moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Dit lyk vir my, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou baie angstig is om hierdie wetjie so gou moontlik deur die Huis te kry. Ek voel met hom, dat daar haas by is, omdat ons gevaar loop van plage in die katoen, ens., en ons wil die edelagbare die Minister graag help om die Wet so gou moontlik deur te kry, maar aan die ander kant voel ons dat die sprinkaanwet baie te wense oorlaat. Ons, vooral in die Westelike Transvaal, is feitelyk buffers gewees vir die andere provinsies om die sprinkane. uit te roei en ons wil hê, dat sekere veranderinge en verbeteringe in die Wet aangebring word, sodat in die vervolg nie alles neerkom op een enkel persoon wat die ongeluk het om sprinkane op sy plaas te kry nie. Ons wil graag sien, dat plase gegroepeer word en daarom, as die edelagbare die Minister ons die versekering wil gee, dat sekere veranderinge in die sprinkaanwet later sal aangebring word en dat die edelagbare die Minister later sulke veranderinge sal voorstel, dan wil ons hom help om die Wet gon gepasseer te kry, en dan wil ek ook ’n beroep doen op my vriend die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) om sy amendement terug te trek. Die edelagbare die Minister moet dan ons die versekering gee, dat die sprinkaanwet heeltemaal op sigself sal word behandel. Dan sal ons van die kwessie nou kan afstap, as die edelagbare die Minister ons die versekering wil gee en dan voel ek ook oortuig, dat die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) sy amendement sal terugtrek, sodat die Wet nie langer opgehou word nie.

Ek wil die diskussie nie onnodig rek nie, maar ek wil ook graag sien, dat doeltreffende maatreëls word geneem, om sprinkane uit te roei, dat dit so doeltreffend moontlik gebeur. Ons het gedurende die afgelope jaar bittere ondervinding opgedoen en daar is verskrikkelike verwoestinge aangerig deur sprinkane. Daarom is ek bly, dat die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) ingedien is en ter sprake kom, omdat ons dan ’n liggaam gaat kry volgens sy voorstel tusse die Departement en die boer. Daar sal dan ’n liggaam wees wat nie alleen advies kan gee nie, maar wat ook hulp sal kan verleen, volgens die advies wat hulle gegee het. Toe die sprinkaanwet voorverlede jaar voor die Huis was het die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) ’n voorstel gedoen, om sirkels te vorm van 4, 5, 6 plase, wat bymekaar sou kom en ’n voorman sou benoem en onder die voorman sou die uitroei van sprinkane plaas vind. Ek is bly om te kan sê, dat in my distrik Boshof, die voormalige magistraat, die heer Pretorius, die besluit geneem het om sulke sirkels te vorm en aan die hoof van die sirkel gekose manne te plaas om voortdurend ’n oog te hou op die sprinkaan-gevaar. Twee jaar lang het dit voortdurend goed gewerk, maar ongelukkig het toe die sprinkaanbeamtes gekom, toe die sprinkaanplaag op die ergste was, en die sirkelkommissies het moet verdwyn. In hulle plek is sprinkaanbeamtes aangestel, jonge manne, wat miskien in die oog van die Departement heeltemaal geskik was om die werk te doen, maar ongelukkig het hulle geen praktiese ondervinding gehad nie en deur die aanstelling van sulke jonge, onbedrewe manne is die werk in baie gevalle benadeel geword en nie gehelp nie. En daar is nie bereik wat die wens was van die Departement en van die bevolking nie. Nou bring die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) ons weer terug tot adviserende liggame wat sal staan tussen die boerbevolking en die Departement en omgeheerd. En ek kan die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee, dat as die Departement maar in die rigting wil werk om raad te kry van liggame wat staan tussen die boere en die Regering, dan sal daar duisende, tienduisende van ponde bespaar word en die Wet sal meer doeltreffend wees, as wat dit vandag is. Ek wil nie ingaan op die meriete van die ou Wet wat nou bestaan nie maar ek wil saamstem met die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) dat ons nie weer lapwerk moet gaan doen nie en hier en daar amendeer, waardeur ’n grote verwarring ontstaan. Nie alleen die Departement kom in ’n hopelose verwarring, maar ook die bevolking raak verward deur al die gedeeltelike amendemente. Ek dink, die edelagbare die Minister het ’n fout gemaak met hierdie Wet, om daar ook die sprinkaan artikel in te sit. Ek is daarvoor, dat die Wet slaag, maar ek voel ook dat die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) van groot belang is en ’n goeie bedoeling het. Ek sal die amendement steun, sodat die sprinkaanwet meer doeltreffend word gemaak. Die Unie is vandag nie in groot gevaar nie van ’n nuwe plaag nie. Ek glo, dat byna al die voetgangers uitgeroei is en die sprinkane wat nog rondvlieg word agtervolg deur sprinkaanvoëls. Maar die gevaar bestaan, dat daar weer nuwe swerms oor die grense sal kom, want solank as die Kalahari woestyn bestaan en daar sprinkane uitgebroei word, sal ons die genoeë hê van die besoek van sprinkane en ons sal die moet bestry.

I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) to the fact that his amendment is rather inconsistent with the present law, that is the present Act. If the hon. member will refer to section 16 of the principal Act he will see that the following provision is made—

1. (1) “Whenever locusts deposit their eggs or voetgangers appear on any land, the occupier thereof shall as soon as the fact is brought to his knowledge, with reasonable speed, give notice thereof in writing or otherwise to the nearest magistrate, or field cornet, or at the nearest police post or police station.
2. (2) In that notice he shall state as nearly as may be the locality on his land on which the eggs have been deposited or the voetgangers have appeared, and such other particulars as may be prescribed by regulation.”

It says further in sub-section (3)—

The hon. member’s amendment seems quite inconsistent with the provision already made by the principal Act of 1911. I shall therefore move an amendment which I hope the hon. member will accept and which I think would meet the case, to precede the clause moved by the hon. member, I move—

1. (1), to omit “Minister” and substitute “magistrate of the district.’

Dit lyk vir my of nou elkeen wil probeer om die Wet te amendeer na sy sienswyse. Ek kan nie sien, dat die amendemente wat voorgestel is bedoel is tot bestryding van die werklike plaag, omdat volgens die amendemente die kommissie sal sit in elke distrik, sodat die plaag bestry sal word in die distrikte. Maar wat omtrent die groot, uitgestrekte distrikte, waar baie Goewermentsgronde en baie Kompanjieplase is? Wie sal die plaag daar uitroei? Die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) beoog net plaaslike bestryding, maar jy moet amtenare hê wat in al die distrikte in die hele land rondgaan en kyk waar sprinkane te voorskyn kom, ook in die distrikte waar geen mense woon nie, wat heeltemal ledig is. Niemand is verantwoordelik om daarna te kyk onder die voorstel wat gemaak is deur die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) nie. Maar die sprinkaanbeamtes is nou verantwoordelik om ook daar rond te gaan. Daarom sal die voorstelle van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) heeltemal verkeerd werk, want jy het niemand wat in die nie-bevolkte distrikte moet rondgaan en kyk op die Goewermentsplase en die Kompanjieplase nie. In my kiesafdeling het die maatreëls, wat die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou geneem het, heeltemal goed gewerk. Ons het ’n hoofbeamte en nog twee ondergeskikte hoofbeamtes en hulle het die distrik verdeel soos hulle dit sou rondgaan. Dan was die dele weer onderverdeel, elk in twaalf plase en die is bewerk deur ondergeskikte amtenare. Die edele lid vir Boshof (de hr. C. A. van Nie-, kerk) wys op die Kalahari woestyn en sê, dat ons vandaar altyd weer sprinkane sal kry, maar dit neem nie weg dat soos die plaag van jaar bestry is, het dit ’n baie grote ramp voorkom. Die voetgangers is amper almal verniel, en die vlieënde sprinkane het wel hier en daar skade gedoen, maar die skade sou baie groter gewees het, as nie al die voetgangers doodgemaak was nie Die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) maak alleen voorsieninge vir sekere distrikte, maar wat van die groot distrikte, wat nie bewoon is nie? Wat van die distrikte soos Waterberg, Pietersburg, Rustenburg, en Marico? Daar is dit onmoontlik en jy kan nie ’n wet maak vir een distrik en ’n ander wet vir ’n ander distrik nie. Jy moet een wet maak vir die hele Unie om die plaag te bestry. Ek sê, dat in my kiesafdeling die Wet, soos dit nou is, uitstekend gewerk het en dat daar op elke plaas alles gedoen is om die sprinkane te vernietig en daarom is ek vir die artiekel soos deur die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou voorgestel.

Daar is nie ’n artiekel nie. Die artiekel is terug getrek.

Ek wens ’n amendement voor te stel op die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) as dit in orde sal wees en wel van die volgende inhoud—

Dit spyt my, dat ek die amendement van die edele lid nie kan aanneem nie, want dit is uit die orde.

Met u verlof sou ek graag ’n kleine wysiging in die amendement wil aanbreng, om namelik al die woorde na die woord “naturellegronden” te skrap.

Die amendement is buite die orde gereël en die edele lid kan ’n ander amendement indien, so hy verkies.

Ek wens net aan die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou dit duidelik te maak. Hy sal dit miskien vreemd vind, dat ek op hierdie stadium van die bespreking met ’n amendement voor die dag kom, dog dit was al die tyd deur my plan, maar ek wou die edelagbare die Minister nie lastig val nie. Ek het ’n paar dae gelede verskeie briewe uit my kiesafdeling ontvang, waarin ek ernstig versoek word om so’n amendement voor te stel en daarom doen ek dit. Ek reken, dat dit absoluut noodsaaklik is om so’n amendement aan te neem. Mense, wat met my kiesafdeling bekend is, die weet dat die sprinkane net aan die anderkant van die grens uitgebroei word in die Kalahari en kom dan voortdurend op die plase aan deze zij van die grens. Volgens wet rus die plig op die boere wat die plase bewoon om die goed uit te roei en dit is vir hulle onmoontlik. Dit is noueliks nodig om daarop te wys, dat dieselfde rede bestaat vir die amendement virsover dit betrekking het op plase aan naturelie gebiede; hulle roei nie uit nie en die plig val weer net op die boere. Dit word op die manier ’n sware las op die mense en daarom wil ek sien, dat die boere van dieselwe onthewe sal word. Ek stel voor—

Ek wil net die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou vra, dat waar geen voorsiening gemaak is in die Wet nie, dat neergelê sal word, dat waar ’n boer nie alleen in staat is om sprinkaanswerms, wat op horn afkom, uit te roei nie, hy die reg sal besit om mense te huur op landskoste. Laaste jaar was daar gevalle, waar dit vir ’n plaaseienaar absoluut onmoontlik was om die sprinkane uit te roei en daarom stel ek dit voor.

Under the existing law landowners or occupiers on whose ground swarms of locusts appear are obliged by law to destroy them at their own expense. Now the hon. gentleman proposes that on certain farms, which are provided for in the Act of last year, bordering on the Kalahari or which are adjacent to native areas, the locusts shall be destroyed at the expense of the Government. It is a self-evident fact that the Government will not be able to get these people to destroy these locusts, should the Government be made responsible for the destruction.

Die inspekteurs ry in die meeste gevalle net rond en vra aan die mense of hulle gif het en spuite, hoeveel swerms hulle doodgemaak het en verder doet hulle niks nie.

Ek reken, dat die plan verkeerd is om die amendementen aan le neem. Daar is ’n aantal amendemente op die Tafel, maar ek reken, dat die beste sal wees, voor die edelagbare die Minister, waar hy nou al ’n jaar ondervinding het, om liewer die oorspronkelike Wet weer hierdie sitting voor te breng en behoorlyk te amendeer in so’n vorm, dat die Wet goed sal werk. Dan kan ons beter werk doen as nou, dat iedereen ’n amendement voorstel. ’n Gesonde wenk is aangegee deur die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) dat die edelagbare die Minister sal onderneem om die Wet nog die sitting voor te bring en te amendeer sodat die sprinkane uitgeroei kan word op ’n praktiese manier. Onlangs was die groot klag gewees over die grote koste en die grote uitgawe, wat daar met die inspekteurs gewees het. Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister hom sal laat beweeg, om die Wet voortebreng sodat die kan verbeter word.

Ek dink dat dit vir die edelagbare die Minister duidelik is, dat dit nie net één persoon is wat dink dat daar iets moet gedaan word nie, maar dat dit aan beide kante van die Huis by vele die oortuiging is. Die Minister is begerig om die ander deel van die Wetsontwerp dadelik deur te kry en as hy wil onderneem om die wenke, gegee deur die edele lede vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) en Winburg (de hr. Wilcocks) om nog later in die sitting ’n nuwe Wetsontwerp aan die Huis voor te lê, as wanneer lede meteen amendemente met tyd kan oordink en voorstel, is ek bereid om my amendement terug te trek.

I want to assist the Agricultural Department as much as possible, and think I have had as much experience as anybody else in this House, as regards the destruction of locusts. But I do not see how this Bill is going to help. I do not see why I should help my neighbour, who never kills locusts, and that is what will happen under this Bill. This Bill will not do us any good. The right hon. the Minister knows, and we all know, that all this talk about losing stock is hot air, and if any is lost it is pure carelessness. According to the returns of the Government, I killed 428 swarms of locusts and I had pure bred cattle on my farm, but none were killed. There is no danger to stock if farmers will only carry out the instructions of the Agricultural Department, but some of my neighbours did not do what the Agricultural Department told them to do. Under this Bill we are not going to be helped. I am saying what is true and people will not lose stock if they are careful. I know what I am talking about, because I have had experience. We do not want to make this a party question, for I notice in some of my neighbours districts they consider that here is a chance to get in at the Government. But the Government have done perfectly good work in killing locusts, and if they had not stepped in we would all have been ruined. Mr. Kolbe and the people who have assisted him, have done excellent work, so has the Minister, and I am going to assist the Minister for all I am worth in helping him to destroy locusts. But I hope the Minister will bring forward a proper Bill. If the enemy is at our gates, then we have a right to commandeer assistance to destroy the pest. Personally, I do not think we are going to have a great locust invasion next year, although perhaps it is wrong to prophesy in these things. I understand the Minister is keeping his organization quite ready.

Yes.

That is all we want Give the decent farmer the right to form a circle and to commandeer the person who does not.

Ek sal bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister die wenk van die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) wil aanneem, want dit sal die mense baie tegemoet kom. Die edele lede moet tog sien, dat my kiesafdeling lê daar aan die grote Kalahari en daarom dink ek, dat daardie amendement ’n goeie dinkbeeld is. Die magistraat in elke distrik is die hoofamptenaar vir die uitroeiïng van sprinkane en hy moet dus daaroor toesig hou. In die grote distrikte kan hy, al is hy nog so goed, die verantwoordelikheid nie op hom neem nie en die voorstel van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) is ’n pragtige plan; die voorstel, n.l. dat in plaas van die magistraat ’n raad gekies sal word om te beslis en op te tree. Dit sou die verantwoordelikheid van die magistrate afneem en die grote vermorsing van geld sou tot op grote hoogte ophou; en sodanige raad sal toesien, dat die geldverspilling nie kan plaasvind nie. As dus die edelagbare die Minister die voorstel van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) aanneem, sou daar ’n grote stap in die regte rigting gedaan wees in verband met die uitroeiïng van sprinkane. Die grote kwessie is, dat die magistrate die grote verantwoordelikheid van die administrasie nie op hulle kan neem nie. Daar is veel in wat die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) opgemerk het, dat die magistraat nie alle dele van die distrik kan bereik nie en ek beskou daarom, dat as daar sekere mense deur die publiek aangewys is, hulle goed sal weet wie hulle die verantwoordelik kan laat dra. Dit sal bale meer vertroue wek as wat daar vandag bestaan.

As die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou dit ernstig meen met die sprinkane se uitroeiïng, reken ek hy sal die Huis ’n behoorlike kans gee om die hele Wet, behoorlik geamendeer in Selekt Komitee, te oorweeg. Hy kan uit die diskussie aflei, dat daar ontevredenheid heers en dit bestaat uit die grote uitgawe wat daar gemaak is. Ek wil nie al die blaam op die amtenare werp nie; die sprinkane maak hulle verskyning nou en dan en dit is in tydelike met ongereëlde tussenpose terugkerende plaag. Die Departement het nie die voile beheer oor alle sake nie, maar die fout is, dat alle mag net aan een man gegee word. Hy word aangestel as hoofsprinkaanbeamte en hy stel weer onder horn aan wie hy wil, maar nie altoos die beste mense nie, sodat as daardie rade ingestel word, kan hulle horn baie voorligting verskat. Ek is nie ten gunste van die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) nie, aangesien dit moeilik sal wees om daardie kommissie of raad net op een vergadering te kies. Dit is ongewens om die Wet by stukkies en brokkies te behandel en daar behoort die kans gegee te word om die Wet voor die Huis te kry, nadat die verwys was na ’n Selekt Komitee.

Die aanmerkinge van die edele lid vir Bloemfontein (Noord) (de hr. Barlow) omtrent Artiekel 4 van die Wet, toon aan dat hy nie weet dat dieselwe teruggetrek is nie. Met betrekking tot die amendement van die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) hoop ek, dat die edelagbare die Minister dit sal aanneem. Dit is onmoontlik vir die boere agter Langberg om die sprinkane uit te roei, tensy hulle hulp kry van die Goewernement. Laaste jaar by die verskyning van die sprinkane het die Regering hulp gestuur, maar dit is onmoontlik vir die mense in daardie dele om die Wet na te kom en daar moet beskerming kom vir die mense aan die grense van die grote Kalahari. Die sprinkane lê daar, die voetgangers kom uit en die mense is in die moeilikheid, want die streek is onbewoon, en ek herhaal die mense moet beskerm word. Ek beskou dit reg as die Regering help.

