With regard to the notices of motion, there are two down in my name, and I ask the consent of the House to put No. 5 in place of No. 4.

The best way will be for the hon. member not to move No. 4 when the time arrives, and to go on to No. 5.

I don’t want to abandon No. 4.

The hon. member might move, after No. 3 has been disposed of, that No. 4 stand over until No. 5 has been disposed of.

I move—

seconded.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he will delete “Dingaan’s” and insert “every”. I am prepared to support that.

Motion put and negatived.

I move—

seconded.

I would like to raise a point of order in connection with this motion. The last paragraph of Standing Order No. 180 says that a Bill of this kind cannot be restored to the Order Paper under this Standing Order after the first ordinary session succeeding that in which it was first introduced. This Bill was first introduced in 1926. I have the 1926 Bill here, and I have also the 1927 Bill here, and they are word for word the same. There is not a single letter or punctuation point difference between the 1926 Bill and the 1927 Bill. I would like to focus your attention Mr. Speaker upon the word “first” in the last line of Standing Order No. 180. In 1926 the Bill was first introduced. The 1927 Bill does not vary one iota from the 1926 Bill. It seems to me that if Rule 180 is intended to mean that the 1926 Bill is dead, and is non-existent, and if we are to preserve the fiction that the Bill is now making its first appearance before us the Standing Order would have read differently. What is the virtue of the words “first introduced”? Surely if it says “when the Bill was first introduced” it means when the Bill was first introduced in its present form. I would ask you for your ruling whether this Bill can now be restored to the same position in which we left it last year, seeing that subsection (4) of Standing Order 180 is explicit, that a Bill cannot be restored to the Order Paper after the first ordinary session following that in which it was first introduced. The argument may be put up that the 1926 Bill lapsed and is, therefore, dead, and is not before the House, but surely that would be a fiction, because this is the identical Bill.

I do not think the Standing Order can bear the construction which is sought to be put on it by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I think the intention was that if a Bill is introduced in one session and is revived in the next, then it cannot be again revived in the succeeding session. I think that is the only interpretation which can be placed on the Standing Order and as the Bill in question was introduced last session, I think the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) is quite in order in moving to revive it now.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee on the Bill on 24th February.

I move—

1. (a) reduce the death duty rates, and
2. (b) provide that the death duty rates payable in respect of immovable property shall be less than those payable in respect of movable property.

I do not intend to say much on the motion. Its object is fairly clear, first to reduce the estate duty, and secondly to make the death duties on fixed property less than those paid on movable property. The second part of my motion does not contain a new principle, because it is already laid down in the tariff for agents. There also the scale for fixed property is less. Let me say at once that I want to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Minister for making considerable alterations and reductions in 1925, but they only referred to small estates. The scale of taxation to-day is higher for large estates than in 1925. Up to £7,500 the estates are entirely free from tax, but thereafter the tax is calculated according to a certain scale.

Who passed the law?

That is not for the moment the question we want to debate. It does not matter what Government passed the Act. The late Government did so, and the present Government approved it. The 1925 Act says that estates of £7,500 are entirely exempt, and then the tax is calculated according to the scale laid down. This results in estates of £15,000 having to pay the same tax as in the old amended Act. The great difficulty, in my opinion, is that the scale in the Act mounts much too fast. Up to £15,000 the tax is 5 per cent., but from £25,000 it climbs very fast, so that for £75,000 it amounts to 17 per cent. Formerly when the scale mounted very slowly it was 17 per cent. for £1,000,000. I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the fact that is a very unsound state of affairs. The value of an estate is based on the market price which undoubtedly now is very high in South Africa, and the tax is calculated for the farmer on that basis. It is an unsound position. It is a tax which causes very great trouble, I mean trouble to the person who inherits the estate, and then has to pay the high tax immediately. The result is the farmer starts in debt. It is like a millstone round his neck. It is possible that the tax is levied according to the valuation of a large piece of ground which is too high. I appeal to the Minister to revise this Act. We find people to-day who, owing to the drought, possess nothing but their fixed property. The value of the ground remains, although the farmer has no income. Take, for instance, a farmer in a drought district with 7,000 or 8,000 morgen. How will he pay the estate tax?

He pays it when he is dead.

It is the child who has to pay it.

The child comes after the state.

I think that we take away the ambition of a man to save money by imposing so high a tax, and by the attitude that the state comes first. To-day the life assurance agents are going about the country, and the farmers are taking out policies merely to be able to pay the estate duty on their death. Personally, I should like to see all estate duty abolished.

All taxation.

No, but we must try to encourage the farmer. The agreement of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), when his motion was passed, was that we must make it attractive for the farmer to remain on the land, and I want to apply it practically. It would be a good thing if we entirely repealed the Act on estate duties, but as that possibly cannot be done, I will ask the Minister to revise it at any rate, by, e.g., going back to the old system. The Minister knows that will give great relief. I am astonished at the remark of the Minister that the state came before the child. I think the state exists to assist a man, not to push him down, but by this tax the farmer commences with a heavy burden which hinders his advance.

But it is not his property. What he gets, he gets according to the law of the land.

Accordingly, if the state does not permit it, a person may possibly not get anything. I must say I am sorry to hear such a principle. I shall contest it in any case. I am sorry that the Minister is conceding so little in this matter. I hoped that it would have his sympathy just: as much as the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo had at the time, because all of us feel very strongly on the matter, and we all hear it being spoken of on the countryside. The people ask us to have an alteration made.

And what do you say then?

I tell them I will see what I can do. I also expect the assistance of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst). In the Eastern and Western Provinces, there are many large farms, and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) will admit that farms need not be large to be valued at £7,500, and then estate duty has to be paid. The hon. member must understand that over £15,000 that exemption of £7,500 entirely disappears, because then the higher scale commences. The landed property is practically the only security a country has, and it is highly taxed, taxed over and over again. If an heir dies, his heirs in turn pay taxes always on the same property. I do hope the Minister will sympathize with my motion and see whether something can be done.

I second. In discussing this motion I go back in thought to the year 1922, and the Minister of Finance will also remember it well, because in that year a consolidated Act on death duties was passed. The chief alteration then made referred to estate duties. In the Transvaal an estate duty, but no succession duty, existed, but in the Free State, the Cape Province and Natal there were succession duties but no estate duty. In 1922 the laws were consolidated, and the death duties in the Free State and Natal went up astonishingly, while in the Transvaal and the Cape Province they remained practically unaltered. In small estates especially death duties in the Free State and Natal were practically doubled. Since then, however, the Minister gave relief by exempting estates under £7,500. That happened in 1925. The second part of the motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) is of course the more important, namely, whether a difference will be made between the tax on immoveable and moveable property. Undoubtedly there is a great distinction between the two. The payment of taxation on moveable property is not so difficult, because it has a certain value, even if it is only the market value of the moment. If it is necessary, this moveable property can easily be converted into cash and be used to pay the tax with, but this cannot always be done with fixed property such as farms or lands. In the first place, it is difficult to fix the value of ground, because it always rises and falls, and it sometimes happens that a value is put on land which is not the actual value, and which does not tally with the interest which can be got from the ground by the best handling. The Minister also felt this difficulty in 1922. I well remember how in his speech he spoke about the difficulties in connection with land valuation, and that it would perhaps be a good thing to lay down in the law a fixed scale of land valuation. The Minister rightly therefore himself felt that great difficulty could arise in the liquidation of estates, as to the value of ground. A second point to be remembered is that in the estate of a farmer the heirs have often to pay taxes on their own improvements on the ground. How many hundreds and thousands of farms are there not in South Africa where the children live on the farms of their parents, marry there, cultivate the ground, put up their own houses and make improvements, and on the dying of their parents they have to pay taxation on their own handiwork, their own improvements. It is, of course, not fair that they should have to pay taxes on value so appreciated. I think these are sufficient reasons to make an alteration, and considering whether no distinction can be made in estate duty and succession duties between moveable and immoveable property. It is, of course, a difficult point, but it is of great importance, and the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister mentioned these points at that time, and I hope the Minister will therefore carefully consider the motion.

I welcome the debate on this important matter. I agree with other hon. members that farmers feel very strongly on this point. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), who raised the matter, has, I hope, no ulterior motive in his motion. I have the fullest right to say so, because the hon. member a few years ago, shortly after the present Minister had exempted estates up to £7,500, came into my constituency, and on platform after platform told the people that the Nationalist party had done nothing to reduce the estate duty. Yet that party so reduced it that estates below £7,500, which in the case of marriages in community of goods practically means £15,000, were exempted.

On a point of personal explanation. The hon. member understood me quite wrongly. I did not deny in his constituency that the relief had been given, but I said it only affected small estates, and not the large ones, and that the relief entirely disappeared after £15,000.

The hon. member now raises a new argument which he did not use at all the meetings. He threw up his hands and told the people we had done nothing. I then pointed out to him that estates below £7,500 had been exempted.

I should like to know whether, after my explanation, the hon. member has the right to repeat the statement.

