moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table—

1. (l) Reports of the Trustees of the South African Art Gallery and the South African Fine Arts Association for the year ending the 31st December, 1923.
2. (2) Balance sheet of the South African Fine Arts Association for the year ending 31st December, 1923.
3. (3) Report of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for the year 1922-’23.

Papers referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I wish to draw attention to Notice of Motion No. I in the name of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) for Tuesday, the 25th instant, for the appointment of a Select Committee to enquire into certain charges alleged to have been made in this House during the course of debate in the 1923 session by the Minister of Railways and Harbours against the General Secretary of the National Union of Railway and Harbour Servants, which Committee is to have power to take evidence and call for papers. Earlier in the session, when a draft petition from the person above-named, praying for leave to be heard in reply to the alleged charges, was submitted to me, it was pointed out that in terms of Standing Order No. 262, no reference was permissible in a petition to any debate in Parliament, and attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 2 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 19 of 1911, which provides for freedom of speech and debate, and to Section 8, under which no liability attaches to members in respect of what is said by them in Parliament. Freedom of speech in Parliament is one of the most ancient and essential privileges of members, and (says May, 11th edition, page 100) “if a member should say nothing disrespectful to the House or the Chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the House, he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings or injurious to the character of individuals; and he is protected by this privilege from any action for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation.” A Select Committee is one appointed by the House to consider any matters upon which the House may desire information and assistance, but cannot be appointed to enquire into the accuracy or otherwise of statements made by members in the course of debate in the House, unless the personal honour of a member raising a question of privilege is involved, or in a case where the suppression of information contained in State documents is alleged, but even then the circumstances surrounding such alleged suppression would have to be carefully weighed. The motion will be clearly out of order, and the notice must be discharged from the Order Paper.

Ik wens de aandacht te vestigen op Kennisgeving van Voorstel No. I op naam van het edele lid voor Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) voor Dinsdag, 25 dezer, voor de benoeming van een Gekozen Komitee om onderzoek te doen naar zekere beschuldigingen die beweerd werden in dit Huis te zijn gedaan gedurende de loop van het debat in de 1923 sessie door de Minister van Spoorwegen en Havens tegen de Algemene Sekretaris van de Nationale Unie van Spoorweg- en Havendienaren, welk Komitee bevoegd zal zijn getuigenis te nemen en dokumenten te vorderen. Vroeger in de sessie, toen een konsept petitie van bovengenoemde persoon, verlof verzoekend om gehoord te worden in antwoord op de beweerde beschuldigingen, aan mij werd voorgelegd, werd erop gewezen dat ingevolge Artikel 262 van het Reglement van Orde niet toegelaten kon worden dat in een petitie gedoeld werd op een debat in het Parlement, en de aandacht werd gevestigd op de bepalingen van Artikel 2 van de Machten en Privilegiën van het Parlement Wet, No. 19 van 1911, die vrijheid van toespraak en debat voorschrijven, en op Artikel 8, volgens hetwelk leden niet aansprakelik zijn ten aanzien van hetgeen door hen in het Parlement gezegd wordt. Vrijheid van toespraak in het Parlement is een van de oudste en gewichtigste privileges van de leden, en (zegt May, 11de editie, bladz. 100) “wanneer een lid niets oneerbiedigs jegens het Huis of de Stoel zegt, of persoonlik beledigend voor andere leden, of in strijd met andere regels van het Huis, kan hij zeggen wat hem goeddunkt in debat, hoe aanstotelik het ook moge zijn voor de gevoelens of schadelik voor de goede naam van individuën; en hij wordt door dit privilege beschermd tegen enige aktie voor laster, alsook tegen enige ander vraag of overlast.” Een Gekozen Komitee wordt door het Huis benoemd om aangelegenheden te onderzoeken waarover het Huis inlichtingen en bijstand mocht verlangen, maar het kan niet worden benoemd om een onderzoek in te stellen naar het al dan niet juist zijn van beweringen door leden in de loop van het debat in het Huis gemaakt, tenzij de persoonlike eer van een lid wegens een kwestie van privilege er bij gemoeid is, of in een geval waarin beweerd wordt dat informatie vervat in staatsdokumenten achtergehouden is, maar zelfs dan zouden de omstandigheden, gepaard gaande met zulk een beweerde achterhouding, zorgvuldig overwogen moeten worden. Het is duidelik dat het voorstel buiten de orde is en de kennisgeving moet derhalve van de ordelijst afgevoerd worden.

May I ask whether in that ruling you have included words which would differentiate this motion from that moved on the 25th February, 1914, by the then Minister of Finance that in view of a statement made in this House by the hon. member for Jeppes that he was in possession of certain information that a Select Committee be appointed to ascertain the sources of such information? Is that included in your ruling?

Towards the end of my ruling I have incorporated more or less the incident of 1914. If the hon. member considers himself justified by the incident of 1914 in the motion which has now been ruled out of order, he will see that the honour of a member of Parliament, who was then a Minister, was involved. There is a great distinction between the point now put forward by the hon. member and that raised in 1914.

The question there was not a question involving the honour of the Minister at all. It was simply a question of fact, something which was accepted by the Minister as a fact, and I presume I would be in order if I changed the form of my motion and if I said I wanted an inquiry into the foundations of the charge, and whether the administration of the law in this country was invoked so that a conspiracy to murder the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways should not go unnoticed. Would I be in order in that?

If the hon. member will put the notice on the paper, I can rule again if necessary; but the hon. member cannot expect me to give a ruling on that point now. If he will read my ruling carefully, he will see and recognize the correctness thereof.

It was not my intention to have spoken on this Bill, because it is am agreed Bill. It was introduced to meet the wishes of the provincial authorities and whatever opinion may be held in this House as to the wisdom or otherwise of provincial administration, or of Provincial Councils, that opinion is in no way affected by the introduction of this Bill. All the Bill does, as has already been pointed out, is to relieve the embarrassing situation of the Provincial Councils by funding their deficit and enabling them to bring about a uniformity in educational matters which they have long endeavoured unsuccessfully to obtain. That is all the Bill does, and I should not have thought it necessary to have said a word, but for the speech of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) the other night. I feel it is now necessary for me, as a representative also of the Natal Coast, having constituents who are engaged in the same walk of life and of the same status as the constituents of the hon. member, to say a few words on their behalf. I know how they feel about it, and may say at the outset that I thoroughly realize and appreciate the sincerity of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders), and appreciate that he acted as he thought in the public interest in expressing his opinions, but those opinions are, I think, directly opposed to the wishes and desires of Natal, as they have been expressed through the press and on the public platform.

Question.

The cause of this Bill is very largely Natal. The Minister has said so in introducing this Bill; and the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), the leader of the Opposition, taunted the Minister that it was so. The Natal provincial authorities came down here to Cape Town to represent Natal opinion upon the proposed changes. They discussed the whole matter with the Minister. They refused to budge an inch on the road which the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) wishes to travel. Natal does not accept the Baxter Report. If there is one thing more certain than another it is this, that throughout the whole of the Natal Coast and in Durban, meeting after meeting has unanimously passed a vote of confidence in the candidates for provincial honours who have assailed the Baxter Report, and I cannot understand, therefore, why the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) comes forward now and asks the Government to accept the report, which is unanimously—as far as we can ascertain, at any rate in public opinion as it is expressed—condemned throughout Natal.

No.

Well, I shall proceed to explain that. I infer from the hon. member’s speech, that he considers the Baxter Report a document, every word of which is stamped with eternal truth—indisputable, indestructable. He considered that we should accept the findings of the Baxter Report as Euclidean, as though they could not be disproved. In this matter the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders), strangely enough, is in complete agreement with the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance also agrees as to the indisputable character of the Baxter Report. He also wants this report introduced into the House. He wants to embody its conclusions in a Bill to put the Provincial Councils on a different system. He is as much disappointed as the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) that he has had to introduce this starveling—as he called it— instead of the lusty infant, which, it is thought, is to be found somewhere in the womb of the Baxter Report. The hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) argues that he is not in favour of the retention of the Provincial Council, and he thinks that Natal also is not in favour of the retention of the Provincial Councils. On the strength of those views he urges the Government to bring in a Bill which will largely destroy their powers. He may be right. Public opinion in Natal may be as he represents it to be. He accepts it as a fact that that is the opinion of Natal; but after all, the place to test that opinion is in Natal; not in this House. I think, personally, that it is a pity that our constitution does not contain some machinery whereby a referendum can be taken on such questions as this, so that the feeling of the whole country can be obtained on a question, out of which otherwise political capital is made on all sides. As far as the public opinion of Natal is vocal, through the press and on the platform, it is not as the hon. member represents it to be. And there is no other way of testing public opinion short of a referendum. Judged by the test of press and platform in Natal there is no truth in the contention that Natal desires to dispense with Provincial Councils. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), or Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) will not say so. They are moving an amendment to strengthen Provincial Councils. The hon. members for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. Henderson), or Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) or Durban (Point) (Mr. Greenacre) or Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan), would not get up and say what the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) has said. In the face of this opinion, it would be sheer tyranny on the part of any Government to introduce a measure which would ride rough-shod over the opinions of the people of Natal, or any other part of the country. I, personally, take the Natal view of the Baxter Report, and I propose to deal with a few features of that report. The Bill, as the Minister says, is more eloquent for what it does not contain than what it does contain. I propose to consider what it does not contain, and what the hon. member for Natal Coast blames the Minister for not introducing into the Bill—the Baxter Report. Natal does not accept this document as unimpeachable evidence of the extravagance of the Natal Provincial Council. The Provincial Council of Natal has served the province very well, and there is no shadow of doubt that Natal would be very much worse off if there had been no Provincial Council. It has a deficit of only £30,000, and to-day it is balancing its budget; and the people of Natal are appreciative of the non-political work of the Provincial Council of Natal. I am going to criticize this report then, as it has been criticized in Natal. If I were to criticize it from an orthodox standpoint I could not find much to cavil at. I am going to admit I am perfectly unorthodox in this matter. It is one of the easiest things to be orthodox. You have but to conform to certain generally accepted propositions. You can grub up orthodoxy in any text-book. You can swallow the holy truth in the reports made by chairmen of Chambers of Commerce, or any banking institution. If you believe unquestionably in all these things you would be perfectly orthodox and you would have the right to a seat in the ranks of the pundits, but if you are unorthodox, the ranks of the pundits will be ever closed to you. To remain orthodox you must never ask questions, you must never ask questions about social progress. You must never talk about ethical problems.

Why not?

Because orthodox finance does not deal with social progress or ethical matters; it deals with figures; it deals with the ability of a Government to balance its Budget. The test of good Government to the orthodox, is the ability to balance its budget with the minimum of taxation of the people. If you question that and say “We will not balance our Budget this year as we must fight unemployment and make provision for the unemployed,” you are not an orthodox pundit.

The hon. member is a Bolshevist!

Money talks, and while money is talking its loudest in the praise of a good Government, the people are more often silent in their deepest misery. I do not wish it to be inferred from this that I think we should have an unorthodox Minister of Finance. That might be a national tragedy. The duty of a Minister of Finance is to keep tight the purse strings. It is quite sufficient that we should have a few unorthodox Ministers in the Cabinet. I am quite satisfied that there is a dash of unorthodoxy in the Prime Minister, which enables him to loosen the purse-strings occasionally. The Minister of Finance is a useful drag upon the State, provided he does not believe he is the whole blooming chariot himself. The Baxter Report is undoubtedly a good report. It is excellently written, and reveals a most painstaking amount of work in its composition. Unfortunately, it is built up on figures, and like German marks, they change their value when you want to use them very often. Dealing with this report as it is written it is obvious to every one that the Commission set out to do a certain thing, which was to find out whether the expenditure of this country was extravagant or otherwise. It looked about for a proper measuring-stick, they sought to find some kind of yard measure with which they could measure up our expenditure. In paragraph 35 they state—

They were rather puzzled, I gather, as to how exactly they were going to arrive at that data. They started off by trying to find a yard-stick by making a comparison of the expenditure in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But this method proved utterly futile. In paragraph 40 they say—

So they proceed in the ordinary orthodox manner, in the Chamber of Commerce manner, to make comparisons by putting certain figures opposite other figures and pointing to the striking result. My opinion of the matter is this—it is quite unorthodox—that the Commission started out upon the track fully knowing what the answer was going to be, and they had to fill in the sum for the answer which was already found. The comparative method utterly failed. No yard-stick was to be found in Canada, Australia or New Zealand. So they adopted the method of setting down the expenditure of 1913-14 in the Union, and then showing the tremendous increase in 1920-21. The figures undoubtedly get up and strike you, and you say: “What an extra ordinary growth of expenditure.” They drew striking attention to that. They then sought enlightenment from the comparison of imports and exports, not quite realizing that a country may be wealthy if it consumes the goods it produces itself and does not rely upon exchanging them with other countries. The Commission then tried to arrive at our national wealth by examining our figures of production in farming, mining and manufacturing. But in this their figures are erratic. The farming figures compared were the census of 1911 and 1921,. despite the fact that the year book warns the public that the 1911 census is inaccurate and misleading. They took our figures of manufacture for which there are no figures before 1917, and then they took our figures of mining which are correct. After all these comparisons are of most misleading data, they arrive at this conclusion, which is so eminently orthodox—

That is the conclusion which they arrived at after all this work, a conclusion which I have heard repeated by the Minister of Finance on many occasions. It often appears to me that a country which has proved a thousand millions of tons of coal to exist under the ground and great deposits of iron ore, with idle hands of unemployed ready to produce, cannot call itself a very poor country.

Poor in statesmanship.

After having worked out all these sums it came to the conclusion that our national income was, as it was stated to be by Professor Lehfeldt. But Professor Lehfeldt would be the last man to say that his preliminary rough forecast of the country’s income was an accurate one. But the Commission accepted it. The Commission said we pay 3s. 11d. in the pound in our national income towards the upkeep of the State. Here then was the answer with which they started, and they expressed it in these words—

To clinch that argument they said—

That is the end of the matter in so far as that part of the report is concerned. Apparently, however, they felt a little timid about the accuracy of their statements, and they thought, “We will have to take in a little comparison” and they took in New Zealand. In New Zealand a similar report had just been written, the report said that in New Zealand they had also reached the limit of taxable capacity. The Commission hailed this announcement as proving their argument, and showed that whereas in New Zealand there was £13 5s. 7d. per head paid in taxation, in South Africa there was £12 7s. 3d. Presumably we were a poorer country than New Zealand. Therefore for South Africa to pay £12 7s. 3d. a head was an appalling state of things as applied merely to the Europeans. They took no notice of the singular fact that there are 5,500,000 natives in South Africa, and if the tax is placed upon them equally they each paid 10s. 5d. a head. The estimated amount of indirect taxation which the native pays, made by the Commission, was a rough estimate of £2,000,000, but I think the native pays more than 10s. 5d. a head. This kind of argument, applied merely to a class of the population, vitiates all their conclusions. There are two mistakes in all these calculations. The first was the Commission started out with the expenditure of 1913 as a standard, and that 1913 standard should not have been taken. In that year South Africa was just emerging from the form of Colonial Government, where Government was largely a family affair, when the theory was that Government could not interfere too much with the subject. Since that time South Africa and the world has insisted upon Governments doing other things besides just keeping things going. In 1913 our education was primitive and rather a private affair; the communications of this country were very chaotic. The second point is that the millions of expenditure since 1913 have not all been unproductive as the Commission assumed. Those millions will return fourfold later on. During those ten years the character of this country has improved, and the development of this country has immensely improved. I have not the time to go into this matter fully, but I want to go into the aspect of what Natal thinks of education. The Commission in one of the first paragraphs on education states this—

The Minister of Education asked was there any difference in the conditions of Australia as compared to those in South Africa which should make this extraordinary difference. Well, these figures are entirely misleading. The comparison is an unfair comparison. This is an example of the striking method. In the first place you have to make enormous reductions. Ninety per cent. of the enrolled pupils of South Africa attend schools, whereas in Australia at this particular period there was 81 per cent., so down goes the cost of tuition in Australia. Now another factor, the Australian Year Book gives the average cost per head of attendance since 1921 at £11 11s. 7d., and this does not include the cost of technical education. The second point is this: and it is another forgotten trifle in the report, that there are 2,489,568 inhabitants of Australia congregated in six cities; 2½ million metropolitan population of Australia are ill six cities. It does not want a great amount of intelligence to realize the difference of education when you have a mass of population concentrated in six cities like that. 44.24 per cent. of the population are congregated in those six cities; there are 62.10 per cent. urban population in Australia, and we have the same population spread over hundreds of dorps and villages. How can there be any comparison of results? Take another fact. There are in New South Wales, and I take one State’s figures because you cannot have the whole of Australia, in 1921 there were 27 high schools, 2,022 public schools, 440 provisional schools, one house to house school, three travelling schools, two correspondence schools, 41 continuation schools, 509 subsidised schools—and the cost of education for subsidised is not the same as for a school which is not subsidised, but they are all enrolled—and three industrial reformatory schools. There were 44 schools with over 1,000 pupils, and 249 schools in operation in and around Sidney with over 200 pupils each. I am going to make a much better comparison than that. One must remember that in talking of Australia we are dealing with a country six times the size of the Union. The population of the backveld there are living in very remote places not reached by scholastic institutions; many of the pupils are instructed by correspondence schools and by itinerant teachers who go round from house to house and perhaps give the pupils one day’s schooling in one week. It means that many of the people in Australia are not receiving any greater tuition than our Indians and natives. That is a fact of which I have personal knowledge; they are not being better educated than the Indians and natives of Natal. I will make a comparison of education in Natal. Appendix 8 of this report gives the cost of education in Natal as £13.61 per cent. Working on the same basis and taking the same figures, and including natives and Indian pupils in the schools of Natal, we have this result there are 54,404 pupils, Indian, natives and Europeans, and the teachers salaries were £393,704, and the cost per pupil is £7.2. That is a proper comparison. The corresponding figure which I have here for New South Wales during 1922-’23 is £10 per pupil, so where is the argument that the education in South Africa is very much in advance of what it is in Australia? I have not time to pursue the matter further, but I say it is on those grounds largely that one objects to this report. I do not advocate extravagance in provincial matters; economy in the State is as necessary as economy for the individual, but I object to going abroad for every piece of information we want in our taxation and financial conditions. We seem to have a desire to go abroad for information and to compare it with conditions which are not comparable. That is what I deprecate, and I do think these comparisons from abroad, particularly of education, cut no ice whatever. I will say this, in conclusion, that I quite agree with the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) that Provincial Councils will be better done away with, though I am not voicing the opinion of my constituents in saying so, but merely my own opinion. The Provincial Councils are destroying all our efforts at national union; I believe that the continuance of those barriers are undoubtedly keeping alive the old antagonisms, jealousies, and old rivalries which existed in previous days, and that we are working towards the destruction of Union in keeping them alive. The Provincial Councils have ceased to function as members of the united state; their existence is a political danger, and I agree to that extent with the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) but I do think no good purpose could possibly come of the provincial council system by opposing a Bill which is introduced entirely at the request and by the assistance of the Provincial Councils.

