Mr. Speaker, die lede van die Huis het met leedwese in die koerante gesien en kennis geneem van die onverwagte oorlyde gister van Mnr. Jan Abraham Joubert, lid vir Pretoria Distrik (Noord) van hierdie Huis, en ek wens die volgende as ’n onbestrede mosie voor te stel—

Die grote en bittere verlies is ons alle onverwags oorvalle. Wyle die hr. Joubert is vir enige jare siek en lydende gewees en dit was die laaste tyd vir hom onmoontlik om die sittings van hierdie Huis by te woon. Daar was tekens van beterskap en nog net kort voordat ek hierheen is, het ek hom gesien en was sy eie opienie, dat hy aan betere was, en dit was ook my indruk. Die nuus van sy oorlyde is dus totaal onverwags en plotseling gekom. Dit is vir ons ’n treurige verlies, want hy was een van die veelbelowende jonge lede in hierdie Huis. Ek het hom in die ou dae van die Republiek geken as ’n dapper held en n man, op wie jy kon peil trek en sy deeglike karakter en vasberadenheid, sy minsaamheid in die omgang het hom gemaak tot een van onse edele burgers. Hy was lid van een van onse edelste famielies in die Noorde, en hy het die eer van sy famielie en land omhoog gehou op ’n wyse, wat as voorbeeld kan dien. En hier, hoewel nog jong en hoewel hy nie ’n leidende aandeel kon neem aan die werksaamhede nie, was hy van alle bemind en gerespekteer. Ek meen in die sin van die hele Huis en van alle partye te handel as ek die mosie voorbring om ons opregte simpatie en medegevoel oor te bring aan Mevr. Joubert en ander famielie lede.

Ek wens die mosie van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister te sekondeer. Ek dink dat ek die gevoel uitspreek van elkeen in die Huis, as ek verklaar, dat daar weinig lede was, die gedurende sovele jaar deelgeneem het aan al die besprekinge en tog hulleself kon verheug in die vriendskap van alle lede van alle partye en alle sye, en dit so wis te behou, as onse vriend, die daar vandag nie meer is nie. En dit—en dit strek sy nagedagtenis tot ’n groter eer— terwyl hy nooit agterwege gebly het om sy standpunt te handhaaf en sy sienswyse uit te spreek nie. Ek dink dit is iets wat ons hoog en blywend sal waardeer. Hy is ’n seun van een van die grootste Suid-Afrikaanse figure en in die geskiedenis sal Generaal Joubert altoos ’n heldere plek in onse herinnering inneem en ek dink die ontslape lid is ’n tiepiese voorbeeld gewees van die welopgevoede Suid-Afrikaanse boerseun. In alles en ook wat ek ge.se het en wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gesê het was hy in sy houding en sy gedrag in die algemeen ’n edele man. Ek deel in wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sê en wens van harte die mosie te ondersteun.

On behalf of my friends and myself I desire to associate myself with the words of regret, respect and appreciation which have been so ably expressed by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog).

Motion put and agreed to, members rising.

When we adjourned last evening I had already dealt with the question and matters appertaining to teachers’ salaries and general educational policy. The Provincial Finances Commission has met, and, after an exhaustive investigation, has found that in the Cape Province at any rate there is very little that by any stretch of imagination can be called extravagance. Especially is this so in the sphere of education. In paragraph 493 of its report the Commission cites certain deductions to be made from expenditure to rank for subsidy. If we expect a thing like war bonus, which was confessedly a temporary measure, and which in any case has disappeared, and if we expect items such as training of teachers and cost of hostels, which the Commission recommends should be borne in another way, we find that the only real items of saving are £50,000 per annum on teachers’ salaries, economy in staffing and reduction in number of small schools, and £25,000 per annum on school board administration. Against this, the Commission feels that the Cape should contribute £50,000 per annum towards the teachers’ pension fund, and that £62,000 per annum additional should be spent on the education of coloured children. So far from the Cape having spent too much on education, it would appear that in the Commission’s opinion it had spent too little. The Commission draws attention to the fact in paragraph 135 that “increases in (educational) expenditure are out of proportion to the increases in the population and school enrolment.” This is true. The European population during the ten years 1911 to 1921 has increased by 11.71 per cent. The expenditure on European education has increased in the eight years 1913-T4 to 1921-’22 by 133.26 per cent. In the same ten-year period the population of England and Wales increased by 5 per cent., whereas the educational expenditure increased in the same eightyear period by 168 per cent, Much the same is true of other countries in the world which have not been mentioned in the Commission’s report. For instance, if we consider the position for the last nine-year period for which figures are available, we shall find that in Denmark, the population increased by 17.5 per cent.; total expenditure increased by 219 per cent.; education expenditure increased by 347 per cent.; and that in Sweden the population increased by 6.1 per cent.; total expenditure increased by 202 per cent.; educational expenditure increased by 392 per cent. The increase in population in England was less than that in the Cape, yet the increase in educational expenditure in England was greater than in the Cape. In Denmark and Sweden total expenditure has increased out of all proportion to the increase in population, and educational expenditure has increased much faster than total expenditure. And these are two countries that did not participate in the war and where conditions may be said to have been more normal than in England or in the Cape Province. The moral of this is obvious. There is no sense in taking bare figures of increase in population or of pupils on the one hand and of total expenditure on the other, unless a thorough going enquiry is conducted into such questions as depreciation of currency and increase in the cost of commodities. Merely to show that expenditure on education (reckoned in the currency of the country—whether pounds, dollars or kroener) has increased at a much faster rate than population, is to prove nothing at all. In making comparisons with other countries the peculiar circumstances of the Cape Province must be borne in mind. First of all, the Cape has to deal with the exceedingly difficult combination of a very small population living in a very large area. The population of England and Wales is more than fifty times as great as that of the Cape; the area of the Cape is nearly five times that of England and Wales. A small population in a large area involves a large number of small schools; small schools entail a large number of teachers in proportion to the number of pupils instructed; and as the bulk of educational expenditure goes in the payment of teachers’ salaries, it will be readily understood that a country such as ours, with a scattered population, is bound to be at a great great disadvantage with more closely settled countries. Then we have to consider the question of bilingualism. The Commission refers to this matter and states that it is “unquestionably considerable.” After having said this the Commission does not seem to pay very much more attention to the matter. It must be remembered however that bilingualism requires many additional teachers and classrooms, and much additional expenditure on printing, translation, etc. Great allowance must be made to this factor when considering educational expenditure in the Cape Province or in the other provinces of the Union. There is another aspect of the matter in addition to sparseness of population and bilingualism. South Africa has much more leeway to make up than the British Isles or most of the other Dominions. Even within the last thirty years it has had a number of wars which have caused interruption in the educational population. Much of the work that was done in the last ten years of the last century was undone by the Anglo-Boer war of 1892-’1902. Not only was progress arrested, but many schools were closed during this period. No sooner had the educational authorities got to work to remedy the damage that had been done, when the depression of 1904-’10 consequent on the war broke upon the Cape Province. When the Cape entered Union there was an enormous volume of educational work in arrear. It is not surprising therefore that under the Provincial Council the increase in educational expenditure has greatly outstripped the increase in population The problem of the “poor white” must always be borne in mind when the cost of South African education is being considered. For a very long period past people have been talking of the need for taking determined action to solve the “poor white” problem; while these have been talking the Cape Province has been acting. An attempt is being made to get hold of the necessitous children living far remote from schools, and to save them for civilization from incipient barbarism. This is work hardly of a purely educational nature. It is social and national work of the highest importance; and it is unfair to take no account of this when appreciating the increase in educational expenditure. The Commission proposes in Section 604 that the local bodies should have the power to impose a rate on immovable property in order to defray the cost of (1) transport and boarding bursaries for pupils, (2) hostels, (3) loan charges and rents for local schools, (4) (portion of expenditure only) on roads and hospitals. Whatever may be said in general of the virtues of a tax on immovable property, and whatever may be said in particular of the appropriateness of the third and fourth of the above charges being defrayed out of such a tax, there is no doubt whatever that it would be a great mistake to put the first and second of the above charges on the rates. The proposal may be attacked on two grounds, firstly, on the ground of its inequity, and, secondly, on the ground of its impracticability, In the first place it should be borne in mind that certain areas in the Cape Province such as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, etc., are removed by the mere accident of aggregation of population from the need for incurring hardly any expenditure at all on transport and boarding bursaries for pupils and on hostels. In the Cape Division, for example, the vast majority of children live within easy walking distance of a public school. The case is far different in the sparsely populated areas of the north-west. Here the population is small, and the area in which they reside is so large that only a comparatively small proportion of the pupils are living within walking distance of a public school.

The hon. member is coming around now.

The hon. member is very much upset about it.

In Namaqualand for example no less than 450 out of a total of 1,095 are compelled to board away from home if they are to get the benefits even of primary education. As there are 17,556 square miles in the division of Namaqualand it is plain that there are only six school children to 100 square miles in that division. In the Cape Division there are 22,244 European pupils in an area of 566 square miles, that is to every 100 square miles in the Cape Division there are 4,100 European pupils. The Cape Division is therefore between 600 and 700 times as densely populated as Namaqualand. It should be quite plain from these figures that in the Cape Division there should be no difficulty whatever in getting every European child into school, almost without the expenditure of a single penny on transport or boarding, whereas in Namaqualand the pupil, who does not require to be carried to school or to be boarded near the school, would be the exception rather than the rule. Why should the property owners of one district be compelled to incur a large expenditure which the property owners of another district are not compelled to incur, simply because large numbers of people have not taken up their abode in the neighbourhood? Even if it were considered equitable that local bodies should bear the cost of transport and boarding, the thing is impracticable. It is precisely these districts where population is sparse that the value of property tends to be lowest and where the wealth of the people is smallest. The people of Namaqualand or any other North Western district would not only have a much greater proportion of expenditure to meet than in the Cape division, but would have much smaller means with which to meet it. What might be covered by a rate of one-sixteenth of a penny in the Cape Division might require a rate of 3d. or 4d. in Namaqualand or Kenhardt. Finally, reference might be made to the cavalier way in which the Commission has treated the Cape Province in regard to education. The public press have taken the Commission’s report as being more or less a general condemnation of the provincial councils for extravagance, and the Commission itself has not been sufficiently careful to draw attention to the economical work of Cape education as compared with the other provinces. Even in directions where undoubted economy has been shown in the Cape, the Commission has been at some pains to minimise the economy shown by the Cape. An example may be found in paragraphs 168-172, which deal with the training of teachers. Here the figures regarding the cost per student-teacher in training redound to the credit of the Cape, whether the total cost per student (Cape £74. Natal £148, Transvaal £192, Free State £207) or the cost of instruction (Cape £29, Natal £48. Transvaal £96, Free State £69) be considered. To try to explain away the economical administration of the Cape in this matter, the Commission draws attention to the fact that—

and states that—

It does not affect the cost at all since in the Cape Province, students, whether they enter on training with the junior certificate or with the senior certificate as their passport, receive training which (save in respect of the personal grants made to students) are almost identical in cost.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

Yesterday afternoon this House had the unusual experience of hearing the right hon. the Minister, when introducing a Bill, give urgent and cogent reasons, and it seemed to me that he gave all the arguments except one, why he should have introduced a Bill of an entirely different character. The one reason which he did not advance was that it would be legislating ahead of public opinion so that you would be legislating ahead of public opinion. The speeches of the leaders of the Opposition made it quite clear that if a Bill had been introduced on the lines of the Baxter Report it would have met with their most stringest opposition, and they would have done everything in their power to prevent it being carried.

Would not the hon. member’s party oppose it to-day?

It seems to me that some of the vehemence expressed by those gentlemen was due to the fact that the Government had not introduced such a Bill. It seemed that they had been waiting for such a Bill, and that they were going to swoop down on it, knock out the Bill and the Government with it.

The hon. member wants to save both.

As regards this Bill, I would cheerfully vote against it if by so doing it would bring us any nearer to getting a Bill on the lines of the Baxter Report, but, as I say, the hon. members who have spoken from the opposite benches have made it quite clear that we would not get any nearer that by knocking out the Bill. It is very awkward to vote against a Bill not for what is in it, but for what is not in it, and that is the objection that I take to this Bill: not so much what is in it, but what is not in it, and there is not much in it. I share the deep disappointment, in fact, almost the dismay, that has been expressed in public at the meagre nature of the Bill, as I say, in what is not in the Bill. As far as the Cape is concerned, that disappointment has been expressed in public chiefly by two bodies, one by the Chamber of Commerce of Cape Town, speaking on their own behalf and on behalf of the general tax-payers, and the other by the teachers of the Cape.

What about the parents and the children? Have they no part in it?

I have not seen any expression of opinion on behalf of the children or parents except what has appeared in the public press, and that has only been by the Chamber of Commerce and by the teachers. By the Chamber of Commerce because there has been no curtailment of the taxing power of the administrator, and by the teachers for other reasons, because they were afraid it was going to affect them prejudicially. Therefore, I would like hon. members to look at the position and see what figures the Minister gives. I do not touch upon the figures the Minister gives as to what the position would have been if the Baxter Report had not been adopted; seeing that it has not been adopted, it seems to me futile to go into that, although it was very interesting to have the comparison made by the Minister, but looking at what the actual position is, one would say that first of all as regards the funding of the Cape deficits in Clause 4 of the Bill in sub-section (1) we see that there is £200,000 that is to be funded, to be paid back in ten years. Then in Clause 2 another £600,000, that is £800,000, and in Clause 3 a special advance of £12,000, giving us £812,000. The Minister tells us that the total deficits to be funded, so far as the Cape is concerned, was £1,600,000, so that there must be under sub-section (3) of Clause 4, which says, in the cases of the four provinces: “such further sums as may be provided to meet deficits to 31st March, 1924.” There must be another £788,000, approximately, of deficit of the Cape Administrator for the current year, giving us a total of £1,600,000 which has to be funded and to be met in ten years. The interest and instalment on that comes to something like £200,000 per annum, and the Minister tells us that the total deficits for the coming year, which, I take it, includes this £200,000, would be to-day £555,000, so that the Cape taxpayer has to look forward to the position that there is a sum of £550,000 which has to be provided for through new taxation or economies, and they are naturally afraid that it is going to come from taxation. The mercantile community are naturally alarmed because they know from experience the direction the mind of the administrator travels when seeking new taxation. Like other taxing authorities he looks for the easiest way out, and he finds making use of the mercantile community as tax-gatherers as the simplest and easiest way. They have had experience. They remember that a sales tax was projected, and would have been carried into effect but for the almost universal popular indignation raised, and they are in this position now that they are left with the inequality of these things, which they had hoped to see done away with, i.e., licence inequality, and they are left with the Turn Over Tax and other taxes. It has been left to the administrator to put on any new taxation he can; his powers are in no way impaired, and is it any wonder that they are alarmed and are up in arms? What happened before? The administrator suggested some new taxes and when he was refused a sales tax he appealed to the public what new tax he could put on, so that you have, as I say, this dismay on behalf of the people that they have got no protection, and there is no curtailment of the taxing power of the administrator. The other people who have been loud in their objection have been the teachers. I have tried to follow them, but again it seems to me that it is not because of anything that this Bill does do, but because of what it does not do, that the teachers are up in arms; not because their position has been altered, but because the Bill does not alter it. They are at present in the hands of the Provincial Councils, and this Bill leaves them there. I have the greatest respect and sympathy with the teaching profession and would like to see the standard of the profession improved and encouraged in every way, but in looking through this Bill I cannot see how their position is going to be improved by the elimination of Clause 2. I have had the request made to me from my own constituency, by telegram and letter, urging me to vote against Clause 2 in the Bill. As I say I would like to have it explained how the knocking out of Clause 2 is going to improve the position of the teachers in any way. It seems rather a curious thing for the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), the whole burden of whose speech was the great belief that he had in Provincial Councils; the wickedness it would be to curtail in any way their power, but when the suggestion was made that the teachers should be left as they are now in the hands of the Provincial Councils, his indignation was aroused. Apparently, whenever there is an opportunity of trusting the Provincial Councils he is not prepared to do so. Incidentally I do think, though it has nothing to do with this Bill, that one of the requirements for the putting of teachers on a better footing would be if some “plums” were provided in the educational service in the same way as there are in most other professions. It is not everyone who could get them, but they would have the incentive, and a man in that profession would know that there are such things to be got, and I think there would be far more chance of getting good men into the profession in that way than by any uniformity. Uniformity is rather inclined to kill than otherwise. One thing seems to me to be clear from all the debate and outside talking, that notwithstanding the favour with which the Provincial Council is viewed in many parts of the country, there is the recognition that Parliament is still the supreme authority, and the fact of people coming to Parliament now in regard to these matters, that are in the hands of Provincial Councils shows that they do look to Parliament to control them. That makes one look at this Bill from the point of view of seeing how it is proposed to recover the control of finance. It is quite clear that in the past there has not been the Treasury control that there should have been. Parliament, or the Government, has in some way lost the control that should appertain to the Treasury, otherwise it would not have been possible for such a long deficit to accrue in the Cape of Good Hope.

Parliament does not even control its own Treasury.

The opposition does that!

We are talking just now about the provinces, we shall have an opportunity of hearing the hon. member on that point when the Budget comes on. This enormous deficit has not accrued in any one year, it must have been known to the Treasury in years gone by, but here we come to the position that there is a deficit of £1,600,000 from the Cape Province alone, showing an utter lack of control on behalf of the Treasury. Looking at the Bill from that point of view, therefore, to see in what way control is provided for, I only see one way. There is a certain amount of control provided here in Clause 5 in sub-section (a). At the present time these school boards have had power to borrow money and incur overdrafts, and a vary large amount of this consists of deficits of the school board. By subsection (b) of Clause 5 it will now be provided that no school board will have the power to borrow money except from the provincial administration, and the Provincial Administration has not in itself borrowing powers except what it can get from the Government, and the Government can only get it from Parliament. That will, to some extent, restore the control of the provincial finance, but I do not think that that will be suffcient, unless there is control exercised in the treasury to a far greater extent than has been exercised in the past. Referring to the powers of taxation and of the powers of the administrator being curtailed, I would like to put it to the Minister whether it is not possible when we are in Committee to get a clause inserted into the Bill whereby there would be some security given to the taxpayers that there will be more effective control by the treasury, and by this Parliament, which after all is the supreme power over the taxing powers of the administrator? I refer especially to the Cape, but one knows that in the Transvaal it is, if anything, worse. It seems to me that although the Government has not seen its way to bring in a measure on the lines of the Baxter Report, it is possible to bring in a clause into the Bill which will be more fair and equitable to the taxpayers generally, than has been the taxation put on of late years, both in the Transvaal and in the Cape. I do not know much about the other provinces. I would like to say a word on the general question before sitting down. There has been much talk, and will be much talk, about the abolition of provincial councils. There has been a great deal in the administration of provincial councils, more particularly in the Cape, which calls for criticism, and there is no doubt that the ex penditure has been on a scale which we are not able to afford. The provincial council has been living beyond its means, but it has done good work in a great many directions, and it has certainly done good work in this way that there has been a more general attention given to the needs of the province, that is, the needs have been attended to more generally in the province than was the case in any Cape Government. There is this further, that if the provincial councils are to be abolished, I do not think their abolition will be tolerated unless it is accompanied by a system of devolution which will give local self-government somewhat on the lines, possibly, of the first report that was brought in—I think it was called the Jagger Report, but the mere abolition of provincial councils without some system of local self-government would not be accepted throughout the country. I say again that I regret exceedingly that it has not been possible to bring in a Bill somewhat on the lines of the Baxter Report. I hope that the Minister, when we get into Committee will consider this matter, and see whether it is not possible to put in a clause which will give some greater sense of security, or rather remove the feeling of insecurity among the taxpayers.

Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het gister ’n poging aangewend om die aanval wat op hom gemaak werd op die punt van swakheid af te slaan, deur te sê, dat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) in alles wat hy gesê het nie naby die Wetsontwerp onder bespreking gekom het nie. As ons te doen had met ’n werklike Wetsontwerp aangaande die reëling van die relasies tussen die Provinsies en die Unie, dan sou ’n argument van die aard enige indruk gemaak het op die Huis en die land maar ongelukkig dat met soveel noukeurigheid die karakter van die maatreël deur die Minister van Finansies beskrewe werd en dat dese ’n taamlike deel van sy toespraak gewy het om te bewys dat die Wetsontwerp geen maatreël is cm die finansiële relasies op nuut te reel nie, maar dat dit handel alleen oor puntjies van subsidiêre aard. Hy het verklaar dat die Wetsontwerp gelees moet word, meer met die oog op wat daar nie in is nie; en indien enige bevestiging daarvan nodig was, dan is dit gegee deur die edele lid vir Port Elizabeth (Zuid-West) (Sir William Macintosh) die so juis gesproke het. Daarom, die aanval, deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) gemaak op die Wet en op die Regering was van begin tot end op die punt af. Wat het daarenteen die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gedaan? Hy het soas deur die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) tereg opgemerk, ’n rookskerm opgesit en ek sou selfs verder gaan en verklaar dat hy ’n stofwolk opgeskop het om agter weg te kruip. Hy het gesê, dat in 1917 toe die finansiële relasies tussen die Unie Regering en die Provinsiale Rade besproke werd, was hy 6,000 myle hiervandaan. Wel as hy toe 6,000 myl weg was, dan was hy gisteraand nie nader as 6,000 myl gekom aan die argumente van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) nie. Waarop kom die hele toespraak van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister as antwoord op die vraag van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) neer? Hy het gedaan wat in Suid-afrika geen nuwigheid is nie, hy het ’n beroep gedaan op die sentiment van sy volgelinge, deur te swaai met die vlag. Met grote nadruk het hy daarop gewys, dat in 1917, toe daardie Wet op die relasies tussen die Provinsiale Bade en die Unie Regering behandel werd, hy afwesig was om sy plig te doen en dat ander dit dan seker nie gedaan het nie. Hy het gewag gemaak daarvan dat hy die rebellie onderdruk het—in één woord die toevlug geneem tot vlagswaaiery om ’n swakke saak te verdedig. Hy het verder ’n poging aangewend deur ’n klaarblykelik verkeerde voorstelling van ’n saak in verband met die Provinsiale Rade om in die algemeen invloed uit te oefen op die volgende eleksie en meer bepaald op die naturelle-stem. Hy maak ’n aanval op die Provinsiale Rade en hou dieselwe as voorbeeld van afskuw voor, deur te verklaar dat hulle vir straf uitgesonder het die naturel, deur die oplegging van die hoofbelasting. Niemand behoort beter te weet as juis die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, dat die hoofbelasting in geen geval ’n uitsonderingsbelasting is nie, omdat die Provinsiale Raad van Transvaal hulle moes hou binne die bepalinge van die Finansiële Relasies Vernuwings Wet of onder wat daarin neergeleg is—en daarin is die beginsel neergeleg, dat daar geen uitsonderingsbelasting opgeleg sal word op die naturelle nie, maar dat enige belasting gelykelik moet druk ook op die blanke. En die edelagbare die Eerste Minister weet goed genoeg, dat waar dit op die naturelie geleg is, dit net so goed deur die blanke ook betaal word. Hoe kan hy daarom gaan praat van ’n uitsonderingsbelasting en dit nog wel vir straf? Dit is niks anders nie as stemmevangery. Ek sou selfs sê, dat sy toespraak het, ten spyte van homself, die bewys gelewer, dat hy biesonder gevoelig is vir die belange van die goudmynindustrie, of liewer vir die indiwidue, wat by daardie industrie hetrokke is as eigenaars. Wat het hy geseg? Dat die belasting, die op hulle geleg is deur die Provinsiale Raad ’n belasting is net soas die op die naturel: ’n straf. Die goudmyne is uitgesonderd vir straf. Ek sal netnou die gelegenheid tebaat neem om a,an die Huis te wys wat die profyte en die welvarende toestand van die goudmynindmitre is en daarna dit aan die oordeel van elkeen oorlaat om te oordeel of die £300,000 belasting, welke die Provinciale Raad aan die industrio opgeleg het, bokant wat die Unie Regering van hulle kry, straf is. Toe belasting geleg word op roltabak en ten spyte van die omstandigheid, dat magistrate gerapporteer het, dat die belasting te swaar druk, die mense van hulle plase wegjaag en van hulle arme blanke maak, het die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies gekom en daardie belasting verdedig. Dit was geen straf nie, maar as daar ’n belasting van £300,000 geleg word op die welvarende goudindustrie, dan word dit deur die edelagbare die Eerste Minister straf genoem. In verband met die karakter van die Wetsontwerp, soas die edelagabre die Minister van Finansies ons dit leer ken het uit die diskussie, is dit my duidelik, dat ons hier te doen het nie slegs met ’n swakheid van die Regering nie, waarvan deur die edele lid vir Smithfield melding gemaak werd, maar met ’n tiepiese manier van die Regering om hulle swakheid en gebrek aan optrede op iemand anders te skuif. Gisteraand het die edelagbare die Eerste Minister plegtig gevra, wat die Minister van Smithfield aan te bied het. (Een Edele Lid: “O, is hy al Minister?”] Hy sal dit gou genoeg wees. Maar die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vra, wat stel hy voor. Asof die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) op daardie banke sit en die verantwoordelikheid dra; asof hy beskik oor al die gegewens en oor die aanstelling van Kommissies, waarop hy ’n Wetsontwerp sou kan optrek. Die Regering is, wanneer hy sy swakheid nie kan verberg nie, altoos bereid dit op ’n andere te probeer skuif, soas hy onlangs by geleentheid van die ontmoeting met die Predikante-Konferensie, dit op die Uitvoerende Komitees van die Provinsiale Raad afgeskuif het. Hy het gesê, dat die Uitvoerende Komitee en ook die volk die Baxter-rapport nie gunstig gesind is nie en die Uitvoerende Komitee het gesê, hulle verkies, dat die Regering ’n Wetsontwerp moet indien, w’at daarop neerkom dat hulle niks sal doen nie. Het die Uitvoerende Komitee ’n vrye keus gehad tussen die twee alternatiewe, of die Regering behoorlik die relasies sou reel op so’n manier, dat die Prowinsiale Raad kan voortbestaan en hulle werk doen, of aan die anderkant dat die Regering niks doen nie? Wat gebeur het is, dat die Konferensie, welke die Minister met soveel ophef verklaar dat dit sal gehou word met die Uitvoerende Komitees van die Provinsies, ’n klug was. Dit was geen Konferensie nie, hoegenaamd nie. Die Uitvoerende Komitees werd een vir een ontmoet en nooit ’n Konferensie gehou nie. Maar as dit ’n vrye keuse was die hulle had, dan was daar iets voor te sê, maar hulle het dieselfde Vryheid gehad as die prooi van ’n dief of moordenaar het, as hy aan die keel gegryp word met die bedreiging: “jou geld of jou lewe.” Met die Baxter-rapport in die hand het die Minister van Finansies hul voor hierdie keuse gestel. Kan ons hulle kwalik neem dat hulle liewer as hulle geld, die lewe wou behou? Die edelagbare die Minister maak daar ’n deug van, dat hulle so gekies het net soos die dief voor die hof sou pleit dat sy prooi self die skuld dra van die verlies van sy geld omdat hyself ingewillig het om dit af te gee. Daar is reeds gister nadruk op gelê, dat die Regering sy magteloosheid getoon het in hierdie hele saak en toe die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) wys daarop, word dit horn deur die edelagbare die Minister seer kwalik geneem. Hoe kan hulle, met die oog op die hele geskiedenis van die saak, dit kwalik neem? Want as daar een party is wat in verband met hierdie saak hoë verwagtings gewek het, dan is dit die Regering self. Hulle het die Jagger-Kommissie aangestel, omdat soas duidelik verklaar werd, hulle verder moes gaan as die Wet van 1913 en dat hulle die saak moes reël. Hulle was manlik genoeg om te sé, dat hulle die Jagger-rapport nie kan aanvaar nie en het toe weer ’n kommissie aangestel en die se verslag, het die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies verklaar, aanvaar hulle. Die Prowinsiale Raad verkiesinge, wat daar plaasgevind het ’n paar maande gelede, is vir ’n groot deel geveg geword op hierdie Rapport van die Baxter-kommissie, waarvan die hoofbeginsels deur die Regering is aanvaar geword. En daarom is die belangstelling in die hele land gewek en die verwagting gemaak, dat die Regering sou kom met ’n behoorlike reëling van die saak. Daarom het die edelagbare die Minister en die Regering geen rede van kla nie as ’n aanval gemaak word op hulle swakheid, want hulle het hulle eie swakheid self duidelik ten toon gestel. Na al die verwagtinge wat gewek is, is dit heeltemal juis wat die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) gister gesê het “die berg was in barensnood en het ’n muis voortgebring.”

Met ’n stert.

Ja, as ons sien hoe die onderwysers en self die Regering se eie vriende, die Earners van Koophandel protesteer dan is dit ’n muisie met ’n stertjie. Nou, die magteloosheid, die werkloosheid van die Regering met betrekking tot hierdie saak is alleen op sigself erg genoeg, maar ek dink en kan nie anders dan sê, dat dit ’n verderflike invloed gehad het totnogtoe, en dat dit in die toekoms ’n nog verderfliker invloed moet gaat uitoefen. In die eerste plaas op die status van die Prowinsiale Rade self. Ek is bly om te hoor, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gister aand die houding aangeneem het, dat die Prowinsiale Rade, of nou reg of verkeerd, ingestel is onder die akte van die Unie en in elk geval daar is en nie afgeskaf kan word nie en ingestel is ten behoewe van die kleine Provinsies, wat feitlik op kondiesie daarvan in die Unie gekom het. Maar as dit sy beskouing is van die Prowinsiale Rade, waarom help hy dan die Prowinsiale Rade nie eerlik me en waarom gaat hy nie van die grondslag uit, dat solank as die Prowinsiale Rade bestaan hulle gegee moet word, wat hulle toekom nie? Waarom dan tans langs ’n omweg die Prowinsiale Rade dwing tot die oplê van onpopulêre belastinge, waardeur hulle in diskrediet gebring word in die oë van die volk? Dit is baie beter om die hele saak te beskou op sy meriete en as die Prowinsiale Rade afgeskaf moet word, laat die volk dan die Prowinsiale Rade sien soos hulle bedoel is deur die konstitusie en nie soos hulle gemaak word deur die Regering nie. Die swakheid van die Regering het verder die uitwerking gehad dat die geldelike noodtoestand, waarin die Prowinsiale Rade verkeer, nog baie meer verskerp geword is, dan anders die geval sou gewees het. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het ons gister namiddag, sprekende van die groot tekorte, die groot leninge wat aangegaan is deur die Prowinsiale Rade, gesê, dat die “op die een cf andere manier” ontstaan is. Nee, nie op die andere manier is dit ontstaan nie, sê ek, maar op die ene manier, en dis omdat die Regering self die Provinsies daartoe gedwing het. Laat ek die geval van die Kaapprovinsie neem. As die edelagbare Minister die Administrateur en die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaapprovinsie verlede jaar hul gang laat gaan het, dan sou hulle deur belastinge op te lê, die tekorte voorkom het en dit sou nie nodig gewees het om leninge aantegaan nie. Hulle het die permissie van die Regering gevra en gekry vir die oplê van ’n verkoopbelasting. Toe hardlocp die Regering weer weg. Toe die Earners van Koophandel hulle vuis gewys het, loop hulle weg en gaat hulle en verbied die Prowinsiale Rade om die nuwe belasting op te lê en bied hul in die plek daarvan aan ’n Regerings-lening van £200,000. Ek wil verder net aanwys, dat hierdie talm, hierdie gebrek aan politiek in die saak aan die kant van die Regering, verder lei tot ’n volkome verwarring selfs in onse gewone en noodsaaklike onderwys-masjienerie. Edele lede sal gesien hê die aankondiging op goeie outoriteit, dat die Administrateur van die Kaapprovinsie gaat voorstel dat die skoolrade afgeskaf sal word. Die skcolrade is liggame wat orals in Suid-Afrika bestaan, orals beskou word as ’n noodsaaklike bestanddeel van ons onderwys-masjienerie. As die skoolrade daar nie is nie en die skoolraad Sekretaris daar nie is nie cm ten behoewe van al die skole in die verskillende areas met die Opvoedings-Departement te korrespondeer oor skoolbelange, wie sal dit dan doen?

Wie het dit vroër dan gedoen?

Die Kerk, die predikant. Die skole in die meeste areas is verdrie-, verviervoudig onder die skoolrade. Ons kan tog nie verwag, dat die predikant nou al die werk sal doen nie. Waarom nie? Nie, omdat hulle nie wil nie. Ek is seker daarvan, dat die Kerk gewillig is om al sy kragte te gee, maar die edele lid vir Wodehouse (de hr. Venter) sal moet toestem, dat waar dit vir jare nodig geag gewees het om spesiaal ’n skoolraad sekretaris te benoem, soms nog met ’n assistent in ’n area, dat dit onmoontlik is vir ’n predikant om al die werk te doen saam met sy andere werk. Daardie skoolrade is nodig vir die bestaan van die onderwys. Ek hoor een van die edele lede vra, waarom die skoolrade in die lewe geroep is. Omdat sommige dele van die land dun bevolk is, of bevolk is met mense, wat hulle nie interesseer vir opvoeding nie en daar is die skoolrade om die in die gang te sit. Die skoolrade het die oorsig oor die hele areas, hulle distribueer die skole en wat meer is, die skoolrade het tot hier toe ’n baie belangrike “check” gewees op die Opvoedings-Departement, d.w.s. om toe te sien dat die balans behoorlik gehou word deur die sentrale autoriteit tussen plek en plek, skool en skool, onderwyser en onderwyser en en dat daar geen onbehoorlike voortrekkery plaasvind nie. Ons het gesien onder die Muirstelsel hier in die Kaap hoe die een plek voor die ander plek getrek is, en die een onderwyser voor die ander, maar foe die skoolraad gekom het is die balane herstel geword tussen plek en plek en onderwyser en onderwyser, toe het gelyke behandeling gekom. En nou dwing die Regering die Prowinsiale Rade om daardie noodsaaklike bestanddeel van die masjienerie te vernietig en om skoolrade af te skaf.

What have we got to do with it?

Ek sê, dis die verderflike invloed van die politiek van die Regering. Nou het die edelagbare Minister van Finansies gister die vraag beliandel, wat eintlik die vernaamste vraag was, wat hy moes behandel, en dat is, waarom dan die Regering die Baxter-rapport nie uitvoer nie. Hy het apologeties in sy hele toesprank opgetree en ’n antwoord gegee waarmee ek heeltemal sou saamgaan, as die antwoord maar ver genoeg gegaan het. Hy het gesê die Regering gaat dit nie uitvoer, omdat die Provinciale Uitvoerende Kommissie en die volk daarteen is nie. Wat hy weggelaat het om te sê—en dis eintlik die vernaamste—is dat dit nie uitgevoer word omdat daar ’n algemene eleksie aanstaande is.

Die eleksie is nie voor twee jaar nie.

As die edelagbare Minister dit daarby gevoeg sou het, dan sou ek sy antwoord as volkome korrek beskou het. Maar wat my interesseer is nie alleen wat by die komende eleksie gaat plaasvind nie, maar wat gaat plaasvind as die eleksie verby is. Dit is die saak. Die Regering wil nie na die Huis kom met ’n behoorlik uitgewerkte skema vir die reeling daarvan nie, vir die reeling tussen Prowinsies en die Unie, eenvoudig omdat hulle die volk nie in die aangesig wil sien met betrekking tot hierdie Haak by die eleksie. Maar as die eleksie voorby is, is hierdie saak dan van die baan?

Give us your policy on it.

Nou is die posiesie waarin die Regering gekom het

Die eleksie is ’n nagmerrie.

Ek is bly om te sien dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister graag wil luister na wat ek wil sê.

Altyd, altyd.

Die posiesie is, dat die Regering horn met betrekking tot die Baxter-rapport absoluut gekompromiteer het. Die hele rede van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies was ’n apologie vir sy magteloosheid en ’n pleitrede vir die Baxter-rapport. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister self in sy onderhoud met die kerklike deputasie het duidelik gesê, dat die saak voorlopig van die baan is en die later weer opgeneem moet word. Nou wat gaat gebeur, volgens die uitspraak van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister self en ek wil daarby voeg van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies op ’n baie belangrike punt ook, nl. die grond belasting, want hy het gesê, grondbelasting is die regte ding soos die Baxter-rapport die voorstel en die eintlike rede het hy gesê, waarom hy die nie dadelik aanvaar en toepas in die Wet, is dat die tyd nog nie ryp daarvoor is nie. Die Regering is ten voile gekompromiteer wat hierdie saak betref en as die eleksie verby is en hulle het die meerderheid, dan moet hulle die rapport gaan uitvoer, want dis die enigste alternatief om weer met so’n soort van wet te kom

Ek dag, dat ons nie weer terug sou kom nie.

Ek is seker daarvan en ek is bly, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies nou ook seker daarvan is. As die Regering die Baxter-rapport na die eleksie as hy mag terug kom, nie gaat uitvoer, dan is die enige alternatief om die saak verder te laat bly soos die is, volgens die houding wat hulle nou inneem. Dan moet sake bly soos die nou is, want die subsiedie is ingekort, die Prowinsiale belastingmag is ingekort en daar bly niks anders oor as om te besuinig nie. En die besuiniging kan hulle net alleen maak op onderwys. Dit beteken eenvoudig dat die Prowinsiale Regeringe magteloos word om in die belang van die onderwys in Suid-Afrika iets te doen. En dit op so ’n punt van groot belang vir die volk. Ek wou nog praat oor die Klausule 2 en onderwysers-salarisse maar sal dit liewer aan andere oorlaat en net kom by my laaste punt en dit is dit. Die rede waarom die Regering wette van hierdie aard inbring, die laaste jare, en nou weer, om die Provinsies te dwing om die weg op te gaan, wat hulle tans opgaan is namelik die geroep van besúiniging. Ek is voor besuiniging. Ek is ook daarvoor dat as besuinig moet word, dan behoor alle seksies van die bevolking na billikheid by te dra tot die besuiniging en ook die onderwysers self moet hulle deel daartoe by dra en ek is seker dat hulle daartoe ook bereid is. Maar voor jy kom tot besuiniging moet eers toegesien word dat alle dele van die bevolking behoorlik hydra tot die Staats Kas. Eers as jy seker is, dat dit gebeur, dan kan jy kom met besuinigings-maatreëls. So sal die laste gelyk druk op almal. En nou wil ek met ’n paar woorde duidelik aantoon hoe die Regering hier nie gelyk handel, hoe die Regering hier besig is, soos hy besig was die laaste jaar om verligting te gee aan die eene kant, die kant van die goudmynindustrie en die laaste wat op die goudmynindustrie moes rus gaat verskuif op andere dele van die bevolking, op die boerebevolking en nou op die onderwysers.

Where are you going to get the money from?

