If there is no objection, I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 3, 4 and the Title put and agreed to.

Ek wens voor te stel die amendement wat in my naam staan, namelik—

Die gevolg hiervan sal wees, dat die artiekel as volg sal lui, namelik—

Ek stel die amendement voor, nie in ’n gees van fittery nie, maar in die belang van die onderwys en ek voel seker daarvan dat as edele lede in die Huis sou besef die uitgebreide mag wat hier aan die Staatsdiens Kommissie verleen word, hulle met my sal instem, dat dit ’n gevaarlike maatreël is, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie kan werk en bepaal oor die onderwys, sonder dat die Parlement of die Prowinsiale Rade enige toesig oor hulle werk sal hê. Hier die Klausule 2 praat van eenvormige salarisskale wat ingevoer moet word, op aanbeveling van die Staatsdiens Kommissie. As daar net sprake sou wees van vasstelling van salarisse, dan sou daar nog ’n skyn van regverdiging wees om dit oor te laat aan die Staatsdiens Kommissie, want die Staatsdiens Kommissie stel ook die salarisse vas vir staatsamptenare en dus met ’n sekere mate van billikheid sou dieselfde gedaan moet word in die geval van die onderwysers. Maar die eenvormige salarisskale het nie alleen betrekking op salarisse nie. Die Staatsdiens Kommissie het hier ook die mag om te beslis oor die rangskikking en klassifisering van skole en elkeen wat iets afweet van onderwys, sal met my saamstem, dat die persoon wat die mag het oor die rangskikking van die skole,. het feitelik die beheer oor die hele onderwys in Suid-Afrika. Laat my ’n paar punte tot verduideliking aanhaal. Een daarvan is al aangehaal by ’n vorige geleentheid, maar dis so belangrik, dat ek hier weer die nadruk daarop wil lê. Hier in die rapport word dit duidelik aanbeveel wat die laagste getal kinders vir ’n volksskool sal wees en dit word vasgesteld op minstens 20 leerlinge. As daar nie 20 kinders op ’n skool is, dan word die skool nie onderhou uit die Staatskas nie. Ons het al gedurende die debat gehoor, dat die bepaling beteken, dat honderde van skole sal gesluit word op die platteland. Is dit nou ’n mag wat Suid-Afrika moet gee aan ’n Staatsdiens Kommissie, sonder dat die Volksraad of die Prowinsiale Raad enige reg het om die werk van die Kommissie te hersien? Hier word nou die getal 20 vasgestel, maar wat verhinder die Kommissie om more die getal te verhoog tot 25 en oormôre tot 30? Dari het die Prowinsiale Raad of de Volksraad geen mag om tussenbeide te kom nie. Ek dink as lede van die Volksraad ernstig oor die saak nadink, dan sal hulle instem, dat dit gevaarlik is om al die mag aan die Staatsdiens Kommissie te gee, sonder dat die Volksraad enige seggenskap daaroor het. Dit is maar een voorbeeld, maar laat ons ’n ander voorbeeld neem. Daar is die groot kwessie van sentralisasie vari die plattelandse skole. Ons in die Vrystaat is besig om ’n proefneming in een van die distrikte te maak om sentralisasie uit te voer. Die gedagte is, om ’n boel kleine plaasskole te hê, wat slegs gaan tot Standard 4. Daar is nie so ’n hoe geleerdheid vir nodig, om die onderwys aan die skole te gee nie. Daar word net die plaaskind geleer om te skrywe, te lees, te reken, maar dan wil ons hê, dat in die midde van al die plaasskooltjies moet daar ’n sentrale plaasskool wees en al die kinders van die klein plaasskooltjies wat die Standaard 4 gepasseer het, gaan na die sentrale plaasskool, waar hulle ’n degelike opleiding kry vir die plaaslewe. Dis dus van die hoogste belang, dat op die sentrale plaasskole die beste kragte van Suid-Afrika gelok word om die onderwys te gee. Maar hier gaan ons die Publieke Staatsdiens Kommissie die reg gee, om as hulle wil, so ’n skool dood te druk. En die Staatsdiens Kommissie weet niks van onderwys af nie, maar tog het hulle die mag om deurdat hulle die seggenskap het oor die salarisse en oor die rangskikking van skole, die skole dood te smoor. Die edele lid vir Natal Kust (de hr. Saunders) het die ander dag gesê, dat die onderwys in Suid-Afrika hervorming nodig het en het hy veral gepraat van die middelbare onderwys. Hy het gesê, dat ons te veel kinders oplei tot die matriek. Ek stem met horn saam hierin. Die mense wil almaal hul kinders opgelei het tot matriek. Daar het ’n soort van paniek onder die mense gekom. Ons weet almaal, dat sekere professies oorstelp is. Ons wil hê middelbare onderwys, maar meer in tegniese rigting. Nie almaal kan dokters, prokureurs of advokaat word nie. Meer kinders moet opgelei word, om hulle plek te kan inneem in die industriële lewe wat ons probeer skep in Suid-Afrika. Nou gaan die Volksraad aan die Staatsdiens Kommissie alle beheer gee oor die skole, oor die onderwys, en dis onmoontlik vir die Volksraad om later invloed of pressie uit te oefen op die Staatsdiens Kommissie en om die rigting aan te wys waarin die onderwys moet gaan, en waarin die Staatsdiens Kommissie moet handel. Ek wil nog ’n vierde punt noem. Daar is nou ’n skool in die Vrystaat gestig, wat absoluut enig van sy soort is en as edele lede daar gewees het, dan sal hulle gesien het van watter belang die skool is en hoeveel dit sal bydra tot oplossing van baie vraagstukke, ook wat betref die armblanke kwessie in Suid-Afrika. Ek bedoel die Landbouskool op Tweespruit in die Vrystaat. Die Prowinsiale Raad daar het ’n plaas gekry en oorals in die Vrystaat word die arm kinders by mekaar gebring en na die skool gestuur. Daar is nie alleen akademiese opleiding nie, daar word nie alleen die kinders geleer om te skrywe, te lees en te dink nie, maar daar word hulle ook onderleg in elke tak van die boerdery. Die plaasskool het geen enkele jong of meid nie. Al die kinders daar doen al die werk. Hulle kook hulle eie kos, maak hulle eie klere tereg. Al die werk daar word deur die kinders self gedoen. Daar is ’n baie groot aanvraag om kinders op die skool te kry. Ons wil hê, daar moet meer van die skole kom. As die Wet so deurgaan, soos die nou staan en die mag geheel en al uit die hande word geneem van die Prowinsiale Rade en gelê in hande van die Staatsdiens Kommissie, wat deur die regeling van die salaris van die hoof van die skool, die’ skool kan doodmaak, dan gaan ons ’n gevaarlike ding doen en in hierdie geval miskien die hoot van die skool en die personeel dwing om daar weg te gaan. Daar is ’n dergelike skool in die Vrystaat, ingerig deur die Unie Regering, op Dewetsdorp. Dit staan onder die Unie Regering. Maar elkeen sal moet erken, dat die skool, wat staan onder die Vrystaatse Prowinsiale Raad die regte skool is en baie beter is as die Unie Regering se skool. Die Unie Regering se skool is nie so goed nie en wel omdat die Prowinsiale Raad se skool die beste kragte daar het wat met ywer en toewyding besiel is om die onderwys daar te gee. Nulle gee besondere sorg aan die landbouonderwys. Jy kan nie al die mag gaan gee aan die Staatsdiens Kommissie nie, wat niks van onderwys afweet nie. Deur hulle toedoen sal miskien die skool doodgemaak word en die uitstekende onderwysers daar miskien uit die Prowinsie gejaag word. Ek dink, elkeen sal moet toegee, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie nie genoeg van onderwys afweet nie, om al die mag te hê nie. Die edele lid vir Drie Rivieren (de hr. Brown) gee ek gelyk in wat hy gesê het, dat daar in die Staatsdiens Kommissie minstens een onderwyser moet sit, wat ervaring het op die gebied van onderwys. Ek stem volkome saam met hom op die punt. Dis absoluut noodsaaklik, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie onderworpe sal wees aan die gereëlde toesig van die Parlement. Dit help nie, dat ons ons oë sluit vir sekere feite nie. Hierdie Klousule 2 van die Wet neem van die Prowinsiale Rade alle beheer oor die onderwys politiek weg. En as die mag uit die hande van die Prowinsiale Rade moet weggeneem word, dan behoor ons self, die Volksraad, tenminste die toesig oor die onderwys te hê. Maar deur dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie die vasstelling van salarisse en die rangskikking van skole onder hulle het, is van die Prowinsiale Rade feitelik alle werkelike kontrôle oor die onderwys in Suid-Afrika weggeneem. Maar as ons de mag daar wegneem, dan behoor ons tog te sorg, dat die mag in die hande van die Unie Volksraad bly. Die Staatsdiens Kommissie sal anders kan doen, wat hy wil, sonder dat hulle van tyd tot tyd tot verantwoording geroep kan word. Soos ek al gesê het, stel ek die amendement nie voor in n gees van littery nie. Dis geen obstruksie nie, maar ek sien die groot gevaar, om die hele politiek van onderwys te stel in hande van twee of drie mense wat niks van onderwys af weet nie. Jy hoef net te kyk na paragraaf 19 van die verslag van die Staatsdiens Kommissie om te sien dat die Kommissie niks totaa1 niks, van onderwys af weet nie. In daardie paragraaf 19 sê die Kommissie dit—ek wil nie die hele artiekel voorlees nie, want dis ’n lange artiekel —maar dit kom hierop neer, dat skole nie deur die Goewernement onderhou kan word nie, as daar nie 20 kinders op die skool is nie want die onderwyser verdien dan nie sy geld nie. Dit is ’n bewys, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie die hele kwessie van onderwys nader van dieselfde standpunt, as b.v. klerke in die Staats Departemente behandel word. As ’n klerk nie elke dag ’n sekere hoeveelheid briewe skryf nie, dan verdien hy nie sy salaris nie. Met die onderwyser wat nie 20 kinders het nie, is dit dieselfde ding. So redeneer die Kommissie maar dis ’n verkeerde aanbeveling. Ek het baie kere nie meer as 15 kinders in ’n klas gehad nie, maar die werk is net so swaar. In so’n plaas skool waar net 15 kinders is, het jy verskillende standaards, miskien ses of sewe. Die werk is baie moeilik. Onder die aanbeveling sal net die dorpe profiteer van die onderwys en ek sê, dis ’n verkeerde aanbeveling. Ons kan tog nie aan daardie Kommissie die hele onderwys siesteem toevertrou nie. Ons durf dit nie doen nie. Vóórdat ek gaan sit, wil ek die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys twee vraë stel. In die loop van die twede lesing het ek gerefereer na die rapport van die Staatsdiens Kommissie en toe ek dit gedoen het het die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys baie kwaad geword en gesê, dat ek nie die reg het om na die rapport te verwys nie. Ek wil graag die edelagbare die Minister vra, of ny ’n definitiewe verklaring wil aflê dat die rapport geheel en al van die Tafel af is, en of die Regering van plan is om die rapport in die snippermandjie te gooi, en of dit die bedoeling is, dat die rapport heeltemaal hersien sal word. Ek wil die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies vra of die Regering die versekering sal gee dat de rapport totaal van die Tafel af is. [Een Edele Lid: “Naar watter rapport refereer die edele lid?”] Dit is die rapport van die Staatsdiens Kommissarisse. Ek mag die antwoord verwag, veral na die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys so verskriklik kwaad geword het, toe ek na die rapport verwys het. Ek wil weet of die rapport nog bestaan, of die rapport gaan dien as model vir ’n nuwe rapport, of dat die Regering die rapport totaal in die snippermandjie gaan gooi. Ek sal bly wees om hierop ’n antwoord te kry en as ek die versekering nie kry nie, dan sal ek genoodsaak wees om by die derde lesing die rapport te kritiseer. As ons die nie kritiseer nie, dan sal die Staatsdiens Kommissie dink, dat ons tevrede is met die rapport en dat dit aanneemlik is. Dus behoor ons in hierdie stadium te weet, of die Regering die hele rapport gaat verwerp en of daar ’n nuwe rapport gaan wees, of dat die bestaande rapport gaan dien as model vir ’n nuwe rapport. Die tweede vraag is gestel dat daar ’n nuwe rapport gaan wees, gaan die Regering dan weer in oorleg tree met die Federale Raad van Onderwysers en die adviseurs? Sal daar weer ’n konferensie bymekaar geroep word om oor uniforme salarisskale vir Suid-Afrika te beraadslaag? In die Vrystaat is daar al vyf persent van die salaris van die onderwysers afgeneem en dit nie deur eenvoudig ’n pistool op die kop van die onderwysers te set nie, maar deur in oorleg met die onderwysers te tree. Die onderwysers is bereid om opofferings te doen en het in die Vrystaat toegestem in ’n vermindering van 5 persent in die geval van getroude en van 6 persent in die geval van ongetroude onderwysers, as gevolg van raadpleging tussen die onderwysers en die Prcwinsiale Raad. Die edele lid vir Lydenburg het enkele dage gelede dieselfde saak aangeroer. Die onderwysers het hulle bereid betoon om opofferinge te maak tot ’n bedrag van £200,000 per jaar. Dit spreek boekdele vir die offervaardigheid van die onderwysers en daarom moet ’n mens hulle nie onnodiglik aanstoot gee nie, maar laat daar blyk gegee word van ’n gees van tegemoetkomendheid, en as die Regering die versekering gee, dat die rapport in die mandjie gegooi sal word en met die hulp van die onderwysers ’n nuwe rapport opgestel sal word en die slegs sal voorstel indien die meerderheid daarvoer is, dan sal ons ’n goeie begin maak om eenvormigheid te verkry van onderwyserssalarisse in Suid-Afrika. Dit is ’n goeie ding, maar as dit verkry word tenkoste van die goedgesindheid van die onderwysers, dan is dit nie die moeite werd nie. Ons kan dit kry en hulle is bereid om, met die oog op die finansiële toestand van die land, ons tegemoet te kom. Daar moet voorsiening gemaak word in Klousule 2 dat voordat die rapport van die Staatsdiens Kommissie uitgevoer word, dieselwe eers voorgelê sal word aan die Parlement. Ek sou liewer sien, dat dit die Prowinsiale Raad is en sou so’n amendement graag ondersteun. Maar dit moet een van die twee wees, maar ek kan nie daarin toestem, dat al daardie mag toevertrou word aan ’n liggaam, wat niks van onderwys afweet nie en slegs een doel voor oge het en dit is besuiniging. Die gevolg sal wees, dat ou verdorde takke gelaat en jong groen lote uitgekap word. As die edelagbare die Minister nie die versekering gee, dat dit anders sal geskied, d.w.s. dat die rapport in die snippermandjie gegooi sal word nie, dan sal ek die maatregel graag by die derde lesing wil kritiseer. Ek wil eis, dat nie die groene lote afgesny sal word en die dorre gelaat word nie. Die edelagbare die Minister beroep hom graag op die tegniese adviseurs, maar die het geen verantwoordelikheid nie, al word hulle raad gevolg, maar daar is nie eens die versekering, dat dit in alle gevalle geskied nie.

Ja,. dit seg so; lees bladsy 5 van die Verslag.

Ons weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister al die advies goedkeur, en daarna handel nie. Hier is dele, soas ek by die derde lesing sal aantoon, wat geen onderwysman sal goedkeur nie, daarom stel ek voor, dat dit eers die goedkeuring van die Parlement moet erlang. Dit het nie net te doen met die salarisse van onderwysers nie, maar met die hele saak van onderwys. Dit is daarom gevaarlik om soveel mag te gee aan ’n liggaam as die Staatsdiens Kommissie.

Ek secondeer.

I think it will be convenient to the House if I state with regard to this amendment, as well as with regard to those other amendments which follow, what the position of the Government is, so that members will understand. This amendment, in spite of the long speech we have had from the hon. member about the woes of the Free State, is an entirely impracticable one.

Why?

If the hon. member will allow me I will explain it to him. We cannot expect this House to sit in judgment on the scales of salaries of teachers or anybody else. It is absurd to ask us to express an opinion about these scales, as these scales must be left to the body which is appointed for that purpose, and that is the Public Service Commission working in consultation with the provincial authorities. I have already said more than once during the long discussion on Clause 2 of this Bill that the Public Service Commission are busy at present discussing the whole of these scales with the Provincial Council authorities, and it will give the teachers an opportunity of giving their views, after which it must then be left to the Commission to make their recommendation to the Government. It must not be left to Parliament to be the investigator of such things. The hon. member asks for something in favour of teachers in the provincial services which is not granted to the public servants of the Union. I am dealing in this clause with uniform scales of salaries and nothing else.

And the classification of schools.

The fixing of the salaries of public servants is a matter left to the Public Service Commission, and the hon. member is asking for something that even the Free State Province is not asking for. The Free State Province on the other hand expressed itself generally as satisfied with the Bill.

How do we know that?

Does the hon. member know anything to the contrary?

No, I do not, but we have had other statements from the right hon. the Minister which are untrustworthy.

I do not think it is necessary for me to notice that interruption.

It is a fact.

I have already told the House what took place at the conference. I told the House that representatives of the provinces, the Executive Committees and the Administrators, were in agreement with this principle, and in connection with the Transvaal Provincial Council only, have we had a resolution against the Bill. [An Hon. Member: “The others have not met.”] Your Provincial Executive in the Free State are not rascally South African Party people; they are all good, true Nationalists. They do not complain about it. No, we must deal with this thing on the lines of common sense, and that is that Parliament is not the proper body to decide upon the details of teachers’ salaries, and we have to leave this to the Public Service Commission, in consultation with the provincial authorities, and after hearing the teachers, to make recommendations to the Government. The hon. member asked me for an assurance, or otherwise we are threatened by him with a portentous speech in the third reading. Unless I give him the assurance that the report already made by the Public Service Commission is put in the waste paper basket, we are going to have a tremendous speech.

A forty minutes one.

I am not going to give such an assurance even at the risk of that. The report made by the Public Service Commission is simply a report to us, setting out what they and the technical advisers in the provinces, who are in agreement with the report—

No, they are not.

The hon. gentleman can no doubt tell us why they are not. But I will quote from paragraph 23 of the report—

In many respects they are supported by the representatives of the teachers, and in all respects they are supported by the technical advisers. No, sir, we are Hogging a dead horse—

Education will be a dead horse soon.

No! I cannot give the hon. member the assurance he requires. I have explained more than once that what is going to be done now is that the Public Service Commission is going to discuss these scales with the provincial authorities. They are busy at the moment discussing them with the Free State. They are going to be discussed with the provincial authorities, following that the teachers will be heard, and afterwards they will make a recommendation to the Government for its approval or otherwise. I cannot accept this amendment.

