third time” dien en te volgen de toespraken van de hr. Sampson, de hr. Buchanan, de hr. Giovanetti en de Minister van Mijnwezen en Nijverheid, gedrukt op bl. 570 (tweede kolom). 571 en 572 (eerste kolom).

this Bill that it is quite apparent it was a difficult task, and the only way they could get out of it was to bring in a Bill, as it were, to fix the responsibility on nobody and to save the skins of the Government. It is quite true, as the hon. member for Cape town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) has stated, that this Bill does give the Provincial Council Executive power to reduce, but, if we read Clause 2, we find that they have no power at all to increase. Not only that, but if we read this Bill we find that it practically imposes upon the Provincial Councils to reduce their expenditure, and if it compels directly and indirectly the Provincial Councils to reduce their expenditure, it naturally means it must reduce teachers salaries. Now I have a large number of official figures here, but I will not read them to the House for the reason that they practically mean nothing at all. We have had figures given in the Baxter Report and in the Jagger Report which are not absolute facts. We have quotations, and these quotations have been inserted in such a way as to leave the people under the impression that these are well-founded statements. But I took upon myself to take the financial blue books on educational policy and votes whereby money is voted for the needs of education, and they were compared with other blue books in other countries and in other colonies, and I have it on the authority of members of Parliament in Canada, Australia and New Zealand that the figures given in the Baxter Report are not directly in accordance with the facts. The point is that in no country do they vote the money on similar heads. In fact, in some countries we have a certain proportion of the cost of technical and trade education out of the votes voted under the Minister of Industries, and yet in this country we saddle education with not only the education in its true but in its abstract sense. Now I think that members of Parliament in other countries and professors in Great Britain are surely authorities which we can go by, and they have stated to me repeatedly that it is utterly impossible to argue with statements made and facts given in different blue books in different countries and colonies, but I think when we cannot go by figures we should go by standards, and what do we find? We take, for instance, the European teachers salaries, which in South Africa are practically on an equal with the trade union rate of carpenters’ and fitters’ pay. We find in Great Britain, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand that the rate of pay for teachers is over 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. and even 120 per cent. higher than the ordinary trade union pay of the ordinary mechanic, and I think that is a statement which we should go by, and not figures, which are not facts, because either they are misquoted or the value of the money in the respective countries is different to ours. Now we will go a step further and what do we find? We find that if we include the non-European teacher with the European teacher in South Africa we will find that they are getting 13s. 9d. in proportion to the 20s. which a member of the trade union will get. I make bold to say there should be no power given to Provincial Councils to reduce teachers’ salaries. You have no right to do that when men and women through great cost to themselves and through years of study have achieved the position of teachers. I believe they are of a stamp which should be paid at a higher standard than trade union rates of pay instead of receiving in proportion to the carpenter and fitter who get 20s. only 13s. 9d. If we take the European teacher it is practically £ for £ principle. In other countries this is not so, and if any one wishes to go into the trade union rates of pay he will find that the teacher’s rate of pay is higher. If we analyse the different standards we not only come to the decision that the teachers’ salaries are low at present here, but that in other countries they are rated at a higher standard than those of the ordinary tradesman. Why is it that in other countries they are rated at a higher standard? I take it that in the older countries of the world they realize that conditions should be created whereby you will attract the best men and women into the teaching profession, and I take it that we as a new country should take that attitude as an example and attract into the teaching profession our best young men and young women. We have also had stated by the Minister of Finance this afternoon the awful extravagance of the Provincial Council. Well, I speak from experience of the Cape, and I say “God help the country if there is extravagance in the Cape.” You have not got enough schools, you have not got enough teachers, you refuse admission into hospitals because you have no accommodation. In fact in the Cape it is a disgrace that in this year of 1924 you should have the conditions which at present exist. I do not believe that there has been any extravagance whatever. In analysing the figures of the increase in expenditure I find that the same proportion of increase is practically spent in the Government Departments, in fact, all expenditure has increased since the Union. I do say this that in the Cape Province especially, we are the most backward part of the world at the present time.

dissented.