Ek sê, die edele lid vir Von Brandis (de hr. Nathan) wat my in die rede val, is baie elegant in sy taal gewoonlik, maar nie helder is sy gedagtes nie. Ek het geluister na die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies en ek het geluister na die edelagbare die Eerste Minister om enige aanduiding te kry hoe hulle gaat staan teenoor meer belasting op die florerende mynmagnate. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het ons in sy rede gese dat die Prowinsiale Wet is bedoel: “to safeguard the resources of income of the Union.” Dit is baie mooi gestel en gee die indruk dat daardie bronne van inkome, wat vir ’n tydlank o.a. deur die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad gedeeltelik geëxploiteer geword is, nou deur de Unie-regering self gereserveer en gebruik sou word vir die aanvulling van ons leë staatskas, maar daarna kom die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, en so dat die belasting wat die Prowinsiale Rade op die goudmyne gehef het—klein as dit was—’n, uitsondering was vir straf. Waiter konklusie kan ’n mens daaruit trek as dat die Regering nie van plan is swaarder belasting te laat oplê op die myne nie? Ek wil nou voorlees hoe arm die myne is, en die informasie haal ek uit een van die jongste nommers van die Economist, and ek meen dat almal sal toegee dat die informasie betrouwbaar is. Ek lees ’n lys van diwidende vir die jaar 1923, wat uitbetaal is deur ’n aantal myne nadat uit die profyte geneem is geld vir verder ontwikkeling, die belastings wat vir die jaar betaal moes word, en verder—en dis geen kleine saak nie—die geld wat nodig geag geword is vir belegging in eleksie-fondse. Die Aurora myn het betaal 15 persent, Brakpan 42½, City Deep 45, Crown Mines, 67½, Geduld 27½, Government Areas 60 persent, Meyer and Charlton 100 persent, Modder B 110 persent, Modder Deep 140 persent, New Modder 100 persent, Springs 30 persent, Van Ryn Deep 58½ persent, Witwatersrand 27½ persent, Rand Mines 120 persent. Nou vra ek onder die omstandighede, aan die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, waarom die mynindustrie sou bevoorreg word en hoe hy kan verklaar, dat hulle uitgesonder is vir straf? En terwyl die myne op die manier floreer, word daar kinders uit die skool gehou, omdat daar geen geld in die kas is nie en gaat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister die land rond en maak duidelik, dat ons teveel uitgee vir die volk se onderwys en dat ons teveel geleerde mense produseer. As daar iets is wat duidelik maak hoe partydig die Regering aan die een kant is teen die Prowinsiale Rade en die onderwys en die volk en aan die anderkant vir die Johannesburgse mynmagnate, dan is dit hierdie gegewens, wat ek voorgelees het.

When I listened to the right hon. the Minister of Finance yesterday afternoon I sympathised with him. He appeared to be a good man, struggling with adversity. He was evidently not very proud of the child which he was presenting to the House, and he did not even make the familiar excuse that it was a little one. We had expected a much more verile and strong child to be produced, but we have been disappointed. The Minister had at his hand material for an effective measure to meet the requirements of this country in the Baxter Report, and I think he would have been wise if he had stuck to his first intention; accepted that report and put the proposal before the House in a comprehensive measure. I feel sure that the country would have backed him if he had done so, for if there is one thing the country feels to-day it is that it is overburdened by taxation. We have heard a great deal about the depression which prevails in the country at the present time, but I think a large measure of that depression is owing to the fact that the country is overtaxed, and the money which should go into developing the country is diverted into the Treasury to provide the expense of running the country. This over-taxation is hampering the development of the country in many ways. We have a remedy proposed by the Baxter Report, and that was to define and distinguish the powers of taxation enjoyed by the Provincial Councils and the Union Parliament. The Baxter Report pointed out the evils caused through the overlapping of the sphere of taxation enjoyed by these two bodies; it pointed out the unsoundness of taxation which arose through this. I think the Minister would have been well advised, even if he did not follow all the recommendations, to follow one recommendation in the Report, and go so far as to define, and confine, the taxation powers of the Provincial Councils. If he had done so I am sure the country would have backed him, and he would have succeeded in getting the measure through. Of course there would be a certain number of people against him, chiefly from the Labour bench, and evidently some from the Opposition opposite, who think that the Provincial Council should not be curtailed in its expenditure. Personally, I am in favour of the abolition of the Provincial Councils. _ I think they have proved a failure. I do not think they have played the part intended for them when provision was made in the Constitution for them. I think this is chiefly due to the fact that, instead of being what it was intended they should be, local authorities, they have become junior Parliaments, in which party feeling runs riot.

Whose fault was that?

I should favour, therefore, the abolition of Provincial Councils. We are told that this would be breaking faith with the two small provinces; I know that these two provinces attach a great deal of importance to their Provincial Councils and the powers enjoyed by them.

So does the Cape Province.

But I think that could easily be met by introducing a measure which retained the two Provincial Councils for the two smaller provinces, and provided a proper system of local government for the two larger provinces. That, I think, would have met the objection which has been raised of breaking faith with the two smaller provinces. I regret exceedingly that the right hon. the Minister of Finance has not taken this opportunity of putting effective control upon the expenditure of the Provincial Councils. The extravagance of those bodies, more especially of the Transvaal and the Cape Province, is a byeword.

Extravagance on what?

In every way; in squandering money and in not getting proper value for it. That is the worst kind of expenditure and extravagance, and these bodies have been guilty of it in no measured degree, I think this would have been a splendid opportunity of bringing in some measure to put the finances of the Provincial Councils under proper control, and I regret exceedingly that the Government has not seen its way to do so. Therefore I like the hon. the Minister of Finance, in deploring this Bill, not so much for what is in it, but for what is not in it. Personally, I do not think the provisions of this Bill can do much harm.

Do not be too hard on it!

I do not understand the agitation which has been raised against it. The principle contained in Clause 2 of the Bill is to make provision for a scale of salaries to be fixed by a Public Service Commission, and, in sub-section 2, for that scale to be lowered by the Provincial Councils if they think it advisable. The first portion of that clause—the fixing of the scale by the Public Service Commission has the consent of everyone; the principle of uniformity of the scales of pay in the various provinces has been accepted by everybody, and that being so, and if they are to be fixed, I think there is no better body to fix them than the Public Service Commission. Clause 2 has been objected to on the ground that although it gives power to the Provincial Council to reduce the salaries it makes no provision for putting them up. Surely that is an unsound criticism; the persons to put up the scale are the persons who fixed them, that is the Public Service Commission, and accordingly provision is made in sub-section 1 of Clause 2 for the Public Service Commission to put up the scale from time to time.

They cannot proclaim a scale.

They can advise; they are the body that advises, and provision is made there for raising the scale, just as is made for fixing the scale in the first instance. Provision is made for altering the scale by the same procedure from time to time.

Government does not have to accept it.

Government does not have to accept it, but it does not have to refuse it; therefore, I think that much of the outcry again Clause 2 has been caused, not from a proper understanding of what is in it, but from what has been left cut, for the scales are not mentioned here, and they are what have caused the outcry. It appears that the teachers have met the Public Service Commission, and made certain recommendations. Those recommendations have not been entirely accepted, in fact, the scales which have really been recommended have been very much lower than those advised by the teachers. There is still time for those scales to be reviewed, and I hope that before they are fixed they will be reviewed, and that the teachers will have a full opportunity of making further representations in favour of a higher scale. I think it will be a mistake to fix the scales too low; I think there will be a great danger, by so doing, that we shall prevent men of proper standing entering the profession. In this respect I was rather amused by the sudden feeling for the self-respect of teachers which has been displayed by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). That is quite a new departure on his part.

Really!

Have we forgotten the treatment that inspectors Fraser and Gunn received at his hands? Did he show the same feeling for the self-respect of teachers on that occasion which he now desires to exhibit? Surely the hon. member is the last man to make such a suggestion.

Have another try!

I have stated I am disappointed with the Bill, and that I should welcome a much more extensive and far-reaching measure. But what are the alternatives which are offered to us? Take, for instance, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) to omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House refuses to consider legislation having for its object the further restricting of the powers of Provincial Councils and the lowering of the status of South African teachers to the detriment of the educational standard of the country.” Now that latter part is a little padding, what we might call vote-catching, it has really nothing to do with the measure before the House.

Does the hon. member never do that sort of thing?

We are to put no check upon them or restrict their powers in any way, but to allow them to go on in their extravagances, although everybody knows that the result in the end will be ruin to this country. Hon. members on those benches put forth the policy of expenditure and extravagance. When the right hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the statement made by the Natal representatives that they felt they were unable to save a penny, or cut off a penny, in expenditure, the hon. member for Greyville shouted out: “Well done, Natal.” That is the policy which is advocated by the gentlemen on those benches—extravagant expenditure, and get more revenue wherever you can.

The hon. member has been in power for ten years and he has made a nice mess of it.

That is the policy actively advocated by those benches. “Make no curtailment of their power, let them go on spending, check their expenditure in no way, and cheer them when they say they are unable to reduce their expenditure.” What is the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog)? I have read it at least a dozen times, and I am afraid I do hot know what it means.

Really! The hon. member understands the Chamber of Mines and the gold mines.

I am very sorry the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) is: bemeaning himself by an expression of that sort. We are accustomed to hear remarks of that kind from the back benches, but up to now the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has not descended to such depths.

That remains a fact!

I am surprised—

That remains a fact!

I am surprised at the hon. member. It does not do him credit.

Facts are sometimes rather nasty, are they not?

“This House regrets the impotence displayed by the Government”—in what direction?

In every direction!

If it had said that it would have been understandable, but that is just what it does not say. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) will hear what it says. “To arrive at a satisfactory solution of the financial relations which should exist between the Union and the Provincial Government”—what are we to understand by that? A satisfactory solution of the financial relations which should exist between the Union and the Provincial Council! That we all want, but in what direction? Will the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) give us some indication of what be considers a satisfactory solution, and what he considers should be the relation between the Union and the Provincial Governments? Then he goes on further, “and refers the Bill back to the Government for further consideration, with a view to bringing it more into harmony with the intention of the South Africa Act and into harmony with education.” What does that mean?

The hon. member does not know what education means, evidently!

Just as vague and just as little meaning—

Is education so meaningless to the hon. member?

No doubt we will get an explanatory circular of this.

I have no doubt the Chamber of Mines will send one.

I do not know what that has got to do with the subject.

The hon. member does not?

We will get an explanatory circular.

Does not the hon. member know about the Chamber of Mines’ circulars?

Just as enlightening and as clear and concise as that issued by him of his statement at Ceres the other day.

Hear, hear!

Just as clear and concise as that.

Quite right, too!

We have had a little more guidance from the chief lieutenant of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), from the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), who has just spoken. He has indicated at least what he thinks should be done. He thinks that no restrictions whatever should be placed on the Provincial Councils. That is clear and precise, and that is a policy which one can understand. He dealt with this measure—but he never touched it. I heard him make no remarks about this Bill or any of its provisions. We had an attack on the right hon. the Prime Minister for vote-catching, and then we had a long discussion about the abolition of the school boards.

The hon. member does not like that.

We have nothing to do with it.

Oh, have we not?

No, that has nothing to do with the Bill, and the Government is not responsible for the school boards in any way. Yet I have no doubt whatever what the object of the hon. member was in bringing this point into his speech.

The hon. member does not seem to like it.

He was vote-catching—the very charge which he made against the right hon. the Prime Minister. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Hear, hear!

Well, these are the two alternatives before us—the one of them quite understandable and the other a direct policy of further extravagance, of further powers being given to the Provincial Councils and of unchecked expenditure encouraged and cheered. Well, having only these alternatives before us, I will not vote for them, I will not take them.

The hon. member will not take anything except what comes from the Chamber of Mines—

I will not take any of these alternatives, and, I may say, I am very much disinclined to take anything which comes from the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). I shall support this measure by voting for it.

Of course the hon. member1 will.

Because I think the outcry made against it is not justified by what it contains. I would have wished that it contained a great deal which it does not, but that wish and the disappointment which I feel will not prevent me from voting for it.

Quite consistent.

The Prime Minister yesterday made a vehement attack on the Provincial Councils on the question of punishing the natives. Well, I want to draw the attention of this House to how the natives in South Africa are punished through taxation. I do not think that there is a peasant class throughout the world who are so well provided for and live in such comfort and happiness as the natives in South Africa. If hon. members will turn to the report of the Native Affairs Department and to the Year Book published by the Government periodically, and if they will take the last report, they will find there that the amount of money paid directly by the natives throughout the Union totals £826,000. Now, were we to compare that with the number of natives that we have in South Africa, I take it they number roundly five million, although there are some people who calculate them at five and a half or six million, we will find that the amount contributed by every native, per head, in direct taxation amounts to only three shillings per annum. Every native in South Africa, man, woman and child, contributes to the State the enormous sum, or let me say the infinitesimal sum of three shillings per annum. If we take a native with a family of five, that native contributes only fifteen shillings per year to the revenue of the State, that is in hut-tax and in taxes of a direct nature.

How much is that on his income?

I shall come to that. Now if we ask: “What does the native receive for his three shillings?”—he receives, firstly, everything which we as Europeans receive. He receives all the benefits of civilized life which we have, he has all the benefits of the railways of the State and he has the benefits of the roads.

Free railway passes?

Yes, even free railway passes when we go to look for his labour. He has all the benefits which we have as a white people. He even has the benefit of the contribution which the State makes to the gaols—eighty per cent. of our prisoners, in the Transvaal at least, are natives, so he has free board and lodging at the expense of the State. So I say that so far as the South African native is concerned, he is well provided for, and I do not think that the attack which the Prime Minister made on the Transvaal Provincial Council was justified, even in view of these two facts and figures which I have laid before the House. Now to come to the report of the Provincial Council Finances Commission, on which so much has been said, there is one thing, which I as a South African, a European feel very much, that is where they state that too much money was being spent on the European population and too little on the native and coloured population. The greatest benefit which a man can have is that of education, and I do not think that too much money can be spent on giving the blessings of education to our own children here. We are to-day pampering the natives to an extent more than he deserves at the expense of the white man of South Africa. We are penalizing the white man for the benefit of the natives. More, he has justice given through our law courts, he has police protection and he has protection against himself. Whereas years ago the natives used to have inter-tribal wars, they now live in safety and security, and I say that we are pampering the natives at the expense of the white man so much so that the native in the last twenty years has attained a power in the land which he, in his uncivilized state, is not entitled to. I therefore very much resent these statements that too much money was spent on the Europeans and too little on the natives. I noticed in the press, and I can understand why the capitalist classes resent so much money being spent on education—an uneducated man is always a slave. They do not want citizens, they want slaves, so that they can have cheaper work, cheaper labour for the mines. The more uneducated a man is, the more dependent he is and the more subservient, and therefore it pays these people to withdraw as much as possible the benefits of education from the white man. In Johannesburg the other day I read a report by Dr. Dunstan, who is in charge of the Pretoria Mental Hospital, in which he drew attention to the fact how many mentally deficient children there are in South Africa. I wonder if it has ever appealed to members why there are so many mentally deficient children. This is not because of the breeding of the children, but it is because they are not properly fed, they are mentally deficient through starvation, through absolute want of development, and that is one of the chief reasons why the children are mentally deficient. They are mentally deficient mostly in the town areas. In the country areas the proportion is not so great, it can hardly be compared with what it is in the urban centres. It is the duty of the State to see that these children are not only educated, but are properly educated and properly fed. One of the reasons of their being so many mentally deficient is the lack of food. I have known children fainting—many of them have to go to school without breakfast, and it is because of want of food that they faint. I have seen it in Maraisburg where children have fainted through want of food. It is our duty to attend to our own children in the first instance. The highest duty of the Provincial Councils is that of education. A lot has been said about the expenses of higher education, especially in the Transvaal. I am one of those who believe in free primary education. It is the duty of the State to provide elementary education to every child in the Union, and if we see that every child attains to Standard VI. then we shall be a happy country and our citizens will make their way in life. But when it comes to higher education I agree with those who say that higher education itself should not be free. I know of people in Johannesburg who drive their children in motor cars to schools. If a man can pay he should pay for the education of his child.

He is not allowed to.

To my mind higher education should not be free. There should be a large system of bursaries by the State. It always seems to me that our system of education fundamentally is wrong. Every father thinks that his child has the brains of a Cicero—he thinks he is the best in the world. It is absolutely wrong for every child to be pushed to matriculation. The parents should not be in the position of being able to say to what standard the child should go at the expense of the State. If they want the child to go further, they should pay for it themselves. I say that the schoolmasters and the inspectors at a certain stage should say “this child is fit to go on and that one should not go on.” That child may be a very good carpenter, or a blacksmith, and what is the good of such a child going for matriculation and afterwards becoming a tram conductor or a lift-boy? I say that the children who are deserving should be assisted by the State by State bursaries more freely than they are, and those people who can pay, should pay for the education of their children after a certain stage. A lot has been said about Natal and the Free State being the cause of the Provincial Councils existing-to-day. I personally am not in favour of the system of Provincial Councils. I think it is a mistake which the Convention made, and I contend that if the Free State or Natal wanted a council, and the Transvaal and the Cape did not want them, then why not let the Transvaal and the Cape adopt a different system? What I want is to have the whole Union re-divided again. Let us have large divisional councils, says of twelve circles throughout the Union, and let the divisional council powers be extended so that we shall not have Provincial Councils as we have now, but large divisional councils with larger powers than to-day, and then this horrible provincialism would go out of existence. Look at the Minister of Justice, what trouble he has got with the Company Act. You have petty jealousies of one province against another. I, personally, would not object to a land tax if it was for local conditions, but I object to a tax on land in Johannesburg for the money to be spent in Piet Retief. I can see much benefit accruing if we had large divisional councils with greater powers. I do not expect this will happen in my lifetime, but I hope one day it will take place. If Natal wants a Provincial Council let them have a Provincial Council. I just want to draw attention to this taxation of the natives. The natives only produce revenue amounting to £826,000 a year, the cost of the Native Affairs Department, however, totals no less than £500,000 a year. The native only contributes 3s. a year, yet look what the Department costs. Look at the burden of the white man. Where the native contribution is 3s. a year, the white man’s contribution is £16 a year, and I think that we should cease, in South Africa, to look too much after the native and look more after our own people.

I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) is not in his place, for I would have a word with him.

He will be sorry.