Ek wil natuurlik nie ingaan op die besware in die tweede lesing teen Seksie 2 nie, maar ek bly daarby, dat Seksie 2 as wetsbepaling gaat beteken feitelik die dood van onderwys in Suidafrika, die grootste agteruitsetting, wat onderwys en dus die land ooit beleef het in Suidafrika. Ek wil my bepaal tot die punt, wat geraak word deur die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth). Die edelagbare die Minister verklaar dat hy die amendement nie wil aanneem nie, omdat die Parlement nie die bevoegde of geskikte liggaam is om die salarisse van onderwysers vas te stel nie; ek ontken dat dit so is en ek seg verder, dat met die oog op wat Seksie 2 bedoel die Parlement die enigste liggaam is, wat daardie vasstelling behoort te laat plaasvind. Hier word enkel gevraag dat in die algemeen—laat ons dit nie uit die oog verlies nie en geen Parlement sal gevraag word in die toekoms nie en dit is waar die gevaarlike indruk van die Minister se rede inkom—die Parlement word nie gevraag om elkeen se salaris vas te stel nie, dog slegs om ’n aanvangs en hoogste salaris vas te stel ten einde uniformiteit te verkry. Indien daardie mag moet geneem word uit die hande van wie direkt in verband met onderwys staan, dan is daar net een liggaam, wat daaroor behoort te beskik en dit is die Parlement. Dat iets anders voorgestel word is bepaald ’n troubreuk teenoor die Uitvoerende Komitees van die Prowinsiale Rade, van wie die edelagbare die Minister self verklaar het dat nulle hom gevraag het om uniformiteit te bewerkstellig, maar waar kom hy aan die reg om dit aan ’n derde liggaam oor te laat? Dit is hom nooit gevraag nie. As die edelagbare die Minister dit nie wil doen nie, waarom hou hy nie sy hande terug nie? Om te verklaar, dat die Prowinsiale Rade daarom gevraag het is in stryd met die waarheid. Hy vraag self, dat dit vasgestel moet word en nou kom hy en seg dat al wat gevraag word is dat die Parlement die algemene beginsel moet goedkeur. Die edelagbare die Minister seg, dat die Parlement die bevoegde liggaam nie is nie, welke bevoegdheid het die Staatsdiens Kommissie; waar het hulle die bevoegdheid gekry om te beoordeel tot welke salaris ’n onderwyser toe geregtig moet wees; om te oordeel wat die dienste van ’n onderwyser werd is vir die Staat? Om daar te sit as kommissarisse op die Staatsdiens Kommissie wat is die eise vir aanstelling daartoe? Daar-die manne, en ek seg dit met alle respek vir die manne, van wie ek nie een ken nie of ook maar weet wie hy is nie, maar wat is die vereistes, wat moet hy wees? Hulle moet kan oordeel opr die tamelik meganiese klerkelike werk in die gewone staatsdiens; kan seg welk soort werk ’n publieke ambtenaar moet kan doen; wat ’n junior of senior ambtenaar moet wees; hulle is self deur die masjien gewees en het al die trappe beklim, maar welke regvaardiging gee dit om hulle aan te stel ter beoordeling van wat ’n totaal under lyn van werksaamheid is, totaal ander eise stel aan wie dit beklee, maar die vraag is: wat behoort ’n onderwyser te wees? Hier is ’n kommissie van mense, wat alles afweet van wat ’n ordinêre ambtenaar moet wees, maar by onderwys word totaal ander eise gestel, soas karakter, aanleg en bekwaamheid. Maar daardie mense is van die soort, wat as hulle bepaal, dat die ambtenare die jaar soveel moet kry, daarom moet die onderwysers ook net soveel kry. Met watter reg verklaar die edelagbare die Minister, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie die bevoegde liggaam is om die salarisse vas te stel van die onderwysers? As dit moet gelaat word in die hande van ’n kommissie, laat dit dan mense wees, wat weet wat onderwys beteken en welke eise dit stel, maar moet nie seg, dat die Parlement nie bevoegd is om daaroor te oordeel nie, maar die Staatsdiens Kommissie wel. Hulle is miskien ’n plek wat net so dom is as ons en wat wil aantoon, dat die edelagbare die Minister ’n sekere weg volg. Waar is die land ter wereld, waar die werk van onderwysers bepaal word deur ’n Staatsdiens Kommissie, wie se werk eenvoudig bepaal en beperk is tot en deur die staatsdiens en as hulle dit nie doen nie, dan is dit omdat die lande vind wat ek vind, dat dit buitekant hulle bevpegdheid val. Ja, hulle gaan beslis welke soort mense die onderwysers sal wees en dit word sodoende gelaat in die hande van ’n liggaam, wat daartoe totaal onbevoegd is om daaroor te oordeel. Ek sê nogeens, dat as Seksie 2 in die Wet gelaat word, sal dit die grootste terugslag wees, welke onderwys in Suidafrika sover nog beleef het. Ek wens nogeens daarop te wys dat die edelagbare die Minister nie bereid is te verklaar in hoever die Regering sig gaat hou aan die rapport nie. As dit hie die geval is, dat hulle die artiekel nie wil aanneem nie dan beteken dit, dat wat die Kaap betref, 1,500 buiteskole gesluit sal moet word; in die Vrystaat enige honderde, alles omdat ons as lede van die hoogste liggaam uit onse hande laat gaan die mag om die salarisse vas te stel en dit te plaas in die hande van ’n politieke party om die onderwys te beheers langs politieke lyne en nie in de belang van die onderwys in Suidafrika nie.

I do not think that the right hon. the Minister of Finance has helped the discussion in this House by sneering at the possibility of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) delivering a long speech on the third reading. I certainly hope that he will. The right hon. the Minister was fairly right in his apprehension that this side of the House will occupy a good deal of the afternoon, and possibly the evening, in showing up the unfairness of the motion. The right hon. the Minister described this as flogging a dead horse. I am pleased that he applied that epithet to the Government, and he shows his appreciation of the view held, of the Government, by the country. I do not think the right hon. the Minister was quite right in saying that we were asking something for the teachers, that the other members of the public service did not have. It is perfectly right that we do not review the scale of the public service, or the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, seriatim. This House, when in Committee of Supply, when the report of the Public Service Commission, and the scale, are before the House, can call into question any decision, and not accept the report. The Provincial Council cannot do anything of the sort, once the Bill has passed the House. The scale of fees undoubtedly comes under the purview of the Provincial Council, but they are not in a position to raise a question in the Provincial Council. There is one exception to the statement: the Executive of the Provincial Council or the Administrator, as the case may be, can reduce the salaries. After the discussion we have had, members must have the impression of the faultiness of the Provincial Council machinery. If it could be said that the Provincial Councils had the power of dismissing the Executive Committees, or of making representations to the Government, it may be said that they had some control over the scale of salaries. It is proposed, by this Bill, to take away all power from the Provincial Council in regard to the scale of salaries, and leaving them nothing. Surely we should give the teachers the same degree of security from this Parliament that the other public servants have. In spite of what has been said, I still adhere to the contention that once a scale of salaries is prescribed, the Government cannot alter the scale for public servants, without an Act of Parliament. This Section 14 of the Public Service Act which we passed last year, does not apply to the teachers; the teachers will not be protected by that section, as are the other public servants. If this proposal is taken out of the Bill, the Provincial Council will retain the right to protect the teachers. Give them the same protection, and the right to review the scale of salaries, as is done in the case of the public service.

Ek is nou werkelik verwonder cor die houding deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) opgeneem. Ons het van af die begin gehoor hoe daar geprobeer is om argumente op te haal en om te bewys, dat die doel van die Finansiële Relasies Wetsontwerp, scos deur die Regering voorgestel is, om onderwys hier in die land dood te maak.

Op die platteland.

Maar nou hoor ons, dat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) sê, dat die doel van die Ontwerp is om die magte in die hande van sekere kommissie te plaas en dat die kommissie moet beslis oor die salarisse en die karakter van onderwysers. Ek het opgemerk toe daar vorige kommissies aangestel was, selfs toe die kommissie deur die Regering aangestel was om ’n ondersoek na die staking op die Rand te maak, hoe daar poginge gemaak was cm die kommissies verdag te maak.

Ja, die kommissie was eensydig.

En nou siet ons hier hoe daar geprobeer word om die Publieke Diens Kommissie verdag te maak. Maar wie kan dan vertrou word? Is die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) alleen te vertrouwen? Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het gesê dat die Regering met geknoei en met lafhartigheid werk.

Hoor, hoor.

En nou kom die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) na die Parlement—maar wie kan in die Parlement dan vertrou word? Hy wel, hy alleen, die argumente wat hier gebruik word sal die gevolg hê om die Parlement te verkleineer en in veragting te bring. Dit het vroeger nooit so gewees nie.

Wie sy skuld is dit?

Dit lyk vir my asof die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) meen, dat daar niemand is wat vertrou kan word dan hy alleen, en as hy die belange van onderwys op sy hart dra dan sal hy moet erken dat ons aan dese syde seker meer in die verlede het bewys gelewer het, want vrye onderwys is door die Eerste Minister ingevoer in 1907 in Transvaal.

Wat het Paulus gesê?

As hy die belange van onderwys op sy hart dra, dan moet hy ook glo, dat ons die belange op ons hart dra. Wat het die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) gesê? Hy het gesê dat ons die Prowinsiale Raad wil dwing om grondbelasting op te lê. Waarom het hy so gesê? Hy het dit gesê omdat hy weet dat hy die leider van die Nasionale Party in die Kaapkolonie is, en die edele lid vir Lichtenburg (De hr. Roos) is die leier in die Transvaal; maar hy het al meer as ’n jaar lang gesê dat hy voor ’n grondbelasting is. Die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) is een leier, maar die edele lid vir Lichtenburg (de hr. Roos) is die drywer van hulle almal.

Dit suig die edele lid uit sy duim.

Hy het dit gesê—dit kan nie ontken word nie. Hy het dit ook in ’n brief gesê. Hy het gesê dat hy voor ’n grondbelasting was cp oor die 5,000 morge. Ek daag die edele lid vir Lichtenburg (de hr. Roos) uit dit ‘te ontken. En waarom het die edele lid dit gesê? Omdat hy weet, dat hy ’n ooreenkoms met die Arbeiders Party gemaak het om met hulle saam te werk en hul het jaar na jaar ’n grondbelasting voorgestel. En nou probeer hulle om agter die rookskerm weg te skuil en hul sê dat dit die Suid Afrikaanse Party is wat daarvoor staan. Maar die mense buitekant weet baie goed wat die posiesie is. Hulle weet wie die mense is en wat hull sal doen. Maar ek hoop dat ons die kwessies van onderwys met groter gematigheid hier in die Huis sal bespreek en dat ons die kwessies op ons hart sal dra en ons beste sal doen onder die moeilike omstandighede waarin die land verkeer, om die sake te reel sodat ons die best moontlike vrugte sal kan pluk.

We were under the impression that the scales laid down by the Public Service Commission, which we have been discussing all the time, were the scales that the Government were going to apply in the future. But now the right hon. the Minister, a few minutes ago, tells us that these may not be the scales at all.

The right hon. the Minister told us that before.

No, no. We understood that in the first place these scales were approved by the various provincial executives, and we took it for granted that these scales were the scales that were coming into force. Now the right hon. the Minister tells us: “Oh, dear no. The scales are being reviewed; the Public Service Commission are in communication with the various provincial authorities; they are now discussing it with the Orange Free State Executive.” What guarantee has this House got, and what guarantee have the teachers of South Africa got, that when the revised scales are published, they will not be even lower than the scales now before the House? We have no guarantee that, if they are going into it again with the various Executives, they will not publish new scales, if this Bill is passed, considerably lower than the scales laid down, and now before the House, which will be an even greater injustice than those we are now discussing. I suggest to the right hon. the Minister, if the whole thing is in the melting-pot, and if the Public Service Commission is reviewing all the scales, that the Government hold this Bill over till they decide what scales are to be agreed upon. What else can we do? Is it right that we should now pass this Bill under the impression that these scales are to be applied later? Is it right that we should now pass this Bill, in view of the information that the right hon. the Minister has just given us, that the new scales are not definitely decided upon, but they will be reviewed by the Public Service Commission and the Provincial Authorities? After the Bill is passed, what guarantee have the House and the teachers got that the new scales to be imposed will be less than the scales now before us, unless the amendment of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) is carried, which protects the teachers? If the scales are altered, Parliament must give its approval to whatever is decided upon before effect is given to them. The right hon. the Minister is not altogether right when he says that these scales were approved of by the technical advisers and by the Federal Council of Teachers.

I did not say so. I said they were approved of by the technical adviser. The hon. member added the rest.

Technical advisers—Dr. Adamson was one of the technical advisers, and in his admirable report three years ago, what did he say? This was when the scales were at their fop, and this is what one of the technical advisers says, on whom the right hon. the Minister is now depending for support in carrying this through—

Then he goes on to say—

That is the present scales, not the proposed new ones—

That is the opinion of Dr. Adamson, one of the technical advisers, who the right hon. the Minister now refers to, when he was referring to the present scales, and not to the new scales, which are before the House. I would suggest, in view of the fact that the whole thing is under review by the Provincial Executives, that the right hon. the Minister holds over the Bill until the country and the teachers know exactly what scales are going to be applied to them under the new scheme which the House is going to pass. It is not fair to tell the House that the scales have not been decided upon, and then ask the House to pass this Bill on the assumption that the scales are going to be the scales laid down in the Bill. I will not move that, but I submit to the right hon. the Minister for his consideration, that the Bill should be held over till we know where we are. I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister if the Natal Executive, when he met it in Cape Town, agreed to the new scale laid down by the Public Service Commission? I would ask the right hon. the Minister definitely, did the Natal Provincial Executive, when he discussed this matter with it in Cape Town quite recently, agree and accept the new scale for teachers as laid down by the Public Service Commission in their report? I would like the right hon. the Minister to answer that, and I hope the right hon. the Minister will give this House an assurance that the Natal Executive either did, or did not, accept the scale, and therefore accept Clause 2 of the Financial Relations Bill which we are now discussing. I would like the right hon. the Minister to answer that.

Die Minister het verklaar, dat die amendement wat voorgestel is deur die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) onprakties is; ek ontken, dat dit onprakties is, ek ontken dat die Huis nie kan sit oor die salarisse van onderwysers nie. Maar die Huis word nie gevra om oor die skaal van onderwysers salarisse te sit nie, en selfs as dit gevra was dan sou dit nie onprakties wees nie. Die Kaapse Prowinsiale Raad het oor die skaal van onderwysers salarisse gesit, en dit was daar bewys dat dit nie onprakties was nie. ’n Verstandige raad kan daaroor sit en die gesonde verstand van die Huis kan die kwessie oorweeg. Ek erken nie, dat die skaal die enigste moeilikheid is nie. Maar wat is die posiesie? Die sterwende Suid Afrikaar.se Party wil nou probeer—as ’n laaste poging—om die mense te bedissel, en hul gaat aan die mense sê: “Julie het besuiniging gepreek, julle het om besuiniging gevra, en ons besuinig nou en bespaar nou so veel miljoene op onderwys,” en dan met die hulp van hulle ingevoerde editeurs—tientalle van ingevoerde editeurs—wil hul probeer die mense wysmaak, en mense soas die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) dat dit ware besuiniging is in die belange van die land. En dan net soas hul in 1921 met ’n valse strydkreet uitgekom het, probeer hulle nou weer die mense te bedissel en vertel hulle: “Ja, ons het op onderwys besuinig.” En dieselfde besuiniging op onderwys wat die edelagbare die Minister nou voorstel beteken nie besuiniging nie, maar beteken die ondergang van onderwys en die ondergang van ons mense en van die volk. Ek dink, dat daar besuinig kan word, nie allenig op onderwys nie, maar op verskeidene andere dinge. Maar nou kom die Minister hier—sy berou lyk vir my op galgeberou. Maar was dit dan nie gedurende tye van voorspoed en groot welvaart dat die Minister had behoor te besuinig? Die Minister laat my dink aan die man wat in goeie tye ’n woeste lewe gely het en nie alleen sy eie middele verteer het nie, maar ook die van ander mense. En nou wil hy besuinig en hy wil dit doen— ek dink ons moet besuinig—maar hy wil dit doen op ’n ding wat ek dink, ons behoor te wag tot die laaste, voor ons daarop besuinig namelik op onderwys. En verder wil ek daarop wys, dat die getal leerlinge in die skool gaan die status van die onderwyser vasstel. Daar is in my kiesafdeling kinders wat 20 tot 30 myl van die naaste skool afwoon, in die Ceres distrik en in die Moordenaars-Karoo. Waarom? Omdat daar nie genoeg kinders by mekaar gebring kan word, om ’n skool te stig nie. Dit het vir jare en rare so gewees. Ek het die indruk, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies hoe hy ook al praat—van die standpunt uitgaan, dat hoe meer hy die volk in onkunde hou, hoe meer kans hy kry om hier ’n hoë toon te voer. Die mag van die Regering berus op onkunde en daarom moet die volk in onkunde gelaat word. Ons sien hier in die Volksraad dikwels waartoe onkunde lei.

Die edele lid moet verstaan, dat die voorstel is, om na die woord “komonissie” in te voeg “en met goedkeuring van het Parlement.” Die edele lid moet horn bepaal tot die vraag, of die woorde ingevoeg moet word of nie.

Ek wil dan sê, dat ek nie voldoende vertroue in die Staatsdiens Kommissie het nie om die regelinge vir onderwys op hulle aanbeveling te maak, tensy daar ’n sekere kontrole oor hulle is. Ek wil niks sê teen die Staatsdiens Kommissie as sodanig nie, ek het vertroue in hulle in andere opsigte, maar op onderwys gebied is hulle nie deskundig genoeg om ongekontrôleerde aanbevelinge te maak nie. Voor ek ’n verdere amendement gaan voorstel, wil ek net sê, wat ek vanmorre uit die mond van die Administrateur van die Kaap gehoor het en wat ek meen, dat ons almaal moet laat dink, dat verlede jaar die vermeerdering van blanke kinders in die Kaap Provinsie se skole 140 gewees het en van die naturelle kinders 8,000. Ek weet nie of ek tot die orde geroep sal word, wanneer ek dit sê nie, maar ek wil net wys op die gevaar vir die blanke beskawing in Suid-Afrika. Wat ek ook aan die naturel gun, so moet ons tog in die eerste plek dink aan die blanke en gekleurde kinders. Ons moet ons oë oop hou voordat ons stappe doen in hierdie verband. Daarom stel ek voor een amendement op die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth), namelik—

Dit sal ook werk in die rigting van uniformiteit, as die vier voorsitters van die Prowinsiale Rade sal saamkom en saam hulle maatreëls bespreek.

seconded.

I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister a question in connection with this amendment. The Bill lays down that the scales agreed upon by the Public Service Commission shall be legally binding upon the Provincial Councils. I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister what is the attitude of the Government in regard to the Public Service Commission, in connection with the paying of the public employees of the country? If one turns to the Auditor-General’s Report, it is frequently found that the Ministers of Departments, and their technical advisers, take no notice of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, and in many cases the Auditor-General has drawn attention to the fact that the scales laid down by the Public Service Commission, are not being adhered to by the Government. I would also like to ask the right hon. the Minister whether the scales laid down by the Public Service Commission are legally binding, and if all rates paid over and in excess of those scales are legal? It bears out the contention of the teachers of this country, that they are being singled out, and treated even worse than the other public servants of the country. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) in preference to the amendment moved by the hon. member who has just sat down, for no matter what the right hon. the Minister may say, Parliament has interfered with the salaries paid to the teaching profession. Parliament is giving authority to a commission, set up by Parliament, to regulate the salaries of the teaching profession of South Africa, and as Parliament is responsible for the interference of the Provincial Councils’ right to pay to the teachers what they think they may be worth, Parliament has a perfect right to say that these scales shall be subject to the revision of this House, and that every member will have an opportunity of saying whether they shall be adhered to or not. I hope the right hon. the Minister will tell me whether the Government considers the findings of the Public Service Commission are legally binding on their employees, in the same way that they are binding on the teachers.

Ek dink die posiesie wat veroorsaak sal word deur die aanneming van die klousule sonder die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) is baie duidelik deur horn uitgelê en ek is jammer, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, nie die amendement wil aanneem nie. Die edelagbare die Minister wil die klousule handhaaf soos die staan, maar ek dink, hy besef nie wat dit gaan veroorsaak in die toekoms nie deur die weiëring om die amendement aan te neem. In die vroeëre tyd— ons sal dit almaal erken—was daar geen enkel klas van staatsamptenare, ek dink hulle is staatsamptenare, al noem sommige hulle nie so nie, maar ek dink daar was geen enkele klas van siviele amptenare wat so swak besoldig was in die verlede—ek dink elkeen sal dit met my saamstem—as ons onderwysers nie. En nouliks is hulle nou sover gekom, dat die onderwysers ’n enigsins bestaanbare salaris trek, of daar val die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies weer die klas van amptenare aan wat altoos die slegste en swakste betaal is gewees. As die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies dan wil besuinig—en ogenskynlik wil hy dit nou doen—soos blyk uit die Wetsvoorstel en uit die weiering om die amendement aan te neem— waarom moet die besuiniging dan daadlik weer net neerkom op die onderwysers en waarom moet die andere staatsamptenare dan weer vryloop? Hulle draag niks by tot die besuiniging nie, maar dit kom net weer neer op die onderwysers, wat al altoos die laagste salarisse getrek het. Die andere amptenare is beter gesalarieer, maar waarom moet hulle dan nie bydra tot die besuiniging nie? Wat my biesonder angstig maak, is die dunbevolkte dele van die Unie, ek dink besonder aan die noordwestelike deel van de Vrystaat en die hele noordwestelike deel van die Kaap Provinsie. Die gaan daaronder ly as die Wet aangeneem word. Daar is nie een enkele onderwyser in die Staatsdiens Kommissie nie en die Kommissie het seker geen kennis van die dele van die land waarvan ek spreek nie. En tog gaan hulle die salarisse vasstel, waarvan die gevolg sal wees, dat in die dunbevolkte dele die onderwysers, deur die salaris bepalings gedwing sal word om hulle ontslag te neem en waar daar nie genoeg kinders is nie, sal die skole gesluit moet word en sal verval en die dele sal verstoke wees van die voorregte van skole. Ons stem in, dat die uniwersitiet onderwys van groot belang is, dat die middelbare onderwys van groot belang is, vir die land en volk, maar ons moet goed begryp, dat ook die primêre, die laere onderwys van oneindig veel waarde is vir die volk. Nou limiteer ons die aantal van die volksskole. Wat word van die volksbeskawing in die dele? In die digbevolkte dele sal die skole hulle staande kan hou, maar in die dunbevolkte dele gaan die onderwys bepaald swaar daaronder ly. Maar die dele van die bevolking, wat soveel al het moet opoffer, kan ons tog nie heeltemaal oor die hoof sien nie. Die edelagbare die Minister het gesê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade geen objeksie gemaak het nie teen die Wet. Wat aangaan die vier Provinsies, was sover my bekend, daar net een enkele van die Prowinsiale Rade in sitting en hulle het dadelik geprotesteer. Die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad het met ’n groot meerderheid besluit om te protesteer teen die hele Wetsontwerp. En as in die Vrystaat, die Kaapprovinsie en Natal die Prowinsiale Rade ook in diegeleentheid gewees het—ek dink hulle sal nou spoedig by mekaar kom—dan sou hulle seker hulle stem net so verhef teen die Wetsontwerp, want die Prowinsiale Raad van die Transvaal het nie net objeksie gemaak teen ’n sekere klousule nie, maar teen die hele Wetsontwerp en die ander provinsies sou seker dieselfde objeksie hê. Neem nou b.v. die Prowinsiale Raad van die Vrystaat, die is feitelik sonder hoof gewees, die Administrateur was siek en daar is nou ’n nuwe administrateur aangestel. Maar net as hulle tot hulle normale toestand sal terugkeer en as die Prowinsiale Raad van die Vrystaat sal sit, dan sal hulle terdege protesteer teen die Wetsontwerp. Ek is seker daarvan. Nou is gesê, dat omtrent 1,500 tot 2,000 skole gesluit sal word tengevolge van die aanbevelings in die rapport. Ek wil nou dit heel matig neem en net die helfte van die getal neem—

Maar hoe kom die edele lid nou op die sluiting van skole?

