moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table—

Report referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Ek stel voor—

Die rede waarom ek dit voorstel is, dat die administrasie van die Transvaal verplig sal word om die £60,000 wat hulle van naturelle ingevorder het, terug te betaal aan die Regering. Ek het by die twede lesing al gesê, dat volgens my informasie, die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Administrasie die Regering genader het om te sê op welke voorwaardes hulle kans sien om die £60,000 van die naturelle ingevorder, terug te betaal, maar dat die Regering geen notisie daarvan geneem het nie, dit heeltemaal het geignoreer, wat ’n onreg is teenoor die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Administrasie. Die Prowinsiale Administrasie het die Wet gepasseer en die goedkeuring van die Unie Regering daaroor gekry. Dus was hulle heeltemaal geregtig om die 10s. per hoof van die naturel te vra. Die naturel het egter na die Hof gegaan en toe het die Hof om ’n tegniese punt die Wet ultra vires verklaar. Die tegniese punt was, dat die Prowinsiale Administrasie voorsieninge het gemaak om ’n hoofdelike belasting op die blanke bevolking te hef van £2 10s. en op die naturelie van 10s., want die vorige Prowinsiale Verhoudingswet het bepaal, dat as op naturelle belasting word gelê, dan moet enige belasting wat hulle al betaal, in aanmerking geneem word. Toe het die Prowinsiale Administrasie bepaal om pleks £2 10s., 10s. belasting op die naturel te lê bo die belasting van £2 wat hy aan die Unie Regering betaal. In die Ordonnansie het die Prowinsiale Raad gesê, dat gebrekkige, ou, en arme witmense uitgesluit sal wees van die belasting. Dis nie bepaal met betrekking tot die naturelie nie, omdat hulle al uitgesluit was van die hoofbelasting, want die Prowinsiale Raad het gesê, dat die belasting van 10s. alleen sal val op die naturelie wat al die £2 belasting aan die Unie Regering betaal. Dus is hulle wat die £2 betaal, ook alleen belasbaar deur die Prowinsiale Raad se Wet. Die Prowinsiale Raad het dus gedink, dat hulle heeltemaal veilig gaan met dit te sê, maar toe het die Hof gekom en gesê, dat die eksempsie duidelik in die Wet aangegee moes wees, en daarom is die belasting uitgegooi. Dus ek sê, dat as die Unie Regering die £60,000 wil terugbetaal, dan moet hulle die self terugbetaal en dat dit ’n onreg is om die belasting te lê op die Transvaalse belasting-betaler. Die Unie Regering het die Prowinsiale Raad heeltemaal nie geken in die terugbetaling nie. As hulle begerig is om vir hulle self ’n sekere mate van lof te kry oor wat hulle gedoen het, dan moet hulle ook die geld betaal. Daarom is dit onreg om te verwag dat die Transvaalse belastingbetaler nou die £60,000 sal opbring.

I have some amendments to move on this clause. They are really of a formal nature, and hon. members will have seen them on the Order Paper. The first is—

The original wording might have been held to cover only the current year’s deficit, whereas the intention is to cover the accumulated deficit at the 31st March. The next is—

The original wording there does not make it sufficiently clear that the first half-yearly payment is to be made payable on the 1st August, which is the intention. The provinces might have thought the year began on the 1st August next, whereas we want the instalment paid on that date. Then I move—

The money, of course, will all have been borrowed during the year 1923-’24 from the Reserve Bank, but the bills in some cases will extend into the next financial year, and it is necessary to legalize these provincial borrowings from the Reserve Bank until the date on which the bills are met from the funds provided by Parliament for this purpose. These amendments are really formal and make the intention of the clause clearer.

Ek gaan heeltemaal saam met die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) en wil sy voorstel steun en die rede vir my is—ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal my dit nie kwalik neem nie—dat ek sê, dat paragraaf (b) ’n heel onregverdigeding bevat, wat ons nie moet aanneem nie. Dit gaan tog om belasting wat ingekom is en ingevorder is volgens Wet, goedgekeur deur die Goewerneur-generaal en toe die Prowinsiale Raad destyds die belasting ingevorder het was hulle heeltemaal reg, dit was ’n wettige belasting, nie ’n onwettige nie. Maar nou kom die Unie en betaal die geld wat hulle ingevorder het terug aan die naturelle en skiet die geld voor op rekening van die Prowinsiale Administrasie. Die naturel wat die geld betaal het, het die geld saam met die blank mense verbruik. Die geld is bestee vir onderwys, vir paaie, ens., en dan kom die Unie Regering en betaal die bedrag terug aan die naturelie en skryf dit as skuld op rekening van die Prowinsiale Administrasie. Ek voel dit as ’n diepe onreg. As die Regering sover wil gaan om die geld aan die naturelle terug te betaal, dan het ek daar geen beswaar teen nie, maar ek is daarteen dat die betaling daarvan teruggewerp word op die Transvaal.

Before I deal with this amendment, if hon. members will allow me, I would like to put the Government’s position before the debate proceeds further. I would like to qualify an answer which I gave the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) on Friday. He asked me whether all the provincial executives were present on the last occasion on which we met, and I told him they were. We met, but it escaped my memory for the moment that the Transvaal delegation left the day before, and it was the remainder that we met a second time in full conference. Now with regard to this thing, the hon. member who moved the amendment to delete this sub-clause, described the judgment of the court as having been given on a purely technical point. The judgment of the court, in my humble opinion, was given on a very important point; it was a most material point. Whereas the previous law laid down that in the taxation of natives no discrimination should be made whatever, either as to incidence or as to the circumstances surrounding the taxation, it was found by the court that in this case the Provincial Council had made a very material discrimination. The hon. member is quite right in saying that the poll-tax was £2 10s., but because of some natives already paying £2 the actual effect of this tax was to put an extra 10s. on them; but the ordinance of the Provincial Council proceeded to make this very important discrimination in the incidence of the tax, and that is that indigent Europeans should be exempt, but not a word was said about the incidence in this most important respect as far as the natives were concerned. I cannot understand the hon. member; the law laid down quite clearly that there should be no discrimination. The Supreme Court held that there had been an important discrimination, and they held, therefore, that the tax, so far as its incidence on the native was concerned, was ultra vires. A certain number of the natives had paid the tax, and it was represented afterwards on their behalf to the Native Affairs Department that as they had paid it honestly in a mistake of the law, they should have the money refunded to them. The Executive Committee of the Transvaa1, in December, 1922, agreed to this—the Executive Committee agreed that the tax wrongly paid, should be refunded, but said, it was not in a position to find the money in one year, or to make it available from revenue, and it approached the Government, asking the Government to supply them with £60,000 repayable over a period of 15 or 20 years. There was no difference of opinion between the Union Government and the Transvaal Executive, on the question of merit, and it agreed that the money wrongly paid, should be returned, and for this reason the Provincial Executive asked for an advance of £60,000, payable over a period of 15 to 20 years.

Did the Government agree to that?

Did the Government agree to this term of 15 to 20 years? Certainly not. The Government said the repayment by the Provincial Executive of this money should be provided for within a couple of years, and the Government also told the Provincial Executive, that the Government thought the grievance amongst the natives should be removed. The Provincial Executive was not prepared to pay the money at once, and the Government was asked to pay the money back to these people. In March, last year, the Executive Council was informed that the Government could not consider a loan spread over a period of 15 or 20 years, but was prepared to make a recommendation to the Provincial Council. The position to-day is that the Provincial Council adhered to its decision; it declined to provide money, and in order to make the matter right the Government in the Loan Estimates of 1923-’24, provided £50,000 as the advance to the Provincial Council for the purpose of making the necessary repayments. It appears now that £60,000 is the right figure. What we are doing in the Bill is this: The principle was admitted by the Executive Committee, and they were prepared to make the refund, but is was a question of terms. In this Bill we are not giving 15 or 20 years, which I consider an unduly long period, but we are funding the repayment over 10 years, which works out between £5,000 and £6,000 odd a year. Anything more reasonable than this I do not think the Government can do. I think this is a perfectly reasonable offer to put forward, and I hope it will be accepted.

Die Minister het soas gewoonlik weer die feite verdraai. Hy wou duidelik maak dat die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal verskil maak tussen die bejaarde witman en die bejaarde naturel, en dat die Hof hierdeur die Prowinsiale Ordonnansie omver gegooi het. Dit is egter nie so nie, aangesien die naturel wat bejaard is alreeds onder die teenwoordige Wet vrystelling geniet, en net na die Naturelle Kommissaris hoef te gaan en dan kry hy weëns sy ouderdom vrystelling. Vir die witman is daar egter nie onder dieselfde omstandighede vrystelling nie, en al is hy 80 of 90 jaar oud en nog so gebrekkig, moet hy eers die magistraat oortuig dat hy nie in die vermoë is om te betaal, en dus is dis skoen helemaal aan die ander voet, namelik die kaffer, alhoewel hy welgesteld mag wees, kry vrystelling alleen weëns sy ouderdom, terwyl die blanke persoon dit nie kan kry nie. Ek is egter bly dat die Minister die kwessie hier geopper het sodat ons die geleentheid kan kry om presies die posisie duidelik te maak. Op die platteland wil die Sappe nog nie glo nie dat die Regering hier ’n Wet gepasseer het waarby hy spesiaal die kaffers en die myne beskerm het teen prowinsiale belasting en dat die Regering dit onmolik gemaak het dat die Prowinsiale Rade enige belasting hetsy ’n wielbelasting, huisbelasting, grondbelasting, of wat dies ook mag wees, op ’n kaffer mag lê maar dat nietteenstaande die feit dat hulle geen belastinge mag lê op naturelie, hulle nogtans verplig is om te sorge vir die opvoeding van naturelle kinders, vir paaie wat net so wel deur die naturelle as die blanke gebruik word, en ook vir hospitale wat net so vry is vir naturelle en dus word op die wyse die blanke persoon, of hy ryk is of arm, verplig om te betaal vir die opvoeding van naturelle, vir hulle paaie, hospitale, ens. Nou verwag die Minister dat die Prowinsiale Rade die bedrag van £60,000 wat hulle van die kaffers ontvang het onder die hoofbelasting, waar hulle maar 10s. betaal het teenoor die witman se £2 10s. moet terug betaal, en ons objekteer daarteen omdat die Regering en nie die Prowinsiale Rade daar oorsaak van was. Die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal het, nadat hulle voorsiening gemaak het vir die 10s. wat van die kaffers sou ontvang word, en rekenende op die bedrag, sekere bedrae gestem vir die opvoeding van naturelie onderwys, wat hulle andersins nie sou gedaan het nie, en dit is dus nie billik om die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal te verplig om die bedrag terug te betaal, daar hulle geen skuld hieraan het nie. Dit word voorgegee dat dit ’n terugbetaling van ’n lening is, maar hier weer is dit ’n wanvoorstelling want ’n lening beteken dat ’n persoon vrywilliglik aanvraag maak vir ’n lening terwyl hier daar nie sprake van so iets is nie. Die Regering die kom en hou ’n rewolwer voor die kop van die Prowinsiale Raad en sê: “Alhoewel julle nie die geld geleen het nie moet julle dit as ’n lening beskou en moet julle onderneem om dit teen julle sin terug te betaal.” Die Prowinsiale Raad het alleen probeer om uit die kaffer te verkry wat hy regmatiglik verskuldigd is vir die opvoeding van sy kinders, vir die gebruik van ons paaie en hospitale ens., maar die Unie Regering het geweier om die kaffer selfs hiervoor te laat belas en het gesê dat, alhoewel die Prowinsiale Raad verplig is om die dienste aan die naturelle te verskaf, mag hulle alleen die blanke man belas om daarvoor te betaal. Die kaffers en die myne is die troetelkinders van die teenwoordige Regering, en die Prowinsiale Rade mag hulle nie belas nie, alleen die boer en die arm man vir wie daar geen genade is nie. Daar is baie gepraat omtrent die hoofbelasting wat deur die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad gehef is, maar die Sappe verswyg om te sê dat die Nasionaliste, alhoewel hulle teen die belasting is, en wat ek persoonlik as ’n onbillike beskou, verplig was om die op te le daar die Regering kwytskelding verleen het aan die myne en die naturelie, en om die onderwys staande te hou was hulle dus verplig om die onbillike belasting te lê. Ek beskou dat die kaffer nie vandag sy regmatige aandeel van belastings betaal, ’n man moet betaal na sy draagkrag, en die kaffers kan veel meer dra terwyl die arm wit man dood belas word. Die kaffers, virnaamlik in die Transvaal, verkeer in ’n baie gelukkige toestand daar hulle net drie maande in die jaar werk en vir nege maande leeg lê en bier drink. Dit is dus in hulle eie sowel as in die Staat se belang dat hulle meer belas moet word en verplig om te werk en te produseer. Ek objekteer dus ten sterkste dat die arm wit man moet belas word om te betaal vir die opvoeding van sy eie kind, sowel as vir die van die kaffer, wat meer kan werk en betaal. Dit word gesê dat blanke persone kwytskelding en ondersteuning van die magistraat kan verkry, maar weet edele lede dat sulke ondersteuning meen dat sulke persone wat in sulke armoedige omstandighede verkeer dan van die kieserslys geskrap word? Dit is ’n absolute skandaal dat dit in ’n beskaafde land molik is, en dan durf die edelagbare die Minister nog sê dat die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal die naturelie uitsonder vir belasting, en dat onderskeid gemaak word. Ek sal dus die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) ondersteun in sy amendement om die Unie Regering te verplig om die geld terug te betaal aan die kaffers en nie die Prowinsiale Raad nie.

Ek verbaas my oor die onkunde, wat deur lede aan die anderkant en veral die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) aan die dag geleg word. Daar is geen kwessie van, dat die mag van die Prowinsiale Raad om die kaffer te belas weggeneem is nie, maar toe die Suidafrikaanse Party die bewind aan die Nasionaliste oorhandig het in Transvaal, was daar ’n batige balans van £800,000 in die kas. Maar daardie party, die Nasionale namelik, het deur die land gegaan en aan die mense vertel, dat hulle die land sou regeer sonder belasting. Die S.A. Party had die kaffers belas met wielbelasting, sommige het tot £1 5s. betaal.

En waarom nie? Hulle mag nie.

Hier word beweer, dat die Suidafrikaanse Party die hoofbelasting opgeleg het, maar die Nasionale was die sterkste party toe die Wet aangeneem werd. Wie het vrye onderwys ingevoer? Eers in die Transvaal onder die S.A. Party, en hulle had genoeg geld om hulle onderwysers te betaal en die beste onderwyskragte uit die hele Unie daarheen te lok, en dit het gedurende ruim drie jaar aangegaan. Maar toe kom die Nasionale Party aan die hoof met die bewering, dat hulle die land sal regeer sonder belasting en hulle vlug toe na die kaffers en die myne toe, want hulle kon nie sonder belasting regeer nie, net soas daar geen regering ter wereld is, wat sonder belasting ’n land kan regeer nie. In onse tyd was daar die wielbelasting en kamerbelasting, maar omdat die Nasionale Party al daardie belastings afgeskaf had, moes hulle’ in die plek daarvan die belasting stel van 10s. op die kaffer en ander belastings op die witman, soas dat as ’n man se vrou sterf, dan moet hy £3 15s. betaal. Verlede jaar nog het ’n lid van die Transvaalse Uitvoerende Komitee daarop geroem dat hulle die boer belas had met die Afslagersbelasting. Ons moet eerlik en billik wees teenoor alle seksies van die bevolking en nie net sommige nasionaliteite of industrieë vir belasting uitsonder nie. Ons is die hoof en regering van die hele volk en ook van die naturel en moet toesien, dat ook hy billik en regvaardig behandel word, dat die wetgewing met betrekking tot horn billik is. Die naturelle betaal £800,000 per jaar aan belasting, en pasfooie £3,000.

Die edele lid meen in die hele Unie.

En wat kry hulle daaruit vir onderwys? Veertig duisend pond ongeveer. Dit is nie billik en regvaardig nie. “Recht en gerechtigdheid verhoogt een volk, maar de zonde is een schandvlek der natiën.” Die vriende daar oorkant is altoos teen belasting, maar as daar ’n tekort is, moet ons ’n plan maak om dit te dek. Ek is daarteen, dat aan die Prowinsiale Rade geld gegee word om uit te gee net soas hulle wil. Die edele lid vir Heidelberg (de hr. Bezuidenhout) het meegedeel, hoe in sy distrikt net één skool gebou is vir £30,000. Waar moet al die geld vandaan kom, as dit so aangaan? Laat daar belasting opgeleg word, maar nie sulke onbillike belasting as wat die Nasionale Party opgeleg het nie. Die volk is nie onwillig om te betaal vir onderwys nie, soas hulle in die vroegere tyd getoon het. Vandat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister dit ingevoer het is die onderwys vry, maar vóór die tyd het die ouers daarvoor betaal. [Een Edele Lid: “Wie moet hulle belas?”] Die Prowinsiale Raad belas die arm man, wat niks het om te verkoop nie, maar die ryke, wat sy beeste sou kan verkoop of ’n groot trop daarvan, die word nie belas nie; ek doel op die Afslagersbelasting. Laat ons die kwessie op ’n billike manier beskou en enige ding doen, wat billik is en in belang van land en volk nodig is. Die opposiesie is daar voortdurend net op uit om die Regering en sy party verdag te maak by die volk, maar laat ons eerlik wees teenoor die volk. Geen land kan sonder belasting geregeer word nie en laat die Prowinsiale Rade nie net ’n venduafslagersmyn-, en kafferbelasting invoer nie, maar ’n eerlike algemeen drukkende belasting opleg en dit sal blyk, dat die volk gewillig is om te betaal, want dit is vir die opvoeding van die kinders en om dit te betaal is geen man onwillig nie.

Dit skyn of die kaffers van Transvaal nou ’n kampvegter gekry het in die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden).

Hy vertel, dat ons nie een of ander nasionaliteit of industrie moet uitsoek vir belasting nie, terwyl die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) daarop gewys het dat soas dit nou is, die witman moet betaal vir die opvoeding van die kind van die naturel, vir hulle hospitale, paaie en dies meer en dat die kaffer nie na behore belas word nie. Die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) beweer, dat dit nie waar is nie. Ek hoop, dat hy die steun sal kry van die kaffers, wat hy so voor optree en wat hy seker die stemreg ook nog wil gee. Hy beweer ook dat die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad onbillik optree teenoor die kaffer. Ons gee en gun hom alle voorregte, maar wil nie dat die witman sal betaal vir sy onderwys, ten voordele van die kafferkind moet betaal nie en die wit kind loop ongeleerd. Laat die kaffer ook sy regmatige aandeel betaal. Nou het die edelagbare die Minister verklaar, dat die Hof geen tegniese kwessie opgelos het nie en tog is dit duidelik, dat dit so is, want die uitspraak is gebaseer op die vraag, dat die witman sekere kwytskelding kon verkry en dat die kwytskelding nie reg is teenoor die kaffer nie. Nou het die edelagbare die Minister dit verlede jaar so voorgestel, op hoogdrawende manier, dat die Prowinsiale Administrasie van Transvaal is te swak en daarom gaat die Unie die £60,000 vir hulle betaal, en hy het nie geseg dat die Unie hulle dit leen nie en dat hulle dit anderjaar moet betaal nie. Nou, ’n jaar daarna, nou dat hy denk dat ons sy woorde van verlede jaar vergeet het, kom hy en verklaar dat dit ’n lening was wat die Unie aan Transvaal toegestaan het, dat dit ’n voorskot was, en dat die belastingbetalers van Transvaal dit moet terug betaal. Dit is baie onbillik van die edelagbare die Minister om so te handel, waar hy verlede jaar uitdruklik geseg het, dat die Unie Regering daardie bedrag terug betaal. Dit word gebruik vir niks anders nie as eleksie doeleindes. Vanjaar moet die belastingbetaler dit betaal, en ek vertrou dat die edelagbare die Minister daarin sal toestem om die klousule te skrap.