In the Cape House there was a gentleman who now holds the position as chairman of the Cape School Board, and he has issued a statement which, if read, would make it clear that the conditions are not as they should be. I propose that the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) will take a lesson from the gentleman who represented his constituency before him, and who spoke of things he understood and not of things which he did not understand. It is quite easy for a person not acquainted with the educational needs of the Cape Province to suggest certain things, but it is quite a different thing for a man who has done yeoman’s service in the cause of education to do so. In the Provincial Council there has been no over-expenditure on education. When figures are quoted they include non-Europeans, but when they want to show a higher cost it is worked out on a European basis. I may also state I have never heard the Prime Minister of this country or the Minister of Finance or any other hon. member question the figures for higher education in this country. It is always a question of reducing expenditure on primary and secondary education. I cannot prove by figures, and cannot compare the salaries of teachers of this and other countries, neither can I compare the cost of educating each pupil in this country with other countries. It is difficult, as they never pass money Bills or Ordinances for educational requirements under the same head. In tins country we have voted money for educational requirements, but we use a great deal of that money owing to the dual languages in this country, which must cost a large amount of money which they have not got to contend with in Australia or New Zealand, and only to a very moderate extent in Canada. Now we not only have to use this money which we have voted for education to teach in the dual language, but especially in the Cape we spend a large amount of money on the indigent boarding schools. This is a sum of money which should really be used for educational requirements, but we have in the Baxter Report statements on the cost of education per pupil. They do not tell you that the work which we do throughout the indigent boarding schools is done by private institutions in all other countries, and the Government votes funds for the express purpose. We have no institutions on the basis of the Blue Coat School and the Grey Coat School as in England, which are kept up by private means, aided by Government grants. But in this country we use the money that is voted for education, and therefore I hold that no person has the right to quote figures, unless he takes into consideration these sums which should be deducted from the amount. We have also throughout the length and breadth of this country hundreds and thousands of farm schools. We know full well that the cost of running a farm school, proportionately to its pupils, is far in excess to the cost per pupil in town, and yet we find that figures have been quoted in various reports and blue books which are taken from densely populated countries in America and Europe. These facts should be taken into consideration when one wants so compare figures, and I hold that the cost of education per pupil in this country is low, and after taking all these other factors into consideration, as low as in any other part of the world. It is difficult, as I have said, to compare figures, but we must compare results. As we compare results and apply them to teachers’ salaries and also compare results from the educational point, we then look at the results when the boys leave school and what do we find? We find that in other countries owing to the grants for educational needs being supplemented through the votes of the Ministry of Industries and such like, we find that the boys in other countries are, after taking into consideration normal conditions, far ahead of the boys in this country. For instance, in Europe, in France and Germany, Britain, the United States and the Colonies we find that boys who require technical knowledge are taught the elements and also a certain amount of knowledge required in the arts, crafts and sciences, and I might state here that it is a crying shame in this country that the dignity of labour as regards tradesmen is not pushed to the extent that it is in other countries. These boys are able to get the foundation of a future life at the expense of the State. What happens in this country? Take for instance in the Cape. We have not got free education even up to the 6th standard, we have only got free education up to the 6th standard in some schools, besides that there is no free education really in the Cape Province at all, because the people have to pay for their books. In no other country in the world are there conditions such as in the Cape Province. Even the Minister of Railways realizes the defects in the educational system in the Cape Province. The reports on the one hand tell us, that he is against free education, and yet I think when he was appointed Minister of Railways he refused to take in apprentices who have not passed the 7th standard. Now the position is as follows: you get a certain amount of education which does not fit a boy to be an apprentice in the Government workshops in this country. I own that if for nothing else the educational system is behind in the Cape Province. Instead of the Government advocating reduction in expenditure on education, they should try and give the colonial boy an equal opportunity with the imported boy who comes to this country. We know full well from experience that the colonial boy or the South African boy has not got a fair opportunity in life, and that he is not fitted to compete with the boy imported or who is an immigrant to this country, and I say it is a crying shame when we want to build up a new country, not to fit the future generations to be efficient mechanics and to create a reservoir from which to draw for the higher arts and crafts and sciences in this country. I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.