Ek wil ook graag ’n beroep doen op die edelagbare die Minister om die Wetsontwerp weer voor te bring, na dit verwese te he na ’n Selekt Komitee, want daar is baie dinge in wat verander kan word. Ons het veel ondervinding van die saak gehad die afgelope jaar. Daar is die bepaling dat die sprinkane uitgeroei moet word deur die eienaar. Die man doet sy bes, hy neem alle werkhande uit sy gewone werk om sprinkane dood te maak, en dit beteken dat solank hulle daar besig is al die gewone werk stilstaat en so kan dit nie gaan nie want dit raak die mense baas. Die Regering kom by en daarna word die rekening na die persoon gestuur om te betaal en dit is nie billik nie. Die land moet weet wat die politiek van die Regering is, en ek doen ’n beroep op die edelagbare die Minister om die verklaring te doen, dat die saak weer voor die Huis sal gebring word.

Ek begryp nie, waarom die edelagbare die Minister so hardkoppig is nie. Ons, van beide kante van die Huis, wil horn help om die Wet deur te kry, maar net Artiekel 4 laat val wat betrekking het op sprinkhane en omdat dit nie voldoening gee nie. Ons wil die edelagbare die Minister help deur na die land te gaan en alle hulp te gee om van die saak ’n sukses te maak. Almal wil die hande bysit, maar die publiek is ontevrede met die werking van die Wet, en waar aangetoon is, dat die ontevredenheid gegrond is, laat ons dit daar verander. As hy daarin wou toestem, dan was die maatregel vroeg vandag al deur die Huis en dan sal daar ook meer sukses met die sprinkaan uitroeiïng bereik word. Die Minister sy houding maak dat van die ander kant ook hardkoppig opgetree word en ’n mens sal dan nie sukses hê met die uitroeiing van sprinkane nie, daar moet meer werking wees, Dit gaat moeilik met die Wet en laat die edelagbare die Minister ons kans gee.

Ek gaat helemaal saam met die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw), want die vraag kom daarop neer dat daar distrikte is, waarvan die magistraat nie bekend is met die boere en al wat die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) wil hê is: gee horn drie prominente boere om horn te help. Dit kan nie verkeerd wees nie. Ek onthou met die laaste uitroeiing moes die magistraat van bakboord na stuurboord gaan om uit te vind welke persone hy moes aanstel en wat gedaan moes word. As die amendement aangeneem word, dan is daarie moeilikheid oorwonne. Ek gaat saam met my vrind die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) dat ons eers die Wet laat deurgaan en later ’n ander Wet bespreek net oor sprinkane. Ek dink dat die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) gesond is en sal strek tot die betere uitroeiing van die sprinkane.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that all these objections have been raised. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) accuses me of being “hardkoppig” over this. There were a great many suggestions made yesterday and to-day that could be brought into operation without altering the law in any way. If there is any speech which has surprised me, it is the speech of the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Venter) who is a member of the Advisory Board and one of my advisers in connection with this question, and of course, I was depending on the support of my hon. friend. It is really very disappointing when your advisers outside the House give you one form of advice, and give you another form of advice in the House; it is very difficult indeed. My hon. friend has misunderstood the interpretation of the amendment of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw). He knows that the Advisory Board went fully into the question when the new proposals were made. During the locust discussion I never denied, knowing that we were dealing with an extensive country like this, that1 irregularities had taken place, but I have recognized, and the farmers of the country have recognized and the Advisory Board has recognized, the assistance given by the district officials by the farmers and by Mr. Graham Cross and by a large number of practical people to the Advisory Committee and to the Government. I would ask hon. members how they were going to deal, in a large country, with the question of locust destruction if you had not a Central Board to act as a guiding hand. Without such it would be absolutely and entirely impossible. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) in his amendment says—

Supposing the Minister is not informed or that there are districts in which the people do not think the locusts a menace to them, and do not want to destroy them, what is going to be the position of the agricultural farmers in the country when the voetgangers become flyers and the whole crops of the country are destroyed. There are unfortunately in this country a certain number of people who do not want to go to any trouble in the destruction of locusts upon their farms, because they consider that the locusts are not going to do them any damage. What is going to be the position of the farmers in the Western Transvaal, in the Free State and in certain parts of the Cape Province, if the voetganger are allowed to go on developing into flying swarms and to pass over the country, bringing ruin and desolation with them? Even then it is difficult to know whether the Minister would be informed. Would he be informed before the locusts’ eggs were hatched out? I think the hatching takes about 14 days, and then he has to call a meeting and there is to be a lot of telegraphing and telephoning. I say you have an administrative body in existence with a very valuable chief locust officer in consultation with practical people, and that is the best body to see that the provisions of the law are carried out. There is nothing to prevent people forming locust circles if it is the desire to do so, and there have been circles of the greatest benefit not only to the farmers but to the State, but we had experience in early days of scab circles, which were formed not with the desire of stamping out disease, but to take as little action as possible in connection with it. You can form your locust circles. Other members say that it is rather hard, and there I agree with the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. Scholtz) and with the hon. member for Hopetown (Capt. P. S. Cilliers) that there are certain areas in this country where it is extremely difficult for the individuals themselves to do the work of destroying the locusts.

What does the Government do there? Does the Government meet the people there?

We have done so to the extent of thousands of pounds, in the way of giving extra assistance where we found that it was impossible for the farmers with their best efforts to stamp out the locusts, and it was one of the representations of this committee in the field that the Government should give every possible assistance. Although there have been mistakes in connection with the locust campaign let me read a letter which has been sent in, it was an unsolicited letter, not sent to me, but to the Under Secretary for Agriculture in Pretoria, it is a letter from Mr. Hockley, who is the president of the Agricultural Union of the Cape, and everyone knows that he is one of the most representative farmers. He writes—

Hear, hear.

The hon. member says “hear, hear”, but let me continue this letter—

Now I think that this is a very convincing letter, it shows that though there have been mistakes a great deal of good work has been done, and I should say to hon. members that instead of asking for further legislation, I am quite prepared to meet any hon. members who have strong views on this question and to have a full discussion for the purpose of seeing whether with the aid of Mr. Graham Cross and the other officers in the field, these difficulties cannot be met in the proper manner. I would appeal to the committee now in the general interest of the farmers of the country to let this Bill pass. If we are going to act in different ways in dealing with locusts, if we are going to have a committee in one district dealing with the matter in one way, and another committee in another district dealing with the locusts in another way, then I am afraid that we shall be simply wasting money. I hope the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) will not press his amendment. I am prepared to meet him in every possible way but I think his amendment will be detrimental to the interests of the farmers and to a large extent make it impossible to deal with what is a national calamity, as the locusts are.

Die edelagbare die Minister sê, dat hy bereid is om ons tegemoet te kom. Dit is wat ons van die begin af na gesoek het. Ek het na die edelagbare die Minister gegaan en gevra of ek ’n voorstel kan indien om ’n Selekt Komitee aan te stel om die saak te bespreek. Die edelagbare die Minister het vir my gesê, dat dit nie kan gedoen word nie.

May I just say this to the hon. member? That was not what I told him at all. What I said was that with a national calamity like the locusts in the country at present, to my mind it would have been the very worst possible step which the House could have taken to have appointed a Select Committee, and called from the field those officers, who are the only competent officials of dealing with the pest at the present time.

Ja, en ek het aan die edelagbare die Minister gesê, dat dit maar net nodig sal wees om een van die mense te roep en dat dit nie noodsaaklik sal wees om al die mense te laat kom nie. Had die edelagbare die Minister toe meer simpatie getoon, dan sou ons heel moontlik tot een of andere skikking gekom het. Maar die houding van die edelagbare die Minister in hierdie saak is teleurstellend. Wat was die houding, wat hy aangeneem het die ander dag toe die saak hier onder bespreking was? Toe het hy probeer om die saak bespotlik voor te stel en nou ek met my amendement kom, sê hy, dat ek dit maar moet laat om daar nou mee te kom, want hy gaan dit tog nie aanneem. Ek wil dat die edelagbare die Minister ons sal beloof dat daar veranderinge gebring sal word in die sprinkaanwet. Die belofte, wat die edelagbare die Minister nou maak, beteken soveel as niks vir my nie, want dis net dat ons privaat daaroor moet praat en dat hy dan sy opienie sal sê en die opienie van die Adviserende Landbouw Raad en daarmee moet ons tevrede wees. Ek se, dat die edelagbare die Minister baie versigtig moet wees met die Adviserende Landbouw Raad. Hulle is nie die Parlement nie, nie die verteenwoordigers van die volk nie.

It is the Locust Advisory Boards I am talking about.

Maar wat is die Adviserende Landbouw Raad? Een klomp flukse vooruitstrewende boere maar hulle is te veel van idealisten, van theoristen en ek sê dit, dat die edelagbare die Minister as hy die raad opvolg van die adviseurs, dan kry hy dikwels raad wat die grote deel van die volk baie te verre vooruit is. Ek wil die edelagbare die Minister sê, dat hy baie versigtig moet wees met die adviseurs, want hulle is nie die verteenwoordigers van die volk nie. Nou het die edelagbare die Minister gesê, of ek wil hê hy moet een plakaat opsit dat die sprinkaan eiers nie moet uitkom nie tot dat die raad eers aangestel is. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister die raad gekry het van die adviseurs nie, maar enigeen wat ondervinding het in verband met sprinkane, weet dat die sprinkane hulle eiers aan die end van die seisoen lê en dat die nie uitkom voordat daar eers reënt gewees is nie. Nou sê my amendement—

Dit is heeltemaal duidelik, dat as die edelagbare die Minister geen advies van eiers kry nie, sodat hy die raad kan aanstel, dan bly die Wet in werking soos die nou is. Dit kan gebeur dat in sekere distrikte kom skielik sprinkane uit en dan staan die Wet soos die is. Die brief wat die edelagbare die Minister het voorgelees van Meneer Hopley is—veronderstel ek—gebaseer op die Rapporte wat hy gekry het, maar teenoor die bewering dat slegs 5 persent van die voetgangers op die vlerke kom, wil ek aanhaal, dat ’n inspekteur op ’n publieke vergadering gesê het, dat 80 persent van die voetgangers op die vlerke kom. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister moet ’n bietjie meer die Huis se raad in aanmerking neem.

Ek dink dis vir almaal duidelik, dat die edelagbare die Minister nie net moet handel op advies van die Adviserende Raad nie. Ek wil niks van hulle sê nie, maar ek wil sê, dat die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) reg had. Waarom as die edelagbare die Minister tog maar net die raad opvolg van die Adviserende Raad, kom hy dan by die Huis vir wetgewing? Hy kan dan maar net handel op hulle advies. Ek wil niks van die persone sê nie, maar watter ondervinding het die persone opgedoen, wat met hulle motorkarre deur die land rondjaag en hulle informasie kry van die inspekteurs? Ek het die ander aand al aangetoon, hoe absoluut onvertroubaar die informasies is. Die mense wat piakties te werk gegaan het, die boere wat die sprinkane uitge roei het, sal tog seker beter raad kan gee. Vóór alles moet die edelagbare die Minister die raad van alle kante van die Huis aanneem. Ons is gewillig om te help, want die saak is van groot belang vir ons. En ons weet dat ons gesaamlik by mekaar moet staan en help. Hoe eerder die edelagbare die Minister die advies van die Huis in oorweging neem, hoe beter. Hy moet die Huis ’n kans gee om aan te wys waar die leemtes is in die Wet. Dan sal hy die saamwerking kry van die hele land. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal nie hardkoppig wees nie. Hy moet bereid wees om ons ’n kans te gee, dan sal ons hom help die Wet so gou moontlik deur die Huis gepasseer te kry.

Ek is ook van mening, dat die edelagbare die Minister nie net op die goedkeurings van die Adviserende Raad moet gaan nie. Ek hou vol, dat die magistrate die beste advies kan kry van die boere in die distrik self. Ons het die ervaring opgedoen, as die magistraat in moeilikhede was, het hy by my gekom om advies en ek het gesê; “goed, ons roep ’n paar boere by mekaar en dan gaat ons ’n bietje oor die saak praat, om te sien wat gedoen moet word.” Nou sê die edelagbare die Minister, as lid van die Adviserende Raad behoor hy dit nie te doen nie, maar ek stel nog lank nie die mag van die Adviserende Raad bokant die van die Parlement. Die Adviserende Raad is nie die volksverteenwoordiging nie.

Op ’n vraag wat ek aan die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou gestel het, of hy boere in die verskillende areas door my genoemd tegenmoet wil kom met hulp tot bestryding van die sprinkaanplaag, het die edelagbare die Minister gesê, dat hy dit in die verlede al dikwyls gedoen het. Dis waar, die Londbou Departement het na verskillende dele “gangs” gestuur om die mense te help om sprinkane uit te roei. Insover is alles wel en goed en die boere is die Minister van Landbou en die Departement ook dankbaar vir die hulp in die stryd teen die sprinkane, maar waarteen die boere protesteer is, dat hulle vir die koste van die uitroei van sprinkane verantwoordelik word gehou, en die edelagbare die Minister sal erken, dat die koste van uitroeiïng in die dun bevolkte streke noodwendig baie groter is as in dicht bewoonde streke. In dicht bewoonde streke roei my buurman ’n gedeelte van die sprinkane uit en dan kom by my nog misskien n deel wat oor is van die swerm. Dis vir my dan nie so kosbaar om die deel uit te roei nie. Maar in die streke waarvan ek praat, sal noodwendig die koste aansienlik hoër wees en daarom wil ek hê, dat die edelagbare die Minister hier vanmiddag die versekering sal gee, om nie alleen die mense in die distrikte te hulp te kom nie, soveel moontlik is, maar ook die mense te vrywaar teen die koste van uitroei van sprinkane. Nou sal ek sê waarom ek soiets vra. In daardie streke, veral in die naturelie areas, is ’n menigte mense daar wat gaan saai in die Transval en in dele van Bechuanaland en terwyl hulle afwesig is, kom daar groot sprinkaan swerme van die Kalahari woestyn of van die naturelie areas. Die Regering stap in en roei die sprinkane uit, maar die mense word verantwoordelik gehou vir die koste. Dis ’n geweldige finansiële las wat op die boer gelê word. Ek het van gevalle gehoor waar dit £150 tot £200 per boer gewees het. Nou die Huis verstaan dat dit swaar op ’n boer druk en besonder swaar op die klas van boere die geen ander inkomste het as van hulle vee nie. Daarom het ek die edelagbare die Minister die verzoek gedoen.

Die sprinkaanplaag het ’n verwoestende plaag gewees en enig Parlementslid wat kom van ’n distrikt waar sprinkane gewees het, sal erken, dat daar baie skade gedoen is en dat daar betere wetgeving moet kom om sprinkane te bestry. Ek wil erken, dat baie sprinkane doodgemaak is en dat die Wet sekere nut gedoen het. Daar sou baie grotere skade gewees het, as daar nie soveel sprinkane doodgemaak was nie, maar soos die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) ook al aangewys het, moet daar baie wysiginge gemaak word in die Wet en moet die raad in aanmerking geneem word van mense wat praktiese ervaring gehad het in die uitroei van sprinkane. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister sal baie goed doen as hy veranderinge sal aanbring in die Wet. Hy sal dan meer saamwerking van die publiek kry. Ons wil die Minister help en die Minister moet ons help.

I would tell my hon. friend that under the regulations as they exist now, it is possible to make any changes that are considered advisable in trying to stamp out the locusts. We have power under the law to insist on their being destroyed and every effort is being made to meet such cases as the hon. member has referred to, I know there are farms on which it is extremely difficult, and the Government has organized camel corps to go into these North-Western districts, knowing that if the locusts are not destroyed there they are going to get into the flying stage and come down and destroy all the crops to which my hon. friend has referred. I ask hon. members not to pass an amendment which will place responsible power in the hands of bodies all over the country. You must have order or you will have chaos, and the farmers my hon. friend represents, will be ruined. I have no objection to meeting people and discussing whether there is any possibility of improving matters. We are anxious to get as much information as we can, but that can be done without legislation, and I do maintain that the clause proposed by my hon. friend will be the worst day’s work that this committee will do, because it will absolutely undermine everything we have done in connection with locust destruction. I would be only too anxious to meet my hon. friend or any other farmers in this House, because this is a question entirely of a non-political character, and I am prepared to meet hon. members at any time along with the officials of the department, so that we can discuss this question and see if any recommendation can be made that will give us a better opportunity of dealing with these pests, than the manner in which we are dealing with them at the present moment, I would be only too happy to have their views.

Will you have a Select Committee?

I have no objection to a Select Committee, but I will not be able to serve on it—I have not the time.