Ek was nie van plan om oor die saak onder bespreking iets te seg nie, maar voel nou verplig om dit te doen na wat die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) geseg het. Dit is jammer, dat ek hom nou nie sien nie; hy skiet so’n paar skote af en gee nie om wat daar dan verder gebeur nie. Ek denk, dat ek van die sake van die Prowinsiale Raad in Transvaal meer weet as daardie edele lid, want ek het daar self ’n vier, jaar in gesit juis toe daardie wette aangeneem werd. Hy seg die edelagbare die Minister verdraai alles en hierdie kant neem alles klakkeloos aan vir waarheid. Julie mense, wat rondgegaan het met die eleksie, het verklaar dat hulle die land sonder belasting sou regeer. Hulle het verklaar, dat daardie wielen ander belastings onregvaardig was en hulle sou dit wegneem. Die publiek het dit geglo en wat is die gevolg? Myne- en kafferbelasting. Maaï die witman moes eers belas word met £2 10s. om 10s. uit die kaffer te kan kry vir die prowinsiale skatkis. Waar wil ’n mens ’n billiker belasting hê as die wielbelasting? Elkeen wat van die paaie gebruik maak, die betaal daarvoor. Die kaffer ry net so goed op die paaie as die witman en daarom is dit nie meer as reg, dat hy daarvoor net so goed moet betaal nie.

Het die Sappe nie gehelp om die hoofbelasting op te sit nie?

Wat gebeur het is, dat die Prowinsiale Raad daar sit en beloof het om geen belasting op te leg nie; toe sit hulle tog belasting op en die word deur die hof as ongeldig verklaar. Ek het nog nooit so’n onkunde gesien nie. Die hof het verklaar, dat dit moes terugbetaal word en ons moet ons skaam, dat so ’n Wet kon aangeneem word. Die Nasionale Party wou die arm man se stem hê en beloof hom om hom nie te belas nie en dinge so voor te stel, dat hy gerus word; maar agteraf word tog die venduafslaërs belasting gehef. En waar kom dit vandaan? Daar het ’n tweede voorstel gekom: die maatskappyebelasting. Dit was ’n tweeling van die huwelik; die een party stel voor ’n belasting op maatskappye en die ander sê, ja, maar daar moet bykom ’n venduafslagers belasting, om die boer te vang, anders stem ons nie vir julle plan nie. Ek gee nie om om die naam te noem van die lid van die Uitvoerende Komitee nie, wat verklaar het, dat daar nie op die boer belasting geleg moes word nie,—dis Dr. Reitz—net op die spekulateur; daarop het die Arbeiders verklaar, ja as julle dit nie doen nie, dan kry julle daardie andereen ook nie deur nie. Dit het die vriende van die kompakt mekaar toegeroep. Daar word heeldag geraas oor die belasting wat die Sappe opgeleg het. Hoe is dit met die ander twee partye wat daar regeer? Hulle verklaar, dat die witman moet betaal vir die naturel, maar wat kry die Transvaal uit die pasgelde alleen? £350,000. Nee, die Nasionale en Arbeiderspartye is nie berekend om die land te regeer nie, hulle kan dit nie doen nie.

Ek ondersteun die voorstel van die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler). Dis ’n onregverdige en onbillike ding, dat die Unie Regering die hoofbelasting van die kaffers ontvang en dat die Prowinsiale Administrasie van die kaffers niks kry nie, terwyl hulle moet betaal vir die onderwys van die kind. £45,000 betaal hulle elke jaar vir hulle opvoeding uit die kas vir naturelie onderwys en behalwe dit moet hulle betaal vir brugge en paaie wat deur die kaffers word gebruik.

Hiervoor is die pasgelde.

Die betaal die blanke man. Ek woon omtrent 35 jaar in Johannesburg, en ek betaal die pasgeld vir die manne wat ek in my werk het. Dis waarheid. Dis die akkoord wat jy maak met die naturel. Dus die blanke man betaal ook die pasgeld, die kaffers betaal die nie. Dis waar die onregverdigheid inkom. Die blanke man moet sy eie belasting betaal, maar ook die belasting betaal vir die kaffer, wat tog van die voorregte geniet en aan die ander kant kry die Unie Regering die inkomste uit die belasting van die kaffers; die £2 hoofbelasting gaat in die Unie kas. Dis nie meer as billik, dat die Regering die £60,000 betaal. Hier word van die ander kant van die Huis aanvalle gemaak op die Nasionale Party wat betref die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad, maar ek wil net op die Vrystaat wys. In die Vrystaat het jy ’n hele Nasionale Regering, en waarom is daar nie die moeilikhede nie? Die Vrystaatse Prowinsiale Rade het geen moeilikhede nie waarom kan hulle die Vrystaat regeer en waarom gaan dit daar die beste van die hele land? Maar die geskiedenis is die, dat die wielbelasting opgehef is. Altwee partye was daarteen, die Nasionaliste sowel as die Suidafrikaanse Party, maar wat het die Regering gedoen? Hulle het die Prowinsiale Raad gekortwiek, die subsiedies verminder, en die belasting van die myne belet. En wat die hoofdbelasting betref, het die Prowinsiale Rade op die kaffer 10s. geset om die gelyk te bring met die hoofbelasting van die witman wat £2 10s. betaal, terwyl die kaffer aan die Unie Skatkis £2 betaal. Toe is die 10s. belet deur die Hof. Deur ’n tegniese fout moet die Prowinsiale Administrasie die geld terug betaal, en dit staan vas dat die blanke man vandag betaal vir die naturel. Die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad is nie skuldig aan en verantwoordelik vir daardie belasting nie. Daar is neergelê dat die ou witman, wat afgeleef is, kan na die magistraat gaan en word dan vrygestel van die hoofbelasting. Die ou naturel het dieselfde voordeel gehad, hy kon ook na die magistraat gaan en het dan ook van die belasting “vrygestel geword. Maar dit ikom hierop neer, dat niemand anders as die Regering self verantwoordelik is vir die toestand wat daar gekom het. Die Unie Regering het die inkomste van die Prowinsiale Raad ingekort. Die Nasionaliste het nie die meerderheid in die Prowinsiale Raad gehad nie, toe die belasting opgelê is nie. Hulle het maar twee lede in die Uitvoerende Komitee gehad en ’n minderheid in die Prowinsiale Raad. Maar saam met die Sappe het die Nasionaliste die belasting opgelê. Hulle was verplig een van twee weë tegaan, die skole sluit, of probeer die geld in te kry. Nou kom die Regering met die onbillike ding en waar die Regering die geld van die naturelie inkry, kry die Prowinsiale Administrasie niks nie, maar hulle is verantwoordelik vir die onderwys van die naturel. Nou wil die Regering van die Prowinsiale Raad £60,000 vorder, omdat die Hof gesê het, dat om ’n tegniese punt die belasting onwettig was. Ek beskou, dat die Regering behoor die £60,000 te betaal.

Ek is verwonder cor my edele vriend vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). Maar ek hoef ook eintlik nie verwonder te wees nie. In die Burger van die 13de van die maand, toe die rapporteur aan horn gevra het wat hy dink, of die Regering die mense in sy kiesafdeling moet kos gee, het hy gesê, dat die mense liewers moet doodgaan, as kos van die Regering aanneem. Ek sou wil weet wat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) daarvan sê, stem hy saam dat as hulle hulle kiesreg wil benuttig na hulle sin, dan moet hulle liewers doodgaan? Maar ek sê, dat ons soveel moontlik die arme mense moet help, en dat die Regering behoorlike maatreëls sal neem om die mense aan kos te help waar daar honger is. Die feit, wat niemand kan ontken nie, is dat vanaf die Nasionale Party aan die bewind gekom het in die Transvaal, het ons al die moeilikhede gekry. Voordat hulle die Provinsie regeer het, het daar altoos genoeg fondse gewees en het alles bevredigend gegaan, maar vanaf die Nasionale Party aan die bewind gekom het, het die surplus wat die Suidafrikaanse party bymekaar gehad het van £800,000 verdwyn en toe staan hulle daar. Toe het hulle by die kaffers en die myne gekom en die wil belas. En hulle straf nie alleen die arme man met die hoofbelasting van £2 10s., maar nadat sy vrouw dood is, word hy gestraf om £3 15s. belasting te betaal. Dis die skandelikste wet wat op die wetboek staan. En met die hoofbelasting, dit sal die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) nie kan ontken nie, hulle bedoel om die naturel te vang. Nou moet lede anderkant nie die feite verdraai nie. Dis vir my seker, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies sy beste doen, maar as die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) in sy posiesie was, sou ek graag wil sien wat daarvan tereg sou kom. Ek sê, die artiekel soos die hier staan met die amendement wat die edelagbare die Minister voorgestel het, is heeltemaal goed en ek gaan heeltemaal met die edelagbare die Minister saam.

Wanneer daar ’n kwaad is of iets verkeerd dan moet men by die wortel van die kwaad begin.

Dan is die fout by die “Empire.”

Dit is die Sapregering wat die land in die groot moeilikhede gebring het. Vóór 1915, toe was ons inkomste steeds so groot, dat ons genoeg gehad het om die land goed te kan regeer.

Toe was daar ook die S.A.P. regering.

Toe was daar genoeg geld gewees vir die Provinsies uit die belastinge wat hulle kon oplê, om te sorg vir goeie onderwys, maar vanaf hulle begin het met daardie imperiale politiek—

Daar is hy.

Vanaf daardie kapitalistiese politiek, vanaf die oorlog-deurset-politiek, het hulle die land, ons ryke land in 84 miljoen pond skuld gesteek en het hulle die Prowinsiale Administrasies so in moeilikhede gebring, dat hulle onpopulêre belastings moet oplê, omdat hulle anders hulle verpligtinge nie kan nakom nie. Wie is die skuld daarvan? Die edele lede anderkant van die Huis. Edele lede daar sal nog een dag bitter berou het omdat hulle sulke imperialiste gewees het. Die belange van die eie land word nie na gekyk nie, daar word vergeet om te dink aan die vooruitgang van die land, die skole word vergeet, die kinders wat opgevoed moet word, word vergeet. Al die geld is bestee aan ander dinge, aan die oorlog, ens. Dis net vanaf die huwelik daar aan die anderkant dat al die moeilikhede begin het. [Een Edele Lid: “Wat omtrent die huwelik daar aan die ander kant?”] Nee, hier het nog nooit geen huwelik gewees nie. Daar sit die huwelik en ons siet al die kinders wat gebore is uit die huwelik, soos die armoede en die werkeloosheid in die land. Dis kinders van die huwelik. En al die sware belastings wat die boere vandag moet opbring, is kinders van die huwelik. Kyk hoe gaan dit vandag met die myne? Ek sê, wanneer ons aan die bewind kom, dan sal ons nie die myne te swaar belas nie, want dis die kip wat die goue eiers lê, maar ek sê, dat daar gelyke belasting moet wees vir almaal, vir die boere en vir die myne en dat nie net die een deel belas moet word nie. Wat die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.- Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) hier vanmiddag gesê het, was so vóór-eleksie praatjie. Ja, hulle sal nog die stemreg aan die kaffers gee, anders kom hulle nooit weer aan die bewind nie.

Nee, ons gaat dit nie doen nie.

Ja, dit gaan gebeur. Ek sê ek ondersteun die voorstel van die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) om daardie paragraaf (b) te skrap, want soos dit al aangewys is, is dit ’n groot onreg dat die skuld vandag moet gesit word op die belastingbetaler van die Transvaal. Al die Finansiële Verhoudings Wette wat hier in die Huis nog deurgegaan het, het altoos die swaarste gedruk op die Transvaal en ek dink dis nie reg nie. Een van die edele lede het gesê, dat dit vroeër toe die S.A.P. aan die bewind was in die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad, so goed gegaan het. Maar die geld wat toe bymekaar gekom het, het bymekaar gekom deur die saamwerking van die Nasionaliste. Toe het hulle nog almaal saamgewerk vir die Transvaal en vir die land. Maar na de verandering in die politiek gekom het en veral na die huwelik, het dit verkeerd gegaan.

Ek kan nou eerlik nie sien waarom die groot lawaai hier vanmiddag in die Huis is nie. Ek kan nie saamstem met die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) nie, want dan sou ek onreg doen. Die Regering het ’n voorskot gemaak aan die Transvaal en gee vir hulle ’n tyd van 10 jaar om die terug te betaal, maar ek kan nie verstaan hoe die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) dit heeltemaal van die Transvaal wil afskryf nie. Dit sou tog nie reg wees teenoor die ander provinsies nie. Die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) moet verstaan, dat die ander provinsies darem ook hulle deel in die Staatskas inbring, en dus sou dit nie reg wees om die ander provinsies dit te laat betaal nie.

Hoeveel betaal die ander provinsies?

Ek kan nie net sê hoeveel nie. Ek is nie ’n man wat sodanig op finansies kan praat nie, maar ek dink dat elke provinsie sy geregtigde deel inbring in dig Staatskas en ons moet nou nie oneerlik wil handel nie. Die edelagbare lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) het baie hard geskreeu vanmiddag oor die edele lede aan hierdie kant van die Huis, dat hulle altoos met die Regering moet saamstem. Maar ek is bly, dat ek nog agter die Regering sit wat probeer om aan alle provinsies reg te doen.

Die edele lid sal daar nie lank meer agter die Regering sit nie.

Nie lank meer nie? Maar ek sou nie graag aan die anderkant sit, wat die kompakt daar het, nie. En as die Provinsie nou altoos in die belang van die boer gehandel het. Maar wat gebeur? Daar is deur andere edele lede al gesê, dat hulle geen wet in die Prowinsiale Raad in Transvaal alleen kan deurkry nie, hulle moet altoos saamgaan met die Arbeiders. Daar het ons nou in die eerste plaas die afslaërsbelasting gekry, wat juis op die boer druk, wat juis die boer raak. Wat sê my edele vriende daarvan? En sou dit reg wees teenoor die ander provinsies as die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal die myne sou belas? Ons weet tog dat met die totstandkoming van die Unie die inkomste gekom het aan die Staatskas—[Een Edele Lid: “Hoekom is dit nie in wet gesit nie?”] Dis nooit bedoel gewees, dat die Prowinsiale Rade die myne sou belas en die opbrings vir hom alleen hou nie. Dan sou Transvaal alleen die voordeel gehad het, maar dit sou onregverdig gewees het teenoor die ander provinsies. En hoe kan nou ’n verteenwordiger van die Kaapprovinsie of ’n verteenwordiger van die Vrystaat vandag so praat. Ons moet daarom kyk om regverdig te handel. Die edelagbare lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) preek ook altoos, dat ons die myne moet belas. Maar laat ons die posiesie nagaan. Daar is direkte belasting op die myne gekom in 1914, en toe was die bedrag wat ingekom het £442,023.

Wat was hulle profyte toe?

En wat het ons gekry in 1923 onder dieselfde ou slegte Regering? £2,848,024. Nou vra die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) wat hulle profyte was. Laat ons tog bly wees as enige man geld steek en geld bring in Suid-Afrika. Wat het hulle gespandeer in Suid-Afrika? Miljoene van ponde. [Een Edele Lid: “Nie uit liefde nie.”] En as ons hoor van die diewidende, dan moet ons nie vergeet, dat diegene wat die aandele koop nie £1 betaal nie, maar miskien £15. Dit moet ons goed in rekening neem. Laat ons probeer eerlik en regverdig te handel en laat ons die land op eerlike manier regeer. Dan met betrekking tot die naturellebelasting. Die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) as eerlike man kan nie anders as saamstem, dat die belasting op die naturel gelê was, om die naturel te vang. En daar het hulle die arm witman ook gevang deur die £2 10s. hoofbelasting. Dit was almaal om die naturel te vang, anders sou dit nooit gedaan wees nie. Ons kan dit nie wegredeneer nie. Die edele lede het die plattelandse mense wys gemaak, dat die witman meet betaal vir die geleerdheid van die naturel. Dis nie waar nie. Daar is groot somme wat die naturel in die Staatskas betaal. Ek wil nie staan as verteenwoordiger van die naturelle nie, maar ons moet eerlik handel. Daar is honderde en duisende van ponde wat die naturelie in die kas betaal en daarvoor kry hulle wat hulle geniet.

Aan wie word die belasting betaal?

Aan die Unie Rege ring. Die geld kom in die Staatskas.

En wat word met die geld gemaak?

Onder die £ vir £ siesteem betaal die Unie Regering £1 terug aan die provinsie, daar word altoos weer £1 terug betaal aan die provinsie. Ons moet dit goed bedink. En ons moet bedink, dat met daardie trekkery van die provinsies, die een voor die ander, sal ons nooit vrede kry in Suid-Afrika nie. Die moeilikheid in die Transvaal, die edele lid vir Pretoria (Zuid) (Gen. Muller) sal dit met my saamstem, is tussen die platteland en die stede. Die ou Transvaal was darem nog maar altyd gewoon, dat die stedelike bevolking vir die platteland moes betaal. Hoeveel belasting is al betaal deur die myne vir die platteland? En daarom bestaan daar nou die moeilikheid, dat hulle die geld self moet betaal. Nou ek dink dat enig edele lid sal my reg gee as ek met die Regering saamgaan, al dink edele ledeanderkant miskien ook, dat ek altoos met die Regering moet saamgaan. Die geld is geleen en ek is dankbaar, as Transvaler, vir die tyd wat verleen is om die som terug te betaal. Dit sou onreg wees om die andere dele van die Unie te laat betaal in hierdie saak.

This discussion has ranged over a very wide field indeed, nothing less than the powers of taxing of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, as to whether its taxation measures were wise or unwise. I do not think it germane to the question under discussion. We have one specific question before us: it is common knowledge, of course, that the Transvaal Provincial Council having continually had their sources of taxation whittled down by this House, has had to have recourse to such areas left to it, and to raise money by what ingenuity it could exercise. There is a lot of rubbish talked about it: we hear a tremendous amount of agitation in the way the poll-tax hits the poor man, but the main bulk of that agitation is engineered by those who feel the companies tax most, and other things like that. It is not the poor man. It seems to me that the history of that transaction, is this: the Transvaal Provincial Council under those circumstances, looking round for some sources of revenue, passed an ordinance instituting a certain tax. This was tested in the courts, and it was found that the taxation was illegal and ultra vires. The Provincial Council had got that £60,000 from it, and I must say that I think—I was not in the House at that time— I would have given my vote, if the Provincial Council would not repay it, that we should for the sake of fairness and honesty between the white man and the black, give it them back again. It does not do for the native to think he is being swindled, and after all, if you take money out of the pockets of a man, in a manner, which the court says is illegal, then the only square thing to do is to give it back. This House then decided on grounds of public policy, that whether the Transvaal Provincial Council would make this restitution or not, this restitution must be made to the natives at once, and we took it out of their hands. I understand from the right hon. the Minister, and I want to be perfectly clear on this point, that the Provincial Council acknowledged that this was a liability of theirs. Am I right?

It did in 1922. The Executive Committee admitted its liability in 1922, and undertook to make arrangement to repay it, but it wanted such a long period of years that we could not agree to that. That was the only point of difference, and now it is not disposed to give in.

The whole matter boils down to this: that the Transvaal Provincial Council acknowledges its £60,000 liability.

It did.

And I presume it still acknowledges it.

I do not know what it is going to do now.

Whether it does or not, my vote would go to say that this is a liability on the Transvaal, but when it is such a small matter of terms of repayment, as we have taken it out of their hands, I think the Transvaal—if they say 15 years and the right hon. the Minister ten—as we have taken the initiative and it has acknowledged its liability, I do not think that we should depart from the settlement of the matter by common consent as between us and the Transvaal. But as for the suggestion that the Transvaal has no liability for this money I am afraid I cannot agree. I would like to put it to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). Supposing the hon. member himself were taxed and he had to pay up and did so because he was afraid of further consequences, and the legality of that impost was tested in the courts and it was found that he was forced to pay something that the taxing authority had no business to make him pay, would he not feel himself unjustly treated, if the authority which had taken that money out of his pockets, although it was shown to be illegal, refused to repay it? I think he would, and under these circumstances I think we have to face the fact that the whole matter was due to that party over there, for the way it has treated the Provincial Council. I put it to hon. members if they were members of a council, and had certain areas of taxation left open by Act of Parliament, and then the party who was in the minority in the council went to its big brother who was the majority here, and said: “Take away these sources of taxes,” you would have to make them exercise more and more ingenuity and impose less and less popular taxes. The whole thing arises from the failure of the Government really to tackle this Provincial Council question in something like the convention spirit we used to hear so much about, and carry on their ten years’ old battle with the Transvaal Provincial Council on purely party lines. That is the ultimate cause of all this; because it is the Provincial Council of the Transvaal who first broke loose from the domination of the Party which sits over there, and ever since then there has never been a session of peace between the Transvaal Provincial Council and the Government. To come back to the question we have been discussing, I recognize the liability and the Transvaal Province recognizes it also, and rather than have a dispute let the Transvaal Provincial Council have the money on a fifteen year repayment basis.