As daar ooit ’n wet ingedien is in die Huis, waar die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies op die horings van ’n dilemma verkeer het, dan is dit seker die Wetsontwerp. Die edelagbare die Minister se toespraak was van die begin tot die einde ’n apologie, ’n verontskuldiging, waarom hy die Wet moes indien. Volgens die edelagbare die Minister se verklaring hier in die Huis was die Baxter-rapport of ten minste die hoofpunte daarin, eintlik die ding wat die regte saak sou gewees het en wat hy sou moet ingedien het, maar volgens sy verklaring kon hy dit nie doen nie, hoeveel daar volgens hom ook voor te sê is, omdat as die edelagbare die Minister so ’n Wet sou deurset, dan sou dit teen die ernstige opposiesie van die meerderheid van die volk en die Prowinsiale Rade gaan. Die is absoluut teen ’n Wet op die rapport gebaseer. Dit is heeltemaal begryplik, want die hele Baxter Rapport het sy oorsprong te danke aan ’n agitasie van die Kamers van Koophandel. Die Kamer van Koophandel van Kaapstad het eintlik die oorsaak gewees, het aanleiding gegee dat die Baxter Kommissie gevorm is. Die samestelling van die Kommissie is dan ook eienaardig. Ek wil daarop wys, dat dit ’n saak is—die kwessie van onderwys en opvoeding en belasting-reëling in verband daarmee—wat nie alleen die stede nie, maar die hele land affekteer. En nieteenstaande dit, is daar nie ’n enkele verteenwoordiger van die platteland in die Baxter Kommissie nie. Onder die invioed van die Kamers van Koophandel, van die handelsbelange, is dit dan ook nie te verwonder, dat onder die Baxter Rapport probeer word om die belastinge af te skuiwe op die platteland nie. Die Kamers van Koophandel was dan ook baie ingenome met die rapport, baie tevrede daarmee en hulle vreugde was nog groter toe die edelagbare die Minister verlede jaar in die Huis verklaar het, dat in hoofsaak die Baxter Rapport vir die samestelling van die Wetsontwerp in aanmerking geneem sal word, sodat die handelsgemeenskap en die myne feitlik in hoofsaak vry sou loop van die belasting en dat die sou neerkom op die vaste eiendombesitters van die platteland. Maar die edelagbare die Minister het na die verklaring uitgevind, dat die Kamers van Koophandel nie die publieke opienie verteenwoordig nie. Hy het uitgevind dat die publieke opienie gekant is teen die politiek van die Kamers van Koophandel en vandaar die moeilikhede, hinc illae lacrimae, van daar die trane. Uit alle dele van die land het daar van die Kamers van Koophandel versoeke gekom om die Baxter-rapport in sy hoofpunte tot Wet te maak. Die Kamers van Koophandel was heeltemal geregtig om te dink, dat die rapport aangeneem sou word na lie handelwyse van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies in die verlede teenoor die Prowinsiale Rade. Al lange tyd was dit die edelagbare die Minister se politiek by suksessiewe wetgewings om die magte en regte van die Prowinsiale Rade te verminder, en toe is natuurlik gedink en verwag, dat dit die regte van die Prowinsiale Rade meer gaan inkrimp volgens die Baxter-rapport, sodat die Prowinsiale Raad die vyfde wiel aan die wa word. Deur die inkrimping van die Prowinsiale Rade se magte, was hulle gedwing om belastinge op te lê, wat minder populêr was. By die stigting van die Unie was die doel van die in die lewe roep van die Prowinsiale Rade vernaamlik dat hulle belas sou word met die onderwys, met die opvoeding. Die uitgawe vir onderwys moet noodsaaklikerwys altoos vermeerder, omdat die bevolking toeneem, maar die edelagbare die Minister gaan heen en verminder die bronne van belasting vir die Prowinsiale Rade. Eers het die edelagbare die Minister die Prowinsiale Rade belet om belasting te lê op die goudprofyte. Daarna mog die naturelie alleen belas word in dieselfde mate as die blanke en in aanmerking moes geneem word die belasting, wat die naturelle reeds betaal. ’n Jaar later nog word bepaal dat deur die Prowinsiale Rade die naturelle hoegenaamd nie meer belas mag word nie. As die uitgawe styg en die bronne van inkomste word verminder, dan moet hulle vanself die toevlug gryp tot minder populêre belastinge as hulle wil verhinder, dat skole gesluit word en as hulle aan hulle roeping wil beantwoord. Die edelagbare die Minister herinner my met sy optrede aan ’n voorval, die ek in Europe bygewoon het, van ’n dief, nl., die weghardloop en onderwyl hy agtervolg word deur die poliesie, voortdurend uitroep: “Vang die dief,” wat die mense laat dink dat die dief voor is, hulle loop met die eintlike dief saam, wat hom die kans gee om van die verwarring gebruik te maak om te ontsnap. Die edelagbare die Minister sê: “Vang die verkwister,” en die publiek begint te dink, dat die Prowinsiale Raad die verkwister is, terwyl hy self dit is. Die laaste jare het hij £4,500,000 meer uitgegee as wat hij ingekry het. Met die geschreeuw het die publiek hom vergeet en het hy vrygekom. [Een Edele Lid: “Dis die sprinkane”]. Die sprinkane het £300,000 gekos, maar wat het dit daarmee te doen? Met betrekking tot die beweringe van die Minister omtrent die Prowinsiale Rade en die kafferbelasting is dit jammer, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister nie op sy plek is nie, want hy het ander dag ’n mededeling gedaan, wat nie heeltemal korrek is nie, dat, nl., die Prowinsiale Raad die naturelle uitgesonder het vir straf en hulle ’n belasting van £2 10s. opgelê het. Dit is nie korrek nie, want die belasting is 10s., dog dit is ’n gevolg van die Wet wat bepaal, dat as naturelie belasting opgelê word, die blanke dieselfde belasting moet betaal. Daar weer was die Prowinsiale Raad verplig om, as hulle die kaffers iets wou laat betaal, hulle die blanke ’n belasting van £2 10s. moet oplê, maar die prowinsiale belasting op die kaffers was maar net 10s., omdat as die naturelie iets aan die Unie betaal en hulle betaal aan die Unie Regering £2, moet dit in aanmerking geneem word by oplegging van belasting deur die Prowinsiale Raad. Ek wens verder te wys op die bepaling in die Wet, waarby die Minister voorstel, dat die Prowinsiale Raad van die Transvaal die £60,000, welke die Regering aan die kaffers teruggegee het, moet terug betaal. My informasie, en ek sou graag verneem of die korrek is, strek daartoe, dat die Prowinsiale Administrasie die edelagbare die Minister oor die saak genader het met ’n voorstel op welke manier hulle dit moet terug gee, maar dat die Regering daar nie op ingegaan het nie en die korrespondensie is nie verder voortgeset nie. Die Regering het met ’n bree gebaar melding gemaak van die terugbetaling van die £60,000. Wel nu, as die Regering so grootmoedig wil wees, laat hulle dit dan self betaal en nie op ’n ander se beurs ’n beroep doen nie. Daarom, as my informasie korrek is—en ek het dit uit ’n goeie bron— dan vertrou ek, die bepaling sal uit die Wet geskrap word ek sal dit seker tegenstaan. Laaste jaar het Dr. Reitz in die Prowinsiale Raad verklaar—en dit is nie teegespreek in die Raad of deur middel van die koerante nie— dat volgens die Finance Act van Engeland maatskappye vry gestel is van belasting, welke hulle in die buiteland betaal en Dr. Reitz beweer, dat dit dus nie sal gaan na die aandeelhouers nie, maar na die Imperiale Regering. Ek wou graag weet of dit so is. As dit so is, dat nie die aandeelhouers, maar die belastingbetalers van Engeland daardeur bevoordeel word en dat die Transvaal sodoende belas word met £300,000 vir die Imperiale skatkis, dan verlang ek dat dit hier in soveel woorde verklaar sal word. Hier is deur verskillende lede spyt uitgedruk, dat die Baxter-rapport nie aangeneem is nie en andere het weer spyt, dat nie voorgestel word om die Prowinsiale Rade af te skaf nie. Die edele lid vir Von Brandis (de hr. Nathan) het groot gewag gemaak van die petiesies van soveel duisende ondertekend uit Johannesburg. Maar ons ken die petiesies van Johannesburg, ons ken hulle sedert 1899 se dae en ons weet, dat dit ’n maklike saak is om op die strate van die goudstad petiesies te laat teken. Die Regering sal uitvind, dat die Prowinsiale Raad nie so onpopulêr is as wat hulle graag wil glo nie en dat die meerderheid daarvoor is om dieselwe te behou en nie om die af te skaf nie. Daar is in die laaste tyd self ’n opienie wat veld win, ten gunste van die uitbreiding van die magte van die Prowinsiale Raad.

Ja, laat hulle die Regering word.

Ek het nie gesê, dat daardie beweging aan onse kant van die Huis steun vind nie; ek haal dit slegs aan as bewys, dat die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Rade nie so erg populêr is nie en dat die mening van vele veeleer in die teenoorgestelde rigting gaat. Ek is nie vir grote of buitengewone uitbreiding van hulle magte nie, maar net so min vir ontbinding van daardie liggame. Daar word in die Baxter-Kommissie sê rapport vergelykings gemaak met ander lande, maar aangesien die edele lid vir Zululand (de hr. Nicholls) en andere reeds syfers aangehaal het uit die toestande van ander lande, ag ek dit onnodig vir my om daar verder op in te gaan. Laat my net hier byvoeg, dat die edele lid vir Zululand (de hr. Nicholls) uit die oog verloor het, dat in Australië, die land wat hy aanhaal, eentaligheid heers, terwyl ons hier tweetaligheid het, wat noodwendig die koste hoër maak as wat dit anders sou gewees het. Baie word daar gesê oor die posiesie van die onderwyser en onderwyseres en dit is opmerklik om te sien, hoe die edelagbare Regering en die Minister van Finansies volhou, dat hulle nie slegter af is onder die nuwe Wet nie, terwyl ek volhou, dat hulle in ’n slegter posiesie gestel word en hulle salaris op losse skroewe geset. Hulle weet nooit die een jaar, wat hulle posiesie, d.w.s. hulle salaris die volgende jaar sal wees nie, want van jaar tot jaar kan die salaris verminder word. Dit is seker nie iets om die beste klas mense te beweeg om hulle aan die onderwysersvak te wy nie en hulle daardie riesiko te getroos nie. Die Regering behandel hulle as kwaaijongens en as dit Wet word, kan die edelagbare die Minister verwag, dat manne en vrouë met selfrespek hulle gedwe sal onderwerk aan so ’n onregvaardige behandeling?

Ek dag die edele lid het gesê, ons moet nie hulle mag inkrimp nie?

Dis wat vandag gedaan word en sit daarom men met die hande in die hare. Die edelagbare Regering sê, hulle doen dit om eenvormigheid in die lewe te roep, maar dit doet hulle nie in die Wetsontwerp met die onderwysers se salarisse nie. Artiekel 2, sub-seksie (2), lui as volg—

So kan dit kom, dat die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaapprovinsie vind, dat die salarisse moet verhoog word, maar die Transvaal nie; waar kom dan die eenvormigheid in? Die wet bring dit nie teweeg nie. Ek meen, dat dit die vernaamste taak is wat iemand in die publieke diens kan beklee, maar as die wet deurgaat, dan wil ek die edelagbare die Minister vra of hy reken dat mense van karakter dit voel, dat hulle in staat is om hulle eie weg te veg, nog vir die werk van onderwyser sal ingaan, op die gevaar af, dat van jaar tot jaar hulle salarisse verminder sal word. Ek sê, hulle sal dit nie doen nie, maar diesulke wat geen kans sien om iets anders te doen nie, sal in die toekoms die meeste kragte lewer vir die onderwyservak en daarom protesteer ek teen hierdie artiekel. Ek vertrou, dat wat ook al gedaan sal word, die edelagbare die Minister sal gesien dat die skaal van salarisse vasgelê word, dat daar nie telkens aan getorring kan word die. Dit is die enigste manier om die posiesie eker te maak en goeie mense te kry. Omdat daardie bepaling in die Wet is, kan ek daar nie voor stem nie en ek sou daar dan natuurlik ook op teen wees, as dit heeltemal op die Baxter-rapport gegrond was.

I think it would require the pen of a very brilliant writer indeed to do justice to the attack on the Bill and on the Government. I do not pretend to be able to do justice to the matter as it deserves. It has been interesting to hear the conflict between the two opposition parties while they put up a sham uniformity as between themselves. We have the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) admitting the necessity for uniformity, while the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) denies there is any need for uniformity. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) is not consistent. Here we have him championing the cause of competition in order to discredit the case for uniformity. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), as a champion of the competitive system, is indeed a curiosity in this House. We have heard a lot of criticism because the Government has not adopted the Baxter Report. We have heard a lot of mock heroics on this subject, but what opposition would have been met with if the Government had decided to accept it? We know the Nationalist portion of the Opposition would wholly oppose a Bill based on the Baxter Report, and oppose it because of the possibility of a land tax. We also know perfectly well that this part of the Opposition here on the Labour benches would not touch the Baxter Report, because of its recommendations for economy. In the circumstances it is most amusing to this side of the House to hear the cries of the Opposition in regard to this matter. I personally regret that the Government this session has not been able to bring in a bill based on the Baxter Report, and I hope that the Bill now before the House will only be a temporary one, will only be temporary in its provisions, and that next year they will bring in a Bill based on the Baxter Report. I quite understand that in order to bring in a Bill based on that report you must have the co-operation, as far as possible, of all the different provinces. The Government last year had the Baxter Report, and after its receipt, instituted the necessary enquiries as to the financial position in regard to educational matters by the appointment of the Provincial Education Committee. The report of that commission came in a little while ago, and the Government thereupon called a meeting, not only of the administrators, but also of the executive committees of the various provinces, and through that got an expression of the views, as best it could, of the various provinces concerned in the matter. It was then that the Government found that it could not at present get the co-operation of the four provinces in regard to giving effect to the Baxter Report. I hope that by next year the necessary co-operation will have been established, and that what seems impossible now will be secured by further discussion and deliberation, but if that co-operation is not obtained, I yet hope that during the ensuing year the Government will take steps to bring in a Bill on the lines of the Baxter Report. I am speaking as one who has consistently supported the provincial council system. Whether I am right or whether I am wrong, I have always been of opinion that the provincial council system has made it possible for a lot of useful work to be done which we in this House could otherwise not have done. We in this House have every session ever since Union had a heavy programme of work and each Provincial Council has been able to devote itself to work of the greatest importance which we had not time to do. Take the Cape Provincial Council. Its work in regard to municipal administration has been of the greatest use. There has been a great step forward made in respect of municipal administration. And the same may he said in regard to divisional council administration, and other activities with which the Provincial Council of the Cape has been concerned. Undoubtedly, as far as the Cape is concerned, it can show very great improvement, and has made it possible for a great step forward to have been made. It is through the activities of that council that the very fine Education Ordinance has been put through, and I make bold to say that it would have taken this Parliament years to get it through if Parliament had had to deal with that matter. I believe myself that the provincial council system has enabled a great deal of useful legislation and administration to be effected which could not have been done otherwise. But, of course, the Provincial Council is a fallible institution. It was introduced partly as a compromise, and, like most compromises, it has developed the defects of compromise. I do not say that the system is not capable of serious alteration and amendment. For one thing, it has not had to rely sufficiently on itself to find its own money, and it has had too easy money coming to it from this Parliament on the £ for £ basis, and it has developed extravagant and uneconomic tendencies, which have to be checked by this Parliament. I believe that the real method of dealing with the Provincial Councils is not to end Provincial Councils, but to mend them. With that I am in hearty agreement. But for that we have had an excellent basis provided in that excellent report —the Baxter Report. I always listen with great interest to my hon. friend, the member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with much that he said to-day. I must say that he has given a most, shall I call it, unintentionally, unfair criticism of the Baxter Report. He has taken the Baxter Report as the report of men who set to work to develop a pre-conceived theory. I do not think that that is just, and if that is not just, and if that is not correct, then a great deal of his argument goes by the board.

I think it is the case.

Well, I disagree with my hon. friend. Then to continue with his arguments, he takes some figures which the Baxter Commission quoted from elsewhere, from Australia and other parts, as to the cost of education, but the hon. member has not challenged these figures. He has given other figures for other years and for different conditions. But the Baxter Report shows—and shows conclusively—what the figures are on which the recommendations are based, and the hon. member has not challenged these figures at all. In these circumstances I do not think that the hon. member’s criticism carried much conviction to the House at all. I think the Baxter Commission has supplied a very sound, fair and reasonable basis on which to set to work to mend the errors which have developed. Well now, a great deal of discussion has taken place: to some extent on the question of the maintenance of the Provincial Council system; and the other portion has been the criticism of the most important section of the Bill, viz., Clause 2. In connection with that we have had a great outcry by the teachers against the provisions of Clause 2, and I, for one, would say, after all I have heard and read of their speeches and arguments, that I cannot agree with the line taken by the teachers on this matter, and I propose to vote for the Bill as it stands.

Including Clause 2?

Yes, including Clause 2. Some hon. members who have spoken here have strongly criticized the line taken by the Baxter Commission. To some people it seems that criticism of any kind in regard to education expenditure is entirely unjustified. I think that that is a most fallacious canon to accept. When one considers how to put our house in order, one must take our big spending departments, and one must see whether we are getting value for our money. I yield to no one in my desire to see a well-paid, honourable body of men in our teaching profession. I have every reason to desire to see the teaching body occupying the position of the highest honour in this country. We have had a number of attempts made in this country to deal with the question of teachers’ salaries. We know how things have changed from time to time in the Cape, the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal, and I, for one, say that the standard of salary before the war in 1914, so far as the teachers of this province were concerned, was very low and very improper indeed.

And too high now?

If the hon. member will allow me, I shall develop my argument. The salaries before 1914 were too low altogether. And then efforts were made during the course of the next few years in order to try and get justice done to the teaching profession, and get them placed on a proper and adequate scale of salaries, because it is quite clear that, in order to attract the proper class of man to the profession, and to constitute and maintain a dignified profession, one has to give good inducement in the way of salary. What happened? We know historically that in the Transvaal opportunities were availed of to induce teachers of other provinces, particularly from the Cape, to come to the Transvaal on much higher salaries.

Shame!

The hon. member says “Shame”! I am now dealing with the facts of the position. The Transvaal did do that, and what happened? The result was that the Cape was incurring very heavy expenditure on the training of teachers, which in 1922 was nearly double that of the Transvaal. The Cape was training the teachers, but the Transvaal was seducing them by the higher salaries which were offered.

And what were they paid?

Then a conference was held between the executives of the provinces with a view to getting uniformity, because it was obviously improper that the position should be what it was, and that people should be taken away from the province which was spending money to qualify them for teachers. It was perfectly obvious to all people, as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) recognized, that uniformity was essential. And that is one of the recommendations of the Baxter Report, which I agree with, because it is based on practical experience and on the views of those who are best able to judge. They tried to find a basis of uniformity to act upon. Inter-Provincial Conferences were held, but failed to find a basis. The result was the executives and the administrators have recognized this, that when you have four independent bodies who cannot arrive at the most crucial thing, namely, uniformity, the only way to do it is to get it done through this House of Parliament. That is the only way. No other body has any jurisdiction over these councils. We have heard the arguments here that the present Bill in its provisions is an improper one because it allows Parliament to interfere with a body which has its own jurisdiction in regard to education. The answer to that is a very simple one—the answer is that all provincial council administration and legislation is subject to Union Parliament legislation. That provision in the Act of Union, which makes Acts of this Parliament supreme in all matters of legislation, was designed in order to obviate difficulties, such as have been found elsewhere to arise: where questions of the relative jurisdiction of State and general administration were found to create grave difficulties. This Bill only carries out the aim and object of that provision in the Act of Union in reconciling differences and difficulties where there should be common action between the provinces. In other words, this Bill is in conformity with the Act of Union in bringing about uniformity which cannot otherwise be obtained. That is precisely why that provision was put in the Act of Union—to enable this Parliament to exercise common jurisdiction when necessary. And for that simple reason Clause 2 is in the Bill—to get uniformity under the powers given under the Act of Union. Complaints are made from many sides that the scales are too low. Well, the Bill does not provide any scales at all. The Bill provides simply that the scales shall be such as shall from time to time be prescribed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Such a scale has been prepared by the commission, but we are informed it has not yet been adopted. But even if the scale which has been arrived at provisionally by the Public Service Commission has been accepted, the teachers have no right to use the language they have been using about it. [An Hon. Member: “Why?”] Because they have an independent body in the Public Service Commission. It is talked about by the teachers as a Government Commission, but it is not. It is a commission independent, and responsible to this Parliament alone, and that is the value of the Public Service Commission. If the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) can suggest a more independent and impartial commission than the one appointed under the statute passed by this House I shall be glad to hear of it. You have an independent body which is established under an Act of Parliament, and is responsible to this Parliament. What could you have better?

Would not a Whitley Council be better?

If the hon. member means a body which should give a definite verdict on salaries, then I do not agree with him. If he agrees that the Public Service Commission, constituted as this is and has all the main features of a Whitley Council, then I think he will agree that we have an entirely suitable body in the Public Service Commission. Everybody should give that commission a fair trial until a better system is devised. I hold that the teachers are very ill-advised in their opposition to the Public Service Commission as a body to make recommendations. Very ill-advised, indeed. The Public Service Commission was not regarded by them as being of such a very wrong character when in the course of negotiations they were invited by the commission to come and state their views as to the scale to be adopted. The reason why they are objecting to the Public Service Commission is because their own recommendations are not being carried out. If their own recommendations had been carried out, then they would have considered the Public Service Commission a much better tribunal than they do.

Does the hon. member think the salaries are too high?

The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) will have ample opportunity to develop any suggestion which he can make, but he thinks that not only can he make a speech when he is on his legs, but that he can continue making speeches when other people are on their legs. He knows perfectly well that he will not put me off my stride by whatever he says in the matter. I cannot perceive a more competent body than the Public Service Commission to deal with a thing of this kind. Another objection taken to Clause 2 is that the scales can be made lower only, but cannot be made higher. Under Clause 2 the recommendations are those which will be made “from time to time” by the Public Service Commission. If circumstances alter, if the scales are found to be unjust, if a more liberal treatment is desirable, power is given the Commission to raise the scales, subject, of course, to the approval of the Government. The clause gives the commission power to recommend the raising of salaries from time to time. As far as lowering the scale is concerned, the Provincial Council at the present time has the power to alter any scales which may be fixed.

Where is your uniformity?

It comes in under the proposed system under the Bill. You will have a uniform set of scales laid down by the commission. Then you have a maximum uniformity. Hon. members overlook the fact that the principle of a maximum uniformity is sound. When it comes to the question of reducing, if any Provincial Council cannot pay the scales, then that council must have the power to reduce salaries. It is perfectly fair; you have got real uniformity in regard to the scales, but when a particular province is unable to pay on the scales during any one year, then it has the power to reduce. [An Hon. Member: “What sort of security is that?”] These scales are laid down for the Provincial Council. The principle of uniformity of the general scale is subject to the right of a particular province saying: “This year we cannot pay the whole amount”. The principle of uniformity is not going to be made a bogey or a shibboleth of, but you are going to have general uniformity, together with the power for a Provincial Council to say that it can or cannot pay a particular scale on any year. The teachers have their scales laid down by an independent body, and they occupy the same position of security as the members of the Public Service. Hon. members over here ask me whether teachers’ salaries are too high. I do not know whether they are too high. It is the business of the administrative bodies, and bodies like the Public Service Commission, to say what is a fair and just salary. If the Public Service Commission, after the full enquiry such as has been, made in this case, recommends a scale which is lower than one in existence, then I am prepared to say that any scales in excess of the one so recommended are prima facie too high. The Public Service Commission has the power of altering the scales from time to time, and if, after full consideration, they do fix a scale which is afterwards found to be too low, they have the power from time to time to alter that on further reconsideration.

Has the hon. member looked at these scales?

Yes, I have, and I take the recommendations of the Public Service Commission as prima facie indicating what is right and what is fair. If the Commission ignored the views of the people who were more qualified to speak than the teachers, I would have more hesitation than I have now in saying that the recommendations of the Commission were just. The Public Service Commission has had the advantage of the assistance of four technical advisors, one from each province, including Dr. Adamson.

How much a year does he get?