Omdat die salarisse vasgestel word deur die Publieke Diens Kommissie, en nie deur die Parlement nie en omdat die salarisse so laag gestel word onder hulle aanbevelinge, sal baie skole gesluit moet word. Ek wil daarom aantoon, dat die kwessie by die Parlement moet wees en nie in hande van die Publieke Diens Kommissie nie.

Ek wil net daarop wys, dat die edele lid geen twede lesing toespraak kan hou nie en horn net moet bepaal tot die amendement. Die amendement is of die woorde “en met die goedkeuring van het Parlement” ingevoeg moet word, ja of nee, na die woorde Kommissie. Die edele lid kan geen twede lesing toespraak hou nie. Die beginsel is aangeneem deur die Huis. Ons het nou net te doen met ’n bepaalde onderdeel van die klousule en die edele lid moet horn beperk tot die amendement, namelik of die woorde ingevoeg moet word ja of nee.

Ek wil my aan die regeling onderwerp, maar ek moet sê dat dit vir ’n leek baie moeilik is om tussen die vier mure van die bepalings te bly. Maar ek hoop dat die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) aangeneem sal word, want as die Wet so aangeneem word, as die nou staan sonder die amendement, dan gaan gebeur wat ek hier voorspel het, en die edelagbare die Minister sal dit binnekort ook uitvind. Die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) is die regte ding, en die is beter as die amendement van die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux), omdat ons volgens die laaste edele lid se amendement al die verantwoordelikheid in die hande van die vier voorsitters van die Prowinsiale Rade sou plaas, wat geen verantwoording het te gee aan de Prowinsiale Rade nie. Hulle is aan niemand verantwoording verskuldig nie. Wanneer dit sou heet “aan die vier Uitvoerende Komitees” kon ek dit nog verstaan, Want hulle sou onderworpe en verantwoordelik wees aan die Prowinsiale Rade, maar die voorsitters van die Prowinsiale Rade het niks daarmee te doen nie. Die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux) gaan dus nie sy doel bereik nie met die amendement, wat nie sal beantwoord aan sy verwagtinge nie.

Ek dink, die edelagbare die Minister moet ’n bietjie minder ongeduldig wees, waar ons hier aan die behandeling is van wat ek beskou ’n afwyking nie alleen van die praktyk nie, maar ook ’n beginsel en die Huis behoor te weet wat die toestand is wat ons gaan skep onder die klousule en wat die amendement beteken. Soos die sank my voorkom—ek beweer dis die werkelike posiesie—neem ons uit die hande van die Prowinsiale Raad en van die Parlement totaal alle reg en mag met betrekking tot die salarisskale en stel die hele belangrike saak in die hand van ’n onverantwoordelike liggaam. Ek het die hoogste respek vir daardie liggaam. Ek ken die personeel hoegenaamd nie, dus wat ek sê is geen refleksie op die kommissie as sulks, maar ek vra aan wie is die Kommissie verantwoordelik? Die Kommissie word aangestel deur die Regering en die Kommissie is vasgesteld vir ’n sekere vasgestelde tyd om te werk, vir 4 of 5 jaar of wat dit mag wees. En gedurende die tyd kan men niks doen nie en men neem die mag van die Volksraad weg en van die Prowinsiale Rade, wat gekies is deur die kiesers, om die volk te verteenwoordig en die mag en reg word gestel in hande van ’n kommissie. In verband met jou staatsamptenare, wie se salarisse ook word vasgesteld deur die Publieke Diens Kommissie, het men altoos nog die kontrole. Jaar vir jaar moet die salaris kwessie behandel word, elke jaar word die skaal van salarisse hier in die Huis in Komitee behandel. Die Volksraad as sulks het die verantwoordelikheid vir die salarisse. Maar wat gaan ons hier doen? Men neem glad alle kontrôle weg van die Prowinsiale Raad, men weier dit te gee aan die Volksraad en men stel die absolute mag in hande van die Publieke Diens Kommissie. Al wat men doen, is dat men aan die Prowinsiale Raad die mag gee, om die salarisse minder te maak. Maar dit kan ook gebeur, dis heeltemaal moontlik dat dit voorkom, dat die Prowinsiale Raad die salarisse wil vermeerder, dat men die skale wil hoër stel, maar men belet die Prowinsiale Raad om dit te doen en die Regering kan dit ook nie doen nie. Die drie lede van die Publieke Diens Kommisse het de hele mag in hande en hulle kan onder Klousules 19 en 20 van die rapport die salarisskale so vasstel dat die gevolg sal wees dat ’n groot aantal skole sal word gesluit. Die Prowinsiale Raad het geen mag om dit te verhinder nie, en ook die Volksraad nie.

Dis nie so nie.

As ek verkeerd is sal ek baie bly wees as die edele lid vir Paarl (Dr. de Jager) my sal sê waar ek verkeerd is. Ons wil dit graag weet waar ons verkeerd is. En as ek verkeerd is dan sal ek dit graag erken. Die posiesie is seker wat die Kaap Kolonie betref, dat hulle gaan protesteer teen die aanbeveling van die Kommissie dat skole minstens 20 kinders as leerlinge moet hê en in die geval van die Kaap, 15, om deur die Staat onderhou te word. As die aanbeveling deurgaan volgens die klousule, om die vasstelling oor te laat aan die Goewerneur-Generaal op rekommendasie van die Publieke Diens Komissie, terwyl die Goewerneur-Generaal geen andere aanbeveling sal hê as net van die Kommissie, waar kom dan die Parlement in? Ten gevolge van die aanbevelinge sal die onderwys ten gronde kan gaan, maar die Prowinsiale Rade en die Volksraad sou geen verandering kan aanbring nie. Ek dink ons wyk hier totaal af en dit sal nie vir lede aan die ander kant help om ons te wil wys maak dat presies dieselfde gebeur met die staatsamptenare nie. O nee, die kom voor die Huis, ons kan veranderinge voorstel en ons neem die voile verantwoordelikheid. Maar hier word die saak totaal uit die hand van enige verantwoordelike liggaam geneem, en in die hand van ’n Kommissie gestel, wat miskien heeltemaal onsimpatiek mag wees en vir vyf jaar kan daar geen verandering aangebring word nie. Ek stem heeltemaal saam met die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth). Ons is die verantwoordelike liggame, die Volksraad en die Prowinsiale Rade. Die is gekies en moet die wense van die kiesers uitvoer, nie die Staatsdiens Kommissie nie. Wat vir beswaar die edele lid vir Paarl (Dr. de Jager) het, om die Volksraad die toesig te gee oor die werk van die Kommissie, om dit af te keur of goed te keur, verstaan ek nie. Dis ’n gesonde beginsel. Edele lede moet hulle nie laat mislei deur pragtige voorstellinge wat gemaak word in die Huis deur vriende van die Kamers van Koophandel nie, om die plattelandse onderwys te kan dood druk. Die Kamers van Koophandel het geen simpatie vir die onderwys op die platteland nie. Laat ons baie versigtig wees, om nie die plattelandse onderwys dood te druk.

Ek lees tog dat die Goewerneur-Generaal beteken die Goewerneurin-Rade. Dit is die Goewernement, en is die handelwyse van die Regering dan nie onderhewig aan die Parlement nie? Dan berus tog alles by die Parlement.

Set dit daar dan in.

Daar staat dit.

As daar geen beswaar daarteen is nie, waarom word dit dan nie duidelik daarin gesit nie?

Daar staat die Goewerneur-Generaal en dit beteken die Goewerneur-in-Rade, dit beteken die Regering en die besluite van die Regering is nog altyd onderhewig aan die beslissing van die Parlement. Die meerderheid van die Parlement het feitelik die mag in hande en die edele lid kan deur ’n mosie die Parlement sê beslissing vra.

Ek wil net ’n paar woorde sê.

Die edele lid vir Klerksdorp (de hr. Smit) het die geleentheid voorby laat gaan om te spreek. Hy het die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) gesekondeer en toe was sy geleentheid om ’n toespraak te hou.

Ek wil net iets sê oor die amendement van die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux).

Ja, die edele lid kan daaroor praat, net oor die amendement van die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux).

Ek wil die amendement in sy geheel ondersteun. Want wat is nou die posiesie? Hier het ons ’n rapport opgetrek deur drie kommissarisse in oorleg met die tegniese adviseurs en in oorleg met die Federate Raad van onderwysers. Die aanbevelinge van die Kommissie is nie opgesit in ’n paar uur tyds nie, nie in een dag of in een nag nie, maar na lange oordinking is die skale vasgestel. En wat vind ons nou, na die skale opgetrek is in oorleg met die adviseurs? Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies staan op en sê dat die aanbevelinge geen aanbeveling meer is nie. Die is teruggetrek, m.a.w. die Staatsdiens Kommissie sal nou weer nuwe aanbevelinge maak. Dis ’n duidelike bewys vir die noodsakelikheid, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie nie toegelaat moet word om die skale op te trek nie. Die Kommissie tree nie elke jaar in oorleg met ander liggame, maar dit gebeur maar net alle vyf of ses jare.

Ek wens die mosie van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) te ondersteun, want as die bepaling aangeneem word, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie sal beskik oor salarisse van onderwysers, dan beteken dit, dat elke skool op die platteland, wat minder het as 20 leerlinge, sal moet gesluit word.

Die kwessie van die aantal leerlinge is tans nie voor die Huis nie; die edele lid moet hom bepaal tot die mosie van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth).

Ek is altoos gewillig om te buig onder u beslissing, maar ek lees dit hier so, dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie sal beslis oor die salarisse en toelages van onderwysers of liewer deur die Goewerneur-Generaal-in-Rade, op aanbeveling van die Staatsdiens Kommissie. As die amendement slaag, moet ook ingevoeg word, dat die goedkeuring van die Parlement nodig sal wees. Ek sê, dat in die dunbevolkte dele baie kinders ongeleerd sal moet opgroei want dit gaat dikwels hard om 20 kinders bymekaar te kry, terwyl as minder kinders die aanhou van ’n skool blywend gaat regvaardig, dan kan hulle opgroei tot nuttige lede van die maatskappy en baie, wat biesonder begaafd is, kan selfs verder gaan studeer en hoge betrekkings beklee. As die amendement aangeneem word, kan daar ’n ander kleur aan gegee word en onderwysers kan beter betaal word, terwyl daar anders geen onderwysers gekry sal kan word nie, om dat dit selfs onder gewone omstandighede al opoffering vorder vir ’n onderwyser om te gaan skoolhou op ’n plek, wat ver is van alle geriewe van die dorpslewe. Dit is egter alles kaf, want as hulle nie onderwysers kan kry nie, sal die Kaap betaal. Nou reeds betaal die bewoner van die platteland eigendomsbelasting en dit om die kind van die dorpsbewoner en welgestelde man te laat leer. Die belasting word betaaid aan die Prowinsiale Raad en kolleges word daarvoor gebou, terwyl die kind van die man daarbuite in die agterveld daar geen gebruik van kan maak nie. Daardie kinders loop in vele gevalle kaalvoet. 4s die ouer net vir die kind se kos kon betaal, dan was hy gered, maar dit is die geval nie. Ons moet die man daar agter ’n kans gee, want daar is baie plekke, waar in ’n wye omtrek nie 20 kinders bymekaar gekry kan word nie en dan sou dit beteken, dat hulle sonder onderwys sal moet opgroei. Ons verkwis tot £125,000 aan ’n graansuiger en baie ander groot somme op ander maniere.

Die kwessie van die betaling vir leerlinge kom glad nie in die mosie en kom nie ter sprake nie; ons het met die klausule te doen en bespreek of die voorgestelde woorde in die artiekel opgeneem sal word of nie.

Terwyl die salarisse sal voorgeskryf word deur die Goewerneur-Generaal-in-Rade dag ek, dat die kwessie van die molikheid, dat baie skole sal moet gesluit word ook kon bespreek word. Baie van die kinders sou later anders ook ingenieurs kan word of ander goedbetalende betrekking beklee, net so goed as die kinders van die meer bevoorregte persone; sodoende sou hulle vir land en volk tot nut wees. Ek wil net op die verkwisting wys, waardeur baie kinders van die voorregte van skool verstoke bly.

Die edele lid spreek nou oor die vasstelling van salarisse, wat nie nou aan die orde is nie.

As die salarisse nie vasgestel word op bevredigende wyse nie, dan kan die kinders nie behoorlike skool kry nie. Wat moet dan die kinders word, want hulle is net so geregtig tot onderwys as die ander? Ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister tweemaal sal denk, voordat hy ons van daardie onderwys voorregte beroof.

Die vraag van die salarisse is nie onder bespreking me, maar wie dit moet vasstel. Die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) wat die mosie ingedien het, het sig strikt bepaal tot die strekking daarvan en waarom sou ander lede dit nie ook doen nie?

Die edelagbare die Minister het vandag ’n leer verkondig wat geheel nuut is en nie in die rapport staan nie. Daar word gesê, dat die Vrystaat met die saak besig is om die salarisse te verminder, maar teen die tyd, dat hulle klaar het, is die salarisse miskien vasgestel en help onderhandeling met die onderwysers nie meer nie. Die skaal is miskien helemaal onbevredigend, maar dan is die Wet deur. Ons wil graag hê, dat die Parlement die laaste gesag het en alles weer kan nagaan en so nodig wysig.

So far from the Bill introducing a new principle in our politics, it appears to me that the amendment itself attempts a new departure. Wherever have we had before a provision that Parliament must specially approve of a scale of salaries? This section is exactly in correspondence with the section of the Public Service Act. The scales in that case are fixed by the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and that is all this provision provides for. It places teachers exactly on the same footing as members of the civil service, as the right hon. the Minister of Finance states, and nothing has been said to show that it is not so. Nothing whatever has been brought up to show that the teachers are not placed exactly on the same footing as other public servants of the country.

What about the Estimates? We deal with the salaries in the Estimates.

The salaries in this case will be put before the Provincial Council, and they will deal with them in the same way as they deal with the salaries of public servants, which are immediately under its supervision. In exactly the same way will the Provincial Councils deal with the teachers’ salaries, and in the same way does this Parliament deal with the salaries of the civil servants.

The Civil Service Commission will not be responsible to the Governor-General.

The Governor-General, which is the Government, acts in both cases upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and in both cases it is responsible to this Parliament. If the Governor-General publishes scales which are not approved of by this Parliament, then the only way is to get a new Government.

Yes, that is the only way.

That is the only remedy we have in regard to the public service scale, which fixes the salaries of public servants. This Parliament has no right when the Estimates of the public service are before it, to put up the salaries; no private member can move that, that can be done alone with the consent of the Governor-General, and if the Governor-General refuses his consent on the advice of the Government, the only remedy which this Parliament has, is exactly the same remedy which it will have under this Bill, namely, to get a new Government.

Put how can the Provincial Council get a new Government?

The Governor-General is the Governor-General-in-Council, and is responsible to this Parliament, and this Parliament only, in both cases.

But we do not deal with these salaries here.

The Governor-General fixes the scales; if this House is not satisfied with the scales fixed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Cabinet, then its remedy is to put a new Government in, so that the Governor-General will get other advice.

But the hon. member said Provincial Councils will deal with the salaries.

Yes, in the same way as they deal with the salaries of any other public servant. The Governor-General fixes the scales on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. If this House is not satisfied with the scale, then it will move a vote of no confidence in the Government on that account, and dismiss the Government, That is practically the same principle which the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) wants, namely, that this House shall have the final say in this matter, and this is exactly what this Bill provides.

How?

Perhaps the hon. member will be quiet. If he does not think so, perhaps he will point it out afterwards. If the member understood it before, it was his duty to point it out—

I did so.

There is no difference at all. But the principle which the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) wishes to establish, that this House must specially approve of these salaries, is entirely a new departure, and all that has been said about the new departure could practically have been said with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) and not with regard to the provisions of this Bill.

Daar skyn misverstand te bestaan oor die saak voor die Huis en die hele kwessie is, dat as die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) aangeneem word, dan word eenvoudig in die Wet ingevoeg, dat die skaal van onderwysers salarisse, na bepaal te wees deur die Staatsdiens Kommissie, aan die Parlement voorgeleg moet word. As dit daarenteen so bly, dat die Goewerneur-generaal-in-Rade dit vasstel, dan behoef die Regering dit nie voor te breng nie. Is die Wet eenmaal so aangeneem en van die lede wens, dat die skaal van salarisse tog voorgeleg moet word, dan sal daar geen ander weg oop wees nie as om ’n mosie tot die effek in te dien en dan sal dit vermoedelik beskou word as ’n mosie van wantroue. Dit is maklik om te sê, set ’n ander Regering in, maar dit het ook sy besware en die saak hier is, dat die skaal Van salarisse nooit voor ons sal kom, as dit vasgestel word deur die Goewerneur-generaal-in-Rade op advies van die Staatsdiens Kommissie nie. Maar waarom neem die Regering die amendement nie aan nie of waarom set hulle dit nie so duidelik in die Wetsontwerp, dat elkeen dit kan verstaan nie, dat die finale beslissing in hande bly van die Parlement? Ons beswaar teen die Staatsdiens Kommissie is soas duidelik deur die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) uiteengeset, dat hulle nie die nodige kennis het nie en volstrek nie, dat ons geen vertrouwe het in die Kommissie nie; ons vertrou hulle by die vasstelling van die salarisse van die gewone siviele diens, waarvan hulle verstand het, maar nie wanneer hulle dit oor die salarisse van onderwysers het nie. Dit is ’n helemaal ander tak van besigheid, wat sy eie eigenaardige eise en omstandighede het. Die Parlement is eenmaal die hoogste gesag in die land en laat dit dan aan dieselwe oor om te beslis of die vasgestelde skaal bevredigend is of nie. Onderwysers is nie gewone ambtenare, wat die leer deurgaan nie oor al die trappe, maar ’n helemaal aparte roeping en mense, wat deur die trappe van die siviele diens gegaan het, besit geen verstand van die omstandighede en eigenaardighede van die onderwysersberoep nie. Die Kommissie het b.v. in hulle rapport aanbeveel dat daar minstens 20 kinders moet wees om aan ’n onderwyser ’n bestaanbare salaris te betaal; maar welke verskil maak dit vir die onderwyser, of hy aan 15 of 20 leerlinge onderwys moet gee; die werk bly dieselfde. Hy het dieselfde moeite en dit is totaal iets anders as die gewone ambtenaar, wat ’n bepaalde aantal briewe moet skryf of ander roetienewerk doen. Omdat daar geen persoon op die Staatsdiens Kommissie is, wat die eise en omstandighede van die onderwysersberoep verstaan nie, is die Kommissie onbevoegd om oor die skaal van salarisse vir onderwysers te oordeel. Hier staat die Goewerneur-Generaal-in-Rade, wat natuurlik beteken, dat die Regering sal nagaan of die salarisse bevredigend is; maar as daar ontevredenheid ontstaan, sal daar geen ander middel wees om dit onder bespreking te kry nie as ’n mosie en die sal, gelyk ek reeds aangetoon het, beskou word as ’n mosie van wantrouwe en word natuurlik verworpe, solank as die Regering ’n meerderheid het. Al wat die voorgestelde mosie vraag, is dat die skaal van salarisse hier sal voorkom. ’n Ander punt, waarop nadruk moet gelê word, is dat daar groot verskil is tussen die werk van die plattelandse onderwyser en sy dorpskollega, en die Staatsdiens Kommissie het geen kennis van die moeilikhede en eise van die posiesie van die plattelandse onderwyser nie, nog minder as van die van die onderwyser in die algemeen. Ek herhaal, dat ek niks teen die Kommissie sê bekwaamheid het in hulle gewone werk in verband met gewone staatsdiens ambtenare nie, maar oor die plattelands onderwyser in biesonder kan hulle nie oordeel nie. En die mes kan na twee kante toe sny; die dag kan kom, dat op die Kommissie mense geplaas word, wat meer die platteland gunstig gesind is as die stede en laasgenoemde benadeel, dan sal dit groteliks ’n uitvloeisel wees van die houding, welke die Regering tans in hierdie saak aanneem. Ek hoop regtig, dat die edelagbare die Minister die amendement sal aanneem, want dit raak geen beginsel nie; ons wil net, dat die onderwysers versekerd sal wees van hulle posiesie en nie dat dit op losse skroewe geset word nie. Die posiesie van die onderwyser is alreeds baie “unsatisfactory.” [Edele Lede: “Onbevredigend.”] Onderwysers is hoogstaande manne, wat feitelik die toekoms van die nasie in hulle hande het en dit is van belang dat hulle tevrede sal wees.