It refers to something that was said at meetings, and I do not know whether it is a personal matter, but I would advise the hon. member to accept a personal explanation.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the explanation, but I hope that the hon. member did not do it wilfully, but from ignorance. I therefore said that I hope the hon. member had no secondary motives.

Not at all.

I am glad to hear it, but I have experience of what the hon. member said in my constituency, and therefore I expressed the hope that he had no ulterior motives. I agree that the motion is a burning question with the farmers. They are accustomed to start on nothing. They buy a piece of ground, build on it, and cultivate it. They live on that work with the idea of handing on what they produce to their children. The children then have the difficulty on the death of their parents of paying the death duties. They often cannot get possession of the ground without finding the necessary money for the death duties by selling some of the ground, Of passing a bond on it. I then come to the question of who is responsible for this tax. This Government?

You wanted to put everything light.

As much as possible, but we are saddled with the debts of the former Government.

What kind of debt was it?

Dead liability. And it has to be paid, and I am sorry that hon. members did not agitate then. Why did not the hon. member for Cradock, as an influential man there, then protest against the estate duty? He remained quiet until this Government came into office, and we must make up all the deficits. I shall be glad if it is possible to reduce the tax further. At the same time, we feel that the Government must have certain revenue, that it must pay the interest on, and the redemption of, the old debts. I also strongly support the motion to distinguish between moveable and immoveable property, and if possible the tax must be less on immoveable property than on moveable.

Why?

Because there is a great difference between a farm which the hon. member has possibly developed, and which is stricken with drought, and the one the children inherit, and which is valued at an amount on which they must pay estate duty although they have no cash. It is easy to pay the tax on cash value. But we cannot simply say that the Government must introduce legislation because we realize the difficulties it has to meet owing to the heavy debts. Only this afternoon we heard of the flour transaction on which £100,000 was lost, and has to be made good. We know that this Government gets value for every penny of debt it incurs, and the taxpayers are thankful, and the Government makes a report about it.

Who is blowing the big trumpet?

The hon. member there, who in the past helped to make the big debt on which we now have to pay taxes. I want to move an amendment asking the Government to consider the possibility of meeting us in regard to the estate duty. We are thankful for what it has already done, but if possible we want further relief to be considered. I move as an amendment—

I second the amendment. I would urge that the Government gives its earnest attention to the matter referred to it. We are grateful for the relief the Government has given in connection with estate duties, but at the same time we feel that this relief is not enough, nor can it be given in a way which gives the concession more value. I agree with the last speaker that members who introduce such a motion should have no ulterior motives, because if there is anything like that I fear that the matter will fail to pass. This Government has already done a great deal to reduce the burdens of the population. I accept, however, that the hon. member who moved really did so with an eye to the desire of the countryside, and therefore I hope that the Minister will favourably consider the amended motion. I also hope that the mover will accept the amendment, so that the Government can actually seriously consider the matter.

I am quite prepared to do so.

I only want to refer the Government and the Minister to the speeches of members of the Government, when the estate duty was proposed in this House for the first time; they will find very good arguments there for a concession in connection with this tax. I want to give a few examples which clearly show that further relief is desirable. We have here, e.g., the point already mentioned, that children pay taxation on their own work. The parents own a farm of a certain value, but when the sons grow and farm on the same farm they improve the ground and increase the value. There is a custom in South Africa for the sons to work a part of the farm, but no transfer takes place during the life of the parents. The result is that on their death the sons are also taxed for the improvements they have made. By granting the relief he did, the Minister showed he was convinced that the estate duty was not quite fair, but I want to point out that the relief granted in many cases amounts to nothing. Take, for instance, an estate of £40,000 inherited by eight children; each child gets about £5,000. The children must contribute to the tax on the estate of £40,000. In the case, however, of an estate of £7,500 and one heir, the child does not pay one penny, but the children who inherit £5,000 must pay a considerable amount. The tax may run into a high figure, seeing the valuation is often too high, owing to the fluctuation. Take, e.g., my constituency, where a continuous slump in the land values takes place. If an owner bequeaths a large estate, the tax will be fairly high, but the children will in the circumstance have no cash, and will be obliged to sell or mortgage some of the land to pay the duty. They will, in order to get £2,000 or £3,000, have to sell land worth £6,000, seeing it may happen at a time when land values are low. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider some further relief. I am also much in favour of making a difference between immoveable and moveable property, as proposed by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). I hope the Minister will seriously consider the few things we are asking, and, if he can grant relief it will give general satisfaction.

I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and his attack upon the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). He afterwards said that he must have done it in ignorance, but he has to thank the hon. member for being in this House to-day, because if he had made the speech, knowing what he was doing, he, the member for Albert, would never have been in this House to-day. He attacked the South African party for the death duties they imposed. The Pact has been in power several years now, and they could have done something to alleviate the position without the motion coming from this side of the House. Your policy is to increase taxation for the town people and reduce it for the country.

Give us an example. You cannot.

I ask the Minister to answer this question. In 1926 I asked him a question on double death duties, whether reciprocal arrangements had been arrived at between the Union and Imperial Governments with regard to double death duties, and if so what are the particulars, and if not whether he proposes approaching the Imperial Government on the subject, and if so when, and if not why not. The Minister, in reply, said the matter was under consideration I have in my hands an extract from the “British and South African Export Gazette,” in which the following appears—

I would like the Minister to tell us what steps he has taken since I put that question, and what has been the result of the negotiations. This imposition of double death duties has undoubtedly militated against the progress of this country.

We have here to do with a tax levied by the State, and it is natural that there should be people who are not satisfied. I wish I could be as optimistic as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), who has argued that if the few things that have been suggested were carried out there would be general satisfaction. I fear that if I listened to the appeal of the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), and Albert (Mr. Steytler), and were to reduce the duty, the people who would be exempted would be satisfied, but all those who still remained liable to the duty would be dissatisfied. We considered the matter two years ago, and we granted relief, consistent with the financial state of the country. Many people who formerly were liable were exempted by the alteration in the Act of 1925, and they are to-day all satisfied, but of course the people who would still come under the tax if they died to-day are still dissatisfied. As for the general principle of an estate’s duty, I notice that not one member of the House is prepared to-day to say that this tax is entirely unsound and unscientific, and should be completely abolished. The estate’s duty is a thing which to-day is acknowledged as a fixed part of the system of taxation of almost all countries, and I doubt whether there are many people here who are prepared to say that if anyone dies leaving a large portion the State is not entitled to a share of it before distribution amongst the heirs takes place. I just want to mention what the head of the Department of Finance in England once said, viz. that the State has a natural claim upon the estate of a person who dies and leaves a fortune, and that the heirs have only such rights as are allowed by the laws of the land. That is the basis of the tax, and that is the principle which is generally admitted to-day. Of course we make a difference in the law between a tax on property left by a deceased, and the tax on the inheritance of the children. Now I want to direct hon. members’ attention to the relief granted in 1925. Take, for instance, the Cape Province. There was no estate duty, but a succession duty and the tax on estates up to £10,000 was higher in the Cape Province than the combined estate and succession duties of to-day. The same applies to the Transvaal. A further great thing was effected by the 1925 Act. The question is what is understood by a large and a small estate. When hon. members look at the scale of tariff and see what estates are now exempted, they must never forget that in the case of estates in community—and most people who die are married in community of property—the provision that an estate of £7,500 is exempted means that a joint estate of £15,000 is exempted, and not a penny tax is collected. Under the former law, estates of £2,500 had to pay an amount of £15; to-day those estates are exempt. On an estate of £5,000 the duty was £60; to-day it is nil. On an estate of £7,500 it was £135, to-day it is nil. On an estate of £10,000, thus a joint estate of £20,000 the tax formerly was £210, and to-day it is £60. A joint estate of £20,000 is a fairly considerable inheritance, and the estate duty is only £60. Even estates of £15,000, that is joint estates of £30,000, also still pay less than formerly, and it is only if we go still higher that the duty is proportionally higher than before. I can assure hon. members that we are from time to time considering whether we can exempt still more estates, but I do not agree that the existing duty is particularly harsh, and that nothing has been done to grant relief. I come now to the second proposal, to make a distinction between states consisting of immoveable, and of moveable property. I must honestly say that I cannot see on what basis the distinction is defended. The State simply taxes the property left by the individual. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) rightly said that there are difficulties in connection with the valuation of immoveable property, but that does not affect the principle. He also rightly referred to the curious condition in our country by which parents, during their lifetime, allow their children to occupy farms and make improvements. Unfortunately it is a fact that the improvements are also taxed. I appreciate the argument, but it is a difficulty which arises as a result of the peculiar circumstances in our country, and it has nothing to do with the principle whether fixed property ought to be taxed less than any other form of property as e.g. investments. It is possibly worth the trouble of going into the matter and seeing how far something can be done in connection with those valuations. In this respect I am prepared to accept the motion as amended by the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). We shall then, when a suitable opportunity occurs, investigate how far we can meet the difficulties referred to. I repeat, however, that I think the majority in this country are in favour of the duties remaining. We cannot permit persons to die and leave a large fortune, of which the State gets nothing. I shall therefore be prepared to accept the motion to consider in due course whether relief can be given for the difficulties in connection with the valuation of fixed property, and the improvements made by children on land during the lifetime of their parents. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) about double estate duty, I only want to say that I told the House some time ago that negotiations were proceeding about the matter, and at the Imperial Conference certain discussions took place in this connection with the English treasury. It is, however, not yet possible to settle matters on a satisfactory basis. The great trouble we have is that we think that companies domiciled overseas that have interests in our mines ought also to pay estate duty here We tax property where it is situated, where the income is derived. According to the British legislation people are taxed where they live. Hence the double tax. We appreciate the importance of this point, and hope by further negotiations to arrive at a solution.