Now we are discussing high matters of politics, and then we get trivial matters of this kind. I have been asked how much does Dr. Adamson get. I do not know, and I do not care. That has nothing to do with the matter. His views have been quoted on behalf of the teachers in other respects. Well, it is upon his advice, with others, that the Public Service Commission has acted in recommending the new scales. The four technical advisers were unanimous in agreeing with the Public Service Commission as to these new scales. Under those circumstances, I, for one, say that I am prepared to place that trust and confidence in the Public Service Commission which their position and independence entitles them to. I do so because I know they have made independent enquiry and judged both points of view, and I know they had the whole body of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Association before them, and they have done everything possible to arrive at a conclusion of what, in their opinion, is a fair and just scale throughout the country. On that conclusion I, for one, am prepared to rest my judgment, to justify me in thinking that their scales are, prima facie, correct, and that, therefore, the scales above those are, prima facie, too high. People have expressed the opinion that there should be no economy on education; that there should be no criticism on educational expenditure; and there should be no measuring of the value of expenditure on education. I say that I regard those views as fundamentally fallacious. When we have pace with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), the fact that the cost of education here is higher than in any other country, is to be taken not as a complete test, but as a factor of value. When also that cost of education is far higher than it was before in this country, and has increased far more than the growth of the population or the income of the country, then I say that you are justified in going fully and fairly into the question of what the education which we all desire should be, and that it is time to ask whether the results justify the expenditure. When you have got the best men to report, after repeated and exhaustive enquiry, I for one, come to the conclusion that we are justified in going on the basis of the Bill now before the House. There have been certain arguments used on behalf of the teachers, which I hope do not represent the views of the teachers. One argument is that in the proposal in the present Bill there is a breach of faith. One can hardly imagine a more flimsy foundation than exists for such a charge as that made in this case. It is perfectly clear that the teachers’ representatives went before the Public Service Commission knowing at that time that it had no statuory position whatever in regard to teachers’ salaries; that they were simply going before that body as a body capable of independent judgment, and for the purpose of getting it to give an independent judgment and opinion on the scales of salaries that any recommendation which the Public Service Commission gave, or any promise they made of recommendation, it must have been obvious to the teachers, was one which was neither a promise nor a pledge on behalf of the Government. A body like that, constituted with statutory powers, can no more pledge the Government to do anything than the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). It was a promise of what they should do, and that promise was carried out. I think that that charge was an unjust one and an improper one. There is one other thing, and that is the threat of political action which we have seen thrown out. We know perfectly well what the reason is, but I do deplore that a body of public teachers should, even through the mouthpiece of a few of them, threaten to take up a position of that kind. They are public servants, and they should remember that, and for a body of public servants to threaten political action simply means that they intend to set themselves up as an imperium in imperio, and to dictate to the State what the State should provide for them. I for one should not tolerate that position for one single moment, and I do not care what the effect of their political action is, but from the point of view of the body of teachers itself it is not only an unwise, but an entirely improper act to use that kind of argument. I have no doubt that hon. members on those Labour benches who were present at the meeting applauded most warmly, and I can imagine the gratification with which they heard the threat.

How does the hon. member know?

I said I could quite imagine. I could not help thinking when I was reading last mail papers of the speech made by one of the Ministers in the British Cabinet when it was believed that a certain number of the Admiralty was trying to dictate to the First Lord of the Admiralty what policy should be pursued, and a threat of action was made. I think the Minister said in public: “I know how to deal with that; this is a mutiny, this is a strike, out you go.” And one imagines the policy which would be adopted by the hon. members opposite should they have to govern and should a body of public servants attempt to take political action against them. I regret on behalf of the body of teachers that their body should be mixed up with threats of that kind. I support the Bill on the grounds that I believe that the teachers are getting the security and the justice which they are entitled to demand, and that in the recommendations which are made the Public Service Commission has shown that it is fully conscious of the necessity of providing adequate scales of pay so as to attract good men to the service, and also to provide reasonable plums for the public servants, so that men who join may have something to look forward to in their careers. Holding that view, I Will vote for the Bill as it stands.

One sympathizes with a brilliant advocate like the hon. member who has sat down because he has such a weak case. He made the best of a very weak case in defence of the Government. I do not think anyone will deny that as far as the teaching profession of South Africa is concerned, that there is dissatisfaction in connection with this measure is absolutely justified up to the hilt. As far as I am concerned, I say that any member of Parliament or public representative who attempts to use the teaching profession for party purposes is an enemy to the future well-being of the children of this country. He is an enemy to education and to his country if he attempts to use the teachers for political purposes, but when the hon. member says that the teaching profession in this country shall sit down under injustice and shall not say that they intend to take political action to remedy their grievance, I think he is going too far. Why should members of the teaching profession, who are, after all, citizens of South Africa, not have the liberty of saying which way they are going to vote as citizens? And if they feel that a certain Government have done them an injustice, they should have the liberty of saying they are not going to vote for that Government. It is the only liberty they have. Does the hon. member wish to see the Government turn out the troops, the aeroplanes and the big guns to shoot the teachers down? The constitutional weapon they possess is the vote, and they tell you frankly and openly that they feel this matter so deeply that if hon. members of this House are not going to play cricket with them they are going to vote against them. They are perfectly honest, above-board and straightforward. What does the hon. member want? Does he want them to go sleeping round a corner? The hon. member has said that he is prepared to place all his faith in the Public Service Commission. Whatever scales they lay down for the teachers of this country are like the laws of the Medes and Persians; whatever scales they lay down are absolutely just, in his opinion. If this House were to set up a commission for the legal profession, and laid down scales of charges at 1s. 6d. per letter instead of 7s. 6d., and they laid down the scales that they charge for other things, and also that they should draw £380 per year after 30 years of age, I can imagine the hon. gentleman saying: “This commission has decided the scales, and they are absolutely just. We have no complaint. We as a legal fraternity are absolutely content.” I can imagine I hear the hon. member saying that; I imagine I hear my hon. friend here on my right also taking the same line as a medical man; and, as far as I am concerned, I contend that the teaching profession of this country is just as important to South Africa and to the future generations, their well-being and prosperity, as the legal or medical fraternity. Why on earth should we treat the teachers as we are treating them in South Africa? Why on earth are we always considering teachers as in a lower status than the legal or medical profession? They have the welfare of the rising generation in their hands; they are training the minds of our children; they are creating healthy minds in their bodies. And the legal fraternity—what are they doing? Is their function as important as the teaching or medical fraternity? They are looking after the legal rights of citizens—at least, we hope so. I hope the hon. member will think this matter over.

I have done so.

Not very well, because there is not the slightest doubt about it that if we are not prepared to raise the status of the teachers so as to procure the best people we can, then it is a sorry outlook for the future education of our children and those coming after. I consider the teaching profession on an equal status as the legal or medical professions. The hon. gentleman said we were trying to put him off. Our object in asking questions was not to try and put him off but to find out where the hon. gentleman stood. We could see him dancing along the fence, but on neither side, and we wanted to know on what side he was, that was the reason; we are seekers after truth. What are our experiences in the Transvaal in connection with education? Previous to 1919 when the teachers were paid miserably in the Transvaal what was the position? When you wanted a teacher in the schools you had to go round and scrape in the high-ways and bye-ways to get someone to take up the profession. They were taking teachers then with a sixth standard certificate, to entrust them with the training of the future generations. After the scales were raised and they were able to lay down that the necessary qualifications for the Transvaal should be a professional certificate, they raised the status of the teachers and improved the system of education. The hon. gentleman complained because the Transvaal was inducing teachers of the Cape to go to the Transvaal, that was not the fault of the Transvaal; the idea in raising the status was to improve the profession and the education of our children, and if as a result of raising the scales of salaries in the Transvaal we were robbing the Cape Colony the remedy was simple. All the Cape Colony had to do was to play the game with the teachers here and they could keep them from going to the Transvaal. The hon. gentleman said that as far as the Bill was concerned it would bring about uniformity in the teaching profession. Take Clause 2, does it not definitely lay down that when the Public Service Commission lays down scales of pay they should be considered as the maximum rate of pay for the teaching profession throughout the length and breadth of South Africa? They lay down no minimum, and I ask the hon. the Minister is it not a fact that by sub-section 2 you allowed the Provincial Council to make up deficits from the teachers’ salary. If you will allow the Provincial Council to do what they like with the scales of pay, you are not going to have uniformity in two or three years’ time. Is the Government to come forward with another Bill and lay down again a maximum scale of salary in two or three years? The complaint of the teachers in the Transvaal to-day is this: they have been used in the past in connection with their profession as a pawn in the political game of parties—no matter what party is in power the teachers are fair game. The teachers’ profession beyond all other professions should be kept out of the hurly-burly of party politics, and should have security of tenure. How can you expect people whose minds are disturbed to do their duty towards teaching your children? You cannot have them doing justice to your children in the circumstances. We should keep teachers as far as we can out of the hurly-burly of politics. They should have their scale of pay definitely laid down and have security of tenure and permanency. When it comes to a matter of taxation vested interests are always considered, no matter what party is in power, and when it comes to a reduction of wages and salaries, of those who are doing the work, the burden of taxation is put on their shoulders. It is definitely stated that the Public Service Commission will lay down the scale. Take the teaching profession to-day. The hon. member said there was no breach of faith with them. According to extracts from the speech of the hon. the Minister in this House it was definitely stated that in so far as the present teachers were concerned there would be no interference with their pay, and that in the case of any financial stringency it would not be necessary to interfere with the pay of the present teachers—they had a right to it. It is laid down definitely in the clause that any teacher in the lower grade who may be promoted in the future will come into the scale laid down by the Public Service Commission. If that teacher is not promoted until next year, instead of getting the superior scale of salary he will find that he will come under the new scale. I ask hon. members if they consider a man of 30 years of age, or more, receiving £380 per year is getting a sufficient salary. Are these salaries as laid down going to attract the best brains in South Africa to the teachers’ profession? I want to ask members of the House who are fathers of families, or may in the future become fathers of families. I ask them to consider in the interests of their children whether they are going to attract the best brains of the teaching profession into the schools on the salary laid down in the Commission’s report? Instead of the brilliant intellects of the rising generation coming into the teaching profession they will find them going into the legal profession, the medical profession, or the architect’s profession. In the future when these professions are congested, you will find the members of these professions advocating for a higher scale for the teachers. I want the members of this House, in the interest of the children of this country, not in the interest of economy—false economy—I ask every member of the House to join with me in protesting against the scale of salary laid down—and I want to emphasize that it is the members of this House on the Government benches who will be held responsible for the position of the teachers in South Africa. I ask them to think of this, and to do all they can to see that the salaries are just, and that the teaching profession has security of tenure, and I ask them to do all they possibly can to get the best brains in order that the children of this country can hold their own with the children of other countries.

Mag ik het Huis vragen mij zijn aandacht voor ene wijle te schenken; want ook ik wens het mijne tot dit debat bij te dragen, ten einde te zien of ik niet soms erin slagen mag om ’n misverstand uit de weg te ruimen dat er ten aanzien van dit Wetsontwerp bestaat. De kritiek die de oppositie tot hiertoe over dit Wetsontwerp heeft uitgeoefend, is, vreemd om te zeggen, meer kritiek over het Baxter-rapport geweest dan eigenlik over ’t Wetsontwerp en dat niettegenstaande het feit, dat er van dit rapport maar bloedweinig in dit Wetsontwerp opgenomen is. Door dit te doen heeft men dus feitelik een schim in plaats van ene werkelikheid bevochten. En waarom heeft men dat nu gedaan? Was dat uit onbekendheid met de wetten der logika, die eisen dat men puntig moet redeneren, of werd het opzettelik gedaan met ’n politiek doel—met het doel de onderwijzersstand tegen de Regering in het harnas te jagen, en stemmen voor de komende elektie te winnen? Onkunde kan dat niet zijn; want onder de sprekers aan de kant van de Oppositie vindt men niet alleen de grootste orators in de Unie, maar ook de meest bedreven redeneerkundigen, zoals b.v. het edele lid voor Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), het edele lid voor Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), en het edele lid voor Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan). Het moet dus zijn uit moedwil dat men deze kritiek heeft uitgeoefend. Nu mag dit goed te pas komen in de kraam van de Oppositie; maar is dat eerlik, is dat ridderlik? Als men ons wil bevechten, waarom bevecht men ons dan niet met open vizier? Waarom steeds tot ongeoorloofde methoden de toevlucht genomen? is het misschien omdat men ’n slechte zaak heeft en zijn zwakheid gevoelt? Ik vrees van ja! Ik zal blij zijn, indien het edele lid voor Boshof (de hr. C. A. van Niekerk) zich ’n beetje stil zou willen houden en zijn mond enigzins zou willen snoeren. Ik wil niet hatelik zijn. Dit zeg ik in alle broederlikheid. Maar niet alleen heeft men van de kant van de Oppositie in dit debat in de meeste gevallen het Baxter-rapport gekritieseerd in plaats van het Wetsontwerp zelf, doch daar waar men het Wetsontwerp heeft gediscuteerd, daar heeft men vaak daarin zoeken te lezen wat er volstrekt niet in staat, en men met geen mogelijkheid eruit kan afleiden. Daarvan getuigt, meen ik, de toespraak van mijn vriend, het edele lid voor Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga). Dit edele lid heeft trachten te bewijzen dat in Artikel 2 van het gemelde Wetsontwerp de schalen van de salarissen van de onderwijzers reeds neergelegd zijn. Maar waar staat dat nu, en wat geeft mijn edele vriend nu het recht om die gevolgtrekking te maken? Niets ter wereld! En toch blijft hij dit debiteren.

Het edele lid moet ’t ontwerp nogeens overlezen.

Neen, Mr. Speaker, dit is eene vermaning die het edele lid voor Boshof (de hr. C. A. van Niekerk) hemzelf moet toevoegen. Maar men leest nog lets anders in het Wetsontwerp dat er niet in staat; men leest er ook een grondbelasting in en een vrijwaring van belasting van de mijnen. Dit heeft vooral het edele lid voor Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) gedaan. Doch weer vraag ik waar staat dit in het Wesontwerp? Nergens! Het edele lid is een lastige klant en kan niet zonder handschoenen worden aangepakt. Maar toch wil ik het wagen hem te lijf te gaan. Wat het edele lid in het Ontwerp leest, staat er niet. Het bestaat alleen in het vruchtbaar brein, en in de verbeelding van dat edele lid. Maar, Mr. Speaker, als men in ’n glazenhuis woont, moet men niet met stenen werpen. Het past het edele lid voor Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) werkelik niet om deze kant van het Huis het verwijt naar het hoofd te werpen alsof wij n grondbelasting wensten in te voeren, wanneer zijn partig kop-in-een-muts is met een partij die zo krachtig voor een grondbelasting ijvert. Dit verwijt hoort thuis aan een ander adres. Het moet gericht worden aan het adres van de kruisbanken, waar de bondgenoten van het edele lid zitten. Voor ik ga zitten, wil ik nog even een paar argumenten van het edele lid voor Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) onder het zoeklicht nemen. Het eerste argument is ten effekte dat de Regering de rechten van de Provinciale Raden gaat inkorten. Dit zegt hij in alle waarschijnlikheid omdat er in Artikel 2 van het Wetsontwerp bepaald wordt dat voortaan de Gouverneur-generaal op advies van de Civiele Dienst Kommissie de schaal van salarissen van onderwijzers zal bepalen en niet de Provinciale Raden. Maar hij verliest uit het oog dat die Uitvoerende Komitees van de verschillende Provinciale Raden in die verschillende provincies daarom gevraagd hebben en terwijl zij daarom gevraagd hebben is het niet de Regering die hun rechten inkort, doch zij zelf doen dit, en dit hebben zij gedaan om eenvormigheid van salarissen voor onderwijzers te verkrijgen, daar zij er zelf niet in staat toe waren geweest. Een argument door het edele lid voor Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) gebezigd, was ten effekte dat het verkeerd is van de Regering om de Transvaalse Provinciale Raad te beletten om hoge salarissen aan hun onderwijzers te betalen indien zij het verkiezen. Mijn antwoord hierop is dat ik er niets op tegen heb dat hij (de Raad) dat doet, mits hij dat op eigen kosten doet, maar als hij dat op mijn kosten doet en op de kosten van anderen dan roep ik: “Halt,” en dan heeft de Regering die het publiek vertegenwoordigt ook het recht “halt” te roepen. Men heeft hier dikwijls gesproken over het Baxter-rapport en men heeft geprobeerd politieke munt te slaan uit de verklaring van de edelachtbare de Minister van Financiën nl., dat de Regering in hoofzaak met het rapport akkoord gaat, terwijl de Regering het rapport toch niet in zijn geheel heeft opgenomen in het Wetsontwerp. Daarom wordt de Regering beschuldigd, inkonsekwent te zijn en dat zij van haar eigen overtuiging is weggelopen. Maar men vergeet en verliest alweer uit het oog, wat de edelachtbare de Minister van Financiën werkelijk heeft? gezegd. Hij heeft gezegd, dat de Regering in hoofdzaak met het rapport saamgaat. En een van de hoofdaanbevelingen van het rapport is, dat de salarisschalen van onderwijzers en onderwijzeressen uniform moeten zijn, en dit hoofdbeginsel heeft de Regering zoeken op te nemen in het Wetsontwerp en indien dit zoo is, waarom blijft men dan voortdurend de Regering in verband met dit bijzondere onderwerp te lijf gaan? [Een Edele Ltd: “Waar is die uniformiteit?”] Ik heb reeds gezegd, dat als te werk gegaan wordt zoals ik aanbevolen heb, nl. dat de salarisschalen niet alleen vastgesteld moeten worden door de Civiele Dienst Kommissie, onder goedkeuring van de Goeverneur-generaal, maar dat deze Kommissie ook de vermindering van gemelde salarissen zal kunnen vast stellen, uniformiteit krijgen zal. Ik ben ridderlijk genoeg geweest om te erkennen, dat tenzij in dit verband gehandeld word zooals ik aangegeven heb, dat men dan geen volslagen uniformiteit krijgt. Dan wil ik in alle bescheidenheid de Regering iets aan de hand geven en dat is “Vat de bul bij de horens,” vernietig de Provinciale Raden. Zij zijn tot hiertoe niets anders geweest dan politieke broeikasten, en niets anders dan belastingsmachines en zoolang die toestand blijft bestaan, zal daar in Afrika nooit vrede zijn en zal steeds politieke munt daaruit geslagen worden.