Ek wil graag die edelagbare die Minister onder hande neem oor die onreg gepleeg in verband met die Staatsdiens Kommissie, aan wie hy die vasstel van die skaal van salarisse van die onderwysers toevertrou het. Wil die edelagbare die Minister die Huis laat verstaan dat daar geen onderskeid is tussen die werk van die gewone amptenaar en die van die onderwyser nie? Waarom gaat die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys nie op die meriete van die saak in nie? Op die voetspoor van sy kollega van Finansies steur hy hom nie aan die besware van die volk nie! Van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies verwag ons niks beters nie. Sy gedrag en handelwyse in verband met die kwessie van salarisse toon aan dat dit hom koud laat. Dit is eenvoudig genoeg vir die Kommissie om te oordeel oor die gewone salarisse van amptenare. Maar wanneer ons kom tot die kwessie van die vasstel van salarisse van onderwys verander dit die saak; welk verstand het b.v. die Staatsdiens Kommissie van landbouonderwysers? Ons het die Kaapse Direkteur van Onderwys afgevaardig na Europa om die metodes in sake landbou-onderwys te bestudeer, met opdrag om na sy terugkeer rapport uit te breng. Die edelagbare die Minister sal verder erken dat die onderwyskragte op die platteland manne moet wees indien landbou-onderwys moet ingevoer word.

Ek moet die edele lid daar op attent maak dat voor die Huis is die mosie aangaande die toevoeging van sekere woorde aan die artiekel en daar mag geen twede lesings debatte nou gehou word nie.

Ek verstaan wel, Mr. Speaker, maar met alle respek vir U moet ek verklaar dat die Staatsdiens Kommissie geen genoegsame kennis het van onderwys sake nie, en waar die Huis gevraag word om goed te keur dat hulle die beslissing sal hê oor die vasstelling van die onderwysersalarisse daar mag ons tog seker wys op hulle onbevoegdheid om daardie werk te doen, en dat die Huis die aangewese liggaam is om die finale uitspraak te doen.

Is die Parlement bevoegd?

Wel die Staatsdiens Kommissie is nie bevoeg nie, en omdat hulle onbevoeg is behoort die amendement aangeneem te word. Ek kan sien dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies al moeg is van die bespreking.

Lankal.

Ek kan die Minister verseker dat die land ook al moeg is van hom. Wanneer men die rapport van ander lande nagaan dan sal men vind dat waar landbou so’n groot plek inneem as in ons land, daar speciale aandag aan die saak gegee word. Waar als men die onderwysers kry, wat die nodige degelike kennis besit om op die platteland die landbouonderwys te gee as men geen behoorlike salarisse aan hen betaal. Daarom sluit ek aan by die mosie van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) dat waar die Regering eenmaal die salarisse uit hande van die Prowinsiale Rade geneem het, by wie dit thuishoort, dit deur die Parlement sal gedoen word en nie oorgelewer aan ’n onbevoegde liggaam as die Staats Diens Kommissie nie, hoe bevoegd ook. Die platteland mag nie afgeskeep word met slegte onderwys nie. Ons praat oor arme blankedom en die toename daarvan. Die arme blankedom het een van sy virnaamste oorspronge deurdat plattelands onderwys in die verlede nie alleen ontoereikend was nie, maar ook van die aard en soort was dat dit die mense nie bekwaam ge maak het vir die lewensstryd nie, en as soiets sons hier voorgestel aangeneem word, dan kan dit nie anders nie as nadelig reageer op ons plattelands onderwys, en waar dit geskied kan dit nie anders nie as hoogs nadelig wees vir ons gehele onderwys.

I only want to say a few words about an extraordinary argument which has been used by the hon. members for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler), Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), and Christiana (Mr. van Hees) to the effect that for some reason or other this Public Service Commission was wholly unfitted to make recommendations about teachers’ salaries. They say that the Commission may be qualified to make recommendations about the salaries of other officials, but they are unfitted to make recommendations about the teachers’ salaries. But at the present time the Public Service Commission is entrusted with the duty, and carries it out, of making recommendations about the salaries of directors of education, or superintnedent-generals of education, of the officials of the head office of the Education Department, of inspectors of schools, they are all decided and recommended on by the Public Service Commission, but from what has been said by some hon. members, it seems that when you come to the teacher you enter into an entirely new territory, in which the Commission is entirely unfitted to express a judgment; that when you come to the teacher you find things so entirely out of the Commission’s range that they are incapable of making any recommendation. That is absurd. The Public Service Commission would recommend, after consulting the Education Department, the provincial authorities, and the teachers themselves. They hear all these people, and discuss the matter with them, round the table before they make up their recommendations. Now some hon. members say Parliament has to do this, but how on earth is Parliament going to decide? How can Parliament have the teachers before it, and discuss the question of scales and classification of schools? You do not entrust Parliament with the carrying out of the details of administration. These recommendations will be made by the Public Service Commission. If they are regarded by the Governor-General-in-Council as being sound and reasonable they are approved of, but it is open to the Government to receive representations from the Education Department concerned, and to hear what they have to say.

Who are the Government?

The hon. member says such a lot of unpleasant things about the Government that I thought he knew who they were. The only reasonable thing which the teachers would expect was, that they should be put in a similar position to the public servants, and that the scales should be fixed the same way as the scales of salaries are fixed in the public service. But to argue that the teacher is so peculiarly different from every other class of public servant, as to make the Commission unfitted to lay down salaries for teachers, seems to me an entirely far-fetched and useless argument.

I think that the right hon. the Minister of Finance stated that there was no Parliamentary interference with the Provincial Council, and I wish to say they have been interfering with the teachers’ salaries in the clause which we are now discussing. If it was right for Parliament to interfere with the teachers’ salaries, I think we are justified in asking that Parliament should entrench the salaries of teachers, until such time as they are fixed on the same basis as the public service. There is also another matter which should be considered by this House on the education report, and what has been the result? The result has been that in discussion before this House, the advisability of reducing teachers’ salaries and of the granting of funds for education, we have made a very difficult position. The House will have learned that by discussing in Parliament the suggestion that we should reduce the salaries of the teachers, and the removal of school boards, the Provincial Councils refused to increase educational facilities, and as the result in one year there was only an increase in the number of European pupils of 143, as against the maximum increase of 5,000 in other years. Whereas when Parliament agreed to the spending of more money on the education of natives, we find that there has been an increase in native education, and of native pupils, amounting to nearly 9,000 in the Cape Province, which shows clearly that when the Government shows their willingness to spend money on education, we have more educational facilities and more pupils. We are suffering from the result of the dismal arguments used by the right hon. the Minister last year. We have to look to Parliament, the most important body in the country, for a mandate to go forth not to reduce the teachers’ salaries, which not only means less teachers, But less pupils. In the Cape Province we had an increase of pupils to the number of 5,000 average per year, over 60,000 more European children attending school than when Union was brought about. Since the Government last year decided to reduce teachers’ salaries, and the education vote, we had only an increase of 143, and I say that this Government is doing not only an injury to the present generation, but to posterity, by their educational policy. We find that the practical effect of the Government laying down the reducing of the teachers’ salaries, has not only been less teachers, but less educational facilities. I am limited to time in speaking to this amendment, but I shall try with what power I can, to deal with the result of this action. I want to impress on the Government—although there is only one representative of Cabinet rank present—I want to impress upon the Cabinet that the statement made in this House by that Cabinet will re-act upon them sooner or later. The result of the statements made last year has been that only 143 European pupils have entered the schools, against an average increase in previous years of over 5,000. I hope that the Cabinet will alter its way, and play the game to the future generations, and grant facilities not only for education but for the best men and women to enter the teaching profession, which, at the present time, they are not doing. There has been a statement made that the Government methods in comparing the teachers salaries here with those on the Continent—

Order! I must remind the hon. member that the question we are discussing is that the words “with the approval of Parliament” shall be inserted in the clause. The hon. member must confine himself to this question and not diverge into the broad principles of the Bill. The House has passed the second reading, and confirmed the principles, and they must not now be touched upon.

The amendment which has been moved, that power be given to Parliament only to reduce salaries, therefore I thought I was within my rights in referring to this. The position is this. The teachers’ salaries in this Union are not larger, and cannot be compared with the salaries in other countries. I hold that we are quite justified in comparing teachers’ salaries here with the salaries paid to the teachers in other countries, and it would be a crying shame to leave the matter of the reduction to the provincial authorities. Some years they may reduce taxation, and then the Provincial Council executive could interfere with the teachers’ salaries and reduce them. I say that the teachers’ salaries should not be reduced except by Act of Parliament, owing to the fact that the teachers’ salaries are on a lower standard here, and are not in proportion to the salaries paid in other countries. When comparing the position of the teachers with the rest of the public servants, the House should remember this, that they have not got the same conditions as the other civil service employees, and if we take the ratio between the members of the civil service and the teachers, and compare them with other countries, it will be found that the teachers are a long way behind. If it were only for the purpose of developing education, this House should, seeing that it has interfered once, interfere further, and say that they will entrench the position of the teachers, and the expenditure of education, as they have done in the past years. When a larger amount was voted for the increase in native teachers’ salaries it meant a big increase in attendance. I hope the same will apply here. By giving the Provincial Council power to reduce and not to increase salaries, we are destroying the educational policy of the country, which will not be for the benefit of this country, but will sink the civilization, which we have at the present time, to the lowest edge.

Die amendement voorgestel deur die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) gee volgens my opinie betere beheer cor die handelinge van die Kommissie. Ek is jammer, dat ek die aanmerkings van die edele lid vir Paarl (Dr. de Jager) moet kritiseer, want die edele lid spreek so selde, dat ek jammer voel as ik, wat hy dan by die seldsame geleenthede sê, nog moet kritiseer; maar die edele lid het die opmerking gemaak, dat die aanbevelings van die Kommissie onderhewig is aan die goedkeuring van die Parlement; die opmerking is baie ver gesog, want alhoewel die Goeverneur-generaal-in-Rade die regulasies uitvaardig wat die salarisse vas stel, is dit baie moeilik vir die Huis om ’n behoorlike kans te kry om die rapporte van die Goeverneur-generaal-in-Rade te bespreek. Hul word op die Tafel van die Huis geplaas, maar dis baie moeilik om hul te bespreek. Dit is volgens my opinie ’n ernstige beswaar en dit gee my die idee, dat die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) betere voorsiening maak cm die Huis in staat te stel om sy pols te hou op die verslag van die Publieke Diens Kommissie. Mens voel byna as of dit beter sou wees om te sê, dat die aanbevelings van die Publieke Diens Kommissie onderhevig moet wees aan die goedkeuring van die Prowinsiale Raad. Daar is net die gevaar, dat as dit onderhewig gemaak word aan die Prowinsiale Raad, dan sal ons miskien vier verskillende Rade kry wat verskillend sal oordeel en daardeur sal ons die eenvormigheid verloor wat onder hierdie Wets-antwerp beoog word. Maar dit lyk billik te wees. Die Prowinsiale Rade betaal die salarisse, en die mense is die amptenare van die Prowinsiale Raad, maar onder die Wetsontwerp kry die Prowinsiale Raad nie die minste kans nie om sy pols te hou op die verslag van die Publieke Diens Kommissie. Hul moet die mense betaal, maar die Publieke Diens Kommissie maak sy verslae by die Goewerneur-generaal en die Prowinsiale Raad het glad nie magte oor hul. Deur hierdie amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) word voorsiening gemaak, of altans getrag cm voorsiening te maak om die Huis, die Volksraad ’n kans te gee om die rapporte na te gaan en te kyk of die salarissse goed is of nie. Nou is die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) se argument dat die Goewerneur-generaal betoken hierdie Volksraad. Dit kan ek nie onderskrywe nie. Dit mag in teorie so wees, maar in praktyk is dit glad nie so nie. As jy ’n verskil van opinie het, hoe kan jy dit dan voorbring? Dit kan wees dat die rapport van die Staatsdiens Kommissie heeltemaal in stryd is met jou mening. Watter geleentheid het ons om die hele kwessie van salarisse te bespreek? Die edele lid sê deur ’n mosie van wantroue kan jy jou afkeuring uitspreek en sien wat die mening van die meerderheid van die Parlement is. Jy kan so ’n mosie van wantroue eenmaal indien, maar jy kan tog nie ieder oomblik met so’n mosie van wantroue kom nie. Ons is hier om die sake van die land te bespreek en te bevorder. Maar die kwessie van salarisse moet voor die Raad kom vir revisie. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies se argument is baie swak. Hy vra watter verskil daar is met die vasstelling van die salarisse van staatsamptenare. Die Staatsdiens-Kommissie stel die salarisse van amptenare en selfs van inspekteurs van skole vas. Waarom nie op die selfde manier ook die salarisse van onderwysers vasgestel? Neem nou die salarisse van, die onderwysers op die platteland. Die onderwysers moet besondere bekwaamheid hê om ook onderwys te gee in landbou. Deur die Staatsdiens-Kommissie word die salarisse van die onderwysers ook op die gewone roetiene manier behandel. Die onderwysers wat onderwys gee aan skole waar minder as twintig kinders sal wees, sal ’n salaris kry wat dit heeltemaal onmoontlik maak om die geskikte man te kry vir die onderwys op die platteland. Alleen die dorp skole sal die voordele van onderwys hê. Die belange van die onderwys op die platteland, wat tog die kern van die landbou is, word verstoke van behoorlike onderwys. M.i. is die hele kern van die saak nie die reg om die salarisse vaststel nie, maar die, dat die Kommissie nie voldoende ondervinding het van onderwys en nie voldoende simpatie—ek sê dit in alle beskeidenheid—vir die onderwys op die platteland. Neem nou, b.v., ’n skool wat 25 kinders het, maar deur omstandighede val dit tot onder twintig. Die skool sal gesluit moet word, want die onderwyser sal nie meer deur die Goewernement betaal word nie, of daar sal so’n salaris betaal word, dat jy nie ’n ordenthke man sal kry nie. Die edelagbare die Minister moet goed die beswaar sien, dat die Staatsdiens-Kommissie se rapport nie elke week of elke maand uitkom nie, maar slegs elke jaar of miskien elke ses maande. Wat is die beswaar vóórdat die aanbevelings tot wet gemaak word deur die goedkeuring van die Goewerneur-generaal, dat ons eers die geleentheid het om die poesiesie na te gaan, as ’n soort van Hof van revisie, as ’n Appèlhof vir die onderwysers? Ek kan dit nie sien nie, dat ons met die onderwysers dieselfde posiesie het as met die staatsamptenare. Daar is tog altyd die reg van beroep op die Volksraad. Hier het ons die abnormale posiesie, dat amptenare van die Prowinsiale Raad se salarisse word vasgestel deur die Goeverneur-generaal-in-Rade, wat absoluut geen verantwoordelikheid het nie. Watter kans het die Prowinsiale Rade Om daarteen in te gaan? Dis heeltemaal belaglik om te sê dat daar geleentheid is om by wyse van ’n mosie die hele kwessie terug te bring. Ek weet nie of die argument sterk genoeg weeg by die edelagbare die Minister, maar die argument van die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys is baie swak. As hy nie sterker argumente het nie, dan is die argumente van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) baie sterker. Die argument van die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys is miskien goed in teorie, maar beteken niks in die praktyk nie.

Ek staan op—

Ek wil net die edele lid daarop wys dat hy al ’n toespraak gehou het.

Ek wil net praat oor die amendement van die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux) en die feit dat hy sy amendement gestel het, is vir my ’n bewys dat die posiesie nog nie heeltemaal duidelik is nie. Ek moet sê, dat dit edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys sy beste probeer het, om ’n rooi haring oor die pad te trek. My hele argument was dat ons hier nie net die vasstelling van salarisse nie, maar nog bô op die indeling van skole, aan die Kommissie toeken, wat daardeur die hele onderwyspolitiek van Suid-Afrika in hande kry. Ek wil die saak van onderwys nie toeken aan ’n liggaam, aan ’n Kommissie, of die nou ’n Staatsdiens Kommissie is, of soos die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux) voorgestel het, die vier voorsitters van die Prowinsiale Rade nie. Ons kan nie die grote mag oor die hele onderwyspolitiek van Suid-Afrika toevertrou aan ’n Kommissie nie, van watter soort ook. Die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys skyn ook die posiesie nie te verstaan nie. Deur die verandering van een syfer kan die Staatsdiens Kommissie die skole op die platteland dood maak—

Die edele lid moet horn bepaal tot die amendement.

Ons gaan die mag gee aan ’n kleine kommissie om net deur die verandering van een syfer die plattelandse skole dood te maak. In die rapport word die getal twintig genoem, hulle behoef dit net dertig te maak, om byna al die skole op die platteland dood te maak. Die mag gee ons aan die Staatsdiens Kommissie.

Wat het dit te doen met die amendement?

Die amendement stel voor om die Goewernement te stel oor die Kommissie.

Ja, maar die edele lid moet horn net bepaal tot die vraag of die woorde “en met goedkeuring van het Parlement” ingevoeg moet word of dat “het Parlement” uitgelaat moet word en te word vervang deur “de Voorzitters van die vier Provinciale Raden.”

Dit is net die punt wat ek graag wil bespreek. Dis nie net ’n kwessie van die salarisskale nie, maar ’n kwessie van die hele onderwys-politiek van Suid-Afrika en ons mag die mag nie gee aan enig ander liggaam as die volksverteenwoordiging nie. Ons vra nie, dat die salarisskale elke jaar hier in die Parlement bespreek sal word nie. Dit gebeur maar net alle tien of vyftien jaar, maar as die syfers verander moet word dan moet die Parlement eers die goedkeuring daarvoor gee.

I cannot understand the right hon. the Minister of Finance saying that all the Provincial Councils and everybody else is in favour of this Bill. I do not want to speak at any length, but I want to refer to a telegram which has come down to the Arsus, and which I have just read, which says that the teachers at Pretoria had a very large meeting and it appears that it was addressed by only one politician, who happened to be the South African Party member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Davis), and that gentleman said the Financial Relations Act is considered by the South African Party to be a breach of faith by the teachers, and that all the members of the Provincial Council in the Transvaal had come to the conclusion that teachers’ salaries should not be reduced, and a telegram has been sent down to the right hon. the Prime Minister. Now, where do we stand with regard to this Government? They lay down one thing in this House and then in Pretoria they lay down another. It is very difficult to say what the position is. I think it is the right time to bring the matter forward, because from these benches and the Nationalist benches we regard it as a breach of faith, and from the other side we are told it is not so. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Davis) must be a Government man, because all members who represent Pretoria “central” are Government men. I wonder what the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Rooth) would say in this House about it? A statement has been made by a responsible member of the South African Party—I notice the face of the hon. the Minister of the Interior gets longer and longer.