I should like to say a few words. The hon. member was so very much annoyed at his being asked whether he had any ulterior motives. It is my custom when anyone has committed a fault and apologizes to forgive him, and I have never yet heard the Opposition apologizing for what they have done. The South African Party imposed the estate duty, and the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) and other hon. members opposite who are now talking so beautifully assisted. To-day they say the Government must reduce the estate duty, and that it is a terrible thing. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) as a young man surely had a large influence in Cradock and also used his influence to see that the estate duty was not imposed by the S.A.P. Government.

What does this speech mean?

I want to point out that there are people who, when they have done a thing, whine about it, and talk about the difficulties, and ask for relief. They first incur a large debt which the Minister has to pay off, and in the meantime they are continually pleading for the reduction of taxation. Anybody with reasonable common sense would only expect such a proposal from this side of the House. We on this side of the House, can ask the Minister whether he sees an opportunity of granting relief. The present Minister of Finance has to rectify all their mistakes, and the proper wording of a motion from the Opposition’s side would be, “In the past we have made mistakes and we should like you to rectify them.” I do not think we shall ever again be in opposition, but if we are, I hope we shall act differently. So far we have made no mistakes. We have had no flour transactions, causing a loss of £900,000. I am glad the Minister will see what can be done. The Minister says that all will not be satisfied, but the number of poor people is much larger than that of rich; let the group of rich people then be dissatisfied, and satisfy the poor ones.

I am sorry that party politics have again been dragged into this debate. Is it possible for no one on this side of the House to make a proposal without hon. members opposite accusing us of party politics? We must surely do our duty, and if that were the position, it would be very regrettable. We all admit that the Estate Duty Act was passed by the South African party, but under what circumstances? It was during a financial crisis in the country and taxes had to be imposed which were unsound. I was opposed to it, but it was unavoidable. To-day the financial position is better, is very good.

The finances are in very good hands.

I respectfully ask the Government to consider further relief. I am glad the Minister was so sensible as not to throw stones. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) seems to have a grudge against the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) which he cannot get rid of, and he tries to injure him at every opportunity. I am glad the Minister has taken up a sensible attitude. I do not think the estate duty can be entirely condemned, but amongst us farmers it is the custom that children get a piece of the farm during the life of their parents, and cultivate it. The farmers have also learnt not to undress themselves entirely before they go to sleep, and to keep possession of their ground till their death. In the meantime the children spend a good deal in making improvements and they have then to pay a tax on these, and have often to sell or mortgage a piece of the ground to pay the duty.

I am very sorry that one or two hon. members opposite tried to make political capital out of this matter.

Is your motion anything else?

I move it because the people on the country side want it. It is very sad that when we on this side propose anything in the interests of the country-side it is immediately said that it is done for political purposes.

But you cannot blow hot one day and cold the next.

The hon. member is always shouting interjections.

It is because I like honesty.

I did not introduce the motion from political motives. It is because I feel that something must be done in connection with this matter. I am grateful to the Minister of Finance for his readiness to consider, and if possible to remedy, matters. The Minister can be assured of the appreciation of land owners if he can grant relief. I will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). The only object of the motion was to have a debate, and I must say that we have succeeded in that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I move—

objected.

I move—

I am very sorry there has been an objection, but I am rising to proceed with No. 4, which is the least important of the two questions. No. 5 is a pressing matter—one of hunger and starvation. Not only was the question of old age pensions not mentioned when the leader of the Opposition asked what legislation would be proceeded with this session, but it was not mentioned in the Governor-General’s speech. Three and a half years ago we were looking to the Government to bring in an Old Age Pension Act with the utmost celerity, in accordance with the, distinct promise we made to the public, and during that time we have been attending to things which largely do not matter, and for three and a half years we have been allowing old people to suffer. This is a sad reflection on a rich country like the Union of South Africa. I have heard rumours of some intention on the part of the Government to tackle the question, and that there is even a good intention to proceed with it this session. But the road to a certain place is notoriously paved with the good intentions, not only of individuals, but of governments, on their way to that bourne from which no government e’er returns. No provision whatever is made in the new estimates for old age pensions; therefore it looks as if we were to pass through this session without providing this most necessary Act. I am all the more anxious because recently the Minister of Finance, in a speech, heralded his intention to practise what is called economy, and pointed to the necessity of reduction in taxation. That may be hailed by the financial pundits as another proof of the wonderful success of a wonderful Minister of Finance. But there are other questions besides £ s. d. There are questions of humanity standing far above all questions of whether rich men should become richer and governments should spend less. This country lags far behind. The way in which a country treats its old people is a criterion of its civilization. There are various ways of treating these unfortunates. There is the way of the Arabs, who put the unwanted old in a ragged tent. During the night the encampment moves on, and when the old people have consumed the few dates and little water left to them they know their end has come and turn over and wait for vultures to pick their bones. Then there is the way of the Hottentots and Bushmen, who drag their old people on to the veld and simply leave them to the aasvogels. Aloysius Horn, in a very striking chapter in his book, described how in one savage tribe he visited, the old people were thrown in a river to drown. In India old women were burned on a funeral pyre. Australian aboriginals had the simplest plain of all; when they tired of anybody who became a burden they simply knocked them on the head with a club. Even these ways are really far more humane than ours. We might even learn from savages, for their method is, perhaps, the least cruel. The way we treat our old people is the most merciless that could possibly be conceived; the very refinement of cruelty. I do not urge that we send our elderly people to the crocodiles or vultures, but what do we propose to do with them? There is a disposition on the part of the well-to-do classes to treat old age with respect; to take care of children, and even to look after animals. Indeed, the dogs of the wealthy are better looked after than are many of our old people whom we praise, with lip service, as being wonderful voortrekkers and having blazed the trail for civilization. Many of them have gone under in life’s battle, not through any fault of their own, but because the conditions of life went against them. I could show the Prime Minister some sad cases of old voortrekkers in distressful poverty. We have waited three and a half years for the most intelligent Government which this country has had to do something definite and practical. Now that we have a “new status,” a “sovereign independence,” which has put us in the ranks of nationhood, what are we going to do with it? We have now two flags; one, the old flag, which needs no enblazonment or further honour, and I am glad it remains ours still, but there is also the new flag with no honour yet inscribed on it. Cannot the first inscription be a token that we have attended properly to our old people? Let us provide old age pensions as they are provided in so many countries, but neglected by us, and let that be our first sovereign act of real independence. Let us not only be proud that we have raised our status, but let us be proud of the fact that we want to be in the forefront of nations, a nation to inspire pride. So that we can be proud of our new flag, let one of the first acts done under it be the removal of this reproach of refined cruelty. With prosperity all around us, let us put this matter straight for those who have borne the heat and burden of their day—a day that is past for them, but not for us. The Prime Minister surely does not wish to see these people left to charity. It is a reproach on us to mention charity for them. They have still the right to live, unless we choose the ways of savage nations to get rid of them. They have the right to life and hope, and unless we meet our great moral obligation, how can we be proud of the sovereignity we have attained? If the Prime Minister will say it is simply an omission in the Governor-General’s speech and in the specified programme of the Government, and if he will give a definite statement that this session we are going to put through a Bill for old age pensions, and not merely bring one forward towards the end of the session with further promises, I shall be delighted to withdraw this motion. I ask the Prime Minister to make good his and our promises and now to give a definite assurance that we will, this session, provide, whilst we have the power, for old age pensions of an amount that the aged would be able to live upon for the rest of their brief lives. I do not see many of my own political friends here. I look in vain for the Labour leader. We, as a party, are pledged, and dare not go back and face the people with that pledge broken, and, therefore, I would like to see the Minister of Defence here to tell us what his Government is going to do. I would like to see here also the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. They know we are committed to this reform right up to the hilt, and I urge the Prime Minister to make good the promise both he and we made nearly four years back, and definitely declare that this session an old age pension Bill will be introduced and passed through all stages. If that statement is made unequivocally, I shall be glad indeed to withdraw my motion; certainly to refrain from pressing for a division.

seconded.