Maar nou gaat die edelagbare die Minister al daadlik van die standpunt uit, dat as daar ’n liggaam van boere aangestel word, dat dit nie van veel gewig is nie en dat so ’n komitee nie ’n verantwoordelike liggaam is nie. Die edelagbare die Minister moet nou tog eindelik van die punt afkom, om altoos en eeuwig die gedagte te hê, dat sodra hy ’n klompie boere bymekaar kry, hy geen verantwoordelike komitee het nie. Maar wat is die verantwoordelikheid van die inspekteurs? In die reël maar net dit om die £1 2s. 6d. te kom trek. Dis al verantwoordelikheid wat hulle het, terwyl die boer wat groot belang het hy die uitroeiïng van sprinkane in die hele land, omdat die onafskeidlik is van sy eie belang, nie geraadpleeg word nie. Maar hulle kan alle informasie wat nodig is met betrekking tot die uitroei van sprinkane gee. Waarom die stigma op die boer gelê? In die stryd teen die sprinkane het die boerbevolking by mekaar gestaan van die een hoek van die land tot die ander onder die mees moeilike omstandighede. En nou kom die edelagbare die Minister en probeer dit voor te stel asof so ’n boere komitee onverantwoordelik is, net omdat die sal staan tussen die boerebevolking en die Departement. Wat het die inspekteurs, wat die land deur jaag van bakboord na stuurboord vir praktiese ondervinding? Dit laat my dink aan die landdrost in die Kroonkolonietyd. Hy het nooit getuienis wil aanneem van ’n boer nie, hy moes getuienis kry van eksperts, manne wat aangestel was as plaaslike brandsiekte inspekteurs. Ek kan my goed herinner, dat ’n man die een dag as boer gaan slaap en die volgende dag kry hy sy aanstelling as plaaslike inspekteur en toe kan hy as ekspert gaan en getuienis aflê. Ons moet in die toekoms afsien van sulke belaggelike praktyke. Die mense wat die land deurtrek met motorkarre het nog nooit ’n spuit in die hand gehad, nog nooit prakties meegehelp om die sprinkane uit te roei nie. Die edelagbare die Minister kan baie praktiese raad kry van die boer. Ek wil nou net daarop kom op wat die edelagbare lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) voorgestel het. Ek dink dis heelemaal reg. Ek stem nie altoos saam met hom nie, veral nie as hy so hoogdrawende Hollands praat nie. Maar die toestande in Barkly West, Hopetown en Vryburg is nie so’s in andere distrikte. Die grens aan die Kalahari en as daar vandaan die sprinkane kom, nie in troppies nie, maar in swerme, so’s mens hom nie kan voorstel nie, wat dit nie gesien het nie. Hulle kan nie hulp kry van die Kalahari nie, hulle staan as ’n buffer om die hele stryd op te neem teen ’n oormag van sprinkane, terwyl nie die minste hulp verleen word nie. Daar word gesê, dat dit ’n nasionale saak is, maar dan behoor ook die man agter die toonbank en die edelagbare die Minister in sy kantoor en elkeen by te dra tot bestryding van die plaag. Vandag moet net die arme boer die stryd opneem in die Westelike Vrystaat, Westelike Transvaal en Noordelike Kaapprovinsie. Dis nie ’n saak van lokale belang nie, maar ’n nasionale gevaar en daarom moet alle dele van die bevolking meehelp.

I am very sorry to hear that last speech. I am afraid the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. C. A. van Niekerk) in his locust campaign has not been a leader in his district. He has been a follower. I do know that. He has made an attack on Mr. Kolbe; I want to ask him if it is not a fact that Mr. Kolbe went to his house and asked him to go with him into the district and tell the people all about the locusts?

No, absolutely untrue.

Well, I believe Mr. Kolbe. I have known Mr. Kolbe for many years, and he told me that he went to the hon. member’s house and the hon. member said he would go with him, and when Mr. Kolbe went a second time my hon. friend had gone out in his motor car.

Did the hon. member refuse to go with him?

I am writing to Mr. Kolbe to-morrow but I shall accept my hon. friend’s word. I do not know whether he belongs to the Agricultural Union of the Free State; I know he is a leading farmer, and all I can say is that the Agricultural Union of the Free State passed a unanimous resolution of confidence in Mr. Kolbe. He does not belong to the Labour Party or the South African Party. He is a Nationalist, and the Government were lucky to get hold of Mr. Kolbe, and wherever Mr. Kolbe has held meetings with the farmers those farmers agree with him that the regulations should be carried out, all with the exception of the Boshof district and my hon. friend will know why. It is no good our hiding these things because if the farmers are going to evade the regulations we will never kill the locusts in the country. They held a meeting at Dealesville at which Mr. Kolbe was present, and they made all sorts of excuses about the poison. They said the poison was not made up the right way, and the poison was made up the wrong way, and the poison was killing the stock, and we know that was just to get out of killing the locusts. I congratulate the Minister on appointing Mr. Kolbe. I am speaking now for farmers in the Free State. I hope that the Government will keep Mr. Kolbe in that position; he has been chairman of our Agricultural Union in the Free State for many years, and he is a leading farmer. He has gone out of his way to leave his farm to kill locusts, and it is not fair to make attacks on him in this House. He has done his best for the Free State to kill locusts, and not only has he killed the voetganger, but he has destroyed the flying locust which he chased in a motor car—[Laughter.]—an unheard of thing. It is very easy to laugh, but you do not know anything about it. He chased the flying locusts in a motor car and killed the swarm where it settled. No member of Parliament should get up here and attack such a man. It is a bad thing to do, a bad thing for the country, and a bad thing for the farmer, and I hope the right hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment. I hope he will sit tight. We have been fighting this pest in the Free State. [An Hon. Member: “How many have you killed?”] Over 400 swarms; ask the Minister.

Yes, over 400 swarms on the hon. member’s place.

Yes, that has been registered, and I killed them without pumps. It is no good gentlemen calling themselves farmers, and blackguarding whatever Government has been in power, about the locusts. If the Minister sticks now to his organization—

The hon. member is soft soaping the Government.

What, soft soap that Government? Why, I fight them on every possible occasion. It is not a question of soft soaping, it is but a question of doing my duty. Surely, it is not a party question. We will beat the locusts in this country, but if this talk is allowed to go on, as has been the case during the last few days, and the Government is blackguarded, then we will go on as we have been going on for years, and we will be laughed at by the other Dominions as we were about the scab. I am prepared to stand by the Minister.

Ek doen ook ’n beroep op die edelagbare die Minister; nadat Artiekel 2 geskrap is, handel die Wet net oor ander plage en terwyl hy sien wat die gevoele is, laat hy ’n onderneming gee om in die loop van die sitting ’n Gekose Komitee aan te stel om op die saak in te gaan en dat hy daarna ’n Wet sal voorbring. Soas die nou is help dit niks, en alsdan sal lede ook die amendemente terug trek en ons sal tyd uitspaar. Ek hoop hy gaat dit doen om ons te gemoet te kom.

Ek merk dat die edelagbare die Minister sy kop skud en dat hy dus nie gewillig is om die suggestie van die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) aan te neem en nog gedurende hierdie sitting wetgewing voor te stel nie, na aanstelling van ’n kommissie om die saak degelyk te bespreek en praktiese wenke te gee. Hy is dus doof vir die sterke vertoog, tot horn gerig deur boere aan beide syde van die Huis. Baie van hulle het soveel praktiese ondervinding opgedaan met sprinkhane, dat hulle in staat is doeltreffende wenke te gee in verband met wetgewing die tot nut sal wees van die land. As hy dit nie wil doen nie, dan is die voorstel van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) prakties. Of die edelagbare die Minister dit wil doen of nie, dit kom my voor of hy net wil handel op die raad van sy ambtenare en nie op die raad van die gekose vertegenwoordigers van die volk nie. Hy gee die voorkeur aan die mense wat van plaas tot plaas ry en swerms opsoek, soms met ’n verkyker. Mense, wat nie die ondervinding het van die boere wat die meeste sprinkane uitgeroei het en die edelagbare die Minister kan nie beter doen nie, as om die wenk van die edele lid van Colesberg (de hr. Louw) te volg, deur te bepaal, dat in die distrikte rade aangestel sal word, wat in adviserende hoedanigheid sal optree, viral waar voetgangers is, en waar die boer nie in staat is om hulle uit te roei nie, sonder dat aan horn hulp gegee word. Ek wil die heer Kolbe nie verdedig nie, maar het boere ontmoet die met sprinkaan uitroeiïng te doen had en hulle gewaag van die handige manier wat hy het om vergaderings te lei, met behulp van die magistraat. Die optrede van die heer Kolbe win in ’n paar minute die vertrouwe, al had die ander veel gesukkel met die boere. Die heer Kolbe het gedaan presies wat hier aangegee word: die boere die gelegenheid gegee om hulle eie ambtenare aan te stel en daarmee meer uitgevoer as wat tevore die geval was, toe dit die menere was wat rondry en sê, julle moet doodmaak, maar wat self niks doen nie. Ons verlang dat die edelagbare die Minister die soort in die wind sal slaan. Wat die edele lid van Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) voorstel is die beste: maak gebruik van die ondervinding van laaste jaar en bring wetgewing voor die baie doeltreffender sal wees as die van nou.

Ek verbaas my en weet nie of ek my so lomp uitdruk nie. As ek sê die informasie van die boer is net so vertroubaar as die van die heer Kolbe, dan beweer die edelagbare die Minister dat ek die heer Kolbe aanval. As ’n mens sy naam noem is dit as of jy ’n heilige tin godje op wieletjes aanval. Ek verstaan nie waarom die edelagbare die Minister so gevoelig is op die stuk van die naam van die heer Kolbe nie, en ek vra net waarom neem hulle sy raad aan en nie die raad van die boer nie? Hy weet niks meer as ’n ander boer nie, en moet ook maar verneem, soas ek en enige ander. Die edelagbare die Minister wil nie verstaan nie en sê, ek moet die heer Kolbe nie aanval nie, iets wat ek nooit gedaan het nie. Sover as hy deur my kiesafdeling gegaan het het hy veel gedaan. Ek het nog hom nog dieheer Graham Cross ontmoet, wat die heer Cross aangaan hy is die regte man op die regte plek. Hy het probeer om met takt die teenstanders van die Wet oor te haal tot voorstanders, en is daar in die meeste gevalle geslaag, deur die taktvolle wyse van optrede. Maar hoe die Minister kan verklaar, dat ek die heer Kolbe aanval, gaat my verstand te bowe.

Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister het baie geleer van die toesprake wat hier gehou is en wat die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) sê wat ons almaal voel. Telkens word oor landbou gepraat en dan verklaar die edelagbare die Minister, dat die Adviserende Raad sê so en so. Ek het daar niks op teen nie, maar hier sit die vertegenwoordigers van die kiesers en moet gehoor word; vele van hulle weet net so veel as die Adviserende Raad. Ek het simpatie met die edelagbare die Minister want ek glo nie dat sy plan sukses sal hê nie. Wat die wetgewing betref is die beginsel goed, maar ons kan die gevoel teen die Wet goed besef en daarom wil ons dat die edelagbare die Minister daardie Rade moet toestaan. As hij so ’n Raad aanstel, dieoor die sake sit sal hy baie goeie suggesties kry. Ek glo nie dat hulle die Wet sal verbeter nie; die onus moet in hierdie geval op die eienaar geleg word. Maar in verband met administrasie sal dit die mense veel moeilikheid bespaar as dit van regeringswege gedaanword. Daar is cirkulêres uitgevaardig wie aangestel moet word. In my distrik het dit goed gegaan, maar daar is distrikte waar geen tevredenheid bestaat nie. Die mense wil indie eerste plaas weet dat hulle met sekerheid kan reken op hulp. Dit is reeds in die verlede gedaan en moet net by wetgewing neergeleg word. Die amendemente is almal verkeerd, maar ek dink dit sal goed wees om die wenkeaan te neem. Ek dink ons kan van die Wetsontwerp afstap.

I am quite prepared, as I said before, when the hon. member was not present, I am quite prepared to meet hon. members of this House who take an interest in the very best possible steps being taken for the destruction of locusts, and I am prepared to meet them, as I have said before, with the representatives of the department, and hear their views. I agree with my hon. friend, that there should be a commission of advice, but I do not think you could have a better commission of advice than that which you have at the present time. It is composed of Mr. Graham Cross, Mr. Kolbe in the Free State, Mr. Hockley in the Cape Province, Mr. Mason in the Transvaal, and others, whose names I have not here. These are an advisory committee, who advise the department from day to day as to what steps should be taken. I can inform the House that there is no locust inspector appointed who does not get the approval of Mr. Graham Cross and this advisory body, and any locust inspector in the country who may not be giving satisfaction, Mr. Graham Cross has the power to get rid of him within 24 hours. We could not get a more practical body of people in the country than this. As I said some weeks ago, I would like again to take the opportunity of saying, how deeply indebted I am to Mr. Kolbe and to Mr. Hockley and those other gentlemen, practical farmers, who, at the request of my department, gave up their business because we thought in this calamity they would have more influence and would be more likely to get the confidence of the farming population, than mere officials would be likely to get. On that account these people were appointed, and gave the greatest satisfaction. Again I will repeat how deeply thankful I am to them for the sacrifices they made in the interests of the country. I will ask hon. members either to withdraw their amendments or to let us go to a division without further discussion as I am very anxious that this Bill should go through another place, and to get on with the work as, while this discussion is going on. I have no power to carry out the other provisions contained in the Bill.

moved—

The Committee will see that my first amendment is intended to provide for people who have received notification of their appointment on the old scale and it would be unfair to them to exclude them from any benefits which accrue from the old scales, so I provide that not only those on the scales, but those who have received notification of their appointment on the old scales, shall be included in this clause. My second amendment is what I promised to the House. I have already explained during the second reading the reason for this amendment. I may just add that it appears that in the Cape these matters have to be dealt with by Ordinance. In the Transvaal and Natal they are dealt with by the administrator in executive committee, and in the Free State by the executive committee, and I propose to amend the section so as to leave the proper authority in each province to deal with the matter.

I move—

I think that although we have had a great deal of discussion during the last few days over these matters of establishing a uniform scale, there is a good deal still to be said. It has been contended from both parties on this side of the House that teachers have had a very curious measure of fairness dealt out to them, and although we have discussed that, we have to discuss it again at considerable length in order to rebut some statements made by the right hon. the Minister and his supporters. It has been stated that the teachers themselves have accepted the idea of a uniform scale and that there has been no breach of faith. I am not going into the question at all whether on the mere letter there was a breach of faith, but I am quite positive that there has been a very grave misunderstanding between the teachers as a profession and the Government, to put no further than that. The teachers were sneered at by the Minister as being idealists. They were prepared for the sake of education in the Union to agree that salaries throughout the Union should be standardized and brought to a uniform scale. But they were not prepared for the kind of uniformity laid down in this Bill, they were not prepared for the kind of uniformity by which by a stroke of the pen or the word of the executive, or the administrator, or by the word of the administrator in executive, the whole of this security, which they thought to have obtained by being dealt with by the Public Service Commission, would be swept away according to the exigencies of the financial position of a particular province. And let me say in passing on behalf of myself and my colleagues on these benches, that I repudiate entirely the curious doctrine of economy held by the Minister and the Government. I do not look upon it as economizing in any worthy sense when, continuing to accept services, the only economy I make is to refuse to pay the price which I contracted to pay for these services. It rather reminds me of a very similar thing at the beginning of the war. A friend of mine at the beginning of the war related to me a visit which she had had from a friend whose husband had a salary of £5,000. They had been talking it over and she arid her husband had decided that it was everybody’s duty to economize, and therefore she called her servants in and told them that in future they would have each to take £1 per month less. The teachers will hardly look upon this as economy. If we continue to use their services which we have contracted for on certain scales, and the teachers have entered our services on that scale, then it is not right for us because it is a little difficult to raise money by taxation, which might make us unpopular, then I say it is not right for us to tax these people—because after all it is a tax—whom we have engaged on a certain scale. It is not right for us to say “you have to go short.” If we want to carry out the bargain, let us put the teachers in the same position as the civil servants as they expected to be placed. It is perfectly true that at any time, as provided in the Act passed last year, this Parliament may pass an Act reducing the scale of pay of civil servants throughout the Union. If the financial position of the Union is in such a condition that the whole of the civil service has to be reduced, very well. I hope that that will not come about until the whole of us, the whole of the population, have been taxed fairly. But if the whole of the public servants have to be reduced, then at such time and at such time only, if you are going to put the teachers on the same basis as the public servant, let the Provincial Councils impose a special tax, as this is in fact, on the teachers. But not on the teachers only. I have here a copy of the Gazette Extraordinary of the Cape Province. It is one of these curious coincidences which seems to follow in the course of this Government.

Hear, hear.

We have had a long debate. The Government are really wonderful. We have had a long debate right until last night, over this, and the second reading was passed by a narrow majority last night, and this morning, not yesterday morning or the morning before, but this morning—it is curious that it was not a day sooner—we have a Gazette Extraordinary, publishing the proposals of the Cape Provincial authorities with regard to their finances of the coming year, and showing how they propose to reduce expenditure. And among other items I see this uniform scale, this uniformity. The first item of reduction of expenditure is by abandoning the present system of school boards, but it is a long paragraph and I will not read it. The second item is in reference to the suspension of the scale of increments for all European teachers, other than those at coloured schools, etc.—£40,000 by suspending the scale increment. That, I may mention, is in the province which, according to this consultation they had with the public servants, was the body which, in order to establish a uniform scale, it was agreed between the Teachers’ Federal Council and the Public Service Commission, it would be a fair thing to raise the scale in the Cape Province and lower it in the other provinces. In this province they proposed to save £40,000 by abolishing increments. That is a most unfair way to deal with a man who is on a certain scale, and is due an increment. That loss of increment follows him right through life. And the third item by which they propose to save £58,000 is by a percentage reduction on a progressive scale on the salaries of European teachers where such scales exceed £100 per annum, with effect from 1st July, 1924. That is £58,000 for three-quarters of a year, or at the rate of £80,000 a year. And that is absolutely on the morrow of this House solemnly voting by a majority of five that we must have a uniform scale for teachers throughout the Union. Had they thought for a moment it would hurt the interest of teachers, so they said, they would have flocked from that side of the House to this. Does the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) think he would have voted if he had known this was coming out?

What difference does it make?

I hope that the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) will support this amendment, which seeks only to give the teachers the same security in consideration of which they agreed to this uniform scale throughout the Union. They agreed out of consideration for the public interest that it would be a sound thing to have a sound uniform scale throughout the Union, but they certainly never dreamt for a moment that that uniform scale, determined by the Public Service Commission which placed them on the same footing as public servants of the Union, they never for a moment thought when they agreed to that security that that would give several Provinces the right to reduce the salaries to balance accounts.

I think I had better say at once that I cannot accept either of these amendments.

I did not expect the right hon. the Minister would.