Yes, I am almost dying.

That is the one thing we do not want to see. The hon. the Minister is a bad politician but a good chap. But what has been stated here by the hon. the Minister is not correct, and as the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) said is merely untrue and probably other things will develop as the debate goes on. There is no doubt that there has been a breach of faith with the teachers because it is said by a leading member of the South African Party in the Transvaal.

Ek het ook ’n paar woorde te sê oor die salarisse van die onderwysers en oor die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth). Wanneer die wet deurgaan soos die nou staan, dan it dit baie duidelik dat dit nadelige uitwerking sal hê op die onderwys op die platteland. Die platteland is al baie agterlik op onderwys gebied. Die kinders word pie ver genoeg geleer, om enige betrekking te kan aanneem nie. Dit gaan nou al so ver dat wanneer persone in die Staatsdiens wil ingaan, dan moet hulle die matrikeksame gepasseer hê. Die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë het horn ook al uitgelaat, dat ook by die spoorweë die matriek sertifikaat gevra sal word.

De edele lid moet sig bepaal by die amendement. Die vraag voor die Huis is, of die woorde “met goedkeuring van het Parlement” ingevoeg moet word, of “met goedkeuring van de Voorzitters van de vier Provinciale Raden”. Dit is die vraag voor die Huis.

Die Kommissie wat aangestel is, is absoluut onsimpatiek teenoor die onderwys van die platteland. Nou, as hulle nog meer mag kry, dan sal die platteland nog meer ly. Ek is heeltemaal eens met die amendement, dat dit Parlement sal moet besluit oor die salarisse.

I really think I should move, but I am very much afraid that if I did I would have very little opportunity of addressing the House, but I would urge upon the Government that they should do it upon their own initiative, and that is that the debate should be adjourned, because as time goes on we find that the light is filtering through, and we are getting information from all quarters. We have been told by the Government that there has been no breach of faith; that the teachers in consultation with the Commission have agreed to this and to that, and in point of fact, the legislation we have before us epitomises the findings of these two bodies, the Commission on the one hand, and the teachers on the other, and we have been told that it represents no breach of faith. Now we have from Pretoria, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has told the House, the unanimous decision of all the teachers assembled there, that they look upon it as a breach of faith, that they were addressed by one politician, and that no other meeting of that conference was addressed by any other politician. We can understand how the welkin would have rung if any of us on these benches had addressed a meeting of teachers. We should have been accused of all sorts of delinquencies if we had done that. Now we have from Pretoria a statement to the fact that a politician addressed that meeting, and that politician was a prominent member of the South African Party.

But what has that to do with the question before the House?

Everything.

Order! The hon. member will remember the question before the House is, whether the words “and with the approval of Parliament” shall be inserted, and I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to that question.

Yes, sir. We want to be able to discuss the salaries of teachers, and know what is going on behind the scenes. In ignorance, a large number of members on that side of the House, in ignorance I say may have supported a measure which, if they had received all the information underlying the question, they would not have done. I am bringing this before the House, in order that hon. members on that side of the House will have their intellects somewhat sharpened. The teachers accuse the Government of a breach of faith, and that is the reason why we want Parliament to have closer control over the conditions and salaries of a profession which has such a marked influence on the future of the nation. I would urge even now that the Government, in its own interest, should agree to the adjournment of the debate, so that teachers all over the Union, so that South African Party provincial members, may have an opportunity of placing before the House their view’ points on this question. I want these people to have an opportunity of giving their own impressions, unalloyed with representations made by the Government itself. It would be of extreme advantage to this House if we had such expressions of opinions from the various bodies. I would like to know what the opinion of the Cape Provincial Council is on this question. We have not got that. We have the Government’s assurance that all over the country the Provincial Councils are with them. The only opportunity we have had of getting any information at all, leads us to believe that the Government is misleading us even on this too. The right hon. the Minister of Finance has made statements in the House that this, that, and the other, has happened, that these people agree, and those people agree, and now we find that in no case, is he telling the truth. It is an additional reason why we in Parliament, should review the representations made by the Commission as regards salaries, and the action of the Government thereon. There are two things at stake, and I am really surprised that the Government does not agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth). All that he requires is that Parliament shall have the right of review, and that Parliament shall have to signify its approval of a reduction, or even an increase, in the salaries of teachers, though it has been indicated by the Government, there is no likelihood of there being an increase. While that Government is in power, there is no prospect of there being an increase in the salaries of the teachers of the country. But the point is this: that we should decide ultimately what the scale of salaries of our teachers shall be. There are two points of principle involved; one is, Parliamentary control. The hon. the Minister of Education, who is always honest, but very frequently mistaken, told us that we did not want Parliamentary control, and asked: “How could you get all the teachers coming along to the House and discussing questions of salaries and conditions? No, let them come along to the Government, and we will discuss it with them, and we will decide.” That is the very objection we have got to this matter being decided behind our backs. Then we, the principal administrative body in the country, wake up when it is too late, and find that the whole of our educational system has been ruined without our knowledge. That is the reason why we, the supreme body of the country should know all about it, and knowing all about it, shall have the right to decide whether this or that shall be. I am surprised at the great constitutional party on that side of the House, being prepared to sacrifice all their Parliamentary rights and privileges, into the hands of that little coterie over there. When I ventured to ask: “Who is the Government?” The hon. the Minister said: “I thought the hon. member knew.” Of course I know; but is the Government a body which comes down from on high, or up from below? Pather the latter I am afraid. Have we got anything to do with the election of the Government? Have the people of the country anything to do with the election of the Government, or, does the Government simply occur? The Government is taking up more and more the position of autocrat, and running the country without reference to Parliament or anybody. My further point is the actual status of the teaching profession, a profession responsible for the future of the country, and for the future citizens of the country. Above all things we should be taking a big interest in the education of our children. My friend, the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) quite rightly put it, that upon the status of our teaching profession depends the future of this country. Show me an uneducated nation, and I will show you people steeped in ignorance, and descending rapidly in civilization, and because I want to see our children educated, that the future citizens of the State shall be highly intellectually developed, for that reason I want to see the status of the profession kept at the highest point. If we do not, we will not get the best men and women to take up the positions, and secondly we will not get the best form of education for cur children. These are the two points I want to make—two conclusive points which the House should keep in view—when dealing with the teaching profession throughout the land. The Government has thought that with their majority, now a very small majority and which is dwindling, they would take away from the Provincial Council the control of education. The right hon. the Minister of Education said “No.” He pooh poohed that. “It is not in the Bill,” said the hon. the Minister of Education, but in actual practice that is what is being done We are taking from the Provincial Councils the control of the salaries of teachers, and above all, we are making a uniform scale—and that is where the teachers made a very grave error—a grave error in sacrificing anything at all, but particularly in sacrificing non-uniformity. That is a debatable point, but it is my opinion. Immediately the Government take over through the legislative sanction of this House, the right to decide what the scale of salaries should be, they take away the real control of education from the Provincial Council. What becomes of the statement of the right hon. the Prime Minister. He said, in the course of the debate on the second reading, it was solely designed to protect the Provincial Councils. It is quite the reverse. We have a right to be alarmed; the teachers have every right to be alarmed, and everyone interested in education, has a right to be alarmed. I think the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) has moved his amendment quite rightly, seeing that they have taken away from the Provincial Councils the control of salaries, the real control of the teachers. Why take away that right? This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Education thought he was knocking the hon. member’s arguments down. He said that the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) and other hon. members should control themselves. He said that the Commission had been good enough to fix the scale of salaries, and also for the Director of Education, and the inspectors, and we never raised our voices in the House; but I say that it was only when they came to the fixing of salaries of the teachers themselves, that they broke on entirely new grounds. I remember not very long ago, when the Director of Education in the Transvaal himself, was opposed to any reduction in the salaries of teachers, yet I understand to-day, that he is in favour of the scale suggested by the Commission. It is a remarkable thing, I do not cast any aspersion on the Director of Education, but it is a remarkable thing that when you have a Government any long time in power, and consequently associated with the heads of departments and officials, there is a tendency for them to become creatures of the Government. What has caused that gentleman to change his mind? The Government is breaking new ground, but that is no reason why the Councils should not have the fixing of the scale of salaries. They have never done so before. Does the House know, do the members know what the new scale of salaries will be?

We are not discussing the scale of salaries, but are simply discussing the methods by which they shall be established. The scale of salaries cannot be discussed.

I am giving an illustration, sir. The scale of salaries is being fixed sub rosa, and what will be the result? We have not the information before us.

The hon. member cannot make a second reading speech on this resolution.

Right, sir. The teacher of a secondary school in the Cape under the old scheme started at £240 rising by 15 increments to £540. Under the proposed new scale the teacher starts at £195, and if any hon. member makes an arithmetical calculation he will find that that works out at £16 5s. a month, rising by increments of £15 to £360. That is what a man will get in this service of the country after 12 years, counting his first year, he will receive the maximum sum of £30 per mensem, rising ultimately by an increase of £20 to no more than £380, and he will not get any more. Now, as I promised you, I do not propose to enlarge upon that. I give these figures to the House, especially the merchant princes on that side of the House who are used to dealing in thousands in connection with their own home life. I put those figures to them in the hope that they will make, not a comparison, but a contrast, with their own mode of living, and realise what sort of attraction they are holding out for the influx into our teaching profession of the best brains of our own country. We should be prepared to look over our border, and try to attract to us the finest intellectual talent it is possible to obtain, and it is almost impossible to do that when we offer such measly salaries as is proposed under this Bill. Again I look for confirmation of our righteousness, in moving and supporting this, amendment, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Education. He says this Commission will hear all the teachers have got to say, and having heard all the teachers have got to say, this Commission will make its recommendation. They have heard what the teachers have got to say; they have heard them, and not only heard them, but gave pledges to them in their conference with them. Having misled them in the first place as to what was going to be done, having bamboozled them into accepting a condition of uniformity—which they were very foolish to do in any case—having done that, and having subsequently given them pledges that they would be secured in tenure, not only of office, but of salary—that is the present occupants—having done all that, they grossly betrayed them, and instituted a scale of salaries unfortunately below those they had agreed upon. That is the reason the hon. the Minister advances for not having this amendment, and that is the very reason why we should have this amendment. “Having heard the teachers.” —Well, we, having heard the teachers, consider it to be our duty to force, if we possibly can, upon the attention of this House, the necessity of Parliament, under these circumstances, keeping a complete control over the conditions and the salaries of the teachers. There is another point also arising out of this. The Minister says: “If the Government considers the scale suggested to be reasonable.” Those are the words of the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Education says if the Government considers it to be reasonable, by that he means, of course, if the scales of salaries suggested are sufficiently low; they are not reasonable if they are not low. Now an additional argument, and an almost conclusive argument, why this House should have the final decision, the final say, in the question of the salaries of teachers, that our teaching profession shall have to receive, because again I must point out, at the risk of too much repetition, the treatment the teachers had. The scales of salaries recommended to the hon. the Minister or to his colleague, the right hon. the Minister of Finance, was considered by them to be a reasonable one, and if we in the House consider those salaries to be unreasonably low, and as a matter of policy we find that we are likely to militate against the good education of the country if we do raise those salaries under the Bill as it stands, we have no power whatsoever; we have parted with our power, the Government itself decides, therefore we ask for this amendment to be put in so that we can decide if they are unreasonably low, or not unreasonably high; that we can decide as a Parliament that Government is wrong and that the scales shall be altered in an upward direction. One cannot unfortunately traverse the whole scope of the question. Mr. Speaker would rule one out of order, and correctly so. I do think that every opportunity should be taken by hon. members—I do not want to accuse hon. members on that side of not taking any interest in the education of the country. I think somehow or another, anxious as they are, perhaps equally anxious with us in that direction, perhaps they have a different outlook, and I suppose it is the inevitable consequence of placing the control of a party into the hands of that little cabal over there, the Government, and all I want to do now is to give them, if I possibly can, a sense of their responsibility to the educational needs of the country, and I want to appeal not to their consciences on this occasion but to their intelligences, and I hope the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will not laugh, I want to appeal to their intelligences and to ask them to apply those intelligences to this great problem which is confronting this House this afternoon. Upon this depends the whole educational future of the country. Of that I am assured, and one cannot repeat too often, at the risk of being written down a bore, one cannot repeat too often this one pregnant fact, that unless we pay our teachers well we will get a bad article, and if we have a bad teaching article, we have a badly taught article, and as a result we will have a badly brought up nation. I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth).

My edele vrind die lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) het sy amendement voorgestel om voorsiening te maak, dat waar ons besig is onder Klousule 2 om die belangrike funksie wat tot nog toe aan die Prowinsiale Raad behoor het, om die van hul weg te neem en aan ’n ander liggam te gee, dat Parlement tenminste die laaste woord sal hê om die nodige kontrôle uit te oefen. Die edele lid vir Paarl (Dr. de Jager) het probeer die posiesie duidelik te maak, dat wat die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) verlang feitelik dieselfde is as hier in die klousule bepaal is, namelik, dat die Parlement ten slotte die nodige kontrôle sal uitoefen. Ek wens net aan die edele lid te sê, dat dit die grooste verskil maak, of Parlement in die eerste instansie die reg het om salarisse te kritiseer en oor hul te stem voordat hul van krag word, of dat die voorstelle later voor hul geplaas word wanneer hulle van krag is en wanneer edele lede, as hul nie met die salarisse instem nie, die Regering uit sal moet gooi. Dis ’n groot verskil, of die Parlement in die eerste plaas oor die ding sal beslis of later sy afkeuring moet uitspreek oor iets wat reeds beslis is. In die laaste geval word dit ’n kwessie van wantroue in die Regering, en as lede nie instem nie, dan sal die Regering moet aftree. Ons het ervaring gehad waar ons belangrike sake voor die Huis gesien het en waar ons geweet het, dat lede aan die ander kant van die Huis nie ingestem het nie, maar sodra as dit ’n kwessie van vertroue in die Regering gemaak was, het hulle ingestem omdat hul nie die verantwoordelikheid op hul het wil neem nie om die Regering uit te gooi. Die edele lid vir Paarl (dr. de Jager) is verkeerd waar hy sê, dat wat hier deur die amendement beoog word dieselfde gevolg sal hê, as wat deur die Wetsontwerp beoog word. Daar is ’n hemels-breed verskil. Daar is ’n hemels-breed verskil as die Parlement ewentueel die Regering moet uitgooi om sy afkeuring uit te spreek, of anders as hulle die reg het om in die eerste plaas ’n kwessie te bespreek, en om hulle invloed te doen geld in die vasstel van salarisse. Maar dan is daar nog ’n ander punt. Dit is deur die ander kant van die Huis gesê, dat ons aan hierdie kant van die Huis die onderwysers in ’n beter posiesie wens te plaas, in ’n gunstiger posiesie dan die publieke diens amptenare. Dis nie so nie. Wat ons beweer, is, dat as hierdie klousule aangeneem word, dan sal die onderwyser in ’n baie slegter posiesie wees as die publieke diensamptenaar. Volgens die bestaande Publieke Diens Wet word dit bepaal dat die Publieke Diens Kommissie die reg sal hê om salarisse vas te stel, maar Artiekel 14 van die Wet sê, dat daar geen algemene reduksies sal wees tensy dit goedgekeur is deur die Parlement.

Algemene reduksie.

Tensy dit deur Parlement goedgekeur word. Ek meen die Minister sal met my instem, dat die so is. Artiekel 14 bepaal dit. By ’n vorige stadium van dieselfde Wetsontwerp wat ons nou behandel, is ’n soortgelyke amendement afgestem. Ons het probeer om dit in te kry, dat dieselfde beskerming aan die onderwysers geskenk sou word, dat waar die regte aan die Prowinsiale Raad gegee word om ’n persentage vermindering vas te stel vir onderwysers salarisse, dat dit alleen sal plaas vind as daar ’n selfde vermindering vir publieke diens amptenare gemaak word. Maar dit het afgestem geword. Daarom sê ek, dat ons die onderwyser in ’n baie slegter posiesie plaas as die publieke diens amptenaar. Ek sal ’n praktiese voorbeeld daarvan gee. Die onderwyser is ’n, amptenaar van die Prowinsiale Administrasie; die administrasie het beheer oor andere amptenare in die publieke diens en oor die skcolinspekteurs. Die skoolinspekteur is nie in ’n posiesie wat baie verskil van die onderwyser, maar hy is ’n publieke diens amptenaar en hy val onder Artiekel 14 van die Publieke Diens Wet, en alhoewel hy onder die kontrôle val van die Prowinsiale Administrasie, het die Administrasie tog nie die mag om sy salaris te verminder nie; net alleen die Parlement kan dit doen, en dan alleen as dit met die ander amptenare gedaan word. Ek sê daarom, dat ons onder Klousule 2 die onderwysers io ’n baie slegter posiesie plaas as die publieke diens amptenare, en dis waarteen ons protesteer. Nou wens ek, dat lede sal besef wat ons onder die klousule doen, en ek wens dat hul die belangrikheid van die amendement sal besef. Wat is die posiesie? Onder die klousule neem ons die kontrôle oor onderwys, wat in die verlede by die Prowinsiale Raad berus het, op ’n belangrik punt, namelik die vasstel van die salarisse van onderwysers uit hulle hande weg. Soas die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) alreeds duidelik gemaak het, ons gaan hierdie hole kontrôle oor onderwys wegneem, want aan die vasstel van salarisse is ook verbonde die indeling of klassifikasie van skole. Jy kan nie die salaris van ’n onderwyser vasstel, tensy jy eers as ’n preliminêre stap die skole indeel. Jy moet sê: “Dit sal klas A, B, of C van skool wees, en A sal soveel leerlinge hê, ens.” en daarop word dan die salaris van die onderwyser vasgestel. Nou bring dit in alle gevalle met sig mee, dat dieselfde liggaam wat die salarisse vasstel ook belas is met die indeling van die skole, en derhalwe word daardie liggaam in die posiesie geplaas, dat hul die hele onderwys politiek kontrôleer. Ek wonder of die Uitvoerende Komitees, wat soas die Minister gesê het, ingestem het met sy voorstelle, besef het waiter magte hulle uit hulle hande gegee het? Ek beweer dat by Klousule 2 en by die amendement deur die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) voorgestel, die hele onderwys politiek gemoei is, en die vraag is of die kontrôle deur die Prowinsiale Raad sal wees, of deur die Parlement of deur ’n derde liggaam—die Publieke Diens Kommissie. Ons het hier te doen met ’n ingryping met die konstitusionele magte van die Prowinsiale Rade. In Artiekel 85 van die Konstitusie word dit bepaal, dat die Prowinsiale Rade—nie die Uitvoerende Komitees nie—die kontrôle oor onderwys sal hê, en hier onder Klousule 2 neem ons die magte weg. Die Minister het gesê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade toegestem het in wat hy voorstel, en ons hele wetgewing is derhalwe gebaseer op die feit, dat die Prowinsiale Rade toegestem het, dat ons die magte van hul sal wegneem. Maar dit is nu vir ons van die grootste belang om te weet, om presies te weet wat die Prowinsiale Rade toegestem het dat ons van hulle kan afneem. Die Minister gee nie voor nie, dat ons sekere magte wegneem teen die wil van die liggame. Nee, hy het gesê, dat dit met die toestemming is van die mense, aan wie die konstitusionele magte gegee was, dat hul weggeneem word. En om die rede moet ons baie versigtig wees en moet ons presies weet wat die mense toegestem het dat weggeneem sal word. Ons weet, dat daar ’n konferensie gewees was met die Uitvoerende Komitees, maar ons weet glad nie wat daar beslis is nie. Die Minister het geweier, en die Huis het geweier hom instruksies te gee om die besluite op die Tafel te lê, sodat edele lede presies sou geweet het wat daar ooreengekom was. Ek wens hier op te wys, ons wil weet, ons behoor te weet, of die Uitvoerende Bestuur die Regering net allenig gevra het om eenvormigheid vas te stel, of hul verder gegaan het en of hul gewillig was, teneinde uniformiteit te verkry, om toe te laat dat die kontrôle—nie aan die Parlement sou gegee sou word—maar aan ’n derde liggaam, die Publieke Diens Kommissie. Dis ’n baie belangrike saak wat ons wil weet en op die punt het ons glad geen informasie nie. Die Minister het ons vertel, dat die mense toegestem het. Maar op ’n interrupsie het ek daarop gewys, dat sover dit my betref, dit nie genoeg is nie. By vorige geleenthede het die Minister informasie aan die Huis gegee wat uiters onbetroubaar was; ek kan maar net terug gaan na ’n vorig stadium van die ontwerp toe die Minister die Huis mislei het en toe hy gesê het, dat hy niks afwis nie van die terughou van die publikasie van die Prowinsiale Raad, en dat die publikasie nie met sy kennis en medewete terug gehou was nie totdat die twede lesing aangeneem was. Die Minister het die Huis daar mislei en ek wens hom nou te vra, of hy nog daarby hou dat hy niks te doen gehad het nie met die terughou van die publikasie van die voorstelle van die Administrateur nie. Ons wil hier presies weet wat die Prowinsiale Rade, of liewer die Administrasie van die Prowinsiale Bade, afgestaan het; ons wil presies weet wat dit Uitvoerende Komitees gewillig was af te gee. Onderwys is taie aan die Uitvoerende Komitees oorhandig, maar aan die. Prowinsiale Rade. Ons weet, dat die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad teen die Wetsontwerp geprotesteer het, en derhalwe is dit, sover dit die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad betref, nie ’n “agreed Bill,” nie. So ver dit die Transvaal betref neem ons regte en magte weg van die Raad waarteen hulle protesteer. Is die Huis gewillig om die verantwoordelikheid op sig te neem teen die wil en teen die verlange van die liggaam aan wie onderwys toevertrou is, en om onderwys nou van die liggaam af te neem? En wat omtrent die ander provinsies? Die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaap kom morre eers by elkaar. Dit is noodsaaklik dat die Huis sal weet wat die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaap sê, en of hulle gewillig is, nie om uniformiteit te hê nie, maar om die Wetsontwerp aan te neem, namelik om die kontrôle oor onderwys weg te gee, nie aan die Parlement nie, maar aan ’n derde liggaam. Wat die Transvaal betref, het die Minister ons gesê, dat die Uitvoerende Komitee nie geprotesteer het nie. Ek weet nie wat die Uitvoerende Komitee gesê het; die Minister het geweier die dokumente op die Tafel te plaas, maar ek sê dit, dat dit nie aan die Uitvoerende Komitees was dat die kontrôle oor onderwys oorhandig was, maar aan die Prowinsiale Radé, en ek wil weet wat die Prowinsiale Rade sê, en of hul gewillig is dat die kontrôle en die vasstel van salarisse uit hul hande geneem sal word. Om die redes en voordat ons besluit of ons die amendement van die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) sal aanneem, namelik om die kontrôle aan die Parlement te oorhandig, behoor ons presies te weet wat die Prowinsiale Administrasies sê, of liewer wat die Rade sê, want dis aan die Rade dat onder Seksie 85 van die Uniewet die beheer oor onderwys toevertrou is. Ek wil weet, as ’n verteenwoordiger van die Vrystaat en van die Unie of ons besig is te doen wat die mense gevra het, en indien nie, dan is ek nie bereid nie om hierdie stap te neem om die kontrôle van hul weg te neem wat onder Seksie 85 aan hul behoor, en as daar iets gedaan moet word teneinde uniformiteit te verky, dan behoor die magte nie oorhandig te word aan ’n derde liggaam nie, maar aan hierdie Parlement, en lede van die Parlement behoor ab initio by die vasstel van die salarisse hul invloed te doen geld. Dis te belangrik om die kontrôle oor onderwys uit die hande van die verteenwoordigers van die volk te gee, en om die kontrôle te oorhandig aan ’n liggaam waaroor ons geen kontrôle het nie. En om die redene, en omdat dit nodig is, voordat ons iets doen, dat ons presies sal weet wat die Prowinsiale Rade sê—die Transvaal het alreeds geprotesteer— behoor ons nie verder stappe te neem nie, en ek dink dat daarom dat die debat verdaag behoor te word sodat ons die informasie kan verkry voordat ons die konstitusionele magte van die Prowinsiale Rade wegneem. Ik stel dus voor—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I have an amendment on the paper, on page 456, to add at the end of sub-section (1) the words—