I support the motion of the hon. member. Like him, I was disappointed that the Government said nothing at all about old age pensions in His Excellency’s speech. The Government is committed up to the hilt to deal with this matter, and we on this side of the House are also in favour of an old age pensions Bill. It is now five or six years ago since the matter was taken up by a former Government and a commissioner was appointed to collect information regarding various systems of old age pensions in operation in various parts of the world with the object of informing the Government as to the most suitable form, or system, to adopt here. A valuable report was sent in, and was read with great interest. At that time a change of Government took place—

After 15 years of power.

I was interested when the present Government took the matter up, apparently with energy, and caused a further inquiry to be made, and appointed a Government commissioner and a member of their own party go into the matter. I understand that gentleman came back with full information, bulging with news regarding old age pensions, both on a non-contributory basis and on a contributory basis. The old people have been looking forward for years to some relief and trusting to the Government to fulfil the promises made so frequently. I was, therefore, surprised that there was no mention made of the Government’s intention to deal with the matter this session. It was said in the Government press that the Government was in a position to deal with the matter this session. In view of the splendid position the treasury is in this financial year, the intention of the Government to let this opportunity pass seems all the more regrettable, because we have apparently a good deal of money to spare, so far as one can judge, and it will not be necessary for the Government to raise taxation beyond its present limit to deal with this pressing matter. I am speaking with some reserve on the financial side, because I am not in the same position as the Minister of Finance to know how the finances stand, but, so far as the outsider can judge, this country is in a position to give a reasonable pension to old people, who are in dire need of it, without increasing the burdens of the taxpayer. I, for one, hope the Government will come forward even at this late hour and table a Bill to deal with the matter this session. It is increasingly hard for wage-earners with families to bring up their families and, at the same time, provide for old age. We have thousands of people who have been unable to save, and they are now thrown on the street and are dependent upon charity from friends or relations or upon public charity, and it is our duty, from the humanitarian point of view, to deal with the matter at once.

Nobody begrudges the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) the satisfaction of moving this vote of censure on the Government for not having disclosed the plans of the Government on this question. The hon. member has spoken quite a lot of promises and undertakings, but I do not know of any definite promises given by the Government on this question. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has also spoken about the way this Government is committed with regard to old age pensions. I do not know that we have any particular commitments beyond what has taken place in this House when the matter has been debated on several occasions, when not only on this side of the House, but also on the other side, there was a great deal of unanimity that we have to do something in regard to this particular question. Now what are the facts? Hon. members know very well that as a result of motions passed by this House a commission has been appointed on which all parties of the House are represented to go into the whole question and an interim report has been handed in, but the whole question has until very recently, or is still now, under the consideration of this particular commission.

How long has that commission been in existence? Two years at least.

What has that to do with the question? What does the hon. member want to insinuate by that?

I am insinuating nothing, except that you might have got a move on if you are in earnest.

The hon. member knows quite well that a report has been issued. It is not only a question of old age pensions, but there is also the question of national insurance to go into. The point I wish to make is that hon. members seem to be very impatient. They are quite premature in bringing forward a motion of this kind. They know that in a matter of this kind it is not customary to disclose the Government’s plans in advance, and that any announcement that has to be made, is made when the budget is introduced. I do not think it is fair on the part of the hon. member merely because the Prime Minister did not specifically mention this in his statement to move a vote of censure upon the Government as he has done. Any action which we have decided upon to take will be disclosed when we come to the budget.

It is difficult to imagine anything more lame, more unsatisfactory or more apologetic, than the statement, the so-called statement, which the Minister of Finance has made this afternoon. I remember the days when he and his friends sat in Opposition, month after month and year after year, criticizing the alleged delay of the South African party Government in proceeding with this measure.

Where do you get that from?

I am speaking of what is within the recollection of everybody who was in the House in those days. They went to the elections in 1924 and said that the South African party Government was not in earnest on this question. They said, “Give us a chance, let us show what we can do. Let us tell the world, and South Africa in particular, what will happen when the Pact comes to power, the Pact containing as it will, a left wing consisting of Labour members.” That is nearly four years ago, and it is abundantly plain that the Government has no real intention of tackling this question during its present lifetime. I will tell you what the Government is obviously angling for, and that is to use this question as a bait to be put before the electors at the next election. If the Government intended to take action this session, the Minister of Finance would have been a little less vague and a little more specific than he has been this afternoon. If the party with which the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) is associated were really in earnest on this question, it would have shown some evidence of that earnestness this afternoon. I was there when the hon. member was making his eloquent and sincere appeal, and he was supported at one stage by three members of his party, while at this moment I see one member of his party in this House. If the poor people are under the impression that they will receive any practical support from the Labour party as regards old age pensions during the life of the present Government, they are under a delusion and a snare. At the moment the Labour party is occupied in splitting themselves into two caucuses and trying to make the hon. gentleman who moved this motion into a third.

He is a caucus to himself.

It is obvious this matter will be played with indefinitely. The Government says that this matter is being investigated. They have been investigating it for four years and—

Try and be correct in your facts.

I say that since the Government came into power on a promise that they would tackle this question, they have been playing with it. It is two years now since a commission was appointed to inquire into the question of old age pensions and national insurance. They have already reported on the old age pensions portion of it and it is perfectly competent if the Government has any real desire to go on with this question this session to introduce a Bill dealing with old age pensions. There is no necessity to complicate the issue with the question of national insurance. That is only an excuse further to prolong the serious tackling of this question. That interim report on old age pensions provided all the material for tackling the old age pensions side of the inquiry, and I see no reason why the other question of national insurance should be loaded on to this, why you cannot at once proceed with the specific question of old age pensions. I know of no other Government in passing an old age pensions Act which has found it necessary to delay until national insurance has been passed. It reminds me of the Prime Minister’s attitude in regard to women’s suffrage. He said—

It seems obvious to me that they are going to keep this question over until just on the eve of the elections, and they will come forward with a wonderful election programme which is going to include old age pensions. They may even introduce a Bill on the eve of dissolution. If they do that it will be in order to provide themselves, not between the elections, but on the eve of the next election with some tit-bit to present to the electors of South Africa.

There is nothing like the zeal of a recently-converted person, and I think the zeal of the South African party on this particular issue is very similar to the zeal of the recently converted. They had 15 years of power in which they could have introduced old age pensions. Perfectly true, they had not the surpluses, and they could not balance their Budget, but that was their own bad finance. This commission was appointed roughly two years ago. Its first report was presented last year and there is no question that report does require a certain amount of consideration. I sympathise with my hon. friend in his desire to see something done, but unlike him, I am perfectly prepared to accept the assurance of the Minister of Finance—the assurance that this will be dealt with on his financial statement. I shall be very disappointed if something is not announced on that statement which is satisfactory to the country, and I will do my best to make it unpleasant for the Minister if that is the case, but it is unfair for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to judge him in advance. The hon. member referred to women’s suffrage—again the zeal of the suddenly converted. I hope the House will accept the assurance of the Minister that this will be dealt with in his Budget speech, and I hope the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) will withdraw the motion.

I wish to make a remark or two in regard to what has fallen from the Minister of Finance. The Minister claims that he is not bound by any promise made during the general election. He enjoyed the luxury of an uncontested election and, therefore, made no promises! We know he is the mainspring of the Ministry, and practically rules the country. Therefore, to some extent, we must be content with whatever promises he chooses to make to the House. I do not desire to anticipate his Budget speech, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that we have merely had his statement now that this is to be “alluded to” in the Budget. This motion is expressing regret that the Prime Minister did not give the assurance to the country not only that a Bill would be introduced, but that the Pact majority would be used to put it through. But for the Pact agreement we could not possibly have the Ministry that is now in power, and it is due to members of the Pact that we should be given the definite assurance not merely that this matter will be alluded to in the Budget, but that it is going to become law this session. I am not asking too much under the mutual agreement. The Minister of Finance knows his favourable financial position, and he knows also we are lagging behind every other civilized country in this essential matter. His is only a half promise, with which the people of this country will not be satisfied, and I again urge the Prime Minister to get up and say more than the Minister of Finance has said. Let him say, “I have promised the people and it is going to be put right this session.” I am not asking too much of the Prime Minister when I ask him to say “I also give my assurance that it is not merely going to be alluded to in the Budget, but it will be put through as a practical measure by the Pact Government with the majority the people have given us.”