Ek stem met die opvatting saam, dat die verantwoordelikheid op die Transvaalse belastingbetaler rus om daardie £60,000 terug te betaal, die verpligting rus op die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal. Dit kom daar nie op aan of dit in stryd is met die Wet nie; die geld is ingevorder en gebruik en daarom is dit nie meer as reg nie, dat dit terug betaal word. En ek denk, dat die termyne vir terugbetaling, welke die Unie Regering toestaan, ook helemaal redelik is, sodat hulle nie kan klaag nie. Die bewering, dat die kaffer in Transvaal vry loop en geen belasting betaal nie en dat alles geskied ten koste van die witman, is een van die meest valse bewerings, wat ek in lange tyd gehoor het; en die verdere bewering, dat die reg om die kaffers te belas uit die hande van die Prowinsiale Raad geneem is, is ook onwaar; of liewer, dit is ’n halwe waarheid en die is dikwels erger as ’n leun. Die mag is enkel uit hulle hande geneem om die naturel spesiaal te belas, terwyl die ander ingesetene nie belas word nie. Die sub-artiekel van die betreffende Wet No. 5 van 1921 lui as volg—

Die Prowinsiale Raad behou altoos die reg om die naturelle te belas op dieselfde manier as die witman; as hulle belasting op die witman leg, het hulle ook die reg om die naturel die belasting op te leg. Sekere lede beweer, dat die naturel geen belasting betaal nie. As hulle meen, dat hy geen direkte belasting aan die Prowinsiale Raad betaal nie, dan het hulle ook ongelyk, want die pasgelde is daar en ofskoon dit in eerste instansie deur die baas betaal word, kom dit tog indirekt uit die naturel. Daarmee moet rekening gehou word en nie geseg, dat hulle geen belasting betaal nie. Buitendien is dit nog ’n feit dat die naturel in die Transvaal die meeste belasting betaal van al die provinsies. ’n Groot deel dearvan word weer aan die provinsies teruggegee. Die statistieke toon aan wat die naturel betaal en ek kan verklaar dat ek een van dies is, wat daarteen is dat die naturel voorregte sal geniet, waarvoor hy nie bereid is om te betaal nie; dit sou nie reg wees, dat die naturel op die rug van die witman gedraag word nie. Dit is trouwens nie die geval nie, want hulle is bereid om vir enige voorreg te betaal, welke hulle deelagtig word. En waar ons die reg besit om die naturel te belas, kan ons altoos toesien, dat uit daardie opbrengs fondse verkrege word vir die onderwys en ander dienste, welke vir die naturel verrig moet word; dat hulle behoorlik belas word. Ons het besluit dat die Prowinsiale Raad die naturelle moet laat opvoed, maar as ons so voortgaan, dat die Unie verantwoordelik moet wees vir die fondse, dan reken ek, dat dit die beste manier sal wees om van die moeilikheid af te kom, dat die Unie Regering die onderwys van die naturel oorneem, sodat ons kan belasting opleg en alle teenstrydighede en die voortdurende stryd uit die weg ruim.

Dit spyt my, dat die debat ontaard tot rekriminasie. Ek het die amendement nie ingedien met daardie bedoeling nie, maar net omdat ek reken, dat dit onregvaardig is om die Prowinsiale Administrasie van Transvaal te forseer om daardie £60,000 terug te betaal en omdat die Unie Regering in die saak gehandel het sonder die Prowinsiale Raad te raadpleeg. Maar nou beweer van die vriende aan die oorkant, dat die Nasionale Party Met daardie belasting opgeleg. Dit is nonsens. Die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler) het byna hysteria gekry oor die saak. Die waarheid van die geval is, dat die Nasionale Party en die S.A. Party daarvoor gestem het en net die Arbeiders daarteen, in verband met die hoofbelasting, en dan moet nie vandag verklaar word, dat dit ’n onbillike belasting is, wat die Nasionale Party opgeleg het nie. Sekere belastinge is afgeskaf, maar dit is onbillik om, as ’n belasting blyk onpopulêr te wees, dit te wil skuif op die verantwoordelikheid van die Nasionale Party en dat dese sou verklaar het: “Ons kan die land regeer sonder belasting.” Dit is dwaas, want geen regering ter wereld kan ’n land sonder belasting regeer nie. Maar die Z.A. Party het die goudprofyt belasting afgeskaf en gesê, ons moet nie meer die goud belas nie. Toe het daar ’n holte ontstaan, wat opgevul moes word: daarvoor was belasting nodig. Dit is nie nodig om in rekriminasies te verval nie, ons kan die saak kalm bespreek. Die edele lid vir Marico (Gen. Lemmer) vergis hom en het uit die verkeerde wet voorgelees, want daardie wet is in 1922 weer veranderd in die sin, dat die Prowinsiale Raad bepaald belet is om belasting op die kaffers te leg. Met my voorstel was die bedoeling volstrek nie om partypolitieke vertoge uit te lok nie, maar wou net dat ’n onreg, die Transvaal aangedaan, uit die weg geruim sou word. Daardie Provinsie draag altoos die leeuweaandeel van die belasting. Ek hoop dit sal nie verder gaan nie, want dit is net argumente oor en weer, die weerleg kan word. Die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) praat van ’n £800,000 batige balans, maar daar is niks van waar nie. Die witman betaal verder die pasgeld en nie die naturel nie. Iedereen sal toegee, dat die kaffer wat by jou woon, van die betaal jy die hoofdbelasting en nie hy nie.

Hulle moet betaal en nie ons nie.

Wel, dan is my vriend ’n uitsondering, want oral elders moet men £1 betaal en hy betaal nie. Dit wys welke verkeerde voorstellings daar van dinge gegee kan word. As daar tien gevalle is, dan sal mens altoos vind, dat in nege daarvan betaal die witman die kaffer se belasting en net in die een van my vriend die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) betaal hy self. Ek reken dat dit nie billik is, dat die Transvaal daardie £60,000 moet terugbetaal en dit uit die witman se sak nie.

I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) say that he did not like recrimination going on between this side of the House and his. I wish to say that this was not started by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Lt.-Col. B. I. J. van Heerden), but by the heated speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé), in regard to the natives in the Transvaal, who said that they were worthless and only worked three months in the year, and had beer drinks for the remaining nine months; and that they were not sufficiently taxed; what are the facts of the case? The trouble arose through an injustice by the Provincial Council in the imposition of this particular poll tax. Section 3, paragraph 2 of Act No. 5 of 1921, says— Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in the South Africa Act 1909, or in Act 10 of 1913, a Provincial Council shall not have the power to make an ordinance which imposes direct taxation on natives, unless the ordinance also imposes direct taxation at a like rate with like incidence on persons other than natives.

But by Ordinance No. 7 of 1921, the Provincial Council of the Transvaal imposed a poll tax of £2 10s. on natives as well as Europeans, but containing a provision that old and indigent Europeans should be exempt. An action was brought in the High Court, at Pretoria, and the Court decided that the Ordinance was ultra vires. (Transvaal Provincial Administration vs. Letanka.) The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court confirmed the finding of the Provincial Division. I will read part of the decision. Mr. Justice of Appeal Solomon, who was concurred with by four other Judges of Appeal, held that this word “like” meant “same” when applied to rate in Section 3 (2) above quoted. Whether the rates being different the Legislature contemplated non-natives being taxed at a higher rate than natives. The judgment proceeds—

It was purely a constitutional point as to whether the Provincial Council could pass this Ordinance after we had passed the Act. While the litigation was pending many of the natives had paid the tax, under what turned out ultimately to be a “mistake of law.” From the strictly legal point of view they were not entitled to a refund, but of course the Provincial Council was in honour bound to pay them back. As for the point about the native pass fees, it is a mere quibble to say that the masters paid the 2s. a month for the boys’ passes. It is paid by the masters certainly, we all do it, because those natives who only get £2 or £3 a month, cannot be expected to pay a tax of 2s. a month as well. I trust the opposition to the Clause under consideration will be withdrawn.

Hier word gepraat oor onregvaardigheid, maar ek is nie daarvoor om 10s. te eis van die kaffer nie, ook nie vir die voorstel van die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) nie, maar wel daarvoor, dat die Unie die geld sal teruggee aan die Prowinsiale Raad. Die Wet welke voorgelees is, is in 1921 deurgeset en toe is belasting opgeleg deur die Prowinsiale Raad en hulle het gereken om daar 10s. van te kry, maar die uitspraak van die Hof het die hoop verydel. Ek is teen die aan die Huis vcorgelegde Wetsontwerp, dat die kaffers helemaal vrygestel word van belasting. Die naturel is nie juis onwillig om te betaal, as hy opvoeding kan kry nie, maar hy word beskerm deur die edele lid vir Denver (de hr. Nixon), wat wil dat die witman alleen moet betaal. Na 1921 het die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies die Wet weer verander. Na 1921 het die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies weer veranderings voorgestel en die naturel helemaal vrygestel van belasting. Die edele lid vir Marico (Gen. Lemmer) het dit mis, waar hy die Wet van 1921 voorlees, aangesien dieselwe vervang is deur die van 1922, welke bepaal, dat die Prowinsiale Raad geen reg het cm die persoon of besitting van die naturel te belas nie. Daar is dus geen kans om dit van die naturel in te vorder nie en nietteenstaande dit moet die Prowinsiale Raad £45,000 uitgee vir onderwys van die naturellekinders, en dit kom alles uit die arme blanke man. Ons praat heeldag van arme blanke, maar die grondoorsaak leg hier; selfs die naturel wat gewillig is, kry nie die gelegenheid om te betaal nie, hy word belet, maar die arme witman die moet haarlaat en £45,000 bydra. Dit is onbillik. Ons praat so graag van reg en geregtigheid, maar dit skyn of dit nie vir kwaad gereken word, dat die naturel glad geen belasting betaal nie. Die boer, wat baie volk gebruik, weet, dat die ooreenkoms met hulle is, dat die boer betaal hulle hoofbelasting en die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) is seker die enigste uitsondering, waar die kaffers self daardie belasting betaal. Die Prowinsiale Raad sal nou ’n plan moet uitdenk cm daardie £60.000 te kry, en dit is nie reg nie, hulle skyn dit te moet terugbetaal, al duur dit dertig jaar. Die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (de hr. Geldenhuys) het enige gevalle aangehaal, maar ek wonder of hy nie die belasting van sy kaffers betaal nie. By ons sal geen kaffer in die munisipaliteit of by die man op die plaas die belasting betaal nie; die baas moet die pasgeld betaal. Daarom kry die kaffer vrystelling van £1 belasting as hy negentig dage per jaar vir die baas werk. Net die wat niks doen nie, moet £2 betaal, Laat ons die saak in die gesig kyk en nie dinge seg wat onwaar is nie. Die waarheid is, dat die kaffer in die Transvaal kan meer belasting betaal as die meeste witmense. Kaffers in die Bosveld, b.v., het honderde beeste, terwyl baie arm boere nie een het nie. Ons. wat kaffers het op ons bosveldsgronde, denk planne uit om hulle daar weg te kry, want hulle vee vreet die plase so op, dat daar vir ons vee geen plek is nie, en nou word hulle nog beskerm en die geld uit die witman gehaal.

Die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) het dinge geseg die ek nie so kan laat virbygaan nie, dat namelik die Regering die kaffers beskerm en dese geen belasting betaal nie. Neem die boer; hy huur diensbodes onder kontrak, waarin bepaal word, dat hy hulle moet tabak en sole verskaf. Is dit nie ’n deel van die vergoeding wat hy kry nie? As ek ’n kaffer ’n os betaal, is dit nie ’n deel van die loon nie? Nou net so is dit als die baas betaal voor die pas belasting van die kaffer, dit is deel van sy loon in die belasting van horn. Ik reken dus, dat die belasting kom direkt van die naturel. Dit word gesê, dat die Regering laat die kaffers losloop. Dit is onwaar. Buiten die pasgeld breng die naturel in Hut- en Hoofdbelasting £800,000 in die kas elk jaar. Van 1918 tot 1922 het die naturelie ingebreng £4,123,000. [Een Edele Lid: “Hoeveel kaffers?”] Dit kom daar nie op aan nie, maar die Hoofdbelasting Wet bepaal, dat wat nie in diens is nie, £2 moet betaal. Iedereen van hulle wat in ’n hut woon, die betaal hutbelasting en ek is verwonderd dat sommige lede dit nie weet nie. Ek het die gegewens van 1923 nie, maar gedurende die laaste vyf jaar is deur die kaffers onder die paswet direkt tot die prowinsiale kas van Transvaal bygedraag £1,800,000. In die Transvaalse kas werd laaste jaar deur die naturelle betaal £352,000. Die vraag is wat kry die naturel vir opvoeding uit die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal? Niets. Is dit reg? Laaste jaar het die Goewerneur-Generaal in Rade £15,000 uit die Unie se kas geneem, omdat die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad niks wou doen nie voor die opvoeding van naturelle kinders. En daarvan was vir eleksie doeleindes gebruik gemaak. Die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) moet liewer ’n bietjie dink aan wat die Prowinsiale Raad van Transvaal gedoen het. Die man hier in die Kaapse Provinsie wat vee en produkte produseer, moet as hy die na die Johannesburg mark breng, belasting betaal. Dis wat die Prowinsiale Raad van die Transvaal nog doen, om een andere Provinsie te belas. Die nie waar nie, dat die kaffers vryuit gaan nie en geen belasting betaal nie. Dis geheel en al onjuis. Ek het hier voor my die offisiële verslag van die Kommissaris van Binnenlandse Inkomste oor die laaste vyf jaar. Daaruit het ek gekwoteer. Ek gaan nie somar hie verklaringe in die wind maak nie, soos die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) nie. Ons moet kom met feite en as ons die feite neem, dan is dit die werkelike posiesie vandag soos ek die weergegee het. Dit sou baie goed wees vir die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) as hy ’n bietjie die verslag sou raadpleeg.

I just rise to suggest to the Committee that we might really bring this discussion to a conclusion now; it has drifted off into all sorts of more or less irrelevant channels, but the point is a very simple one indeed, and, if I may, I should like to put it again this way. Whatever the faults of the Union Parliament may be, because these taxation restrictions were effected by the Union Parliament, whatever blame may rest on the Union Parliament, that does not apply in this case. The Transvaal Provincial Council imposed a tax upon natives and the Courts found that this tax was unlawful. The Transvaal Provincial Council enjoyed the proceeds of this tax, and it got some £50,000 or £60,000 into its provincial exchequer. There is really only one point. If hon. members say that that money should have been kept and not returned to the natives, then, of course, my case goes. If hon. members say the Provincial Council should never return a penny to the natives, then I admit defeat, but I cannot conceive any of us taking that attitude. It seems to me that the only right and just thing, as stated by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), the only fair thing to do, is to see that this money is returned to these natives. That being so I put to my Transvaal friends this case, and I suggest that it is unreasonable to go on arguing as they have been doing. The Transvaal province has received the money and now there seem to be certain hon. members who want the other provinces to pay for it. That is the case. The province of the Transvaal has the money and now they say: “It must not be paid by the province”. It is not a matter of them being taxed, it is only a matter of returning the money, which the courts have held was taken illegally. Now it has had the money, and it is unfair that it should be returned at the expense of the tax payers of the Union instead of at the expense of the province which has had the money. It is a simple case and does not seem to admit of any argument. As to the point of the arrangement of time, I do not think there is much in that. The present Transvaal deficit is a one year deficit and we are going to fund the total deficit for ten years, which they admit is a generous thing to do. I do not think it is open to any argument, I do not think it is illiberal, and I do not think that from the point of view of provincial fairness, fairness inter se, it is reasonable that members for the Transvaal should press this any further,

I agree with the right hon. the Minister, and I think it is a very simple question, and personally I shall vote against the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler). A good deal has been said about looking things in the face, and a good deal of hot air has been talked about educating the natives. But what is being done? We in the Free State take £115,000 out of the natives, and pay £4,000 for his education. When this unfair law was brought into the Provincial Council, I protested to this House against it and I am surprised to hear that it was the Nationalist-Labour pact which advanced this tax; it was not. There was not a single Labour Party man who voted for it.

Does the hon. member know his facts?

Every Labour Party member voted against it.

Does the hon. member know the position?

The hon. member knows me quite well enough to know that he cannot shout me down. It is incorrect to say that the tax was passed by the Labour Party and the Nationalists. Not only that, when the tax was passed, what did the South African Party do, did they turn it down?

Who protested?

No. They endorsed the tax, they endorsed the law, the Ordinance, although the Labour Party in this House protested against it. What did the South African Party do? What did the Cabinet do? Being partners in the crime they endorsed it, and they are as much to blame for it as any one, and the Transvaal admitting its debt, that province should be given more time.

No, they do not admit that now.

Perhaps the right hon. the Minister has not consulted them again. I say that they are only asking for time. The right hon. the Minister and his Government were part and parcel in regard to passing the Ordinance. They are as much to blame as the Provincial Council. When the Labour Party passed the increment tax through the Council, what did the Government do?

What did the hon. member’s party do?

When the Labour Party passed the tax on the unimproved value of land through the House, what did the Government do? It wiped it out, and it also wiped out a tax of £300,000 on gold profits. Why didn’t it do the same in regard to this tax on natives? We hear an awful cry being made about the natives, but I have never known the Government do anything for them. The only party which acted, which took up the matter and protested, was the Labour Party and the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander).

The hon. member is quite wrong. I was the first to get up and protest.

Then why didn’t the hon. member go to his Government and get this tax smashed? Well, I shall vote against the amendment because I do not think it is fair. The Transvaal has had the money and why should the Free State or Natal have to pay for it? If the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) will move an amendment to say 25 years for the repayment, then I shall vote for that.

Na die rede van die edelagbare die Minister, sou ek graag ons standpunt wil duidlik maak. Ons is nie daarteen nie, dat die geld aan die kaffers terugbetaal word nie, maar ons beweer, dat die Unie Regering oorsaak is daarvan, dat die geld destyds geïn is deur die Prowinsiale Raad en dat daarom die Unie ook die geld weer moet terugbetaal. In 1921 is daardie Wet die eerste gemaak, en daarom is dit vir my grappig om te sien dat die vriende aan die ander kant van die Huis nie verder wil kom nie as die Wet van 1921. Daarin was al voorsiening gemaak, dat kaffers moet vrygestel word van belasting, as hulle al die belasting betaal aan die Uniekas, met andere woorde as hulle al £2 betaal aan die Unie en die Prowinsiale Raad lê ’n belasting van £2 10s. op, dan moet die £2 afgetrek word van die nuwe belasting en inplaas van £2 10s. betaal daarom die naturel slegs 10s. aan die provinsie. Die blanke persone betaal £2 10s. en die kaffer betaal 10s. aan die Prowinsiale Administrasie. Maar die wetgewing het nie gerus na 1921 nie. In die wetboek van 1922 lees ons dit—

Dis duidelik dat onder hierdie Wetsontwerp die Prowinsiale Rade geen belasting hoegenaamd op die kaffer kan lê nie. Die wetgewing het nie opgehou by 1921 nie, maar die edele lid vir Marico (Brig.-Gen. Lemmer) wat uit die Wet van 1921 gekwoteer het, moes tog op die hoogte van sake wees, en dit weet. Van die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler) mag verwag word, dat hy dit nie weet nie, maar die edele lid vir Marico (Brig.-Gen. Lemmer), wat lid is van die Naturelle Kommissie, behoor dit te weet. Die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (de hr. Geldenhuys) het hier gepraat oor die afslaërs-belasting. Die is in sekere mate verkeerd, maar alleen deur die beskerming van die myne deur die Regering moes die Prowinsiale Raad dit oplê. En dan kom hy vertel dat in die oorspronkelike Unie Akte die myne se geld alleen in die Unie-Skatkis sou kom, en dat Prowinsiale Rade hulle nie nog belas nie. Dis nie so nie. Waarom is dan in die Wet van 1921 die myne besonder uitgesluit van belasting, besonder beskerm teen sulke belasting as die Unie Akte dit alreeds neergelê het? As die myne nou moet kwytgeskeld word van belasting deur die Prowinsiale Raad en die Unie Regering al die geld kry wat van die myne kom, waarom betaal die Unie dan ook nie vir paaie en onkoste vir skole en hospitale, wat veroorsaak word deur die myne? Die Regering betaal nie daarvan nie. Waarom nie? Dat is natuurlik iets wat edele lede nie wil begryp nie, die edele lid anderkant is alleen teen belasting van die myne en bekommer hom nie oor die boere en arme nie. Die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) het hier gesê, dat dit ’n wettelike prosedure is en dat die kaffers vrygestel is van die belasting. Ek is nie daarteen nie, dat die kaffers die geld terugkry nie, maar die Unie Regering het die fout begaan, wat gemaak is en die Unie Regering moet dus ook betaal, nie die Prowinsiale Raad nie. In hulle Begroting van 1921 is daar al mee gereken, dat die 10s. van die kaffers sal inkom en daarop het hulle hul ander belastings en uitgawes gebaseer en bereken wat hulle vir die 10s. aan die kaffers kan toestaan, en dis daarom die plig van die Unie Regering om die geld weer terug te betaal. Dit spyt my, dat die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) nie hier is nie. Hy het nie begryp nie, dat die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) gesê het, dat die mense liewers dan hulle stemreg kwyt te raak, moet honger ly. Dit kan die edele lid nie verstaan nie, dat daar mense is wat hulle stemme nie wil verkoop nie. Dis vir hom onverklaarbaar dat daar Afrikaners is wat hulle stem nie wil verkoop nie. Die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was verplig om die mense die raad te gee. Wat die kwessie van die terugbetaal aan die kaffers betref, so is ek ook daarvoor dat die geld moet terugbetaal word, maar ek wil dat dit deur die Regering gedoen word.