No. Well the hon. gentleman shows great intelligence there. The first one simply endeavours to entrench teachers in their position by this House; it is simply an effort to secure that the teaching profession of the Union are entrenched against their own provincial authority. They are to be entrenched by us. I am not going again into all this long discussion lasting over four days on this point; we cannot add anything new to that. I maintain that the position we have taken up throughout is a simple and logical one, namely, the position of the teachers must be left to the authorities who are by law the proper people to deal with it. In the second one the hon. member moved that no general reduction in the case of financial emergency is to be made by a Province unless a general reduction is also made in the case of the public servants of the Union. Once more he proposes to take out of the hands of the provincial authorities any right to deal with these matters, and to say: “You are not to act; never mind what your circumstances may be, unless the Union also takes something off its servants.” In the first place, that involves the overriding of the provincial authorities by the Union Parliament. The hon. member has just read the statement made by the Administrator of the Cape with regard to the position of the Cape Province; it may thus in the second place happen at any time that a province may be in such dire stress that it has to take some steps of that sort, whereas the Union is not in such dire stress. We have not, for instance, I am happy to say, had to resort to the necessity of making a general percentage reduction in our public servants’ salaries. We have not been obliged to go to that length, though it has been gone to before in the history of this country, and perhaps it may have to occur at some future date, though one hopes it will not. But to-day you have the position that, as far as the Union is concerned, there is no financial emergency to drive us to do that. The Cape Province is in such an emergency, and you have seen what it is proposed to do in that case, but it is suggested that we must tell them: “You dare not do anything until we do something of the same sort.” On the face of it the thing is absurd; you would simply be interfering with the right of these people to deal with their own affairs. To-day I appear as their defender when they are proposing to exercise those powers; but as soon as they show an endeavour to exercise some economy then the hon. gentleman condemns them roundly. Hitherto they have never been condemned. The hon. gentleman has not even once uttered a word against the Provincial Councils in the days of their worst extravagance.

Where have they been extravagant?

They are now showing a tendency to economize, and at once he is down upon them. I do not propose to discuss the matter at any great length, but, as far as the Bill is concerned, it can make no difference to the position in which the Cape Province is put. If this Clause were not in the Bill the Administrator of the Cape with his council would be entitled to take any action that was thought best in the interests of the province, so the position is not affected in any way whatever.

Maar nou wil ek daarem graag van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies weet, wat die oogmerk van Seksie 2 is, wat beoog ons deur Seksie 2? Waarom het ons dit hoegenaamd voor die Huis gebring? Waarom? Wat wens ons deur Seksie 2 te verkry? As daar ooit iets gesê is, wat ons almal moet oortuig wees van die regverdigheid daarvan, dan is dit dat die onderwysers angstig en oproerig moet voel oor hierdie Wet, na wat die edelagbare die Minister net soewe gesê het. Voordat ek verder gaan, wil ek net die edelagbare die Minister twee vrae stel. Die Buitegewone Staatskoerant, waarna die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) gerefereer het, is vanoggend so skielik uit die kissie uitgespring. Nou wil ek die edelagbare die Minister vra, het hy, of het hy nie enige invloed gebruik by die Administrates van die Kaap, om die Staatskoerant mie vroeër te publiseer nie? Het hy dit gedoen of het hy dit nie gedoen nie? Ek stel die vraag reguit, dit is ’n pertinente vraag. Indien hy sy invloed het gebruik, dan het ek nog ’n derde vraag, en dit is waarom die verklaring agterwege gehou is. Dis ongetwyfeld ’n vraag waarop ons almal geregtig is om ’n antwoord te hê. Nou kom ek weer terug met die eerste vraag, wat beoog ons deur Seksie 2? Hoe is die ontstaan? Ek wil daarop wys dat as die edelagbare die Minister se uitleg reg is, dan seil hy bepaald onder ’n valse vlag. Is nie die oorsprong van hierdie wetgewing, dat hier is gekla geword gedurende die laaste sitting en na die sitting, dat die rede van te hoge salarisse is, dat in sommige prowinsies die hoge salarisse ontstaan is als gevolg van ’n voortdurende konkurrensie tussen die provinsies, om die beste onderwysers te kry, en dat nou in die ene provinsie en dan weer in die andere die salarisse is verhoog, om die beste klas onderwysers te Irek. En toe is dit onder die aandag van die Regering gebring en die hele land gebring, dat dit nodig was dat daar Uniformiteit van salarisse sal vasgestel word vir alle provinsies, maar dit was ook duidelik dat geen provinsie dit kon doen nie, maar dat dit alleen gedoen kon word deur ’n hoër gesag, dat is die Unie Parlement, wat vir almaal kan praat en wat die saak op hom kan neem. En nou neem ek man, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies gekom het met sy Seksie 2 op die bewering dat uniformiteit daaraan ten grondslag lê, om die konkurrensie te verhinder vir die toekoms en die edelagbare die Minister het bier gekom en wat doen hy? Hy vertel hy maak die salarisse vas vir sy onderwysers en is die onderwysers ontevrede, dan word geseg die Parlement het dit vasgestel. So word dan uniformiteit bereik, maar terselfdertyd word bepaald, dat dit van tyd tot tyd veranderd kan word. Hy laat dadelik die uniformiteit vaar en stel dit, soas hy dit stel op grond van ’n versoek van die uitvoerende komitees, soas die edelagbare die Minister dan beweer. Die amendement van die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) wil die Minister nie aanneem nie, want, seg hy: “Nee, ons sal dit neem uit die hande van die Prowinsiale Raad, die bevoegde autoriteit.” Maar dan moes hy dit daar laat bly het en sig nie daarmee bemoei het nie. Nou is die gevolg, dat dit eers uit die hande geslaan word van die Prowinsiale Raad deur die Parlement, die salarisse te laat vasstel en dan seg hy aan die Prowinsiale Rade: vriende, ek het hulle daar vasgebind. Maar as hulle more, oormore kort van geld raak, pak hulle weer. Dan seg die onderwysers: “Waar is ons nou? In ’n slegter posisie as tevore.” Dus die onderwysers het reg as hulle beweer, dat die hand word op hulle gewys deur die Parlement as ’n onderwerp vir die Prowinsiale Rade om uit te buit, as hulle geld kortkom. Hier word gevraag deur die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) dat die Minister die onderwysers dieselfde sekuriteit sal gee as ander ambtenare, as hulle dan helemaal as onder die Unie staande behandel word. Daar staat die edelagbare die Minister op en sê: “Hulle kan dit nie kry nie, want die ambtenare staan onder die Unie en die onderwysers nie.” Die Unie is net so dikwels hardop as die Prowinsiale Administrasies, en ons wil net weet dat as hulle deur die een gedruk word, die ander nie ook op hulle mag toeskiet nie. Maar met welke reg sal hy dan die salarisse van die onderwysers laat beoordeel deur die Staatsdiens-Kommissie? Dese neem die vasstelling van alles in oorweging en wat het hulle te doen met onderwysers? Hoe durf hulle op gelyke voet gestel word met die gewone ambtenare, wanneer hulle, volgens die toespraak van die edelagbare die Minister oorgelaat word aan die genade van ’n voortdurend aan bankrotskap lydende Prowinsiale Administrasie? Dit is feitelik wat die edelagbare die Minister sê, hulle verkeer voortdurend in bankrotskap en hulle moet dit verhaal op die onderwysers. Laat die onderwysers dan liewer helemaal oor aan die Prowinsiale Raad en laat hulle die risiko loop van nie aan dieselfde bepalings onderhewig te wees as die átaatsambtenare nie. Ek wil graag aan die edelagbare die Minister vra wat hy meen; of die oogmerk uniformiteit is of eenvoudig, dat hy die gelegenheid te baat neem om ’n vermindering van salaris van onderwysers te bewerkstellig: ten tweede, welke deel had hy geneem in die verskyning van ’n Buitengewone Staatskoerant vanmore pas? Ja of nee?

The question has been raised that this Clause 2 deals only with the power to reduce salaries. I move—

I want to put those words in, because it has been said that this was only a reducing clause, and in order that when more prosperous times return something better should be done. I understand the hon. the Minister to say that no teacher would have any reduction of his salary.

I did not say that.

I understood that the Minister said so. I understood that teachers would follow the same as public servants, that no increments were to be given, but that salaries would not be touched. To-day there has been issued a Gazette Extraordinary; possibly the hon. the Minister saw it before it was issued. I do feel that many of us were under a misapprehension all through this discussion. I would ask the hon. the Minister if he has read number three of this Gazette which says—

I understand that the position is that, instead of being treated like the public servants—take any portion of the public service which you like, the Minister knows that you have not reduced salaries; what you have done is to refuse to give increments in view of the present straitened circumstances. I quite sympathize that increments should not be given in the present stage of the finances, but does the right hon. the Minister of Finance recognize that the effect of this Act means an immediate reduction of salaries.

It has nothing to do with this Bill.

I feel confident that the (Provincial Councils will have something to say before they agree to a general reduction of salaries.

That is their business.

I am against giving a farthing increment to any teacher until the finances are balanced. What are you going to reduce salaries immediately for; simply because the Provincial Councils are unable to arrange their finances properly. If there is to be a reduction, I think it should be spread over a length of time, but it is not a question for us to decide in this House whether the teachers are paid too high or too low, but that having got a scale of salaries they should not be affected in a way which would press too heavily upon them at the present time. The cost of living is getting no less, and I do not suppose there are more than a hundred teachers in the Union who are receiving big salaries. They do not receive excessive salaries. They are liveable salaries only, but of a character which will not permit of any luxuries. When those days arrive when milk and honey is flowing through the land, then justice will be done to the teachers. There was satisfaction with the way in which the Minister dealt with the public service, and I do think he should try to use his moral influence with the Administrators that some other system should be enforced rather than a reduction of these people’s salaries. I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name.

I rise at once to say something about the amendment which the hon. member has moved, because I appreciate thoroughly the motive with which he has moved it. It is a thing which must appeal to us all in matters of this sort, the method which has been adopted by the Government in connection with its dealings with its public servants, and which one would like to see carried out elsewhere. But we are getting into a curious atmosphere in this discussion. My hon. friend has always been a supporter of the Provincial Council system.

Yes, I am.

But whatever the Provincial Councils decide to do, or not to do, in this matter is entirely a question for themselves. I make this statement—it is a perfectly simple statement—which expresses the precise position to-day. The hon. member I know is moving this with the sincere endeavour to do justice to the teachers. Let me put this to him: If we were to do what he asks us to do we should be interfering with the discretion of every one of the Provincial Councils.

No! [An Hon. Member: “It is being done now!”]

Yes, at their request. Their request was that we should introduce uniformity, which they could not get by themselves, but they particularly asked us not to interfere with their powers any further. The hon. member seems to think having seen the official Gazette Extraordinary, though 1 may say I have not yet seen it—it has just now been put into my hands—he seems to think that the legislation was introduced, and he seems to think, quite honestly, for the purpose of enabling this being done. By taking out Clause 2, the hon. member would not achieve his object as the Provincial Council of the Cape has got the power, and I do not want to interfere with it. If we were to take up the attitude and say let us scrap the clause, do you think you are putting the teachers in any better position? I say no. You are putting them entirely at the mercy of the Provincial authorities. At the conference with the Provincial Councils the Government was asked to establish the principle of uniformity.

Which conference?

What conference? Has there not been but one conference with the Provincial Councils?

One! There have been four.

The hon. member is speaking of something he knows nothing about. We met all four Provincial! Councils.

Did you all meet together?

Yes, the hon. member knows nothing about what he is talking.

Simultaneously?

Yes.

And also separately?

Yes, we met them together. We did not meet them simultaneously and separately at the same time. We could scarcely do that.

I did not ask if you all met simultaneously.

We met together and discussed the matter in general terms, and, in order to do our business as expeditiously as possible, we decided to examine the finances of each province separately with the provincial representatives. After this we met again and sat together.

Who represented the provinces?

Who did? The Government nominees, I suppose? No, but the Administrators, the hungry jackals, the Administrators and the Executive Committees, the executives of the different provinces in each case. We had first discussed the individual budgets with the different provinces—what would be the good of discussing the budget of the Transvaal with the other provinces sitting there, or the budget of the Cape with the three other provinces? We agreed, as sensible persons, to take the budget of each province separately, and to discuss it with that province, not all together. I want to put this point: there is nothing in this legislation which is either intended or will have the effect of making the position of the teachers any worse than it is at present. If the hon. member was to carry his proposal he would be taking away from the Provincial Councils their rightful and proper power under the Constitution. He proposes that they shall not only have the right of reducing salaries in the time of emergency, but have the right to increase. If the hon. member’s point is carried, the uniformity is at once destroyed. Hon. members will see what will happen. You will have four provinces: one province at one time finds it necessary to reduce; you have another province with abundant funds, and they want to put up the scale, and then you will have the same competition which was the trouble in the past. The provision in regard to reductions is made specifically. The Council or Executive Committee can make the reduction temporarily for one year in the case of emergency.

For one year?

Absolutely under Clause 2, of course, if the Council agree year after year, they can continue to do it, but they are being limited to one year. In time of stress they may reduce for a year, but they cannot make that reduction permanent. If the hon. member’s amendment was carried, the House would be laying down the principle that the increase would be permanent. In other words, the increase would be permanent, while these reductions are intended to be merely temporary. I have been asked by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), whether I used any influence with the Cape Administrator in regard to the announcement in the Cape Gazette. Extraordinary. No, I did not.

What is your real object?

I have often explained the real object. I have been doing so for four days, and I will have to leave it now to the intelligence of the hon. member. I say that in quite a friendly way. I have been explaining for four days, and I must leave it now to the intelligence of the hon. member That is all I want to say. Let me say this, however, in conclusion. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) has explained his motives, and I have very much sympathy with him, as I feel, and we all feel, the desirability of treating these people fairly: but my argument remains the same. At the request of the provincial authorities—we did not urge them or force them in any way—at their request, this thing was done, and this is a matter for the provincial authorities. I hope the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) will not press his amendment.

Die edelagbare die Minister kan seker wees, dat geen onbeskoftheid van hom ons sal weerhou om te weet wat hy bedoel met die twee punte, deur my aangeraak, Dit is tiepies die onopregtheid en gekibbel van die Minister, welke hy soewe weer aan die dag geleg het. Hy het ’n week gelede aan die Komitee vertel, dat die Prowinsiale Raad nie die reg het om vir meer as een jaar wetgewing in te breng nie; maar hy weet so goed as ek, dat dit onwaar is en hy gebruik die argument alleenlik om die mense ’n rad voor die oge te draai. Ek laat my nie vertel, dat ’n man van die skranderheid en met die regskennis van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies nie daarvan oortuig is, wat die betekenis van Artiekel 2 is. Ek sal die Engelse teks voorlees van die gedeelte—

Waar staat dat dit net vir een jaar kan wees? En as die edelagbare die Minister op sy kibbelende manier aangaan en sê, dat dit net vir een jaar gepasseer kan word, dan sê ons ja, so is die Wet deur die Parlement gepasseer van jaar tot jaar. Verander? Wat ’n onsin! Wat ons teen die Minister het, is dat hy nooit die eerlikheid het om eerlik en openlik ’n punt te verdedig nie, of hy kibbel of probeer om te beledig. Ek sou byna wil sê, as dit nie onhoffelik sou wees nie, dat meer ploertagtige gedrag dan van die Minister van Finansies kan ’n mens nie kry nie van enige man van fatsoen nie. Ek vraag die edelagbare die Minister weer, wat is die bedoeling van Artiekel 2; is dit uniformiteit wat hy nastreef of net die gelegenheid tebaat neem om die Prowinsiale Finansies hier deur die Parlement op ’n ander basis te stel, deur reduksies in die salarisse van onderwysers. Die Minister sê, hy wil uniformiteit bewerkstellig en vanmiddag het hy verklaar, dat die Uitvoerende Komitees hom ontmoet het en gevraag, dat hy moet assemblief die salarisse vasstel. Is dit ’n feit of is dit nie een nie,. dat die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal pas ’n besluit geneem het, dat hulle Seksie 2 nie wil hê nie? Waarom dan voortgegaan en daarby gebly, as die oogmerk uniformiteit is? Weer toon dit die onopregtheid van die Minister, wat nie sterk genoeg afgekeur kan word deur die Huis nie in ’n man van fatsoen. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies weet dat die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad dit nie wil hê nie en tog staat hy op en verklaar, dat die Prowinsiale Rade daarom vraag. Daar is net één manier: dit wat hy wil is nie uniformiteit nie, en dit gaat hy ook nie kry nie; nou moet hy neem wat hy nie wil hê nie en dat ons as Parlement moet instap en die Prowinsiale Rade forseer om die onderwysers salarisse te verminder, en sodra as hy verminder het, dan hardloop hy weg van die maatreël om die skaal vas te stel op ’n uniforme basis, want net sodra hy die uniformiteit ingebring het, sê hy: “Doen julle nou maar wat julle wil.” Ek sê nogmaals as die edelagbare die Minister werklik uniformiteit wil kry, dan moet om die twee redes Seksie 2 nie aangeneem word nie. Die eerste rede daarvoor is, dat hy geen uniformiteit kry nie. As hy uniformiteit wil kry, dan moet in die Wet vasgestel word wat die salarisse van die onderwysers moet wees. Maar wat ’n absurditeit om hier te kom sê, dat hy dit nie kan vasstel nie, omdat hy dit dan uit die hand van die Prowinsiale Rade neem. Wat ’n gekke dwaasheid. Die prowinsiale autoriteite—sê die edelagbare die Minister—vra vir ons om die skale vas te stel en dit nie vir vandag vas te stel nie, maar vir goed, en as daar later weer veranderinge moet kom, dan moet die kom by besluit van die Parlement. As dit gedoen word, dan kry ons uniformiteit, maar as ons dit nie doen nie, waar bly dan jou uniformiteit? Ek sê, in die eerste plaas, kry ons geen uniformiteit en daarom moet Artiekel 2 verdwyn. In die twede plaas is ons versoek geword om die skale vas te stel, maar dit word nie in Artiekel 2 gedoen nie.