The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) indulges in invective and insults needlessly. I admit the hon. gentleman has probably had better facilities for education than I have had; that is probably due to the fact that his father was richer than mine. There is no need to refer to my intelligence. At any rate, I have stuck to my profession, whereas he has not done the same. He went on to say that the recent elections had been fought on the Baxter Report, but he did not tell this House what the results of the election were, provided he is correct in his assertion that they were fought on that report. He went on to say that the Government was guilty of inequality of taxation, in so far as they have favoured the mines. I put a very polite and simple question to him, namely, where did the money come from that helped the agricultural industry of this country? I agree that the money was well spent, but where did it come from? [An Hon. Member: Taxation of the farmers.”] I wish the hon. member would go through the income-tax returns and see how much the farmers pay as compared with the town folk. I remember a farmer who had a farm, the income of which was no less than £24,000, and the revenue derived from the whole of the district in which that farmer lived was no more than £3,000. It was obvious that the man was not paying the proper amount which was due from him. [An Hon. Member: “What was the Commissioner for Inland Revenue doing?”] I had the honour and privilege last year of presenting petitions to this House from the Transvaal, and the signatories of those petitions alleged that if the Provincial Council of the Transvaal were allowed to exist there would be a continuation of inefficiency and waste, and they prayed for abolition of the Provincial Council in favour of divisional councils. The agitation for the abolition of Provincial Councils has not waned one tittle on the Transvaal; they still persist in that agitation, and I think they are wise. I think that the point made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) on that matter should receive consideration. During this debate nobody has spoken about free primary education. The amount spent in the Transvaal on free primary education is between two or three million sterling. I am in favour of compulsory education, and am only in favour of free education where the parent is not in a position to pay for it. We have been told by hon. members opposite that people who are wealthy drive their children to these free schools in their motor cars; they could pay for this, but they have not been given the opportunity. These doles and this free this and free that do not make for the best interests of this country. I know I will be attacked, and it will be said that I was in favour of free education being done away with, but it will not be said I stated that this should only be done in the case of those people who can pay for it. The latter part of that remark, I know, will not be quoted. In regard to Provincial Councils, the Government in 1923 made its position perfectly clear. I then asked a question about the abolition of Provincial Councils; and the Government stated through the Minister of Finance that—

They have not departed from that policy, and that policy is embodied, for the time being, in the Bill which is now before the House. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) went considerably further. He has made this an opportunity of attacking the Government and making this question practically a matter of “no confidence.” He said he would appeal to the integrity of members sitting on this side of the House to support him. We are not going to support him! We are going to prevent the country from falling into bad hands, as would inevitably be the case if hon. members opposite came into power. What are they going to do even if they do get there? We know very well what they will do because of the speeches which they made on this question last year. What did the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) then say? Referring to the Government, he said—

Did he mean to convey that when he got into power, which Heaven forbid, that he would act upon the Baxter Report? If he did, they would be saying the same of him as was said about his opponents yesterday, that he was casting about for votes. What did the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) say last year? He said the recommendations of the Baxter Commission could not possibly be carried out. When we look to the hon. member as the future Minister of Finance how is he going to meet the deficit of the various Provincial Councils? Yesterday, he simply repeated his speech which he made last year. Then we come to the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). He was apparently very proud of the Labourites and Nationalists in the Transvaal Provincial Council. I expect he was proud of their mulcting all the people who were in arrears with their poll tax to the extent of 10 per cent. per month. Perhaps he was proud of the two Labour men who had had to resign from that council because of certain things which had taken place. I say the case to-day is much stronger than ever for the abolition of the Provincial Councils, and I regret exceedingly that the Government did not at least accept the terms of the Baxter Report. In 1913, when the first Financial Relations Bill was introduced by the right hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Finance, he said, inter alia—

“Year after year the expenditure in the various Provinces had been rising by leaps and bounds, and it was practically impossible for the Union Parliament to criticize matters effectively which they were not called upon to administer.”

Later on he says—

To-day these words are pregnant with truth, and furthermore he said—

Well, that was in 1913, and now it is 1924. Has it not had sufficient trial during the last eleven years? And has it proved its efficacy? Is it to be trusted with the requirements of the Province? I say no. The hon. the Minister said if they became extravagant and taxed their constituents, their punishment would be inevitable, and a cry would go forth for their abolition. I am sorry to see that the Government has not brought in a Bill to abolish them, but I hope they will take their courage in their hands, even during the next sessions and do so. The Government will be here next session and many a session, despite the statements to the contrary. The late member for Port Elizabeth, Sir Edgar Walton, said: “As matters stand, there would be nothing but financial trouble year after year.” That has been so, every word is true: and we have the present Minister of Railways and Harbours, a member of the 1917 Commission, who then advised the abolition of the Provincial Councils. Seven years have gone by, and that has not been done. Another Minister, the Minister of Railways, said that he would call this Bill “a Bill for the encouragement of extravagance on the part of the Provincial Councils,” and that the £ for £ principle was very unsatisfactory. That was the Bill of 1913, and yet the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) said he would have the 1913 Act again. I would like to refer briefly to some pregnant words which fell from the hon. member for Ladybrand, the late Mr. Fichardt, who said: “He did not think it necessary for them to-day to perpetuate the Federal idea. They had already seen the disadvantages of it. ít was neither a good Federation nor a good Union.” I would remind the House that the hon. member for Stellenbosch (the right hon. J. X. Merriman) stated that in New Zealand in 1875 they abolished Provincial Councils and substituted District Councils, and they were working very well. Then also the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) said that “Provincial Councils as engines of local government were unsuitable.” I am going to support the second reading of the Bill for reasons so strongly put before us by the Minister of Finance and the right hon. the Prime Minister.

I do not think it necessary for me to take the speech of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) too seriously. Some people have the knack of hanging their minds on a peg. The hon. member’s peg is what is called the Jagger Report. His mind has been hanging on it ever since the report appeared, and it would be dangerous to touch it. A man’s mind becomes too rusty when hanging too long on a peg. I want to refer to the speech of the Prime Minister delivered last night. I think most hon. members will agree with me that that was a most disappointing contribution to a subject of vital interest to the House and to an anxious public. The right hon. the Prime Minister twitted my leader, the hon. member for Smith-field (Gen. Hertzog), for not having got near the Bill, but as the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) stated that afternoon he, the Prime Minister, kept just as far away; in order to discredit the issue he tried to draw a red herring along the path and obscure the issue. He taunted us for the support which we gave to the Labour amendment earlier in the afternoon; he threatened us with exposure, he was going to raise a hue and cry in the country. I represent a rural constituency, and I am not ashamed to say that I am whole heartedly in favour of the Labour amendment that was moved. But what I am surprised about is this: It was the policy of the Government to restrict the importation of Portuguese kaffirs, and surely the Government ought to be pleased at getting support for their policy, or has the Government already run away from its policy? How affecting it was to see the Prime Minister oozing with pity for the poor mine owners, passionately afraid that they would be overtaxed. To relieve these mine owners weighed down by large dividends, what does he do? They immediately proceed to tax the widows and orphans in South Africa, and when they cannot get enough out of them, they start, through the chemists, to tax the sick, but fortunately they were not in a position to tax the farmer in South Africa, and have now descended on the innocent heads of the teachers of South Africa. This Bill will perpetrate a grave injustice. As introduced by the Minister of Finance, this Bill means that a small community, a small section of the people of South Africa, a community consisting of fifteen or twenty thousand people, have to pay double income tax to the extent of £450,000. It means that every teacher has to pay an annual tax varying from fifty pounds to sixty pounds a year. To some under the non-uniform scale this will mean a reduction of 30 per cent., they will have to contribute annually a sum of £75; that is asking too much of the teachers. Last night the Prime Minister spoke of the tax on mining profits as penal taxation, how will he describe the taxation now being introduced? The Minister of Finance has fried to get from the teachers the little pittance they get. The Prime Minister says that the teachers are not angry with the Bill, but are only a little disappointed because the Provincial Council have retained a certain say in the matter of their salaries. I can only describe that as a mean travesty of the truth. I say the whole of the teaching profession of South Africa is seething with indignation in the knowledge that they have been betrayed. Last year the teachers were invited to attend a conference at Pretoria to help in drafting a uniform scale of salary. The Prime Minister said that uniformity has been desired all over South Africa. I, myself, have repeatedly advocated it, and I know that many teachers were in favour of it, but we all wanted the real thing. We wanted a uniform scale of salary that would be equitable, just and lasting. We wanted a scale of salary that would be entrenched in the law of the land and so provide a guarantee of stability. That was understood by the teachers who attended the conference; that was the hope which they had and with which they met the Public Service Commission from whom they got a definite assurance that existing rates would not be touched. I think even the Prime Minister will have to admit that at that conference the teachers displayed a fine public spirit—they met the Government in a spirit of compromise —they were prepared, in the public interest, to make certain sacrifices—they were prepared to accept a reduction amounting annually to £200,000. The teachers of South Africa were prepared to do that in order to ease the burdens of South Africa. They were prepared to accept a reduction in salary which was equivalent to £200,000. That was the spirit in which the teachers met this Government Commission. A fine public spirit! and I wonder if that was the reason why Mr. Buxton called them idealists. Because they were prepared to agree to a reduction of £200,000, the Government took advantage to add another £200,000. Not satisfied with £200,000 the Government is demanding £450,000, and this is neither just nor equitable. That is a grievance which teachers of South Africa have to-day, and that is the reason why they are seething with discontent: seething with indignation. They believe, they know, they feel that they have been betrayed, and that is the indictment which we have to make to-day against the Government. What do the teachers get out of this Bill? The Prime Minister last night talked about uniformity. I say it is a mockery; it is a mockery to talk about uniformity. The Government is merely using the popular cry of uniformity to fob the teachers; to rob them of the financial security which they enjoy; to make the teachers to-day subject to the degradations of two masters at one and the same time. In Afrikaans we have a very proper saying “dit is bale gevaarlik om jakkals skaapwachter te maak.” Now, if you study that Bill, it means that your teaching profession is to-day handed over to two lean and hungry jackals, who have the power without reference to the chosen representatives in Parliament to touch their salaries as they like. That Bill as it has been presented to Parliament means that scale is not to be submitted to Parliament, that it is not going to be referred to the Provincial Councils at all, that Bill hands the teaching profession over in the first place to the Union Government, and in the second to the provincial executives. The chosen representatives of the country as a whole and of each province have got absolutely no say over the salaries.

The hon. member heard the Minister’s explanation about it, I suppose?

I am reading the Bill as it has been presented to Parliament.

Did the hon. member hear his explanation?

The Minister said he might effect a little change in it, but we would like to hear what that change is going to be before we accept it. The great point is this that under this Bill they have absolutely no financial security of any sort.

What have they now?

They have got the security in the Free State and all the other provinces that before their salaries can be touched the law of the land must be amended.

No, that is not so.

This Bill says that the teachers are going to be governed only and entirely by regulation and provincial executives can decrease their salaries by 50 per cent. if they wanted. They have no guarantee of stability, no financial guarantee. We are encouraging here government by regulation, and if there is one thing that the teachers object to, it is to be governed by regulation. That is their grievance against the whole thing, that the financial position is handed over to that abomination called government by regulation. And now in order to prove how dangerous it is to hand over the interests of the teachers even to the Union—

So easy to knock over straw figures.

I have only to quote what the Prime Minister said last night. He said “the Union Government has laid down what he calls a very just and equitable basis in its dealing with the provinces. The Union Government demands from the provinces no more than it demands from itself, that is the provinces must reduce expenditure in the same proportion as the Union Government,”—and he said that with such an air of assurance that one would think that he was perfectly correct. But is it just? Is it equitable to demand it? Does not the House know that education, the educational needs of South Africa, is a living growth? Something growing, expanding, year by year. Surely the House ought to know that every year the number of children increases, and that increase of children means an increase of teachers, more schools, more expenditure. Is that true of the other departments of State? Do they also increase normally and naturally in the same way? That is the premise on which the whole case of the Government is built, but the premise is false, and so the whole case falls to the ground. And then you have the words of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) last night. I listened very attentively to what he said, and these were his words. He found great fault with the Transvaal Provincial Council Why? He complained about the sad state of the Transvaal roads, and he said they spent far too much money on education and not enough money on the comfort of the motoring public of the Transvaal, and, still further, he went on to say that expenditure on education was unreproductive expenditure.

It has been in his case.

If these words reflect the mental outlook, the attitude of the Government and of the Government Party towards education, I say God help the teachers! Developing the brains of the youth of South Africa—is that unreproductive? The brains of South Africa—have not we got there the most valuable asset we have in this country? And the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) says they are unreproductive!

Yes, in his case.

That illustrates so completely the mental outlook of your mining interest in South Africa; they do not care a brass farthing for anything in the world so long as they can keep their pockets secure. When Mary Tudor died it was said they would find “Calais” written over her heart; when these gentlemen die they will find “dividends” written large upon their hearts. I would like to say a few words about the speech of the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister, I think the House will admit, presented a very sorry spectacle yesterday afternoon when he admitted educational bankruptcy to this House; nothing to hide his naked limbs but this wretched little Bill, and even this little under-sized infant is growing surely and beautifully less. He admitted here in the House that the Government has thrown its whole educational policy overboard. They said it was unpopular. The Government does not traffic in unpopular things.

Not if they can help it.

Rather no principle at all, they say, than unpopular principles. So the whole thing has gone by the board. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what about the future? What about the months, and possibly the years, that your present Government continues in power? Must this country go along without any definite educational policy? Must we continue to drift? I think that the whole House will agree with me that this policy of drift has had a very harmful effect on education in this country. Under this policy of drift Parliament has gradually been strangling the Provincial Councils; your Provincial Councils in turn have gradually been strangling the school boards, and so a process of strangulation has been going on, and by the time the Government is forced either to abandon its seats or to abandon its want of policy there will be no educational machinery worth the name in South Africa. Everything has been wrecked; we are busy wrecking our entire educational machinery in South Africa. In no other great national problem are the harmful and deplorable results of the want of policy of the present Government so evident as in the case of education. As a result, your Provincial Councils are going, your school boards are going, and we will presently be without any means of dealing with the educational needs of South Africa. It is going on, and it is going to be worse under this Bill. Under this new scheme who will be really in charge of that uniform scale of salary?

The Public Service Commission.

Supposing a difficulty arises in connection with it, to whom must an appeal be made? To Parliament or to the Provincial Council? But something more. In that uniform scale of salary you have also got the whole question of the classification of schools in South Africa. That Bill decides who shall have secondary schools, who shall have an intermediate school, or who will not have a school at all. But if any question arises in connection with that, who is going to decide? Is appeal to Parliament or to Provincial Council? The confusion is getting worse confounded; we do not know where we are going to. The teachers and school committees will be at a loss; and yet Parliament, that ought to recognize it, is dealing here with the most vital national service in this country, has left these things to drift. A question was asked by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) this afternoon, how long is it going to drift? Is it going to drift until the Government is going to get South Africa, and Natal in particular, to swallow a land tax?

Why does not the hon. member come to the Bill?

I am dealing with the Bill. I want to ask the farming representatives and the members for Natal whether they realize the implication under this Bill with regard to the land tax. This Bill says that schools under twenty will not be supported by the State.

Where does it say so?

In the report of the Public Service Commission on the question of a uniform scale.

But it is not in the Bill.

But it is going to be. Here it says distinctly in the Bill—it talks about a uniform scale of salaries. There must be some uniform scale, and we have had a Blue Book on the Table of the House containing such a uniform scale.

What connection is there?

The scale says that schools with less than twenty pupils will not be supported by the Government. It is quite clear, therefore, either those schools will have to close down, which will mean that practically all the, rural schools in the Cape will close down and about 100 schools in the Free State, or what will happen? Those farmers will have to tax themselves to get schools, and there again we have the land tax, like the bad sixpence coming up again; the land tax, Mr. Speaker! I have never seen anything like it. The other day the Prime Minister made a speech at the Show, and he said “agriculture is the first and foremost industry of South Africa, the greatest we have and we must take care of it,” and yet the farmers are even denied the privilege of having a school. If they want a school they have to tax themselves. They have to help to pay for the schools of the towns, but when they ask for a school for themselves they cannot get it, and they have to pay a tax out of their own pockets. There we have by implication in the Bill, a land tax, if a farmer wants a school. It means that if a farmer wants a little school he has to pay for it out of his own pocket. Yet he helps to pay to give everyone else a school. He helps to furnish Cape Town and the other centres with the fine large school buildings which they have here, but if he wants a little school for his own children there is only one way for it; it has to come out of his own pocket. There is the implication. I wonder how members on the other side can get away from that.

Yes, one wonders how the hon. member arrives at that.

The Minister of Finance has said that this is an innocent measure. I believe that it is as full of wickedness, as full of bad faith, and as full of injustice towards the youth and the teachers of South Africa as it is possible to cram within the small compass of a single clause. It is full of bad faith because the teachers have been betrayed.

They have not.

They were given a definite assurance from a Government Commission that existing rights would not be touched, but the finger is pointed in this Bill to the Executive Committees “cut down their salaries in order to meet the necessities of your finance” and it is full of cunning, because the farmer now by an insidious way is made to pay for his own little school. It is full of cunning, and I hope that members on the other side will realize that. The Minister of Finance has talked about economy; he said economy is necessary. How strange that word sounded from the lips of the Minister! It was almost like hearing the devil quote scripture. But my attitude towards education is simply this: that it would be a disaster to South Africa if we try to force the young expanding educational needs of South Africa into an iron frame, and that is what the Government is trying to do. They are trying to force the education, the growing needs of South Africa, its educational needs into a straight jacket. I suppose most hon. members have heard the old Greek legend about Procrustes; he had a funny way of dealing with his victims. If they were too long he put them on a bed and cut off their feet, but if they were too short he put them on a rack and stretched them. That is exactly what the Government is doing; they are putting education on the Procrustean bed—they are flaying education—

But it is not really true, that story?

It is very evident that the hon. member knows very little about Grecian history. Before he joins in a discussion on education, which started really in Greek, it would be good if he studied a little Grecian history. That is what is happening—the Government is creating a procrustean bed. Why in that report they want to cut off secondary education. Natal says it cannot do with less than £26 per pupil. The Government says: “no, you cannot have it, we cannot give you more than £16.” I say that this policy of trying to prescribe a certain sum of money is going to be disastrous. I contend that that would be absolutely disastrous. I think I have only inadequately and very imperfectly expressed the indignation of teachers in South Africa in connection with this measure. I know what they feel. I have been a teacher myself. Those teachers are idealists. They are heart and soul in their work, and they know that in salary they will suffer, and the whole of education in South Africa will suffer. This Bill condemns the teaching profession to perpetual agitation in South Africa. It will lake their minds completely off their work, and it will force them to adopt trade union methods in order to protect themselves.

It will.

And I ask this House: our teachers in the schools have to teach civic duties to the rising generation; the school life is the preparation for the larger life of citizen ship later on. If these teachers fed, as they do, that they (have been betrayed by the Government, how then can they teach the young that obedience to law and order, which is so necessary? I ask the House to consider that. They have been betrayed.

I say they have not.

They have. They are smarting under a sense of wrong, and there is only one way in which the Government can get that out of their hands, and that is by taking out Clause 2, that little clause which seems so innocent, but which is as full of wickedness as it can be. This Bill is nothing but an act of piracy.

Hear, hear!

For my part, I have resolved to fight this Bill as long as I possibly can. I realize that education is the most vital of national services in South Africa— it is our first line of defence, and if we allow education to be undermined, we are undermining European supremacy, European civilization in South Africa.