Ek is baie huiwerig om op te staan na so ’n woordryke spreker as ons net van die ander kant gehad het. Ek het net van plan gewees om ’n beroep op die edele lid aan die ander kant te doen en ek sal daar in die loop van my toespraak ook by kom. Ek dink ons moet die laaste woorde, wat die edele spreker gesê het besonder in ag neem. Ek wil graag ’n beroep op die Huis maak, dat die Huis nou besluit of die Prowinsiale Rade moet bly bestaan of nie. As hulle moet bly bestaan, dan behoort ons ook ooreenkomstig te handel. En as dit die bedoeling is om die Prowinsiale Rade trapsgewyse dood te maak, dan moet die Regering dit ruiterlik erken en sê wat hy van plan is. In die Wet van 1913 is die finansiële regulasies in die lewe geroep, om die Prowinsiale Bade in mag te stel om hulle pligte te kan uitvoer, maar nou is ons besig in die laaste drie jaar om wette te maak in verband met die finansiële regulasies, waardeur die Prowinsiale Rade nie meer in staat is om hulle pligte uit te voer nie en wat is die rede wat ons van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies hoor, waarop hy die wette invoer, dat hulle hulle pligte nie meer kan doen nie? Die rede, wat die edelagbare Minister aangee is, dat hulle roekeloos geld uitgee. Ek wil nie oor die grond van andere gaan nie, maar my alleenlik graag bepaal by wat die edelagbare die Minister gesê het, wat die rede is, dat die magte van die Prowinsiale Rade van tyd tot tyd ingekrimp is. Ek wil ook nie praat van die andere Provinsies nie, maar net van die Prowinsiale Raad van die Vrystaat waar ek ondervinding het. Die Prowinsiale Raad van die Vrystaat is in die lewe gekom in 1910, omtrent ag jaar na ons uit die verwoestende oorlog gekom het. Eers het ons in die Vrystaat die Kroon-Kolonie in die lewe geroep en hulle het hulle beste gedoen, ek wil hulle die eer gee, wat hulle toekom, maar dit was onmoontlik om met ’n towerslag alles te herstel wat tydens die oorlog verwoes was. Na die Kroon-Kolonie Regering het ons die Self-Regering gekry en onse Volks-Regering het ook sy beste gedoen, maar dit was vir hulle ook nie moontlik om in die korte tyd van die Self-Regering alles reg te kry nie. Toe het ons die Unie gekry, toe is die Prowinsiale Rade aangestel, met die gevolg, dat in die klein Vrystaat nie minder as tussen 23,000 en 24,000 kinders op skool gekom het, wat vóór dit tyd geen skool gehad het nie. Dit spreek vanself, dat dit enorme somme gekos het voordat die land, wat geruineer was, enigsins van die gevolge van die oorlog hom herstel het. Ons plase was verbrand en daar was nie eens genoeg huise vir mense om in te woon nie, laat staan huise om skool in te hou. Met die totstandkoming van die Unie het die Unie Regering aan die Prowinsiale Rade sekere somme gegee en later het die Finansiële Wet in die lewe gekom, waarby sekere bronne van inkomste aan die Provinsies toegewys is en ek is bly dat in hierdie Huis lede is, wat in die administrasie van die Vrystaat was, n.l., die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) en die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz), wat nou net gepraat het en in al die tyd, hoe onvoldoende die Wet ook was, het hulle hul uitersfe bes gedoen om die kinders op skole te kry en hulle het nie een enkele jaar met ’n tekort gesluit nie. Dit neem al die blaam, dat die Prowinsiale Rade roekoloos geld uitgegee het, weg. Dit beteken niks nie. Maar wat het nou gebeur? Dis miskien waar dat later meer geld uitgegee is as wat ons graag sou gesien het, dat daar moet uitgegee word. Maar wie was die oorsaak van die gelduitgee? Niemand anders as die Regering self. Ons het in die begin pragtige werk gedoen op onderwys-gebied in die Vrystaat en daar was glad geen ontevredenheid nie. Maar na die Prowinsiale Rade ’n sekere tyd aan die gang was, kom die Unie Regering, heeltemal sonder dat daar na gevra is, en skryf, dat die Seville amptenare oorlogspensioene gegee kan word, as die Prowinsiale Rade gewillig is om onder die pond vir pond stelsel by te dra. Onder die kondiesie kon ons ook aan die amptenare die oorlogpensioene gee. Die Vrystaatse Raad, het gesê, nee, ons is besig met onderwys, met paaie aanlê, ens., en ons het niks met die oorlogspensioene te maak nie. As die Unie-Regering van mening is, dat die pensioene gegee moet word, dan moet hulle ook die voile som gee, want die Prowinsiale Raad is nie verantwoordelik vir die oorlog nie. Die Vrystaatse Prowinsiale Raad is die enigste wat die voorstel van die Regering nie aangeneem het nie, maar dis duidelik, dat waar amptenare met die oorlogspensioene en amptenare van die Vrystaat sonder die pensioen op dieselfde kantore sit, het jy ’n onhoudbare toestand gekry. Hulle had dieselfde graad, doet dieselfde werk as hulle kollega’s, maar omdat hulle van die Vrystaat was het hulle nie die pensioen gekry nie en toe het die Vrystaat naderhand verplig gewees om dit ook aan hulle te gee. Toe het die Regering weer met ’n twede aanbod gekom, om op die pond vir pond stelsel ’n oorlogs bonus aan onderwysers te gee. Andere Provinsies het dit aangeneem, maar die Vrystaat het geweier. En hulle het lank uitgehou, langer as die ander Provinsies, maar op die end was die drang so groot dat hulle ook daarin moet toegegee het. Toe gaat die Unie-Regering nog verder en sê, dat die oorlogstoelaë voortaan ’n deel sal wees van die vaste salarisskaal van die amptenare. Toe het ons weer dieselfde moeilikheid met ons amptenare gekry en net na dit gedaan is, het die eerste agitasie van die onderwysers begin, en het die onderwysers kom kla. Die Prowinsiale Rade was in die grootste moeite van die wereld. Die Regering het die salarisse verhoog en die posiesie verhoog en die Prowinsiale Rade kon niks doen nie. Toe is die nuwe skaal van salarisse opgestel en die Prowinsiale Rade het ook hulle skaal van salarisse opgestel en daar wil ek die eer aan die onderwysers gee, dat hoever ons ook van die onderwysers verskil het, dat die saak opgelos is deur ’n Kommissie, wat aangestel is en wat bestaan het uit een lid van die Uitvoerende Komitee, twee amptenare en drie onderwysers, en hulle het ooreen gekom en ’n skaal van salarisse opgetrek, waaroor hulle, dink ek, nie skaam behoef te wees nie. Maar nou kom die edelagbare die Minister hier met die Wetsontwerp. Ek betreur net so sterk as enig ander, dat daar nog die afguns bestaat tussen die provinsies om tot dieselfde skaal te kom, maar nou is deur die Siviele-Diens-kommissie ’n salarisskaal opgetrek, maar in die Wet self kom die skaal glad nie voor nie. Die edele lid aan die anderkant het dit net al gesê. Dit is juis wat ek betreur; as die skaal wel in die Wet sou opgeneem wees, dan sou ons daaroor kan oordeel. Ons het hier twee rapporte, die een is die Baxter-rapport en die ander is in die Blouboek en ons kan alleen gissinge maak, jy weet nie waar jy staat, weet nie wat sal gebeur nie. De edele lid daar het gesê, dat die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) gepraat het oor die grondbelásting. Dit is so seker as dat ons hier vandag staan, ek dink die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het daar al op gewys, dat die edelagbare Minister van Finansies gesê het, dat die tyd nog nie ryp is om die rapport in te bring nie— maar ek sê, dit is so seker as ons hier staan, dat so gou as hulle ’n kans kry, as die eleksie hulle hier weer sal bring, kom die rapport weer voor die dag. Ons het van die edelagbare die Minister niks hoegenaamd gehoor omtrent die grondbelasting, of hy daarvoor is. So gou as hulle die eerste kans kry.

Hulle is bang vir die eleksie.

Die edele lid anderkant het gevra, of ons aan hierdie kant die stem van die onderwysers wil hê, maar ek het hier telegramme en briewe van my kiesers, en ander edele lede het ook briewe en telegramme van al die dele van die land gekry, om die Wet te opponeer so hard as ons kan. Hulle is ontevrede, dat die onderwysers in so’n posiesie van onsekerheid geplaas word. Daar word gesê, dat dit maar ’n klein wetjie is en hulle wil hê, dat ons ’n blanke tjek daarvoor moet gee en dat ons dan later moet aanvaar wat die Kommissie sal aanbeveel. Hoe graag ek ookal sou sien, dat ons tot gelykheid sou kom in die skale van salarisse, so is dit tog vir my heeltemal onmoontlik om voor hierdie Wet te gaan stem. Ons weet nie, wat die uitleg gaat wees nie en wat die salarisse gaat wees nie. Die gevolg sal wees baie meer ontevredenheid. Die ou onderwysers sal behou wat hulle het, maar vir jare en jare sal daar nog onderwysers naas hulle wees, wat onder die nuwe Wet sal val. Waar kom dan die gelykheid in? Dit sail nooit tot tevredenheid lei nie. Ons ondermyn die regte en magte van die Prowinsiale Rade. Ek sê nog eenmaal dat as die Huis dink, dat die Prowinsiale Rade nie ’n reg van bestaan het nie, dan moet ons hulle vernietig maar op ’n eerlike en manlike manier. Die posiesie is nou, dat daar altyd ’n swaard bo hulle hoof hang en ons weet nie, wat die gevolg van hierdie Wet gaat wees nie. Met hierdie Wet kom ons glad nie verder nie. Dit is heeltemal duidelik, dat as die Regering weer ’n kans kry vir drastiese maatreëls, dan sal hulle die kans gryp en weer met nuwe finansiële maatreëls kom Dit word onmoontlik gemaak vir die Prowinsiale Rade om hulle werk te doen en ek sien vir die rede geen kans om vir die Wet te stem nie.

We have been asked from the Labour benches whether we on this side put the teachers’ salaries too high. May I, in answer, say that I have received a large number of communications from the teachers, especially a communication from a Mr. E. 0. Vaughan, who, I see, had a long letter to-day in the Cape Times. He says, in paragraph 2, of one of his communications à propos of this Bill—

As an illustration of this he gives the following example. The top salaries for primary and secondary schools are the figures £405 and £540, and he goes on to say, and I find it is correct, from that the draft scales on page 21 of the Public Service Commission Report, that the maximum shall be £380 in both classes of schools, and then he ends with a large exclamation, “Just fancy! £380 maximum salary for a man teacher at the age of over thirty!” If these male teachers of over thirty years want more money, why do not they qualify themselves for a higher grade or go into some other employment? Why do not they get something in competition with the rest of the world? A few years ago the public servants had to have their salaries reduced owing to the state of the country. The hon. member, who was defending the teachers, had his Parliamentary allowance reduced from £600 to £500.

That was not a right thing to have done.

It may not be right, but it was due to the state of the finances. Why should not the teachers also make some sacrifices, and if you look at the scales on page 21 of that report you will find that these people who get this £380 are persons who passed the matriculation and spent two years in a training school. Just fancy—a matriculation certificate and then two years in a training school for teachers, and they get £380.

As a maximum after 20 years’ service.

I cannot help that. At present there are large numbers of “duds” among the teachers, and, therefore, we cannot provide for them. We cannot lay down a scale of salaries for what I may call “privileged inefficiency.”

Does the hon. member treat them all as “duds”?

No, the hon. member will see if he goes on a little to the D and E class scale, to where a man has a degree, and to F class, where the scales of salary rise considerably, and is it not time in this country we should have properly qualified teachers?

And pay them well?

Yes, if they are worth it. Mr. Vaughan picks on a third-rate man, who is being paid £380. Why should the teacher be in a better position than the civil servant who has had his pay reduced?

Existing pays have not been reduced.

I say that a man who has a degree and has two years’ training in pedagogy can be raised to £540, and in my opinion receives quite sufficient, and that is what is recommended in the draft scale by this Commission. As the Prime Minister said there is no reason why the scale should not be altered, and if there is anything in this scale which the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) thinks unfair the hon. member might point it out, and the Public Service Commission will deal with it.

I want to know what the solicitor for the South African Railways makes in a year?

You will find it if you refer to another portion of that Commission’s report that some of the schoolmasters in the country are actually getting £405 per year, and have only seven pupils on the school benches.

Where does the hon. member find that?

No, no.

Do not talk rubbish.

My statement was quite correct. Then I find in to-day’s Burger that they have a leading article stirring up the feelings of the people against this Bill. They say that the Civil Service Commission recommends that the pupils in these very small outside schools should be increased from a minimum of ten to fifteen, and they say that under such a scheme there will be no less than 500 privately supported farm schools, and 600 primary schools which will have to go. I do not know where the newspaper gets the statistics from, but if these are the schools where these high salaries of £405 are being paid to teachers for seven pupils, then in the state of the present finances of the country, they must go.

What will happen to the children?

The hon. member asks what is going to happen to the children. At Marabastad, six miles from Pietersburg, as the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) and many other members know, a very large sum, I am not sure whether it is £20,000, has been spent on school buildings for the education of a few children coming from the farms to Marabastad when they could just as well go to Pietersburg. That goes on throughout the country. I am not speaking of school buildings, that comes under loan fund, but I do think it is unfair of members on the opposite side to misrepresent things, and say we are doing something unjust and wrong, and thus to stir up things against the Government. What is the reason of the trouble we are in to-day? The reason is that in 1912, when the Financial Relations Commission report was brought in, there was a majority report in which the chairman, a gentleman specially imported from England, named Sir George Murray, Mr. Patrick Duncan and Mr. Justice Lawrence, reported as, follows—

In its wisdom the Union Parliament in 1913 departed from the principle, and the right hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Finance, and the present leader of the opposition (Gen. Hertzog) voted in favour of the present system. Instead of the people of the provinces raising taxation and spending it afterwards, what happened was that the Union Government went to each of the provinces with a well-filled purse—it reminds me of the story of the good Samaritan—and said: “Here is a purse full of golden sovereigns, spend them, and for every sovereign you spend I will give you another, and look, if you spend any more I will assist you further. You need only raise half and I will give you the balance £ for £.” We know that the Provincial Councils—and small blame can be attached to them— became very extravagant and increased their expenditure. I think the only thing they dealt with extravagantly was education, as when it came to roads and hospitals they were very parsimonious. Seven-eighths or nine-tenths of the money spent in the provinces is spent on education. Is it not time that we, with all honesty of purpose, should do our duty and see what we can do to keep down expenditure? Since 1918 the Provincial Councils have become unpopular on account of invidious taxation to meet their excessive expenditure on education. The Government is doing its best to right the position, and I for one am going to see it through. I would ask the members on the Labour benches not to use this question for party politics. If teachers’ salaries have to be reduced, they themselves should voluntarily agree to it. Do those hon. members who are talking so glibly know what the teachers were getting thirty years ago when I was a boy in this country? I do not believe he does. Headmasters of large public schools received £400 per annum. I do not suppose it is because numbers of mine and industrial workers have got good salaries that therefore the same thing must apply to the teachers. They are members of an honourable profession and should be satisfied to work for the honour and esprit de corps of their profession. They have an honourable profession, and it is not necessary for them, no more than for a minister of religion, to look for high pay as do working men and other people in the ordinary walk of life. Does anybody say that the right hon. the Prime Minister is not worth three or four times as much as the President of the Chamber of Mines, and therefore I say that when you are talking about salary you must take into account the position occupied. The Ministers of the Crown are prepared to do the work for a small salary because of the honourable position they occupy. Let me conclude by asking what remedy can be suggested—what remedy can we find? [An Hon. Member: “A general land tax.”] I joined the S.A.P. immediately after the failure of the Hereeniging Congress at Bloemfontein in September, 1920, and before the Unionists were incorporated, and I have always been opposed to a general land tax. I do not think it fair or right that the farmers should be so taxed in addition to the indirect taxation of the middlemen, but if it comes to a question of raising money for local purposes district councils might levy a tax as is now done by the Cape Divisional Councils, and I have no objection to that. I am, and will always be, opposed to a general land tax. There are two remedies which I would suggest for the present unfortunate state of affairs one is to take over the Education Department under the Union control, and this was first suggested at the time of Union, but two small provinces opposed if for different reasons. The Free State objected, and I do not say they were to blame at that time, because they thought that the Dutch language would possibly not get proper treatment, and plucky little Natal—the right hon. Mr. Merriman dropped the “P and called it “lucky little Natal as they thought English might not get proper treatment. Here there was suspicion, first on one side and then on the other, which, as it turned out, was a great mistake. I suggest if public opinion is not in favour of Union control there is only one other alternative—they must give the four provinces, or if another province joins then the new one also, local option to either continue the present provincial system or to split the Union up into large district councils with circumscribed powers. When the present Prime Minister as Minister of Finance introduced the Financial Relations Bill of 1913, he said that he felt that the Cape and the Transvaal were too large for local Government, and they should be cut respectively into three and two districts. If some of the provinces do not wish to come in under Union control there should be a system of district councils. That seems to me the only solution. Whatever the Government have done in the past they are prepared to face the music, and to do their best to put things right. In 1913 the Government, including their then supporters now in opposition, sowed the wind. We now have the whirlwind and the Government are not running away. In the circumstances they should get the support of this House.

Dit was ’n baie interessante behandeling, wat die Minister van Finansies gegee het van ’n moeilike toestand, toe hy so handig die twede lesing van die Wetsontwerp deur al sy fases gestuur het. Dit was ’n knap stuk werk en as hy die kompliment van my wil aanneem, dan wil ek sê dat ek nie glo, dat iemand anders dit so meesterlik kon doen as hy nie. Hy het hier ’n maatreël bepleit, waarmee lede aan die anderkant hoogs ontevrede is, en die Minister nie die minste van almal nie, en hy het dit opgevysel. Dit wás ’n maatreël wat soos ’n kleine vondeling by die Minister se deur gelaat was, deur niemand bemind en deur almal ontkend en tog so vaderlik deur die Minister aangeneem. En waarom is dit? Wat is die oorsaak? Hoe is dit moontlik dat die Regering in staat is Om, waar al die verskillende elemente aan die anderkant is, hulle opdrag en oortuiging met so’n bnegte Wetsontwerp te verkrag en nou daarmee voor die Huis te kom? Vir my is dit duidelik eh ook vir ons aan hierdie kant, waarom hierdie, vir die land so dodelike en agterlike Westontwerp as uit die lug val en voor die Huis gebring word, terwyl onse vriende van die Kamer van Koophandel en die Kamer van Mynwese hulle so dood stil hou. Hulle het al jare daarop aangedring in die pers en op vergaderings, by wyse van besluite; vroeg en laat het hulle op die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Rade aangedring. Op die doel werd aahgestuur nie allen in die pers nie, maar op elke vergadering van die Kamers van Koophandel en van Mynwese. Mens kon ditsien in hoofartiekels van die Cape Times, E.P. Herald, Rand Daily Mail, en verskeie andere, waarin ’n mens telkens kon lees besluite ten gunste van afskaffing. Die regtervleugel van die Suid-Afrikaanse party, die Kamers van Mynwese en Koophandel, het daar gedurig op aangedring, dat die Prowinsiale Rade afgeskaf sou werd en ’n mens sou tog verwag, dat die Regering iets in die rigting sou voorstel, maar hulle doet niks van die aard nie en die vraag is: waarom nie? En die antwoord is omdat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies so glad is; hy wou die verteenwoordigers van die mynmaatskappye geen aanstoot gee nie en die verteenwoordigers van die mense op die platteland ook nie—en ek vraag hoe het hy dit reg gekry om die twee elemente met mekaar te versoen. Vir my is dit duidelik, dat daar onderhandelinge gevoer is en ’n ooreenkoms getref is voordat die saak hier voor die Huis gebring was. My vriend daar sê, dat ek verkeerd is, maar vir my is dit duidelik dat die Minister vir die mense, wat aandring op die afskaffing, sou gesê het: “wag ek sal ’n verklaring maak en dit in geskrifte laat verskyn, dat die Regering die Baxter-rapport in hoofsaak aanneem, maar nie nou sou uitvoer nie terwyl die meerderheid van die volk nog nie daarvoor ryp is nie. Intusse sal ons maar eers hierdie Wetsontwerp passeer en na die a.s. algemene eleksie sal ons weer die rapport aanvaar en dit dan uitvoer.” Dit lyk of dit die ooreenkoms was, waar die party verdeel was en die land nog nie ryp vir die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Raad nie. Die Baxter-kommissie se verslag is dieselfde ding as afskaffing, net onder ’n dekmantel. Dit is die ontwikkeling vandag en die Wetsontwerp voor ons gaat baie dieper in die politiek van die afskaffing as vir lede blyk en dit hang af van hierdie wetgewing of ons van die Prowinsiale Rade in die toekoms die werk gaan kry en die voordeel, wat ons van hulle verwag. As ek verkeerd is, dan sal ek erken, wanneer ek sien waar ek verkeerd is, maar my voorstelling is een wat soas lank reeds van hierdie kant van die Huis gemaak is, en dit is dat daar seer duidelike wetgewing moet neergelê word omtrent die Prowinsiale Rade en welke hulle regte en funksies is. Ek sien, dat die Kamer van Koophandel en Kamer van Mynwese se suurdeeg begin deur te trek en het die lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) ook al beet en ek wonder hoevele meer. Vandaar dat hy ook al voorstel, om die Prowinsiale Rade af te skaf of wetgewing op die lyne van, die Baxter-rapport in te voer. Dat dit nie gedaan is deur die Regering nie, is te danke aan Natal en ek hoop dat die edele lid vir Newcastle (de hr. Nel) notiesie sal neem en sal aanneem dat ons dankbaar is vir Natal, want dit is net tengevolge van die optrede van Natal dat die Rade nog bestaan. Dit het ons gehoor van die edele lid vir Zululand (de hr. Nicholls) en hy het horn beroep ook op ander lede. Natal het gesê, ons laat die Prowinsiale Rade nie wegneem nie; Natal het vas getrap en voet by stuk gehou. Tot sover het hulle die Prowinsiale Rade gered en as ek Natal kan waarsku, dan sou ek hulle sê, dat daardie mense van die Kamers van Mynwese en Koophandel hulle nie deur ’n eerste terugslag laat afskrik nie; hulle sal weer probeer. Toe dit laaste jaar ’n mislukking was het die koerante geskree dat die uitgawe so toe neem, dat daar ’n Kommissie moet aangestel word om dit te ondersoek. Waarom stel hulle nie ’n Kommissie voor oor die Unie Regering nie, hoewel dit noodsaaklik is en ook deur die Publieke Rekeninge Komitee voorgestel was, maar nee, hulle stel net ’n Kommissie aan vir die Prowinsiale Rade. Dit is wonderlik dat ons van hierdie kant dikwels woordelik kan voorspel wat die rapporte van meeste Regerings Kommissies sal wees, net soas ons hier ook weer vooraf gesê het, wat die rapport van die Baxter-kommissie sou wees.

Ek het nooit van die voorspelling gehoor nie.

Was my edele vriend dan aan die slaap?

Julie is valse profete, en ek dink Van Rensburg het daardie voorspellings gemaak.

Voorwaar wat ons voorspel het, is woordelik net so uitgekom. Ons het geweet op welke lyne daardie vriende die rapport wou hê en die Kommissie het ook net so gerapporteer, en ek wil vir Natal sê pasop, die plan is nog om die Prowinsiale Rade te verongeluk, maar langs ’n ander weg. Die vriende, wat die Prowinsiale Rade wil behou, moet geen stap verder gaan met die Regering nie, en wegbly van die planne van uitoorlê. Die Wetsontwerp is bedoel om doekies voor die oê van die Prowinsiale Rade van Natal te draai. Ek wil Natal vra om by ons te staan: ons wil ook die Prowinsiale Rade behou net soos Transvaal en die Vrystaat ook.

Die Vrystaat is daar wars van.

Wat die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) sê, kan ek nie aanneem teenoor wat die Minister van Finansies verklaar het nie, die verklaar het dat die meerderheid van volk daarvoor is. Die Wetsontwerp is dieselfde ding as die Baxter-rapport net met ’n ander naam. En dit is soas die ding, na my opvatting loop en nog sal loop. Nou het die edelagbare die Minister geseg aan die Kamers van Koophandel en Mynwese hy sal die verklaring maak en oor ’n jaar of so na die eleksie sal hy wetgewing ooreenkomstig die Baxter-rapport in bring, en daarop sê hulle ons is tevrede. As die edelagbare die Regering net seg: ons neem die rapport aan in hooftrekke, dan is die saak in orde. Dan het die edelagbare die Minister geseg soos ook die lid vir Rondebosch (de. hr. Close), dat dit ’n tydelike maatregel is en daarom bepaal ek my nie sodanig by die wetjie nie, maar veeleer by wat sal kom. Die plan van die Minister “Ons sal die rapport wegsit en solang ’n ‘makeshift,”n noodmaatregel aanneem, totdat ons die volgende eleksie gewin het en as die Regering dan net weer inkom sal die ding by die mense daarbuite ook regkom” is vir my duidelik. Die edelagbare die Minister het geseg “dat die mense buite me daarvoor is nie”; maar terwyl die Regering sig nou eenmaal vasgekoppel het aan die Baxter-rapport, hoop hulle om met die wetjie eers klaar te speel, totdat die Baxter-rapport deurgedruk kan word, en so het die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) ons ook laat verstaan.