Ek is jammer, dat die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) so’n voorstel ingedien het, waarop nou hier weer ongesonde woorde gevolg is. As ons die saak nagaan, hoe die plaasgevind het, dan is dit nie nodig, dat daar sulke harde woorde hieroor val nie. Die kaffers is direk belas deur die Prowinsiale Raad en die Hof het toe uitspraak gedoen, dat dit onregverdig is en dat die gelde aan die kaffers moet terugbetaal word. Die gelde is deur die Prowinsiale Raad van die Transvaal gebruik. Nou word aangehaal deur die edele lid vtr Witbank (de hr. de Villiers) dat jou arm klas mense weer belas moet word om die geld terug te betaal, maar dis nie so nie. Die belasting wat deur die naturelle betaal is, is deur die Prowinsiale Raad gebruik en hulle moet net die geld weer terug betaal. Dis nie so, dat die prowinsiale bevolking nou belasting moet betaal vir die naturelle nie. Dis net geld wat terug betaal moet word. Waarom dan sê, dat die arme blanke belasting moet betaal om die geld terug te betaal? Laat ons eerlik die saak in die Huis bespreek en nie die ding verdraai deur te sê, dat die Regering sover gaan om geld van die publiek ten behoewe van die naturelle te gee nie.

Hulle doen dit.

Laat ek horn net sê hoeveel subsiedie daarin kom. Die naturelie betaal alleen in die Transvaal £380,000, waarvan slegs £45,000 word bestee aan opvoeding van die naturel. Die Prowinsiale Rade het alleen laaste jaar £200,000 gekry aan subsiedies. Waar gaan dan die andere geld heen, wat word daarmee gedoen?

Dit word vir algemene doeleindes gebruik, paaie ens.

Ek sê, die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) nogeens, dat die saak is, dat die Hof uitspraak daaroor gedoen het. Hoe kan jy dit dan weer herroep en diskusseer. As ons dit doen, dan doen ons dit in stryd met die uitspraak van die Hof.

Die Unie moet dit betaal, nie die Prowinsiale Administrasie nie.

Dis nie ’n ekstra belasting nie. Die geld is gespandeer. Die Prowinsiale Raad van die Transvaal moet dit dus ook persoonlik weer terug betaal, want hulle het die geld gebruik. Ek sê, die Prowinsiale Raad as ’n liggaam kan baie bly wees, dat die Regering die geld voorgeskiet het vir die terugbetaling en ek is jammer dat daar gebruik word gemaak van die saak om modder te gooi.

Ek wil net aan my edele vriend die lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) sê, dat ek ook van mening is, dat die geld terugbetaal moet word, maar ek gaat nooit vir die voorstel stem nie as belastingbetaler van die Vrystaat nie. Ek voel net so goed as hulle, dat dit nie redelik is, dat die Unie Regering die Wet ingebring het nie. Ek wil daarteen stem en het ook daarteen gestem. Ek dink die naturel behoor meer by te dra tot die prowinsiale middele vir die voorregte wat hy geniet van hulle. Maar dit kan tog nie verwag word, dat die belastingbetaler van die Vrystaat die geld gaan terugbetaal wat daar gebruik is nie. Daar is nog laaste jaar of voorlaaste jaar, toe die Transvaal in moeilikheid was, en die Kaap ook in moeilikheid sat, hulp verleen. Ons administrates het nog hier in Kaapstad gewees en ons had dieselfde moeilikhede, maar ons moes maar weer opdok. As voorgestel word om die geld nie terug te betaal nie, dan sal ek dit van harte ondersteun, maar ek als Vrystaatse belastingbetaler is daarteen, dat die Unie die geld sal moet terugbetaal.

Die edele vriende wat so baie praat oor terugbetaling, moet nie vergeet, dat die Transvaal omtrent 52 persent van die hele Unie belastings betaal nie. Ek wil ook nie, dat die andere provinsies opgeskeep word met die betaling van die £60,000 maar die Regering had meer die wense van die Prowinsiale Raad tegemoet moet kom. Die lede was gewillig om te betaal, maar hulle wou net tyd hê. Die edelagbare die Minister moet nie somar heengaan en so hooghartig die geld terug betaal nie. Dis ’n kwessie wat die Prowinsiale Raad raak. En ek wil dit net sê met betrekking tot die toespraak van die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) dat ’n mens kan sien, dat die eleksie nader kom. Hy kom vir die Huis vertel, dat ek gesê het, dat die mense liewers dood moet gaan van honger as die hulp van die Regering aanneem. Wat ek gesê het, is dat dit beter is vir hulle om te werk as om die geld as “pauper funds” te kry. Hulle moet nie wit-kaffers word nie deur hulle stem weg te neem nie. Ek wil hê dat daar werk vir hulle moet wees. Die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) sou baie graag wil dat hul stemme verkoop. Maar ek kan die edele lid sê, dat hulle dit nie gaan doen nie. Die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (de hr. Geldenhuys) kom hier vir die Huis sê, dat die belasting op die naturelie geplaas is deur die Nasionaliste. Hy weet baie goed, dat dit nie so is nie. Hy weet baie goed, dat die hoofbelasting ingevoer is deur die saamwerking van die S.A.P. en die Nasionaliste en dat die arbeiders alleen teen gestem het.

I am very sorry to have to prolong this debate; we have just spent over two hours in considering one of the simplest points. We know certain sums of money have been illegally received by the Transvaal Provincial Council from the native and should be paid back by that council. We have now got the admission from the opposition that that money was extracted from the natives by a law which was ultra vires. Surely it is right that the Government should step in and say: “No, you have no right to take money from the native, and having done so illegally, it must be paid back.” Can one cavil at it when the Government does the right thing in that direction. When it is discovered that money has been extracted from people that they have no right to extract, Government steps in and says: “No, you committed an illegal act and you must repay the money.” Now there is an argument that although the Transvaal Provincial Council has received the money, the other provinces must help to repay it. That is one of the most astonishing things ever put before the House. We have heard when there is a likelihood of a general election taking place next year, and it is inconceivable, that every separate point is disputed. We have again this afternoon, an example of the attitude of the opposition to attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the people, by saying: “We are your friends, not the Government.” We have had this ever since the beginning of the session, and I suppose it will continue until the end of the session.

Hear! hear!

Yes, my hon. friend knows I am right. The courts decided, however, that the money was illegally extracted from the native and the money had to be repaid. It is our duty to see that the Transvaal Province, of which I am one of the inhabitants, is called upon to repay.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. P. G. W. Grobler put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with amendments; amendments to be considered on 19th March.

moved—

He said: This Bill, which is the usual request for a Vote on account to carry us over the session, asks for three months’ supply. We do not anticipate that our main Appropriation Act will be passed by Parliament before the end of May, and as generally the House is guided by the amount on the Estimates, I need not say much in regard to this particular Bill. The request is for £7,000,000 on the Revenue Account, and hon. members will see that that is £2,400,000 less than the sum asked for last year. The decrease is due, first, to an overestimate of the sum asked for last year, and secondly, to interest on the Railway and Harbour portion of the public debt being met direct from the “Interest Deposit Account,” instead of from the Exchequer Account. The total of our Estimates for the year 1924-’25 is £23,974,000, and the £7,000,000, which we ask for, seems to be out of all proportion, but the explanation, as usual, is that the expenditure is not disbursed in equal monthly instalments. In the earlier months our interest and other payments are larger than subsequently, and the Provincial Administrations also make demands upon the Treasury for large sums during this period of the year. With regard to the appropriation on Loan Account, we ask for £3,200,000. That is £1,600,000 more than last year, and I may explain that the increase is due the requisitions Of the Railways and Harbours Administration. Hon. members will know that they have many large works to complete-constructing new lines of rail, elevators and various things of that sort. They have asked us for large sums, which amount to something like £600,000 monthly. Then we have to finance the Land Bank, telephones, telegraphs and various public works. I beg to move the second reading.

I wish to take advantage of this opportunity of bringing a matter before the House. During the debate on unemployment, several speakers referred to the lack of organization and co-ordination of the labour within the Union. I will move later on an amendment to the motion, to go into Committee on the second reading of this Bill, for the purpose of drawing the attention of this House and the country generally, in regard to distress, and more particularly in regard to the question of labour for farming purposes in Natal. I am convinced of this, if our labour supply in the Union was properly organized and co-ordinated, there would be no necessity for us to go outside the borders of the Union for any labour whatever. I believe that if proper steps were taken, first of all, to give every man who is able and willing to work, to provide him with work, and every man not willing to work, and able to work, to compel him to do so, and every man who is entirely unable to work, to make proper provision for him. If steps were taken in that direction, I am quite sure that unemployment in this country would cease. The reason I want to propose the amendment, is to draw attention to the position of farmers in Natal, in regard to native labour on their farms, and in order that this House should properly understand the position, it is necessary to refer to a little history. In 1837, when Piet Retief for the first time entered Natal, he went through to Durban, without meeting a living soul. The whole country had been devastated of inhabitants by impis of Chaka and Dingaan, and all those not killed had fled to other parts of the country. Later on, when the Volksraad had been established in Natal, and white men had settled there, there was an influx of natives into Natal. When the Voortrekkers first went into Natal, it was found there were about five thousand natives in the whole of Natal, most of them on the Berea, near Durban, and within a few years that five thousand had increased to between 80,000 and 100,000, and these squatted on the farms allotted to the Europeans, and it was ultimately the native policy of the Government that caused the Trek in 1848. The point I want to make is this: when the farms were allocated to the Europeans, the natives came on the farms, and in many cases the farmers took on natives, to perform certain services in the course of farming operations. This has been the custom in Natal for many years. The native labourer on private land is required to give certain labour for the use of that land. At the present time most farmers follow that custom, and these natives get their occupation of land free, ploughing the land free, grazing for the cattle free, and so on, on condition that certain services shall be rendered to the owner of the farm. That has been the custom ever since the white people entered Natal and settled there. In 1855 an ordinance was passed to make certain provisions with regard to the natives on the various farms. That ordinance, to a great extent, did alter the position in Natal, and the position of the farmer was absolutely chaotic, neither the farmer nor the native knowing where he was. Provision has been made for the protection of the mines as far as labour is concerned, therefore protection should be given to the farmers, where they have contracted with native labour. In the regulations, under the Act of 1911, provision is made for the protection of the mines as far as labour is concerned, but at present there is not sufficient protection for the farmer in regard to the labour which he has contracted for. What very frequently happens is this: the farmer contracts with a native residing on his farm to do certain labour, then when he goes for the labourer he finds that very frequently he is not to be found. The women, the cattle, and everything belonging to the native, are left in the hands of the farmer, and he is practically left without a remedy. The other day I put a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister as to whether the Natives Registration Act would be introduced this session, and he replied that it would not be introduced this year. I hope to be able to move in regard to that Bill certain amendments which would meet the question of the trouble of the farmers in some way, but as the right hon. the Prime Minister stated that legislation is not to be introduced, I have thought it necessary in the interests of the farmers in Natal to bring this matter forward now. It is necessary, in the first place, that the contract between the farmers and the natives should be in writing, and in the second place there should be an alteration in the present Pass Law, in the same way as you have in the mines. If a native contracts to do certain labour on a mine, if he breaks that contract he is guilty of an offence, and if a person employs a native who has been engaged on the mine, he also commits an offence, and I consider it is necessary that legislation should be introduced in the same way as far as the farmers in Natal are concerned. On this account I wish to move the following amendment—

I wish to say that I understand the position in other provinces is very bad, but as far as the conditions in Natal are concerned, the position of the farmer is very serious indeed. It is becoming chaotic, and the farmer is not in the position to work, and is no longer master of his own land. Unless something definite is done with regard to the position, there is certain to be trouble as far as Natal is concerned at any rate.

Ek sekondeer. In hierdie Wetsontwerp kom die edelagbare die Minister en vraag aan die Huis sommer £7,000,000 op inkomste vir drie maande en hy wys daarop dat hy verlede jaar £9,400,000 op dieselfde manier gevraag het. Lede moet egter in gedagte hou, dat onder die Wetsontwerp van verlede jaar het ons die Unie Grondwet verander en in die toekems sal dit vir die edelagbare die Minister molik wees maar die rente op deposito te laat gaan. Verlede jaar het die Minister van Spoorwege £5,250,000 eers aangevraag en het so van tyd tot tyd bedrage aangevraag vir rente, wat die werkelike bedrag op ongeveer £8,400,000 op die inkomste rekening sou gebreng het. Daar is op gewys, dat die Regering se aanvraag vanjaar in verband staan met die feit, dat ons in April byna vir ’n hele maand gaan verdaag en daarom krediet vir drie maande moet stem. Was die omstandighede anders, dan sou ek heftig geprotesteer het teen die gewoonte om telkens geld vir drie maande op rekening te stem, want dit is ’n ongesonde gewoonte. Verlede jaar het die Huis ingewillig en daardeur werd die Regering instaat gestel om die finansiële werk agter te hou tot op die laaste toe. Ons gaan aan met die werk, maar die belangryke dinge, soas finansies moet gedurende Mei en Junie behandel word en sodoende kry die Huis nie die gelegenheid om die nodige aandag daaraan te wy nie. Dit is ’n ongesonde gewoonte, dat die finansiële sake agterwege gehou word tot op die laaste, tot die einde van die sitting. Daarom is dit ongesond, dat die Regering telkens geld aanvraag vir drie maande. Dit is nie lank gelede nie, dat die meeste lede heftig geprotesteer het in die Opposiesie, as daar vir drie maande geld gevraag werd, ’n drie miljoen namelik en nou kom ons en stem £8,910,000. Onder die gegewe omstandighede is dit, soas ek reeds aangetoon het, nie onbillik nie, maar ek vertrou, dat dit nie in die toekoms gewoonte sal word nie, want dan kry ons die vertraging van die finansiële werk. Wat aangaat die amendement van die edele lid vir Vryheid (de hr. Jansen), ag ek die saak van groot belang en ek vertrou, dat waar die aandag van die Regering gevestig word op die kwessie van die arbeids kragte van die Unie, die Regering daar die nodige aandag aan sal skenk. Ons het reeds die kwessie bespreek van die invoer van arbeidskragte van buitenkant die Unie en die Regering sal erken, dat dit ’n baie ongesonde beginsel is, dat ons telkens die oog rig na buitekant die grense van die Unie. Ons behoor vir ons eige nywerhede toe te sien, dat die kragte en hulpbronne hier in ons eige land ontgin word en nie die agterdeur oop te hou, dat dit daar uitgaan nie. Ek herinner aan die tyd, toe nie geaarsel werd om selfs Sjinese in te voer vir die myne nie, solank as dit maar net goedkope arbeid was, liewer as om hier arbeiders te kry, wat ook die verdiende geld weer hier in die land self spandeer. As die werkkragte nie hier te kry was nie, dan kon ons die Sjinese nog goedkeur. Onse nywerhede moet egter so ontwikkel word, dat ons die kragte hier kan kry en daarmee klaarkom. Ek hoop, dat waar die aandag van die edelagbare Regering op die saak gevestig is, dit die nodige aandag sal geniet.

Although superseding amendments do not seem to be very popular in this House, especially amongst members on the other side, I do not think we are entitled to vote globular sums of money without giving thought to the economic position of the people who will foot the bill. In Budget debates we often have dissertations on the economic position of the trader and manufacturer, but we have not had an opportunity of listening to the Minister in charge of money Bills stating what he considers to be the true economic condition of the salary and wage earners in this country. He at least might tell us something about them. Those who set about that task of finding out what is the economic position in this country of such persons, will find that there are few statistics available. With regard to a small section of the salary earners, it is true we do get some information concerning them from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s report. In 1910, we had the first enquiry into the economic condition of the people by the Chaplin Commission, but only a general survey was made of the position. We did not get details regarding any particular trade or occupation or class of persons, but they did go into one question. They stated as their opinion that the sum of £25 per month as a wage was necessary in this country to enable a man to live, not in luxury, but in accordance with western standards of civilization. That, curiously enough, is £300 per annum, the starting point of our income tax. Following up that line of thought, I turn to the report of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to see whether that will provide me with some statistics as to the number of people who earn less than this sum of £25 per month, which in 1914 was considered to be a necessary sum upon which a man, his wife and three children could maintain themselves according to standards of western civilization. We must not forget also that since those days the £ has gone down in value, there are higher rents, and other things have risen so much so that if £25 was needed in 1910, 25 per cent. at least has to be added to that sum to enable a man to live in accordance with the same standards. I find from the information contained in the report that some six and three-quarter millions of people in this country, out of some seven millions, are not even considered from the standpoint of income tax collection. The Income Tax Department simply thinks it worth while to send forms out to 203,000 people as likely to fall within the scope of having to pay income tax. There are only 203,000 out of seven millions likely to fall outside the £300 limit. They know it is no use sending to the natives who are indentured labourers on gold mines. They do not take the trouble to do that. Then I find that out of those 203,000 persons to whom they sent forms only 76,000 are found to be taxable. So there are only 76,000 people in South Africa out of 7,000,000 people who are liable to the income tax, that is, who get salaries of over £300 or over per annum from various sources. That alone should make hon. members think that there is something wrong in this State, that there is such a very small field for taxation, when you have an aristocracy of workers and only 76,000 people are liable to income tax. Unfortunately we have no statistics as to the wages received by the other six and three-quarter millions, and no machinery to enquire into these matters. A Bill was introduced into this House by means of Wages Boards to provide machinery. That Bill was lost in another place—it never came back to this House—and the right hon. the Minister has not seen fit to reintroduce it. The position is that we are still in darkness as to what is the economic position of vast masses of the people. From general observation one can see clearly what the general position of the people is—the people are on the decline—their standard of civilization is declining, and they are going lower and lower. We have heard in the past a lot about the white man’s burden. The problem as suggested to me was that it was the white man’s duty to uplift the people in this country of a lower civilization to ourselves, but what is the process which is going on at present in South Africa, and which has been going on here for some time past? For every native, for every coloured man who has been uplifted, a dozen white men have gone down. And that process is still going on. I have seen occupations in this country, which were entirely performed by whites a few years ago, now entirely in the hands of natives on the gold mines. And the standard of wages which determines the standard of civilization is going down all the time. The wages are not those which enable men to maintain western standards of civilization. These occupations are slipping into the hands of natives-, and the coloured people at rates of wages, for the work done, which provide them with a very poor standard of civilization. That is not right, and I say that this country is slipping down the hill. We hear a great deal of talk about a white man’s responsibility to the nations. We hear, we have heard, in the debate which has just concluded, about doing our duty to the native, but we must he careful in lifting up the native, that we do not allow the white man to go down. Because that is the process which is going on. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart.), the other day, asked us earnestly to think what was our aim and what our object here in South Africa, whether we were fighting to make this a civilized country or a Kaffir compound. That is what the hon. member asked us to consider, and I am not going to traverse his speech on that subject. But he asked us at least to start upon a policy which would put an end to the decline of the white workers in this country, to stop the white man being pulled down to the level of the native. He asked us at least to consider the economic position of the white main and to see to it that all workers in South Africa were paid an economic wage, based on civilized standards. If this matter is considered seriously, we will also see how much the State will benefit by this policy. In the two years 1921-’22 and 1922-’23, as far as income tax is concerned, I notice that, although the rate of the tax has been practically identical in both years, there has been a decline in income tax payments of over 1½ millions, so that by this process which is going on of supplanting civilized workers by uncivilized, the State is losing revenue, and others have to be taxed more, because expenditure is not decreasing to the same extent. The fact of the matter is, that in a short while you are going to have a very small aristocracy of labour in South Africa, who are going to be heavily taxed, and especially if the doctrine we have listened to is carried out, that natives must not be taxed, and I can see that the future Treasurers of this country will have the greatest difficulty in balancing their Budget. It must be in the interest of all to give attention to this matter. Arising out of this wage problem, we are confronted, especially on these benches, with other problems which it is practically impossible to answer satisfactorily to ourselves. Often members on the other side of the House, more as a jibe than anything else, because they cannot answer the question themselves, say: “What do you call a fair wage? It is not for us on these benches to say what is a fair wage. That is a matter for enquiry, for which wages boards should be set up, which would say what would be a fair wage to be paid in each industry. But no machinery exists here, and the right hon. the Minister does not seem to take any further interest in the measure which he fathered a few years back. We are asked very often in this House to subscribe to the principle of supporting South African manufactures. When the proper time comes, and in the proper way, that principle of supporting South African industries will receive no stronger adherents than the members on these benches. Very often, however, we are asked, under the plea and disguise of supporting South African manufactures, to support industries which cannot or do not provide a wage by which the persons employed in these industries could live on a civilized standard. We are therefore placed in a false position. If we say that under such circumstances we will have nothing to do with them then we are accused of not supporting the principle of encouraging our own industries. Years ago the South African Manufacturers Association asked the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries to introduce into this House a Wages Board Bill. He did so after eight years. Many of these industries could make out a very good case for protection, but they are liable always to the suspicion, and we do suspect very often, that they are merely using this cry of protection for their industry as a means of placing in the pockets of the manufacturer a little more money while they continue to exploit uncivilized labour in this country. The manufacturers in South Africa, as I understand, have often stated that they are prepared to pay a civilized wage in regard to industries if the State will lend them aid by protection in regard to any shortfall between what the article can be produced here for, and overseas. As far as the difference in prices are concerned that can be met by a measure of protection. This matter of protection, wages boards, and a civilized wage being paid in protected industries are all one, and cannot be disconnected and talked about apart. Whenever a debate takes place in this House on one of these matters the others intrude and we generally get tangled up in a knot. We have no machinery for enquiry and report to which this House can look for guidance in the matter of fixing wages on a proper basis in this country, some guide as to what is a fair wage, whether in regard to the public service or to private employ. We have nothing of that kind to go by, and I think it is about time that the Government should be forced to give consideration to the matter. For that reason I propose to move the following amendment—

seconded.