Natal has been held up as the great protagonist of the provincial system, and the Minister in his remarks said he could not get any one member to support opposition to the system. I think the Minister was wrong I am opposed to the Provincial Council system, and always have been. You can imagine my disappointment when I saw that the Government were going to take no notice of the Baxter Report. There are features in that report which I do not agree with, and which I expect many people do not agree with, but there is a basis and a system there for dealing with a subject which is admittedly wrong. It was a very good report to work upon, and I think the Government have made a very great mistake in turning it down the way they have done. When we came into Union, Natal was inclined to favour a federal system more than that of union. That was why Natal was so much in favour of the provincial system, but I am convinced, if you could get a plebiscite in Natal to-day you would find those views materially changed. The reason of that is because the Provincial Councils have, in my opinion, been found wanting. The Provincial Council system has developed into an extravagant system of administration, and has become in some cases a hotbed of political intrigue. I think that every member of this House will agree that when this system was started, that was never the intention or idea at all. Had the provincial system been carried out according to the feeling and principles upon which it had been started there would never have been the objections which later were raised against it. When you come to the question of education, I think it was a most serious mistake that secondary education was ever put in the hands of the Provincial Councils at all. I would like to see the whole of the educational system placed under the Union Government, placed under one head, carried out by one administration and guided by one policy. A country like this carried on by five different sets of administration and five different policies can never be the success that it should be. I have seen no reason to change my view on this subject, and to-day, I am more strong than I have ever been on that side of the question. A great deal has been said about the educational system of the country. I realize the enormous importance of having a proper and efficient system of education. But have we got it? I see university after university springing up, I see the number of universities out of all proportion to the population, I see B.A.’s and M.A.’s, highly educated men, being turned out of these universities, and when they come out there is nothing for them to do; there is no adequate employment for them. I think that far more attention should be paid to agricultural development in a practical way, and also to other forms of development in educational matters, so as to enable boys leaving school to take up some work and do it satisfactorily. I have had boys writing to me saying they are B.A.’s and M.A.’s and begging for work. I may be wrong, but my view is that if we are going to get a proper system of education in this country, and I am in favour of spending as much money as possible on educational matters, I feel that education should be practical and not theoretical as it has become to-day. I feel convinced that if we could get such an educational system you would find a great deal of the trouble, such as unemployment and other matters, would largely disappear. It is largely due to the fact that we are turning out a class of student for whom we cannot find the proper kind of work that these problems confront us to-day. I do not want to touch upon all the questions which have been raised, but there are two or three I would like to deal with. A remark made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) was to the effect that he suggested the Provincial Council system should be done away with in the two larger provinces and retained in the two smaller provinces. But I think that that would be infinitely worse than is the case today. What is the use of bolstering up a thing which is not right. We want a policy which should apply to the whole Union. You would only make confusion worse confounded if you had a division of interests in that way. As far as I am concerned I would never under any circumstances give any support to it. I now come to the extravagance of these bodies. It is easy for the men who have the control of these finances to say that they cannot reduce or cut down. I am the last one in the world to suggest any cheeseparing in work you are doing. I believe in paying well and doing the work properly, but it is the simplest thing in the world to spend money and not get good results. I maintain that in this country that is what we have been doing. That is what we are doing to-day. Natal is held up as an example of the Provincial system. There is no doubt extravagance is taking place there, though they have come nearer to balancing revenue and expenditure than any of the other Provinces. The provincial system is not justified, and should be done away with. That is the reason that I am opposed to the system. I would be delighted to do away with the system if we could put anything in its place, but I would not do away with it, and put nothing in its place. The provincial system should be, such as the federal system, but its powers should be reduced, and the political element should be eliminated as far as possible. Then I think the provincial system would be satisfactory. I must confess that we do not want over-centralization, but while we do not want over-centralization we want a system which is going to give an opportunity of doing what should be done, and doing it well and economically. It is useless spending money for the sake of spending it and getting no result. By doing that we are only seeking destruction. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) said that the Bill would do no harm. I think that it will do the greatest harm possible. We are supposed to be discussing the financial relations between the Union Government and the Provincial government, and here we have a Bill ill-conceived in every possible way. It is not going to do what it is intended to do; but it will create a feeling of unrest. Whatever the merits of the Bill may be, the question of the teachers-’ salary is creating a furore. For these reasons I am opposed to it, and I feel that it is one of the worst measures that I have ever seen brought into the House. I think it is the greatest pity that the Government did not take the Baxter Report and the Jagger Report into consideration and frame something on the lines which they suggested. As a general principle we must get our house in order, but we are running ourselves into financial destruction by the provincial system. As far as a general land tax is concerned in this country it would be madness to bring it in, but I am strongly in favour, and have always been in favour of taxation on unoccupied land. I am one of those who voted in favour of a land tax in Natal, and did a good deal in bringing it in. But I say any general land tax in the country would oppress many farmers who are oppressed enough to-day. To tax a man who is just earning a living out of his work, and who can scarcely afford to exist, would be very unfair. The system of land tax which I am in favour of, and which would do a lot of good in the country, would be, tax land which is unoccupied and land which is owned by absentees. They simply sit on the fence, and take advantage of anything which may accrue from the work of other people. I am in favour of taxing these individuals and not the real occupiers of the land, who are doing their best to get a livelihood out of their work. That is the taxation I am in favour of. I am convinced that is the right form of taxation, and is for the benefit of the country. This form of taxation will have the effect of placing a larger number of people on the land. We hear daily of the question of unemployment, and one of the reasons for this unemployment is that we do not give facilities in this country to the man willing to work, the man willing to work and to get an earning out of the land. I do not intend to deal fully with this question at the moment, as I propose to deal with it later on. I hope you recognize that we are faced with a serious state of affairs, and I regret to say that the Government are doing nothing to deal with it or to bring forward measures for the benefit of the country. This Bill is ill-conceived, and will not attain its object. It is causing a great amount of dissatisfaction, and rightly or wrongly it is a very unpopular measure amongst the teachers and the people in this country, and for that reason I am entirely opposed to it. There is one important matter I would like to mention in connection with the speech of the right hon. the Minister of Finance. He has stated that this is about the best Bill that could be brought forward in the circumstances existing. I have no hesitation in saying that in the matter of Provincial Councils the whole trouble is that they are not responsible for raising most of the money, but control the expenditure. They spend and spend, and then they come to the House and practically ask for subsidies. When they are short of money, they come to this House to assist them. They should be made responsible for the money which they spend. I should like to see a system of Provincial Councils where the Councils had their own system of taxation and should be responsible for the monies which they spend, and the Union Parliament should not be in a position to interfere with provincial taxation at all. There is another point in that connection, and that is if any of the provinces want to spend money on capital expediture, they practically cannot do so, for the simple reason that they are not allowed to go and raise any money themselves, they have to go to the Union Government, and it is the old story of the son coming to the father to assist him in this matter, and the inefficiency brought about by this system is so great that it is hampering them all round. If a province wants to build a bridge over a large river they have to come to the Union to get their engineers and their sanction to the plans. They are only supposed to deal with roads, and so long as the system of having Provincial Councils supported by the Union Government without passing the direct responsibility on these bodies of raising their own money and spending their own money, and cutting their cloth to their coat, so long will there be dissatisfaction and bad administration. I do not think it is a bit of use saying that the Provincial Council must work on the same system as the Union Government, and because the Union has reduced their expenditure the provinces must do the same. Sometimes the conditions are entirely different. It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule, and because you save one pound they must save a pound. I do not think that any system of theoretical nonsense can be applied to this subject, and that is why I am so disappointed and distressed that the Government has not taken the opportunity they had in their hands of bringing forward a well-thought out system. As to the question as to whether or not it is a political cry it makes me tired. Surely this is not a matter of politics, it is not a matter of a National Party or South Party, it is a matter which every man, woman and child in the country is concerned with. I would much prefer to see the Government bring forward a Bill as the Prime Minister did with his Wine Bill, and say “we are not regarding this as a party matter, let us deal with it and have the free opinion of the House,” and if the Government had done that you would have had a free and open discussion. What has happened? It is being used by member after member simply from its political aspect as a rod to beat the Government with. I dare say the Government needs beating, but instead of it being judged by its merits, it is regarded from the narrow, silly aspect of party politics. So long as that sort of thing is going on, you are never going to get good results in this country. I recognize that under a democratic system you must have party politics, you cannot do without it; but under the party system there might be certain matters which can be recognized not to be party measures, and they should not be dealt with on a party basis. It is a very great question whether party government has been the success it was hoped it would be, and measures like this, as I have mentioned, which are applicable to everybody, are not measures which should be dealt with from a narrow party standpoint. I have already said that I dislike the measure so much that I certainly will not vote for it, but I feel that a great many false issues have been raised on it. I feel that a great deal has been said which the Bill has not justified in any way, and I feel that it has not been used in any way to try to get out of a serious difficulty in this country. We have got to face this position—that we are travelling down the road to financial ruin if this sort of thing is allowed to go on as it is to-day. Until this country realizes that a system must be brought into vogue which is going to be a really useful system, then it is going to be an utterly useless thing to bring in bills which deal with the fringe of the questions and do not tackle them properly, and, instead of doing good, cause harm and dissatisfaction. I have no hesitation in saying that had a reasonable Bill been brought up and put to the House it would have met with far less opposition than any measure of this kind, which is brought in merely as a stop-gap.

I wonder what paradise the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) has been living in for the last week or two when he thinks that a Bill brought in by the Government on the basis of the Baxter Report would have been dealt with in this House without that party spirit which he so much deplores? I wonder does the hon. member remember when the Baxter Report was published? He will not have forgotten the outburst of party spirit which was then manifested in regard to that report. It is really useless to talk—and surely the hon. member, coming as he does from Natal, may have been expected to know better —as if the Government could deal with a limitation of the powers of the Provincial Councils so serious as that proposed in the Baxter Report on a purely non-party basis in this. House. No, sir! I am really at a loss to understand the indignation of the hon. member against this Bill. I can understand his disappointment that the Government has not dealt with this matter in a radical manner. I do not know if his disappointment is shared by his colleagues from Natal, but I cannot understand the almost indignant tone in which he spoke about this particular Bill, because this particular Bill, as the right hon. the Minister in introducing it said, is not really a Bill which affects materially the financial relations between the Union and the provinces at all. The indignation of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) is connected with matters that the Bill does not contain, and the one point on which he criticizes the Bill is that “rightly or wrongly,” as he says, it has caused great agitation throughout the country among the teachers. “Rightly or wrongly”; but it is his business to tell us whether it is right or wrong; it is his business to decide whether that agitation among the teachers is well-founded or not. The hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) criticizes this Bill, because, rightly or wrongly, it has created a great deal of agitation among the teachers. But if that agitation is ill-founded, why should that prevent us carrying out a measure which has been asked for by the teachers and the Provincial Councils, and, as far as I know, is agreed upon by everybody, and that is the establishment of uniform scales of teachers’ salaries?

Nothing of the sort!

That is what the Bill provides. We have had a flood of eloquence from the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth). More eloquence less well grounded in fact I have never heard. He talked in the most moving terms of the attack upon the position of teachers. Was he in favour of uniform teachers’ salaries throughout the Union or is he in favour of things being left as—?

I said this uniformity is a mockery; it is not uniformity.

It is no use talking to the hon. member. He goes on still the more.

Your Clause 2 is a contradiction in terms.

I am dealing with the facts, and the hon. member talked as if this Bill were trying to fix upon teachers some scale of salaries which was degrading to them, which they could not live under, which would fail to attract to the profession the kind of man we want. This Bill provides no scale, and the hon. member knows that, and he is trying to persuade the teachers to believe that this Bill imposes a definite scale of salaries when he knows that it does not.

That is delightfully vague.

If this Bill passes, the teachers of the various provinces will be in the same position as the members of the public service are now except this one thing that the Provincial Council, or whatever power is authorized by law to alter teachers’ salaries, the Provincial Council or the Executive Committee, as the case may be, will have the power to effect for one year a general reduction. Just as Parliament has the power to effect a general reduction of public servants’ salaries. Now the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) heard the Minister for Finance state when he introduced the Bill, he heard him say that although this Bill by a mistake contained the provision to give the executive in each province the power to alter these scales, that it was the intention to alter this so as to leave the power of making a general reduction exactly where it is now.

No.

Yes, the Minister told the House that that was the position. In a province where an Ordinance was required, it would still be so, and in a province where the executive can deal with the matter, it is still so. Now the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) knows that and he did not have the honesty to say so.

And it is not the first time.

The hon. member became almost violent in his indignation in regard to the question of putting the fate of the teachers in the hands of the Executive Committees and destroying the security which they have now—yet he knows that the security which they will have is just the same as it is now. And he said he knew the Minister had said it.

The Minister did not give a definite undertaking. He said that he was prepared to consider the matter. That was all. He went no further.

On a point of order. May I just say to the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) that he either could not have been attending to what I said, or that he has lost the effect of it in his imaginations on the subject. I said yesterday in the most specific terms that I proposed in the committee stage to introduce an amendment to put this matter right.

That does not do away with all the objections.

Well, I can only deal with one at a time. The hon. member also waxed eloquent about the betrayal of the teachers—so eloquent that he almost made me weep.

Shame.

He said that they had been betrayed because of a pledge which was given by a Government Commission that the existing salaries would not be interfered with. I can only repeat what the Minister of Finance said when he introduced the Bill that that pledge was given to the teachers—one may call it a pledge or whatever it may be—that the pledge was given by the Public Service Commission in regard to their recommendations—and that pledge was kept by the Public Service Commission. But that pledge, or whatever it was, was not given by the Commission for or on behalf of the Government.

What business has a Government Commission to give such pledges?

The hon. member does not understand the position of the Public Service Commission. It is not an executive body; it recommends to the Government on particular points affecting public servants, in this case the teachers, and they were discussing with the teachers what their recommendations should be in regard to them and not what the Government would do. They could not bind the Government or the Provincial Council or anyone. They could only bind themselves in regard to their recommendations, and that was all they did, and they kept their promise. I am concerned here to uphold the position of, the Public Service Commissioners, because they cannot defend themselves. They promised what they would do and they kept their promise.

Why has the Minister undone it?

We have not undone it.

Well, what has the Minister done?

I am glad to see that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. Forsyth) admits that he does not know.

The Minister is washing his hands of it now.

What this Bill does is to leave the Provincial Councils or the executives, as the case may be, who may have the power now of dealing with teachers’ salaries, the power to apply these scales to existing salaries or earlier as they like.

Why is it mentioned in the Bill?

If it was not mentioned then the Provincial Councils would be bound by the scale and they could only apply it to new comers or on promotion. In order to leave with the Provincial Councils that responsibility for their own finances, as far as possible, which hon. members on the opposition benches are so anxious to protect, this power was left to them; they were only to be bound by the uniform scale to the least possible extent.

What is the scale?

It takes too long to read.

It is not in the Bill.

No, it is in the Blue Book which the hon. member can see.

Why talk about what is not in the Bill?

I am only talking of what is not in the Bill because of all the eloquence which we had from the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) on the same subject—which is not in the Bill—but I want to get right on this charge of his of breach of faith, because a breach of faith in regard to the teachers would be a wicked thing, which no Government would be guilty of. I am prepared to prove, and can prove, to any right thinking man that there has been no such breach of faith in regard to the teachers, in regard to a general reduction of their salaries or in regard to this question of applying the new scale of salaries—they are left by the Bill in all cases under the same authorities as they were before.

They can only go down.

It rests with the Provincial authorities to say what shall be done.

They cannot go up.

No, I know that, but if the hon. member knew a little more about provincial finances and administration, and if he had been present at the interviews which we had with the Provincial authorities, he would know that the chances of salaries going up were very slight, and if the Provincial authorities are left to themselves and there is no uniform scale, the chances are that they will go down rattier than up. My point is that there has been no breach of faith and that in regard to a general decrease and the general scales, the teachers are in exactly the same hands and the same authorities as they were, and I say that the hon. member is not doing his duty in rousing the passions about this alleged breach of faith, he is not doing his duty to the profession to which he used to belong.

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

When the House adjourned I was dealing with some matters which admittedly are not in the Bill, but which have been dealt with by certain hon. members in such a way as to suggest to people outside this House, who have not seen the Bill, and probably will not read it, that it does contain these things. I was dealing particularly with efforts that have been made to stampede, as I may call it, the teaching profession; a profession which we should all hold in respect and honour, and now an attempt is being made to scare these people that something is being done in this Bill that is going to reduce their status and that is going to break the faith which has been solemnly given to them. [An Hon. Member: “They can read the Bill.”] Probably they will read the Bill, but it is more probable they will read the speeches in this House. To deal with these scales, the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) spoke as if some scales were being brought into force by this Bill which were degrading to the profession, and which would prevent any self-respecting man or woman from joining this profession. What are the facts? As I have said before there is no scale in this Bill at all. They are not our scales. Hon. members have so deluded themselves that they do not even now know what are the facts. These scales are only the Government scales when the Government has adopted them on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and that cannot be done until this Bill has become law.

Will the scale be to the benefit of the teachers?

I understand that the Public Service Commission is in correspondence with the teachers in regard to some suggestions that have been made to them. But it takes so long for an idea to get into some hon. members’ heads. Until this Bill becomes law the Governor-General-in-Council has no power to adopt any scale for teachers’ salaries. I admit that the scales recommended by the Public Service Commission would give an idea as to what scales the Government will eventually adopt.

Are they not meant for recommendation?

No.

What are they intended for?

They are intended, I understand, as an expression of the opinion of the Public Service Commission of what a reasonable scale would be.

Try again.

That is really so. I have said it so often that I wonder hon. members do not understand it. No recommendation has been made to the Government by the Public Service Commission, or can be until this Bill has been passed into law. The hon. member knows that just as well as I do. [Interruption.]

Order! I think the hon. the Minister should be allowed to proceed.

It destroys those little idyls we have heard from hon. members this afternoon. The Public Service Commission are still in correspondence with the teachers in regard to their final recommendations. Let us take the scales as they are in this report. They are drawn up by the Public Service Commission with the approval and advice of representatives of the education department of each province. Who are these gentlemen who have acted as technical advisers to the Public Service Commission? They are not hard-fisted money-grabbers like my right hon. friend the Minister of Finance, or men whose hearts have nothing but gold in them as the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) tells us some of us had to-day. They are men who are just as idealistic about education as the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth).

The Minister judges a man by his word.

I am talking about the men who advised the Public Service Commission on these scales, and I say they are just as much interested in education in the highest sense of the word as the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth), and probably know more about it. What they say is—

Will the hon. the Minister kindly read section 22?

That is the recommendation, that the new scales should not take effect entirely, but only take effect in regard to people entering the service or entering a new scale—

What is there in that, that the hon. member hangs his mind on to? A very straightforward, clear, intelligible recommendation, and one which shows perfectly well that the object was not to drag the teachers’ profession in the dust. All the eloquence of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) is based entirely on false premises. I am sorry that the hon. member should have lent himself to misleading the teaching profession in such a manner. Then he tells us that this Bill contains provisions which were going to drive farmers in the distant parts of the country if they wanted a school under the regulation size to maintain it for themselves, to pay for it themselves, and thereby that the Bill contained an implication of a land tax. That is a brilliant piece of detective ability. Of course, it is meant for people who will not read the Bill or will not have an opportunity of reading it; but I leave it to the sense of hon. members of this House whether they can find in this Bill a single word or implication of that kind. The power of fixing the minimum size of Government schools is left by this Bill exactly where it was—in the hands of the provincial authorities. They will have the power as in the past to decide what the minimum size of their schools shall be. The Baxter Commission recommends that the minimum size of a Government school should be twenty pupils. The Province may accept that or not. We discussed it with the executives of the provinces when they were with us, and the Cape people said frankly that they did not see how they could adopt that recommendation without closing a large number of schools and disorganizing to a large extent their educational programme. Well, that is a matter for them to decide. There is nothing in this Bill which compels them to adopt that recommendation—nothing whatever. On this question of education it is so easy to be eloquent and it is so easy to attack anybody who suggests economies as enemies of the people. It is so easy to assume that every penny spent on education is well and properly spent, and that the service could not be given at less. I am just as much a friend of education as anyone could be, and I wonder sometimes if it is really in the interests of South African education that we should spend about 2½ times as much per child in the Union of South Africa on education as they do in Australia—that we should pay £19.4 per head per child in this country as against £8.25 in Australia.

But some of that is not used for education.

Are we so much better educated than Australia? They have the same difficulties to face in Australia in country education.

Is the hon. the Minister sure?

And yet it costs us £19.4 per child as against £8.25 in Australia.

Is the hon. the Minister quite sure of the similarity of conditions?

Yes.

Is the hon. the Minister?

The Commission has taken out these figures on similar lines.

Is the hon. the Minister quite sure of the similarity of the situation?

I take my figures from the Commission.

I am talking about similarity of conditions.

We want to get the provincial authorities to whom education has been entrusted to set their house in order and find out whether this expenditure is really necessary.

There is one language in Australia.

If it cannot be carried out at a lower figure than that then we shall have to face it and the larger amount of taxation that is required; but before we are saddled with all this taxation we should be satisfied that it is not being spent unnecessarily.

Does the Bill propose to do that?

I wish it did, but I am not dealing with the Bill, but with all the fringes which hon. members opposite have hung on to it, that we were crushing education and defeating the best interests of the people. I want to deal with another little fringe that was tacked on to this Bill by hon. members, and that is in regard to the various restrictions that have taken place in the past in the powers of the Provincial Council, and particularly with the restriction that was imposed by Parliament a year or two ago with regard to the taxation of mining profits. We know what jam that has been for hon. members opposite. We know the reason, which I won’t say they believe, because I won’t imply such an insult to their intelligence, but the reason they tried to make their friends believe had actuated the Government was that they are trying to protect the interest of the mine magnates, that is the reason which moulds the policy of the Government.