I think I had better put the amendment proposed by the Committee of the Whole House, the amendment as printed in Clause 2, sub-section (1).

Will I be in order, sir, if I move that all the words after “Council” in line 44 down to the word “matter” in line 46 be deleted?

What point is the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) raising?

I was wanting to move that all the words after “Council” in line 44 down to the word “matter” in line 46 be deleted. It is a very important principle that is raised here. As the Bill was originally drafted the right hon. the Minister of Finance had left the Executive Committees of the provinces with full powers to deal with the matter. I think that the Provincial Council itself should be the only authority to deal with the matter. In this connection the analogy which has been made between the teachers and the public servants is not well-founded. Whereas the teachers were under the Provincial Councils, the Government has now taken the control into its own hands with regard to fixing the scales of teachers’ salaries. Therefore, while the matter is left in the Bill to the Provincial Council or Executive Committee, it seems to me that it should only be the Provincial Council which should have the power, and that it should not be left to the Executive Committee, which is only a small body of four. That Executive Committee cannot be removed, even if they do anything contrary to the wishes of the Council. It should be the whole Council, sitting as a council, that should deal with this matter, and not the Executive Committee, and for these reasons I move—

It is the intention of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) in a shorter way, to arrive at the same results that my amendment aims at. It is simply this—the right, hon. the Minister, in order to meet the wishes expressed in Committee of the Whole House, deleted the words “executive committee” and put in Provincial Council or executive committee, or Administrator in executive committee or whatever may be the proper authority in the matter.” But what we want is—and it is a reasonable request, and I hope the right hon. the Minister will meet it in a less adamantine spirit than he has met other amendments which we have proposed—that we may have this assurance, that it is not the Executive Committee, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) pointed out that should be responsible, as the executive of a province is not responsible to a Provincial Council in a similar way as the Government is responsible to this House, and cannot be removed. We want to be assured that, in the event of a general reduction being made, such a reduction will be made in accordance with the resolution passed by a majority of the Provincial Council and not by a majority in the executive. It seems to be perfectly reasonable, and I hope we will have some support from the other side of the House. After all, I want to put it to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset), in this province I understand if an Ordinance has to be passed the Provincial Council is consulted, but in the Transvaal it is the Administrator, by the advice of the Executive Council, who can determine a matter, and the only way in which the Provincial Council, as a council, can put a block in the way of the path of the Administrator and the executive is by the very extreme course of refusing to go into Committee of Supply.

They can recall the powers of the executive.

No, they cannot recall any powers. The powers conferred upon the executive are conferred by the South Africa Act, and the only thing which the Provincial Council can do is to elect that executive, composed of four representatives, and the Administrator is appointed by the Government. All they ask here is that in the matter of this general reduction of salary we shall have the safeguard that it is the Act of the Provincial Council, and not of the Administrator. It seems perfectly reasonable, and I hope the right hon. the Minister will listen to it with more attention than he has listened to some other suggestions that have been made. I second the amendment.

On listening to the remarks of the hon. member opposite, it brought to one’s mind how careful all the hon. members on the Government benches are of the powers of certain executives and administrators and provincial councils; how jealous they are of anything which may be an infringement of the Constitution. When it suits hon. members on that side of the House they ride roughshod over the Constitution of the country, and that is on record. Might I ask the right hon. the Minister just to pass the word on to his supporters on that side of the House not to make too free a use of the gag in connection with this Bill, which is a very important Bill. Bye and bye we will have to get the hon. the Minister of Defence to call out the Defence Force if the Government continues to govern the country on these lines. In supporting this amendment, I would like to ask hon. members of this House from what point of view the Administrator, or the Executive Committee, is going to act in connection with the teachers’ salaries? From what point of view will they act when it comes to a question of whether they shall, or shall not, reduce the salaries of the teachers? I take it that if it goes before the whole Provincial Council, that we will have a different point of view to the point of view that would actuate the Administrator or the members of the executive. There is not the slightest doubt about it that in his taxation proposals the point of view that actuates the Administrator or an Executive Council in all the provinces is not the question of whether this is, or is not, in the best interests of the country, or in this case, in the best interests of education, or whether they are going to give a square deal to the people concerned. The only point of view that will prevail with the Administrator and executive will be how much money they can save, and if it is to go before the Provincial Council as a whole they will look at it from the point of view of public interest, of this we can be assured, that there will be a certain number of members on that council who will look at it from the best interests of the country and not from the point of view of saving money. We are carrying this point of view of saving too far. It is not saving, because if we save in one direction and jeopardise the interest of the people in another, it is not saving. For instance, it is not a saving if, in connection with the bubonic plague in the Free State, we considered it from the pounds shillings and pence point of view. We would never be able to deal with it, for you cannot save money in connection with things like these; you cannot save money in connection with the education of the rising generation, and the difference between the Provincial Council as a whole dealing with this matter and the Administrator and the executive dealing with it is, that there will be two different points of view. We feel that after all the best interests of the people will be better served if the power is left in the hands of the whole Provincial Council than if it is left in the hands of one individual or a small number of persons. We know from past experience in connection with the Administrators, at least in connection with the Administrator of the Transvaal, I know after ten years’ service on the town councils of the Witwatersrand that, so far as the Executive Committee is concerned, they are dominated by the Administrator, whoever he may be, at least the majority are, and it is the majority that count. Whenever we have tried to get anything from the executive of the Provincial Council in the Transvaal, we have always failed, and the only hope we have ever had of getting any progressive measure through has been through the Provincial Council itself. We know what the Administrators are; we know they are simply there to carry on their job as cheaply as possible, and to save as much as they can. Under the circumstances, I say that the education of the children of this country is far too important to leave in the hands of any one individual, or in the hands of half a dozen individuals. It is far too important, and it cannot be too often emphasized. Hon. members on that side of the House state that they are not striking a blow at education in South Africa, You cannot strike the teachers without striking education. I hope the House will agree to this amendment. After all we do not get much out of the Government, they have only to crack the party whip and every member opposite is their servant. This country is coming to a pretty pass when members in the majority are afraid to cast their votes against the Government even when they feel the Government is wrong. [Interruption.]

Order! order!

Ek wens die amendement, voorgestel deur die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) te ondersteun. Aly rede is eenvoudig die, dat ons in die laaste tyd ongelukkige ondervinding gehad het wat betref die vertrouwbaarheid van die edelagbare die Minister en van die Regering. Ek sê ongelukkige ondervinding en met die oog op ’n telegram wat ek hier in die hand het, moet ek sê, dat die ondervinding nog op treurige wyse versterk geword is. Ek is nie bereid na wat hier uit die telegram blyk en met die oog op die antwoorde wat hier in die Huis geval is van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, om ’n mag soos hier gegee word, of staat gegee te word, aan die Administrateur toe te ken, sonder dat daar ’n behoorlike uitoefening van kontrôle oor hom is nie deur die Prowinsiale Raad nie. Laat ek die telegram aan die Huis effentjies voorlees. Die telegram is gedateer 6 Maart, van die Administrateur van die Kaapprovinsie aan een van die lede van die Prowinsiale Raad. Dergelyke telegramme is ek verseker, is gestuur aan al die lede van die Prowinsiale Raad. [Een Edele Lid: “Nie aan almaal nie.”] Maar in ieder geval aan sommige van hulle. Die telegram is gedateer 6 Maart, die dag waarop die Buitengewone Staatskoerant van die Prowinsiale Raad gedruk is, wat verskyn het op die oggend van die 14de Maart, die dag na, die oggend, na hierdie Wetsontwerp deur die 2de lesing hier in die Huis gegaan het. Na die openbaringe wat hier in die telegram gemaak is, sal ek voorstel die verdaging van hierdie debat. Ek beskou dit van so’n ernstige aard, dat dit nie anders as reg sal wees, dat die Huis die geleentheid sal hê, om behoorlik te oorweeg wat plaas gevind het. Die telegram lui as volg—

Ek sê hierdie telegram is van so’n gewigtige aard na die verklaring wat in verband met hierdie Wetsontwerp gemaak is in hierdie Huis, deur die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, dat ek nie anders kan, dan om voor te stel die verdaging van die debat. Maar alvorens ek dit doen, wens ek nog daarop te wys, dat in die loop van die diskussie oor die twede lesing van die Wetsontwerp, deur my die pertinente vraag gestel is aan die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, of hy invloed gebruik het by die Administrateur van die Kaapkolonie—

Ek kan nie sien hoe dit te pas kom by die amendement nie.

Ek wil net die redes gee, waarom ek die verdaging van die debat gaan voorstel.

Dan moet die edele lid eers die verdaging van die debat voorstel.

Dan doen ek dit. Ja, Mr. Speaker, ek dink dit toon, dat edele lede van die Huis voel, dat hulle om die waardigheid van die Huis hoog te hou, my moet help. Deur my is na die publiekasie van die Buitengewone Koerant op die oggend van die 14de van hierdie maand, na die twede lesing deur die Huis gepasseer was, die pertinente vraag gestel aan die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies of hy invloed gebruik het by die Administrateur om die informasie in die koerant vervat, uit te stel. Die edelagbare die Minister het opgestaan en ontken: ek het niks saam gedoen nie. Dit hierdie telegram blyk duidelik, dat op 6 Maart die Administrateur op versoek of pressie uitgeoefen deur die Minister—en ons kan nie aanneem, dat daarby die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies nie gekend werd nie—daardie telegram moet gestuur het, had hy die Wetsontwerp voor die Huis gebreng op aandrang van die Minister van Finansies en indien dit geskied was deur ander Ministers dan moet ons aanneem, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies daar alles van afgeweet moet hê, en sy konsent moet gegee het—hy het op 6 Maart invloed gebruik op die Administrateur en versoek die publikasie uit te stel, die informasie te laat oorstaan tot nadat die tweede lesing deur hierdie Huis aangeneem sou wees. Dit is iets van so’n aard, wat ek beskou dat die Huis, as dit sy plig wil doen en werkelik sy waardigheid vir die toekoms wil verseker, daartoe moet oorgaan cm die Wetsontwerp dadelik te verwerp. Wat leg opgeslote in die telegram? Laat ons dit vir ’n oomblik nagaan. Ten eerste dat die edelagbare die Minister saamgespan het om te bewerkstellig, dat informasie van publieke aard, wat vermoedelik die Huis sou beweeg het om ’n ander beslissing te neem as wat gebeurd is; sy beraadslagings op ’n bepaalde wyse te beinvloed, te onderdruk. Daar is ’n ander implikasie wat daaruit voortvloei, dat dit deur die edelagbare die Minister gedaan is met die opsettelike doel die Huis te influenseer, so nie te mislei nie om te besluit tot iets, waartoe hy wis dat die Huis anders nie sou besluit nie. En ten derde die implikasie wat in die handelwyse opgeslote leg is, dat toe die edelagbare die Minister op 14 Maart aan my die antwoord gaf, dat hy niks gedaan had om invloed uit te oefen ten einde publikasie van die Staatskoerant te vertraag nie, hy ’n opsettelike onwaarheid vertel het, waardeur hierdie Huis mislei is geworde. As ’n mens jou afvraag wat beteken daardie gedrag van die Minister, hoef ons net te vraag wat is die gehalte van ’n Regering, die ’n persoon in sy midde het, die deur ’n Minister so onwaardig beskou word, dat hy liewer daartoe oorgaat onwaarheid te vertel, dan te erken dat hy hom skuldig gemaak het. Hy spreek uit sy eige mond homself skuldig van sig skuldig gemaak te hê aan gedrag die hom nie betaam nie en die vraag moet by die Huis opkom: as onse Ministers sig sever vergeet om sig skuldig te maak aan gedrag, welke hulleself nie die moed het om te ontken nie, maar probeer te ontduik, is dit tyd of nie, dat ons daar ’n stop aan set? Ons het hier ’n Wetsontwerp van die allergrootste gewig in verband met ’n saak van die allergrootste gewig en dat dan die Minister sig skuldig maak aan laakbaar en afskuwelik gedrag, so selfs, dat hy self nie die moed had dit te erken nie. Dit is molik, dat ons die pleit sal moet aanneem, dat die edelagbare Minister onskuldig was, dat hy geen deel had aan die telegram nie, maar dan hoort hy te protesteer teen sy medeministers, wat die moed nie had om horn te seg nie; dan behoort hy op te staan en te verklaar: ek neem afskeid van wie my so behandel. Anders, as sy kollegas nie skuldig is nie, moet ons aanneem, dat die Administrateur van die Kaap uit sy weg gegaan is om ’n onwaarheid te verkondig, die hy miskien beskou het as die enigste wyse om sy Prowinsiale Raad nie hierheen te kry nie, deur namelik die naam van die Regering te besig. En as dit so is en dat die edelagbare die Minister die versekering wil gee, dat Sir Frederic de Waal die naam van die Regering gebesig het op ongeoorloofde manier, dan sal ek dadelik my rede terugtrek en wat ek geseg het. Maar as ons moet aanneem, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies en sy kollegas skuldig is, kan ons dan langer ’n Regering ondersteun, wat nie die moed het om sy dade te erken nie; durf ons ’n Wetsontwerp aanneem om diewelke deur die Huis te kry die Regering sig skuldig maak aan sulk laakbaar en afskuwelik gedrag? As ons die woord van ’n Minister nie meer kan neem nie, dan is die uur gekom, dat hulle moet ophou om Ministers te wees. Wat word anders van die land; is dit die soort manne, aan wie ons die sake van die land kan toevertrou? Dit spyt my, dat dit die enigste geval nie is, waar die Minister betigtig gestaan het die waarheid nie gesê te hê nie, want kort gelede nog het hy op ’n vraag van die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) omtrent medisyne of was dit die lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik)—

Die edele lid moet nie buitekant die telegram gaan nie.

Onder die omstandighede is ons nie geregtig om met die Wetsontwerp aan te gaan nie, sonder eers die hele posisie in oorweging te neem. As dit reg is wat in die telegram staat, dan is van die lede van die Huis op onbehoorlike manier oorgehaal om te stem vir die tweede lesing en sou dit verdere misleiding wees, tensy ons eers die gelegenheid het alles eers te ondersoek. Ek stel voor—

seconded.

I suppose it will be expected that I shall have to make some sort of reply to the tirade we have just heard from the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). It is very kind of the hon. gentleman to suggest to the House that it was quite barely possible I am not too guilty. It is quite possible, one infers from the hon. gentleman, that the Minister is not guilty. That is a very generous concession from the hon. gentleman. He also went on in order to soften the terrible blow of the bombshell, which he and his friends no doubt have prepared and gloated over for days. Coming along with a tremendous bombshell and saying: “Here is something which will smash the fellow. If we bring forward this, this will be the result”. The hon. gentleman, by way of letting me down softly, added that this was the first time.

No, I did not say that.

I regret that I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. I thought he finished up his speech by saying that this was the first time. At all events I appreciate his generosity. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. It has nothing to do with the merits of the Bill. He has had put into his hand a telegram from the Administrator in which it is stated that the Government had asked him to postpone the publication of his statement. The hon. gentleman asked me the other day whether the postponement of the publication was due to my influence and I gave him a perfectly straightforward answer, and said that it was not. The hon. gentleman seems to assume from that a great deal more than the perfectly straightforward answer entitled him to assume. He assumes that I informed him that I knew nothing whatever about this. Does the simple gentleman suppose that the business of this country in the matter of finances between the Provincial Councils and the Government of the Union is going on without any contact between the Government and the Provinces? Of course there has been contact with these people, and we would be much more blameworthy if there was not that contact; and particularly with the Administrator of the Cape in the serious position he is placed in and the necessity for his taking definite action in certain directions. I deny that it was owing to my influence that this thing has been postponed. I may tell the hon. member at once that this is the first time that I hear of a telegram. It is the first time I hear of any proposal to send such a telegram. I know nothing whatever about it. I will tell the House that the hon. gentleman’s question to me in the first instance was an inquisitive one, which I might have said that I was not going to answer. What right has the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) to ask me whether it was due to my influence that the publication had been delayed? What has it got to do with him? I can quite understand the annoyance of hon. members opposite, because by the postponement of this statement they have been done out of what I expect would have taken them weeks and weeks to discuss, and that was Sir Frederick de Waal’s statement. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has accused me of telling an untruth, and I will therefore tell the House exactly what, as far as I recollect, took place. [Laughter.] If hon. members opposite continue to receive the statement I am making in the spirit that they are doing, I shall decline to say any more; if this laughter and contempt for what I am saying continues I will not say anything. All that happened in the matter was this. In connection with the various visits that the Administrator paid me, much discussion took place about the points in this Bill, and questions about the period of repayment of his deficit loan, and things of that soft. I suppose he must have mentioned that he proposed to issue a statement. Our Bill was just coming on and he asked me what effect this statement would have upon the progress of our Bill. I said that I knew what would happen, that they would go on debating his statement and not the bill. The Administrator took his own line. I am telling you now what happened; I repeat that this is exactly what happened, and I see nothing to accuse myself of in that respect. I consider I exercised in the matter a wise discretion. You know what the progress of this measure has been so far, in the simple provisions it makes; what progress, I ask, should we have had if the Administrator’s statement had come out before the second reading? I told the hon. member that I did not use my influence. My remarks in reply to the Administrator, to his question, are quite another thing. I am telling you quite frankly what took place. I would do the same thing to-morrow, not because there is any question of concealing anything, for let me ask the hon. member who has got into a tremendous state of mental confusion about this thing, what has it got to do with the Bill?