Our hearts really go out to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) in what he said to the Committee this afternoon, but all I can say is that he should have realized his mistake just 24 hours sooner. The right hon. the Minister of Finance just now in a scornful way said that he had been trying to explain this clause to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), but that really he could not be responsible for the hon. member’s intelligence. Well, may I say this to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) that we are all very much in the same position as he is, because the Minister in this Bill has put before us a very difficult thing for us to grasp. It is a very difficult thing indeed, you have uniformity which is only uniformity which can be varied downwards. It can be varied in one province for one year and in other provinces for several years. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has just suggested a name to me which I think is very apt, he said we should call it a chaotic uniformity. Now chaotic uniformity is a very difficult concept for any of us to grasp. It produces chaos, very great chaos in the minds of the teaching profession of this country. I want to put it to the Minister that he is really regarding us as persons of an almost incomprehensible simplicity if he wants us to accept this. He says he wants us to accept a uniform scale—the provinces want it, but the provinces do not want to be interfered with further than that! Well, on the Minister’s own showing and on the showing of this Gazette., what the provinces wanted is not a uniform scale, what in the public service we call a uniform scale. They wanted this Parliament to take upon itself to lay down a maximum standard and to leave them on their own responsibility to reduce that scale. I would ask the Minister categorically whether that view of uniformity was put to the council of teachers and to the teachers when they met him, was that kind of uniformity put to them, and is not what he proposes a scale which simply lays down a maximum and leaves it free to everyone to reduce below that? Was it in consideration of that amount of uniformity that the teachers agreed to the Natal, Transvaal and Free State scales being reduced? If we are expected to believe that, had the teachers the vaguest idea that that was the interpretation you were going to put on uniformity, it is asking us to swallow a great deal more than I, or most people, can swallow. Let us just examine this. Last year we passed a Public Service Act. The Minister says I want to entrench the teachers by my first amendment. We entrench, in this Public Service Act, the public servants of the Union. In Clause 14 we entrench them in this way. We say—

Does the Government mean to say that a similar ordinance is required in the provinces? No, sir, it is not. There is no ordinance of that sort required under that Bill to effect a reduction such as the hon. the Minister wants; and supposing the Provincial Council disagreed, have they any power of turning out that executive and putting another in its place who will carry their wishes? And in this Bill what will be done?

An ordinance will be required.

Not a special ordinance, as by this Act of Parliament here.

Yes, in the Cape Province.

And when the Government brings in an Act of Parliament to reduce the salaries of all public servants we can turn it out. Can they do the same thing in the Provincial Council? That is just the very salient difference between the two positions, that is one of the principle defects of the machinery of the Provincial Council.

I suppose the Provincial Council can refuse to pass the ordinance.

Yes, they can refuse to vote supplies, but who suffers? The teachers. We did that in the Transvaal, but the Administrator stood firm with the Government behind him; and even if you refuse supplies, you cannot get rid of the Executive Committee. It is a very poor plan indeed.

It is not refusing supplies; they can refuse to pass the ordinance.

Of course, that is refusing to pass the ordinance.

Rubbish!

Does the hon. the Minister mean to tell me that there has to be a special ordinance passed in the same way as this Act of Parliament contemplated here?

In the Cape, yes.

And in the Transvaal?

In the Transvaal it is the Executive Committee or the Administrator.

Exactly. This is another part of this chaotic uniformity; it makes it so easy! Then take the hon. the Minister’s plea: that we are denouncing economy. For my part I am denouncing the sort of mean economy which will try and put a special tax on the teachers of this country and on the poor man because you have them under your thumb, rather than raise the tax to carry the services of the country from those who are better fitted to bear them. The hon. the Minister, I know, takes another view. The hon. the Minister is always looking out for someone who cannot squeal, but we on these benches take a very different view. Then the hon. the Minister says by this amendment one is trying to override the Provincial Council. That is the most specious of arguments. He knows it perfectly well, and he assures us that the executives of all the Provincial Councils desire this uniformity. Then they must stand by the consequences of the grant of the uniformity they have asked for. If they want us to lay down in this House that the maxima shall be fixed, then we have a right to see the teachers are treated on all-fours with the public servants and not in one province reduced, in another reduced still more; in another province reduced by one year, and in another province reduced by three years. Of all the utterly misleading, I would go still further, the Minister knows perfectly well when he said that this Bill only gave the power to reduce for one year, that it was not a true statement of the case. This Bill gives to any Provincial Council the right to reduce in any year or any number of years if they so choose. There is no sort of limitation, and I say that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) did not know what he was voting for yesterday; he was voting under a misapprehension, and I wonder how many other members over there were under the same impression. They are hurt, but they will be very dazed after this, and they have an opportunity now to rectify that error. They can make it a little bit fairer. The Provincial Councils ask for uniformity on the same lines as the public servants of the Union, and hon. members have an opportunity of playing the game by the teachers in this country and placing them in the same position as the public servants, and not under the power of the Provincial Councils. I am glad to see we are going to have the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Buchanan) speaking, because he perhaps also will say he voted under a misapprehension.

I would just like to point out that the hon. member who has just spoken and lectured us upon our misapprehensions is himself under a misapprehension. All this fogging misapprehension has made him take the view he has given us. He seems to think, and it seems that other members of this House are under this impression also, that subsection (2) is giving power to the Provincial Councils to do what the sub-section says; but I would like to draw the attention of the House to this fact that it says—

Exactly!

That means they have the power apart from this section.

The other people have been reduced to conform to this standard of maximum.

The reason why this is put in this way is that any such reduction shall not be blocked by Section 86 of the South Africa Act. That is why it says that if the Provincial Council does reduce salaries as they now can, then they shall not be met with the assertion that their ordinance is void under Section 86 as being repugnant to this Act of Parliament. It is only for this reason that this subsection is put in. So the misapprehension is on the part of the hon. member when he seems to think that this sub-section (2) expands, limits or does away, in any shape or form, with the power now possessed by the Provincial Councils.

The hon. member has made it quite clear!

If I have not made it clear to some hon. members over there, it is perhaps that they have not studied the South Africa Act, and they do not really see why the sub-section is put in this way. However, one thing is perfectly clear, and that arises from what has been said by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) himself, and that is that when he was lecturing us upon the misapprehension we had fallen into, he himself was labouring under most dire misapprehension as to the reason for an effect of this particular sub-section of this particular Bill. That is perfectly clear. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) may not now be clear on that point, as he very probably is as fogged on that matter as his leader. I will get a sledge hammer and chisel, and if the hon. member comes outside, and argument fails, I will then use the sledge hammer and chisel upon him. At first sight I was at one time taken with this argument regarding the maintenance of uniformity for teachers in all provinces. But this will have the effect of taking out of the authority of the Provincial Councils the power to act for their own purposes. I cannot understand the inconsistency of hon. members on the other side of the House when they want to delete this subsection, while they also say that they want us to leave all the power which the Provincial Councils have still in their hands. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) says: “Leave Natal alone; do not interfere with Natal at all,” and when we follow out that principle of not interfering with the power of the Provincial Councils, except in so far as they have definitely asked us, with a befogging inconsistency which arises from amongst members opposite, they still misapprehend the position. I hope that the teachers will realize that they are under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Councils, and that they are paid by the Provincial Councils to a large extent from funds locally raised. They should feel, therefore, that that being the case, when in any province the state of affairs is such that bona fide and honestly a Provincial Council comes to the opinion that it is, unfortunately, necessary to reduce the hard-earned and very well-earned salaries of the teachers, then the teachers should remember that if they do not accept this in times of stress, that a certain portion of their earnings—and my remarks apply more especially to those yearly increments—must come out of the pockets of the clerks in commercial and office life and from the professional people, who do not always make the large incomes which some people seem to think. It is these people who have to bear the brunt during times of stress, for the purpose of making good these increments and scales of salaries which the teachers want to cling to. If they would only think that the maintaining in times of stress of these salaries and increments means that these salaries and increments are wrung by taxation from the pockets of the clerks in commercial and office life, who have reduced salaries and get no increments, they would take up a different attitude.

I dissent from the interpretation which the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has placed upon the remarks which I made last evening. What I really said was: If I thought that this Bill was going to do the teachers an injury I would not support it.” I also intimated last night that I intended moving an amendment in Clause 2. I would like to ask the Minister if he talks about uniformity why, if there is going to be an increase, should there not be uniformity. Let us suppose in the financial year for 1923 7½ per cent. was taken off the teachers’ salaries, then in 1924 there is nothing to prevent another 7½ per cent. being taken off. That would mean 15 per cent. If the Provincial Councils have the power to do this sort of thing, why should we be put in the disagreeable position when it is said that we would not give the Council the money they required? Why should we have this responsibility thrust upon us? I quite see that salaries will only be reduced in times of necessity, but the longer some of us live, the greater our necessities become, and so it may be with the Provincial Councils. Why does not the hon. the Minister accept my little amendment, and complete the change he says he is going to make? It means that this House has emphasized the principle that if there is to be a reduction during times of stress, then when more prosperous times come for the country there should also be an increase. Let it go forward that this House is not simply a House for pulling down, but also a House for lifting up. The teachers ought to be dealt with in the same way as the civil service. If the Provincial Councils are in such a necessitous position, why should the teachers be selected for a reduction in their salaries? Why should not others in higher positions be selected? When times were hard during the war, Ministers themselves consented to £500 being taken off their salaries, and the same thing should apply here. Everybody in the Provincial service should be placed on the same level.

Before I go any further, may I just move a similar amendment in line 45 to that which I moved in line 42—

I am sure that hon. members opposite will be glad to hear that they have made some impression on me. I want to point out to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown), and to other members, that as the Bill stands in its present form they would be bound down to make their emergency reduction for one year. Of course if the Council makes the reduction for one year, and the Council in the next year is still in a necessitous condition, and they are prepared to repeat this, it is left to them. Although, personally, I am inclined to think this is sufficiently clear in the section, I am prepared to make it still clearer. I therefore moved after the word “make,” in line 47, to insert “for that year”. I am afraid that this would not be really appreciated, and I also say that all the talk goes for nothing. Hon. members came along and stated that I had deliberately tried to mislead the House and the Committee, and I am now trying to make it clear that whatever the Council in its discretion might do, they will be forced to bring this in every year, and have their action subject to the criticism of the members every year. I cannot go any further. By doing that I am interfering with the constitutional privileges of the Provincial Councils. I am taking over their responsibilities by doing it. In order to make it quite clear that the reduction is in the case of emergency and for one year only, I move the amendment.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Buchanan) made a heart-rending appeal to the teachers to realize their public duty. What attitude did the hon. member’s professional brothers take when it came to a question of the fees of the legal profession in the Cape when the Government wanted to reduce their fees in connection with legal proceedings. Then they went on strike.

The hon. member must be sure of his facts.

The members of the profession in the Transvaal did not go on strike but the Cape members went on strike, so that the Government had to increase the fees before the work was carried out. The hon. member appears to be worried, but we on this side of the House are prepared to admit that they have more brains over there than we have. The hon. members on the other side of the House have a great deal more brains than we have. Sheep have got more brains than ants, but the sheep is a stupid animal, and the ant is a clever insect. I am sorry that the right hon. the Minister of Finance is not in his place, as I want to ask him a question.

He is getting coached.

I want to ask the right hon. the Minister if he will tell us in which province will the authority rest with the Administrator, and in which will it rest with the Executive Committee or the Council, whichever the case may be; whether with the Executive Committee as a whole or the Administrator? As far as the Transvaal is concerned, the Transvaal Administrator has tremendous powers. He is the “Poo Bah” of the Transvaal, and that is the reason why the Provincial Council has failed to do its duty. We have not local government there. If we adopt Clause 2 in the different provinces the power would be in the hands of the Public Service Commission and not in the hands of the Provincial Council; you are taking away the power from them. You are taking away from them the power in connection with the salaries of the teachers, and the House is also interfering with them and also in the interest they would take in the education of the children of the country. You are taking away the powers of the Provincial Council, and laying down a maximum scale. Why not leave the Councils power to say that the salaries shall be raised or reduced in any case? Now if the right hon. the Minister had not interfered with the powers of the Provincial Councils to regulate the salaries of their own teachers according to their own ideas, there would be no demand from the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) in connection with this amendment, and where the right hon. the Minister pooh-poohs the idea of entrenching the salaries of the teachers, I say the right hon. the Minister is himself to blame for interfering with the rights of the Provincial Councils to raise or lower the salaries of their own employees. The right hon. the Minister goes on and twits members of this House who have been staunch defenders of the Provincial Councils in the past with now wanting to take away some of their powers. The right hon. the Minister poses before us as a great defender, a great champion of their rights, and he says that we must allow the Provincial Councils to manage their own affairs. It is most amusing, after the right hon. the Minister and the Cabinet have been interfering with the rights of the Provincial Councils year after year in managing their own affairs, he comes and tells us now that he wants them to manage their own affairs. We all know that continually ordinances have been passed through here to curtail the powers of the Provincial Councils in the interests of the big financial houses, and not in the interests of the people at all. And now the right hon. the Minister comes and tells us that we must allow them to manage their own affairs! I want to rebut the statements made by the right hon. the Minister and by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset)—very old statements—to the effect that the Provincial Councils have been extravagant. When we challenged the right hon. the Minister and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) to tell us where they have been extravagant, all they could say was: “Read the report.” Well, will they tell us where in this report it says that they have been extravagant on education? No, the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) puts one in mind of the brilliant advocate who had to appear in court to defend a criminal whom he knew to be guilty, and he did his best and put up the best case he could; but if the hon. member will refer to page 18 of the report, under the heading of “Extravagance,” he can see what the Commission says. They state that the increase in expenditure is out of proportion to the increase of population. But what do they say then? They say that the causes are the increase in the public appreciation of education. That is the cause! Is that extravagant? Then under “B” they give higher cost of services, such as teachers’ salaries as one of the causes. Is that extravagant? Will the right hon. the Minister say that the scales of teachers’ salaries in the past have been on the extravagant side? Authorities certainly do not bear that out. Then under “C” the Commission says the general increase in prices during the last few years which have caused greater expenditure for all materials and the higher cost of living are causes. Who has been responsible for the increase in the cost of material during the war, when the manhood of the nation was away fighting? I say the profiteers have been responsible, and I say that it is not due to the Provincial Councils. The cost of materials has increased to them as well as to everyone else. And then the report says the cost of transport in the sparsely-populated parts of the country is one of the causes. It is necessary, in order to collect the children in the sparsely-populated parts of the country, to provide transport, otherwise it will not be possible for the children to get to school. Is that extravagant? Will the hon. member say that that is extravagant? Then under “E” the Commission says the competition between the various provinces is another cause. Well, we have dealt with that before. And then under “F” the development of bilingualism. And they say that the cost of the bilingual system is difficult to gauge, but it is considerable. The justification is so evident that it must be accepted cheerfully as a necessary burden, but will the hon. member say that because the increase is due to bilingualism that therefore we must do away with that? I challenge the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset), in spite of his brilliant speech, to back it up with facts and figures, and I challenge the right hon. the Minister to do the same. And another thing I want to point out is that in this Commission Report it is said that the figures and percentages they give have been extremely difficult to get, and it has been practically impossible for them to formulate accurate comparisons owing to the fact that they cannot get accurate information. In different parts of this report they say it is impossible for them to compare South Africa with Australia, or any other part of the British Empire, and it is practically impossible to compare one province with another in order to arrive at a correct idea of the position.

I have to interrupt the hon. member and to point out that his time is up.

Mr. HAVENGA moved—

I support the amendment that the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has moved and beg to draw the attention of this House to the fact that there have been reasons put before this House why they should support the amendment, but I will make an addition, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to one or two further facts. Not only is it a fact that they are going to reduce the teachers’ salaries by £98,000 (suspension of increases £40,000, reduction £58,000), but they are also going to reduce the money paid to the teachers by a further £25,000. Now it has for a large number of years been the custom where a teacher was appointed to a post or where he was transferred from one position to another, that his salary should date from the beginning of the quarter. What do we find? It is suggested in the Gazette Extraordinary we have had before us this afternoon, that the Provincial Councils would further take from the teachers this £25,000, now they will only pay them from the time they start teaching, or in other words, it has been customary in the past for the teacher to be appointed to a position dating from the 1st January. Now we know full well that a large number of the schools do not commence until February, and the result will be that these teachers will only be paid two months’ salary instead of a full quarter. Not only are you reducing the teachers’ Salaries, but you are depriving them of the legitimate salary which they should get, because when all is said and done we pay them not only for the time they are teaching, but for the time they are on vacation. This £25,000 will not only be taken away from those who will be transferred from one position to another, but all new teachers appointed in the future will not receive their full salaries, as a portion will be deducted until the time the school commences. Another matter I would like to draw attention to is this: we have had the right hon. the Minister of Finance and the majority of hon. members on the other benches quoting and giving us extracts, stating that the public service were reduced, and that the teachers should be reduced proportionately, but, they do not mention that the public service officers were entitled to leave, and they were offered that leave practically every year, but what happens with the teacher? Out of 283 applications for leave what do we find? We find that owing to the amount allotted to cover the expenses of teachers on furlough, there were only 50 allowed to go on furlough, and only those who had had 20 years’ service and had not been on furlough for a period of ten years. Is there any member of the public service who has suffered under these grievances. Is there any member of the public service who has not had furlough for 10 years, and who to get furlough, must have been in the service of the Government for 20 years. The teachers, I hold, are not only a very low-paid body, but they have also grievances far in excess of any other section who are employed by the State. As I mentioned, we are going to rob them of a further £25,000, and we are also refusing to give them furlough unless they have not had it for ten years previous. I think that after all is said and done we might play the game in regard to these men and women who are giving of their best to the service of the State, and if you are going to treat them on the basis of the public service, then why not give them all the advantages enjoyed by all the members of the public service, and when they transfer from one position to another their salaries should carry on as though they were still in the same position. Or in other words, you have no right to deduct that part of their salary, which belongs to them, from the time they are appointed until the school opens. They have also the right to obtain the same leave or furlough as is granted to members of the public service. I realize it may be difficult to do so, but if it is difficult to do this, do not reduce their salaries, and although the public service have had their salaries reduced, the teachers have other grievances which should be considered, and by reason of this, their salaries should be kept at the present scale. I hope the amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) will be carried, and that justice will be done to the teachers.