And the Chambers of Commerce.

Oh, Chambers of Commerce! I am talking about Chambers of Mines just now. I did not know Chambers of Commerce were our masters as well. It seems we have a hard life, but it is just as well to repeat these things, because, apparently, unless one does so, they do not sink in. Hon. members know quite well that the Act of Union provided that all mineral assets of the various Provinces of the Union should be national assets. They were intended to be used by the National Government for the purpose of national development and national revenue. Hon. members who do not come from the Transvaal know quite well that one of the great attractions which the Union had for many people in the Cape was that the mineral wealth of the Transvaal would now be available as a national resource, and not merely as a provincial resource. That was the intention of the Act of Union, which laid it down in express terms, that the mineral resources of the various Provinces should pass over to the Union. Now, how is it possible for the national Government of South Africa to use that mining revenue for the benefit of the whole of the Union, if the one Province in which these mines are situated is to be allowed to tax them up to the hilt, to put their hands into the sack as far as they can? What are the Free State and Cape Province people going to say if they should wake up some day and find that the taxation of the mines of the Transvaal was being diverted, not into the exchequer of the Union, but into the treasury of the Transvaal Province?

To the extent of £300,000!

Yes, to the extent of £300,000, but the hon. member knows quite well what happens when a little rift in the dam wall takes place, what a big stream comes through before long, and a source of revenue like that which it can use, without coming against a strong voting power in the Province, would have been such a temptation to them, and the £300,000 would have soon become £3,000,000. It was far better for Parliament to step in when it did at the beginning, rather than wait, and that was the reason why this Parliament stepped in as it did and prevented the Transvaal Provincial Council from taxing the mines, and all this stuff about protecting the mining interest which goes about the country is so much eye-wash. With regard to the wonderful figures which the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) gives, I do not want to go into them in detail. The hon. member quoted about eight or ten-mines which paid enormous dividends. I do not dispute his figures, but why does he not quote the other thirty? I know some farmers in this country who are making quite good profits, but one does not advocate for that reason that there should be a special income tax on farmers. The fact is, with regard to mining profits, that in the old days the mineral areas were given on far too easy terms. Things have changed now, and I would like the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) to look into the terms under the existing Gold Law. The rent of these mineral leases is based on the profit, going up to a maximum of 60 per cent. of the profits. These mines which the hon. member quoted were given out under the old Gold Law. [An Hon. Member: “What about Government areas?”] The hon. member having told us what the Government areas paid in dividends I would like him to tell us what they pay to the Government? I do not mind making this statement: Without fear of contradiction I can say I do not know of any country in the world where precious metals or stones are exploited by private enterprise where the producers pay as much to the State as is paid under the Gold and Precious Stones Laws of the Transvaal. This little Bill is not a Financial Relations Bill—it does not pretend to be. The right hon. the Minister of Finance told us clearly that the House did not see its way to bring any radical alterations in the financial relations. This Bill only attempts to do what, on every side is admitted, should be done, to pave the way for uniformity in the salary of school teachers. I think this House, however much hon. members regret that the Government did not go further and tackle the reorganization of the finances of the provinces, I think they should accept the Bill and should not go out of their way to make a large section of the teachers’ profession believe that the Government was attempting to oppress them, and that they belong to a profession to which no respectable man can now aspire. This Government has done nothing to place the profession in that position, and certainly this Bill, whatever other members may say, does not do it.

I think it will be generally admitted, throughout the House, that on this occasion the Government has been well advocated by legal representatives, and I must claim it is not an inspiring spectacle, from the Prime Minister downwards, through their legal representatives, that they have been engaged in deliberately camouflaging the position. It is well for the House in considering the question to set aside the impropriety which the Minister of Education referred to the teachers’ ideals, and which was supported by the Prime Minister. It is a most significant thing that the Government should appear—I am not concerned with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey), who in his blunt and honest way told us what the Government meant with regard to the continuance of the Provincial Council—it is significant that the laymen, the only two who have spoken during the debate, have demanded in no unmeasured terms for the abolition of the Provincial Councils. We find one of them is not going to vote for this Bill, and I think it is likely other hon. members on the other side of the House, if they had an opportunity of expressing their views, would also vote against the Bill. I believe there are some of them sufficiently new to the ranks of the South African Party to sufficiently retain some shred of honesty. I will deal with the Minister of Education for a moment. What did he do? He deliberately accused the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) of making a mistake. The Minister himself is dishonest—[Hon. Members: “Order!”] I only mean that in a Pickwickian sense. I am only following the lead of the hon. the Minister, and in a minor degree, the lead of the Prime Minister and his attitude when he addressed the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). He accused the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) of dishonesty, and in just precisely the same way as he preferred the charge of dishonesty against the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth), I prefer the charge against the Minister of Education. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) said that we were perpetuating the system of government by regulations. I want to ask the Minister of Education, does not this Bill contain that provision? This Bill provides that the teachers’ salary shall be fixed by regulation, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to prove to me otherwise. The hon. the Minister should be the last one indeed to cast any aspersion on the hon. member, because he himself deliberately said that the teachers asked for uniformity— that they actually asked for uniformity. Presumably what he meant is this—that the teachers took the initiative that they desired uniformity and approached the Commission or the Government with the object of obtaining it. May I read an extract from a statement issued by the teachers? Section 2 of their statement says: “The teachers did not ask for a uniform scale.” In order to emphasize that they underlined the word “ask.” They were induced to take part under strong compulsion and by the concrete prospect of having clearly settled the position. In other words, they appeared at the request of the Government. It is inconceivable that men like these would have given pledges if they did not feel that the Government would carry out its pledges. The hon. the Minister now accuses us of endeavouring to get the sympathy of the teachers. Is the hon. the Minister really serious? I do not know what the hon. members on the other side know, but we have found that at election times we have had extreme difficulty in succeeding in getting teachers to vote in our direction. When we are fighting for the teachers on this occasion it is not out of sympathy for any support that they have given us in the past. [An Hon. Member: “It may come.”] That is quite another matter. The teachers have found you out as other branches of the public service have done. They find they cannot trust the Government. They cannot trust the pledge or the written word of the Government in power today. They have come to realize that any statement made by the Government or any representative of that Government is something that they cannot place any credence in. Each in turn finds that out. I must congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister on his contribution to the debate, and from the point of view of a contribution, it was a brilliant one. He made a magnificent effort to make something out of a bad case, in fact he made what was quite a brilliant effort, and because the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) stated that the Government, as usual, were running away from its policy or from tackling the problem—the Prime Minister knew perfectly well what the hon. member meant, everyone knew it, it meant that they were not tackling the problem—he turned it into physical running away of the Government from their places in the House.

He nearly sang “Rule Britannia!”

Yes, and we nearly expected the Minister of Agriculture to undo his coat and show us his Union Jack waistcoat. No, we know very well that the Government will never run away from office. They are sticking like leeches to office so long as the country, the misguided country, will let them. But they certainly are melting away, and after the next general elections there will be nothing left of the Prime Minister but an oleaginous spot on the carpet. And what did the Minister of Education say referring to this charge of dishonesty. He said that the Bill does not provide a scale of salaries. There goes the clever lawyer. Thank goodness, that on this occasion the Minister and his Government are dealing with a highly intellectual class. They would not be quite so intellectual if the Government had their way, because the Government are deliberately trying to depreciate the teaching profession to the detriment of the country, and I believe that in future they may be able to pull this sort of wool over the eyes of the teaching profession, but they are not able to do so at present. The Minister told us that we had been trying to mislead the teachers—let me say that we have not conveyed this to the teachers, but they have conveyed this to us, and we have been getting resolutions and telegrams from all over the country, and we had this conveyed to us at a mass meeting last night at which the Minister of Education should have been present. Why was he not there? Is he too big to meet with the ordinary teachers?

I never heard of the meeting.

Never heard of the meeting? I heard of it.

I quite believe that.

Yes, I have a good nose, have I not? Why, Sir, is the hon. the Minister going to admit to us in this House that he no longer reads the bible, the Cape Town bible. It was advertised. No, I suppose he was too busy looking at other matters and studying up business with which he was trying to surround this Bill.

Was the hon. member at the meeting?

I was there.

Was the hon. member specially invited?

I was there.

I was not invited.

No, that is natural enough. May I suggest to the hon. member’s consideration that the accommodation was limited. Now the Minister of Education says that this Bill does not provide the scale of salaries. It does. That is the merest legal quibble, and it is unworthy of the Minister. I could have expected it from other Ministers, from the Prime Minister, for instance. One is used to it from him, but I did not expect it from the Minister of Education. And just precisely what the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) read in this Bill the teachers have read into it, and I have read that into this Bill, and everyone who is a friend of education has read it. May I read the Bill to the Minister in that regard?

Oh, yes.

—

and it must not be forgotten that the Minister tried to cover up his tracks by saying that until this becomes law in fact, it would not be on the Statute Book. What a brilliant thing that was to say to us—until it becomes law—naturally not. What a wonderful discovery the Minister of Education has made.

Well, at any rate it seemed news to some of the hon. members over there.

“Notwithstanding anything in any Law or Regulations contained as from the commencement of this Act, the scales of allowances and salaries for any teacher in the service of any province shall be those prescribed from time to time by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Public Service Committee.” Yes, we are asked to pass this. I must draw attention to this. This means that immediately we have passed this and the Act comes into force, that comes into force. And all these things which we are now cavilling at, these objections which we are raising, unless they are altered, all these will automatically come into force, and the scales of salaries not agreed upon between the teachers and the Commission when they met, not that scale, but a scale which the Commission recommended to the Government, probably after a hint from the Government to them, probably one of these acting and re-acting things, that is the scale which will come into force because the Governor-General will proclaim it. I am not a lawyer, I am only a plain speaking common-sense sort of man, but as far as I am able to see it, it is this, that as soon as this becomes law the scale of salaries recommended also becomes law with this painful addition that at any time that Commission acting again on a hint or of its own volition can recommend a reduction in that scale of salaries and the Governor-General will immediately give effect. There are the words “shall be.” There is not even that word “may” which we are so used to and which we have so often cavilled at. No, it says “shall be.” The scales of salaries shall be the scale of salaries which the teachers will have to labour under. And it is made infinitely worse, and I notice the Minister studiously avoided this, he did not try to camouflage this, he knew that his vast ability in this direction would end in signal failure. There is a distinct hint, no, an instruction to the executive that they shall reduce the wages, the salaries, that they shall reduce the scale either to those already in the Service or to any new people coming in, either or both. And that is perhaps one of the worst features of a remarkably bad Bill. They have not been given power if their finances become flourishing. But the Minister of Education on that particular point said that we need not fear, and that there is not likely to be any increase because the finances of the provinces are not likely to be flourishing for some time. Well, the Government is not likely to continue in office for some time. What conceited individuals Ministers are. Another two years they are likely to run on, to hang on and then there is likely to be an upward tendency when they go out.

Is the hon. member banking on that?

Why put it in the Bill if it is to be adjusted automatically that the finances cannot become flourishing in that time. It can only be that a suggestion, more than a suggestion, a hint, an instruction, has been given to the executives of the Provincial Councils that they shall at the earliest possible opportunity reduce the scale of salaries of their teachers. They are not given the power to increase those scales of salaries if the finances should become in a flourishing condition. The whole tendency of our legislation, of the financial policy of the Government of this country, of the Government which at present occupies these benches, has been in the direction of depreciation, causing depression, making the whole country in a state of mind which does not make for any improvement in production, but only for a state of misery and discontent. The Minister of Education laughs. No one knows better than he does that that is so. He was present on that momentous occasion when I alone, a thing I have sworn I would never do, interviewed the Prime Minister on this very question of the discharge of men on the Witwatersrand. I am not going to enlarge on this, but that is where the depression started. The Prime Minister said: “We have had to face a most difficult situation and we have shown courage.” We have had to face it, the people of South Africa have had to face it, but the Prime Minister is the prime cause of that difficult situation. They speak about the depression as though somebody from high, from outside this sphere altogether has ordained that that depression should come about. I say that it is man-made, and the Prime Minister played no inconsiderable part in bringing about that depression.

The man and the hour.

And having helped to bring about that depression, he turns his attention with the assistance of his colleagues to every section of the public, and now to the Public Service, and last of all he has fastened on the teachers in order to depress their condition and make up for the gigantic mistake, I almost said crime, perpetrated by him two years ago. The Prime Minister, in that way of his of which we have had so much experience, said that they did not want to abolish the Provincial Council. I do not know whether I caught him correctly. Did he say “want to” or “we are not going to”? There is a distinction, of course, and a statement like that, quite apart from the general application, has no force of effect when we have legislation constantly introduced into this House and passed by their steam-rolling, unthinking majority, which is constantly whittling away from the council any of the powers which they have. It is a most remarkable fact, only a coincidence, of course, that the Government never turns its eyes in an adverse fashion to the Provincial Councils until they lost control of the Transvaal Provincial Council, and in the Free State they realised they never had a hope. Never until then was it discovered that the Provincial Councils were costly, extravagant, useless, and something that ought not to be, although they themselves spoke highly of them when they were members of the Convention. I am satisfied of this, they realized the march of education in this country, and that as a result of that march the people of this country Ibid fair to be highly educated and cultured people, and they are not going to allow themselves to be held back, and they are no longer going to exhibit a blind reliance on the right hon. the Prime Minister. This may be the last attempt by the Government to take away the control of the Provincial Councils. I may say that this does not take away the control from the Provincial Councils, but those who control the purse-strings control the results of those purse-strings, and when the Government controls and regulates the salaries of the teachers, that is the main thing in this Bill, they are taking away from the Provincial Councils the last great service of which they have control. We have no right to pay a profession which ought to be the most attractive profession in the Union, not even barring lawyers, in the way that we are doing. We have no right to pay them a salary which is likely to make it an unattractive profession to them, with the result that we shall have the worst possible material coming forward, and those who have high scholastic capabilities will go and look elsewhere. But I want to look at it from the point of view of the children. Teachers, yes; but through the teachers, the children. I claim this, that by reducing the standard of your scholastic profession you are reducing the intellectual standard of your children, and infinitely reducing the standard of the future citizens of this State. There is no greater thing for any State to engage upon than to educate the youth of the country, so that that youth can take its place in a fine and prosperous nation. I have nothing more to say. Well, I have. I am only going to say this: that the legislation, whilst it appears to be a simple thing, the question of teachers’ salary is not the only point in the Bill. I have looked through the Bill and found some other things. We are calmly asked to pass in legislative form a statement to the effect that the money we have lent to the Provinces we have lent to them, and they owe it to us. I want to make an appeal to hon. members on that side, as there are some of them who are prepared to take a view of this matter which is not obsessed by the view of the right hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and that is that if we pass this legislation in the form which it is put before us, we are perpetrating a great wrong on the teaching profession in this country, and placing a bar in the way of the progress of our children. I appeal to any of those who are over there who are fathers— for there are many fathers like themselves looking anxiously to the result of the legislation that is being passed on this occasion. And they must realize that this country must not retrocede, but that we must have the best education in this country by attracting the best elements in our country towards the teaching profession.

Die toespraak van die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys was in meer dan een oorsig diep teleurstellend. Ek wil nie die hele toespraak van die edelagbare die Minister behandel nie, maar daar is ’n paar uitstaande punte en verklarings van sy kant gemaak wat nie heeltemaal korrek is nie en ek wil die graag korriseer. Die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys het in die loop van sy toespraak dit voorgestel asof hierdie kant van die Huis, gelei deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) die onderwysers opsweep en opgesweep het. Die edelagbare die Minister weet net so goed as ek, dat dit ’n onware verklaring is. Die edelagbare die Minister weet dat telegramme byna al die lede van die Huis bereik het omtrent die kwessie uit alle dele van die land vóór dat die wetsvoorstel in die Huis ingedien was en dat voor die tyd daar al ’n agitasie in die hele land was.

Will the member permit me to explain? I did not intend to say, at any rate, whatever I may have said, I had no intention of saying that the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) had set on foot an agitation among teachers outside this House. I was referring to what he had said about the teachers, in this House.

Ja, ek wil dit aanneem, as die edelagbare die Minister sê, dat dit sy bedoeling was, maar die edelagbare die Minister sê, dat die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) verklaringe gemaak het wat nie korrek is nie. Ek het hier die Rapport van die Siviele Diens-Kommissie en wens die edelagbare die Minister te vra met die oog op die aanhef van die Rapport, of die lede van die Kommissie nie duidelik verklaar nie dat die optrek van ’n skaal van eenvormige salarisse aan hulle opgedra is deur die Prowinsiale Uitvoerende Komitees met goedkeuring van die Unie Regering? Hulle aanbeveliuge sal goedgekeur word deur die Prowinsiale Komitees onder beskerming van die Regering. [Een Edele Lid: “Come to the Bill.”] Ja, ek kom by die wetsontwerp, maar hier kom die edelagbare die Minister ons vertel dat geen beslissing nog geneem is nie en dat die Regering die skale van die Staatskommissie nog gaan hersien. Die edelagbare die Minister stel dit voor asof die hele saak nog aanhangig is. Ek is seker, die edelagbare die Minister is onder ’n misverstand wanneer hy sê, dat die Staatsdienskommissie nog in onderhandeling is met die Onderwysers-Federasie. Die agerende voorsitter en die sekretaris het my verseker, dat hulle nog nie een enkel woord van die Staatskommissie gehoor het na die rapport uitgebring is nie. In die Wetsentwerp staan baie duidelik—en die edelagbare die Minister kan nou rondspring soos hy wil—dat uniformiteit van salarisse volgens die skaal soos uiteindelik sal word vasgestel neergelê word, maar die punt van kritiek van hierdie kant van die Huis is, dat die edelagbare die Minister wat met die een hand gegee met die ander hand weer wegneem en die Prowinsiale Rade, of die Uitvoerende Komitee die reg gee om in tye van finansiële druk weer die uniformiteit weg te neem. Dis die hele punt van kritiek, ook van die onderwysers. Kan ons dan verwonderd wees, dat die onderwysers meen dat die edelagbare die Minister hulle in ’n val gelei het? Die feite staan klaar en onomstotelik en die edelagbare die Minister durf dit nie ontken nie Die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) het gisteraand aan die hand van die Duncan-Baxter Rapport en die rapport van die Staatsdienskommissie aangetoond wat die uitwerking van die toepassing van die rapporte op die opvoeding van die kinders op die platteland sal wees. Die edelagbare die Minister het nie daar op durf antwoord gee nie, hy het maar net dsaromheen gespring. Wat sê Klousule 19 van die Staatsdienskommissie—

Nog die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, nog die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het gesê of die aanbeveling sal aangeneem word nie.

That’s a matter for the Provincial Council.

En die edelagbare die Minister het nou net aan ons gesê, dat die Regering die salarisse gaan vasstel. Die edelagbare die Minister moet konsekwent wees. Veertien honderd skole! 1,400 uit 2,500 skole sal in die Kaapprovinsie alleen geaffekteer word ten nadele as die rapport uitgevoer word.

Alleen in die Kaapprovmsie?

Die edelagbare die Minister gee blykbaar daar nie om nie? Laat ek nou kom tot die sogenaamde verdediging van die edelagbare die Minister van sy vriende die mynmagnate. Daar was hy op nog minder veilige terrein. Wat was sy bewering? Onder die Unie-Akte val die minerale bate alleen onder die Unie stelsel van belasting. Het die edelagbare die Minister vergeet wat die uitspraak van die Appëlhof was in verband met hierdie punt?

I know.

Is die Prowinsiale Rade van Transvaal nie in die gelyk gestel nie?

Yes.