Motion put and negatived

This is really the most important question of the present time. Its pressing nature is thoroughly understood in this House. I will read the resolution I have put down on the paper so that there can be no question of what its meaning is and what we are out for. I move—

That resolution naturally divides itself into two parts. There is first the question of the present conditions of diamond production, and then further the permanent conditions of diamond production. What exists at the present time at the diggings has been described in one word, the only word applicable—it is a “tragedy.” It is a serious thing indeed to have to use such a word, and to know that this tragedy is not an act of Providence, it is not an act of God, it is no drought, no nothing of that kind—it has been deliberately brought about by our own Government for purposes which it thinks are in the best interest of the people. The Diamond and Precious Stones Act was a guillotine which came down upon these poor unfortunate people and at once deprived them of the living which they were following, and which up to that time had been sufficient. It hit the prospector, the men who have done so much for this country. What would this land have been had it not been for our own prospectors? All this mineral wealth was not due to the experts, the scientific men, it was found, produced, and made useful by our own class of prospectors, and the first thing this Bill does is to destroy prospectors. Then it takes the digger in hand and follows its course by guillotine him. Then it hits at 260 buyers; men who have honestly made a living by buying stones in this country and shipping them across the seas; buyers representing big interests, many of whom have followed it almost as a lifelong occupation. These are also finished with. Then there are storekeepers, traders, a very large number, dependent also on the diggers. There are other workers of all kinds. If you visit the diggings you see what a hive of industry it is. Then the Precious Stones Act has hit all kinds of syndicates—those that were employing large numbers of white men, and those employing smaller numbers. All these people are absolutely flung out and scrapped. No consideration is shown in regard to them, and for the most part they have nothing to turn to. There are diggers who have followed this occupation for 57 years, who have contributed largely to the wealth of this country, and they are not those who come in wonderfully rich, by repute, and extract from this country fortunes far greater than they ever brought with them. No, these are not the Solly Joels and adventurers who come to get what they can out of this country and then leave to reside in luxury elsewhere. Those who are so badly hit are not they, but blood of our blood and bone of our bone—our own people, belonging to this country, and yet in this balancing of interests, who is it that is being considered? The diggers—our own relatives and friends—go down and the big interests go up. The present position is that these unfortunates are streaming back to the towns, adding to ranks of the unemployed, and forcibly deprived of any chance of going on with their legitimate business. On the plea that somebody must be sacrificed, we sacrifice the little man. I do not say the Minister of Mines and Industries has done it intentionally; but he has certainly done it very effectively. I credit him with the best intentions, but there are those walking up and down the streets and countryside, not so fair to him as I am, and draw inferences and conclusions that are not warranted. To show what he has really done, I might quote the facts mentioned by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees), and of the member who is reported as willing to fight the Minister to the end, even “to the death.” I expected to witness a gladiatorial contest in which the absent hon. member would stand victor over a prostrate foe. Neither of them are here. Mr. H. McCann, who has recently been there, has written to the Johannesburg press, and I will quote from Reuter a morning telegram sumarising his report. He saw thousands of men, women and children in the most squalid condition, with little or no clothing, eating mealie pap, the only thing they can get, and but for that provision would be absolutely starving; and he further points out the standstill to which the whole of the works have been brought. I have been there myself, and wish I could transfer this assemblage so that hon. members could see for themselves what has taken place; if they could, I feel certain it would melt their hearts to know that under our Government such sad conditions had been brought about. Our diggers are pioneers of the mining industry and have enjoyed all their rights from the seventies. I will read a portion of a letter from a pioneer, one of the early pioneers of Kimberley, and more or less associated with diamond digging for 57 years. He writes that he was never more surprised in his life than when he read the Precious Stones Act, and how the landowners of the National party could vote for that measure passed beyond his imagination. He thought the Act was a disgrace to South Africa, and unnecessary. Referring to the big financiers, the writer says that they are not true South Africans, and when they have completely sucked the orange dry they will leave the peel behind. That is a description, and a true one, of the people the Minister is serving so thoroughly. If the new Act, he continues, laid down that the digger should produce half and the mining companies and syndicates the other half, more money would remain in the land. The curse of the country is that money goes abroad; why not give the diggers a chance? Why not control the output of the big and wealthy producers? He also says—

This correspondent knows what be is writing about, and I can endorse all he says. He continues—

The last area proclaimed, to keep them quiet for a time, was a perfect “dud.” The diggers pointed out to me that at Grasfontein there was merely a little strip with potholes; on the outside of that they got nothing, and the whole place was a serious disappointment. The buyers reported the same thing. The Minister must know that, and be as well informed as I am.

Would you be surprised to hear that they asked for that proclamation, and said they would be satisfied with it, and knew the condition of the ground beforehand?

I am not surprised at that. These people have carried on this business year in and year out, and they reckon there were 50 good claims to 3,500 licences. We had a promise from the Government that the mad rushes would be put an end to, and that the claims would be allocated on a lottery basis. I found one man who had employed 16 runners, and more deserving diggers were out of it because they could not afford to employ runners and were themselves infirm and old. The Minister knows that. For over 50 years diggers have been law-abiding and willing to work. They do work, and their wives and children assist them, and there is no shrinking on their part in the daily effort to supply their family needs. The “right to work” is one of the principal planks in the platform of my Labour friends.

Where are they?

If a man says he is willing to work society should give him work. The Minister, however, says, “I am going to stand by the big interests, because you are producing too much.” The diggers have been wonderfully law-abiding, and they are willing to continue to be so, but the Minister is tempting them to the last limit of human endurance. The effect of the Minister’s policy is to drive them to desperation. The alluvial diamond diggers have produced £50,000,000 worth of the £300,000,000 worth of diamonds extracted from Union soil. The alluvial areas yield good diamonds which the world wants. The diggings have been refuges from poverty, but diggers have always been treated as step-children. It is true, previous governments have been more under the direct influence of big interests than the present Government, but even so Solly Joel appears on the scene, and his whisper apparently carries further than the shouting of the diggers. I cannot account for it. There is no bribery, but these financial people have brains, and buy brains, the result being that their interests are never in any real danger. We are surely more interested in the digger than in the big financier. The alluvial diggings at least keep 20,000 Europeans going, but the big producers do not find employment for 4,000 white workers. What has become of the much-advertised white labour policy? That alone should influence the Government to stand by diggers, and not by big interests overseas. The alluvial diamond diggers are contributing half-a-million a year to the Treasury in export revenue alone. The big producers are making a great boast of the fact that the entire output from mines and alluvial areas contributes a million a year in export duty to the revenue, but it was not voluntarily surrendered, as they would have it supposed, but when it was proposed to tax rough diamonds they cried aloud to heaven that they were going to be ruined. It has not proved so. They are always “about to be ruined.” The export revenue which the Minister of Finance receives was obtained only by the efforts of those of us who were struggling for South Africa first. That million pounds has not been willingly contributed by the big diamond producers, though the ultimate consumer really pays it all. It must not be forgotten that every penny the alluvial digger earns is spent in this country. I ask the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) how much of the great Syndicate’s profit is spent in South Africa? If you look at this week’s illustrated papers, you will see pictures of “King Sol” enjoying himself on his beautiful yacht; and that King of Diamonds has assisted this country to the extent of sending out a racehorse to win the Metropolitan Handicap in the hope that he would get something more out of this country. Not one of our “diamond magnates” landed in South Africa with anything but an almost empty handbag: and it is all to their credit that they now have so much influence with the Minister that he “falls like a partridge” to them. The Government has done the very best it could for the diamond combine, and the worst for the diggers, and we ask them to reverse the process. The mines even employ convicts so as to have the cheapest possible labour. One would think directors would at least “be far too proud to employ cheap convict labour. There is, however, very little pride about them except the pride of boastfulness, which weakness they indulge in to any extent. The thing has now come to a head, for the alluvial diggers can go down no further. I have here a placard which reads—

It is a simple statement of stern fact. The Ministry is trying to bridge the gulf for a moment, but I give it no credit for wishing to put the matter on a permanent basis. The Government will give the diggers a little land to tide them over the session, and then the aims and objects of the big producers will be achieved, for the Government will proclaim no more land and the diggers will have to go out of existence. I admit the necessity of control, for this great State asset needs control. This was the Government’s opportunity to exercise control and to see that control was placed on a permanent and wholesome basis. If the Minister had had a Board of" Control he would have had three gentlemen on whom he could have at least thrown some of the blame for his policy, and they would have shared with him the odium of the policy which he has pursued. Instead of having such a board, he has turned to other people for advice. He is paid by one of the biggest producers, and the hon. gentleman, as a clever lawyer, acts upon advice given him for nothing. What is the value of such advice? I am amazed that the Minister does not say, “You are tainted by serving them for pay.” If he had a hoard of control, he would have had three gentlemen who would have given independent advice, “South Africa first” gentlemen who would have found out the operations of these syndicates, and advising: that if the Minister followed such or such a course he would be right. If a hold policy has been followed, on the advice of disinterested men, the diggers would have been protected, and the bigger producers would have asked “What do you want?” We demand what is not a difficult proposition; we ask for a 50-50 deal. We want 50 per cent. for the diggers and 50 per cent. for the syndicates and the big interests; not 50 per cent. for the alluvial only, which brings in the West African area. The plan is simplicity itself. Say to the big producers, “We are going to give the diggers 50 per cent., and give you 50 per cent., and in the big producers we will include companies and the larger syndicates. Any difficulty of the 50-50 policy can be got over. When the digger is producing more than £6,000,000 in a year—£12,000,000 being the output the world will take—then there shall be no more ground provided, but if it falls, say, to 40 per cent., then it would be an honest claim for fresh ground to be proclaimed, and we must proclaim ground to give them a living and compel some of those farms closed to prospectors to be opened. In that way we should have a square deal. It is not a difficult thing. I was pleased at the experience of the diggers’ representatives on their recent visit. On a previous occasion they say they were snubbed and got no satisfaction. This time they have been treated with the utmost courtesy, and went home carrying assurances with which they were satisfied from the hon. Minister. There is evidently a cure for the most determined and dogged resolution. We have heard the hon. gentleman was told that if the diggings were not put right, he would be asked to resign. I am glad to hear now there is no prospect of resignation on his part, and that he is pleased, and when he grasps what we are really after I hope he will remain in that humour and meet us. When the big interests send him an unpaid adviser he can tell them he is quite content that he is going to have a board of control, and that they will get 50 per cent. of the output. If he does that he will satisfy the aspirations of those who want to make it “South Africa first,” and not something to be exploited by “our friends in London.”

seconded.