I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), because I believe that it will make, if this Clause 2 is left in the Bill, for the uniformity which everyone apparently seems to desire. But I think we can go further, and I wish to move certain other amendments. I want to move an amendment to the amendment of the right hon. the Minister of Finance, so that any change in salary will be in the hands, not of the Executive Committee but of the Provincial Council, and in that respect, at any rate, we will be able to have uniformity right throughout the Union. Then, in sub-section (2) the words “or its Executive Committee should be deleted. That will mean no change in the salaries of the teachers will be made except by the Provincial Councils in each province. There is another point which I think provision should be made for, if we seek uniformity, and that is the service of a teacher in one province to be recognized in another province. For that reason I wish to move as an amendment a further proviso—

If this Clause 2 of the Bill is to be passed by this House then, with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) and these amendments which I now move, I think we will have something like uniformity. The uniformity which is proposed by the right hon. the Minister in the clause as it stands at present in the Bill is no uniformity at all, and as has been said by previous speakers, there is no object in this Clause at all.

Ek moet se dat na die weiering van die edelagbare die Minister vanmiddag, om die lede van hierdie Huis in staat te stel om bekend te raak met die besluite van daardie konferensie, om presies te weet wat ooreengekom is, sal edele lede in ’n baie moeilike posisie wees. Sover ons nou gegaan het, blyk dit dat die enigste regverdiging vir hierdie seksie van die Wet is, dat die Uitvoerende Komitees aan die Regering gevra het, om n Wet in te bring met eenvormige salarisskale. Dis die enigste regverdiging. As dit nie was nie, dan sou die Huis seker tweemaal dink, voordat hy ’n Wet van die aard sou passeer, waardeur die konstitusionele regte van die Prowinsiale Rade aangetas word. Ek dink, dat dit duidelik geblyk het uit die debat, dat wat uniformiteit betref, die gaat ons gladnie kry nie. Selfs die vurigste voorstanders van die Wet, en selfs die edelagbare die Minister sal nou nie meer volhou nie, dat ons onder die Wet uniforiteit gaan kry nie. Daar het miskien nog tot gisteraand enige twyfel bestaan oor die punt, maar na wat ons vandag gesien het, na die kennisgewing van die Prowisiale Administrasie van die Kaap kan daaroor geen twyfel meer bestaan nie. Die Administrasie sê dat hulle al daadlik die bestaande salarisskale gaan verminder en dan gaat ons dus die posisie kry, dat binnekort die outoriteite van die Kaap afwyk van die skale wat vasgestel word, terwyl die noordelike provinsies, sê b.v. die Transvaal, die skale gaat behou. Wat gaat gebeur? Baie onderwysers gaat na die noorde trek, waar die kondisies beter is. Wat kom dan van die uniformiteit terug? Dieselfde toestand van konkurrensie en kompctisie wat ons wil stopset, gaat ons weer kry en die groot doel wat ons wil bereik, gaat ons glad nie bereik nie, en die planne om uniformiteit te kry, gaat absoluut in duie val. As dit dan so is, dan kan ons billik aan die edelagbare die Minister vra: Wat voer hy dan eientlik in sy skild, waarom is hy so hardnekkig en insisteer hy so, om die artiekel deur die Huis te kry? Welk reg het die Huis om hom te meng in prowinsiale aangeleenthede, wat ons doen as ons die Wet passeer? Waarom verwyt die edelagbare die Minister edele lede van die Huis dat hulle onder die omstandighede hulle verset teen ’n inmenging in prowinsiale aangeleenthede? Ons wil ’n billike reeling kry vir die onderwysers. Ek weier om mag te gee aan die Regering of aan die Publieke Dienskommissie of aan die Uitvqerende Komitee om van tyd tot tyd na willekeur die salarisse van onderwysers vas te stel. As die Huis verantwoordelik is, dan moet die salarisse deur wet vasgestel word en dan moet die salarisse alleen deur wet verander kan word. Anders gaat ons die posiesie kry, dat die Huis verantwoordelik gestel word vir wat later gaat plaasvind, dat die Huis verantwoordelik sal wees vir onbillike salarisskale. Die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys het gesê, dat die skale wat in die Blouboek word voorgestel, gaat nie die finale skale wees nie en dat in hierdie Wet ook geen skaal vasgelê word. Dis heeltemaal reg. Maar ons moet aanneem, dat die Publieke Dienskommissie alleen na grondig ondersoek tot die skale gekom het en dat dit baie onwaarskynlik is, dat die Regering in enig belangrik opsig die skale wat aanbeveel is, gaat verander, dat die Regering nie op die basis gaat werk nie. Wat kry ons nou, as ons die mag gee aan die Regering om van tyd tot tyd die skale te verander? Dit, dat die beheer oor onderwys word weggeneem van die prowinsiale outoriteite, want die man wat die beurs het, wat die skale vasstel, het die mag. Deur die skale so laag te stel, gaat ons b.v. daadlik plattelandse skole en dorpsskole affekteer. Ons het nog geen antwoord gekry op die ernstige beswaar, dat ons word in staat gestel, om baie effektief uit te voer die aanbevelings van die Baxter-rapport. Wat gaat ons kry? Skole moet ten-minste 20 leerlinge hê, voordat die miniemum-salaris aan die onderwyser word betaal. Die gevolg gaat wees, dat ’n groot aantal skole van die platteland sal moet sluit. Dis maar net nodig, dat die edelagbare die Minister die voorgestelde skale gaat goedkeur, om dit te bereik. En wat is die posiesie van die onderwysers? Die aanvangsalaris vir ’n mannelike onderwyser gaat wees £135—en vir ’n vrouelike persoon £120. Nou wil ek net die edelagbare die Minister vra of hy onderwysers en onder Vyseresse gaat kry van enige betekenis teen so’n betaling. [Een Edele Lid: “Watter persone moet ons hê”?] Ons verwag onderwysers wat in staat is om kinders op te voed. Ons kan tog nie weer terug gaan tot die ou toestande, toe ons as onderwysers weggelope matrose en dergelyke gehad het nie. Maar die miniemum salaris van £135, sal nog nie eens altoos betaal word nie. Die aanbeveling van die rapport is, dat as daar nie 20 kinders is nie, dan sal die miniemum-salaris nie betaal word nie, maar dan sal andere planne gemaak moet word. Dit beteken dus, dat in proporsie die salaris minder sal wees. Dit word duidelik gesê in die klousule van die rapport. Die beswaar is so ernstig, dat ek nie kan dink, dat edele lede die groot mag gaat lê in hande van die Regering, dat die Regering feitelik in hande het die vasstelling van salarisse en die kontrôle oor die onderwys, wat tuis behoor by die prowinsiale outoriteite. Daar is hier gesê, dat die Regering baie simpatiek staan teenoor die aanbevelinge van die Baxter-Rapport, wat voorgestaan word deur die Kamers van Koophandel. Die edelagbare die Minister erken, dat sy doel is om te besuinig. Maar onder hierdie Wet gaat ons ’n baie grote mag in hande van die Regering lê, om die politiek voorgestel in die rapport uit te voer. Dis ’n wesentlike gevaar en daarom behoor lede hulle te wag om te stem vir hierdie artiekel, want dit het duidelik geblyk uit die debat, dat uniformiteit nie bereik word nie en die konstitusionele regte van die Prowinsiale Rade word aangeraak.

The debate shows, I think, to the whole of this House that the teachers’ contention that faith has been broken with them is justified. The right hon. the Minister on the 29th of March, 1923, speaking on his Budget, said—

After that the right hon. the Minister arranged for the teachers to have a conference with the Public Service Commission, and they came to an agreement. The teachers were prepared to forego certain privileges which they enjoyed in order to come to a uniform scale which the right hon. the Minister was anxious for. Now the first thing he does is to deliberately go back on that understanding with the teachers by saying he did not intend to interfere with the fixing of their salaries by the Provincial Council. I for one would like to see this matter of the education of our children made a national service. The right hon. the Minister said that he was not going to interfere in any way with the Provincial Administration, after making the definite promise I have referred to the men. I for one am not surprised, but the trusting teachers are. They have a legitimate grievance. Again, after saying that he was not going to interfere with the Provincial Council when the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) proposed an amendment, he agrees to interfere, even to the extent of breaking the Constitution, but for one year only. We know what the right hon. the Minister means when he states he is going to the extent of breaking the Constitution. That was merely a myth. It was only another piece of eye-wash, but, of course, he is prepared to do it. What we ask is this. Seeing that the teachers understood that the Government was going to protect them in connection with their salaries, which are largely covered by the subsidy given by the Government to the Provincial Councils, the Government immediately reduces the subsidy, as they did with regard to the agricultural societies, leaving these bodies right in the air. They will do the same with the teachers when they decide on more economy—the teachers will suffer. The right hon. the Minister said, in connection with this Bill, that the mines did not like it. I do not think the mines care tuppence, as mine taxation has been taken out of the hands of the Provincial Councils; they cannot tax the mines. The mines are indifferent, but the teachers are not indifferent, and I do not think the House should be indifferent. We have heard hon. members from the other side saying, “We feel sure nothing is going to be done,” but something has been done. We have heard it announced from the Administrator of the Cape Province that he is going to touch the teachers pecuniarily for about £30,000; in all, £80,000 is to be cut from the salaries of the teachers, and the right hon. the Minister says we are going to have uniformity. I think that unless the right hon. the Minister agrees to the amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), then the teachers in this country will have a perfect right to say that the Government has broken faith With them, that the Government had no intention of keeping faith with them, and that they were led into a trap by the talk of uniformity.

I have been listening to this debate on this clause this afternoon, and also on the second reading, and I have been wondering if we were dealing with financial relations at all. If the compiler of Webster’s Dictionary had been sitting in the Press Gallery he certainly would not have known whether we were dealing with financial relations or with anything else. I should say that this particular clause deals with almost anything but financial relations. I should like to refer this House to section 118 of the Act of Union, which says that the Governor-General-in-Council can as soon as may be after the establishment of Union appoint a Commission to institute an inquiry into the financial relations which should exist between the Union and the provinces. I daresay that that Commission was also to inquire into the relations between the provinces themselves, but the point I want to make is this— what has the question of financial relations to do with the question of teachers’ salaries? I submit that this matter has nothing to do with it. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that this is not what the Act of Union meant. We have an example in the references to the two Commissions, which have gone into this matter of financial relations, of the Government change of front. I am going to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether Clause 2 has anything to do with this? I shall read the title of the Bill: “Bill to amend further the Financial Relations Act, 1913 (Act No. 10 of 1913), and further to regulate the financial relations between the Union and the several provinces thereof.” I want to know whether Clause 2 comes within these terms. Since 1920 we have been accustomed to look upon it as quite proper to limit first of all the powers of the Provincial Councils to tax natives or gold mines or minerals. I submit that under the terms of reference of the Commission of 1912, on which the Act of 1913 was framed, this matter dealt with in Clause 2 could not be brought in. The terms of reference of that Commission are perfectly proper. These terms read—

and then it gives a number of points such as the existing sources of taxation, any new sources of direct taxation, etc. Now if we compare that with the terms of reference in the next report—I am not surprised at the Baxter Report when one reads that. They are limited in their enquiry, they cannot enquire into the whole position. They are told there that they are appointed a Commission to enquire into and report upon the following matters—

These are briefly the terms. Now that does not seem to be a question of financial relations at all. The Commission is purely limited to enquire into the sources of revenue which the provinces are entitled to use. No wonder they do not report on the question whether it is proper to tax gold or natives, because by law they are forbidden. They are to enquire into the sources of revenue at present existing. The question of defining the powers of the Provincial Councils in respect of those who are in their service or in respect even of the Provincial Councils’ power of taxation, is not a financial relation between the Union and the Provinces. I admit that Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 may be, they follow on the Act of 1913, but Clause 2 is a definite limitation of the powers of the Provincial Councils in dealing with their servants. I represent the Transvaal Province. I do not think this is a proper procedure, and I would rather see the powers extended than limited. But we should let the public know what we are doing. We are limiting the powers of the Councils. We are trying to throttle them, but to bring this in here as a matter of financial relations, that is wrong, and therefore I wish to ask your ruling. I want to ask your ruling as to whether or not Clause 2 comes properly within the title of this Bill. You will see that the title says: “To amend further the Financial Relations Act, 1913, and further to regulate the financial relations between the Union and the several provincies thereof.” This should be purely a Financial Relations Bill. There is no reference at all to teachers or any powers of the Provincial Councils to deal with their servants or their powers to diminish or increase their salaries. The Act does not deal with that question at all. It deals with totally different matters, whether they should remain taxing bodies, how far must the Union Government assist them, how far may they tax themselves to meet their expenditure. Those are the matters which the Act deals with. Now we have a Bill here which refers directly to Section 118 of the Act of Union, but it does not in Clause 2 have any relation to the matters dealt with in that section. Section 118 of the Act of Union says that, pending the completion of the inquiry to be made and until Parliament otherwise provides, there shall be paid annually out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Administrator of each province certain amounts which are laid down there. There is provision there for an inquiry into the relations between the Union and the provinces. The report was brought up, and it was a very broad report. The Act of 1913 was the outcome. That was purely a Financial Relations Act, but there is not a word there about teachers or teachers’ salaries in any way or about their powers in regard to teachers’ salaries. Now this Bill comes and refers directly to the Act of 1913, and then followed these other words: “Further to regulate the financial relations between the Union and the other provinces.” I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that the question whether a province can deal with its own servants is not a question of financial relations between the (provinces and the Union, and therefore I ask whether this clause is in order?

I should have thought that we need not really have raised a question about this. The position of affairs, before this Bill was introduced, in the relations between the Union and the provinces was that the provinces had complete control of all financial matters regarding the teachers’ salaries and the scale of salaries. We now come here and say that the Union Parliament shall fix such salaries by this Bill. That seems a very evident alteration of financial relations, and it does not seem worth looking—

It is an amendment of the Constitution.

No! At any rate, that is the view I take.

I understand the hon. member to raise the point that under the words “and further to regulate the financial relations between the Union and the several provinces thereof,” it is not competent for this Committee to consider any clause dealing with the relations between the provinces and its servants. Is that the point?

Or the power to fix their emoluments.

May I just put the point?

I think it is very clear. It becomes very clear when I refer the Chair to Section 118 and Section 85 of the Act of Union. In Section 85 we have laid down the powers of the Provincial Councils. Section 118 deals exclusively with the financial side, with the relations between the Union and the provinces, and it lays down that a Commission has to be appointed, etc., and as soon as the Commission has brought out its report, Parliament will regulate the financial relations between the two. Now the contention of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. van Hees) is that Clause 2 does not affect Section 118 of the Constitution at all. Clause 2 affects Section 85 of the Act of Union. In other words, it is nothing more than a derogation of the powers given under Section 85 to the Provincial Councils. Nothing more. This Bill now before the House contemplates doing nothing more than to regulate, or to assist in further regulating, the financial relations between the Union and the provinces, in other words to affect the provisions under Section 118. Nothing more. And Clause 2 therefore is not covered by the title. It deals with a totally different matter, namely the powers of the Provincial Councils, which powers are being lessened by the provisions here in Clause 2, namely, that in future not the provinces shall have the right of fixing the salaries of teachers, but that power, because a power it is, shah in future be a power in the hands of the Union Government. That is not covered by the title.

The title of the Bill, which is “to amend further the Financial Relations Act, 1913 (Act No. 10 of 1913), and further to regulate the financial relations between the Union and the several provinces thereof,” is, in my opinion, sufficiently wide to cover the clause under consideration, and since the principle of the Bill has been affirmed by the House at the second reading, I do not think I would be justified in ruling out the clause.

I would suggest that the question be put to Mr. Speaker, and move—

Will the hon. member please submit his point in writing?

Motion put and agreed to.

House resumed.

stated the point which had arisen in Committee, and that the Committee desired to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling thereon, and that he had accordingly been ordered to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The position I have raised seems to be an exceedingly important one. We have been accustomed here for quite a number of years now to bring in a Bill and then put provisions into it, and here we have one before us now which really seems, to my mind, to be an amendment of the powers of Provincial Councils and derogating from their powers. It purports to be an amendment, from the title, of the Financial Relations Act of 1913. Reference to that Act will show that that Act is purely an Act dealing with financial relations. Nowhere in the Act will you see any reference to the powers of Provincial Councils, dealing with its servants or dealing with the emoluments of its servants. All matters of the internal powers of these bodies are dealt with under Section 85 of the South Africa Act, and the question before us is whether or not under such a title you could amend now, to embody into the Act, matters which are really derogatory, or, rather, amendments of the internal powers of such provinces. It is not now only the question of teachers. If once the principle is established we can see that a Financial Relations Act from time to time will be used as the means by which we will be amending the powers of Provincial Councils. That was not the intention of the Act of Union, and I do not think we ought to allow—

The hon. member’s question to me is whether Clause 2 of the Bill is covered by the title?

Yes, but one has, in order to make one’s point clear, to point out why that particular section is not within the purview of this Bill.

Does the hon. member argue that it is outside the scope of the Bill?

I say it cannot be argued that it comes within the frame of the Bill. I say it is a constitutional amendment, and is not a question of financial relations. Section 118 of the Act of Union provides for the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the financial relations existing between the Union and the provinces.

Will the hon. member confine himself to the point which he has raised? He now raises a much bigger question.

I submit that it is a big question, although it may be very small now.

The hon. member argues whether the House has the power to amend section 85 of the South Africa Act?