What happens to uniformity?

A particular programme to be adopted by any Provincial Council has got nothing whatever to do with the merits of this Bill as the Bill provides for certain things which have to be left to the discretion of the Provincial Council. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to say any more. I repeat what I said to the hon. member the other day, who wished to pin me down as being responsible, and at whose instigation the publication of the statement had been delayed, in order to deceive the House. What deception was there? How did I deceive the House as to the intention of the Provincial Council of the Cape? I did not say a single word about them, except that I indicated in the clearest way that the Administrator of the Cape, in particular, had asked me not to deprive the Council of the right to reduce salaries in general, because they might have to exercise that right. My recollection of my introductory speech is that I made that statement. I informed the House that the Cape executive had particularly requested that; I remember telling the House that it was in response to the definite request by the Executive Committees that we had not deprived the Councils of that power. I stated that was one of the guiding reasons why we left that in the Bill, and I do ask in what respect I have misled this House in regard to this Bill?

We will tell the right hon. the Minister.

The hon. member can tell then; in no respect whatever. The Administrator’s statement had not been made, and the Bill was presented without that statement. In answer to a question put to me, it was my suggestion that we would probably save time in discussion, nor do I see any in consistency between that and the answer I gave to the hon. member the other evening on his trying to pin me down that I was the responsible person in this connection. Despite the hon. gentleman’s endeavour to raise a tremendous side issue, which was going to convict the Minister of having told an untruth and having deliberately come here to mislead this House, he has discovered nothing else but a mare’s nest, and I hope his motion for the adjournment will not be agreed to.

This is a somewhat painful episode, because if there is to be anything like the atmosphere which should prevail in this House, we must have some sort of moderate assurance that what is said in answer to a direct question, is true according to the speaker’s knowledge. Now, sir, it is also painful because when you have to meet every day amongst gentlemen, it is not a thing which one can pass over lightly when one is plainly and bluntly told that a deliberate untruth has been told. As to the right hon. the Minister’s reply, I may say I have never heard a more unsatisfactory reply to a direct statement. [An Hon. Member: “You will never be satisfied.”] I shall never be satisfied with a reply like that. The gravamen of the charge against the right hon. the Minister is that the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) asked if it was due to the right hon. the Minister’s influence that the publication of the Gazette, Extraordinary was postponed until after the second reading. The Minister says he replied perfectly straightforwardly that it was not due to his influence. That is his own statement just now, but it is quite clear that, whatever the reason was—I hope I may take the liberty of expressing my view as to the candour of the Minister—his desire was to avoid a protracted discussion, but on his own statement he distinctly suggested to the Administrator that it would be wise to defer the publication of the Gazette until the second reading, and that by no possible straining of the English language can this be construed into an acquittal from the charge levelled by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). In fact, he admits the charge. What was the Administrator’s impression of that interview? The Administrator’s impression was very clear. He telegraphs—

I want to put it to this House, may I for a moment—we do know there are differences between us who belong to the two races, English and Dutch. The hon. member has spoken on how it affects his friends, may I just also appeal to the hon. members who, like myself, belong to the British section of the community: Is this in accordance with the method of straightforward dealing on which we were brought up and which we look upon as the traditions of our old homeland? We know that in the House of Commons a standard of honour prevails which would banish a Minister from public life who dared to answer the leader of the Opposition with a direct falsehood, and a falsehood of which he was directly convicted. [Interruption.]

Order! The hon. member has no right to charge the right hon. the Minister with falsehood.

Must I withdraw?

The hon. member must withdraw that charge.

I withdraw the expression, but I will say this, that a Minister would be driven out of public life who in answer to a direct question by the leader of the Opposition replied in terms which were not the truth and which were in conflict with the actual circumstances of the case.

This matter is becoming serious and I would like to point out the position to the hon. member. There is a telegram alleged to be sent by the Administrator. The Minister has clearly indicated that he did not influence the Administrator and that he is not concerned with that telegram. That is what I understood the Minister to say. Is it right that without further enquiry the hon. member should charge the right hon. the Minister, who is a responsible Minister of the Crown and a member of Parliament, with falsehood and a deliberate misleading of the House? Is it right for the hon. member to do that before the matter of the telegram has been cleared up, either by a committee of enquiry or by a statement by the Administrator giving his reasons for sending the telegram, and before it has been ascertained whether the telegram really represents the actual charge now made in this House?

I wish to submit myself to your ruling, the intention of which I understand thoroughly, and I wish to withdraw the word “falsehood”, but I am bound to put it in terms to which you, Mr. Speaker, can take no possible objection, that, when in circumstances in which so responsible a member of this House makes a direct question to a Minister, and that Minister replies in terms perfectly straightforwardly that he did not use any influence, and that when by a mere fortuitous circumstance the matter is brought up, that same Minister in replying admits that he did use influence, although not for the purpose of suppressing information, but, as he alleges, for the purpose of avoiding excessive debate, the fact remains that on the Minister’s own confession he did use his influence with the Administrator’ and that it was for the purpose of avoiding protracted debates in this House on the taxation proposals. I will point out that if this somewhat singular way of carrying on the business of this House is going to be acquiesced in by hon. members over there, I am perfectly certain that if they do support the Government, and express by their votes that they do approve of that kind of thing. I am perfectly certain that they will do it with a feeling of the profoundest regret, and they will find themselves in such a position of ambiguity before the public, that they are not doing what they consider right. I know it. I would ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Minister of Railways, whether if, having had an interview with the Administrator, having pointed out to him that it would be inconvenient for a certain publication to be made, because it would protract debates, whether they would think they were making a perfectly straightforward answer to the leader of the opposition if they denied they had used any influence in delaying the issue of the publication? I know the hon. the Minister of the Interior would not believe he was making a straightforward answer, and I know the hon. the Minister of Railways would equally reply that if he had that communication he would not, plump and plain, say he had used no influence when he had, according to his own admission, admitted that he had intimate that the publication of it would be much more convenient if it were delayed. I would go further. I am entitled to doubt whether that was the only motive—the mere inconvenience of protracted debates. I say that was not the only reason or motive for desiring that this should be delayed. It was not merely that the effect would have been to protract debates on the second reading. The publication of that before the second reading would have had the effect upon many hon. members’ minds sitting over there, of making them think twice before they voted for the second reading of that Bill. I said “hon. members”, I did not say “all hon. members.” I am quite certain that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. Henderson) would vote for the Government if they said black was white.

Let the hon. member speak for himself and we will speak for ourselves.

I am speaking for myself and expressing my own opinion that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. Henderson) would in his touching, almost pathetic faith in the Government he supports, have voted for the proposition that black was white if he were told to do so.

That is not true.

The hon. member is somewhat irritable. It is perfectly true that this is my conviction, and I have a great deal of ground for that conviction. But that is the fact here. We have telegrams from the Administrator, who has been requested by the Government to postpone that publication, and when my hon. friend in front of me, the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) was speaking, and insinuated that this was done with the connivance of the Government, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, misled, no doubt, by his colleagues, replied and asked him what was the evidence. He rather sneered, and said the hon. member was making unjustifiable insinuations. Is this an unjustifiable insinuation? The hon. the Minister of the Interior should not have answered for the right hon. the Minister of Finance. And I also call attention to the curious coincidence which dogs the footsteps of this Government. I remember previous occasions on which I know, if I had expressed my suspicion, that this was due to the connivance of the Government, the right hon. the Prime Minister would have got up in that airy way he has, and stated that these were insinuations which were not bandied between honourable men, implying that I am not as honourable a man as he is. We have had enough, and more than enough of the contempt with which this Government and its Ministers treat this House. Not all of them, but sufficient to make us feel on this side of the House the futility of asking questions, and the futility of carrying on debates when we can never be certain whether the answer they give us is sterling coin, or the base coinage of counterfeiters. We are tired of it, and we want the country to realize that if the Government of South Africa cannot be carried on, on the principles of honest dealing, on the principles of ordinary plainforward statements of truth, then the Union of South Africa is heading for very disastrous times, because we have problems of the profoundest difficulty to face. There is one way, and one alone, in which it is possible for these discussions to be useful, and that is when they are conducted with candour, and not conducted by simply using the machiavelian principles of anything that will serve, will do as well as the truth. I say we all of us know, though I am not pretending for a moment that we are any of us entitled to say, that we never by any chance deviate from the strictest interpretation of the truth, there are limits, and on important matters of publication when a Minister says to the Leader of the Opposition that he used no influence, and then waits till a telegram like this is produced to admit: “Yes, I had conversations, and suggested that these things should be let go,” then this, I say, is evidence of endeavouring to suppress information and mislead this House. I hope this House will take notice and signify its disapproval.

I would like to comment on this because I complained at an earlier stage of this debate, that the Government had treated Parliament with its usual contempt, in refusing to tell us what had taken place at the conferences with the Administrators and the Executive Committees, and in leaving us to draw our own conclusions, from such documentary evidence as we had. I then stated that from internal evidence of this document, it seemed to me, as they said on the 6th March, when they issued it, that they had only arrived at this conclusion after long and earnest deliberation, that it was quite clear that when the right hon. the Minister of Finance introduced the measure in the second reading debate on the 5th March, he must have been perfectly well aware of these proposals, and I was greeted with derision by the opposite benches, and when I referred further to the internal evidence, I said it seemed to me hopeless for a moment to imagine that the Administrator could have had these proposals, without the right hon. the Minister of Finance knowing anything about them.

I never denied it.

No, but I think the right hon. the Minister was in the House when I made the statement, and the only thing I heard was that I was making unworthy insinuations, and the hon. the Minister of the Interior asked what evidence I had. I said I had not got the evidence, because it was locked up by the Government in the safe, but I said this was the conclusion I drew from the documents. I ask whether there is any hon. member in this House who listened to that debate who would not say that I, and all others who were speaking on this matter, were left under the impression, perhaps not by a direct statement, but by the way in which they treated the inferences we drew from the documents, that the Government knew nothing about the matter? The Government might not have said so, but they kept quiet when the allegation was made that they did know something about it.

And so the hon. member drew his inference.

It seems to have been a very correct inference. The evidence that is now being disclosed about the telegram, which I knew nothing about, justified me in everything I said on that occasion. I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. the Minister has said, but it seems to me that, in the first place, he indicated that it was an inquisitive thing on the part of the hon. member to ask any such question, and he might have refused to answer. What had that to do with the point whether the answer was correct or not? Of course he might have refused to answer, but he did give the answer. By using influence I understand when a man, either by suggestion or in some other way, used his power of personality to try and make another man do something he would like. The Administrator was discussing with him the publication of these taxation proposals, and the right hon. the Minister of Finance said to him: “If you publish that before the second reading it is going to lead to endless discussion.” This was either an irrelevant statement that the right hon. the Minister made, or it was a very relevant statement. It could hardly be irrelevant. If it was a relevant statement and it was made to the Administrator, it was using influence, otherwise I do not know what influence is. It seems to me that the Administrator consulted the right hon. the Minister about the publication of the document, and the right hon. the Minister said: “T am going to move the second reading, and if you insist upon the publication before the second reading, the latter will take a long time.” That surely meant nothing else but a direct hint to the Administrator not to publish the statement until the second reading had been passed; and the Administrator immediately acted on the suggestion Besides, in Cicero’s words “Cui bono?” The only person who could benefit by the postponement was the right hon. the Minister, so that he could escape as he thought, weeks and weeks of criticism. Nobody else could gain an advantage, and the Administrator sent the telegram. We all know and the right hon. the Minister knows that in the case of evidence when the court has conflicting verbal evidence, it would rely on a contemporaneous document, and would interpret the evidence on that. Here is a contemporaneous document, viz., the telegram which the Administrator sent out, and it shows that it was done by direct request. In a dispute in a court of law this document, which had been sent immediately after the conversation, could be read by a witness for the purpose of refreshing his memory. As the telegram was sent immediately after the conversation, the witness would be allowed to look at it and read it to refresh his memory, and so could say what had taken place. This document begins by: “Government requests”. and goes on: “not to publish”. This is a long telegram and it begins: “Government requests” and yet we are told there is no request. Apparently the right hon. the Minister of Finance was the person who had the chat with the Administrator, and the Administrator gathered from him that the Government “requested.” The Government, we are told, did not request. This telegram was sent out on the 6th, and must have had reference to what had taken place just previously. The right hon. the Minister of Finance, in answering the question of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), had a chance of putting himself right, if he said then: “I did not influence the Administrator, but I did speak to him about it, and said that it could safely be left in abeyance as it would lead to endless discussion”; it would have been different. The Minister of Finance asks what difference would that make? It would make all the difference in the world, as the teachers were crying out that it was an interference with their salaries, and a breach of faith. The other side said that the teachers had cried out too soon. At that time the right hon. the Minister knew what had been decided, but the teachers did not. It would make a great deal of difference; it certainly would have made a great deal of difference, for instance, to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown). We have a tangible idea of the difference it would have made if the members had the information before them on the second reading. With regard to what the right hon. the Minister said during the discussion, this matter should be pursued further. One ought to be able to ask the Administrator why he sent the telegram—“The Government requests” when the Government did not request. I think the Administrator should be heard in the matter too. I should have thought that the Government would at once have referred the matter to some Select Committee, or tribunal, to investigate what exactly took place between the Administrator and the Minister of Finance, and in what circumstances this particular telegram was sent. I submit that as the matter stands now the charge made by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has not been met by the right hon. the Minister. He has practically admitted a conversation, and he has admitted the important statement he made, that the publication would affect the second reading, and I submit that the admission is a plea of guilty with extenuating circumstances. I hope the right hon. the Minister will agree to have the matter cleared up in the way which has been suggested. It is important that when questions are asked in the House, that the members should have a full sense of security that a Minister is giving all the information in his possession, and until this matter is cleared up, hon. members will not be satisfied. I think the hon. member is justified in moving his motion, so that steps should be taken to clear up one of the most painful episodes in the history of this Parliament.

I have only one observation to make, and that arises out of the statement made by the right hon. the Minister of Finance. He said that the reason why the publication of the Cape Administrator’s taxation proposals was delayed, was because if these proposals had been published before the second reading of the Financial Relations Bill, it would have led to a protracted debate on the Administrator’s proposals. That is the reason which the right hon. the Minister gave to the House—the suggestion was that the publication of Sir Frederic de Waal’s proposals should be delayed until the second reading of the Bill. I take a far more serious view of it than that. I say that that is not the correct reason. If that is the correct reason, then the whole case put forward by the right hon. the Minister of Finance, and the right hon. the Prime Minister for the second reading of the Bill, has completely fallen away. The foundation of the Financial Relations Bill was based on the one word “uniformity.”

The hon. member cannot discuss the whole Bill as in a second reading debate. The hon. member will confine himself to the motion of the hon. member for Smith field (Gen. Hertzog). That is, the motion for the adjournment.

One of the reasons is, that the telegram shows the reply of the right hon. the Minister of Finance to the question of the leader of the opposition, is not in accordance with facts. That was the reason why the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) moved the adjournment, because the reply given by the right hon. the Minister of Finance was not in accordance with facts, or with the information which he had at his disposal. I think the reason which the right hon. the Prime Minister gave when asking the House to agree to the second reading was, that the Bill was to establish uniformity. If the proposals of the Administrator had been published before the second reading, this House and the country would have seen that the reason for the Bill was not uniformity, because the Administrator by his proposals had smashed uniformity. In my opinion, the reason why the publication was withheld, was that it would have shown to the country that there could not be uniformity, when the Cape Administrator had proposals by which he was reducing the teachers’ salaries in the Cape by £87,000. We did not know when the right hon. the Prime Minister was pleading so hard for uniformity, that the right hon. the Minister of Finance knew at that time that there was to be an additional £87,000 reduction off the Cape teachers’ salaries, and which would completely undermine the whole idea of uniformity. That is another reason why this House has been misled. First, on the point raised by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), and, secondly, on the point of uniformity. For these reasons I trust the House will adjourn the debate, as a protest against being misled in two directions.

May I congratulate the Government in having removed the muzzle? I hope they will continue to override it. I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

I want to ask what justification there is for making a differentiation in scales of payment simply on the ground of sex? The Public Service Commission, when they laid down salaries, laid down so much for men and so much for women. Why this differentiation because it happens to be a woman? What justification is there at all for laying down a lower rate of pay, because it happens to be a woman instead of a man who is on the job? Many hon. members bring forward the argument that a man is entitled to more money because he has a wife and family to maintain, but a man may have a wife without a family. When we lay down scales for these particular occupations, we are supposed to lay down salaries according to the amount the job is worth, and not according to the sex of the individual who is going to fill it; and I want to ask every hon. member in this House who is, year by year, championing the cause of Women’s Suffrage in this country, how he can champion it in the political field unless he is prepared to champion the cause of women in the economic field? We cannot be out for women politically unless we are out for equal rights for women economically in every way. When we come to analyse the lower-paid positions in the teaching profession, we find on salaries from £170 to £199 per annum there are 117 women and 101 men; salaries £200 to £229, 1,099 women and 442 men; salaries £300 to £399 per annum, 887 women and 559 men; £400 to £499, 64 women and 494 men; £500 to £599, 23 women and 155 men; £600 to £699, 1 woman and 68 men. So that we find, on all occasions, we call upon the women of the country to fill the lower posts at the lower salaries, and my contention is, we put it into practice many years ago, although it is not so many years ago when the Labour Party were in control of the Benoni Town Council. They laid down an economic wage there, irrespective of sex, and paid the women who were doing the work for that council the same rates of pay as the men, and we know that, as far as many employers in this country are concerned, not only Provincial Councils and Government, but private employers, the reason why they always stand out against the women getting the same wage as men, is not that they believe that women cannot do that work equally as well as the men, but because they make all sorts of excuses in order to provide themselves with a cheap reservoir of labour. Even looking at it from the other point of view, not from the point of view of justice, but from the point of view of the continual encroachment of women on work that is done to-day by men, we find many hon. members of this House, when we plead for political rights for women, waxing very eloquent about the women’s place being at home. Her job is to cook her husband’s dinner, and make the bed for him, and hold his hand when he goes to sleep, and so on, and she ought to stop at home and look after it, instead of coming out into the hurly-burly of politics. But we have only to watch the trains coming into Cape Town and we find a stream of girls and women coming into work in the town; they are not being kept at home, but are coming into the shops and factories, and we find that the age of marriage is becoming higher and higher. Instead of getting married to-day at the age of 23 and 24, we find them getting on to the age of 35 and 40 before they undertake the responsibilities of married life. If this goes on we will find the men sitting at home while the wife goes out to earn a wage to support her husband and children in comfort! That is the position we are driven into, and, so far as I am concerned, I have always faced this question from the point of equal rights for women in every sphere of life. They are our equals, and not our inferiors, and it is unfair of any Provincial Council, or any Government, or employer of labour to make this distinction merely on the grounds of sex if the job is worth a certain amount per month. I hope that hon. members of this House, who champion the cause of women in the political sphere, will follow it up to its logical conclusion, and champion the cause of women in the economic sphere. May I quote something to show what it means? Take the case of a male teacher who has matriculated at the high school, attended a training college for two years, and received a professional certificate. He starts at £195 with local allowance, as a rule when he is 22; after 11 years he gets £360 with increments of £15—he is then 33. Now take the female teacher with exactly the same qualifications; she starts at £150, and after 11 years gets £220, and after 12 years, £285, maximum pay. Now this is a very important provision, and one must admit that in many cases it is necessary to have women carrying out their work in the teaching profession. Doubtless many women are more capable of carrying out that work than men, and I say that if we are going to get the best teachers in the country, and are going to continue to employ the female sex in connection with this work, we have got to pay them a higher rate of pay, and treat them exactly as we treat the men. They are doing exactly the same work, with exactly the same qualifications, and I think the men will admit, in many cases, that the woman is more capable of carrying out that work than they are. That example should convince every hon. member that there is room for improvement, and in the scales laid down by the Public Service Commission they should not take into consideration the sex of the particular teacher, but should lay down a minimum rate of pay for the whole occupation. That is what we want; we want a scale of salaries laid down according to the qualification and to the position filled.