I hope the Minister will use the opportunity to speak clearly, and to state the attitude of the Government. Undoubtedly this is a subject of the greatest importance. The diggings to-day form one of the serious problems with which we have to deal. I hope the Government will give its serious attention to the matter. I do not agree with everything said by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). The second part of this motion will not assist us at all. To appoint another commission now to investigate for months a matter which is very urgent will not be right towards the population of the diggings. It will postpone the matter further and put it off, and that will not assist the people. The time has come for the Government to take its courage in both hands and to do something. Last year we fought hard about the diamond Act and the diggings. The Minister asked Parliament for powers which had never yet been given to any Government in our country. He considered the powers necessary. We gave powers to the Government which had never previously been given. It cannot therefore be said that the Government has not sufficient power. Unlimited power was given. Hon. members will remember that during the debate we pointed out that it is not usual to put such great powers in the hands of a Government or of one Minister. We were then appealed to on the ground that the powers were necessary. The Minister stated that he was going to save the poor man. The Bill was put through, pressed through at a joint sitting. And what use has been made of the powers? Where is the poor man to-day? I do not want to give any party colour to the debate, but the position is so serious that on both sides we must try to see if we cannot assist. Parliament gave large powers to the Government, and the Government cannot say that it has not got them. Now we have this terrible position there. The Minister, to a certain extent, used his powers and acted autocratically there, with the result that almost everything on the diggings, both the syndicates and the small ventures, are dead. We cannot let is remain so. We have a large population there, and it is the duty of the Government to look after them. Last year the Minister of Finance introduced a budget showing a considerable surplus. He admitted that a considerable part of the surplus was due to the yield of the diggings. To-day the people there are in the most miserable condition. I have not been there myself, but I have heard from impartial witnesses, from people who have enquired into matters there with the object of ascertaining the position, and their description of the position is the saddest possible. The hon. members for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) and Christiana (Mr. Moll) made use of language about it such as we rarely hear from members of Parliament. They described the position in a way that is almost incredible. I must assume that they are serious, and that things are as they have so strongly described. I am sorry that I do not see the hon. members here now. We are to-day going to press the Government to take action. The Government obtained the power, it has had a considerable measure of financial benefit from the diggings, and it is their duty to assist the people who are to-day in the direst distress, and not to leave them to their fate. Therefore I strongly urge the Minister to inform the House fully. The great matter discussed by the mover of the resolution, namely, the new method of selling the diamonds, we cannot now deal with. It is impossible, because such a new regulation will keep the House and the Government busy for months, and then we should still not have a solution. It is the duty of the Government to see what they can do to get the people out of this distress.

What do you propose?

No, I want to hear what the Government proposes. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) proposed that the diggings should be given half the yield in South Africa. I do not think that a practical proposal. The House has given the Government the necessary power, and they are now able to take action. The Government has control over astonishing funds, more funds than any previous Government has had. We must not wash our hands in innocence. The diggings have become a great problem, and are becoming a danger to-day; if we do not deal with them they will be a great danger. I hope the Minister will immediately use the opportunity to make a statement which will lead to the satisfaction of the diggers who are suffering distress. We must not wait until the people become desperate and take the law into their own hands. They form an orderly community, they have come from all parts of the Union and have maintained order almost without police, although the population is practically as large as that of a large town in South Africa. In consequence of natural circumstances, they have reached a frightful stage, and the Government must intervene.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is very eloquent, but he spoils all his speeches by exaggerated statements, believing every word that other people say that suits his purpose, and trusting to his vivid imagination. He scarcely makes a speech in this House without importing the name of Mr. Solly Joel. He is suffering from that terrible disease “Sollyitis.” The great crime Mr. Joel commits, like other members of the syndicate residing abroad, is to purchase the produce of this country, the same as wool buyers and skin buyers. Surely that is not a sin? But the hon. member draws such wonderful conclusions from an ordinary business operation. The hon. member implied that a gentleman from whom the Government takes advice is in the pay of the syndicate. He meant Mr. Brink. I can assure this House that Mr. Brink is not receiving, and never did receive, one solitary sixpence from the syndicate. Then the hon. member said or implied that the diamonds in Lichtenburg are of just as good quality as those produced in other places. The Lichtenburg diamonds are of very poor quality. There is a certain percentage of good diamonds, but I think the average price is about 45s. per carat. When the hon. member said he placed such reliance on a man who had been here for 57 years, I thought he was referring to me. Then he talks about the syndicate, and the tremendous profits they make, and their machinations to injure the diggers and all that sort of nonsense. May I tell the House that the syndicate did a large business in 1927 and they made a loss.

And they made it up. They live on their losses, don’t they?

They made a loss.

We quite believe you.

I do not care whether the hon. member believes me or not. When Lichtenburg was discovered, Grasfontein was very rich, and more people flocked there than could secure claims. There was a large surplus population at the start. I very much sympathize with those people who are in distress, but the Government must consider those cities and towns of the Union which also depend on the diamond mining industry—not only the men employed in the industry, hut thousands who live indirectly upon it. The population of Kimberley alone is 50,000, and surely they have to be considered. The hon. member said: “Why not control the output of the big companies?” The big companies have themselves controlled the output for the last 25 to 30 years, and during the time Lichtenburg was producing such enormous quantities of diamonds, otherwise there would have been much lower prices than when those Lichtenburg fields were discovered. The hon. member attacked the companies because they employed convict labour. I have on a dozen previous occasions said that the convict is as expensive for the company as free labour, and I have explained it over and over again, and the Minister of Finance has corroborated my statement, and here the hon. member brings up that statement again. Well, that is not playing the game. I will not go into the figures again, but mention that every native costs the state £30 a year; the company clothes and feeds them and provides barracks for them and pays the overseers—wardens as they are called by the Government—twice what they would have been paid if they were employed by the Government.

And pensions them?

Yes, and pensions them. All our men are pensioned. That is another statement of the hon. member that has gone west. Although the hon. member has been in the diamond business himself his innocence or, rather, his ignorance, of what is carried on to-day is shown by his statement about the syndicate. The syndicate has not the slightest control over production. All the syndicate does is to pay cash for the diamonds they buy. The syndicate has committed the great sin of purchasing the majority of diamonds produced in South Africa. I do not object to the control of the output; it is a question of quota. What has been the effect of the production from Lichtenburg? There was a fall of 40 per cent. in the price of inferior stones during the first year through over-production. The De Beers and the Premier Company paid no dividend, and the Premier Mine is on the verge of unpayability. Even Jaggersfontein, which produces the best quality of diamonds, had to reduce its dividend in consequence of over-production from Lichtenburg. If this over-production continues the revenue of South-West Africa will fall to such an extent that the Union exchequer will have to make good the shortage to enable the affairs of that country to be carried on. As it is the revenue of South-West Africa has been considerably affected by this over production. The state is far and away the largest shareholder in the diamond industry. The four big companies which the hon. member has attacked reduced their deliveries to the syndicate, but they did not reduce production, for if they had done so, they would have been compelled to discharge a large number of men. For the year ending 30th June next the four big companies—South-West Africa, Premier, Jaggersfontein and De Beers—will deliver £3,000,000 less diamonds than in previous years. That is meeting the situation very generously, but there is no response from the alluvial diggers. I do not blame them. They go to a diggings and a few of them strike a rich spot. Then they work hammer and tongs and throw the diamonds on the market regardless of the effect on the price and themselves. By these means they have brought about a reduction in the price of diamonds. If the Lichtenburg diggers had been controlled from the day they started, although it was not possible to do it, and produced the same quantity of diamonds over a period of three years, the country and the diggers would have done better, and there would not have been a fall in the price of diamonds. If the four big producers had not reduced their deliveries to this terrible syndicate there would have been a crash in the first year. The syndicate purchased over £3,000,000 of the Lichtenburg diamonds and they have more than half in stock to-day because they did not throw the inferior qualities on the market. The finances of the syndicates are limited. The Government’s finances are limited. The finances of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), like my own, are limited, and the syndicate cannot go on buying until they have put their last sixpence into diamonds. They cannot increase their present stock. If, during this year, unrestricted alluvial diamonds are allowed to be forced on the market I dread the result. There will be a crisis from which the recovery would be uncertain, and the diggers would be the greatest sufferers. The mines have played the game. They have reduced their deliveries by £2,800,000 in one year. When alluvial production was at its highest, £650,000 in one month, a deputation of diggers called on the Minister of Mines and clamoured for more ground. If the Government had given way there would have been a terrible crisis. Diamonds would have fallen enormously, and would have been difficult to sell. In the production of diamonds the mines have controlled the output for the last 30 years and there is only one policy which will save the diamond industry, and that is control—

State control.