Ek wil net onder die aandag van die Regering ’n sakie bring, wat ek dink dat die aandag werd is. Die besprekinge oor finansiëlepunte laat ek in andere hande, maar ek wil net ’n paar woorde sê oor die builepes wat nou in verskillende dele van die Unie is. Ek weet nie of die Regering hom heeltemaal bewus is van die erns van die saak, maar as ons in aanmerking neem die snelle vordering wat die pes gemaak het vanaf laaste Desember, toedie eerste gevalle bekend geword het en hoe die plaag nou al uitgebrei het, dan sien onsdie erns van die saak. Ek het gehoor, dat die pes al genader het tot by Kroonstad, of altans tot tussen Heilbron en Kroonstad. Verder het die uitgebreek in die distrik te Boshof, Wolmaransstad, Venterstad, selfs in diewestelike deel van Bloemfontein en heel wat andere dele van die Unie. Ek wil nie onnodige paniek veroorsaak nie, niemand sou dit wil, as dit voorkom kan word, maar ek sê, dat dit hoog tyd is, dat die Regering ernstige stappe neem om die verspreiding van die plaag teen te gaan. As daar ’n uitbreking is van siekto onder diere, dan word spesiale maatreëls geneem. Die Regering neem spesiale stappe, om soveel moontlik die verspreiding teen te gaan. Ek meen, dat dit van nog veel meer, van dubbele belang, is vir die Regering om stappe te neem en sy voile aandag te gee aan die voorkoming van verdere uitbreiding van die siekte onder die mense. Totnoutoe is die gevalle meestal beperk gebly tot die platteland, en dis miskien daaraan te danke dat die sterftegevalle nog betrekkelik beperk is en nie so groot is as wanneer die plaag hom uitgebrei had tot die meer bevolkte streke en tot die stede, soos Johannesburg, Durban en miskien ook Kaapstad. Wat sal die noodwendige gevolge wees as die plaag hom uitbrei tot die stede? Die Regering moet nie karig en suinig wees in die rigting nie en moet spesiale stappe neem, al gaan dit ten koste van grote uitgawes. Volgens die jongste rapporte is daar al 155 gevalle onder blanke en gekleurde, 25 gevalle onder blanke en 130 gevalle onder gekleurde. Die sterftegevalle is 92. Die aantal sterftegevalle wys op die erns van die siekte, want die persentage is baie groot, 92 uit die 155, tien dooie onder die blanke en 82 onder die naturelie en gekleurde. Dis dus nodig, dat die Regering die grootste aandag gee aan die saak. Iemand het vir my gesê, dat die pes baie ernstiger afmetinge aangeneem het as ons nog dink, want dat die naturel besonder bevrees is om hom aan te gee, omdat hy dan onder karantêne sal kom. Die naturel het ’n groot gevoel vir Vryheid, dit steek in hom, en dis dus heeltemaal moontlik dat daar is wat dit verberg, selfs ten koste van hulle lewe, want die Wet sal sy vryheid belemmer as hy dit aangee. Ek wil, dat die Regering baie ernstig in die saak sal wees en nie met maatreëls sal kom as dit te laat is, soos in die 1918 epedemie. Dan sal dit honderde en duisende kos om die pes te bestry. Dis nou die tyd vir die Regering om te doen wat in sy vermoë is en die bevolking sal seker agter die Regering staan om te help met maatreëls om die epedemie te bestry.

Perhaps I had better deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. C. A. van Niekerk) in regard to the unfortunate outbreak of plague in South Africa. I quite assure the hon. member and this House that the Government is fully alive to the seriousness of this outbreak, and to the necessity of leaving nothing undone that will clean the country of the infection. As the hon. member knows, there has been quite a considerable number of cases since December—over 150—and this is bad enough, but the serious part is that the infection has got into the veld rodents, and unless these can be cleared out, that infection will remain in the country, and from time to time break out amongst the human population, as now. The hon. member said that any disease amongst stock was dealt with stringently and no expense saved. I can assure the hon. member that as far as any steps are concerned by the Government in eradicating this infection —the Government has not yet arrived at any definite plan by which this can be done—over the vast areas which are inhabited by these rodents. Various methods of destruction of these animals have been tried, some are not so effective as to be worth while going on with; of these that are effective, some are too dangerous—such as poison gas—and cannot be handled without skilful and careful supervision, and the Government has sent experts to various districts to investigate the matter and to suggest the best results, and the best way, in which areas can be cleared of rodents. In connection with this point, I may mention that it is useless to clear out small districts; if we proceed on a small scale, by the time we clear one area, a new population is coming into it again. When we embark on this operation, the work must be done in large areas, otherwise it is useless. This is a matter that the Government has under consideration, and I can assure the hon. member that we are seriously alive to the dangers of infection, and will not allow any motives of economy to interfere with us in efficiently dealing with the rodents in the districts, and clearing the country of infection.

Ek is baie bly om te hoor dat die edelagbare die Minister se Departement die nodige stappe geneem het om te sien wat gedoen kan word om die Unie te suiwer van die pes, maar ek wil graag onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister bring—ek weet nie of hy hom daarvan bewus is —maar ek het b.v. 14 dae gelede in die Vrystaat gewees. Ek het daar Saterdag aangekom en toe kom daar ’n poeliesieman en vertel vir my die eerste, dat die pes uitgebreek het op ’n plaas wat ’n uur te perd van my plaas verwyder is. ’n Naturel is daar dood en die dokter het pes gekonstateer. Toe vra ek vir die poeliesieman watter maatreëls geneem is om die uitbreiding te bestry en hy sê vir my, dat daar nog niks gedoen is nie. Die naturelie loop daar nag na nag rond en dra die kieme met hulle rond. Is dit dan wonder dat die pes hom uitbrei?

Wat is die naam van die plaas?

Kaalpan. En toe ek vir de poliesieman sê, dat ek dadelik aan die edelagbare die Minister gaan telegrafeer, het hy vir my gesê, dit nie te doen nie, want miskien as hy terug kom by sy stasie sal daar al maatreëls geneem wees. Dergelike toestande veroorsaak paniek en iedereen is daarvan oortuig, dat die toestand hoogs ernstig is. Ek is nie daarvoor nie om drastiese maatreël te neem nie, waardeur ’n paniek veroorsaak word nie, maar die edelagbare die Minister moet my nie kwalik neem as ek sê, dat die Department in die verlede laks gewees het. Reeds in 1916 het ons van ’n geval van die pes gehoor, maar toe het die Regering bepaald laks gewees. Dit sou gemakkelik gewees het om toe die plaag in sy kiem te smoor, maar vandag is die verspreid oor die hele Unie en in byna elke provinsie, maar waarom het die Regering in die begin so laks gewees?

Tot het ek nie die oorsaak geweet nie.

Wat maak die deskundiges dan? As hulle toe nie die oorsaak geweet het nie, hoe maak hulle dan nou? Daar is sedert die tyd 8 jaar verstryk en die pes is nou versprei oor byna alle provinsies van die Unie en vandag sit die edelagbare die Minister met sy hande in sy haar en weet nie hoe die toestand baas te word nie. Nou het die edelagbare die Minister gesê, dat hy deskundiges na die distrikte waar die pes heers, gestuur het. Ek wil dan net daarop wys dat dit in die eerste plek absoluut noodsaaklik is, dat die deskundiges die publiek in hulle vertroue neem en die publiek wys op die gevaar van die pes, sodat gevalle daadlik word gerapporteer. Maar dan gaan ek verder en ek sê, dat die Regering met die siekte moet optree. Ek is maar ’n leek, maar ek het gesond verstand—net soos die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou opgetree het met die uitroei van sprinkane. As ons net een of twee deskundiges aanstel om die pes uitteroei, dan gaan dit te stadig en die pes vermeerder te vinnig. Ek wil hê, dat wat betref die gebruik van gasse, die deskundiges die publiek in vertroue neem, en die mense wys hoe die gas gebruik moet word. As ons die doen en die mense wys op die gevaar, dan is ek oortuig daarvan, dat elke boer sy bes sal doen om die plaag te help bestry, en die muisse dood te maak. Die mense moet gewys word op die gevaar en die Regering moet die gif en spuite verskaf, net soos die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou by die uitroeiïng van die sprinkane gedoen het. Ek wil graag van die Regering weet of daar genoeg spuite en gif ter hand is. ’n Edele lid hier sê, dat daar geen gif beskikbaar is nie. As dit so is, dan behoor die edelagbare die Minister al maatreëls geneem te hê om onmiddellik die gif beskikbaar te hê. Ek wil net hoop, dat die paar aanmerkinge wat ek hier gemaak het die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister sal gehad hê. Ek het die gemaak met die gevoel, nie om ’n paniek te veroorsaak nie, maar om ’n paniek te voorkom.

Ek wil graag van die Regering weet wanneer die Regering nou eindelik van plan is om voorsieninge te maak, om die publiek in geleentheid te stel voordeel te trek van Wette wat laaste jaar hier gepasseer is. Neem b.v. die Aanneming van die Kinders Wet. Daar is nog geen stappe geneem nie, nog geen vorme beskikbaar nie en tog is die Wet al 9 maande in werking. Daar is geen magistraat wat iets van die uitvoering van daarie Wet afweet, en hulle vra aan die Departement om informasie, maar kry die nie. Wanneer gaan die Regering nou eindelik uitvoering gee aan die Wet? Dan ’n ander kwessie is die mail-kontrakt, wat binne ses maande andermaal aangegaan moet word. Wat hierdie kontrak betref het ons ’n belangrike saak voor ons om te besluit wat ons gaan doen. Gaan die Regering weer wag tot dit te laat is om tenders te vra vir die mail en vrag kontrak? Gaan die Regering weer wag totdat die maatskappy in staat gestel is om hulle kondiesies aan ons voor te skryf? Ons het verwag dat van jaar in alle geval verandering daarin gemaak sou word dat die Regering by tyds die nodige stappe sou neem om Suid-Afrika die beste fasiliteite te verskaf wat moontlik is, deur tenders te vra. Op die 30ste September a.s. verstryk die mail-kontrak, die mielie-seisoen is op hande, maar daar is nog niks gedoen nie. Die maatskappy en uitvoerders wat reëlings moet tref om mielies te verskeep, weet nie wat gaan gebeur nie na die 30ste September. Waar laaste jaar die kwessie hier gedebateer is en sekere planne aan die hand gegee is, het ons verwag, dat ons daar verder van sal hoor en dat daar behoorlike tydige maatreëls geneem sal word, en dat ons nie weer sal wag nie tot die laaste oomblik. Dit pas die Regering om te sê watter maatreëls getref word. Verder het ons laaste jaar ’n debat gehad oor die Naturelle Stedelike Gebiede Wet. Hierdie Huis het die erns van die Wet soseer gevoel, dat daar ’n Gekose Komitee is aangestel. Daardie Komitee het lank oor die kwessie gesit, en later is die Wet deur die Huis gepasseer. Welke stappe het die Regering geneem om uitvoering te gee aan die Wet, buite en behalve te proklameer dat die Wet in werking tree op die 1ste Januarie 1924? Nog geen enkele lokasie is geproklameer, geen reëlinge is getref nie. Wat is die plan van die Regering? Kan hulle die Wet nie uitvoer nie of kan hulle die regulasies nie opstel nie? Wat gaan hulle doen met die Wet? Die munisipaliteite het al aan die Regering gevra om inligtinge, maar niks gekry nie. Is dit sover al gekom, dat die Regering wette passeer, maar nie kan uitvoer nie? Ek wil my aansluit by die amendement van die edele lid vir Vryheid (de hr. Jansen). Ek glo dis net 3 jaar gelede dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister in die Huis gesê het, dat dit hoog tyd is, dat die hele kwessie van werkgewers en werknemers en die kontrak-siesteem sal behandel word, en dat daar behoorlike wetgewing op die statute boek geplaas word om verbetering in die siesteem aan te bring. Soos ons weet wat die Transvaal betref—en ek meen daar seker van te wees ook wat die Vrystaat betref— is die Wet wat die verhouding tussen werkgewer en werknemer en ook die verhouding tussen die witman en die kleurling vasstel, een Wet wat in 1881 gepasseer is. Baie gedeeltes van daarie Wet is herroep, baie gedeeltes het feitelik verval en is verouderd en die deel van die Wet wat vandag nog bestaan, mag ek wel sê, is so verouderd, dat dit nie meer aanpas nie by die teenwoordige tye en toestande in die land. Die hele bedryf en viral die boerbedryf word uit verband geruk, omdat elke slag moet terugval word op die ou Wet van 1881, daardie Wet is vir heel andere toestande gemaak, as wat vandag heers. Ons het nou ’n Naturelle Kommissie, wat naturelie sake hulle aandag moet gee maar dis baie duidelik, dat die Kommissie maar min inisiatief het. Hier is feitelik in die drie jaar wat die Kommissie nou al bestaan, nog nie een ding deur die Kommissie gedoen of voorgestel nie. Geen inisiatief is deur die Kommissie getoon in enige sake voor die Parlement gebring ter bespreking, daar het nog geen werkelik voorstel van die Kommissie gekom nie. Die klagte van die edele lid vir Vryheid (de hr. Jansen) is nie alleen klagte wat in Natal gevoel word nie, maar die Westelike Transvaal en ander dele van die land het dieselfde klagte. Die verhouding tussen jou en die naturel wat jy in diens het op jou plaas is nie meer gereël nie. Hy kan gebruik maak van die plaas, maar die boer het feitelik geen krag, geen mag om van hom werk daarvoor in plaas te eis nie, of om hom op ’n behoorlike kontrak te verlaat. Wat vind men nou in baie gevalle? Dat die ou volk op die plaas is, wat nie meer van hulp is nie, die jong volk het weggetrek en die boer moet met die ou volk maar voortsukkel. Die boere is te mensliewend om sy oue volk weg te ja, hy voel te seer sy plig om hulle in hulle ou daë skuiling te gee, maar onderwyl het hy geen volk om hom te hulp sy bedryf voort te sit, en om aan die toestand een eind te maak wil ik my vriend, die edele lid vir Vryheid (de hr. Jansen) ondersteun.

I will not keep the House more than a few minutes, but I would like the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries to inform us what is the attitude of the Government in regard to the question of a Wages Board Bill? He introduced a Wages Board Bill in 1921, but it was lost in another place. Is the Government going to abandon all hope of reintroducing that Bill? Why not reintroduce it? I do not want to say anything more about that, but I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance what is the attitude of the Government in regard to reports issued by the Board of Trades and Industries? I would like to draw his attention to the Act passed last year, which said that these reports should be laid before both Houses of Parliament within a month of their receipt by the right hon. the Minister if Parliament is in session, and if not, within one month after the commencement of the Parliament. I understand that a number have been sent to the Government, but none have been laid before us. We will let the right hon. the Minister off if he gives us the information now, but it is no use passing laws of this kind unless the right hon. the Minister carries them out. There are some very important reports on the subject of dumping which have been handed to the Government, and as the House is in session, I think we should have those reports laid on the table, so that we can consider the advisability of legislating accordingly.

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), I wish to say that the Wages Board Bill has been very largely superseded by the Conciliation Bill, which was passed through this House, and which provides for a permanent board that would go into all matters appertaining to industry, and the Government has no intention of reviving the Bill in the form which it was before the House three years ago.

I wish to say a word or two in support of the amendment by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I am surprised to hear the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries say something similar to what he did in reply to a question I put on the Order Paper last session, when I asked him if it was the intention of the Government to reintroduce the Wages Board Bill. He said then it was thought that the Industrial Conciliation Bill should go a long way towards an amicable settlement regarding conditions of employment in industry generally, and that a Special Wages Bill was, therefore, unnecessary. Because of the introduction of a Bill to settle industrial disputes, then everything has been done, we are told, that can be done by the Government in the way of legislation in connection with the establishment of Wages Boards. Why, there are very few Clauses in the new Conciliation Bill that appeared in the Wages Board Bill of 1921. No, the neglect of industrial legislation by the present Government cannot be too frequently brought to the notice of this House.

Look at all the Bills we have passed.

We meet here, year after year, and place upon the Statute Book all manner of measures, but when one reviews the year’s work at the end of each session, one finds that it is barren of any legislation likely to be beneficial to wage and salary earners.

What about the Factory Act?

Let us take the session of 1922. A number of Bills were bracketed together, the Juvenile Advisory Board Bill, the Apprenticeship Bill—

They were passed.

Yes, and the Wages Board Bill? What about that? It was a great disappointment to those who take an interest in the welfare of people engaged in industry, when the Wages Board Bill was turned down in another place in 1922, but it was a greater disappointment to the same people when the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries refused to consider the reintroduction of that Bill in 1923. Now he comes along with the lame excuse that the Industrial Conciliation Bill would go a long way towards the settlement of these matters. I have had a letter from the Commercial Workers’ Union of Maritzburg, and they request us to do whatever is possible to secure the extension of the Wages Boards Act of 1918, so as to make it applicable to male adults. Surely the Government will consider the extension of that measure, if they do not intend to bring in the more desirable Bill of 1921. The right hon. the Minister is well acquainted with the defects in the 1918 Act. They could all be amended, and the Act could also be amended to include male adults. I submit if that were done, there would be little necessity for much of the legislation we consider in this House. If there were a Wages Boards Act in this country, it would be unnecessary to discuss the proposed Class Areas Bill, for instance. What the commercial workers object to, in so far, at all events, as the Indian traders are concerned, is the competition, the unfair competition, from those who are not obliged to pay their assistants an equal rate of wages. That was one of the reasons advanced by the employers in the building trade. They advocated the paying of equal wages, so that they would be able to meet unfair competition. Let us look at what they actually said before the Wages Boards Select Committee and the Industrial Conciliation Bill Select Committee.