Waar kom die edele lid daaraan, dat ek soiets geseg het?

Ek het so verstaan, maar miskien was die Nederlands van die edele lid vir my te hoog. Dit bly nietemin n feit, dat die Baxter-rapport die Prowinsiale Rade stadig aan wil afskaf en dit is hoogs onbillik, dat die Regering in die toestand, waarin die land verkeer langer ’n weifelende houding aanneem. Dit help nie om in ’n posisie, soos waarin die Prowinsiale Rade verkeer, nog ’n vier, vyf jaar hulle tussen hemel en aarde te laat sweef nie. Hoe kan hulle voortgaan met die belangryke werk, wat aan hulle opgedraag is en waarvan onderwys die belangrykste is? Dit is ’n belemmering vir die ganse land, en is dit nie vir die vooruitgang van die land verderflik nie? Ek sê saam met die edele lid vir Harrismith (de hr. A. A. Cilliers), dat daar nou ’n beslissing moet kom na die een of ander kant toe. Die edelagbare die Regering moet beslis daaroor, maar as die Regering sy besluit sou uitvoer, sal hy die sin gee van die handelaars, van die Myn en Handelskamers. Maar nie die wense van die mense daarbuite nie. Dit is nodig dat hulle nou die stap neem, wat die Prowinsiale Rade in die gelegenheid stel of om aan te gaan met hulle werk of op te hou om te bestaan. Die weifelende houding van die Regering het baie kwaad gedaan, daar met die onderwys nie op die gewenste manier aangegaan kon word nie. Dit het lank genoeg geduur in die ou Kaap, dat met onderwys gespeel werd net soas nou, en wat was die gevolg, dat toe die Prowinsiale Raad tot stand gekom het die land ver agter was op onderwys gebied en van daar dat nou voorgegee word, dat die Rade met die uitgawe so hoog gegaan het. Waar het hulle begint en waar opgehou? Wat was voor die tyd die toestand van die onderwys in die Kaap en wat is dit nou? As die uitgawe meer word, dan weet ons wat ons daarvoor kry. Die kinders kry onderwys, meer kinders op skool en, as die lede sê, dat daar nuttige onderwys gegee kan word en as hulle n kommissie wil aanstel om dit te ondersoek, dan sal ek sê ja, doet dit en stel die onderwys op ’n beter, meer praktiese voet, beter as vandag. Maar dit, vrees ek, is nie die opinie van die, wat skreeu, dat daar teveel geld gespandeer word, nie. Die kwessie van onderwys self die laat hulle doodkoud en hulle skreeu net, dat hulle belas sal word en dit kan hulle tog nie uithou nie. Terwyl hulle, as hulle belasting betaal dit tog maar weer afwentel op die skouers van die mense, wat van hulle koop. Ek weet, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies die maatreël gaat deurset, alles klaargemaak het, maar vóórlopig net ’n vergelyk ’n “compromise” gemaak het met daardie groot ondersteuners vain sy party. Ek wil hom herinner aan ’n groot man, die daar nie meer is nie. Wat ’n wereld beroemde man was, maar wat in ’n swak oomblik ingegee het vir sy teenstanders; dit is wylen President Wilson en hy is daarna klaar gewees. As die edelagbare die Minister denk, dat die Baxter-rapport reg is, laat hulle dit dan dadelik uitvoer en nie wag tot na die eleksie nie.

Maar dan is edele lede aan die oorkant mos aan die bewind?

Die land sal daaroor baie bly wees. Maar die edelagbare die Minister is daar nou nog en daarom vraag ek hom om sterk te wees en ’n besliste houding in te neem en sy plan nou deur te druk, sodat die land kan weet waar hulle is, want ’n mens weet nie hoelank hulle sal vaskleef aan die regeringsetels nie en daar moet een of ander verandering kom. Die edelagbare die Minister moet een van twee mogelikhede uitvoer; of hy moet die wil van die volk gehoorsaam en die uitvoer of die van die Kamers van Koophandel en Mynwese. Ek hoop, dat hy verstandig sal wees, daardie laasbedoelde party sal laat vaar en luister na die stem van die volk daarbuite en hulle vertegenwoordigers. Die regtervleugel van die party daar oorkant is bereid om in die voortbestaan van die Prowinsiale Rade toe te stem op een voorwaarde en dit is, dat hulle gevrywaar sal word van alle belasting. Hulle wil die Prowinsiale Rade dwing om ’n grondbelasting op te lê, maar die mynbelasting, verkoopbelasting en dergelike moet afgeneem word. Weet die mense wat hulle vraag? Voor my leg die interessante rapport van die Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste, waarin ’n mens kan sien hoe die verskillen.de seksies van die samelewing hulle inkomste kry, wie ’n groot inkome het en wie ’n kleine. Ek sal daarna verwys en waar nog geen grondbelasting opgleg is nie, daar weet die Prowinsiale Rade tenminste, wie welvarend is en wie nie. Ek wil verwys na die laaste gegewens wat beskikbaar is, nl., die van 1921-’22 wat aangee wat die belasbare inkomste is van elke seksie van die gemeenskap. Die handel, vertegenwoordigd deur die kamer, wat so hard skreeu teen die Prowinsiale Rade het ’n belasbare inkomste van £17,734,000. Denk oor die getal handelaars, wat daar is teenoor die getal boere, dan kan mens ’n tamelike goeie vergelyking trek: die drankhandel £1,700,000. Myne, die arme myne, wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister so begaan oor is en wat naar hy verklaar deur die Prowinsiale Raad ’n strafbelasting opgeleg word, £11,000,000. [Een Edele Lid: “Hoeveel het hulle betaal op daardie inkome”?] Ek neem aan, dat die Kommissaris van Belastinge die belasting van hulle sal ingevorder het. Ons handel nie nou oor inkomste belasting nie, maar oor die inkomste self. [Een Edele Lid: “Hoeveel is dit”?] Dit is die myne. Ons het gehad die handelaars 18,000,000; myne £11,000,000 dan kom advokate en prokureurs—[Een Edele Lid: “Waar die edele lid toe behoor.”] Ja, ek was ook een, maar ek het my bekeer, Hulle inkome was £1,469,000. Ek het geen objeksie teen die inkomste van die mense nie en dit is ook die Staat se plig om toe te sien, dat al die bedrywe in die land welvarend is en ek verheug my daaroor, dat dit met baie van hulle so goed gaat. Dan kom die mediese dokters £1,069,000; gesalarieerde ambtenare £15,252,000; ander gesalarieerde personeel £26,000,000. Nou kom ons by die ruggegraat van die land, die boere bevolking, wat die Baxter-rapport voorstel as die hoofbron vir belasting van die Provinsiale Raad. En vergelyk dit nou met al die ander. Boerdery £4,309,000; daarvan gaat vir Boere-maatskappye £1,155,000, sodat jou indiwiduële boer sê belasbare inkome neerkom op £3,154,000 vir die hele Unie. En dit is die bedryf, wat daardie mense wil belas en wat die edelagbare die Minister voornemens is ook om hard te laat belas—as dit nie die jaar is nie, dan ander jaar, as hulle weer aan die hoof kom of daar bly. Met hierdie syfers voor die land en daardie verklaring van die Minister behoort die teenwoordige Regering nie weer op daardie banke te kom nie. Ek is absoluut gekant teen hierdie Wetsontwerp, want dis die beginstadium vir die uitvoering van hierdie rapport; die begin-stadium van die dood van die Prowinsiale Rade en die beginstadium vir die verdere ondergang van die boer. Vriende anderkant moet dit nie vergeet nie. Daar was ook ’n tyd dat dieselfde Regering gesê het nadat hulle die Van Hulstyn-rapport eers ingedien het: “nie, ons trek die Van Hulsteyn-rapport terug, die mense is daarteen.” Maar hulle het net gewag tot na die eleksie, toe kom die Regering en sit dit deur.

Nonsens.

Was die edele lid dan al die tyd aan die slaap? Dis ’n feit dat die Van Hulsteyn-rapport hier voorgebring was en deur die heer Orr, wat toe die Minister van Finansies was, maar terug getrek was en na die eleksie van 1921 was die rapport weer ingebring deur die teenwoordige Finans Minister. Ons aan hierdie kant van die Huis beskou dit, dat ook die Baxter-rapport maar net geberg is tot na die eleksie en dat dieselfde sal gebeur met hierdie Rapport as met die Van Hulsteyn Rapport. As dit nie die bedoeling is nie, dan is die Regering aan die Huis ’n duidelike verklaring verskuldig, dat hulle onder geen omstandigheid die Rapport gaat uitvoer nie. Maar ek kan die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee, dat hy die grootste opposiesie sal ondervind van hierdie kant van die Huis en van die volk daar buite as hy ooit weer met die Baxter-rapport sou kom.

It is quite refreshing to observe the anxiety of hon. members opposite that the Government should bring in a Bill based on the Baxter Report, or is it disappointment that the Government has not brought in one? I wonder what reception a Bill of that sort would meet with by the Opposition in this House. I think the Minister of Finance has taken the wisest course. He has met the provincial authorities, and, failing to come to an agreement with them, has brought in a Bill which will carry us over a year, and on the experience thus gained he can review the whole position next year. I think, therefore, that the hon. the Minister is quite right to bring in such a Bill as we have before us. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) the other evening blew a tremendous bubble about teachers’ salaries, but that bubble was pricked by the Minister of the Interior and dissolved into thin air. It is a great pity that the whole question of teachers’ salaries should be made a shuttlecock by one side or the other of this House. It seemed disquieting to hear from the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) this afternoon of the discrepancy that appears to exist in connection with certain figures which have been set out in the Baxter Report. Under these conditions I think it is an unfair comparison to set out the cost per head of the children in schools between these dominions and South Africa, besides which we have the bilingual system in a huge country with small schools, which tends to raise the cost. In this connection I have examined the figures relating to education in Natal, and I do not propose to go fully into them, but I should like to make it clear that the rates of Union subsidy given in paragraph 508 of the Baxter Report do not represent the actual expenditure on European education, and that in estimating the cost in the other provinces the gross figures in each case must be taken after allowing only for revenue deductions. If the per capita grant is worked out on this basis, it will be seen there is no great difference between the four provinces having regard to the relative conditions. By this I mean that Natal, although having by far the lowest school population, has to maintain educational establishments and bear administrative expenses on a scale which is out of proportion to its size compared with the other provinces. I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) in connection with the Provincial Councils, and that if a plebiscite was taken in Natal it would go against the Provincial Council. On the contrary, it would show an overwhelming majority in its favour, as we are satisfied that the Provincial Council system should continue. It is true that Provincial Councils have not been as successful in their working as was anticipated at Union, and this has been principally through the introduction of party politics, but if they were purged of that no better bodies could take their place. My principal reason for rising was to deal with a matter raised by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). The hon. member said that the Government is unwilling to impose what he regards as equitable taxation on the mines, which taxation they could easily bear, and in support of his contention he quoted the rates of dividends declared by certain companies. It would be idle to deny that a number of companies give a remunerative return on the money invested; were it not so, mining ventures would not attract capital. I should like to quote a paragraph from the Mining Industry Board’s Report, page 11, paragraph 43—

It will be admitted that that is very sound advice, and it must not be forgotten that the Government failed to get a single offer for the Geduld Area, for which tenders were invited in 1922. Here are a few interesting facts concerning two of the companies referred to by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). The Van Ryn Deep, after sinking its shaft to the reef and doing a certain amount of development, which was discouraging, came to the end of its funds. £600,000 was required for further development and exploration. An appeal to shareholders brought in £19,000, and the financial house concerned made arrangements to find the balance of £581,000. But for their action the mine would be a derelict instead of paying dividends to shareholders, as well as a handsome sum to Government revenue. Then the Government Areas—the dividend on which was quoted with such unction by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan)— when over £1,000,000 had been expended, this mine was but a hole in the ground. The shareholders declined to put up more, but an outstanding engineer considered there was a fighting chance, and on his advice one man had the courage to put up £500,000, and converted it from a hole in the ground to one of the biggest profit-earning mines in the world to-day. The effect of that has been that for the past year no less a sum than £1,000,000 has been handed to the Government of South Africa as its share for last year, besides its great benefit to the country. The New Modderfontein, another company cited by the hon. member, was working for about 20 years before it paid a dividend. What investor would put up any money in the hope of getting any return 20 years hence? The hon. member deals with one side of the picture, but does he consider the many mines, which have and are proving entirely unremunerative? The Daggafontein, on which a million and a half has been expended, is a derelict mine to-day. The Randfontein Estate and the East Rand Proprietory Mines have, since they last declared a dividend, spent over thirty million pounds in working costs—wages and stores. Professor Lehfeldt, a few years ago made an interesting calculation showing that an investment in all the shares of the Witwatersrand gold mining companies over a period of fourteen and a half years, from 1907 to 1921, would have yielded 6.2 per cent., a pretty low return, especially on mining ventures. In this connection, it might interest the House to know what the Government engineer considers a payable working proposition. On the question of leasing Government land in the Far East Rand, the Government mining engineer said—

If the total capital in mining ventures in the Transvaal is considered, it will be found that the return is well under four per cent. I could give a large number of examples in this connection, but I think I have shown how fallacious is the argument of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). The Bill is not an ideal one, but it is about as good as can be expected under existing conditions, and I support the second reading.

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

Daar word dikwels geseg, dat ons aan hierdie kant van die Hu’s die myne wil doodbelas—“to tax them out of existence”—en dan word gepraat van laë graad myne asof ons die nie-betalende myne wil belas. Dit is die geval nie, maar wat ons beweer is dat daar groot verskil is tussen die mynindustrie en die ander industries van die land—die myne is van tydelike aard en die ander industrie is blywend en permanent. Al wat ons uit die grond haal en wegstuur, gaat af van die duursaamheid van daardie bate van die land, terwyl elke duim grond, wat ontgin word, en elke artikel wat gefabriseer word gaat tot die bestendiging van industrie. Daarom seg ons, moet daar verskil gemaak word tussen die myne en die ander industrieë en wanneer dit tot belasting kom, moet die Regering eers kyk na die 50, 60 tot 120 persent diwidende van die myne voordat hulle kom tot die tabakboer, die veeboer, die onderwyser of die medisyne van die arm man. Ek wil vanaand nie juis uitwei oor belastinge nie, maar oor die twee beginsels in die Wetsontwerp. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het herhaaldelik in sy toespraak op smalende wyse na Natal gerefereer, vermoedelik omdat Natal so vasstaat op die regte van sy Prowinsiale Raad. Natal het onder die Unie ingekom, onder die duidelike verstandhouding, dat die Prowinsiale Rade geen klugspel sou wees nie, maar instaat gestel sou word om hulle funksies op behoorlike wyse te vervul, maar tans bestaat daar ’n sterk gevoel, dat die Regering hulle so kort kniehalter, Hat hulle tekort gedaan word in hulle regte. As ons die geskiedenis nagaan in verband met die finansiële verhouding, vind ons, dát die eerste Wet, wat die basis vasgestel het, die van 1913 was. Gen. Hertzog, die edele lid vir Smithfield, het geseg dat ons na die basis toe moet terugkeer, maar die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het geseg, dat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) nou eers staat waar hyself in 1913 al gestaan het wat Prowinsiale Rade betref het die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sedert 1913 agteruitgegaan en die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) kan gelukgewens word, dat hy nie die agteruitgang meegemaak het nie. Die moeilikheid van die argumente van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister blyk uit sy bewering dat, toe die Wet van 1913 gepasseer werd; die edele lid vir Smithfield en sy party die Wet bestry het, terwyl in 1913 die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) nog lid was van van dieselfde party as die edelagbare die Eerste Minister en daar nog geen Nasionale Party bestaan het nie. Dit wys hoe die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gryp na enige argument om sy saak goed te praat. In 1917 is die eerste verandering in die Wet aangebreng en dis opmerklik dat dit ten gunste van onderwys was. Maar voor 1921 het daar verandering plaasgevind in die houding van die Regering en hulle party, want die element wat ten gunste van die afskaffing van (Prowinsiale Rade is, het ’n sê gekry in die party en in die Regering. Van daardie tyd af is ’n wurgende hand geleg geword aan die keel van die Prowinsiale Rade en die politick van wurg het voortgeduur met die doel om ’n end te maak aan die bestaan van Prowinsiale Rade. Al sou dit die openlike politiek van die Regering wees om die Prowinsiale Rade af te skaf, dan kon hulle geen doeltreffender middel daartoe geneem het nie as die wetgewing van die laaste jare, waarby nie alleen die subsidies aan daardie liggame ingekort word nie, maar hulle bronne van inkomste beperk. Die wurgproses gaat nog voort en in 1923 is die plan opgekom om die laaste knyp te gee, die Baxter-rapport werd uitgebreng en die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het die rapport by die laaste sitting volkondig gesteun en dit was stellig die bedoeling hierdie sitting wetgewing in te dien, wat die magte van die Prowinsiale Rade nog verder sou inkort en verdere stappe te neem om die afskaffing te bewerkstellig, soas die Regering voornemens was te doen.

Waar kom hy daaraan?

Daar is verandering gekom in die houding van die Regering; hulle had gehoop, dat die unpopulariteit van die Prowinsiale Rade sover gevorder sou wees, dat die gewenste wetgewing sou kan ingedien word en aangeneem deur die Huis. Maar na die opstelle van die Troonrede is dit die Regering duidelik geword, dat die land teen die afskaffing is en toe is gebeur presies wat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) geseg had; die Regering het weggehol van die posisie af. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het die ander aand dit die edele lid vir Smith-field (Gen. Hertzog) kwalik geneem, dat hy verklaar had, dat die Regering aan niks vashou nie en telkens vir die oplossing van ’n probleem weghardloop. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) was egter verkeerd; daar is een ding, waaraan hulle met alle mag vasklou en dit is die regeringskussings, en daar is twee omstandighede waaronder hulle nie weghardloop nie. Die een is as hulle ’n kans sien om geweld te gebruik en mense plat te skiet; en die ander is as hulle kans sien om hulle te kan toedraai in die britse vlag en te kan sê: ‘Val julle ons nou aan dan val julle die britse vlag aan.” As een van die twee voorwaardes aanwesig is, dan loop hulle, nie weg nie, dan druk hulle die meest onpopulaire saak deur en is bereid om die “most awful ordeals” deur te staan. Dit is die geval ook met hierdie saak. Hulle het van die probleem weggehardloop en die publiek buite wil weet waar hulle aan of af is met betrekking tot die Prowinsiale Rade en dit is hoog tyd, dat een of ander ding vasgestel word. As die liggame moet afgeskaf word, laat die nodige wetgewing ingedien word; so nie, laat dan wetgewing voorgestel word om ’n einde te maak aan die onstabiliteit, wat veroorsaak dat as ’t ware as ’n Damokles-swaard hang oor die hoofde van die Prowinsiale Rade. Ek admireer die houding van die edele lid vir Natal Kust (de by—Saunders), waar hy ruiterlik verklaar het, dat die voorstel nog vis nog vleis is en dat hy nie daarvoor sal stem nie maar in verband met wat hy seg van die houding van Natal, moet ek van hom verskil, daar ek oortuigd is, dat die meerderheid in Natal nog net so sterk ten gunste van die behoud van die Prowinsiale Rade is as ooit. Ek stem daarom in met wat die edele lid vir Zoeloeland (de hr. Nicholls) verklaar het, dat die Prowinsiale Rade moet bly. Ek is net spyt dat die invloede wat na 1920 ontstaan het in daardie party al deurgedring het tot lede wat kom van Natal sodat daar van hulle ook al is wat Prowinsiale Rade afgeskaf wil sien. Dit word gesê dat hierdie Wet is nie juis een, wat soveel kwaad sal doen nie, maar solank as die onbestendigheid inwese gehou word, word ernstige nadeel gedaan aan die land en die hele werksaamheid van die Prowinsiale Rade gestrem deurdien hulle belet word om hulle funksies te vervul. Wat betref die ander beginsels, opgeslote in Art. 2 van die Wetsontwerp, wil ek hier verklaar dat ek nie een van dies is, wat meen dat onse stelsel perfekt is nie; daar is selfs in die Prowinsiale Raad van Natal dinge, waar ek nie mee saamgaan nie, veral wat betref die behandeling van die tweede offisiële taal van die land. Wat betref die algemene stelsel van die land dink ek dis verkeerd om die plaaskind presies dieselfde opvoeding te gee as die dorpskind. Om aan die plaaskind dieselfde opvoeding te gee as aan die dorpskind is verderflik en dit is een van die redes, waarom die stroom van die platteland af dorpe toe so toeneem en dit is waar ek verskil van die edele lid vir Denver (de hr. Nixon) waar hy verklaar het, dat die plaaskind op die dorp moet skoolgaan. Ons is besig om die plaaskind te speen van die plaaslewe en atmosfeer, en hom die smaak by te breng van die dorpslewe en die gewoontes daarvam. Daarom ook is ek teen die aanbevelings van die Baxter-rapport in hierdie opsig omdat daardeur die plattelandsonderwys gaat ly. Die plaaskind moet steeds in aanrakingbly met die plaaslewe, liefde daarvoor moet by hom aangekweek word en vir die grond. Dit is onmolik as die kind na die dorp gaat, dat hy die liefde vir die buitelewe sal behou, want op sy mees impressionabele leeftyd leer hy die dorp en die se genietinge ken en later wil hy met alle geweld dorptoe. Radikale verandering sal daar moet kom in ons onderwysmetodes. Maar ons is nie tans besig met die stelsel van onderwys nie, maar met die onderwysers en hulle salarisskaal en voordat ek daarna toe oorgaan, wil ek net daarop wys, dat die vergelyking, wat die Baxter-rapport maak tussen die koste per kind in Suidafrika en die koste in ander lande, nie die papier werd is, waarop dit geskryf is nie. Die edele lid vir Zululand (de hr. Nicholls) het daarop gewys, dat die vergelyking in die geval van Australië nie billik is nie en hy het feite aangehaal om dit aan te toon. Hy het egter nie aangehaal van die tweetaligheid in ons land nie. Dan ook moet in aanmerking geneem word die status van die onderwyser, en die gehalte van die onderwys. Verlede jaar is in een van die suidafrikaanse koerante ’n brief verskyn van ’n suidafrikaanse student in Australië. Hy was self onderwyser in Suid-Afrika, en het belang gestel in onderwys. Hy het sake in Australië nagegaan, en het sekere opienies gevorm oor die onderwys daar. Ek wil graag enkele uittreksels uit bedoelde brief voorlees. Hy vertel, hoe die leeftyd vir die kindergarten daar vyf jaar is, maar wegens gebrek aan fondse het hulle bespreek cm dit 7 jaar te maak, maar die Minister het geweier. Die korrespondent sê dan—

Presies die beskouing van die lid vir Parktown (de hr. Rockey) wat die Prowinsiale Rade met wortel en tak wil uitroei. Hy gaat verder: “Onderwysers is veel minder gekniehalter as by ons, en kan aan die politiek deelneem, in waiter vorm ook al. Op verkiesingsdag word hulle meestal as stemopnemers gebruik. Hulle kry maar ’n karige salaris en word veel minder gerespekteer as by ons. Die redes is, soas reeds aangetoon, met byvoeging, dat die beste brein van die land na beter betalende bedrywe trek …. Oor die algemeen beskou, is die sisteem dus meer onderwysend as opvoedend. Die morele, sosiale en etiese funksies is erbarmelik swak.” Nou, dit is die opienie van ’n onderwyser wat in Australië gewees het, en wat daar weargee, wat sy indruk is van die toestande van die onderwys in Australië, en ek sê, as ons daarby in aanmerking neem wat die edele lid vir Zululand (de hr. Nicholls) gesê het, dan is dit heeltemal on van pas om die vergelyking te maak met andere lande.