The only body able to control the industry to-day is the Government. Formerly, many years ago, De Beers controlled the market because they produced 85 per cent. of the total diamonds purchased by the world. To-day it is not more than 22 per cent. to 23 per cent., and the Government, so far as I can calculate, have a 40 per cent. interest in the four mines I have mentioned. Therefore, the control transferred automatically from the producers to the Government, and I hope the Government will continue controlling in the same way as did the companies before the rich alluvial fields at Lichtenburg were found. If they do not do this and lose control, then the diamond industry will be lost to South Africa.

The question is what is the problem. That is the first question. Is the problem the handful of people who are prospecting, or the few farm owners—who are usually no longer the real original farmers—who want to sell farms, of which the agricultural value is £5,000, for £20,000 or £30,000 because there are diamonds on them, and who are further indifferent as to what becomes of the diggings established by proclamation of the farm, or is it the problem of the few people who have obtained or given options, or is the problem the thousands of diggers who are on the various diggings, especially Lichtenburg? I must say—it may be ignorance on my part—that I have always regarded the problem as one of the diggers, the existence of the diggers on the diggings. That is the great question. Now I do not know on behalf of which interests the mover is acting, because he spoke so vaguely about different interests which he so mixed up and confused that I really could not make out on whose behalf he was speaking. Is he speaking on behalf of the prospectors, or diggers, or the diamond-buyers or dealers, or syndicates or corporate bodies, or on behalf of all? Because, mutually, their interests in some cases conflict with each other in important respects. The hon. member may say that he means the diggings must so be dealt with that they shall be a solution of the poor white question. I am surprised that he did not raise it. He knows about the scheme which was submitted to us. I have been asked what the policy of the Government is. On the important point that the diggings must be used for the settlement of the poor white question I can say that the Government is decidedly of the opinion that no permanent solution of “poorwhiteism” can be found on the diggings. Moreover, what are the facts? We have thousands of people on the diggings, and the Government must take stock of the facts. The Government has never yet taken up the attitude that it will not allow any further proclamation of farms, that it is in that way killing the diggings or wanting to sweep the diggers from the face of the earth. The Government has never yet taken up that attitude. Its attitude towards the diggers has always been particularly sympathetic, and I hope I shall be able to convince the House of that. In the first place everyone here knows that with reference to the diamond Bill the fight was chiefly about Sections 20 and 73, which necessitated a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. The law itself, and particularly those clauses, were for the benefit of the small man and the digger, and the practical administration of the law is also intended to benefit the digger. If the digger does not appreciate that to-day, he never will. Now we are before the incontrovertible fact that of every hundred people coming to the diggings, whether they were diggers before, or members of the public who have never previously been diggers, the largest number must go under and lapse into distress. That has hitherto been the experience at each digging. Hunger and misery have been mentioned. Does the hon. member not know—as a student of the diamond question, he more especially ought to know it—that for the last 25 years and more there were always a larger number of white people on every digging of any importance than the richness of the diggings justified, and that the eventual result always was that the majority of the people were ruined. We even have proof of that at Lichtenburg. The alluvial diggings at Lichtenburg have so far been the richest we have known. If diggings are a blessing to people, why are there to-day thousands on those richest diggings of Lichtenburg who have had to go under and give up digging? Before Lichtenburg the percentage of success was on the average 15 per cent., and if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the percentage at Lichtenburg is higher, namely 25 or 30 per cent., the fact remains that 70 out of every 100 people who went there have been no success, but in the long run have lapsed into misery. The problem for the Government and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as a responsible man is, how we are to tackle this question to prevent there being a further increase of the lay public in the digger community. We have to do with an accomplished fact to-day, in so far as the existing diggings are concerned, and we on our part must try to assist them and try to reduce the large mass in a judicious manner. The problem can very easily be described and stated, but the solution is very difficult. Of that hon. members can be assured. The policy of the Government with regard to future proclamations is to allow no further increase of the general public, in other words when we proclaim a farm then the allotment must in each case be restricted to diggers inside of a definite geographical area, and the people must within a year or nine months, or whatever may be decided upon before the grant takes place have been bonafide diggers within the geographical area, and within the nine months or year have actually mined for at least three months, so that the rush from outside will become less, and the sharing of the proclaimed farm will probably be restricted to people on the diggings who do not belong to the rich class. Diggers who have drawn claims in an allotment will not be able to take part in another allotment before their claims are worked out or abandoned as unpayable. What object can there be in allowing a large number of people who have already made a fortune to have a share in diggings? Under Section 81 of the Act the Governor-General has the power of indicating any class that can have a share in a digging, and the Government can therefore prohibit the digger community growing larger from the general public. Then we have the question of Namaqualand, and it is in direct connection with the prospecting problem. The Government has decided that we cannot throw open to prospecting any more than the existing farms, and according to the Act prospecting has been stopped for 12 months from the 16th December. Thus, there only remain nine and a half months. Deputations have visited me on behalf of the Diggers’ Union of the Union of South Africa, which is organized at Lichtenburg and other diggings, and I told them that the department had sufficient farms at present already prospected, and which were enough for proclamations during the next 18 months, or probably even the next two years. I read out the names of the farms to them; I do not want to delay the House with them, but I have them here. It is admitted that we must restrict diamond production. No one advocated that more strongly when the Bill was under discussion than the Leader of the Opposition. Then I ask the House what is more calculated to cause grievances than to allow prospecting and not digging? Shall we allow a man to prospect bona fide, and to incur expense and employ people when after two or three months the mining commissioner will come and, as the law provided and still provides, will say, “Look, you have prospected, and the farm is suitable for proclamation, you must now stop prospecting.” Then the 60 prospectors will be put out of work. They will be dissatisfied because their master only employed them for three months. The man will have spent £300 or £400 in prospecting and the dissatisfaction will be great. Enough farms have been prospected to provide for proclamations for the next 18 months or 2 years, and is it not better to smother the attempts at birth rather than to permit prospecting when there is no possibility of proclamation? The diamonds will not run away. If a man thinks he has diamonds he must patiently bide his time. We have unfortunately to do with an article of which the world can only take about £16,000,000’s worth a year, and of which we produce £12,000,000 to £13,000,000. Now I come to the production. There are many people who argue that we must just allow production, but should restrict the sale by the mines or otherwise. What is more calculated to create dissatisfaction than allowing a man to incur all the expense of producing a bucket full of diamonds, and then only to allow the sale of a cup full. Is it not better statesmanship to limit the production from the beginning. Take Namaqualand in this connection. If we had not passed that Act last year and prevented prospecting work, then I say, without fear of contradiction, that we should have had the disorders of Lichtenburg repeated three, four and fivefold. Thousands of people would have streamed to Namqualand, and how can we to-day keep Namaqualand closed and throw open the rest of the Union to prospecting. Now there are two cases in Namaqualand, and they form the sort of ground on which the statement “He fell like a partridge” is based. That statement is made without the least foundation with reference to those two cases. Take the case of Klein Zee which perhaps fell outside the old law. There are 4 per cent. of the farms in the old Cape Colony where mineral rights are granted to owners. Klein Zee is the only one of that kind in Namaqualand. It is, therefore, quite outside the list of farms, or rather outside the law of the old Cape Province. We could not touch that farm. Only under the new Act, and Section 2 was got through with great difficulty, can we restrict the yield,—under Section 115,—When the Act came into force on the 16th November, Klein Zee, during the same month, although the average production from December, 1926, was £6,000, suddenly produced £200,000 in diamonds because a rich hole was discovered. We immediately made use of our rights under the Act to close the hole and for only £6,000 a month to be produced in future. Hon. members also know this is the second case, that in the rich area of Alexander Bay discoverers’ claims have been granted. The discoveries were made under the old Cape law and five discoveries have been acknowledged by the Government. The people could not work the claims, they cannot do so according to the old Cape law, which in this respect differs from the old Transvaal law. Whatever time passed they cannot work the claims until the area is proclaimed. If we were to proclaim Alexander Bay or a part of it where the discoveries took place, then we should have to commence by granting 100 discoverers’ claims (5 times 20), and allowing the people to dig on them, and all we could then do would be to restrict their yield. I quote the two cases in Namaqualand because it is now said that this “capitalistic Government” is favouring De Beers and the big capitalists, and the poor man and the small man in Namaqualand and elsewhere must just look on. Well, now, under the Act we can do nothing to prevent people getting their discoverers’ claims. We took steps and limited them to a reasonable amount and we did our duty as a Government. Now I come to the corporate bodies at Litchtenburg which were referred to by the mover and the hon. member for Standerton. Their grievance is that we have acted wrongly in stopping them. There was not any further power required at all, because Section 73 of the Act lays down that, automatically on the coming into force of the Act on the 16th November the corporate bodies must stop, and they did not stop. In whose favour did we act? In favour of the small man. Carlis employed thousands of natives in digging and that has now been stopped, and the equivalent of that production now enures to the small man. Now I come to the motion to apply the fifty-fifty basis. Which are older, the diggings or the mines? Does the hon. member seriously propose that the established communities like Kimberley—I am not now talking of the mines, but of the town and its population—should be hit in that way? Are Jaggersfontein, Fauresmith and Rayton to be closed? How many of our farmers are dependent on the mines? How many of our farmers have found a market for their produce in Kimberley? How long have those three places existed, to confine it to them only? And how long has Lichtenburg existed? Eighteen months or two years. What Government will resort to killing those mines? I admit that the hon. member wants to limit it to fifty-fifty, but I can assure the House that the Government has been strongly urged by the diggers’ community to close the mines entirely, and because, for the sake of the interests of the whole people, and because we did not want to permit that injustice towards our people we did not agree to it, we are called a “capitalistic Government.” As far as I am concerned, I do not worry myself about it in the least; it is like cold water down my back. And then the state interest of 21 per cent. Must that fact not be put before the House? Why did not the hon. member for Standerton also mention that important point? The Government has enormous income from diamonds. Are we going to be careless about the state’s interest? The Government has that large interest in every diamond that is produced in every mine or on the alluvial diggings. And can we be indifferent about the mines in South-West Africa? Must we not bear in mind our moral, legal, and constitutional responsibility towards South-West and the League of Nations with regard to the civilized world? The revenue from South-West has dropped from £400,000 to £90,000 a year. The pity is that the hon. member and so many others only regard the matter from the point of view of a particularly small community of interested persons and the Government’s duty unfortunately, but it is its clear duty to regard the matter in all its bearings and to take count of all interests. And the deputations and representations and proposals of the digger community are so divided and mutually conflicting that one really does not know where one is. At Lichtenburg alone there were 50,000 natives working. How does that square with hunger and misery? Far be it from me to minimise the suffering and distress of the poor people, but it surely is remarkable that when one speaks on behalf of the whole diggers’ community, and I am now referring to Lichtenburg only, we at the same time know that the people there employed 50,000 natives and that the number now is 36,000. How can a man say “I am hungry” and yet employ 20 to 30 natives? And now, with regard to further prospecting. The House clearly understands the fact that in the short time from 15th September to 16th November, when the Act came into force, systematic prospecting was going on. In the past the grossest abuse was made of prospecting and diamonds were removed, and that was one of the great grievances of the diggers that prior to proclamation under the cloak of prospecting diamonds were often removed, and the diggers upon proclamation came onto empty ground. And now I want to say that the enormous concourse of people were not attracted by the Government. Who insisted from time to time on proclamation? The diggers themselves. The Government did not seek for it, but, on the contrary, always did its best to warn people against coming, and not to encourage them to come to the diggings, and then the hon. member says that I ought not to have allowed the rush at the last proclamation. What would the hon. member have done if a committee had come to him and said the people there were suffering from hunger, and asked him in God’s name to proclaim the farm? It is my fixed intention to allow no further proclamation that will involve a rush. I do not mind how large the claim is, but I will not permit it any more. My simple explanation is: It was shortly before Christmas and a deputation of the diggers came and said if that portion of Grasfontein was proclaimed they would, for the present, at any rate, be satisfied, and if they returned home empty-handed, then I say that they knew precisely what would happen. Under the cloak of prospecting, Lewis and Marks long ago exhausted the ground of the greatest share of its value, and the diggers were quite aware of it. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they insisted on proclamaton. I frankly admit that the digger community is a very orderly and obedient one, but I want to add that we have the poor always with us. That is no reason for not trying to alleviate matters, and the Government is considering the proclamation of certain farms and of giving relief especially at Lichtenburg. The proclamation will of course be provisional. The hon. member says the poor diggers are always treated in a step motherly way. I appeal to the fairness of the House on all sides and ask whether we have not gone far enough in the Act, especially in Sections 20 and 73 to protect the small man? How can the hon. member then with any sense of fairness say that the poor diggers are treated in a step motherly way? He must bear in mind that we had to do with an accomplished fact, and the thousands and thousands of diggers were at Lichtenburg, and now when the Government has succeeded in getting more control over the diggings it will make further efforts to solve the problem. The hon. member must not forget that the new law provides that instead of rushes, lotteries shall take place, and it was necessary to prepare the machinery for it, and we had to draft a registration and make preparations. I also want to point out that during the year 1927 the yield of the alluvial diggings was still £6,250,000. The hon. member said that of the £300,000,000 produced in diamonds, £50,000,000 was produced on the diggings. That is one-sixth, but to-day the yield, or rather what is sold, is £12,000,000, and of that the diggings produced more than half in 1927 while during last month they produced £250,000. The Government feels that our policy must be directed to allow the production to assume reasonable proportions, and the policy of the Government will be having in mind the interests of the whole of South Africa, the interests of the diamond market; to give as large a quota to the diggers’ community as possible. I admit the argument of the hon. member that the diggers spend all their money in this country, and that was one of my chief arguments for excluding them in the Diamond Control Act of 1925, namely that they spend their money here which the syndicate does not do. I think that it is a very loose and irresponsible statement that we are doing our best for the capitalists, and only harm to the diggers. It is calculated to sweep up irritable feelings, and if there is an outbreak of desperatism then hon. members, like the hon. mover, will bear a great responsibility for such incitement. Now, in conclusion, I come to the board of control which the hon. member is so anxious to see operating under the Act of 1925, but I want to point out to him that it can only function when there is no agreement with the syndicate. The Act clearly says that when the producers make an agreement approved by the Government, the board cannot function, and I made it clear at the time that if we appointed the board we must then also look at the logical consequences and Parliament must provide six or seven million pounds in case of a crisis on the diamond market, because we cannot give any powers if we do not make the means available, and commit a breach of faith in the event of a slump. Then Mr. Arend Brink was referred to. I want to say that I strongly disapprove of the reckless statement that Mr. Arend Brink is in the service of the big producers of diamonds. It is void of all truth. He is an independent man, he was in the service of the mines, but retired long ago and offered to advise the Government gratuitously, and let me say that we highly appreciated his advice and that I have the fullest confidence in Mr. Arend Brink.