It is in the Bill now.

In which Bill?

In the Conciliation Bill.

Where?

In Clause 9.

This is what they said—

They registered a very strong protest against the withdrawal of this particular measure. Witnesses who came before the Industrial Conciliation Bill Select Committee also brought it to the notice of that Committee how very disappointed they were that the Wages Boards Bill of 1921 had not been re-introduced. The national federation is a body comprising sixty master builders and allied trades associations throughout the Union of South Africa. The Wages Boards Bill was carefully considered by them on its publication in the Gazette in March, 1921. The federation saw in that Bill the solution of one of the greatest difficulties that beset the building industry, i.e., the unfair competition by employers who are outside their organization and were not bound by the standard of wages and working conditions laid down by the National Federation, in agreement with various trade unions. There is only one properly organized industry in this country, and that is the printing industry. It is the only industry at the present time that will be able to regulate wages and conditions under the Industrial Conciliation Bill, and it will be a long time, unfortunately, until other industries reach the same standard. It is because we know the position that we are urging the Government to introduce as soon as possible a Wages Boards Bill. I do not propose to weary the House by reading all that the building industry employers did say, although their evidence is well worth hearing. The fostering of industries, we are told, is a policy strongly advocated by the South African Party; yes, but they would have been more correct had they said that at certain times this is a policy strongly advocated by the South African Party; to put it plainly, at election times. But that is not all. It is a fact that no industry carried on by a fair-minded employer can exist against the unfair competition of persons whose one idea of lessening the cost of production is to reduce the wages of their men.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.13 p.m.

I was complaining, when the House suspended business, of the Government’s neglect of industrial legislation, and I was protesting against the reasons submitted by the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries why he would not agree to the provisions embodied in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). There was no necessity now, the right hon. the Minister tells us, for a Wages Board Bill, because of the Industrial Conciliation Bill that has just passed through this House; and I cannot help thinking that that is a perpetuation of the old game of playing off one measure against another in the same way as the Government plays off one class of workers against another class of workers, and also plays off one section of its employees against another section of its employees. Let us take the latest example in this connection, that is the refusal by the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries to agree to the formation of a conciliation board in regard to the wages now paid in the mining industry. The reply of the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries to the application of the mine workers for a conciliation board, under the Transvaal Act of 1899, to consider a demand for a 21 per cent. increase in pay on the cost of living, was received on Friday last in Johannesburg, and the right hon. the Minister has refused the application, giving as his ground that he is not prepared to resuscitate the Transvaal Act by nominating a conciliation board in view of the fact that that Act has become defunct since the report of the Mining Industry Board, and that legislation had passed through this Assembly and was now being dealt with by the Senate. The right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries takes un the position that because a Bill has passed the House, and is now to be considered in another place, he can refuse the miners at the Crown Mines a conciliation board in the same way as he says there is no necessity for a Wages Board Bill because we are about to get an Industrial Conciliation Bill. With regard to unemployment and the absence of any legislation such as was provided for in the Wages Board Bill of 1921, unemployment is increasing is South Africa. One has only to turn to the latest report of the Cape Juvenile Advisory Board. In relation to conditions of labour at the present time, the inspector of white labour presents a picture which has an important bearing on the question. He states that the figures reveal a marked displacement of unskilled and semi-skilled white labour by coloured labour; in other words, the coloured man comes along at a cheap rate of pay, and takes the position and the work previously occupied and done by the white man. Very shortly we will have natives coming along and taking the work from the coloured man. This will go on, as mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), until baboons are brought in to take the place of the natives who have taken the work from the coloured man. So the process goes on, and it is all due to the absense of legislation laying down a minimum wage. There has been a demand for legislation of this nature. One has only to read through the evidence given before the Industrial Bill Select Committee to find that there is a growing desire for legislation that will lay down a minimum wage below which no man, whatever his colour, should be asked to work. I submit that would go a long way to solve what is the greatest problem of our time—that of unemployment. The right hon. the Prime Minister himself promised not only to tackle this question, but that he would tackle it at its root; but the Government never sems to go to the root of anything. As the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries said, they passed the Juvenile Affairs Board Bill and the Apprentice Bill, but they dropped the Wages Board Bill which was considered to be part and parcel of the legislation necessary. They dropped the most important measure, the Wages Board Bill. I hope that the people will protest through the ballot box—that if the Government will not consider industrial legislation, opportunity be given another Government who will.

Daar is baie nadruk gelê op die feit, dat die koringboere van die Westelike Provinsie vanjaar ’n goeie koringoes gewin het. Maar hulle kry net £1 19s. 6d. en 19s. 3d. per mud en dit is onmolik om koring daarvoor te produseer. Die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid het verlede jaar aanbeveel, dat die Regering die invoerregte op koring moet verdubbel, ofskoon daar geen graanboer op daardie Raad sit nie. Dit was hul algemene oortuiging, dat dit die koringboere sou aanmoedig en die verbruiker nie sou benadeel nie. Die Raad het daarop gewys, dat selfs as die prys van koring verhoog word tot meer as 27s. per sak, dit die prys van brood in die stede nog nie sou laat styg nie. Die prys van koring het aansienlik gedaal tot onder die punt van betaalbaarheid. As die Regering vanjaar wil gevolg gee aan die aanbeveling van die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid, dan sal die verbruiker daar niks by verloor nie en die boer sal gered word. Daar is ’n tyd gewees, en die kan weer kom, dat die boer jaar na jaar ’n slegte oes gekry het. Dit het al aangekom tot vyf jaar agtermekaar. Wat sou dan van die boer onder die bestaande toestand word? ’n Ander punt is die van messtowwe. Dit was die politick van die ou Kaapse Regering om die boer sy messtowwe so goedkoop as molik te laat kry. Nou word guano, wat £5 gekos het vóór die oorlog, verkoop teen £7. Dit is nie reg nie. Die Regering maak wins op daardie £7. Dit is onbillik dat die Regering op so ’n artiekel enige wins hoegenaam maak. Nie slegs maak hulle wins uit ons guano nie, hulle gaan verder en plaas keer op keer nuwe invoerbelastings op messtowwe van buite.

Dit is nie waar nie.

Dit is volkome waar. Die Regering het verlede jaar begin met die gewone “dumping duty,” ’n spesiale invoerreg op superfosfate, waar dit goedkoper hier ver koop word as in die land van oorsprong. Toe die Regering uitvind dat hulle nie veel daaruit haal nie, voer hulle ’n sogenaamde “freight dumping duty” in en maak dit 5s. per ton. Daarmee nog nie tevrede nie, voer hulle in die derde plaas ook nog ’n “sales dumping duty” in. Ontken die edelagbare die Minister dit? Toe die Regering sien hulle kan die boer nog nie genoeg laat betaal nie, plaas hulle nog die “exchange dumping duty” boweop al die ander. Die gevolg is, dat van jaar superfosfate uit België, in plaas van £4 2s. per ton te kos, nou £5 10s. kos. Dit is nie die regte manier om die boer te help om te produseer nie. Die boer kon eers die superfosfate teen £3 17s. 6d. per ton kry. Die Minister van Finansies beskerm die De Beers Maatskappy, en weet nie dat die boer ook beskerming nodig het nie. Boere het my gevraag om daarop aan te dring, dat die prys van ingevoerde kunsmis sodanig gereël word, dat dit nie op meer as £4 2s. per ton uitkom nie. As die De Beers fabriek hul superfosfate uit rots en ander bestanddele, wat plaaslik verkry word, fabriseer, dan was daar nog iets te sê vir die beskerming daarvan. Die graanindustrie is vir Suid-Afrika van groter belang as “Capex.” Dieselfde De Beers wat so hard aandring op beskerming, het onlangs 25,000 ton superfosfate ingevoer uit Europa. Daardie maatskappy kan hul pryse manipuleer soos hulle wil. Hulle weet presies wat die mark gaat wees en het die boere in die holte van hulle hand. Hulle weet presies wanneer hulle moet invoer. Dit is baie onbillik dat hulle spesiaal beskerm moet word ten koste van die koringbou. Ek vertrou dat my edelagbare vriend, die Minister van Finansies, notisie sal neem van die feite en toesien dat die boer voortaan die superfosfate goedkoper kry.

I think after the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), when he complained that the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries had refused to grant a conciliation board to Rand mine employees, that it serves to demonstrate the necessity for some such measure as a wages board being moved in this House. No doubt the right hon. the Minister will tell us that the Conciliation Bill will apply to the mine employees, but to my mind if we had a Wages Board Bill, wages after all being a basic matter, there would not be so much necessity to call into action the machinery of the conciliation board. There are many occasions when the differences between employee and employer surround the question of wages, and from that other points develop, as a result of which something very serious may arise. There is a great deal of discontent on the mines to-day, particularly as the miners think they have been unfairly treated in view of wages having been brought down to what they were in 1914. In fact, they contend they are being paid less, whilst the cost of living has not come down proportionately. They have asked for a conciliation board as the difference in the cost of living has been put down at 21 per cent. As long as this matter is being delayed, the longer the people on the Reef consider that they are labouring under an injustice, as far as this Government is concerned, it seems while it is in power the men will have to wait. The 1909 Act gives them the right to obtain this, and I cannot understand why the right hon. the Minister should take up his present attitude. Neither he nor anyone else controlling the affairs of this country has the right to anticipate what legislation can come into force in a few weeks’ time. Supposing the Senate does not pass it, or alters it in such a way as to make it unworkable, meanwhile these men have tried every method that is at their disposal at the present time, and if they are further delayed in obtaining any settlement then they may feel that they must be forced to adopt the only remedy which remains for them, and that is to strike. The Government do not want strikes, as the object of the Conciliation Bill was said by those on the other side of the House to be for the purpose of preventing strikes. In the meantime these men on the Crown Mines have put in application after application, they asked for this conciliation board shortly after the New Year, and it is nearly three months ago since then, but nothing has taken place. The extraordinary thing about it is that when legislation such as this discussed, we find many members on that side who speak very favourably towards such legislation; the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) stated this afternoon that he always supported a wages board, but our experience has been, amongst the South African Party members, that they will always support matters concerning the industrial worker, but they never vote that way. That is the challenge I give to hon. members like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). If they are sincere and anxious to help in that direction, let them not only speak in favour, but vote in favour, then they will do something practical for the people whom they say they are desirous of helping. The hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) is another delinquent in that respect. He is always suggesting how anxious he is that the men shall be given a square deal, and that everything should be done to improve their conditions, but when the voting comes he is always found to be on the opposite side to anything which will do good for the men. Another reason why a wages board should be set up is, because not only will it be of great assistance to the employee, but it will be of equal assistance to the employer, particularly in those fields of industry like building, and manufacturing generally, where there are a large number of employers who are anxious to pay a fair living wage, but who are undermined all the time by a section of employers who will not enter into contracts, like those more generous employers, but desire to keep down wages by employing men at a lower wage. That position interferes and brings conditions down to such an extent throughout industry generally that they react on the whole community. We have seen on the Rand during the past few years that all the depression can be attributed to two things in this country. First, to the right hon. the Minister of Finance in bringing about deflation so far as currency is concerned, and, secondly, by the reduction of wages on the mines to the extent of over £3,000,000 a year, and the Government are responsible for these happenings. One can see perfectly well that so far as the Government Party is concerned members may have spoken in support of doing certain things, but their sincerity has been put to the test when the actual voting was taking place. During the war period we heard of nothing else but collective bargaining. Everybody wanted to go in for collective bargaining, the employers on the one hand, and the employees on the other. The chamber of mines were the most progressive in regard to this question. Sir Evelyn Wallers, the chamber’s president, spoke often of the great benefit to be derived from collective bargaining, and was always encouraging the men to adopt that method. The Government adopted the same methods, and they found that it worked very well indeed, but the 1922 strike set itself out to do away with collective bargaining. I submit that the only position that can be fairly put before this House and the country is, that a wages board will do most of the things that a conciliation board will, and that very little would remain to be dealt with. If the question of wages is tackled, it will then immediately prevent a great deal of unrest and agitation, and you would then find that you would be very rarely called upon to exercise the functions of a Conciliation Act. The Government have legislated for women and young girls, but let them go a little bit further and put conditions on a sound basis for all employees. If they will do that, it will be to the mutual advantage of both employers and employed.

Ek wens net die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister te vestig op suiker. Vyf jaar gelede, toe die edelagbare die Minister die Wet hier voorgebring het, om suiker wat in die land inkom te belas, het ek die edelagbare die Minister gevra, waarom suiker te belas. Daar is nie genoeg suiker in die land nie en as daar belasting op die suiker kom, dan sal die suiker so hoog in prys word en van dag kos die suiker 6d. per pond. Suiker is een van die duurste artiekels wat ’n mens moet koop en ek wil net die edelagbare die Minister vra, dat hy moet probeer om verandering daarin te bring in die belasting van die suiker wat inkom van die Ooste, sodat ons weer suiker teen die vroeëre pryse kan kry. As ons nagaan hoe duur die suiker vandag is, dan vra ons, waarom dan juis die suikermense beskerm moet word? Toe die Wet gemaak is om suiker te belas wat hier inkom, toe moes ons 10s. per sak meer betaal as wat dieselfde suiker in Europa vir verkoop word. Die suiker word hier net gemaak deur kompanjies wat die suiker produseer in Natal en die pryse gaan voortdurend op. Ek hoop, dat ek ondersteuning sal kry om die edelagbare die Minister te beweeg om verandering te bring in die rigting. Hier het ons die koringboer in die land. Dit gaan baie moeilik vir die boere om hulle koste te dek met die produksie van hulle koring. In Australië is die prys vasgestel. Hulle verkoop hulle koring vir nie minder as £1 5s. die sak, maar alle overige produksie word na die Unie vervoer en baie goedkoper verkoop as ons mense koring kan produseer, en die boer kan nie goede pryse vir sy koring kry nie. Ek wens, dat die edelagbare die Minister dit ’n bietjie sy aandag sal gee en dat hy ons mense meer proteksie gaan gee. Die mense laat die koringboerdery staan vandag, omdat hulle nie genoeg vir hulle koring kan kry nie, om hulle koste te dek. En hier gaan die Regering om die De Beers te beskerm en lê ’n “dumping” wet op misstowwe wat van Europa ingevoer word en wat baie goedkoper is as die misstowwe wat hier in die land gemaak word. As hulle hier nou nog goeie misstowwe maak, dan sou daar nog iets vir “dumping” te sê wees, maar boere het my gewys een stuk grond bewerk met De Beers misstowwe en ’n ander stuk met ander misstowwe en die stuk met die ander misstowwe het baie beter resultate opgelewer As daar goede en voldoende misstowwe hier is laat ons dan ’n “dumping” set op ingevoerde misstowwe. Die mense het De Beers agente al gewaarskuuw om nie meer in die land rond te kom, want die boere sal hulle van die plaas wegja, omdat hulle moeg is van die De Beers misstowwe. Ek dink dis tyd vir die Regering om ’n bietjie te kyk agter die boer. Hy kry baie swaar om te bestaan. Die grond is uitgewerk en hulle moet misstowwe koop, maar omdat die Regering die De Beers beskerm, kan hulle geen goedkopere misstowwe kry nie. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal die dinge in konsiderasie neem.

Ek wil graag een puntjie net bespreek, wat ook al aangeraak is deur die edele lid vir Klerksdorp (de hr. Smit) en dat is die mail-kontrak, wat in September maand sluit. Die Regering weet dat toe die laaste keer die kwessie in die Huis onder bespreking was, dat daar toe groot ontevredenheid was. Die Regering het toe gesê, dat daar geen tyd genoeg gewees was, maar ek hoop die Regering gaan nou tyd neem om behoorlike stappe te neem, om ’n behoorlike kontrak te kry en van andere maatskappye ook tenders te vra. In al beskeidenheid wil ek sê, dat die kontrak laaste maal aangegaan, beteken niks nie. Neem b.v. die mielies. Daar was mienimum vragpryse vasgestel en geen maksimum pryse nie, daar was geen stabiliteit nie en daardie kontrak, beweer ek, het die boer onnoemelik veel skade berokken. Omrede die spekulant of mieliekoper nooit weet waar hy staan nie, het hulle nie die onkoste kan bereken nie en die boer het die lydende party gewees. Die kontrak was geen drie maande gesluit nie, toe die vragpryse opgegaan het van 20s. tot 30s. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal die saak bytyds aanpak en sien dat ’n behoorlike regeling gemaak word en dat daar ’n behoorlike kontrak gesluit word.

It is somewhat discouraging in this House to have to call attention again and again to what we in this corner certainly consider to be the most important problem that this country has to face in the future. We have got to face it. The amendment of my hon. friend the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is to endeavour to try and get the House to realize what is desired. I think everyone of us on this side of the House, and very many hon. members on the other side of the House, after the recess, felt that in the condition of the country and in view of the enormous amount of unemployment, that these were obvious signs of the increasing difficulty for every man, who was not a man of wealth, to secure a civilized existence, and that this was one of those signs of the times which betokens a very dark future for South Africa, if some sort of change was not made. We then sit here for nearly two months; we have had one long drawn-out debate of unemployment and poverty, but have we got one scintilla from the Government of evidence that they realize it is their duty to tackle these problems. Not a single thing. They are serenely drifting on, and for my part I am sufficiently human, sufficiently liable to that inertia which attacks us—I should for my own part have been content to have let this discussion go on without intervening, but I thought of some of these men living near my own home, men who go on working day in and day out, and they come to me in distress and anxiety with regard to the future of this country, and ask my advice whether they should not seriously contemplate clearing out of it, and going to some other country with better prospects for their children. This Government has shown, and is showing, a complete apathy, a complete indifference, for what many of us, not only here, but throughout the country, look upon as the supreme problem facing South Africa. In this country if we go to the railways, we have the civilized men having to lower his standard of civilization, or else clearing out and having no employment. I have not one particle in me which desires any man of whatever race, white or coloured, should suffer any injustice whatever, but I do see in this country, following the arrangements which the great employers of labour have induced this House to pass, that we are doing no benefit to the less civilized race, and that we are doing untold harm to the future of the European race in South Africa. We have the answer from the right hon. the Minister, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt), as to the relative numbers of men finding work in the mining industry in 1921 and today, and that answer shows that although the prosperity of that industry, as measured by profits is much greater to-day than before, the benefit, the use of that industry to the community has decreased by 15 per cent., if you measure the benefit of that industry according to the opportunities which it gives to civilized men in this community to earn a living. But the Government does not care. It does not appear to do anything. They put us off with all sorts of generalities but they refuse to tackle the problem and make an effort to see by what means and methods we can somehow stem the progress of these tendencies which are withering our civilization in this country at its roots. No man who takes any interest in the future of this country is justified in shutting his eyes to the conditions in which many thousands of people are living, and all the Government does, all we have heard since we have been assembled in this session, has been a speech from the hon. the Minister of Lands, as to the amount of employment he is giving men on irrigation works I wish other members had had my experience of this morning. My hon. friend who sits behind me introduced to me in the lobby of the House a man who had fought all through the war in the Royal Navy. He came out here three or four years ago, and for three years he has been working on the Haartebeestpoort dam, earning decent wages when they were building the dam, but during the time of relief work his pay was gradually reduced and reduced, until he told me that on the 3s. per day, if he wanted two square meals in six days, he had to gó hungry on Sunday. That young man, because he is a young man, hale and hearty, made up his mind that there was no future there for him, and he walked all the way to Cape Town in search of better opportunities, but when he gets here he finds that circumstances are as bad here as they were there. That young man, I think, has slept on the parade ground for the last three or four days. What we complain of is the apathy of the Government, the inertia of the Government, the entire apparent failure of the Government to see to the future of the country, to see to it that the future of the country is saved. The Government must give more attention to the way of life, to the opportunities of life for the big mass of small men, and it must pay less attention to the demands made by those who wield the economic power and reap the profits. Typical of that attitude of the Government is the attitude of the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries in regard to the matter which was drawn attention to by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) and the hon. member who sits behind me. What business has the right hon. the Minister got to refuse a conciliation board on the ground that there is another Bill passing through Parliament. Another Bill which has not yet received the assent of the Governor-General. The right hon. the Minister says: “No, you cannot have the board because there is another Bill passing through Parliament.” That Transvaal Conciliation Act is not repealed until the other Bill receives the Governor-General’s assent. If these men want the conciliation board, is there any sort of reason why they should not have it under one Act more than under another. If, under the Transvaal Conciliation Act, that board can be granted, is it not true that it can be equally granted under the other Bill? Why should the right hon. the Minister hide himself behind a mere accident of time, irritating the men and making them think that the right hon. the Minister and the Government are continually against them, are continually finding excuses for not granting them the board which they want. To me, it is a gross mistake of policy, but it is indicative of the attitude of the Government, and the indifference of the Government; it seems, to us at all events, the indifference of the Government. Just claims of a big body of men are refused, merely because they do not happen to be those who wield great economic influence, and because they are not among the pillars of the South African Party. As far as I am concerned, I am going to take every opportunity in this House, and I shall go on saying it again and again and again, so that, at all events, I shall do my duty so far as I possibly can, to try and wake up members of this House and the people of this country, to this fact, that so long as you are going on adhering to your cheap labour principle, so long you are damning the future of this country. You cannot build up a country on an economic wage, as the hon. the Minister of Railways calls it, of 3s. per day. You cannot build up a country in that way and on a policy of that kind. You cannot build up a country on an immigration policy for men with a bank balance of £2,000. That kind of policy will not help you. You want to build up the country on a policy under which men can flourish, a policy under which they can depend upon their own skill and work for their own prosperity. If you eternally legislate for the very few, and for the benefit of the few, you will not get that, and you are working for a condition of affairs under which real work, real merit, and all qualities which go to build up a nation, are at a discount, and the qualities which are at a premium are qualities of cunning, greed, and not the qualities which tend to make for self-respect