On van pas.

As ons Artiekel 2 van hierdie Wetsontwerp lees, dan kan ons nie anders as tot die konklusie kom, dat die onderwysers onbillik behandel geword is. Dis nie hulle wat gevra het vir uniformiteit nie. Die onderwysers het die Kommissie soveel moontlik gehelp en hulle advies gegee. Ek wil nou graag ’n bietjie refereer na ’n paar dinge wat hier gesê word in die Memorandum van die Federale Raad van die Onderwysers-Vereniging, geheg aan die rapport van die Staatsdiens Kommissie. Op bladsy 13 van die rapport sal ons sien, dat die Federale Raad van Onderwysers erken, dat oor die algemeen die beginsel van standardisasie van salarisse goed is, op grond beide van nasionale finansies en van stabiliteit en inter-prowinsiale goed gevoel. Daardie kwessie van stabiliteit is ’n punt wat deur hulle van groot belang beskou word. Hulle het gekom met ’n salarisskaal, wat hulle naderhand gewysig het en waaronder hulle uiteindelik toegestem het om die skaal met meer as £200,000 te verminder en verder se hulle in hulle rapport—

En hier vind ons dat die Siviele Diens-Kommissie skale voorgestel het, wat blykbaar van toepassing moet wees in hierdie gedrukte tyd, en dis een van die besware van die kant van die onderwysers. Hulle vind nou, na hulle die Staatsdiens-Kommissie op alle moontlike wyse tegemoet gekom het, dat daar ’n groter vermindering gemaak is op die salarisskaal as wat hulle ooit van gedroom het en hulle beskou die salarisskaal as totaal ontoereikend en hulle beskou dit verder, dat daar troubreuk gewees het van die kant van die Regering, beide wat betref die belofte gemaak deur die Staatsdiens-Kommissie, en die uiting van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies verlede jaar by die Begroting gemaak. Die edelagbare die Minister het dit gesê in die loop van sy rede verlede jaar wat betref die salarisse van die Staatsdiensamtenare—

En Mr. Speaker, as dit onbillik is om te neem van ’n man wat hy vandag trek, waarom is die Regering dan so onbillik om onder hierdie artiekel van die Wet dit moontlik te maak vir die Prowinsiale Rade om die onbillike ding te doen. Dis dieselfde as of hulle in een asem sê, dis onbillik cm dit te doen maar met die ander asem: “ons gee die Prowinsiale Rade die reg om dit te doen.” En verder sê die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies in sy Begrotingsrede verlede jaar—

En waarom dan hierdie differensiasie gemaak? Waarom die verskil? Dit word nie alleen vir die Publieke Diens-Kommissie, maar ook vir die Prowinsiale Outoriteite moontlik gemaak om vermindering in die salarisse aan te breng. Die onderwysers vind dat die nou voorgestelde skale heeltemal ontoereikend is en, dat die skale die bewys lewer, dat die Staatsdiens-kommissarisse geen besef daarvan het wat die salarisse van onderwysers in Suid-Afrika behoort te wees nie. Hier is geen bestendigheid of uniformiteit nie. Dit sal b.v. moontlik wees vir die Transvaal om die skale te hou soos vasgestel, Natal maak ’n vermindering van b.v. 5 persent, die Vrystaat van 10 persent, en die Kaapprovinisie van 15 persent. Waar bly die uniformiteit? Daar word wel gesê, dat dit maar vir een jaar is, maar ons weet almal dat as salarisse eenmaal verminder is, dan gaat dit maar baie hard om hulle weer verhoog te kry. Ons sal geen uniformiteit kry nie, want die Provinsies word vrygelaat om veranderinge aan te bring. As daar uniformiteit moet wees, dan moet iets anders ook nog gereël word. Ons vind op pagina 17 van die memorandum van die Federasie van Onderwysers—

Maar in hierdie Wetsontwerp vind ons niks in verband daarmee nie. Dis ook ’n grote onbillikheid. Daar word gesê, dat hierdie salarisskaal die goedkeuring het van die tegniese adviseurs, of liewer daar word gesê “dat hulle geraadpleeg is.” Ek sou graag wil weet of die tegniese adviseurs die skale goedkeur en of hulle die Wetsontwerp goedkeur, want dan kan ek Dr. Adamson glad nie verstaan nie, want op bladsy 15 van die memorandum vind ons wat Dr. Adamson gesê het in 1922, nl.—

Daar is geen finaliteit in hierdie Wetsontwerp nie, en Klausule 2 is direk die teenoorgestelde van wat Dr. Adamson gesê het in 1922.

Maar sie paragraaf 22.

Verder in dieselfde stuk lees ek—

En dit is presies wat hierdie artiekel bepaal, dat die Prowinsiale Rade wanneer hulle hulle balans nie kan laat klop nie, dan word hulle aan die hand gegee om die salarisse van die onderwysers maar met 5 persent, of wat dan ook, te verminder. Dis ’n totale verkeerde beginsel en as ons op die manier aangaan, dan sal ons nie die regte kragte kry vir die onderwys-personeel in Suid-Afrika nie. Ek beskou, dat die beroep van onderwyser die vernaamste beroep is wat in ’n land kan wees. Die onderwyser het die vorming van die karakter van die toekomstige burgers van die land in die hand en as ons die regte klas van onderwysers wil kry, dan moet ons in die eerste plek daarvoor sorg, dat hulle ’n betaling kry wat hulle tevrede sal stel en in die twede plek, dat hulle betaling, hulle salaris, vasgestel word, sodat hulle nie afhang van die wisselvallighede van die land, wat ook al plaas vind. Dis ’n verkeerde beginsel om die reg te gee aan die Prowinsiale Rade, of enige andere Rade om in tyd van gedruktheid te probeer om hulle balans reg te kry deur die salarisse van die onderwysers in te krimp. Om die twee redes, dat die Wetsontwerp nog vleis nog vis is en die onsekerheid omtrent Prowinsiale Rade laat voortduur en omdat hy onbillik is teenoor die onderwysers, sal ek die amendement van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) steun.

It is very interesting to notice the flutter and excitement in the dovecotes of the friends and allies of the present Government. When mention was made in the Governor-General’s speech that a Bill to modify the financial relations between the Union and the different Provinces, there was eager anticipation as to how far the Government was prepared to deal with the matter. Many, especially those who favoured the abolition of the Provincial Council system, were on the tiptoe of expectation. “Now there was going to be a firm check over the Administrator and his Executive. No longer would they be able to exact taxes and other payments upon those unwilling to pay them.” The blood supply in the way of finance being cut off, they would speedily die a natural death. Such were the feelings that predominated in the minds of many. They were looking forward to big things. The occasion was pregnant with big issues. The mountain was in labour, the Cabinet was in pain of mortal agony, and the issue was this little bantling. No sooner is this newly-born bantling exposed to view than there are signs and symptoms of dissatisfaction and discontent. There are even murmurs of revolt—and why? Because from the attitude of the Government towards the Baxter Report, they expected something more virile and lusty, and they were profoundly disappointed. I do not blame the Government for not having brought in a measure to end or mend the Provincial Councils. Nor would I blame any succeeding Government for failing in this respect. And this for two reasons. Firstly, because with the cross party currents that would prevent a successful pilotage to port, and, secondly, because in my opinion, the Government has no moral right to do so. The Provincial Councils are not town councils, or divisional councils or school boards, which receive their power and authority from legislative bodies. They are, notwithstanding what theorists may declare, really a part of our Constitution. They were created not by any single party of the State, but by all parties of the State in a great National Convention, and it has been accepted, that if they had not been so created then there would have been no Union. If Sir, this is their origin, if some of the Provinces made their creation a sine qua non of unification, then I cannot but regard it as a betrayal of the people in these dissenting Provinces if anything of a drastic nature, anything that is going to destroy the Provincial Council system, is put before this House for acceptance. There is therefore only one tribunal that can fairly deal with this question—that is by the appointment of another National Council, similar in constitution to that which decided the Constitution of the Union of South Africa. I believe, Sir, that it would be in the interests of the House and the country if Parliament called together such a convention. Each Province would send its own representative elected by a joint meeting of the members of the House of Assembly and the Provincial Council representing the Province. The election of these representatives should take place on the basis of proportional representation. It would be advisable if the Administrators of the Provinces were ex-officio members, and the whole convention could be presided over by the Chief Justice. Only by taking this line of action can we hope to allay agitation and fears, and to arrive at a proper decision as to the fate or function of these much abused bodies. Other alternatives have been suggested. One put forward would give the power to the Free State and Natal to retain their Provincial Councils. This suggestion, if adopted, would only lead to confusion, and it would not lessen the likelihood of future financial relationship Bills coming before this House for discussion. Another alternative would be to have a referendum all over the Union. This would fail to give satisfaction, because the vote would be on a question of “Yea” or “Nay.” There would be no vote as to whether they could be retained and modied in essential respects. And now, Sir, to come to the Bill—a Bill born in sin and shapen in iniquity. It has been described as a very innocent little measure. I don’t know whether Ministers are proud or ashamed of their progeny. Possibly the latter. They have brought so many monstrosities into being since they have been in power that the addition of another to their numerous family may have ceased to matter or to cause any parental concern. I think the Minister of the Interior is a little ashamed of it. He did not like to examine it too closely himself, and like a judicious foster parent he was very anxious to conceal its congenital defects. Evasions and equivocations were the groundwork of his speech. He endeavoured, as indeed did all the Ministers, to convey the impression that, so far as the teachers of South Africa were concerned, the Bill only endeavoured to secure uniformity of salaries, and thus he endeavoured to allay the suspicions and fears of the teachers. Their position was simply to be as heretofore. He stated that the Bill was simply to secure uniformity of salaries. We on this side of the House state that the Bill is simply for the purpose of reducing salaries, and that the uniformity scale is only a smokescreen to conceal more sinister designs. I ask the hon. the Minister, is not this the real design of this measure to reduce the salaries of the teachers of the Union by £450,000. If this is so, and I do not doubt it, nor do the teachers doubt it, why do not Ministers come frankly into the open and say so? But the hon. the Minister of the Interior makes one very gracious concession. “Whatever happens, their status does not suffer.” What a glorious concession! How contented and satisfied the teachers must be! Their status is not to be touched! It’s a blessed word, is that! When the hon. the Prime Minister came back from Europe, after signing the most malignant and iniquitous treaty that ever has been made, he boasted that South Africa had acquired a higher status. I suppose some of us felt very proud, but to the man out of employment it did not give one hour’s job; to the empty purse it did not add a stiver, nor to the hungry stomach did it give an ounce of bread. This reminds me of a little incident that took place in Cape Town in 1910. Business was very bad, and the people were despondent. The Convention had just completed its labours. The Administrative Capital was going to be removed from Cape Town. All kinds of gloomy predictions were being made for the future of Cape Town. So a deputation approached Mr. Jagger, to whom they related all their fears and troubles. The hon. the Minister (he was not Minister then) received them sympathetically, and, after detailing all the things that might happen, he concluded the interview by declaring that, at any rate, they could not remove the climate of Cape Town. So the deputation left and consoled themselves with this reflection. So, too, I suppose the hon. the Minister of the Interior hopes to gladden the drooping spirits of the teachers by this knowledge, that their status will not be in any way touched. I’m afraid that when the rent collector calls, and the house bills fall due, his debtors will not be satisfied with any deficiency in money payment by the knowledge that the teachers’ status is all right. But whether or not the status remains, the salaries are not going to remain as before. The member for Rondebosch and the member for Denver frankly state that they are satisfied that the teachers’ salaries are too high, and that they can bear this intended reduction. Are they satisfied that after a matriculation and several years’ training, after, say, seven years as assistant master, when he is probably 30 years of age, that his salary should be only approximately £300 per year?

£380.

Is he satisfied that he is reasonably treated? I am very far from being satisfied. He is satisfied. The member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is satisfied, so, too, are the hon. the Ministers satisfied, because this new scale of salaries has been adopted by the Public Service Commission, in consultation with education experts, one of whom is Dr. Adamson. He is quoted by all of them as one whose opinion is thoroughly sound. “If they err, they err in good company.” But what did Dr. Adamson say with regard to teachers’ salaries in 1922? He, in answer to questions, stated they were not paid extravagantly—far from it. What has changed his view within one year? One would like to ask Dr. Adamson that question. The Public Service Commission is the Commission that has made these recommendations. What a wonderful, versatile body of men it is! We should surely be proud of South Africa to have such a body. They can go into any office, any department, whether it be of medicine, or agriculture, or irrigation, railway or post office, and give the economic value to the State of every individual employee. Their basis of payment with regard to teachers, what is it? Purely a question of supply and demand. It is not what the teachers do, not what they are worth to the State, but what salary is just sufficiently high to attract men and women to the teaching profession. Doubtless, if the sum fixed does not attract, then it will have to be raised, but what they really should be paid to recompense them for their arduous services is not taken sufficiently into account. Surely this attitude is a deplorable one. I am sorry the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is not present, but I am pleased we have, if I may say so, the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon), and I hope he is satisfied. I wonder if he thinks when a man has reached the age of thirty years, and according to a particular scale, he gets £300 a year—

£380.

Is the hon. member satisfied that after a man has matriculated, then spent two other years, and after seven further years’ service, he gets a salary of £25 a month, he is reasonably treated? I am very far from satisfied. The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Jansen) in 1923 distinctly said that the salaries of teachers were not extravagant, that the teachers were not overpaid. Surely it is not to be expected that he would change his point of view within one year. The Public Service Commission, a very peripatetic Commission, is able to go to all departments, the Agricultural Department, the Educational Department, the Engineering Department, and the clerks, and able to tell the economic value of each department. But now a good deal has been made out of the cost of education in this country, and the cost of education here has been compared with that of Australia. A more fallacious comparison can scarcely be imagined. Now what is the position in Australia? Australia, it has been pointed out by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), is not only a country of very big acreage, but it is a country where the population is massed. Here in this country we have bilingualism, there they have only one language. And then the character of the people, of the population of Australia is entirely different to the character of the population here. In Australia they have only one race, here we have two races. I am not referring to the Dutch race now, and the English race, but I am referring to the European and coloured races. In Australia all the work is done by the white people, all work skilled and unskilled, whether it is labouring work or agricultural work, all work is done by Europeans, and let me point to hon. members that the labouring classes in Australia get a very different wage to what they get here. The labourer in Australia gets a wage of 15s. per day and not 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. as we offer him here. And a bricklayer gets no less than £2 10s. per day. That is what they get in Australia. What do they get in this country? The labouring man here gets 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. per day. What chance has the European labourer, an unskilled man, in this country to make a livelihood? It is an impossible thing and consequently parents realize that unless their children get a higher education they have no chance for their future in this country. Now in Australia the youths go to the sixth standard. A great many do not go as far as that, but get absorbed into industries. What is the position here? Have our youths at the end of the sixth standard a chance of earning their livelihood? I say they have not, and that is the reason why in this country so many of our children are going in for secondary and higher education. Owing to the fact that our youths cannot get into industries they try to get into other professions, into law, medical profession, engineering, etc., and the result of that is that these professions are gradually getting overcrowded. If I look upon the future of this country I can see that unless we get greater expansion of industries where skilled labour can find its place there will be such an upheavel—I am not referring to a revolution or anything of that kind—but there will be such an upheaval in the minds of people that the governing power will have very difficult problems indeed to settle, and I can foresee that we shall have ships leaving this country for more favoured countries conveying our European population. I can see this as plainly as possible. So long as the Government endeavours to restrict the avenues of employment so that a European cannot earn a living, so much you are making his position more difficult. There can be only one way out—and I know that some of my hon. friends here do not agree with me—but there can be only one way out, and that is to have a minimum wage for labouring work such as any European can live on. If we do not obtain that then I say that there is no room for absorption of the white European boy in South Africa. Now, I want to say a few words about the Baxter Report. The Baxter Commission has been greatly praised. I contend that it has been over praised. The report is a collection of figures and statistics. I for my part think that it is a very poor report indeed. The Commission never scratched below the surface, they never probed below the surface, and there is nothing in the way of vision at all in the conclusions of the report. I maintain that essential facts were suppressed and not published unwittingly or ignorantly. That is a fact which is a very significant thing indeed. [An Hon. Member: “What does the hon. member mean?”] We know that the Chairman of this Commission was a biassed abolitionist. His views were well known. He was never in favour of the Provincial Councils. He didn’t want them, and it is very easy for a man who goes in with his mind made up to get statistics around him to support his own views. What we want to have is all the information, whether it is in favour or against, and I contend that this Commission did not fulfil that duty. No, I feel very much that this Bill is going to strike a blow at education in this country. We shall not be able to get the class of teachers whom we have to-day if we reduce the salaries to the extent that this Bill proposes. It will be quite impossible, and we shall get a third class and a fourth class grade of man to come along as teacher, and that will mean the death blow to the education of this country. It will mean low grade children and a low grade future. I am not in favour of any false economy on education, and because I feel that it would strike at the very root of the future of this country I refuse to have that future sacrificed on the altar of false economy.

Daar is heelwat kritiek uitgeoefen oor die Prowinsiale Rade en deur verskeie sprekers word beweer, dat daar ook in die Kaap groot verkwisting plaasgevind het. Ek verstout my om te beweer dat sover as dit die Admnistrateur van die Kaap aanbelang, die hele Unie aan hom veel verskuldig is vir wat hy gedaan het vir onderwys, reeds voordat die Unie tot stand gekom het: dat hy as Minister van Onderwys baie gedaan het vir die bevordering van onderwys en wanneer ons verder moet teruggaan, sal ons nog meer sien wat die Kaap reeds toe al gedaan het vir die Vrystaat en andere Provinsies, b.v.: Toe ons die Unie binnegegaan het, was dit net kort na die grote depressie en die grote tekort onder die Jameson Ministerie, tot dat die ou heer Merriman aan die hoof gekom het en moes snoei, tot onder die siviele amptenare. Hy het die diens verminder met 10 persent en dit het ingesluit onderwysers. Toe ons die Unie binnegaan was is subsiedies vasgestel geword vir die verskillende Provinsies op ’n basis bereken, ooreenkomstig die uitgawe in die Provinsies die laaste jaar vóór Unie. Terwyl by die tyd die salarisse van onderwysers in Transvaal, Vrystaat en Natal taamlik hoog was, was dit baie laag in die Kaapprovinsie, en wat nog verder is, dit was nie in aanmerking geneem nie dat die salarisse van onderwysers hier weens besnoeiïng verminder was met 10 persent. Deur die gebruik van die snoeimes, was daar in die Kaapseprovinsie by die end van die jaar, op die bedrag wat gestem was vir onderwys, ’n surplus van sowat £178,000. Dit was sweet en bloed geld, wat die onderwysers toegekom het. Hulle het dit nie gekry nie, die Prowinsiale Raad het dit ook nie gekry nie. Dit het gegaan ten onregte in die Unie-kas.

Hoelank vóór die sonvloed?

Dit is maar die soort nonsens, wat van hierdie kant van die Huis graag verkoop word. Die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) het ’n vergelyking gemaak tussen die grote tekort van die Kaap, wat regeer word deur die S.A. Party, aan die één kant, en met die Vrystaat aan die anderkant, wat deur die Nasionaliste regeer word en die Transvaal, wat deur Nasionaliste en Arbeiders bestuur word en daar is dan nie sulke groot tekort nie. Hy vergeet, dat reeds in 1917 moes ons ’n tekort van £172,000 vir die Transvaal dek uit Uniefondse. Hy sal dit vind in Wet 42 van 1917. ’n Andere punt is dit; toe die Unie aangegaan werd, en die basis van subsiedies vasgestel was vir die Provinsies, was daar, behalwe die Kaapkolonie, geen Afdelingsrade nie. Dus in die andere provinsies was die paaie gemaak uit fondse van die verskillende volksrade. Wat is gebeur? Voorsiening was gemaak vir bedraë, wat aan die provinsies jaarliks uit Unie-Kas toegestaan word, vir hulle paaie op die basis van uitgawe die jaar vóór die Unie, terwyl aan die Kaap nie voorsiening gemaak was, omdat hulle Afdelingsraad het, vir een enkele stuiwer. In die Afdelingsraad in die Kaap het van toe tot nou betaal in elke distrik vir die paaie en vir die andere provinsies kom dit nou nog grotendeels uit die Unie sê Staatskas. Die edele lid wat my daar so telkens in die rede val, het veral wat ek weet, miskien ook sy opvoeding in die Kaap of Stellenbosch ontvang op koste van die belastingbetaler van die Kaap Provinsie.