Is he or is he not paid by the producers?

That is an absolute untruth. He was of great assistance to the Government, especially on the introduction of the Diamond Control Act, and I think it is not fair to use the privileges of this House for such reckless statements. Then the hon. member says that I snubbed a deputation and was not courteous. I want to treat every deputation in the usual way, and I say that that statement and that with regard to my resignation are absolutely void of all truth. I do not care tuppence for remaining here. I attach no value to the £2,500. I do not value any position of honour. If I could leave office tomorrow, I should feel like a schoolboy who has not had a holiday the whole of his life.

Do not get excited.

I am quite calm, but it is merely a decided way I have of saying things, and I am not excited. But I know that this motion is part of the machinery to stir up sensitive feelings. In the circumstances, I do not see the least necessity for accepting the motion. The Government is fully aware of conditions on the diggings, and will take further action very sympathetically. And now we have restricted the yield more we are engaged in proclaiming more ground, and assisting the existing diggers as much as possible, and aiding them when they have had a little success to say good-bye to the diggers’ life. We admit that there will always be diggings. The policy of the Government will be to administer the law in a practical manner in the best interests of the country, and not to kill the diggings.

I move—

seconded.

Motion put and negatived.

This debate has covered a lot of ground, and I am very glad indeed that there has been an opportunity for ventilating the matter. I cannot touch on all the questions raised by the Minister, but of this I can assure him—he is being praised for his policy by the big producers and cursed up hill and down dale by the small digger. This Precious Stones Act which he has put through, and which may well be called “precious,” is hailed with delight in London, and by the big producers. Without touching on all fie has gone over, I will simply say that all the balance has gone to the big, and not to the small, producer. It is all Very well for the hon. gentleman to talk as he does about the big interests and what they buy and do, but the small men are also big purchasers. If he wants a judgment passed upon him, let him go to Lichtenburg among his own people, where he would hardly dare to put his face, and if he did he would require a posse of police for protection. The hon. gentleman is not popular in his own country and amongst his own people, but be is very popular in London and with the big producers. I am not afraid to warn him as a South African that the policy on which he is acting will recoil on his party when we face the general election, and perhaps to go down, owing to those who carried on a policy of preference for the big producers, on the excuse that they were standing for South Africa. If time would allow, I could easily show how the matter could be arranged on a 50-50 basis. I ask the hon. gentleman with all his intelligence, why he does not do it? He deserves the criticism passed upon him, because his policy can have only one effect—ruining his own countryman and adding to the wealth of those who come here. The day will come, and it may not be so very far distant, when the people may say “Who are the men who wrecked us?” They were those who took the short and not the long, view. I sincerely regret that the poor diggers have so few friends in this House.

Original motion put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Allen and Hay) voted in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker declared it negatived.