I second. I have very great pleasure in doing so, because I agree with what the mover has stated about the displacement of men by women. It is assumed that by employing women as teachers, instead of men, it would mean a total average saving of 28.7 per cent. on the total expenditure in teachers’ salaries. We know full well that the school boards throughout the Cape Province have been encouraged to extend the employment of women not because of their being more efficient, but because it was cheaper and would be a saving to the province. There have been numerous instances even under my personal observation of that principle being carried out. I remember, in 1920, as a member of the Provincial Council, the arguments which were used in the Provincial Council, that by employing women a great deal of saving could be effected, and in those scales we find for the same service different amounts being saved. It was computed at that time that if women were employed instead of men in the different positions, there would be a total saving of 28.7 per cent. I do not believe there is any hon. member of this House who objects to women being employed as teachers, but what we do object to is women employed just because they are cheap. If they render services to the State, they have a right to be paid on an equal basis. If, on the other hand, they are employed because they are cheap, then I think we are committing a crime, not only to the women but to future generations. We must realize also that the great insecurity of employment for men has a great deal to do with the small number of marriages, which unfortunately are so prevalent. We realize that there is a large number of men who would be willing to marry, but they feel the possibility of being displaced by women, which practically means that it would be wrong for them to carry out that which they wish. I believe in equality in the economic scheme, all other matters will follow. I believe it is wrong—although I supported it— the enfranchisement of women without equality in the economic sense, but I believe if we had economic equality all things would follow, and I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brakpan.

I quite understand the motives of the hon. member who proposed the amendment and also the seconder. This is the thing that one has at bottom a good deal of sympathy for. The difficulty is to get it into practical application successfully. On the ground of absolute merit and principle it is difficult to argue against it. Every person doing the same work should get the same pay. That is the theory, but in practice it is very difficult to do so. It is the practice throughout the whole world, and not only in Government employment. Wherever you look you will find that women do not get the same rate as men. There are a good many reasons for this, but one need not traverse. I want to point out that the amendment is foreign to the whole scope of the clause. It is a matter that should be brought up in connection with the whole service of this country, and not particularly applied to teachers. It is a question of principle, which, if it is to be decided at all, should be decided as regards the whole public service as a general principle. I want to point out a practical result of the amendment. The Provinces now are not in a good way, some are in a remarkably bad way. Two-thirds of the teachers are women, and the Provinces are not going to increase the pay of women teachers because they have not the money—they cannot afford it and, if the principle is to be carried out, what will happen is that the men’s pay will be brought down to the women’s scale. That is the only way it can be done in the existing circumstances. Two-thirds of the teachers being women, you cannot put into practice this laudable object. I have a great feeling in theory with the proposal, but in practice you cannot do it in this country because you will not be increasing the pay of women but decreasing the pay of men.

If the right hon. the Minister agrees with the principle, then there is some hope that one day he will agree with the practice. This is one of those things which has been voted upon in other countries, both in regard to Government service and private service. The right hon. the Minister is quite right when he says that it is a recognized practice for women to get less for doing the same work as men. It is one of those things which is gradually being fought and gradually being killed. During the war, when labour service was at a premium, all the women munition workers in Great Britain were paid exactly on the same basis as the men for doing the same work. We have it in many cases where women have had the same wages as men. This question is being fought just the same as women’s suffrage. The women have had to fight their way for political emancipation, so now they are fighting for economic equality and economic emancipation. If the right hon. the Minister accepts the principle, there may be some hope of his yet accepting the practice. It is only a question of finance. There is no other difficulty. That is the only practical difficulty, and when there is sufficient money in the exchequer, we will be able to pay the same wages for the same work done. In regard to the other thing, the right hon. the Minister says it is entirely foreign to the Bill. What are we doing in the Bill? We are putting all the teachers’ scales into the melting-pot, both men and women, and this Bill is supposed to establish uniformity; but you cannot have 100 per cent. uniformity by paying one teacher so much, and another teacher so much less, for the same kind of work. When laying down their scale, I hope the Commission will be instructed by Act of Parliament that there shall be no differentiation on point of sex. I submit that the right hon. the Minister’s argument falls completely away, for what the amendment does is to try and establish uniformity. I hope the hon. member will divide the House on the principle, and that this House will accept not only in theory but in practice the principle of the same pay for women as for men for doing the same work.

When the right hon. the Minister told us there were many reasons for not giving the women the wage they were entitled to, I thought that I knew of one reason, and that is because the women have not got the vote. If women had got the vote there would not be this differential treatment. How often you see in the newspapers an advertisement saying that a teacher is required for a certain post, and that so much is offered to a man and so much for a woman, although the work is the same. That would not happen if the women had the vote. There is no justification for this exploitation at all. They do the same work, keep the same hours, and teach the same subjects.

Mr. Speaker, ek wens daarop te wys, dat daar geen kworum in die Huis aanwesig is nie.

A quorum being present within two minutes, the Deputy Speaker intimated that the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) might resume his speech.

With regard to the effect of bringing down the men’s salaries, I do not think that anybody would be brave enough to suggest that the men teachers should be dealt with more severely than they have already been dealt with, and I do not think that argument applies. The Minister said a beginning should be made with the civil servants, but something was done with regard to this service. Before the Public Service Bill Select Committee a great deal of evidence was brought to bear by women through their organizations, contending that they should get equal pay for equal work. I would point out, too, that the persons who are most crying out for equal pay for equal work, are not the women but the men, because in various branches of the services it is found that men at certain rates of pay are displaced by women, whom the Government are able to employ by exploitation at lower rates of pay. But when this matter was before the Select Committee in 1923, the hon. the Minister of the Interior will remember that as the Bill was originally drafted, there was provision for men public servants, and they were to be appointed if they passed matriculation, but for women the qualification was prescribed by regulation. There was a great fight in Select Committee to get that altered, and though we never got it altered to the extent we wanted, we had one important amendment passed, which was moved by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), that whereas, as the Bill stood, all female officers would have their qualifications prescribed by regulation, and whereas we found by the evidence that this should only apply in the case of a certain kind of officer, namely, shorthand-writers, typists, and so on, an amendment was moved in Committee, and carried by a majority against the chairman, who happened to be the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He was in the minority on that occasion, though he did not seek to upset the amendment in the House, and we carried it against the hon. the Minister that all women as far as qualifications were concerned, were to be placed on the same basis as men, except as regards shorthand-writers, typists and certain other prescribed officers. The rest were on an equality. That was in the very same direction that the hon. member is working for to-night in regard to the teachers. I think that if there is any profession in the world where women ought to be treated on the same basis as men it is the teaching profession. Teaching is more in the women’s sphere of work than any work outside the home. It is more in accordance with their work to teach children; it is peculiarly woman’s work, and here we find, when comparing the salaries given to men, that many women draw a very beggarly allowance indeed. For that reason I think this is the proper time to strike a blow for the principle of equal pay for equal work, which the hon. member has proposed, and I am very glad to support it.

There is an amendment in my name, which I will now move—

In all seriousness I move this amendment. I hope the right, hon. the Minister of Finance and the right, hon. the Prime Minister will accept it. If not, I want to know what the Natal people have done in order to deserve this. Why should the Province of Natal, which is balancing its budget, paying its teachers all right, which has not come to this House asking for anything, why should Natal have to suffer in this way! Why should the teachers of Natal have to suffer in this way? Why should education in Natal suffer because of what is being done by the Cape Province or any other province? I ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance if he does not admit that Natal is the one province that is paying its way, and causes the least trouble to this Parliament, with regard to its financial affairs? Natal went into Union on the distinct understanding that Provincial Councils were to be allowed to function, and do their work properly, without interference from this Parliament. It has had nothing but interference from this House. Here we are at it again; Natal is being humbugged and messed about again, and education in Natal—

The hon. member cannot use the word “humbugged” in a parliamentary sense.

The effect of this will be to interfere tremendously with the harmony and smooth working of education in Natal, and that is only another way of putting it. Now, it would not be so bad if uniformity had been established. The whole case of the right hon. the Prime Minister in support of this Bill, the other evening, was that this Bill was going to establish uniformity; but it does not. We have seen already that the Cape has not got uniformity. The Cape is reducing its teachers in addition to what this Bill will do by another £86,000 or £87,000 a year off teachers’ salaries, apart from the reductions made under this new scale embodied in this Bill, which amount to £52,000. Now what does that mean? It means that uniformity is finished at once. The request will be made to Natal and the other provinces to come into line with the Cape, or with the lowest paid section of teachers, so that we are going to have this position: Natal comes down to the scale laid down by the Public Service Commission, meanwhile the Cape goes down far below that, through the Provincial Council’s taxation proposal, and then the Government will come along to Natal and say: “But you must have uniformity, look at the position of the Cape compared with your position today. Now you have to come down and have uniformity.” Uniformity on that basis is impossible, and because this Bill does not establish uniformity I say that Natal at any rate ought to be left out, ought to be exempted. Another reason is this. Natal is going to suffer, and Natal teachers are going to suffer more than any other teachers in any other province. Natal teachers are going to suffer a bigger reduction—and they deserve it less—than teachers in any other provinces. I ask the Minister, is that fair, is that right? I will give the figures. The Cape teachers are going to be reduced under the Bill by 4 per cent. Of course, they are going to suffer from the provincial reduction on top of that. The Transvaal teachers under this Bill will suffer 11 per cent. reduction, the Free State teachers, under this Bill, are going to suffer 18 per cent. reduction, but the Natal teachers are going to suffer a 29 per cent. reduction, nearly one-third of their salaries. 29 per cent. reduction in the Natal teachers’ salaries, according to the scales laid down in this Bill, and for that reason I ask that Natal should not suffer this heavy penalty; the Natal teachers should not be made to forego practically one-third of their salaries. If Natal were in a bad way financially, if it were coming to this Parliament, and asking this Parliament for money to help it out, there might be something to be said, but Natal is the only province which is balancing its budget, it is the one province whose finances are in a sound state and I now ask why should the House pass a reduction of no less than 29 per cent. on the teachers of Natal? That is another reason why I ask for Natal to be exempt. And I see another reason. The cost of administering education is less in Natal, both in the aggregate and per pupil, than it is in any other province. I will give the figures. In the Cape the cost of administration of education is £132,000, and it works out at 9s. per pupil per year. In the Transvaal the cost of administering education works out at £90,000, which equals 11s. 7d per pupil per year. In the Free State the cost of administering education is £37,000, and it works out at 11s. 11d. per pupil per year, and in Natal the cost of administering education is £19,000, which works out at 5s. 7d. per pupil per year. So the cost of administering education in Natal is less than half of what it is in the Transvaal and in the Free State, and a little more than half of what it is in the Cape. Seeing that Natal saves in administration, and not at the expense of the teachers, it seems to me you are not losing anything if Natal prefers to continue to save in the cost1 of the administration, and pay a higher salary to the teachers in consequence. Why should this House interfere with it? Why should this House come along and say: “You have to fall into line.” I think Natal is the most efficient province, by economizing as they do in the cost of administration, but that is no reason why you should interfere with the salaries of the teachers there. Are the salaries of the teachers in Natal unduly high? Is the right hon. the Minister entitled to come to Natal and chop off 29 per cent. from the salaries of teachers? When you work it out at the cost per pupil, for teachers’ salary, what do we find? We find the cost, per pupil, in teachers’ salaries in the Transvaal, is £16 17s. a year; in the Free State the cost, per pupil, in salaries of teachers is £15 12s. 6d.; in Natal the cost, per pupil, is £13 12s. 6d.; and in the Cape the cost, per pupil, is £12 4s. 6d. The Cape is the lowest, Natal next, the Free State next, and the Transvaal the highest. But there is nothing in the figures to show that the cost of teachers’ salaries in Natal is unduly high. We know the salaries in the Cape have been for years unduly low, but on these figures you will see that the cost per pupil, for teachers’ salaries, in Natal, is less than in the Transvaal and the Free State, and slightly higher than in the Cape. I submit there is no evidence to warrant the right hon. the Minister taking 29 per cent. off the salaries of teachers in Natal. The salaries of the teachers are not too high. In 1919 after careful enquiries, and after the report of a Commission, a scale of salaries was laid down for the country, and Dr. Adamson stated in his report that the salaries we were giving to meet the higher cost of living were not too high; the salaries paid them were unduly low. On top of that they got a war bonus, which has been taken off, and it has been admitted by the Government’s technical advisers that the salaries were not extravagant or unduly high, but adequate remuneration for the public service, and the work the teachers did. I have shown that the salaries in Natal are lower than in the Transvaal and the Free State, and if the new scale is introduced they are going to suffer seven times more than the Cape. The Cape reduction will amount to four per cent., that is on these scales here, but there is going to be further reduction through the Administrator’s proposals. Natal suffers a reduction of 29 per cent. This House is not justified in making a smashing attack on the teachers salaries in Natal. I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance, did the Natal Executive Committee, when he met it in Cape Town recently, agree and accept the scale of salaries In the Public Service Commission’s Report, which is referred to in Clause 2 of this Bill. I want to ask the Minister of Finance—

Cannot the hon. member ask it quite simply, without so many adjectives?

Yes, I will ask it simply, and I hope the right hon. the Minister will answer it simply. In conclusion, I wish to say that the financial position in Natal does not warrant the provisions of this Bill being applied to it. The financial position of the province does not justify 29 per cent. reduction on teachers’ salaries. We have got the strongest possible case on behalf of the people in Natal. I have waited until the clause is finished. At the eleventh hour I move this proviso that the provisions of this clause shall not apply to the teachers of Natal. I ask the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. Henderson), and the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan), and the other Natal members to support me in this. I particularly ask the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) how in the face of the evidence which I have put forward, and in the face of his own knowledge, he can support this Bill, and be so unjust to the teachers of the province he represents? He knows we take a pride in our education system in Natal. Is he going to see the Government and the right hon. the Minister ride rough-shod over the teachers’ salaries. He cannot do so and be true to his convictions. By this Bill you are damaging the power of the Provincial Council. You are undermining education, you are doing harm to the teachers, and I hope my colleagues from that province will support me in this amendment.

I second. I do so, not because I am a Natal representative, but because I believe Natal has a very strong case in taking exception to being placed under Clause 2. I know full well that after the reductions which have been published on the teachers’ salaries in the Cape, that unless Natal is exempted, on account of the plea for uniformity which has been raised in this House, it will not be very long before the Natal teachers are placed under the same disability. We know what has happened in the past, that where one province has paid a higher rate of salary than the others, the best teachers in that province, have flocked to the other province. I also know full well that in each of the provinces, over two-thirds of the expenditure on education is practically taken up in teachers’ salaries, and I know well that if Natal comes under this clause it will mean the same reduction as is happening in the Cape. It is true that in the Cape we have had certain disabilities they have not had in Natal, but I should be a very narrow-minded person if I did not want another province to get what I could not get in my own, and I believe in supporting this amendment, that what we give to Natal will keep up the standard which, I believe, all people interested in education are willing to maintain.

I really do not know what the idea of an amendment of this sort can be for practical purposes, because if hon. members are going to have any scheme at all they cannot take one of the provinces out of it. The provinces must all be in it or out of it.

What about uniformity?

Yes, this old parrot cry of uniformity! “Where is uniformity?” [Laughter]. Yes, the old parrot cry: “Where is uniformity?” We obviously cannot take Natal out, and let me just say this. The hon. member has given us a very long speech to-night, quite disproportionate to the importance of his amendment, and thumped the desk and wound up by asking me a definite point blank question: “Did the Natal Executive Committee at the conference agree to the scale of salaries laid down?” No, they did not; no more did anybody else.

It is all coming out now.

The Executive Committees have not had this thing put before them by us. Hon. members move in a complete fog about this thing, all of their own making. The matter was not discussed at the conference, because what had been done was

ERRATUM.

WEEKLY EDITION No. 8.

Page 859.—In lines 17 and 18, second column—for “Maj. HUNT: We have lost our foreign trade” read “Maj. HUNT: We have not lost our foreign trade”.

WEKELIKSE UITGAVE No. 8.

Bl. 859.—In regels 17 en 18, tweede kolom—in plants van “Maj. HUNT: We have lost our foreign trade” lees “Maj. HUNT: We have not lost our foreign trade”.

that the Public Service Commission had drawn up a provisional scale of salaries in conjunction with the expert advisers of the four provinces, which has been laid on the table of the House. That is now to be discussed with the provincial authorities; they were to go back after this conference to discuss details of the scales of teachers’ salaries with the Public Service Commission who were to give an opportunity to the teachers as well to make representations. The details of the scales were not put up for discussion at the conference, but I will tell the hon. member what the Executive Committee has done. The Executive Committee by telegram and letter has expressed its satisfaction with the present Bill. The Executive Committee of Natal have both telegraphed and written to us, and said that they have no objection to the Bill, and now we have the gallant champion of Natal coming here and talking of the rights of the provincial bodies, and saying that he is going to fight their rights, but on the other hand we have the provincial authorities themselves saying that they are quite satisfied with the Bill.

I am glad of the result of this evening’s proceedings. We are at least going to arrive at some of the truth. The right hon. the Minister of Finance accused us—he used it in the form of an accusation—of being in a fog, and then he qualified it by saying that it was a fog of our own creation. But the right hon. the Minister should not overlook the fact that if there is any fog, it is due to himself. I understood, perhaps it is because I am not capable of receiving intelligently the words of wisdom which dropped from the mouth of the right hon. the Minister of Finance, but I understood that this is precisely what the Executives did not discuss with the right hon. the Minister. I may have made a mistake, and perhaps I have made a mistake. But what we really want to know is, whether we have heard the last word on this question, or shall we, if by any chance this debate is continued over tomorrow, find out that there is some other information on the subject bluntly controverting what the right hon. the Minister has told us to-night. Yes, we are in a fog and we do not know where we are. We do not know the facts of the case, we do not know, there is an element of doubt, at any rate as to what transpired between the right hon. the Minister, the Executives, and the Public Service Commission when discussing this question and it is just as well to delay further the discussion on this matter until we have the real facts of the matter, and the whole truth of the thing. I want to support the proposal of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). and I want to support it as a Transvaaler. I want to support his claim that Natal should not be worse treated than other provinces, particularly the Cape. I am not going into details, as my hon. friend has so eloquently and amply covered the ground. But while I am supporting his contention that Natal should be removed from the operations of this Bill, I also want to advance to the House the propriety of also including the Transvaal in that category. Every word that the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has spoken in support of his arguments, that Natal should be withdrawn from the Bill, I entirely agree with. His arguments are perfectly sound and, to any right-thinking man, perfectly conclusive. I noticed that they made some sort of an impression on the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). He looked somewhat shamefaced, but he has got over it now and he is actually smiling. Every word which the hon. member used in support of withdrawing Natal applies with equal force, perhaps even more strongly, to the Province of the Transvaal. The only argument which perhaps does not apply to the Transvaal is that where he says that Natal balanced its budget. The Transvaal, I must confess, is not balancing its budget, but it hopes to do so at the end of the year. But I do contend this, that the reason why the Transvaal has not balanced its budget during the last few years is on account of the direct action of the Government itself. The Government has made it impossible for the Transvaal. The province had every hope of balancing if its taxation proposals had not been stopped by the intervention of the Central Government. They removed from the Provincial Council the possibility of getting certain sources of revenue which they had every right to have. I am particularly keen on adding the Transvaal to my hon. friend’s motion, and I am anxious for another reason. I indicated in the speech which I made during another part of this Bill that I looked upon the establishment of uniformity in teachers’ salaries as dangerous. The only reason why education has reached the high standard where it is—I am speaking comparatively—is because of non-uniformity and the comparatively high standard of salaries paid to teachers in the Transvaal. That set up a system of competition. The Transvaal offered higher salaries which attracted teachers to come there. Why? Because the Transvaal was the happy hunting-ground for good teachers. It was the attraction, and the teachers high in their profession, not only in the provinces, but in all parts of the world, were attracted there. They were leaving other parts of the country which were consequently compelled to raise the salaries correspondingly high as an inducement to the teachers. I am convinced that the finest thing that can happen for education in the country is to set up a system of competition as to who shall pay the highest and consequently get the best teachers. I want to bring the House back to that happy state of affairs, which was upset by the proposals of the Government. I would not mind if uniformity was established, if uniformity was high, but as uniformity here is low I am anxious to go back to that state of affairs we had before non-uniformity. As I said before I am sorry the teachers agreed to have uniformity, but they only agreed to accept the principle of uniformity because they thought they would have security of tenure regarding salaries. The result of so-called uniformity is worse than non-uniformity, and it will constantly press in the downward direction instead of otherwise upwards. In order to help the position as far as I possibly can, I move—

1 second.