Nie ek nie.

Vir die grootste deel van die jong seuns en dogters van die Vrystaat, Transvaal en Natal selfs het die Kaap die opvoeding bekostig reeds vir jare en duisende kinders is nog hier in ons skole, te Kaapstad, Stellenbosch, Paarl, Wellington, Grahamstown en andere plekke; daarvoor moet die grondbelastingbetaler in die Kaap Provinsie opdok. Deur die subsiedies en die voorsiening in die konstitusie is die Kaapse Administrateur gekniehalter gewees. Ek wil niks sê van die honderduisende ponde, wat daar vir die ander Provinsies uit die Unie-kas geneem is nie, maar wil spreek oor die tekort van die Kaap Provinsie. Transvaal het ruim £350,000 uit pasgeld jaarliks, wat hulle kan gebruik en dit het die Kaap nie. Die Vrystaat en Natal kry elkeen jaarliks ’n bonus van £100,000 uit die Unie-kas. Die Kaap kry niks. As men die bedraê bymekaar tel, dan is dit vir Natal en Vrystaat in veertien jaar elk £1,400,000, en wat Transvaal van die naturelle paswette kry £4,900,000. Hier sorg die Prowinsiale Raad tog vir die opvoeding van die gekleurde en naturelle kind. In Transvaal en Vrystaat doen hulle niks. Laaste jaar toe die Regering oor die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal gesê het, dat hulle hul plig moes doen teenoor die naturelle—dat hulle hul plig moes doen teenoor die natureliekind—wou hulle geen verpligtinge aanvaar nie.

Ons wil nie hulle stemme hê nie.

Dit is nie ’n kwessie van stemme vang nie, maar van plig verskuldig, om ’n bedrag uit die naturelle pasgeld te bestee aan die kinders van die naturelle se onderwys en nie al die geld te gebruik vir andere doeleindes nie, en nou sê menigeen, soos daardie edele lid: “ek wil nie die kaffer se stem hê nie en hy kan na die maan gaan.” Ek verwag sulke verhouding van die Nasionale Party teenoor die kleurling en naturel. Het die Regering deur die Goewerneur-generaal-in-Rade nie laatste jaar £15,000 gegee aan elk van die Prowinsiale Rade van Transvaal en Vrystaat, dan vrees ek was daar niks gedaan vir hulle opvoeding nie. Weet die Huis, dat die Kaap voorsiening moet maak volgens offisiële syfers van 1921 vir die onderrig van 282,000 wit en gekleurde kinders? [Een Edele Lid: “Nee, nooit.”] As die vriend dit nie weet nie, is hy ’n vreemdeling in ons Jerusalem, maar dan vertel ek horn, dat dit so is en baie van hulle is net so wit as die vriend self. Wat was die getal kinders wit en naturel in al die Provinsies? Natal, 57,300; Transvaal, 141,800; Vrystaat, 59,700; en dus die drie Provinsies saam 258,800 en die Kaap alleen 282,000, so dat die Kaapse Prowinsiale Raad ongeveer 23,000 kinders meer moet laat leer as die ander drie saam, en wat is die subsiedies uit die Unie-kas van die verskillende Provinsies? Laaste jaar: Kaap Provinsie, £1,623,000; Natal, £590,000; Transvaal, £1,497.000; Vrystaat, £599,000. Dus trek die laaste drie Provinsies, £2,686,000. Sit daarby die pasgelde £352,000, en die bonusse van Natal en Vrystaat, £200,000, dan is die subsiedies gesamentlik van die drie Provinsies oor £3,200,000. Nog een punt is, dat terwyl ons hier veel meer koste het, is daar min kinders in die skool. Die blaam word gelê op die Kaap, en dit is die onreg wat gedaan word, want die skole van die Kaap moet jaar vir jaar troppe kinders uit Transvaal, Vrystaat en Natal opvoed en die Kaapse belasting-betaler betaal daarvoor. Ek meen nie, dat die Administrasie die deur moet sluit nie; ek wys enkel op die feit, dat soos dit vandag is, neem die Vrystaat, Transvaal en Natal mense, wat bekwaam gemaak is, op die banke en koste van die Kaap; 60 persent van hulle is daar opgevoed en die boer van die Kaap Provinsie se grond was belas daarvoor. Ek wil net toon, dat dit beweer was as die Wet aangeneem word, dit die doodkis van die Prowinsiale Rade sal wees. Nou is die posiesie so, hulle spreek van die Baxter-Rapport. Die Nasionale Party het al lank gebroei op die eier en as die kuiken uitkom, sal hulle later uitvind, wat vir ’n eier hulle op broei. [Een Edele Lid: “’n Baskelis eier”]. Ja, ’n baskelis onder die Nasionaliste en Arbeiders Party. Dit is die posiesie hier sover as die Prowinsiale Rade betref. My bewering is, dat as daar ’n skaal van onderwyserssalarisse sal wees en alien oor één kam geskeer word, sal dit beter wees vir die Kaapse Provinsie onderwysers, wie se skaal van salarisse laër is dan die van die ander Provinsies. Dit kom nie daarop aan waar die onderwys gekry word nie. Ek het melding gemaak, dat vele van die mense uit die Noordelike Provinsies hulle opvoeding hier gekry het; elke jaar is daar sowat £40,000 gespandeer vir die opleiding van onderwysers en die belastingbetaler van die Kaap moet daarvoor instaan en die ander het die voordeel. Minstens 50 persent van die onderwysers hier opgevoed, gaan na die ander Prowinsies, omdat hulle salarisse daar hoër is, en dit terwyl die Kaapse grondbelastingbetaler vir hulle opleiding betaal het. Ons gun hulle dit, maar dan sê ek, ons moet toesien dat iets gedaan word met betrekking tot die Prowinsiale Rade van die Kaapse Prowinsie met die subsiedies uit die Unie-kas. Ek hoop dat as die edelagbare die Minister verdere subsiedies gee, dit sal gedaan word op die basis van die getal kinders wat elke Provinsie opvoed; dan dink ek sal die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaap tevrede wees. Die edele lid vir Somerset (de hr. A. P. J. Fourie) het aangehaal van die Van Hulsteyn Rapport; ek wil hom in die verbygaan sê, dat wat hy gesê het absoluut onjuis is. Die Regering het nooit die rapport uitgevoer nie. Onder andere was ’n rekommandasie in die rapport, dat as vaste eiendom verkoop word met ’n wins, daar daarop inkomsbelasting betaal moet word. Het die Regering dit uitgevoer? Nee.

Wat van aanteel vee?

Ek sal daarby kom. Die Van Hulsteyn Rapport het aanbeveel, dat as ’n vader en drie of meer seuns saam boer, moet daar belasting betaal word as één onderneming, om hulle met die super-tax te vang. Het die Regering dit aangeneem? Nee. Nou omtrent die vee-basis—

Die edele lid gaat darem nou te ver.

Ek sal miskien ’n ander geleentheid kry om die saak te bespreek, en aan te wys, dat die vee-basis tot voordeel van die boer is, maar laat die lid vir Somerset (de hr. A. P. J. Fourie) huis toe gaan en aan sy kiesers bekend maak die feit, dat in 1921, 1922, Somerset boere £900 minder inkomsbelasting betaal het onder die stock-basis dan in die vorige jaar onder die kontant-basis. Die edele lid vir Somerset (de hr. A. P. J. Fourie) het hier ’n verklaring in die Huis gemaak, dat die Regoring die Van Hulsteyn Rapport uitgevoer het. Hy weet goed genoeg dat die verklaring onjuis is, maar hy maak dit, want die dinge gaat in die Nasionaliste se blaaie en word as evangeliemelk ingeneem, net soas die edele lid vir Vryheid (de hr. Jansen) op die vergadering te Bellville vir die mense vertel het, dat ons onbetaalbare of dooie landskuld £70,000,000 is. Dit staat in Die Burger en waar sou hy daaraan kom? [Een Edele Lid: “Dit moet ’n drukfout wees.”] Ja. So sê die ander lede oorkant, as hulle op onjuiste verklarings gevang word. As mens die toestand van onderwys van 1916 vergelyk met 1920 vir die hele Unie, dan vind men dat daar slegs ’n vermeerdering is van 53,000 kinders. Die Staatsuitgawe vir die hele Unie was in 1916 £319,000, terwyl in 1920 was die alreeds gestyg tot £5,940,000. Dit is heeltemaal uit proporsie. Men kan vir alles teveel betaal, selfs ook op onderwys gebied. Nee Mnr. Speaker, daar moet ’n verandering plaasvind, maar wat ek hoop is, dat wanneer die skale van salarisse vasgestel word, dat dan aan die salarisse van die beginnelinge en die onderwysers wat klein salarisse het, nie sal geraak word nie. Dan dink ek ook dat die Kaap Provinsie nie billik behandel word teenoor die ander provinsies. Daar is honderde van kinders uit die Vrystaat en Transvaal, wat in die Kaap Provinsie op koste van die provinsie onderwys hier geniet en dit moet reg gesit word.

Dis nie so nie.

Ek weet dat dit so is. Daar moet besnoei word op die onderwysers wat groot salarisse het, soos b.v. die prinsipale. Ons moet erken, dat hulle ordentelike groot salarisse kry en die andere nie. Daar kan miskien besnoei word, maar men moet rekening daarmee hou, dat die salaris van die beginnelinge al laag is. Daar is veel gesê teen die Wetsontwerp, maar ik dink dat dit ’n stap in die goeie rigting is. Van die anderkant is gesê, dat dit lapwerk is, maar moet tog nie van die anderkant altyd praat van die eleksie en probeer politieke munt daaruit te slaan nie. Net so met die Baxter-rapport. Ons behoef nie so te skrik nie vir die landebelasting, hierin betaal ons al “land tax.” Maar ek dink ons moet Sir Frederic, wat soveel meer kinders moet opvoed dan andere provinsies, wat meer tegemoet kom. Kyk b.v. net hier in die Kaap Provinsie, in Grahamstad, Stellenbosch, Kaapstad self, of Worcester, dan sal ons sien die groot aantal kinders van ander provinsies, wat op koste van die Kaap Provinsie onderwys geniet. Dis ’n punt wat in aanmerking geneem moet word. My gevoele, en dat van my kiesafdeling is, dat onder al die omstandighede en daardie behandeling die Prowinsiale Rade afgeskaf moet word.

Die edele lid sê dit ook al.

Ek wil die Wet ondersteun en nie ingaan op die amendemente, wat voorgestel is nie. Ek veronderstel dat die leier van die opposiesie (Gen. Hertzog) met sy amendement gegaan het na die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) en dat die toe die stert daaraan moes maak deur zij verder amendement. Edele lede aan die anderkant het gesê, dat die Regering nou moet gaan en beweer dat hulle altyd van hulle oortuiging weghardloop. Moenie so praat nie. Waar is nou jou twee-stroom politiek, waar is jou republikeinse propaganda? Het die Opposiesie nie daarvan weggehardloop nie? Het die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) nie julle mond toegemaak nie? Die Regering loop nog in die regte pad en solank as hulle dit doen, kan hulle seker wees van die ondersteuning van hierdie kant van die Huis en van die land.

Ons sal sien.

Die edele lid vir Somerset (de hr. A. P. J. Fourie) het storietjies kom vertel aan die mense daar, dat hulle so gou as ’n lammetjie gebore word dadelik al 5s. belasting moet betaal. Maar die mense vind noual uit wat die storietjies beteken. Hulle vind die lede anderkant nou uit en met daardie politiek sal edele lede anderkant nie verder kom nie,

I am one of those who is heartily in favour of the Baxter Report. If it had been possible to introduce the provisions of that report it would have put matters on a sound and permanent basis, sound economically and sound in administration, and nothing is more necessary at the present time in the affairs of the country. The Bill is a very poor substitute for the report, and one can only regret it was not possible to introduce the report. Sooner or later we will have to face one of two alternatives, either to enforce the Baxter Report or to abolish the Provincial Councils. I am sorry it is not possible to grasp the nettle now. The present Bill seems to me to have many disadvantages and few advantages. Among its disadvantages is that it is going to exasperate many sections of the population; it has already done that. It affects the population whose salaries are going to be cut down, and also the population which is going to suffer increased taxation; and it will exasperate those who want increased expenditure on account of education throughout this country. I am afraid it is going to have an unfortunate effect on part of the population, which at the present time can ill afford any increased burden in the matter of taxation. But whatever the disadvantages of the present Bill, where are we going to find any remedy or alternative? What alternative is the Opposition giving to us? Are they going to legislate in favour of the Baxter Report? So far as I can judge their tendency is entirely the other way. It is idle to ask the Opposition for any practical alternative to the measure before the House, so that whatever the disadvantages may be, and in face of the fact that it is impossible to carry on as we are, and that there is no alternative to the present Bill, I am going to support it. I think this Bill is going to have certain definite advantages, although it has got very definite disadvantages. It is going to force the Provincial Council to face the realities of the situation and compel them to realize that they have not to spend too much, or that if they do they will have to tax or retrench, both very unpopular measures. When they realize that they will realize that they must put their house in order. That is going to be one of the definite advantages of this Bill. Of course, it is a Bill that is going to arouse a tremendous outcry, and that outcry has arisen to-day. We have had the outcry of (1) the educationalists and (2) the teachers. So far as I can make cut the educationalists do not want economy, but cry out for more expenditure, and still more expenditure, on education in this country. That, as far as I can understand, is the burden of the cry of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth), the sobbing sentimentalist of Kroonstad. This is not the time for sentiment. We have got to face realities, and we have got to face the existing financial position of this country. And the financial position is a very serious one indeed. The Baxter Report makes it abundantly clear that the expenditure on education, so far from being too small, has been on the most lavish scale, and if anything it has been excessive. The trouble is not that insufficient money has been provided, but that the money which has been provided has been unwisely spent and ill-distributed.

In what respect?

If the hon. member will read the report he will find there the precise directions in which the money which has been provided has been unwisely spent. It is idle for the hon. member to ask me to point out exactly where it has been done.

Give us some instances.

It points out that the money spent on education has been spent extravagantly and that we have now reached the extreme limits which the country can afford. As to giving passages which justify that statement, may I refer to paragraph 608 of the report where the Commission says that the national expenditure, especially the expenditure of the Provinces since 1913, has risen to an extent quite incommensurate with the increase in the population and the national income. Hon. members may say that that is a wrong conclusion, but if they say that, then they must at least when listening to and reading a report, framed by serious men, put forward solid arguments to challenge that report, and as far as I have been able to follow this debate I have heard none of these arguments, I have heard no conclusions on which that report could be challenged. In its summary the Commission says that there has been a considerable increase in taxation, and it would appear that there is no substantial reserve of taxable capacity. That statement is made with a full sense of responsibility, and one finds that the Administrators of the Provinces entirely agree with that conclusion. If hon. members will look at the report they will see that is the case. They will see that the Administrators come to the same conclusion. I am not saying that one cannot squeeze a little bit here and there out of the people, but the position is that we have come to all practical purposes at the end of our taxable capacity unless, of course, we are going to drive people into bankruptcy and throw people out of employment and cripple the development and expansion of the country. Of course one can do that, and one can go on taxing the people to any extent, but there is no doubt that the great majority of the people think and feel that the limit has been reached. There are people who think that the whole object of existence should be to produce a certain amount of money to be spent in all sorts of ways. That is not my idea. I feel that the majority of the people in South Africa have come to conclusion that we have now reached the limit of the reserve of our taxable capacity, and that it is high time to call a halt and stop further expenditure, and it is high time to see whether we cannot get more value out of the money which we are actually expending. My view of the matter is that today it is vitally necessary, in the interests of the country, to see if we cannot economise and get more value for our money. I have no sympathy with the cry for more expenditure, and when the educationalists come here and ask us, that is the Union Government, to provide an unlimited further sum of money, unlimited further expenditure on education, then I must say that I have no sympathy with that claim. I will not support that.

Who asks that?

Well, that is the trend of their cry, and if that is not the meaning of a large number of the speeches which we have heard here, then all I can say is that they have no meaning at all. I say that it is not true that education has been starved. The passages which I have referred to in the report do not show that education has been starved. In one respect it may have been starved. Yes, in one respect there has not been adequate provision made.

In what respect is that?

That is in regard to the coloured people. They have a grievance that they have not been fairly dealt with, and the Commission points a way in which their claims can be met. The Commission points out a way, and that is an additional reason why I regret that the report is not being put into force. I say that out of the large sums of money which have been provided, if they had been properly administered and expended, as the Commission points out, instead of having been extravagantly expended, there would have been money enough to find the comparatively small sum necessary to do reasonable justice to the coloured population. It is a matter of finding an extra £63,000. That is the amount which the Commission recommends should be provided to meet the growing need of that section. And if the money had been prudently and wisely administered, the money which has been provided, I believe that the necessary funds would have been found. I am talking now of the Cape Province.

Is that on buildings or teachers’ salaries?

The hon. member does not seem to have read the report. The report deals in detail with each of these matters, and it points out in detail where money has been unwisely expended.

The hon. member is dealing in generalities.

The report deals with that one particular item. I deny altogether on the authority of this report that education has been starved, and the Baxter Report applies a large number of tests. It does not rely on one test only. The principal test was touched on generally by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). Let me take a few passages of the report. First of all on the line of excessive public expenditure, and coming afterwards to the criticism of expenditure on education. The report points out that we have reached now the limit of public expenditure, and that our expenditure has been increasing in a manner in every way incommensurate with the increased population of the country or the resources of the country.

Hear, hear.

And the Commission points out that in the last ten years the European population of the Union has increased by 19 per cent. but the expenditure has increased by over 100 per cent.

Union expenditure?

Yes, that is throughout the Union. It points out that the expenditure of the provinces has increased by 137 per cent. in that period. The expenditure of the Union has increased too, but to a lesser degree. I think the figure they give is 88 per cent. The Commission point out further that on the basis of a national income of 137 million pounds in the year 1917 and 1918, that was estimated by Professor Lehfeldt to be the total national income, on that basis for 1917 and 1918, we spent in 1921 and 1922 19.68 per cent., that is to say, 3s. 11d. in the £ on Government services. That is an enormous expenditure for any country to bear, and we have not realized the way in which we have been spending money in this country. Then, coming to education, the Commission points out that in the Cape Province, in the years 1913 and 1914, the total expenditure was £1,129,000 odd, and in 1920-’21 £2,513,000, or an increase of 124 per cent. Without labouring the thing unduly, in every Province the expenditure has more than doubled in the last ten years. That is the broad result. Your enrolment increased by 42 per cent. and your expenditure by 138 per cent. It is utterly disproportionate The net result is, that at the finish you will find the cost per pupil in South Africa is very much higher than any other part of the Empire. The cost per pupil has increased to £19.46; in New Zealand it is £10.6; Canada, £11.56; and in Australia, £8.25. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) estimates that in Australia it works out at £11.11 per pupil. Granting that the discrepancy is enormous, how can South Africa go on spending so much per pupil, which is so much more than these other countries can afford?

Are the teachers’ salaries too high?

I am too old a bird to be cross-examined except in my own time. Out of every pound of public expenditure on Government services, you will find, according to the figures of this Commission, that while Great Britain has spent on education 1s. 8d. in the £. or if you exclude debt charges, 2s. 3d. net, while Australia spent 1s. 6d., or 1s. 9d. net; New Zealand 2s. 5d., or 3s. 11d. net; South Africa spends in education, out of every pound of the public expenditure, on Government services, 4s. 8d., or 5s. 3d. if you exclude debt charges. You may say those figures are incorrect, but if you say so you must at least prove it, and put forward a solid foundation to do so, because these are figures put forward by a body of capable and able men. If you do not succeed in challenging them successfully, then I do contend that the Commission have made it clear that education in this country has not been starved. We have been spending an enormous amount of money in education. The amount spent has been most generous, considering the resources of the country. Unless you can challenge these figures successfully, there is a great deal of justification for what the Commission says, viz., that the country has got to the end of its limit. The Commission examined over 100 witnesses, people of all shades of opinion, and it was open to anyone to appear. This report has been before the public for months, and it has been open for anyone to challenge these figures as being wrong or excessive. Has anybody proved that the figures given by the Commission are incorrect? I do not know anything about the political views of the Commission. I know the man who ultimately became the chairman of the Commission, and I know that he is a man of the most responsible type, and a man who would not make a statement unless he was convinced that it was accurate. I know that another member of that Commission has become the new Administrator of the Transvaal and is one of the most brilliant men this country has turned out, and I am sure the conclusions be came to were his honest conclusions. The other member of the Commission, Mr. Aitken, is one of the most brilliant accountants in the country.

And a very sound South African Party man.

Really, we have come to a sorry pass in this country when it can be said that men such as these have South African Party tendencies, and, therefore, no further notice has to be taken of their conclusions. Let me turn to another side of the matter, and that is regarding the outcry which has been made by the teachers in this matter. Again, on the report of this Commission there is no evidence, so far as the teachers are concerned, that they have been starved in regard to expenditure. The Commission reports that, as to the salaries of the teachers, generally speaking, the salaries are as high as elsewhere in the Empire, and in many cases higher.

They are not complaining of their salaries.