Dit lyk of ’n mens kan praat van ’n vlooi af tot by die skepe toe, wat die mielies wegry. Dit lyk my ’n mens moet van die kans gebruik maak, en die Ministers een vir een byloop. Ongelukkig is die een, wat ek dit op het nie hier nie. Ek hoor dat die Eerste Minister hom die voorsitterskap van die Bond van Oudstryders uit die Anglo-Boereoorlog laat welgeval het, en sou graag van hom verneem hoever hulle gekom het met die plan om van die oudstryders op geskikte landbougrond te plaas as nedersetters. Die kwessie is miskien nie in direkte verband met die saak onder behandeling nie. Verlede jaar het die Volksraad aan die Regering opgedraag om, inplaas van die plan van 5s. per dag, liewer te sien of daar nie ’n geskikte landbouskema uitgedenk en uitgevoer kon word nie, om die oudstryders op die land te plaas en die oue en sieklike in een of ander soort geskikte tehuis onder te breng. Ek wil ook weet of dit nie die plan is om ’n soort ouderdoms pensioen in die lewe te roep nie. Ons betaal anderhalf miljoen pond pensioen aan ambtenare, van wie baie nog helemaal goed kon en selfs wou werk om plek te maak vir ander, wat hoger betrekkings wil hê of om plek te maak vir mense, aan wie betrekkings beloof is, terwyl die grootste deel van die mense, wat die stryd gevoer het vir die land, sonder versorging is. Enige land ter wereld het ’n ouderdomspensioen en dit is tyd, dat dit in Suidafrika ook sal gedaan word. Op die platteland in die buitedistrikte is menige ou afgeleefde burger, die veel gedaan het vir die land—

Daar is ’n voorstel oor daardie saak ter Tafel geleg en die edele lid kan dit nie nou bespreek nie.

Ek sien. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister weet nie of ek mag spreek oor die Wet nie, maar daar is die Kaapse Drankwet wat gewysig is en die kan net tot die ander provinsies uitgebrei word.

As ’n saak reeds op die Ordepapier staat kan daaroor nie nou gesproke word nie, en kan die edele lid nie nou daaroor praat nie.

Ek dag, dat mens miskien sake kon bespreek wat anders moeilik by te kom sou wees. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies vraag ’n voorskot van ruim sewe miljoen, en dit is verkeerd, dat jaar na jaar telkens ’n voorskot vir drie maande aangevraag word. Een maand is helemaal genoeg. Waarom die Minister van Finansies nie teen die einde van Maart gereed is om sy rekenings in te dien nie verstaan ek nie. Op die manier gebeur dit, dat teen die tyd, dat die Begroting werklik onder behandeling kom, is die lede al moeg en daar word aan meer as een saak nie die nodige aandag geskenk nie. Of is die gedagte, dat die Regering miskien binnen die drie maande sal bedank, as die tussenverkiesings in Umvoti en Wakkerstroom nie gunstig vir die Regeringskant uitval nie? Daar het al sulke dreigemente van die mond van kandidate en eleksieagente geval, dat as hulle nie vir die Sap-kandidate stem nie, dan verloor hulle hierdie Regering. Die gedagte is, van die wat daar agter sit, as ons verloor, skyn geredeneer te word, dan staan ons voor ’n algemene eleksie en daarom moet sulke groot krediete aangevraag word. Ek rig my tot die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys, want ek beskou horn as die eerlikste en openhartigste, en hy sal sommer met die hele waarheid voor die dag kom. Is die plan om te bedank en dus die molikheid te voorkom dat andere die leisels in die liande sal kry? Dit word tyd, dat daar ’n ander regering aan die bewind kom, en daarom is dit van belang om te bespreek inhoever daar waarheid sit in die gerugte.

Last week the Government adopted the motion of my hon. leader, the member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), in reference to the unemployment problem. I wondered if we could expect any step to be taken by them in a statesmanlike manner to settle that question. It seems to me that the Government has inherited—

I am very sorry, but the hon. member cannot open that question. That question formed the subject of a special motion which the House has adopted. It is a matter of the past and cannot now be debated until the Budget.

Is it not possible to discuss what the Government propose to do now, in reference to what they have adopted? On a point of order, the Government has adopted a motion that they will take steps, as soon as possible, to relieve the unemployment problem. That seems to me to be the gist and gravamen of the whole motion. I submit, with all due respect, we can put to the House any suggestions we have, from inside of the House, on a Bill like this how to solve the problem.

What the House decided was this—

That motion was adopted as a mandate to the Government. The Government must account to the House for what has been done in regard to this motion, but I am afraid the whole matter has been disposed of by this motion.

I do not propose to go into the debate again, or to use the same arguments, but in so far as anyone can suggest any constructive policy to solve the problem which lies before them, which now comes as a mandate from this House, with all due respect I am in order if I put any suggestion before this House.

The hon. member should have done it on the discussion of the motion.

I feel with regard to all these matters the Government seems to have inherited a policy, possibly from their predecessors, of developing a policy entirely for countries outside our own. We are the greatest producers of gold and diamonds in the world, yet we produce for markets abroad, or for labour in markets abroad. In Antwerp 15,000 people are employed on our diamonds. If we could reverse that, and have a diamond-cutting industry in this country, we could create an atmosphere here for labour, and have all the work done in this country. We can see at once that this country would develop enormously if we had a diamond-cutting industry here. I quite admit this is a difficult proposition. I remember, some years ago, we were told that we could not cut diamonds here on account of our light, and that it required generations of experience to cut them properly; but yet, during the great war, we saw a factory started in Brighton, where returned soldiers were given work, and there they cut diamonds well. That happened in England, and if we had a factory here in this country we could also cut them. It seems our Government will not allow a monopoly here, but they deliberately allow a monopoly in England to control our diamonds—the producing, the setting and the cutting, entirely in England overseas. At present the big diamond enterprises of the world are in Holland and elsewhere, but immediately it is suggested that we could establish a factory here, London will be able to say we will control the diamonds. We can cut diamonds here, and I suggest it would be in the interest of the country if we established a monopoly here. If the Government were to reverse their policy, and see that no uncut diamonds left the country—there was nothing extraordinary in that—we would employ thousands of people in this country. It is no use for us creating labour for other countries. We should create labour for our own, and we would have a market to dispose of it. It is the same with gold. In the case of the Premier Mine I expect the contracts are the same. We are owners of 60 per cent. in the mines, yet all the diamonds go to the London diamond syndicate to be cut. Unless we reverse the policy or the Government do so, we are injuring the country. With regard to natives, my honoured leader said that we should create a permanent atmosphere here where the white man could get a market for his labour, and I say the same in regard to coloured labour, and if you did so every man, both black and white, would be employed. Until we get a policy of creating such an atmosphere in this country, we will never develop the country, and we will always have the biggest unemployment of any country in the world. We seem in this country to be always going abroad, always going to other countries, and most of the important matters are dealt with by those who are to us entirely foreigners. New Zealand has a Minister of External Affairs, but here if we want to find out anything, we have no one to find it out from. Some years ago I put a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister, on paper, in regard to a certain foreign matter, and he said he knew no more about it than what he saw in the newspapers through Reuters. That is intolerable. We should have a Minister here to whom we could appeal to give us information on foreign and national affairs. We should have a Minister entirely responsible to Parliament, and in touch with foreign affairs in all countries, of whom we could ask questions with regard to any country in the world. To-day if I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister for information regarding China or India, he will reply: “I know no more than you, except what I saw in the papers.” He knows only what Reuters sends. We tell ourselves that we are members of the League of Nations. Yet, in this House, if we ask any question on foreign affairs, there is no Minister we can compel to reply. We are told we must rely on the newspapers; nothing else. We must insist that we should have a Minister of Foreign Affairs, and of External Affairs. I know that in the past, if we mentioned a Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House, we were told it was racialism, that we were against the British Empire. It is realized that there is no question of racialism now, and we realize that we are one of the large number of the States of the world, and yet we have not a Minister in the Government who has to enquire properly into foreign affairs, and enlighten the House on questions concerning New Zealand, Canada, and elsewhere.

Ek wil net ’n pertinente versoek doen aan die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies. Die edele lid vir Newcastle (de hr. Nel) het ’n paar weke gelede voorgestel dat die belasting op tabak verminder of gewysig sal word en daar die Minister nog geen besliste antwoord gegee het nie is die toestand van die tabaksboer sodanig, dat hy nie weet of daar hulp sal kom of nie. In my kiesafdeling heers daar die grootste onsekerheid sowel by die boer as die handelaar omtrent die toekoms van die tabaksnyverheid en ek wil die Minister van Finansies vra of hy vanaand nog antwoord sal gee deur te sê wat sy plan is met die belasting. Dit is ongewoon om vooraf te sê wat in die Begroting voorgestel gaan word, maar as hy weet wat die toestand in my kiesafdeling is, sal hy nie aarsel nie om af te wyk van die gebruik en duidelik te verklaar wat hy van plan is om te doen. Die toestand is so, dat die handelaar nie weet wat hy voor tabak kan betaal nie en die boer nie wat hy daarvoor kan vra nie. Die boer het reeds sy tabak geoes en ons weet dat dit in die meeste gevalle die kleine man is wat tabak verbou en dat hy nie enkele weke selfs kan wag met die verkoop nie. Sommige het verkoop en ander is aan onderhandele, maar wegens die onsekerheid kan hulle nie ’n redelike prys kry nie. Vir my is ’n paar pond wat die tabakboer mag verloor van net so veel betekenis as miljoene in die Skatkis vir die Minister. As daar nie dadelik ’n verklaring gegee word nie; dan is daardie arm mense oorgelewer aan die handelaar, wat tog nog ’n aanbod maak. Die arm man moet verkoop, en ek hoop daarom dat die edelagbare die Minister ’n verklaring sal afleg nog vanaand.

Ek wens my aan te sluit by die laaste spreker en hoop, dat so spoedig molik ’n verklaring gegee sal word, dat mens weet waar jy staan. Wat betref die amendement van die edele lid vir Vryheid (de hr. Jansen) oor die arbeidskragte van die land, ek wil dit steun en ’n beroep doen op die Regering, want die tyd was daar lankal gewees om die saak van onse eige arbeid te regel. Miskien is daar ’n misverstand by my, daar die voorstel nie op papier staat nie, en ek dit net gehoor het van die edele lid. My bedoeling is dat dit moet georganiseer word, en as dan blyk, dat in die land self voldoende werkkragte is, dat dan die invoer van buite gestop moet word. Ek denk, dat nie slegs die Unie bedoel word nie, maar ook die protektorate soas Swasiland en Basoetoland, want anders sou ons tekortskiet vir die landbou en ander plaaswerk. Ek hoop die Regering sal daaraan denk, dat die arbeidskwessie van lewensbelang is en dat dit van regeringswege behoort gereël te word. Ons het twee grote en voorname industrieë en dit is die myne en die landbou; die twee moet langs mekaar gehou word. As die een gestop word, benadeel dit die ander en daarom moet altwee aan die gang gehou word. Ek sou nie kan voorstel, dat ’n minimum loon vasgestel word nie, want die landbou kan nie betaal nie wat die mynindustrie kan betaal. Die landbou is so wisselvallig, dat dieselwe geen vaste loon kan betaal nie.

Die edele lid het anderdag met die edele lid vir Oost Londen (de hr. Stewart) saamgestem.

Dit sou nie vir ons nodig wees om so’n voorstel voor die Huis te breng nie en te pleit vir arbeid, maar daar is één saak en daar hang alles van af: ons het geen vaste naturellepolitiek nie, en as die edelagbare Regering een neerleg, sal ons weet waar ons staan, en dan sal daar ook die nodige voorsiening wees. Die edele lid vir Paarl (Dr. de Jager) het daarop gewys, dat die Regering miskien nie kan seg hoeveel arbeidskragte daar is in die Unie, insluitende die protektorate nie. Dit is hoog tyd vir die Regering om op te staan in die belang van die boer en die saak aan te pak op die regte manier. Die boer weet, dat die myne arbeid moet hê en die myne weet dat die boer dit nodig het en die twee, wat wederkerig van mekaar afhanklik is kan nie ’n minimum prys vasstel nie, omdat die een nie soveel kan betaal as die ander nie. Ek steun die mosie, omdat ek wil dat die Regering wakker geskud sal word.

Daar is ’n paar punte wat ek graag onder die aandag van die Regering wil bring met betrekking tot die waaksaamheidskomitees. Die waaksaamheidskomitees wat aangestel is, het bepaald goeie werk gedoen, insover as hulle gepleit het vir die belange van die boer, om hom swemmende te hou met die hoop, dat daar aldag verbetering kan kom, maar jou waaksaamheidskomitees het geen vastigheid nie. Sover as die finansiële toestand aangaan, is hulle van nul en gener waarde en daarom het ons die ernstige toestand. Ek hoop, dat die Regering maatreëls sal neem om die saak aan die gang te hou. Daar word gesê, dat daar regens geval is, en dat die boer nou weer onbekommerd verder aangaan en dat die toestand verbeter het. Ek wil net dit sê, dat die Regering indagtig moet wees, dat dit nie geld reënt nie en dat dit jare neem voordat die mense weer op die been is. Neem b.v. die ernstige toestand van die angorahaar industrie. Die het in ’n baie gunstige toestand gewees, die eerste 4 of 5 jaar na die industrie opgeneem is. Die uitvoer van 1910 tot 1914 was b.v. omtrent 19 miljoen pond gewig gemiddeld, maar tien jaar later in 1922 maar 17 miljoen gewig. Dit beteken, dat die angorahaar-boer in ’n haggelike toestand is, maar as daar hulp kom van die Regering, dan kan hulle miskien oor die moeilikheide kom, dan sal miskien kan voorkom word, dat hulle die platteland verlaat en na die stede trek, want as hulle eenmaal die geriewe van die stede het leer ken en gesien het, dat hulle in die stede net ag uur behoef te werk, terwyl hulle op hulle boereplase tweemaal ag uur op die dag moet werk dan is daar geen ding in die wereld wat hulle weer terug sal trek na die platteland nie. Ek weet van gevalle waar boere wat die laaste 15 tot 20 jaar klipsteenhard gewerk het en wat bepaald ’n balans het, maar wat deurdat die industrie waaronder hulle werk verminder het, in moeilikheid gekom het, omdat die lenings maatskappy opdruk, of die banke of die verbandhouer. Ek weet van ’n man wat minstens £7,000 werd is, as ’n mens die eiendom teen ’n matige prys reken en wat £4.000 skuld het, maar wat in groot moeilik heid is. Die man het vir 15 tot 20 jaar klipsteenhard gewerk. Die waaksaamheidkommissies kan niks doen nie, tensy hulle geld het, tensy daar iets agter hulle staan, soos die Landbank of die Regering. Dis beter om die mense op die land te hou, want as hulle eenmaal na die stede gegaan het, dan sal jy hulle nie meer terug kry nie na die land. Ek refereer nie alleen na die angorahaar industrie nie, ek refereer ook na die volstruisvere industrie. Die uitvoer in die industrie was in 1910-1914 gemiddeld vir £869,000; en in 1918-1919 slugs £379,000; dus is die by meer dan die helfte verminder. Daar het hulle, toe die industrie nog in goeie toestand was, die waterskema’s gebou, wat van so groot belang is vir die land. Die industrie is byna verminder tot die helfte en wat die boere van angorahaar industrie betref, hulle het die grond meestal gekoop toe die op die hoogste in prys was. Daar moet iets gedoen word om die boere verdere fasiliteite te gee. Ek is oortuig daarvan, dat die verlies van die Landbank aanmerkelik min is in vergelyk met die bedraë wat hulle uitgee. Ons vind dat die waarde van die plase is volgens die statistieke byna £56,000,000, dit meen, dat die mense nie in bankrotte toestand is nie, maar dat hulle net oor die moeilikheid gehelp moet word. Ons het die berigte in die krante, ens., dat volgens die opgave van die Departement van Landbou tot 30 Junie sowat 4 miljoen skape dood is van die droogte.

Toe het die droogte pas begin.

As tot 30 Junie 4 miljoen dood is, dan kan ons gerus aanneem, dat tot die end van die jaar daar 8 miljoen dood gewees het. Maar ek wil nie van die wolboere praat nie, hulle kan lewe, maar die berigte wat ons gekry het van Bradford en al die ander lande wat angorahaar koop sê, dat die angora industrie in florerende toestand gaan wees vir die volgende paar jaar. Ons vind hier, dat daar laaste jaar 2,000 mense bankrot gespeel het en ons sien dat 75 persent van al die bankrotskappe deur die boere gespeel is. Ek is oortuig, dat planne gemaak kan word, dat die Landbank meer kan help. [Een Edele Lid: “Wat stel die edele lid voor?”] Ek se, dat daar verder Landbanklenings moet gegee word, dat daar verder fasiliteite behoor te wees, dat die krediet van die boer behoor uitgebrei te word. Hulle is te versigtig met die babietjie, wat so genurs word, dat tog veral nie ’n paar pond verlies sal word nie. Ek sê, dat dit ’n wyse stap sou wees om al was dit 25 persent te verlies, as daardeur boere gered word in plaas van hulle na die stede te drywe.

I rise to support the amendment so ably moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I realize that especially in a country with the characteristics of South Africa, especially compared to other countries, that there should be a wages board established. We have had numerous discussions in this House regarding the colour bar, and numerous discussions on the native question, but I am one of those who believe that if we had a wages board and an Act passed to legislate as to what wages should be paid in the different callings, there would be no further discussion on the coloured question, or the native question, because I believe that if you had a wages board in operation it would not matter about the colour of the individual. It would be a question of the efficiency of the individual. Now we realize that in some countries they have got as I stated before, different characteristics, but even in the North Sea we have Lascars who have put out of employment different seamen belonging to the European nations, showing you that, unless we have wages fixed, employment will always be found for the cheapest labour. We have realized, all who have read ancient history, what has happened in other countries. In no country and no civilization has it been possible for two standards of civilization to exist. We have had decay in the majority of the nations, for the simple reason that the superior civilization has fallen, and it always will fall to the lowest civilization, while you try to bolster up conditions which are unnatural. If we analyze this matter further, what do we find? We find that in Mexico and other countries, where they have fallen to the lowest civilization during the present generation, we know the conditions that exist in that country, we know that Rome tried to do what we are trying to do in South Africa, that is, for a small aristocratic class to live on the backs of lower civilized human beings, and the result was that she destroyed herself. History tells us that the same happened in Greece, and we have also quotations in the Bible, that the Egyptians tried to do the same with the Israelites, when they tried to make them produce the commodities for the needs of the Egyptians to live, as a higher civilized class. We know what happened: the decay came, and as sure as I stand here, decay will overcome the European population in this country unless we have legislation to fix the wages of the different work to be done. It stands to reason, the higher the civilization of the individual, the greater the needs of that individual. It is utterly impossible for any civilized man to live on the same standard as those who have not got such a high civilization, The result, their needs being less, low wages are given, simply because they are cheaper, and they oust the higher civilized man out of employment. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) proved this afternoon, that you have one continuous downward tendency. You have the native displacing the coloured man, and what has happened in Cape Town? When I first came to this country, you had no natives in Cape Town, or very few; you had manual labour done by coloured people. The natives are cheaper, they have been encouraged to come down here by the Government and the larger employers of labour, and have now displaced the coloured man. We have had the same thing in regard to the coloured man, who has displaced the European. If this Government had to pass legislation, one of which naturally would be the wages board, we would not have that tendency, because wages would be fixed for each craft and industry, therefore it means that you would have wages on a basis for all concerned. I believe that, unless something is done, that this country will not be a fit country for Europeans to live in. I believe in the possibilities of this country, but we cannot go on much longer as we are. We see what is going on if we go to the relief works. What do we find? We find men of the highest scholastic attainments working on the relief works, because there is no scope for them; we find other men working on the relief works who belong to other artizan classes, but very seldom do we find carpenters and printers, in which trades they have an agreement as regards wages. These wages have been fixed between master and men, and we find from experience that there is very little unemployment in these two classes, thus showing quite clearly that if wages were fixed for an: industry there would be always a tendency to greater efficiency and security of employment. Before I sit down I would like to appeal to hon. members to try during this session to bring in legislation somewhat on the lines of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). We must have legislation of that character, or else I realize that it will be the extinction of the high civilization and the development of the low.