I think the House has the power. What I want to argue is, that this particular section cannot be discussed under this Bill. It would be a wrong practice and it would not be covered by the title of this Bill. You can only decide whether or not it is by deciding whether this is properly a subject of financial relations. Assume that they put a section in there, saying that the provinces will in future be entirely abolished. Let us assume that a section like that had been put into the Bill to make provision for the payment of their debts, to make provision for the liquidation of the provincial debt, and they put a provision in that the Provincial Councils are hereby abolished. Would that be financial relations? It clearly could not be discussed under such a Bill. Now, that is an extreme case, but now we have one which says do not abolish the Provincial Council, but it is going along that road. It does not seem to be a matter of financial relations at all. If the title made provision for uniformity of emoluments of teachers, then we would know that we were dealing with emoluments. It all depends what are your views of financial relations; what is the position as between the Union and the finances of the provinces? Who must pay the bill of the administration? For three years the Union Government paid it; that was a question of financial relations, but if the provinces prior to Union owed one another any money, how should that be adjusted then in regard to financial relations?

I would refer the hon. member to the title of the 1913 Act.

This is not a question of additional functions, it is a limitation of the powers of the Provincial Council. By amending the 1913 Act we are limiting their powers.

It seems to me that the hon. member argues on a broader basis. The real point he has raised—

Ek dag, dat die edelagbare die Minister nog iets sou sê oor die saak.

Ek dag, dat niemand meer sou spreek nie, daarom ging ek daartoe oor om mij regeling te gee.

Ek het die edelagbare die Minister dit gevraag, maar daar gaat so lank tyd mee heen, dat ek nie geloof, dat hy nog sal antwoord nie. Ek wens die pleit na te gaan, voordat u die beslissing gee. Want ek submitteer, dat die, edele lid vir Christiana (de hr. van Hees) gelyk het. Ons het hier ’n Wetsontwerp om “Verder de Finansiële Verhoudings Wet, 1913 (Wet No. 10 van 1913) te wiizigen en de finansiële verhoudingen tussen de Unie en de onderscheidene provinsies daarvan verder te regelen.” Twee doele word gestel ten eerste, die Wet No. 10 van 1913 te wysig en ten twede die finansiële verhoudinge tussen die Unie en sy verskeie provinsies te regel. Nou wil ons eers kyk of belasting onder finansiële verhouding val. Daar is hoegenaamd niks van finansiële verhouding in Artiekel 2 nie; nie die minste nie, net die teenoorgestelde. Dit slaat alleen op wat genoem word in Artiekel 85 van die Unie Grondwet en dit handel oor die magte, onder Artiekel 85 aan die Provinsiale Rade deur die Unie Akte toegeken en hierdie Wetsontwerp ontneem aan die Provinsiale Rade wat onder Artiekel 85 toegekend is aan hulle. Die Minister het vanoggend geseg, dat die finansiële verhoudinge niks met finansiële sake te doen het nie, maar onder Artiekel 85 word die reg vir die Provinsiale Rade gegee om onderwys te administreer en dit word nou ontneem in Artiekel 2. Dus dit val nie onder die tweede deel van die seksie nie; laat ons sien of dit onder die eerste val. Wet No. 10 van 1913 wys aan wat finansiële verhouding in die Wet meen: “tot vaststelling en regeling van de finansiële verhouding tussen de Unie en de provinsies.” Maar daar staat niks van in om aan die provinsies hulle regte te ontneem nie. Tot sover was dit tydelik. Laat ons terugkom en sien wat seg hierdie Wetsontwerp: “Om de Finansiële Verhoudings Wet, 1913 te wijzigen.” Dit is nie ’n tydelike wysiging nie, maar ’n Wet. In die Wet van 1913 is geen enkele voorsiening gemaak, wat in die minste aangeraak word deur Artiekel 2 nie.

Ek is van oordeel, dat Artiekel 2 val binne die sfeer van Wet No. 10 van 1913.

Stel, dat dit aangenome word, dan sou ons die Grondwet net kan wysig soas ons wil. Artiekel 2 kan niks wysig in die Wet van 1913 nie. Daarom beweer ek dat die edele lid vir Christiana (de hr. van Hees) gelyk het, as hy beweer, dat Artiekel 2 val buitekant die titel van die Wetsontwerp en mag nie deur ons bespreek word nie.

I just wish to say a word or two about this matter. I submit the point of view put by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. van Hees) and the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) takes too limited a view altogether of financial relations. Financial relations between the Union and the provinces are not merely a question of subsidies; there are a thousand and one points on financial arrangements. What is a financial arrangement between the Union and the provinces? If you look at the Act of 1913 and this Bill of ours to-day, you will find there are a number of different kinds of things which have nothing to do with the exact relations of subsidies between the provinces and the Union. Look at Clause 1 of this Bill. It says that the provinces may build roads and bridges above a certain limit of value out of loans instead of revenue. What has that to do with Union? But I put the point to you that this is a distinct question of financial relations. Hitherto the principle on which subsidies were paid was that of the £ for £ system. In the last few years owing to financial stress, that principle has been departed from. If that principle were restored next year the question of the scales of teachers’ salaries would have a vital bearing. Since Union the Government has given the provinces certain subsidies. It was entirely within the rights of the provinces to say how they were going to pay teachers’ salaries, how much, what the scale was to be or whether it was to be reduced or increased. That was entirely within their power. We come to-day and introduce an important alteration, that in certain respects this Parliament is going to fix the salary. Is not that an important financial relation between the Union and the provinces? Hitherto the provinces have had the entire matter at their disposal. We come to-day and say that they are not going to have complete power over a most important part of their business. We say we will intervene in certain circumstances—not frequently—but we are going to fix how they are to pay the salary. If that is not a matter of financial relations I do not know what is. I do not want to labour the matter, but it is strange that it has only struck the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. van Hees) and his friends at this late hour. The second reading of the Bill has been passed, and the principle has been discussed on the second reading—nothing was discussed but Clause 2. We have agreed to the principle, and I say if the hon. gentleman was technically right in his contention— and I do not for a single moment admit it— then I say the House having accepted the principle it is for the title to be altered to meet this clause.

I am afraid that the last argument of the right hon. the Minister is characterized by sophistry from first to last. It is sophistry to say that this is a Financial Relations Bill. If it stated that the Union Parliament had to pay the salaries, it would be something that it was a financial relation.

Has the House the power to take away powers from the Provincial Councils? Would that be disturbing the relations between the Union and the provinces?

It would be disturbing the financial relations between the Union and the provinces. It would be taking away the jurisdiction and functions of a province which are dealt with under Section 85 of the Act of Union. They could be interfered with, but not under a financial relations measure. Who on earth could say that it was financial relations to say that a scale of salaries in the province shall be that prescribed by the Governor-General from time to time. Each province is going to pay the salaries, and surely that is not financial relations. This point is covered by the amendment to the Financial Relations Act. I ask you what financial relations are dealt with in Clause 2 of this Bill as between the Union and its several provinces? It only deals with the scale of salaries which must be paid by the provinces. The provinces have paid the salaries before and will continue to do so.

Would the scale of salaries affect the Union? What would happen if Parliament voted part?

We do not know what happens to the subsidy.

We do know; we know very well.

The question I have to decide is whether Clause 2 of the Financial Relations Adjustment Bill, which deals with teachers’ salaries, is covered by the title of the Bill. At the outset I must say that, while I fully appreciate the arguments of the honourable and learned members who have addressed the Chair on the question, Mr. Speaker is not restricted in his rulings by strict legal interpretations. Larger questions than the point at issue have been raised, but I must confine myself to the question on which my ruling was asked by the Committee. Now the question as to whether the provisions of a Bill are covered by the title is one which I always carefully consider in conjunction with my technical advisers, including the Parliamentary Draftsman, when Bills are introduced, and I therefore regret that my ruling was not asked at an earlier stage, when the Bill was before the House. I am, however, sure that honourable members will agree with me that the subject-matter of Clause 2 is not foreign to the framework and scope of the Bill as read a second time, and since the Bill has been referred to the Committee of the Whole House I think the proper course will be for the Committee, if it has any doubt as to whether Clause 2 of the Bill is covered by the title, to amend the title, which it has á perfect right to do, and to report such amendment to the House. For these reasons I must confirm the Chairman’s ruling.

House in Committee.

Mr. Speaker has upheld my ruling. I will proceed to put the question.

I was very interested in the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt), especially his quoting of extracts from the speech made by the right hon. the Minister of Finance in 1923 when dealing with the Public Service Commission’s Report on the Grading of Public Servants. The extracts quoted stated that the right hon. the Minister of Finance had said that he would never dream of taking anything away from a man which he was in possession of. I want to ask the right hon. the Minister how he can square that statement with the position of the teachers to-day. In 1923 he distinctly said that no public servant would be deprived of anything that he had at that time, and that no reduction would be made. But to-day what do we find? We find that, although we were told that the teachers were going to be placed in exactly the same position as the public servants, that was the position put forward in this House by the right hon. the Minister of Finance, and it was on that statement that many members of his party voted for the second reading, in fact, since this thunderbolt, the Cape Provincial Gazette Extraordinary has come out, one or two members on the Government side have said that they voted under a misapprehension. Now I want to put this position. What do we find to-day? Working out the figures in regard to the reduction of salaries, it works out on an average of 6 per cent. on the graduated scale. Take the position of a principal of a high school. Now the grade lays down that his salary shall be from £750 to £900 going up by an increase of £15 a year. What does this Bill do? Take a principal with a salary of £870. The Cape provincial proposal, if carried, immediately debars him from getting his increment of £15, and the further reduction of 10 per cent. off his salary means a total reduction of £102 for one year. That is on the salary of a principal of a high school. Many hon. members of the House said that there was going to be no reduction, but this is not so according to the official Gazette Extraordinary. I ask: Is that right? The right hon. the Minister has said, precautions have been taken through an Act, that the salary of no public servant shall be reduced. The salaries they have at present are not interfered with at all. Why, then, this differentiation between the teachers and the public servants? Surely we want uniformity. Is this uniformity? The teachers are being penalized here. I have given the incident of a principal of a high school. Now I want to quote an abstract from this wonderful Commission. I looked up the Baxter Report to see if the salary of £900—the salary of the headmaster of a first-grade school—was too high. What does the report say? On page 35 it says—

It considers there should be adequate pay for the higher posts, and the Commission itself lays it down very clearly in the report that the salaries for the headmasters of first-grade schools are not too high. In fact it says that these salaries are not excessive. Yet here by one fell swoop, if these proposals are carried, these men principals of high schools, are penalized to the tune of £102, or a little over 12 per cent. Surely this House will not allow a thing like that to happen. These men thought they were going to have some security, but they are being penalized, and in a few months all teachers are to be reduced from 6 per cent. to 12 per cent., according to grade and salary. Surely this is something which this House will not allow to pass. It has been argued right through the second reading that the present teachers’ salaries were not going to be interfered with. I want the right hon. the Minister of Finance to consider whether he will not apply the same condition to the teachers which he has applied to the public servants, that these reductions would not apply to men and women in the service, but would only apply on promotion and new entrants. That has been granted to the public servants, and surely it should also be granted to the teachers; and I do not think that in any part of the public service is there the same number of new entrants entering and large numbers leaving the service as there is amongst the teachers. A large number of teachers are women, and they are continually leaving to get married and so on, and if the Government applied the same principle to the teachers as it applied to its public servants, it would in a very short time make up the money it requires. I would like to put that point, and I hope the right hon. the Minister of Finance will give it his consideration, because if we allow this Bill to pass as it is, then the Government is approving of the policy of the Cape Administrator inflicting great hardship on the teachers of the Cape. Many of these men and women are going to have a hard job to square their accounts—many of them earning £800 will have about £105 taken off their salary. Are we going to be a party to inflicting a severe hardship on them? I ask the House to consider this carefully. In the public service the Government has protected public servants by saying that nothing shall interfere with the salaries they are drawing at the present time. Their salary will only be interfered with when they get promotion. Let us do the same thing with the teachers. If we do that I do not think it will affect the proposed saving very much, and the teachers will get some sort of security. We shall also be dealing fairly satisfactorily with them. For that reason I urge this point on the right hon. the Minister of Finance to grant the teachers the same conditions as public servants. I may say that up to 1920 the teachers in the Cape got anything but a decent salary. Up till 1920 there was not an artizan in the country who was not drawing a far better wage than the average teacher. In 1920 they got an increase; to-day, at the beginning of 1924, we want to take away what little we gave them. I appeal to hon. members to oppose such proposals.

The time of the hon. member has expired.

Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies gaat die amendement van die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) en ook die van die edele lid vir Vryheid (de hr. Jansen) aanneem, want soos Klousule 2 nou staan is dit ’n baie verderflike en verwerpelike klousule. Daar is ’n groot agitasie onder die onderwysers in die land oor daardie klousule en ek kom ook om namens die onderwysers te protesteer teen die klousule. Die agitasie is heeltemaal geregverdig, omdat die bedoeling was, uniformiteit en stabiliteit te gee, maar onder Klousule 2 gaat jy nie uniformiteit en ook nie stabiliteit kry nie. En dan wil ek vra, waarom die onderwysers slegter behandel moet word as die siviele amptenare? Hulle het stabiliteit gekry en hulle salarisse kan niet verander word as deur Akte van die Parlement nie. Waarom die onderwysers op slegtere voet te plaas? Hulle is die speelbal van so te sê vier base, van die Regering, van die Staatsdiens-Kommissie, van die Uitvoerende Komitee van die Prowinsiale Raad, en van die Prowinsiale Raad self. Waarom kan die onderwysers nie bly soos hulle gewees het, net onder die Prowinsiale Raad nie? Dan is hier gesê, dat ons in aanmerking moet neem dat die doel van die Regering is om die Prowinsiale Rade dood te maak. Die bewys is, dat elke jaar die subsidies verminder word, eers was dit 15 persent, nou het dit afgekom tot 3 persent. Ook die bronne van inkomste word verminder, sodat die Prowinsiale Rade gedwing sal wees om elke jaar die onderwyssalarisse te verminder. Die doel van die Regering is, om altyd meer die subsidies van die Prowinsiale Rade in te krimp. Hulle kan maar dood bloei. Ons moet nie so met die onderwysers werk nie. Hulle doen ’n groot werk, ’n belangrike werk en ons moet manmoedig en groot wees om die onderwysers regverdig te behandel. Ek kan my nie verenig met Klousule 2 nie, en hoop dat die amendemente aangeneem sal word.

The right hon. the Minister of Finance is in this House noted for his courtesy towards hon. members, but on this occasion I must complain that the right hon. the Minister has not been courteous enough to answer the question I asked him before the House adjourned. I asked the right hon. the Minister if he would kindly tell us which authority prevails in the different Provincial Councils affected by his amendment; which authority this matter may be dealt with: by the Provincial Council, the Executive, the Administrator, or the authority concerned necessary to deal with the question in the various provinces? If the right hon. the Minister would be kind enough just to tell us which province must bring it before the whole of the Provincial Council, which province may do these things simply by action of the Executive, and which province may be ruled by the Administrator without consulting either the Executive or the Provincial Council? The question of the reduction of teachers’ salaries is too important a question to leave in the hands of any single individual. Even such tremendous intellects as we have as Administrators in the various provinces of this country. They are not to be trusted with the question of the teachers’ status or the teachers’ salaries. Another thing I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister is whether he will tell us if the Cape Administrator would have published this reducation of teachers’ salaries, which he has just published in this Gazette Extraordinary, even if this Bill had never been passed by this House in its second reading? I want to ask the right hon. the Minister if he thinks for one moment that the Administrator of the Cape would have published a reduction in the teachers’ salaries had he not been sure that the salaries were going to be reduced throughout the length and breadth of South Africa? We have heard a great deal of the Cape being robbed by the Transvaal of its teaching profession. They were all going north because of better salaries, and if the Cape Administrator had not been sure of his friend on the Treasury Bench going to get this measure through the House, I ask the right hon. the Minister if he really thinks that the Administrator would have published that particular edict reducing teachers’ salaries? In connection with this measure, though I may be wrong, I believe that many hon. members who belong to the Government party in this country are entirely against the proposals of the Government in connection with the teachers, but, unfortunately, party comes first. Many hon. members on those benches have repeatedly stated publicly inside and outside this House, when various questions come up for discussion that although they are in favour of the principles expounded, they are really in favour of all the sentiments expressed, yet they cannot vote in favour of the amendment because it means a vote of “no confidence” in the Government. They always shelter themselves behind this vote of “no confidence” in the Government. After all, according to the ideas of the members of the Cabinet, I do not know if these ideas are shared by the hon. members of the rank and file, we have a Government in this country which cannot be replaced unless we have somebody sent from Heaven to take over the office, and, secondly, they take up the attitude that they could not vote against the Government even though it might mean voting in the best interests of this country. We must maintain the S.A. Party in power at all costs. Now the hon. members over there deny that this is an attack on education.

Question, question!

Hon. members on these benches deny that this is an attack on education. In fact every member I have heard speak to-night denied that, and some of them have stood up in connection with the debate on Clause 2 and said that if they thought this was going to have a detrimental effect on the children of the country, they would vote against it with both hands. As regards the elections, the Provincial Council elections in the Transvaal at any rate, were largely conducted on the question of free secondary education for children in the Transvaal. The views of the public in the Transvaal on this subject were against the views of hon. members opposite, and as a result the Nationalist-Labour combine was formed in the Council there. Having failed in their purpose in the Provincial elections they now come with this insidious attack upon education through the teaching profession in South Africa, and they seem intent on the policy that if you cannot kill the education of the working class community in one way, then you can kill it in another. If you reduce the status of the teacher in South Africa you are going to get a lower class of teacher to teach the children, then, of course, education will suffer, and then they will be able to keep back the proper education of the masses for their own benefit. This attack upon the teaching profession in South Africa is inspired by the antagonism by hon. members on the South African Party side of the House. It is no use coming here and saying you are in favour of the education of the great mass of the people, and then hon. members stand up on those benches and say they do not see why the children of the rich should receive free education. They want to bring about a state of affairs where every man who cannot pay £10 or £20 per head for the education of his children shall have to go before a magistrate and sign a paper declaring that he is a pauper. That stigma would be passed from the parent to the child. Surely, that is not fair. Hon. members have continually stood up on that side of the House in the past and complained most bitterly of secondary education for the great masses of the people of South Africa. One hon. member stood up and said. “If you are going to grant this where are we going to get our artisans and bricklayers from, where are we to get our hewers of wood and our drawers of water?”