They are not complaining of their salaries! We have heard a good deal of sentiment expounded upon the sorry plight of people who have been compelled to live on the pittances given to teachers. The Commission points out in dealing with this question, where there is room for economy, and they indicate where there is room for economy, in the way of salaries. The Commission says—

They do not say that the men at the top of the tree are drawing unduly high salaries, and it is quite probable that a teacher of a first-class school in a town like Johannesburg or Cape Town does not find that his salary is too much, but the probability to my mind is very strong that teachers who live in the country districts where the cost of living is low, are receiving salaries which are by no means very low. I think that that is probable. I think it is quite probable that where men are receiving £40 to £50 per month in the country districts you will very often find that their expenditure will be covered by £10 or £15. I have looked through these scales, and I know what the figures are. I know that there are many of these salaries which run anything between £360 and £600 or £700 in extreme cases, and salaries in between these increase automatically and without any check at all. The Commission points out these in many cases are unjustified, and that this is where there is room for economy. On these findings it seems that teachers have not been unfairly dealt with, but they complain to-day that, whatever the case has been in the past, this Bill does treat them unfairly and is a breach of faith. I have got here a pamphlet I have received to-day, and no doubt all other hon. members have received it also. I have heard what the teachers have to say just as, no doubt, other hon. members have, and I confess that when I first heard the case I was impressed by the earnestness and sincerity with which they put it forward. It looked to me as if there was a good deal in it, and I was asked to look at particular documents. I looked very carefully indeed at every single one I was asked to look at, and I came to a perfectly definite conclusion, I have every possible sympathy with the fear of the teachers that they may be the victims of a temporary cut in salaries by the Provincial Councils, and everybody whose salary is likely to be cut from temporary necessity or expediency is, I think, entitled to one’s sympathy. It is an extremely disagreeable situation to find oneself in, and while one realizes that that is a necessity and is going to be carried out, the point upon which we are asked definitely to meet them is the question of whether or not there has been in connection with this matter a breach of faith; and I cannot see that there has been, in the introduction of this Bill, anything in any shape or form which amounts to a breach of faith. I cannot see that they will be any the worse off if the Bill is passed than if there had not been any Bill at all.

Does the hon. member think they are doing this for the fun of the thing?

You could cut the clause out altogether, and the teachers would be no better off than they are going to be if the Bill is passed. They say here in this document which has been sent to me as well as to others, quoting from the Minister’s speech in introducing the Bill—

Then they go on to what they call fulfilment, and they contrast what they call fulfilment, and say that—

They also quote the following passage from the Minister’s speech—

Well, now the first point here is a declaration that no one will be affected in respect of the salary he is drawing to-day, and we are referred to the undertaking in the Public Service Commission Report. That undertaking will be found in paragraphs 21 and 22 in the report issued by that Commission. I will not read that now as it would take too long. If that undertaking as given there be looked at, surely it meant that if to-day a teacher was receiving £650, and under the new scale when it came into force he would be entitled to a salary of £600, he would continue to receive the £650. Surely that is the plain meaning of what the hon. the Minister has said, what the Public Service Commission stated, and what is provided for in sub-section (2) of the Bill. Quite clearly every teacher who receives £650 now would continue to receive the £650. The sub-section makes provision in fact that the Provincial Council can, if in financial stringency, make a temporary reduction and put the teachers on the same footing with every public servant in that respect, and if that provision were not in the Bill the Provincial Council would have exactly the same right—they would be entitled to do the same thing if there were no Bill at all. Supposing the country as a whole could no longer afford to pay the salaries of public servants, it would have a right to make such a reduction, and that is specially provided for by the Act of 1923. The teachers are put here on exactly the same footing as the other public servants, not better nor worse. Why should they have special privileges over the rest of the public servants. We find that 70 per cent. of the total expenditure on education is paid in respect of teachers’ salaries, and if there had to be a reduction in any of the public servants’ pay there must also be a reduction in the salaries of teachers. It may be regrettable, but it cannot be helped. When it comes to the teachers, why should they have any special privileges over the other public servants? The Legislature provides that the salaries of public servants in the Union are to be fixed from time to time by the Governor-General on the advice of the Public Service Commission, and has always provided in case of necessity or stringency, reductions may be made temporarily. But if, in the case of teachers, it were provided that there shall be a scale which may be recommended to the Governor-General by the Public Service Commission, but making no provision for any reduction in teachers’ salaries in case of stringency, it would be argued it was intended to put teachers in an exceptional position. Obviously, it was a policy of the Government to put the teachers in the same position as the others. But it would be an argument if the Act was worded in that form, and an argument that would carry a great deal of weight and force, if an action was brought in the courts. It is quite possible that the contrast in the terms of the Public Service Act and this Bill showed it was intended to favour teachers specially, the courts may say that here is a matter connected with individual’s salaries, and that their interpretation must be in favour of the individual when it came to a question of taxation; that being so, the court might be driven to give a decision upholding a special exemption in favour of teachers—that there was a special privilege established on their part. As far as I understand it, that is the necessity and reason for putting the exception in the Bill, and where the justification is for the charge of breach of faith, for the life of me I cannot see. I have head everything that the teachers have asked me to read which they think will go to support their case, but for the life of me I cannot see a shadow of a tittle of justification for the charge brought forward, and in the circumstances I do not wish to expend more time on special argument. I regret, indeed, it is not possible to carry out the Baxter Report, but we have put forward a substitute, which with all its disadvantages has the one positive advantage that it will make the Provincial Council face the situation; and having faced the situation they will realize they will have to cut their clothes according to the cloth. Seeing no alternative whatsoever put forward by the other side, I am going to vote for this Bill.

As mens die aansprake hoor en kyk wat buite in die land plaasvind, sien jy dadelik in welk ’n warboel die Regering die land gebring het, nie slegs op finansiële gebied nie, maar die vertroue is grootliks geskok, en my is versoek teen enige ding te stem, wat nie vasgebind is in die Huis. Daar is baie wat bedroë sal uitkom. Hier het ek ’n handvol telegramme in my hand; een seksie sê, moet nie vir die Wet stem nie, bestry hom tot die laaste, want dan sal ons nog verder belas word as reeds die geval is. Die ander helfte bevat ’n protes van ’n ander seksie; hulle sê, moet nie vir die Wet stem nie, beveg hom tot die laaste toe, want as hy aangeneem word, sal hulle die salarisse so afneem, dat onderwysers nie meer sal kan bestaan nie. Dit kom dadelik by my op, daardie ou gesegde van die splinter in ’n ander sê oog sien en nie die balk in jou eie nie; of dat die pot die ketel verwyt dat hy swart is, en miskien is hy nog swarter, want hulle is altwee swart. Die kwessie vir my is, dat die land in so ’n toestand is, dat die Regering nie weet wat hy doen nie en instede van skuld te erken en die bul aan die horings te pak deur ’n Wet voor te bring en aan daardie toestand ’n end te maak, sodat die onderwysers en elkeen weet waar hy staan, pak hulle die skuld op die Prowinsiale Raad. Die Regering moet die salarissen hier in die Huis vas stel so billik, dat die land daarmede bestaan kan en dat die persone die dit ontvang er redelik mee kan uitkom. Ons moet aan die Prowinsiale Rade die nodige bronne van inkomste gee, sodat hulle hulle pligte kan doen en ook die administrasie kan bekostig. Dit kon gedaan word in die verlede en dit kan vandag gedaan word en dit sal ook in die toekoms gedaan kan word. Alleen om dit te kan doen, sal die hele Begroting van die ene end tot die ander verander moet word, as hulle dit wil doen. Ek is bly om te sien dat die Eerste Minister hier is. Die Eerste Minister het nou die dag, op die 28ste van laaste maand, aan ’n Kerklike Deputasie iets gesê, wat ek heeltemal met hom eens is, maar dan wil ek hê, dat as hy vir die volk iets sê, dan moet hy dit ook self doen. Hy moet nie vir hulle een ding sê en dan die Regering ’n ander ding laat doen nie. Hy het aan ’n groot deputasie van die Kerk gesê—

Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies sal dit voortaan in gedagte hou, dit ter harte neem en daarna handel. Dan gaat hy hierdie spul ook op ’n bevredigende manier oplos. Daar is ’n grote neiging—nou kom ek aan die punt wat ek sê, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister aan die volk preek, maar ook self moet doen—die grote beswaar is, dat waar neiging in ons land is om “spandabel” te lewe.

Wie het dit gesê?

Ons aan hierdie kant van die Huis het daar al die laaste vyf jaar op gewys op die gevaar van die motorkar neiging en nou sê die edele Eerste Minister self, dat die Kerk moet help om die gevaarlike neiging teen te gaan. Ek had nou werkelik gedink, dat die Regering nou nooit meer die woord motorkar in die mond sou neem nie. Ek herinner my nog hoe ons laaste jaar aan hierdie kant van die Huis gepraat het oor die verkwisting wat in die motorkarre lê. Ek het die moeite gedoen om al die goed na te gaan en inmekaar te sit en ek het tot die som van £285,000 in die jaar gekom. Ek sou wil eens graag wil weet, hoeveel daarby is aan “joy rides.” En nou kom die edelagbare die Eerste Minister en keur die roekelose verspilling af en as ek die Begroting vat—ek het dit hier voor my—

Ek wil net ewe aantoon, dat die motorkarre buite die Wetsontwerp staan.

Ek refereer nou na ’n toespraak wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gehou het vir ’n deputasie, wat hom kom sien het omtrent onderwys.

Nie in die Huis nie?

Nee, nie hier binne nie, maar die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het dit buitekant gesê op die 28ste van laaste maand. Nou, Mr. Speaker, as ek die Begroting neem, soos ek sê, dan vind ek vir die edelagbare die Eerste Minister uitgawe aan ’n motorkar £800, chauffeur £415. en daarvoor moet die volk belas word. Ek dink as hulle aan die anderkant so praat van besuiniging dan moet hulle ook self die eksample set. Nou sê die edelagbare die Eerste Minister “ons moenie motorkar ry nie.” Ek het verlede jaar daarop gewys dat sowat £285,000, ek weet nie meer die juiste syfers nie, per jaar daarvoor uitgegee word. Nou het ek gedink, dat dit alleen ’n swakheid was van een departement, maar dis nou oorgeneem deur baie andere departemente. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het dit nog eerlik genoem en gesê, £800 vir ’n motorkar en £415 vir ’n chauffeur.

Die edele lid moet nie die saak van die motorkarre behandel nie.

Ek praat net oor die toespraak van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister.

Die toespraak is nie gelewer in verband met die Wetsontwerp nie.

Ja, Mr. Speaker, dis net in die toespraak aan die deputasie, wat omtrent onderwys die edelagbare die Minister kom sien het.

Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het die toespraak buite die Huis gehou, en nie hier nie. Die edele lid kan die motorkar kwessie bespreek by die algemene Begrotingsdebat.

Al wat ek wil sê, is, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister nie buitekant iets moet se nie en dan hier kom en iets anders sê. Ek het die punt van die motorkarre ook gemerk vir die Begroting en ek sal dan daarop terug kom. Ek dink, ons weet nou ook wat die geval met die motorkarre is. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het dit nog ruiterlik erken op die Begroting, maar andere vleg die ding so in, dat jy nie meer weet wat bedoel is nie. Ek wil net, dat as die Regering vir die volk sê, jy moet dit of dat doen, dan moet hulle ook self die voorbeeld gee. Nou is die Prowinsiale Rade beskuldig van verkwisting. Ek dink ook dat hulle wel wat kan besuinig, en dat hulle wat versigtiger met die geld kan omspring, maar die Regering kan hulle tog nie blameer vir verkwisting nie. Die Regering self is, soos die edele lid vir Harrismith (de hr. A. A. Cilliers) al aangetoon het, die oorsaak daarvan dat die Prowinsiale Rade meer geld moes uitgee. Daar het twee amptenare daar naasmekaar gesit, die een is roekeloos betaal deur die Regering en die ander het ’n karige salaris van die Provinsie gekry. Dit gee ontevredenheid en daarom het die Provinsies meer moet spandeer. Ek wil dat ’n salarisskaal vasgestel word, waarmee al die seksies tevrede kan wees, dat maatreëls geneem word, om die land op soliede fondamente te sit, soos dit vroeër was.

Is dit moontlik met daardie Regering?

Ek dink, hulle kan dit doen as hulle wil. Maar dan moet hulle nie bang wees nie om by ’n saak te bly staan nie, dan moet hulle sê, dit is reg en dit is verkeerd en dan moet hulle die regte ding doen. Ek weet, my vriend, die edelagbare die Eerste Minister kan dit doen as hy wil. In die toespraak teenoor die Kerklike Deputasie het hy ook gesê—

Daardie meedeling werd met tekens van instemming deur die deputasie aangehoor. Die deputasie was ook van mening, dat daar veel te sê is vir gelykheid in al die salarisse, maar onder hierdie Wetsontwerp kry ons glad geen uniformiteit nie. Die deputasie het gemeen, dat die Regering behoort billike salarisse vas te stel, die Regering wil dit nie doen nie. Ons weet glad nie wat die salarisse gaat wees nie. Die Regering het ons in die geleentheid moet stel om daaroor te stem. Onder die omstandighede en met die oog op die gevoel en die sienswyse in die land, moet ek teen die Wetsontwerp stem en ek hoop die Huis gaat die Wetsontwerp na die Regering terug wys, sodat die Regering dan eindelik kom met ’n wet, wat tevredenheid sal gee.

Het spreekt van zelf, dat ik, die zovele jaren bij het onderwijs werkzaam was, ook gaarne aan dit debat wil deelnemen. Ik wens niet in te gaan op het Baxter Rapport of de Provinciale Raden doch slechts spreken over de onderwijzers. Het wordt gezegd, dat de Regering zich verschuilt achter rapporten van Kommissies; maar hoe zouden wij anders goed op de hoogte komen van zaken? Ik heb hier voor mij een zeer waardevol rapport van de Transvaal Onderwijs Kommissie, het Baxter Rapport en het verslag van de Staatsdienst Kommissie over de salarissen van onderwijzers. De Staatsdienst Kommissie heeft alle stappen genomen, nodig om op de hoogte te komen van het onderwerp van hun onderzoek. Vier voorname onderwijsmannen, waaronder de Direkteur van Onderwijs in de Transvaal, dienden de Kommissie van advies en de Federale Raad van de verschillende onderwijzers verenigingen heeft zijn Uitvoerend Raad, bestaande uit elf van hun voornaamste leden, gestuurd om getuigenis af te leggen. Deze Federale Raad heeft een memorandum ingediend, hetwelk is opgenomen in het verslag van de Kommissie en dat een waardevol dokument is, dat ons inlicht omtrent wat de onderwijzers zelf over de salaris kwestie te zeggen hebben. In dit memorandum prijst de Federale Raad de zorgvuldigheid en nauwgezetheid van de Kommissie, maar in een ander dokument getekend door voorzitter en sekretaris van de Federatie word gezegd in paragraaf 2—

Eerst dus een woord van lof en dan van veroordeling. Waarom? Omdat de Kommissie de schalen, door de Federale Raad voorgesteld, niet in hun geheel wilde aannemen en omdat de Kommissie met van dezelfde opinie was als de Federale Raad, zoals vermeld in het memorandum waar dit leest als volgt op bladz. 18 van het Verslag—

Ik denk dat de Raad te ver ging in deze bewering. Als de edele leden van dit Huis eens willen terugdenken aan hunne jonge dagen, geloof ik, dat zij zullen zeggen alien in hun jeugd op de lagere school onderwijs te hebben ontvangen van manned, die minder dan £30 per maand ontvingen en de ouders hebben nooit neergezien op zulk een man als armoedig, gekweld en neergedrukt. De onderwijzers gaan te ver en verwachten te hoge salarissen. In het memorandum wordt terecht aangedrongen, dat wisselvalligheid en wispelturigheid moet geweerd worden bij het bepalen van de salarissen. Daarmede ga ik samen. Ik weet wat het betekent, als er geen zekerheid omtrent het salaris bestaat. Als jonge man heb ik in de Transvaal onderwijs gegeven onder het subsidie stelsel, dat gebaseerd was op het aantal kinders in de school en dat zonder verplicht onderwijs. Men was geheel overgelaten aan de genade van de ouders. Bij de minste ontevredenheid, misschien omdat het paard van de meester in de mielielanden was gekomen, werden kinders uit de school genomen en verminderden de inkomsten. Dat was een ellendige toestand en ik heb er altijd hard voor gewerkt om de salarissen op een vaste basis te hebben, een voldoende salaris om de onderwijzers in staat te stellen hun levensonderhoud te verdienen. De vraag is inhoeverre deze vastheid van salarissen door de voorgestelde Wet in gevaar wordt gebracht. Dat de Uitvoerende Raad daar zo licht veranderingen in zal kunnen aanbrengen, schijnt wel wat gevaarlik te zijn maar de edelagbare de Minister heeft gezegd, dat hij bereid is om het Wetsontwerp op dit punt te wijzigen. In elk geval hoe stabieler en hoe minder onderworpen aan veranderingen de salarissen zijn, hoe beter. De salarisschalen als voorgesteld door de Kommissie worden als te laag beschouwd. Ik heb hier een overzicht voor mij van de schalen voorgesteld door de Staatsdienst Kommissie en de onderwijzers zelf. Ik vind geen verschil hoegenaamd bij de zes hogere rangen; dan komen er vijf posten waarin net een verschil is van £20, en bij de lagere rangen van £15 tot £95 of zeg omtrent £65. Dit verschil erken ik, is aanmerkelik groot en zou vooral de assistenten treffen. Maar is het dan zo onmogelik om tot een vergelijk te komen en de kloof te overbruggen? Als er van beide kanten met verstand wordt opgetreden en er wat geven en nemen wordt betracht dan, denk ik, kunnen er wel schalen worden vastgesteld, waarmede de Regering kan samengaan en de onderwijzers tevreden kunnen zijn. Tevredenheid in de onderwijzersstand zal tot groot voordeel zijn van heel het onderwijs. Er wordt veel gesproken over het vaststellen van een minimum aantal leerlingen in een Goeverne-mentsschocl, en gezegd door dit te stellen op 20, wel honderde scholen zouden gesloten worden. In Transvaal was het altijd 20 en het gevolg was, dat er door de ouders altijd grote moeite gedaan werd om dit getal te bereiken en te houden; maar als het minimum op 10 of 15 wordt gesteld, wordt er geen moeite gedaan, het onderwijs is dan duurder en het werk van een bekwaam onderwijzer komt niet goed tot zijn recht. Er is ook een schaal van salarissen voor ongecertifieerde onderwijzers door de Kommissie voorgesteld en die schaal is zonder een woord te spreken, zo maar zonder slag of stoot door de Federale Raad aangenomen. Is dit niet een beetje hardvochtig en onsimpatiek tegenover de zwakkere broeders in het vak? Ik ben er wel niet voor om hen op een gelijke voet te behandelen met de gecertifieerde onderwijzers, maar zij behoren toch ook een goede betaling te ontvangen voor hun diensten, die in het verledene van grote waarde zijn geweest in de afgelegen streken; en nu vandaag nog weet ik van scholen in koortsachtige streken, verafgelegen van steden, dorpen en spoorwegen, waar geen gecertifieerde onderwijzers voor te krijgen zijn en waar het werk gedaan wordt door ongecertifieerden. Deze personen zijn volstrekt niet de schoolmeesters van de oude soort, waarvan sommigen weggelopen matrozen of soldaten waren; maar mannen die goed onderwijs hebben ontvangen en van goed gedrag zijn. Velen van hen doen hun werk knap en met goede resultaten, en als er misschien zo nu en dan een onder is die onbekwaam is voor zijn werk, dan is de Inspekteur spoedig gereed om hem te ontslaan. De salarissen zijn wat laag en ongelukkig heeft de Kommissie alle verhogingen weggelaten en ook hun ambtsbroeders, de leden van de Federale Raad van Onderwijzers, hebben geen goed woord voor hen overgehad. Het komt mij voor dat de onderwijzers niets te vrezen hebben van de Regering of de Provinciale Raden, maar dat de grootste tegenstanders van hun belangen zijzelven zijn. Het zou noodlottig zijn als de onderwijzers in ons land politiek gingen brengen in hun schoon beroep; en ik ben daarvoor bevreesd. Neem, b.v., een telegram, zoals ik er hier een voor mij heb. Zij hebben het volste recht om daarin hunne belangen te bepleiten maar het eindigt met de woorden—

Daarin schuilt een zekere bedreiging; en tot mijn grote spijt heb ik gelezen, dat op een monster vergadering van onderwijzers te Kaapstad gehouden, in dezelfde zin werd gesproken. Wat moet men zeggen van de volgende uitdrukkingen van de Voorzitter, die hartelik door de vergadering werden toegejuicht—

Ik lees daarin, dat er fondsen moeten zijn voor toelagen in geval van een mogelike staking van onderwijzers. Dit zou hoogst te betreuren zijn. En dan de slotzin—

Dit is bepaald harde en ondoordachte taal, maar ik, die de onderwijzers zo goed ken, ben van mening, dat wij dit niet zo heel ernstig moeten opnemen. Door hun opleiding en dageliks werk worden zij meesters in stijl en voordracht, geoefende redenaars en als zij een sierlijke zinswending of een kernachtig gezegde of beeldspraak willen gebruiken, dan zullen zij die te pas brengen, kost wat het wil; aanstoot of geen aanstoot, waarheid of geen waarheid. Dus laat ons met zachtheid oordelen over scherpe uitlatingen van onze onderwijzers. Maar de onderwijzers kunnen ervan verzekerd zijn dat de Regering hun belangen zal behartigen en dat wij hun werk ten hoogste waarderen en op prijs stellen. Wij zouden gaarne zien dat Regering en de Staatsdienst Kommissie de salarisschalen zodanig konden regelen, dat de onderwijzers daarmede tevreden kunnen zijn, want een tevreden onderwijzersstand in het land is van groot belang.