Maar indien die edelagbare die Minister dit weet, waarom praat hy dan van die Unie-Akte in hierdie verband? Wat word van die argument van die edelagbare die Minister? Of was volgens sy mening die uitspraak van die Appëlhof verkeerd? Ek wil nou die direkte vraag doen “Is daar enige ekstra belasting op die myne gelê deur die Unie-Regering, nadat hulle die magte van die Prowinsiale Rade weggeneem het?

No.

Maar waar is dan die krag van die argument van die edelagbare die Minister? Die tabakboere werd nie uitgesluit nie van spesiale ekstra belasting nie, die veeboere ook nie; ewemin die arm man wat medisyne koop. Maar die vriende van die edelagbare die Minister werd uitgesluit. Volgens die edelagbare die Minister, het sekere myne onder kontrakt uitgegee laaste jaar aan die Staat enorme somme betaal. Maar het die edelagbare die Minister dan weer vergeet dat daar tenders werd uitgeskrywe, publieke tenders vir die aangaan van die kontrakte? Die Staat kry dus net waar hulle reg op het en dit is dus geen belasting nie. Die politiek van die Nasicnale Party is nog altyd gewees om die winste van die myne swaarder te belas, en nie die myne as sulks te belas nie. Die myne wat groot profytey maak word nie genoegsaam belas nie. Na ons na die edele Minister geluister het is ons meer diep oortuig van die gebrek aan enige vaste politiek aan die kant van die Regering. Hierdie Wetsontwerp is in elke opsig onbevredigend, ontoereikend. Ieder lid van die Huis wat aan die debat deelgeneem het, het dit erken met uitsondering van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister. Hy het hom tevrede met die Wetsontwerp verklaar en te kennen gegee, dat die Regering besondere moed getoon het om die Wetsontwerp voortebring. Natuurlik het die edelagbare die Eerste Minister dit nie ernstig bedoel toe hy dit gisteraand gesê het nie. Die uitlating van die Eerste Minister laat my dink aan die verteenwordiger van Aliwal Noord in die Prowinsiale Raad. Toe hom ’n sekere pamflet wat valse verklaringe bevat het, gewys werd, en gesê werd dat die uitgegee was deur die S.A. Party tydens die jongste Prowinsiale Verkiesinge, het hy gesê: “Nou ja, dis maar net ’n eleksiepamflet.” Toe die edelagbare Eerste Minister gepraat het op die oppervlakkige manier, het hy seker ook gedink “Dis maar net ’n eleksiepraatjie.” Die edelagbare Eerste Minister weet net so goed as ander lede, dat die Wetsontwerp hoogs onbevredigend is. Wat lê ten grondslag van die Wetsontwerp? Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het dit al gesê, dis die onmag en gebrek aan politiek van die Regering. En die groot faktore wat vandag die Regering in die toestand van onmag geplaas het is die mynmagnate en die Kamer van Koophandel. Laat ons dit toets aan wat die edele Minister van Finansies self gesê het. Hy het gesê, dat daar baie andere dinge in die Wetsontwerp moes ingesluit gewees het, maar dat hulle, die Regering, dit nie gedoen het nie. Die rede wat die edele Minister opgegee het was dat die Uitvoerende Komitees van die Prowinsiale Rade daarteen was. Ek kan my nie voorstel, dat die edele lede aan die ander kant van die Huis dit glo nie. Toe die magte van die Prowinsiale Rade ingekort is, het die Regering hulle glad nie gesteur aan die Prowinsiale Rade nie. Dit is interessant, ook vir edele lede aan die ander kant van die Huis om nategaan wat vandag die posiesie is waarin die Regering verkeer met betrekking tot die saak. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het toe die deputasie van predikante hom ontmoet het om op die gevaar van die Baxter-Rapport te wys, gesê, dat die Rapport van die Tafel af is en later in die selfde onderhoud het hy gesê dat dit maar “voorlopig” was. En wat ek verwag is, dat by die komende eleksie die Regering op die platteland sal sê, dat die Rapport van die Tafel af is en in die stede dat dit maar “voorlopig,” opsy geset is. Laat die edele Ministers en lede aan die ander kant net so ridderlik wees as die edele lid vir Natal Kust (de hr. Saunders). Laat ons nou van hulle hoor, wat hulle dink van die Rapport van die Baxter-Kommissie. Wat is die posiesie hierin van die edele Minister van Spoorweë en die edele Minister van Onderwys? Laatsgenoemde het die punt nie eens aan geraak nie. Hulle wil alle definitiewe verklarings uitstel tot na die eleksie. Die Kamers van Mynwese en Koophandel beheers die Regering. Na die verkiezing in 1921 het die voorzitter van die Kamer van Mynwese die Regering gelukgewens met hulle sukses en gesê, dat hulle nou die reg had om te verwag, dat hulle griewe uit die weg geruim sou word. En daarop het die Regering wetgewing deur die Parlement geforseer om die myne vrytestel van Prowinsiale belasting. Die Regering het hul troetelkind, die mynmagnate, nie verder belas nie.

Troetelbaas!

Oplas van die Kamer van Koophandel het die edelagbare Minister van Finansies die hooftrekke van die Baxter-Kommissie rapport aangeneem. Wat is die hooftrekke? Die vcorzitter van die Kaapse Kamer van Koophandel, die hr. Rowe, sê dat grondbelasting die hooftrek van die rapport is, en dus is die kat uit die sak. Die edele lid vir Natal Kust? (de hr. Saunders) het die moed gehad om te verklaar, dat ’n grondbelasting ongesond is, en ek hoop dat andere lede wat boere verteenwoordig hulle ook beslis teen grondbelasting sal uitspreek. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies wou die ding onder die tafel wegsteek tot na die eleksie, maar nou kom die Kamer van Koophandel en kritiseer die Minister op hierdie stadium. Daar het hul fout gemaak. Hulle moes net gewag het tot na die verkiesing, want as die huidige Regering weer aan die bewind kom, sal ons die toepassing van die Baxter-rapport kry. Toe die Kamer van Koophandel die verkoopsbelasting gekritiseer en sterk daarteen geagiteer het, het die Regering hulle toestemming om die belasting toetelaat van die Prowinsiale Rade teruggetrek. Die Regering is besig met ’n baie deursigtige spel, en die kiesers sal sig nie laat mislei nie. Die Regering gtaan veroordeeld in die oog van die volk, deurdien hulle die Baxter-rapport in beginsel aangeneem het en hoewel nog nie toegepas nie, bly dieselwe daar as ’n bedreiging cor die hoof van die volk. En intussen by ons onderwys op die mees ernstig wyse? Solank as die Regering hulle politieke spel maar met sukses kan ten einde speel, kan die onderwys benadeel word. Deur die optree van die Regering kan die Prowinsiale Rade onmolik met sukses op tree. Wat betref die Klousule in die Wetsontwerp wat handel oor die tekorte is dit merkwaardig dat in die Kaapprovinsie waar die Sappe aan die bewind was die tekort £1,600,000 is, terwyl in Transvaal, waar die nationaliste en arbeiders regeer, die tekort maar £250,000 is. Die Vrystaatse tekort is £150,000, en Natal waar die Independente die lakens uitdeel £30,000. Waarheen wil die edelagbare Minister van Finansies die Prowinsiale Rade dryf, wil hy hulle geleidelik dooddruk of moet hulle weer besuinig op die onverstandige manier waarop daar reeds deur die Sap meerderheid werd gedoen? Die Regering is besig om die onderwys te laat doodbloei, deurdat hul dit vir die Prowinsiale Rade onmolik maak om op gesonde manier op te tree in belang van ons volk. Die edelagbare Minister wou dit op rekening van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) set, dat die onderwysers deelneem aan die agitasie in verband met die salarisvermindering, maar dit was ’n natuurlike belangstelling. Hierdeur word die aandag van die onderwysers van hul grpot werk afgetrek, en dit is jammer dat die Regering deur sy laakbare gedrag die onderwysers daartoe gedwing het. In die Kaapprowinsie en ander prowinsies van die Unie is onderwys met rasse skrede vooruitgegaan sedert 1910. Elkeen sal moet erken, dat die Rade grote dienste aan die onderwys saak bewys het. En nou? As die rapport van Dr. Viljoen, Superintendent van Onderwys, gelees word, dan sal men sien dat ons nie net stilstaan nie, maar agteruit gegaan het. Die land en die volk verkeer in onsekerheid omtrent die toekoms. Ek wens die edelagbare Minister te vraag, as hy anderjaar nog daar sit, of hul met dieselfde lapwerk sal voortgaan? Die Prowinsiale Raad staat voor belangryke veranderings op die gebied van onderwys om te kan besuinig en daar is o.a. sprake van dieafskaffing van die skoolrade. Dit sou een van die grootste stappe agteruit wees op die terrein, wat ons nog lank beleef het? Ek hoop, dat voordat die debat gesluit word en ons gevraag word om omtrent die tweede lesing te stem, daar ’n duidelike verklaring sal gegee word van die politiek van die Regering. Daar moet ’n end kom aan die onsekerheid. Dit geld hier een van die grootste volks kwessies.

We have been challenged that some of us should not vote for this Bill. One admits perfectly frankly that we desire reform, but the reasons why we do not vote for this Bill are very different from those of hon. members on the other side of the House. We have great grievances in the North, grievances not of recent making but of long standing; but there is no grievances greater than that of the Provincial Councils’ extravagance in administration and taxation of the people. The taxation the Transvaal Province is at present bearing cannot possibly be borne without affecting the general progress of the industry, trade and commerce of the Province. Part of our history in recent years has been to get rid in a measure of these Provincial Councils, or if it was not possible to abolish them, to have some measure of reform and relief in taxation. Our hopes rose high so far back as 1907. In 1907, when that excellent report of the then local Government Commission—

Make it 1917.

Yes, of course, 1917—the Commission which provided district councils for the whole of the Transvaal, and recommended that education should be taken over by the Central Government. One of the best speeches made in this House, one of the most practical speeches, was from a member of the Opposition this afternoon. I allude to the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), who admitted that if he lived in part of the Transvaal he would not object to paying rates for roads in that particular part, but he objected to the system where there was no community of interest. I wish there were more speeches of that character, as such would bring more help to the solution of this question than many we have heard during this debate. After that 1917 report a very great agitation was commenced for the abolition of the Provincial Councils. A monster petition was sent to Parliament, a petition comprising some 40,000 signatures, and it was not in any way political—it represented all classes and all sorts of political opinion. There were 40,000 signatures to that petition. It was got up in about a week, and I was reliably informed that if that petition had been kept another week the signatures to it would have been over 100,000. It was not, as an hon. member suggested this afternoon, influenced by the Chamber of Mines, it was not influenced by any wealthy people, it was a movement by the people who were feeling the pressure of taxation by the Provincial Council. It is true to say that every class and every shade of politician signed that petition. But the answer of the Government was that their policy was to continue the Provincial Councils. Now I am not going to complain on that score. That is past history, but the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) in his speech yesterday said that the Government had done their best to kill the Provincial Councils. There are thousands of people in the Transvaal Province who dearly wished that that were true. Following this petition taxation went on apace, and the province literally groaned, and it is quite true to say that by taxation men were driven from business and small industries crushed out. Later, hope rose, and the Government appointed a commission, and as a result of that commission we have before us the Baxter report. Now this is the last and greatest grievance. I am a very loyal supporter of the Government, and I accept the position as it is. The Government declined to adopt the report and bring in legislation accordingly. I have here a couple of telegrams, one which I received to-day and the other yesterday. The first one is from the Boksburg Chamber of Commerce which protested against the Government not proceeding on the lines laid down by the Baxter report. The other reads, “Financial Relations Bill. We strongly deplore failure of Government to legislate on lines of Baxter report. Feeling stronger than ever in favour of local prohibition”. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I meant “abolition”. “Prohibition” seems to be in the air somehow. I would bring before the House the charges I am going to try to make against the Transvaal Provincial Council. If it were oppressive taxation, which perhaps periodically comes in every country, it might be different, but there is to-day a taxation that is pressing men out of their calling and unquestionably adding to the ranks of the unemployed. If we look at our education it is interesting to know what is the basis of that education. Here is a selection from the evidence given by Mr. George Hay, a leading member of the Labour Party, who, in his evidence before the commission, said—

Is that wrong?

If that is the Labour doctrine it is a very strange one. It is very wrong.

What is wrong with it?

I am quite sure the people of this country, at any rate the people of the Transvaal, are quite prepared to let the rich man’s child be paid for by the rich man, and education in this country will not be on a sound basis until that takes place. It was not very many years ago when secondary education was made free in the Transvaal. What happened? There was no loud acclamation, no strong expression of thanks to the people in the Provincial Council; no, there were petitions, large petitions, sent in by the parents children attending those schools asking that they shall be allowed to continue to pay. And in one section alone £30,000 was thrown away by this policy. Have we realised what that has meant? The demand of secondary education was not made, but it was thrust upon the people of the province, and up to the present time we have not got rid of it, and it seems that it will stay with us a very long time. I do not know any better authority to quote from on education than the President of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association, a Mr. Hicks. He was speaking at a meeting at Boksburg at a representative meeting of teachers, and I agree with every remark he made about the teachers of the Union. They are unquestionably a class who deserve well of this country. He says—

And this is the most serious part of his statement—

That we know is the position with regard to our education. There is no question that to-day there are far more boys to be apprenticed than there are openings. They cannot get any. They are educated for other positions. They are looking for clerical work and for entry into the Government service, and this makes it more difficult to place the boys in employment in this country. Hon. members ought to know that many parents find it impossible to place their sons because of this over education. That is really the position, but there is a much more serious side to this extravagance in expenditure and taxation. I suggest to this House that the number of small industrialists, the number of traders, the number of commercial men and various other callings, which have been put out of business by taxation is very large, and, consequently, it has increased and accentuated unemployment in the Transvaal Province. Now, it is common cause that unemployment has increased mainly in the Transvaal, and I suggest to this House that it will go on increasing. You are making unemployment by taxation. Money that ought to be used for development is being eaten up by taxation, and it is perfectly clear the Province cannot have it both ways. Now the Government is trying to solve this great problem, because it is the great problem or this country, this unemployment question, but it is impossible of solution so long as you have a taxing body at the other end of the rope creating unemployment faster than the Government can place men in employment. That is what is taking place in the Transvaal to-day. Let me look at the position just a little more closely. On the 21st February, 1924, that is not long ago, there were 3,080 traders in the Transvaal who had not paid their turnover tax. Why had they not paid it? Because they were unable to do so. It is a very properly accepted position that many traders in the country are struggling bravely to come through, and when the end of the year comes and this turnover tax has got to be paid were, in all probability, unable to pay it at all. If they did not pay that tax before the 31st of December, there is an extra 10 per cent. on it for January, and these 3,081 traders who owed this turnover tax (a very large amount of money) there was 20 per cent. put on this turnover tax than what it originally was at the end of February. I say it fearlessly, and I want to draw special attention to it. There is no mercy with the Provincial Council in its measures of taxation. Now, what would be the position of these 3,000 odd traders unable to pay their turnover tax? It is known they are unable to pay the extraordinary interest which for some reason or another is, perhaps, rapidly mounting up. At the end of the year it will be 120 per cent. What is going to happen? Half of those traders will go into the insolvency court. There is no doubt about that, and the other half may struggle through, and the employees of those men will be, at least a very large number of them, will be out on the streets to add to the ranks of the unemployed. That is what one item of taxation is doing in the Transvaal, and the fact is that you have traders in this position who know that they are unable to pay, and we know the taxation is unbearable, and driving them out of their calling, and throwing their employees on the street. I want to look at one or two items particularly. I am not going to delay the House in going over the whole list of Transvaal taxation, but I want to look at the poll tax. I notice a considerable agitation in the Cape Province at the possibility of a poll tax. We have got used to it in the Transvaal. It is plus an income tax. I remember in 1923, the last day for paying the poll tax, there were in various towns along the Reef, quite a queue of people waiting to pay the poll tax because, if they did not do so on that day, the next morning 10 per cent. would be added to it. Most of this undoubtedly was borrowed money, because most of the men were paying their poll tax for the very excellent year they had in 1922. They were not wealthy people; they were mostly workmen or miners and what happened? The Provincial Council saw all the great hardships that this poll and income tax caused, but what did they do? They increased the tax by another 50 per cent. on the Provincial tax for 1923, and instead of then being as originally 10 per cent. on the original income tax, it is now 15 per cent. Those hardships were known and generally accepted. But there is another extraordinary feature, it is that the Central Government collects these taxes. I wish the hon. the Minister to note this. It appears that the taxation measure is that it is only those who present their income tax accounts in the Transvaal who are liable for this tax. The big trader, the banker, the merchant, everyone who lives outside the Transvaal, but who trades in the Transvaal, is exempt from this provincial income tax so that the only way to get rid of the tax is to live over the border. It is really attempting to drive people outside the Province to live, and it is rather a remarkable thing that the Commissioner of Income Tax is collecting this money and handing it over to the Transvaal Provincial Council. There is just one more tax I want to look at, and that is the company tax. This House has been gaily passing through a company law and there are certain fees and taxation in connection with that company law. It will surely become the plaything of the Provincial Council. There is no provision otherwise, and it may surprise the House to know that at the present moment in the Transvaal Province there is a tax on every private and public company. The original draft of the law excluded those who made a loss on trading or mining or any other calling during the year, but when the Bill became law, it not only placed a taxation on the profits of companies that were making a profit, but on companies which were making a loss as well. Now, this seems to me to be a fairly serious position that, in a Bill of this character, there is no protection whatever against the Provincial Council taxing after the Central Government has already taxed. It has another effect, that owing to the taxation of companies, I notice that many private companies are being wound up, thereby avoiding taxation. These companies, because of the pressure of the taxation, and in order to avoid it they are going back to be ordinary trading firms. The whole security which limited companies give to trading is, therefore, disappearing, because the Provincial Council has the power of taxing all companies and they are already by this means driving them out of existence.

Why does not the hon. member go to the trouble of going into the Provincial Council and stopping it?

That is another matter. The hon. member is a supporter of the Provincial Council whatever they do. I hope to have the pleasure of hearing the hon. member defending their attitude. So long as you get each political party in this House supporting the Provincial Council and treating all matters simply as party questions this present position will not alter. Now there has always been a popular side in a debate on affairs of this kind. I notice that the popular side is never with the Government. The popular side is with those who have no responsibilities, and I have watched for a long time, but I can see nothing but the popular side taken up on the other side of the House. It does not matter whether the country can afford it or whether it cannot, they are always prepared to support any and every demand from whatever quarter, irrespective of the position of the taxpayer. I have no doubt that this is a very good thing and a very popular thing to do, but one hopes that they will be a little more responsible. I want to say this, that we are in a position in the Transvaal Province to-day that cannot continue. We cannot go on bearing the present taxation. That is just the position we occupy, and the only objection I have to the Bill is that we are giving the Provincial Councils a lease of life for a little longer. We are taking them out of their difficulties, we are refunding their deficit and giving them further credit at the ordinary rate of interest. I am rather anxious as to what effect this will have. It applied to the Provincial Council of the Transvaal in the past, and I am rather inclined to the view that the Cape is beginning to follow in its footsteps, and when the Cape receives a little encouragement of this character goodness only knows where it will stop. There is only one suggestion I have to make, I think it is a reasonable one, and I hope the hon. the Minister will consider it. I want something added to the Bill and it is this: Some provision should be made in regard to dual taxation. We should not have two taxing parties levying the same taxation. I think the view on this point is well stated on page 55 of the Provincial Financial Commission Report which reads—

I would also like to draw attention to the report of the Royal Commission in Australia in connection with the same matter. This report reads as follows—

Now it will not go very far if the Minister should add this to the present Bill, but it will give a certain amount of security to people who do not know what form of taxation they will be met with next, and if the suggested new Clause only provides that where the Central Government has taxed the Provincial Council shall not be permitted to do so, I think it will be at any rate helpful and a fair thing and no more. It has been the experience of every country that this dual taxation has never worked, and there is no reason why it should work here. Now the present extravagance of the Provincial Council, the present expenditure and the present taxation is impossible. I make the statement without fear of contradiction. It is impossible to continue even if it were not increased, which it very probably will be in the near future; and I assure those who are supporting the present situation of expenditure and present taxation of the Transvaal Provincial Council, as our friends on the other side of this House are doing, I say, Mr. Speaker, that they are driving men from their homes, they are accentuating the position of the unemployed, and they are driving men into the insolvency court who have been excellent citizens of the Union.