Ek wil ook graag ’n paar woorde oor die onderwerp sê. Dis baie swaar om in hierdie Huis te luister na al die verteenwoordigers van die verskillende seksies van die bevolking. Hier het jy die landbouw bedryf en die veeboer bedryf. Daar word gesê, dat die helfte van die boere feitelik op die rand van bankrotskap staan. Nou weet ons almaal, dat die landbou en die veeteelt die ruggraat van die land is. Wanner die bevolking op die plase ly, dan ly alle seksies van die bevolking. Nou, wat kan gedaan word om die toestand te red? Daar is al deur die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) gesê, dat die Landbank meer middele moet hê en meer lenings moet uitgee. Dis nodig, dat die boere ondersteun word, want elke boer wat ondergaan, wat arm blanke word, gaan na die stede en vermeerder die werklose in die land. Dis een van die brandendste kwessies vandag waar ons voor staan, dat daar vandag duisende van mense is wat niks het om van te lewe nie en wat geen werk kan kry om van te lewe nie. Sover ek kan nagaan is een van die grooste oorsake van die kriesis wat ons deurgaan, dat elke nywerheid in die land daarop uit is, om te sien die goedkoopst moontlike arbeid te kry. Wat word gedoen? In die eerste plek word die werk van blanke weggeneem en vir die naturel gegee. Daar het ons b.v. Johannesburg, wat eientlik altoos die industrie plek gewees het, waar al diegene wat ondergegaan het, hulle versamel het. As die een of ander boer ongelukkig in sy boerdery gewees het, as hy uitgeboer het, dan het hy na die Witwatersrand gegaan. Dat was ’n plek waar altoos die werkelose by mekaar gekom het. Maar in 1922, toe ongelukkig die groot staking gekom het, het tussen die 5,000 en 6,000 manne die werk verloor. Hulle is verspreid oor die land en die meeste van hulle lei die swaarste lewe. Daar is ’n gedeelte wat nog kans sien om die daaglikse kos te verdien en ’n ander gedeelte het nog net genoeg om te lewe, maar kry nie meer as net voldoende om die dood van diet deur te hou nie. Die toestand kan waarlik nie so voortgaan nie. Daar moet ’n omwenteling kom. As so ’n omwenteling, nie kom nie, dan sien ek die hele blanke bevolking van Suid-Afrika ondergaan. Daar word oorals gesoek na goedkope arbeid. Ons kry vandag die vrouelike geslag, die neem die werk in op die kantore in die handel. Daar is geen kans vir jonge manne, wat die skool verlaat om ’n betrekking te vind nie. Laaste jaar was in die land feitelik hongersnood. Daar is baie gedoen om te help. Die munisipaliteit van Johannesburg het alles moontlik gedoen om werk te verskaf en met hulp van die Regering is daar vir mense wat famielies het, wat getrouwd is, “relief” werk gevind, maar twee klasse van mense is daar uitgelaat en dit is die ou mense en die jong seuns wat ongetrouwd is. Ek kan die Huis verseker, dat honderde van seuns wat uit skool gekom het, rondloop en na werk soek.

Ek wil die aandag van die edele lid vir Fordsburg (de hr. Pretorius), daarop vestig, dat die Huis reeds besluit het oor die werkelose mense en dat die Regering opdrag gekry het om op omvattende manier die saak sy aandag te gee. Die voorstel van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) is aangeneem en aan die Regering dus ’n mandaat gegee om op grondige en omvattende wyse die saak sy aandag te gee. Die edele lid moet dus nie sover daaroor uitwei nie, maar slegs net effentjies daaroor praat.

Ja, dankie Mr. Speaker. Daar is nog ’n ander saak waar ek op wil wys, as ek nie uit orde is nie, en dat is dat tussen die £5,000,000 en £6,000,000 bestee is aan damme en irrigasiewerke in die land. Die kapitaal wat daarin gesteek is, lê nou dood. Is daar nie kans nie om planne te maak om die grond te bewerk. Dit sou ’n baie grote verligting gee en baie mense werk verskaf in die land. Ek dink aan die besproeiïngswerke by Hartebeestpoort en ook by Oudtshoorn en ek vra of die Regering nie die ontwikkeling van die grond in die hand kan neem nie. Dit sal baie mense werk kan gee en baie help om die depressie en moeilikhede te verminder.

I did not intend to take part in the debate were it not for some remarks made by the right hon. the Minister. The House will remember that the right hon. the Minister used the expression that the mines taxation to-day was very much larger than it had ever been in the past, and he also made use of the expression that the state of the market was such in regard to the East Rand Areas that the Government was not able to dispose of the last leases, and that they were practically hawking them round the country. I want to draw the attention of the right hon. the Minister to some papers placed on the Table of this House regarding the matter, and he will find there the reason why these leases were being hawked round, and not taken up. If the right hon. the Minister turns to some papers laid on the Table of the House by the right hon. the Minister of Mines, he will find a reply to a question of mine with regard to some claims sold to the Crown Mines. These claims were 412 plus 82, and were sold for the trifling sum of £31,000. Compare that with the amount of revenue which has been derived through similar leases, which you will find in the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s report. You will find there that the Government areas, from the leases entered into, the Government realized £737,000 last year. What I want to know from the right hon. the Minister is this: If this wholesale clearing out of State property at these trivial amounts is going to lead to this wholesale peculation? Can we expect in the future that amount of revenue which was realized under the old leases? Let the right hon. the Minister also refer to another interesting paper laid on the Table of the House; let him refer to the report that was issued by the Mining Lease Board, consisting of Sir Robert Coetzee, Sir W. W. Hoy and Mr. Georges, and there he will see that, without coming to the House to obtain the permission of the House to depart from the principle of leases, the Government, on the advice of the Lease Board, entered into an arrangement by which they practically made a present of a large and valuable area to a mining company, and you will see that 540 claims were sold to the Simmer and Jack. You will also find that the Mining Lease Board states “that the mine is low grade,” and on this account the claims should be handed to the company at this ridiculously low price, i.e., 5 per cent. share of the taxable profit of the reconstructed company, on condition that if the income tax be increased such percentage will be reduced proportionately. Very considerate, I am sure. In view of the fact that by the exploitation of the area, and additional expenditure by the applicant, they recommended that the Government accept an offer of 5 per cent. The original leases were based on a sliding scale from 10 to 67 per cent., but this arrangement has been entirely departed from. We do not hear of any of these companies coming forward and offering the same terms which the original Government areas offered, and which produced revenue to the amount of at least £4,000,000. We will wake up one of these mornings and find that the whole of the enormous mining wealth has been given away, and that the possibility of our recovering our debts by means of the gold production on the East Rand will have been frittered away for nothing, as we find these valuable assets in the case of the Simmer and Jack claims have been frittered away for the paltry consideration of 5 per cent. on the profits. I think if the right hon. the Minister was to direct his attention to these little inequities and came to this House first before he tried to get rid of a single claim at these chuckaway prices there would not be these alterations every day. There is a further little inaccuracy which he dealt with this afternoon, and that is the deficiency of the total amount of the State revenue derived from the gold mines. The right hon. the Minister in his defence stated there had been a steady increase in the taxation levied upon the gold mines, but I merely want to throw out a suggestion to him, and it is, that instead of there being a steady increase of taxation so far as the gold mining companies are concerned, there has Been a steady increase from leases in the general revenue. The right hon. the Prime Minister will remember that in 1899 one of the last acts that the State Attorney of the Transvaal, who is the same gentleman as the one who presides as Prime Minister today, one of the last taxation measures that that body drew up was: “Wet No. 2 van 1899.” That law laid down that the revenue that was derived from the mines would be devoted by the Government to agricultural development, and was based on the bruto production; as the Government recognised it was too precarious to leave it to the companies to work out what their actual profits were. Supposing the present right hon. the Minister of Finance suggested to this House that the total gold production of the Witwatersrand was going to be taxed 30 per cent., what would happen? I could see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), and the hon. member who sits behind him, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) shuddering if such taxation were levied by this House. I do not say that that would be the total amount of taxation which we would be prepared to levy at the present time, but I do say that present taxation on the mining companies at the present time was leaving a very large number of companies to make unduly large profits. The old Transvaal Government, when the Prime Minister drew up its regulations, was actuated by one motive, and that was to obtain as much from the gold mines as possible, before they were worked out, and that that revenue should be devoted to the development of the country. We see the right hon. the Minister of Finance to-day deviating from those principles, but if he went back into history and worked on those lines, he would be on much sounder lines than he is at present, when he is tackling the poor little nursery governess in the back blocks, where it is not too congenial for her to carry on her livelihood, and taking away the last shilling she has put aside for a rainy day.

Ek wens ’n paar aanmerkings te maak oor die Wetsontwerp self, soas ons die voor ons het. Dit is baie opvallend, dat ons die grote som, wat die Regering vraag, sommer so goedskiks wil toestaan. Hier word £10,200,000 gevra en ek hoop, dat die edele lede sal verstaan, dat as ons hierdie grote bedrag gestem het, die Regering instaat is om vrolik aan te gaan, sonder sig verder aan die Parlement te steur. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister lag; ’n bewys van sy minagting vir die Huis. Dit sou ’n verstandige taktiek wees, as die Regering ’n redelike kleine bedrag sou aanvraag van seg twee, drie of vier miljoen pond, dan sou die Huis dit ook meteen toestaan. Die Huis besef sy verantwoordelikheid en daarom word daar so’n lang debat gevoer. As ons teruggaan na die tyd van unifikasie, dan sal die Parlement die verskil sien in die optrede van toe en nou. In 1914 werd as eerste tydelike bedrag aangevraag £5,000,000; dit was nie genoeg vir die hele termyn nie en in dieselfde sitting moes die Parlement later weer £1,500,000 toestaan. Eers moes die Regering altoos tweemaal na die Huis kom en ons het die geld toegestaan, maar eers na noukeurig ondersoek of dit so nodig was en dam had mens die geleentheid om sake van groot belang onder die aandag van die Regering te breng. As ons maar net neem die belangryke punte in verband met boerdery en mynnywerheid, wat van tyd tot tyd onder die aandag gebreng werd. Nou word ons in die posisie geplaas, dat die Regering eis meteen die groot som en as hulle dit eenmaal het, kan ons maartoesien wat ons verder seggingsskap aangaan. Lede sal besef, dat regte ons uit die liande geneem word en dat die Regering meer en meer die neiging vertoon om alles in eige hande te neem en sig minder en minder aan die Parlement te steur. Mens kan die optrede van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies die laaste jare nagaan en sal vind, dat daar ’n al sterker wordende neiging van minagting vir die Huis te bespeure is. Ek is dit eens met die edele lid vir Christiana (de hr. van Hees), dat die Regering meer aandag moet gee aan ons eige land se sake en industrie, soas diamante slyperij, ens. Hoeveel duisende families word nie in andere lande aan die lewe gehou met die slyp van onse diamante nie? Maar die Regering is bang om die saak aan te pak en laat goedskiks toe, dat ons ons materiaal na ander lande laat gaan om daar werk te verskaf aan duisende; hulle het geen moed om soiets aan te pak nie en so gaat dit jaar na jaar, instede van die ekonomiese voordeel te trek, wat nou na ander lande toe gaat. Neem die geval van tabak; privaat mense het dit by die hand geneem en aan hoeveel duisende verskaf die nie ’n bestaan nie? Waarom word dit nie ook gedaau in verband met ander sake nie? Daar is gebrek aan deursig by die Regering. Die Regering is onbekwaam en staat onsimpatiek teenoor die land en die volk.

I was not going to address the House on this subject were it not for the speech of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), and I think it is just as well the House should give serious consideration to the points which have been made by that hon. gentleman. There is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding and misapprehension with regard to this question of the taxation of the gold mines, and I think it would be well if hon. members of this House, and may I specially direct my attention to hon. members on that side of the House, to give considerably more attention to this subject than they appear anxious to do. It is a pity that the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries was not in when the hon. member was speaking. There is no doubt that there is an impression abroad that all these items of revenue lump together, which they undoubtedly do in the aggregate, appear to be a large sum that we derive in revenue from the gold mines is really revenue derived from taxation. Nothing of the sort. My hon. friend is right; most of the revenue, the large bulk of the revenue which we receive from the gold mines, a very large proportion indeed, is money which comes to us in the form of revenue, really our own share of the profits of our own material. That is so, and many members of the House, and a tremendously large proportion of the public, do not know that fact. The gold mines themselves, through their satellites, by word of mouth and again through their satellites, by disseminating well thoughtout and well-written and well-printed literature are constantly pumping into the public mind that this money has been got by the Government, or dragged by the Government, in the form of taxation, and it is unjust not only to the gold mines but to the diamond mines. We have recently seen the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey), who represents that section of the public very well in this House, also get on to this question. They are all the time leading the public mind into the belief that they are the milch cow that we are dragging the milk from, and not giving them any food in return.

What about Wolmaransstad?

I do not understand the hon. member’s point, he will forgive me if I fail to reach his intellectual height.

The hon. member is trying to define precious metal so as to exclude platinum.

The circumstances have so fallen out that they failed. That is the point with regard to this question of having hawked about leases of areas which rightly belong to the State, and that never must be forgotten, gold-bearing areas, which rightfully belong to the State, have been hawked about the country in the same old way. One would think it was new the way the hon. member referred to it. It is nothing new, if hon. members will cast their memories back they will see when this question of leasing gold-mining areas was thought out, there were the same old refusals to keep these leases, except on the terms of the financial corporations who ran the mines themselves. Take that mine to which the hon. member referred, from which so much revenue was derived last year, namely the Modderfontein gold-mining area, that was hawked about; there was a conspiracy amongst those gold-mining houses not to tender for the lease of that particular area unless the Government came to heel. Fortunately, and I hope the present right hon. Minister will forgive me, fortunately at that time we had a strong man in the Government. I refer to Mr. Hull, he was then, I think, Treasurer, and he refused to be browbeaten and to accept their dictates, and plus the fact that all of a sudden there appeared a blackleg amongst that crowd, we were able to enter into better arrangements than we would otherwise have done. Then we had the same determination on the part of the mining houses, and the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries will remember well, we had his almost crying plea in this House that unfortunately he had to hawk that particular area about, I think it was the Springs area, in between Brakpan and Springs, because no others would come along. What was the cry then? No money! The right hon. the Minister had to conclude, therefore, an arrangement with them, which was infinitely more favourable to them. Now in view of these facts, in view of the fact that they are constantly pursuing these tactics, and, in fact, are holding the pistol to the head of the Government, I think it about time the Government took its courage into its hand and decided to work one or two of these areas itself, and if one of these areas were worked you would find these financial houses would come to heel on their part very soon. I know I am asking the Government to commit suicide; the strong man in the interest of his country would have to be prepared to commit suicide. In his place we have only to apply through the strong man. Even under the aegis of the present right hon. the Prime Minister a resolution was passed putting a high form of taxation on the gold produced, with a certain object in view, namely, to develop the agricultural interests of the country. That was a satisfactory proceeding, but, unfortunately, the right hon. the Prime Minister turned from the course. I do not know the influence which caused him to turn, but the result is that he turned. What has Australia done? Australia is now in a most flourishing condition in spite of disabilities. They have made the agricultural industry go ahead largely and almost solely on the exploitation of the goldfields. The Government there is imbued with the spirit of patriotism, and quite rightly used the mineral resources of the country to conduct a more abiding industry—agriculture. That is what the Government in this country should have done, not leaving things so that there is no hope for the future. There appears to be a policy of silence on the part of the Government, not only in regard to the amendment moved by another limb of the pact, but to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). On the part of the Government that is a grave discourtesy to a large section of members of this House, and shows an indifference, which almost amounts to callousness, with regard to the condition of affairs as they affect the men and women of this country. Not one word have we heard from that side of the House on this question, which is a most important one to the industrialists of this country. It is not that we are asking them to create a precedent; that precedent was created years ago in other parts of the world. I do urge that no Government has any right to view the parlous position of the country with callousness, but should try to make an effort to ameliorate the conditions of the country. There are only millions white people in this country, of whom ten per cent. are known as poor whites, and thousands are in receipt of relief work from 3s. to 4s. a day. Surely a case has been made out, despite the unwillingness of the Government to recognize it, for the institution of a Wages Board Act, under which men will have the assurance of having a living wage, and, as the hon. member said, if you have a reasonable standard rate of pay for work done by people of any colour, you will eliminate competition of the black man from the coloured, and the coloured man from the white; competition which must inevitably result in the degradation of the whites. Although the party whip has gone round urging the members to say nothing, I appeal to those members who have a conscience—

The hon. member has a lively imagination.

I admit that I have an imagination when I refer to the hon. member’s conscience. I appeal to other hon. members who have a conscience, to realize that the question on which I am appealing, is a question affecting the future of this country, affecting the men and women in the country, who are of their own flesh and blood, and the time has arrived to put into force the institution of a wages board which will take all circumstances into consideration, review all conditions, and with their knowledge, will arrange that men should get a wage on which they can live in this country.

I want to say a word or two in regard to some questions which were put to me. There was a question put to me about tobacco. I should be very pleased indeed to tell the hon. gentleman what the position is, but I am afraid he must wait until the Budget. I cannot answer this question, neither can I answer a few others in connection with other matters until then. There is one thing, however, I want to reply to, and that is the question of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) as to dumping duties. I must confess that it came as a surprise to me when he mentioned £5 10s., because I know the last figure I heard of was £4 2s. I will enquire into this figure of £5 10s. Broadly speaking, we have been going recently into the whole thing again. We had an influential deputation from Caledon on this question, and we told them that as long as there were factories which were supplying fertilisers to a certain extent we had to take some account of these factories, and to try and assist them on the broad general principle of helping South African industries. As soon as we know that they are not in a position to do so, that they are not doing their part of the business, we can no longer hold our hand, and dumping duties will have to go. I may mention, as an interesting fact, that in areas some distance from these factories the price of the imported articles is at once put up, and the price to the farmers of the fertilizers was far beyond what it can be produced for here. Broadly speaking, if we do not keep the South African competition going, the cost of the imported article will increase, and this would make the position of our farmers very difficult indeed. Hon. members may rely on this: we are as much alive to the necessity of looking after the interests of the farming community in this respect, as they are.

moved—

objected.

then moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

He said: In moving the second reading of this Bill, I might state it, represents the financial requirements of the department for three months. First of all, we have to provide for ordinary working expenditure, which amounts for the whole year to £23,759,000. Then we have also to provide for loan expenditure and expenditure from the betterment fund, which we expect during the next financial year to come to £6,100,000. That is not definitely settled, but we think it will come out about that, so hon. members will see the total amount of expenditure of the Railway Department next year will amount to £29,869,000. Now, three months’ proportion of that will amount to £7,467,000. We have rounded it off to £8,000,000 to be on the safe side, and because we will have heavy payments in the first few months of the coming financial year for electrification, equipment, and new construction, we are asking now for £8,000,000. I would draw the attention of hon. members to Clause 2, which has an important bearing on this Bill’ and lays it down that we can only spend this money, so far as this amount is concerned, on works which have been sanctioned by this House. We cannot start any new scheme which has not been specifically sanctioned by Parliament. I think the House is perfectly safe in making a grant of this money, and I move the second reading.