I move—

That the following be a hew clause to follow Clause 1:

I want to make the position quite clear. When this Bill was first introduced it was decided to extend a wider exemption to farmers, and, I think, from the whole trend of the Minister's argument, one must accept that he really believed that when one farmer was working with another, for instance, in packing fruit or shearing sheep, he really was exempt. He argued so emphatically on that point, and over such a long period, that one must accept he really meant that. Further, when that argument was driven out of the field, the Minister then said, " Well, there will be no prosecution, even if two farmers or more were to adopt that course." The lawyers of the House tore that argument to tatters, and we then came down to the basic fact that any farm on which such an operation was carried out would come under the Factories Act with all its restrictions and regulations. Accepting this I want the Minister to meet us to a certain extent. I have drafted an amendment which I think he might accept, and which I think will clear the position as far as are farmers are concerned. The point the Minister made was that he said, "If you exclude the words ' from produce grown or animals kept by him,' any bona fide farmer might buy a farm and start a boot factory or a jam factory, or any other factory without being excluded by this clause." The clause I have moved means it is only when a farmer is actually manufacturing his own produce that he can take another farmer's produce and work it with his own. If a farmer has fitted up a shed with a shearing plant, he would naturally come under the definition of factories, but if he is actually shearing sheep, he can take his neighbour's sheep, and so on. I do hope the Minister will meet us this far, and that he will see we are not trying to get outside his Factories Act, that we are not opening the door to the starting of large factories under the camouflage of an exemption, but he will realize that we only want to exempt a group of farmers who are actually working together and dealing with the same produce. I hope the Minister will accept this. We do want to assist the farmers by allowing them to work together. I am not touching co-operative societies. They are not included in this amendment at all.

Might I say that since Friday I have given this matter a good deal of thought and discussed it with the officials of the department who have the administration of this Act, and have come to the conclusion that the position as desired by hon. members over there which is put forward in this amendment cannot very well be met without laying the administration of the Act open to very severe abuse. I have asked every divisional inspector who has the administration of the Act whether in any case there has been any interference or action taken in respect of the cases quoted by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I have asked them if there has been any action taken or whether they contemplate any, or any interference, and every office right through the country assured me there have been no cases whatever which would justify an amendment on the lines of that of the hon. member opposite. The amendment merely amounts to this, that if the hon. member was growing fruit and packed that fruit or turned it into jam, on his farm, under my proposal as it stands he is exempt, but now he wants to go further under this, and I appreciate it as a fair and square attempt to try to draw up a clause which meets the position as urged by the other side; but the effect of it will be that the hon. member could not merely produce jam from his own fruit, but could rail from all other parts of the country and from other farmers and draw large supplies of fruit, and put up the biggest jam factory in the country; and he would be exempt from the operations of the Act.

Put a radius to it.

No mention of it was made by the hon. member of a radius, and there is no mention of it in this amendment. I thought of it, however, and discussed it with the chief officer who administers the Act, and we came to the conclusion that a radius was impossible. You may have a five-mile radius, but as hon. members know there are farms of ten and twenty miles! Then we thought whether we could put in "an adjacent farm "; but that opened the door to dozens of farmers being adjacent, touching the farm at different points; and that had to be ruled out. In view of the fact that there has been none of these hard cases—and hard cases make bad law—and the fact that to try to open the door may mean you are going to open the door to such an extent that it is going to be practically impossible to control and limit the activities—if there was a way as the hon. member suggests, I would be prepared favourably to consider it—I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. After all, it is largely a matter of administration, the same as in other matters, and borderline cases create difficulties. I ask the committee to accept the assurance that these cases will be dealt with, as in the past, fairly and sympathetically, and not legislate so that the Government has difficulty or finds it impossible to give effect to the intention of the Act.