As ’n mens die veroordeling wil kry van die Regering sy lamlendige politiek met die Prowinsiale Rade, dan behoef men nie verder te gaan dan die Ministeriekant self me. Die veroordeling het al geval uit die mond van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies sell, en as mense in ag neem die toesprake van die lede aan die anderkant, soos die edele Troyeville (de hr. Webber) en Natal Kust (de hr. Saunders) dan het mens die onvoorwaardelike bekentenis van die anderkant, dat hulle ’n baie slegte saak het, ’n belangrike saak wat vir die Regering se kant die mees lafhartige politiek openbaar, wat vir ’n lange tyd hier in die Huis geopenbaar is. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het opgestaan en een van die treurigste, oppervlakkigste, en mees haarklowenue toesprake gehou wat ek nog ooit gehoor het en wat totaal misplaas is vir die edelagbare die Eerste Minister van hierdie Kabinet. Hy het begin met daarop te wys, dat daar ’n verskil was tussen die toespraak van die leier van die opposiesie en die leier van die arbeiders-party en dan, hy probeer om ’n ernstige saak wat die ernstigste oorweging van hierdie Huis nodig het, belaglik en bespotlik voor te stel. Maar ek wil wys op ’n ander vergelyking en dis die vergelyking tussen die toespraak van die edelagbare Eerste Minister en die toespraak van die edelagbare Minister van Finansies. As daar ooit ’n onvoorwaardelike kapitulasie was van A tot Z dan het ons die gehad uit die mond van die edele Minister van Finansies. ’n Jammerliker, belagliker en lamlendiger politiek van die Regering het ek nog nooit gesien nie.

How many more adjectives do you want?

Ek sou nog baie meer kan aanhaal, maar die is genoeg vir my doeleindes. Die edelagbare Minister, wat self advokaat is, weet dat hy ’n slegte saak het en sy leier het die politiek gevolg: “Ek het ’n slegte saak, laat ek die ander kant swart maak en dinge aanhaal wat niks met die kwessie te maak het nie Die toespraak van die edele Eerste Minister is ’n aaneenskakeling van oppervlakkighede, maar by die volk sal daardie toespraak geen opgang maak nie, en die volk sal een van die dae, in nie te verre toekoms toon op praktiese en ondubbelsinnige wyse wat hulle dink van die houding van die Regering op die kwessie en veral wat hulle dink van die toespraak van die edelagbare Eerste Minister. Daar is niemand wat die Regering sterker veroordeel het dan die ring van daardie plig uit te stel. Die laaste paar wette het nie eens meer ’n datum bepaal hoelank die Wet van 1913 van krag sou bly nie maar verklaar eenvoudig, dat dit sal wees totdat daar by wetgewing voorsiening gemaak sal word. Dus dit is onsin as die edelagbare Eerste Minister verklaar, dat hy tyd wil hê om die belangryke saak uit te denk, want hy het al ruim veertien jaar bedenktyd gehad en van jaar tot jaar werd die saak weer vermy en planne gemaak om daarvan weg te kom. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het ook gesê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade het hulle mag tebuite gegaan deur wetgewing van strafoplegging, van wrede straf, wat hulle gepasseer het, wette wat belasting op die myne gelê het en wette wat hy atrocious genoem het ten opsigte van naturelie. Die verklaring van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, dat hulle “atrociously” belas word is ongemotiveerd, aangesien Artiekel 85 duidelik die Prowinsiale Rade die reg verleen om belasting op te lê. En wat betref die opmerkings van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister met betrekking tot die hoofbelasting, het ek ’n skandaliger verklaring nog nie van ’n verantwoordelike persoon gehoor nie, want hy moet begryp, dat deur te praat van wreedheid in wetgewing teenoor die naturel, hy die gevoelens van die naturel gaande maak teen die witman en hulle onder die indruk breng, dat aan hulle onreg gedaan is en daartoe bestaat geen grond nie. Wat betref die belasting op onroerende goed, die Regering staat genoeg veroordeeld deur een van hul eie, die edele lid vir Natal Kust (Mr. Saunders) die wat daarop gewys het. Wat ik heeltemaal mee akkoord gaan dat dit ’n onregverdige belasting is om ’n man te belas eenvoudig omdat hy grond in besit het. Hier is beweerd, dat die Nasionale Party die goudmyne eenvoudig as myne wil belas; dit is nie waar nie, dog net op die profyte wil hulle belasting hef. Totaal van teenoorgestelde strekking is die verklaring van die edelagbare Minister van Finansies om die grondeigenaar te belas, net omdat hy die geregistreerde eigenaar van grond is. Dit wys wat die twee dryfkragte is, aan die invloed waarvan die Regering onderworpe is die Kamer van Mynwese en die Kamer van Koophandel waar voor hulle stelselmatig (die Regering) swig. Dit is aan hulle invioed te danke, dat die Regering in sy teenwoordige, onbenydenswaardige posiesie gedompel is—dit is eenvoudig daaraan te wyte, dat hulle onder onbehoorlike invioed is—hulle weet dat hulle geen week langer op die Regeringsbanke kan sit, as daardie steun hulle onttrek word nie. Die edelagbare Minister van Finansies het verklaar, dat die houding van die Kamer van Koophandel en die van die onderwysers mekaar neutraliseer. Wat hy bedoel weet ek nie maar hierdie neutralisasie is nie die belangrike punt nie. Wat belangrik is, is dat dip Regering swig voor die heftige opposiesie van die Prowinsiale Administrasie en die volk. Hy is van een ding seker en dit is, dat die Kamer van Mynwese en die van Koophandel se mening die deurslag gewende faktore is. Wat betref die Regering se werklike gevoele oor die Prowinsiale Rade, die waarheid is, dat die Regering daarop uit is edelagbare Minister van Finansie sell nie. Hy het vertel dat die Baxter-rapport die toppunt van wysheid is waarby gesonde verstand gebruik is, maar dan vertel hy verder dat hulle die nie aangeneem het nie, omdat die Prowinsiale Administrasies, die vier Prowinsiale Rade en die volk daarteen was. Dit kom dus feitlik hier op neer, dat terwyl die edele Minister van Finansie die Rapport opgehemel het as die toppunt van finansiële wysheid, hy die volk veroordeel as sonder verstand met betrekking tot hierdie kwessie. Dan se ek, is dit volkome regvêrdig om die houding van, die Regering te bestempel as “weg hardloop ’n politiek van lafhartigheid en gebrek aan die sedelike moed wat die Regering races geopenbaar het onder die omstandighede. As ons terug gaan na die konstitusie waarvoor die ander kant altoos soon enorme eerbied openbaar, dan sal ons vind dat die Nasionale Konvensie in Artikel 118 van die Suidafrikaanse Wet opsettelik die funksies, die magte en die regte van die Prowinsiale Rade uiteengeset het en dit me on ’n karige manier nie. Daar is in die Wet vasgelê die regte vir die Prowinsiale Rade om te belas. Wil die edelagbare Eerste Minister, wil die edelagbare Minister van Finansies die versekering gee, dat die Nasionale Konvensie rooit bedoel het nie, dat Prowinsiale Rade dieselfde bronne sou belas as die Sentrale Regering ook belas? En as hy die durf het om die versekering te gee, waarop sou hy die verklaring gee? Dit behoef nie ’n regsgeleerde om die konstitusie te lees nie. Artiekel 85 laat met onset die ruimte in belastingsmag van die Prowinsiale Rade, en dit behoef daarom me verwondering te wek, dat soos in die geval van die goudprofyte belasting, die Prowinsiale Regering die reg uitgeoefen het om die belasting op te lê nie. Ek sê, dis die bedoeling van die konstitusie en ek beroep my op die uitspraak van die hoogste hof in die land, die Appelhof, wat die artiekel geïnterpreteer het en uitspraak gedoen het dat die Prowinsiale Rade heeltemal binne hulle regte was om sulke ordonansies te passeer. Daar is ’n ander artiekel van die Konstitusie, wat duidelik beoog en verklaar dat dit die plig is van die Unie Regering om die finansiële verhouding tussen die provinsies en die Unie op ’n gesonde voet te plaas en wel op ’n vaste en permanente fondament. Artiekel 118 beoog duidelik dat die Regering, d.w.s. die Parlement op inisiatief van die Regering de relasies tussen die twee sal reel by wetgewing en die Regering het van die begin af daardie verpligting erken ook met die reeds ingediende wetgewing het hulle dit erken, dat dit ’n plig is, wat die Konvensie die Regering en die Parlement oplê. Wat vind ons ewewel in die praktyk? My vriend die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) het die wetgewing nagegaan en gewys daarop, dat die Wet van 1913 opgevolg werd deur die Wet van 1917 en nie minder as vier verlengings werd gevra en toegestaan in verband met die regeling van die relasies tussen die Provinsies en die Unie en wat was die artiekels eenvoudig met ’n paar uitsonderings? In 1917, 1920. 1921 en 1922 werd wetgewing ingedien om die uitvoeom die Prowinsiale Rade daartoe te dryf om selfmoord te pleeg. En nou nog iets in verband met die onderwyskwessie. Dit blyk uit ’n verklaring, wat ek vind van die edelagbare Eerste Minister aan die deputasie van Hollandse Predikante, dat die saak voorlopig van die baan is—voorlopig. Wat praat die lede van die Regering nie verskillend nie? Ten spyte van die erkenning van die edelagbare Minister van Finansies dat die volk daarop teen is, lyk dit of die Regering deur ’n syaanval sy sin wil deurkry, omdat hulle nie die moed het om ’n frontaanval te onderneem nie, en sodoende die teehstand van die volk te breek. Hulle het nie die moed om dit op ’n manlike manier deur te dryf nie. Dat hulle vandag nie die durf het nie, is seker en daar kan net een rede voor bestaan waarom hulle dit wil uitvoer en dit is, dat hulle vrinde, van wie hulle so afhanklik is dit verlang. Nou werd selfs voorgestel om die skoolrade af te skaf. Die skerpe partygevoel in die Prowinsiale Rade het ook veel bygedra om die finansiële moeilikhede te skep. Wie het die toestand in die lewe geroep as die Regering self? Toe Dr. Ramsbottom se eerste termyn as Administrateur verstryk was, wie het toe ’n ander Administrateur aangestel? Pleks dat hulle gesê het, die man is wel ’n Nasionalis, maar hy is ’n knaplandsbestuurder eh ons laat hom nog ’n termyn dien, gee hulle die voorbeeld van party-politiek tot die uiterste. Ek is oortuigd daarvan, dat as so anders gehandel was, die Prowinsiale Rade nie so in die party-politiek betrokke sou geraak het nie en dan was vandag die finansiële moeilikhede minder. As ons Ministers en veral die Minister van Finansies openhartig die waarheid wou spreek, sal hulle erken, dat daar min troos in te vinde is, dat die Kommissie so ’n rapport gemaak het oor die Prowinsiale Rade, want soas die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) tefeg aangewys het, wat sou die uitslag gewees het as ’n helemaal onafhankelike Kommissie aangestel was met die opdrag om ’n rapport uit te breng oor die finansiële en belasting metodes gedurende die laaste jare deur die Regering self gevolg. Die Regering wil wond, en die Prowinsiale Rade dood maak op ’n omslagtige manier, omdat hulle nie die moed het om dit op direkte manier te doen nie. Ek is bly, dat hier aangehaal is van die hoë en vette diwidende, wat sekere ryk myne betaal. Dit word voorgestel asof ons daarop uit is om die myne uit te roei. Dit is een van die lasterpraatjies teen die Nasionale Party net soas die van rassehaat maar dit is welbekend, dat sommige myne 120 persent dividend uitbetaal, ander 60 persent en zovoort en dan stuur hulle nog aan die aandeelhouers ’n begeleidende kennisgewing, dat as daar nie sulke hoë belastinge was nie, dan sou die wins nog vetter gewees het. En dit is die arme myne, waarvan die Regering die beskermheer en beskermer geword het? Die toespraak van die edelagbare Eerste Minister kom neer op ’n pleidooi vir hog meer tyd en as ’n mens nagaan, dat hy reeds veertien jaar bedenktyd gehad het en dit reeds solank op die lange baan geskuif is, dan is dit onmolik om die pleidooi van die edelagbare Eerste Minister: vir nog langer tyd as te goeder trou geuit op te neem. Die Regering het van jaar tot jaar die kwessie vermy en wou dit nie aanpak nie, want hulle het nie die nodige moed daartoe gehad nie. Die edelagbare Eerste Minister pleit, dat dit in verband staat met die deursien van die Oorlog, hy het hom toegerol in die engelse vlag, maar daar is sedert reeds ses jaar verloop en wat is gedoen? Wat is gedoen? Dit edelagbare Minister van Finansies is ’n welsprekende man en ’n man wat die edele Eerste Minister baie naby kom, maar tog nie ewenaar nie om ’n slegte rede as ’n goeie rede voor te stel, maar die edelagbare Minister het hier gekom die ander dag en sy toespraak byna woordelik afgelees. Ek vra die edelagbare Minister was dit die politiek van die Regering of sy persoonlike politiek wat hy hier verkondig het? Natuurlik moet ons aanneem dat hy vir die Regering gepraat het. Ek sê dat dit ’n belaglike verklaring is naas die toespraak van die edelagbare Eerste Minister, en omgekeer. Die edelagbare Eerste Minister is behendig, wonderlik bedrewe in daardie dinge, maar hy het nie daarin kon slaag nie in hierdie geval om ’n slegte saak, wat so absoluut weggegee was deur die Minister van Finansies, reg te praat nie met al sy behendigheid, wat die resultaat en prys gegee ook al mag wees van die stemming hier in die Huis, hy het dit nie reg gekry nog by hierdie Huis, nog daarbuite by die volk. Toe die edele lid vir Natal Kust (de hr. Saunders) gepraat het, het hy, glo ek, die woorde gebruik, dat die agitasie van die kant van die onderwysers “was ten regte of onregte” en die edelagbare die Minister van Binnelandse Sake het die edele lid daaroor aangeval en gesê, dat dit die plig is van die edele lid vir Natal Kust (de hr. Saunders) om te sê of die houding van die onderwysers reg is of nie. Maar wat doet die Regering self? Die edelagbare Minister van Finansies kom en sê, dat hierdie Baxter-rapport ’n gesonde oplossing vir die verhouding tussen die Prowinsiale Rade en die Unie bevat en die kan ons nie uitvoer nie omdat die volk en die Administrasies van die Provinsies daarteen is. Bestaat daar ’n jammerliker bekentenis? Maar hoe strook die verklaring met wat die edelagbare Minister van Binnenlandse Sake gemaak het met wat hy gesê het teen die edele lid vir Natal Kust (de hr. Saunders)? Daar is ’n baie betekenisvolle artiekel in vanoggend se Cape Times, die lyfwag en lyforgaan van die teenwoordige Regering en ek hoop dat ieder lid aan die ander kant van die Huis die artiekel gelees het. Die artiekel van die Cape Times kom terug tot die ou geskiedenis: “Town versus Country” en sê, dat die kwessie nou, nou hom oplos in ’n konflik tussen platteland en stede, en dat die val van die Regering “mag” teweeg bring. Wat is die houding van die plattelandse verteenwoordigers ander kant? Aanvaar hulle die verklaring van die Cape Times? Dat die Wetsontwerp nou uitgeloop het op ’n konflik tussen die stede en die platteland? Dis weer die ou laster, een van die ry van ou lasters. Ons word beskuldig van die naturelle te onderdruk van rassehaat en die plattelandse bevolking word beskuldig dat hulle die belastinge wil ontduik ten koste van die stedelike bevolking. Ek vra die edele vriende daar wat hulle houding is teenoor die kwessie. Nou het ons hier ’n interpretasie gehad van die ander kant omtrent Artikel 2 van die Wetsontwerp en ek aarsel nie om te sê, dat dit belaglik is vir ’n Minister of enig lid aan die ander kant van die Huis om te sê dat onder Artikel 2 van die Wet word uniformiteit bewerkstellig, want waar in die eerste deel van die artiekel duidelik gesê word, dat uniform skale van salarisse sal ingevoer word, word onmiddellik inbreuk gemaak, lateraan in die artiekel, op die uniformiteit. Ook glo ek, dat deur die edelagbare Minister gesê is dat in die artiekel neergelê word wat die minimum is, maar die sub-artiekel (2) gee die spesifieke reg aan Prowinsiale Kommittees om speciale belastinge op te le op sekere klasse, namelik onderwysers en in enige jaar kan die toelaés verminder word. Ek sê, dis die wonderlikste uniformiteit en tegemoetkoming, wat ek nog ooit gesien het. Maar wat is die noodsakelikheid hoegenaamd vir die invoeging van Artiekel 2? Die edelagbare Eerste Minister en ook die edelagbare Minister van Finansies het die versekering gegee, dat daar geen verskil van opienie in die land bestaan daaroor of al die Prowinsies ’n uniforme skaal van besoldiging behoor te hê nie. Waar is dan die noodsaklikheid hoegenaamd om dit aan die Prowinsiale Administrasies en Rade duidelik te maak deur die artiekel? Het die dan nie gesonde verstand genoeg nie om die mening wat gedeel word, soos hulle sê deur alle seksies, om daaraan gevolg te gee deur wetgewing op hulle eie houtjie nie? Wat is die gevolg nou? Vandag is die onderwysers, een van die verantwoordelikste seksies van ons volk onder die indruk dat ’n growwe onreg gedaan is aan hulle professie, aan die liggaam van onderwysers in Suid-Afrika. Ek dink in die verre verlede, en miskien ook in die nabye verlede, solank die opleiding van ons kinders aan die onderwysers toevertrou gewees het, is hulle werk nie genoeg op prys gestel geword nie en deur wetgewing van die aard verwek ons net die indruk dat hulle op roekelose wyse onreg aangedoen word. Hulle is ’n belangrike seksie in die samelewing van Suid-Afrika en in enige beskaafde land en hulle werk behoor meer op prys gestel te word. Nou die predikantedeputasie het aan die edele Eerste Minister meegedeel—’n feit wat blykbaar nie eens bestry word nie—dat onder die aanbevelinge van die Baxter Rapport meer as 1400 skole in die Kaapprovinsie alleen gesluit sal moet word, wat nie die minimum van 20 leerlinge het nie. Dis maar een punt, maar dis ’n belangrike punt. Nou, ek wil ten slotte dit sê dat ’n slegter saak nooit voorgebring is deur die Regering in hierdie Huis nie, en die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het van die staanspoor af die politiek van die Regering so duidelik bloot gegêe, ’n politiek van weghardloop, dat dit werklik te kinderagtig is vir enige man om te probeer goedpraat en daarom sê ek dat die toespraak van die edelagbare Eerste Minister lamlendig was en dat hy op verre na nie daarin geslaag is om die treurige posiesie van die Regering goed te praat nie. Uit die edelagbare die Minister van Finanse se mond staat hulle veroordeel en ek is oortuig daarvan dat die volk daar buite die Regering sal toets en hom ’n geweldige slag toebring.

On the motion of Mr. Nicholls (Zululand), the debate was adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.