Who said that?

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson). As far as we are concerned, we feel that everything should be done in order that every child who is capable of it shall receive every opportunity of getting the highest education possible, not only in the interest of the child itself, but in the interest of the State itself, and in the interest of the future of our country. This is a very insidious attack on free education in South Africa. Having tried to stem it in one way and failed, we find the right hon. the Minister coming forward and doing the work which the public in the Transvaal prevented the S.A.P. from carrying out. We see the right hon. the Minister standing up and sneering at what he called the “sickly, maudlin sentiment of the hon. member for Kroonstad” (Mr. Werth).

The hon. member is thinking about what I said about patent medicines.

No. What the right hon. the Minister said in connection with this hon. member’s speech on this question; but when it is a question of getting the people of the country to shoulder arms as in the great war, it was through sentiment that they were appealed to. It was pure sentiment. You appealed to the sentiment of the community. Sentiment makes the world go round and we want more sentiment from that Government and less cold materialism.

Ek wil nog ’n paar woorde vir die onderwysers sê. Ons siet, dat in hierdie Klousule 2, skale sal neergelê word van salarisse en die edelaglbare die Minister verwag, dat hy onder hierdie klousule uniformiteit sal kry, maar ons siet, dat die Prowinsiale Rade die reg sal hê om veranderinge aan te bring. In die eerste plek sal die onderwyserssalarisse heeltemal afgebring word. Die teenwoordige skale van die Transvaal sal afgebring word tot maksimum wat nou vasgelê word. As daar nie meer was as dit, dan sou dit nog gaan, maar die artiekel gaat nog verder en bepaal, dat in slegte tye, sal die Uitvoerende Komitee die reg he om die bestaande salarisse nog verder te verminder. Waar moet die uniformiteit dan vandaan kom? In Transvaal sal miskien vasgehou word aan die maksimum skale, terwyl andere provinsies wat nie die inkomste het van die Transvaal nie, die salarisse verder sal moet verminder. Dan bly die ding, dat die Transvaal hoër is as die andere provinsies, soos dit ook vandag die geval is. Nou wil ek ’n beroep doen op die Minister van Finansies om die Rapport van die Siviele Dienskommissie te raadpleeg. Gedurende die finansiële debat verlede jaar het hy gesê, wat ek hier uit die Cape Times sal voorlees—

Ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister dieself de sienswyse sal aanneem teenoor die onderwysers as wat hy aangeneem het teenoor die siviele amptenare en ek hoop, dat hy sal bly staan ook in hierdie geval, by wat hy verlede jaar gesê het. Ek hoop, dat hy daarop sal staan en die onderwysers die voorregte gee ten opsigte van die maksimum salaris skaal. Hulle kry twee, drie base oor hulle om die salarisse te bepaal en ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister nie die een jaar dit en die ander weer dat sal sê nie, maar sal bly by wat hy verlede jaar geseg het met betrekking tot die onderwysers en hulle salarisse.

I should like to ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance to extend the sentiments he expressed in his speech, quoted by the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt), and to make the grade applicable to new entrants and on promotion, just as in the public service. I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister this question. As there is going to be a reduction of salary in the Cape, is that going to affect the pension of the teachers? I want hon. members to ponder over this. I gave you an example of the headmaster of a high school who is drawing a salary of £870, but with the reduction foreshadowed by the Administrator this will be reduced to £768. Is that going to affect his pension? I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance if the reduction is going to affect his pension? If so, you are not penalizing them for one year, but for the whole of their lives—you are penalizing them through their pensions. I think on this matter we should have a statement from the right hon. the Minister of Finance. This is a very serious thing, and seeing that the right hon. the Minister has given way on one or two points, I would ask him to treat this matter in the same way as he did the public service. Entrench those holding positions to-day, and make it applicable to new entrants and on promotion. I think if he did that that the teachers would be well satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.

A quorum being present within two minutes, the Chairman intimated that the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) might resume his speech.

I am surprised at the lack of interest taken by many members of the House on this important question, a question like this dealing with education. It is a disgraceful thing to find we have no quorum. I want to ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance if he was responsible for the Gazette. Extraordinary being issued on Friday. It was sent from the office of the Administrator on March 6th, but the proclamation was not allowed to reach the public until to-day. How does it happen that there was such a delay? If it had been issued two or three days ago we might have had a different decision on the division last night. Will the right hon. the Minister deny that he had not something to do with the taxation proposals of the Cape Provincial Council? I knew something about them, and there cannot be any doubt in my mind but that the right hon. the Minister of Finance knew about the proposed proposals that have appeared in the Gazette mentioned. I would like the right hon. the Minister to tell us if he was a party to them.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) rather thought that I was treating him with a certain amount of discourtesy in not answering his question. I forgot it at the time, but I may add that I have already stated the position before, although he may not have been present when I did so. In the Cape the matter is settled by Ordinance. In the Transvaal and Natal it is vested in the Administrator and the Executive Committee, and in the Free State in the Executive Committee. This was an arrangement come to by the Provincial Councils themselves.

When the teachers saw this Bill they protested against it, and said they feared the Provincial Councils would regard it as a hint to reduce their salaries. They were then told it was nothing of the sort. When the right hon. the Minister made his statement he said it was a matter for the Provincial Councils, but now from the remarks of the right hon. the Minister, when speaking on the matter submitted to the Speaker’s ruling, it is definitely shown that the Union Parliament will have everything to do with the fixing of salaries. When the House dealt with this matter on the second reading, it was dealt with very differently by the Minister. This document from the Provincial Secretary is issued on the 6th. He sent it out on the 6th, and in the document it is stated that they have given this matter “long and earnest deliberation.” Well, on the 6th March the deliberations were over, the notice was issued by the Provincial Secretary. The fact that it does not appear in the Gazette until the 13th makes no difference; the whole of the deliberations were over on the 6th, and when they said that they had given long and earnest deliberation to the matter, we may take it for granted that on the 5th these deliberations were either concluded, or nearly concluded, and we may take it as pretty certain—we have to make these conjectures because the right hon. the Minister treats Parliament with the usual contempt, because he refuses to put on the Table the proceedings of this Conference. [Dissent.] I say that he treats the House with the usual contempt, and we shall have to get used to that so long as the Government, by relying upon its majority, treats Parliament like this. We are not permitted to know what took place at the Conference. I do not know whether the Government have laid the proceedings before their own supporters, but Parliament is treated with the usual contempt. Parliament need not know what took place, it is practically told: “This is no business of yours, it is our business.” At any rate, if the Government does not want to lay the proceedings before us, we have to draw our own conclusions from glimmerings in the Gazette. Now if one reads this Gazette it refers to a document of the 6th March, and one can only come to the conclusion that at a time when the right hon. the Minister introduced this Bill in the second reading he must have known perfectly well what was going to appear, and yet this House is not informed. He told this House that he had made no communication to the Administrator. It might not have been a formal communication, but whatever emerged must have been translated into this document, and the right hon. the Minister must have known perfectly well what the position was, seeing that he refused to carry out the Baxter Report, and seeing that he could not let the provinces carry on as before. The right hon. the Minister must have told the provinces they must either choose the Baxter Report, or they would have to accept the provision which he was going to make in the Bill. We may take it that when the right hon. the Minister said that to the provinces, he must have discussed how they were going to meet the deficit which was then anticipated.

Yes, one can prove anything in that way and by those methods.

Quite so, if the hon. the Minister keeps the evidence locked up in the safe, we must do the best we can with the evidence we have. I quite agree with the hon. the Minister of the Interior that I could do very much better if I had the evidence, but I have to use my common sense on such meagre evidence as is given to us. That is the position. We have to make the best use of the little we have. I say that when this document was finished on the 6th, after long and earnest deliberation, it is desired to ask members of Parliament to believe that the right hon. the Mnister of Finance, when he was discussing matters with the Administrator at that time, was wholly ignorant of the nature of the proposals that the Administrator was going to announce to the country, although at that date these proposals must have been perfectly well known. I say that the teachers in the protest they made had a very much better idea—I do not Know how they got it—possibly the conference and the intuitions that they gained made them spot things that members of Parliament could not at that time discover. There were members of Parliament who stated there was no particular proof of what the teachers were saying, and they asked where the evidence was that the teachers were going to have their salaries reduced. That evidence is supplied in the Gazette Extraordinary.

What has this to do with the Bill?

I contend that this Bill is the bargain that took place at that conference; the bargain that the right hon. the Minister of Finance made with the Administrator. That is the Bill, and when the right hon. the Minister brought this Bill in, and when he gave the Provincial Councils the right to reduce, he knew perfectly well that the Administrator of the Cape had already made up his mind to do it. He knew perfectly well; otherwise it would have been absurd for him to bring forward a proposal in the air for a reduction of salaries which might take place ten years hence. This sub-section (2) of Clause 2 was put in because the right hon. the Minister of Finance knew the Administrator was going to deal with the situation, because the Government were not going to bring in a Bill on the lines of the Baxter Report. We were told all along that the Government were giving to Provincial Councils the powers they had; they were not interfering with them at all, but when it came to a question of ruling, the right hon. the Minister practically tells the House we are seriously interfering with the position of the Provincial Councils; we are taking the power they had. They will not be able to deal with the scale of salaries, the Union Parliament are doing it. Absolutely inconsistent with the words he used on the second reading. It now seems we have seen the true inner working of this legislation; we have seen the line of attack that the right hon. the Minister and the Administrator had prepared to make on the teachers, as the easiest way out of the dilemma their policy had brought the country into, and it seems that the only fair thing to do at this stage is to adopt the amendments that have been moved, because if you are going to reduce teachers’ salaries, do it at the same time and for the same period, and in the same way as you are doing it generally in connection with the civil service. Do not leave it to the executive, even in those provinces where they have the power. After all the Provincial Councils are the representatives of the people, and the executive are four people who, at the time the reduction takes place, may have lost the confidence of the Provincial Council.

They can recall that delegation.

If the hon. member reads the South Africa Act he will find that once the members of the Executive Committee are elected, even a vote of no confidence will not remove them. My point is that the Executive Committee in some provincies can reduce, salaries. If the hon. member does not choose to understand, or fails to understand, I will leave him alone, but I think I made my point clear to the House, and that was that the Executive Committee should not have power to reduce the salaries, and the Executive Committee shall not in this respect have the powers of the Provincial Council. If you allow the Executive Committee alone to reduce salaries I say it is undemocratic, and for these reasons I will support the hon. member’s amendment.

There seems to be a conspiracy of silence over there; we do not know whether the party whip has been cracked or not, or whether hon. members dare nob express what they think on this subject. However, I should like to say a word or two to the hon. gentleman who represents South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset). He made great play the other evening in discussing this clause about the figures on page 18 of the Baxter Commission Report, where he quoted the percentage cost of education. He quoted these figures, but as usual with the legal fraternity, when he came to a point which did not support his case, he conveniently left it out. He stated that the percentage increases as a whole had been as follows:

He failed to state what followed. Here this hon. member stopped; he did not quote the following—

Whatever is the use of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) building up a Case when he knows that he is working without proper foundation. Hon. members have come to conclusions without having proper facts; their building was on a foundation of sand. There is no foundation for any conclusion they may have come to, and particularly basing that conclusion on the speech made by the hon. member the other evening. He quoted figures as being absolute facts, but he stopped just at the time when, if he had continued, he would have found that his case was based on the wrong foundation. The case put up on behalf of the Government has been based on the report of a commission, and hon. members concluded that this report contained absolute facts. The hon. member gave comparisons of figures between this country and Australia and Canada, but what do we find? The Commission actually said that, in connection with Australia and Canada, they had gone to a considerable amount of trouble to obtain figures in order to make comparisons, in regard to the resources of the country, national expenditure, etc. They, however, found that the data was unreliable for the purpose, and consequently so would be a comparison. There were many things to be taken into consideration, such as the distribution of wealth; and, in addition, the large native population in South Africa combined to make a comparison with South Africa of little use. Hon. members on the other side, apparently, based the greater part of their case on that report, considering that it was something of an inspired document or a new edition of the New Testament.

Quote 140, page 19.

Let me read a little before coming to that. It must be remembered that these figures are not strictly accurate, as it was impossible to make comparisons; they also» have to take into consideration the difference in currency and the fact that many of the teachers belong to religious orders and receive no salaries in Australia and Canada. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) appears to pin his faith on page 140, but if he wants to point out contradictions, I will be pleased, as the more contradictions he points out, the less value can be placed on the report. I do not care how many contradictions there are. Let us take 140—

Those are the figures which they tell you themselves are absolutely unreliable, yet they say that it is evident from the figures that the cost is too heavy and those are the gentlemen who bring in this report. Yes, they apparently want to bring in an impartial report. They have come to the conclusion from the wonderful figures which they regard themselves as unreliable, they say that the figures prove that there has been an increase in the cost of education. We all admit that there has been an increase, even the Administrator of the Cape said that to-day they were faced with the task of paying for the neglect of education in the past. There is not the slightest doubt about it, and education is still neglected. We find that in Benoni we are teaching children in a tin shanty.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

Might I just read the clause which the hon. member has not had time to finish. It is quite true that the paragraph preceding the one I asked him to read refers to these variations of expenditure. But then we have this paragraph 140, which says—

So far the hon. member took us, and then he was led away by his explanation. But may I read a little further. The clause goes on to say—

Quite so, that is—

Will the hon. member kindly hold his peace for a little while. If I may be allowed to read further the hon. member will have his opportunity later on—

The figures are as follows:

I pointed out to the hon. member that I thought that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) had estimated that the actual figure in Australia should be 11.11. I was entirely prepared to grant that, but still in the opinion of the Commission, this is striking.

Read 137.

I read paragraph after paragraph of this report the other night, and I am not prepared to go into the report again, not even to satisfy the hon. member. But if the hon. member really wants to know what the precise paragraphs in this report are which indicate that there has been extravagance and waste in provincial administration, I shall be delighted to furnish him if he is really anxious.

Yes.

But I cannot take the trouble to read the whole of it for him. He must take that trouble for himself. There is a limit to the extent to which one is prepared to help even the most ardent seeker after truth. So if the hon. member will come to me I will give him all the paragraphs, I will give him my notes if he likes, and I will give him the very paragraphs I quoted the other night, and put him on to all the places in the report when he will discover the passages in which the Commission comments on the waste in Provincial Councils.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) references to extravagance in the Commission’s report. Page 46, about the Johannesburg Hospital—

“The use of white labour throughout the hospital is carried to extremes—white women in the laundry. The hours of nurses’ employment have been reduced …. the Board have actually laid down that fresh fruit must be provided daily for the nurses.”

Is this extravagance? This is surely in the eyes of those hon. members scandalous, profligate extravagance, and justifies every word said by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset). To turn to the subject of Clause 2, am I in order in moving to report progress because the right hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill is not in his place? It is too bad to carry on this discussion and try to elicit information from the right hon. the Minister when he is not in his place. I move—

Motion put, and a division was called.

As the Minister is now in his place I wish to withdraw the motion.

I object.

During the division—

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) has objected to the withdrawal of the request for a division, should he not vote with the “Ayes”?

If an hon. member calls for a division and is not in the Chamber when the division is taking place he has to return here and vote. That is not the case with an hon. member who objects to the withdrawal of a demand for a division.

I want to put these questions to the right hon. the Minister. He told us at the second reading debate, and he has told us since, that the Provincial Executives have asked for this measure. I want to ask him categorically whether this assent of the Provincial Executives at this conference was the assent of all these executive committees, or whether the determining factors were the administrators, who are the nominees of the Government? The second question is: Did the Transvaal Provincial Council as represented at that conference desire this measure? We know that the Transvaal Provincial Council sitting in Council has expressed its dissent against this measure. The Cape and Natal have not had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. If the position is in regard to the other provinces the same as it is in regard to the Transvaal, then, as politely as I can, I say that the right hon. the Minister has misled us.

I never said that the Provincial Councils desired it.

Then it is only the Provincial Executives who desired it.

I will reply when the hon. member has finished.

I will sit down at once in order to hear the right hon. the Minister’s reply.

The question which the hon. member has put is on the matter of these uniform salaries, which we are dealing with now. On that point we had all the executives with us. With regard to their individual budgets, as I have already explained more than once, we discussed the individual budgets separately. But we met them together in full conference and discussed this question of uniform teachers’ salaries. The hon. member asks me whether the Provincial Executives were unanimous. How am I to tell him that there were some members of the executive committees against it if they did not express themselves? The executive committee members took an active part in the discussions, and my colleagues the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours were both with me. All these gentlemen were there, and they expressed themselves satisfied against their will, that the only way of attaining uniform scales of salaries was by the Union Parliament carrying the thing out. The Cape Administrator and the Cape Executive Committee were particularly keen on that point. With that we are content, they said, but they did not want their powers taken away in any other respect, and the Cape Administrator was particularly keen on that point. The Free State was also keen on that point, that their rights should not be taken away further.

I am obliged to the right hon. the Minister for that reply. Are we to understand, then, that so far as this uniformity is concerned the Executive Committee expressed themselves desirous of a uniform scale of salaries? They did not desire their powers to be interfered with any further; but one thing is very clear, and that is that they did not anticipate the arrangement proposed under this Bill. Either that or the effect of the provincial system under which the executive can bind the Provincial Council to something which the Council itself wishes to repudiate. From that dilemma there is no escape.

The hon. member is assuming that the ordinance will be rejected by the Provincial Council.

I am assuming nothing. I am taking the right hon. the Minister’s statement from which he desires us to infer that the Executive of the Transvaal approved of this and that the Transvaal Council protested. I should like to know, before we pass from this, whether the Natal and the Cape Councils, also repudiate it, because if the council repudiates it, whatever the Executive has said, we have no right to pass this clause.

I think we have discussed this question quite sufficiently now, and I move—