I am very sorry the Minister cannot accept the amendment, because, after all, one is not legislating for past events. The charge has not been that officials have interfered with two or more farmers working together, but that when we are passing legislation we do want to put things on a proper basis, and not leave the possibility of the administration of the law in the future being different from to-day. It is admitted by the Minister and by the legal and ecclesiastical luminary of Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattings) that farmers are brought in, if he wishes to bring the law into effect. To-day there has been a big organization, one might almost call it a revolutionary organization, amongst the natives by Kadalie, and there is not the slightest doubt that he would take the first opportunity of propaganda and window dressing and proving to his followers the power that he holds; supposing he institutes a prosecution for a contravention of the regulations, such as with regard to sanitary and lavatory conveniences, or one of the many other regulations proposed by the Act, the Minister might be put in a very difficulty position. I do not want to obstruct; I am speaking in the interests of the farmers. It is essential that protection should be afforded to them in the future, otherwise you may get a state of affairs for which the present Minister may not be responsible—it may be the possible outcome of some other person administering the Act; and there is not the slightest doubt farmers are brought within the scope of the Act. I do not think the Minister should consider the remote possibility of this big factory being opened, which is unlikely under my amendment, and even if this should happen at some time to come a Bill could be introduced to prevent that. We should deal with a position which is actually acknowledged to be the position. I do not think any party or individual would object to regulations to stop what the Minister fears. I think the. Minister should appreciate the force of the arguments, and accept the amendment.

It is very evident that the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) rules out the possibility of loss of life or injury as a result of the weakening of the Factory Act. The country worker has as much right to expect the protection of the House in these matters as the town workers have. The Act is designed for the protection and for the welfare of the workers as well as for the safety of the public. Should safety regulations not apply with equal force to all factories, wherever they are situated, whether in the owns or in the country? The Minister has gone too far as it is in his concessions, for instance, in saying that a farmer may manufacture his produce in a factory which will not come under the Factories Act. Under the amendment the tobacco trust could remove their operations outside a municipality, erect a huge factory, employ thousands of people who would operate intricate, delicate and sometimes dangerous machinery—all this without any outside supervision to insist that proper precautions were taken. That position could arise under the amendment. I hope the House is not going to suggest that farmers are devoid of all thought or feeling for their workers. Some hon. members are picturing a farmer as a man of low intelligence with no regard for his employees and as one who is always coming to the House to ask for exemption. I have never come across a farmer like that, and the hon. member (Mr. Gilson) is not doing justice to the South African farmer.

I fear that if the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) took the place of the Minister of Labour and this amendment is not carried, he would not treat with very sympathetic consideration those cases to which the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has referred to. The Minister of Labour says he has consulted his officials and in no case have farmers been interfered with under the Factories Act.

Or has a case been brought to notice.

Up to very lately, the general idea was that the Factories Act did not apply to farming operations. Does the hon. Minister still contend that if the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) were to take—which is not impossible—the place now occupied by the Minister, that they would administer the Factories Act in the extremely lenient manner in which the Minister says he is prepared to do it. If the Minister is genuine, knowing that he is not going to be there for ever—

Nor for long.

I would not say for long. Will the Minister agree to an amendment putting into legal phraseology the assurance he gave the committee on Friday night?

This goes much further than that.

It would open the door wide.

Evidently the door has not been opened very wide, as the Minister says no advantage of it has been taken in the past. I think the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand is an admirable one, and meets the case put by the Minister. We are justified in asking everybody who represents a farming constituency to do nothing to make it illegal, say, for a fruit farmer in the Western Province, to handle a neighbouring farmer's fruit with his own, or to make it impossible for a farmer to carry on a dairy industry for the benefit of himself and a neighbouring farmer, instead of both of them having to erect separate sets of machinery.

This does not stop that.

At present a farmer cannot legally shear his neighbour's sheep. There is a most interesting article in the "Livestock Journal" in which it is pointed out that unless provision is made for cutting down overhead expenses, and for getting farmers to combine and treat their produce in the cheapest manner possible so that they can put it on the market and be able to make a living out of the price they secure, a large number of farmers will have to go out of their occupation. My hon. friend knows that in this country, or at least he ought to know, there are large numbers of farmers who, owing to their overhead charges, are practically on the verge of not being able to carry on their operations. When you are dealing with produce such as milk, fruit, wool, or anything of that sort, especially an article that has to compete in the markets of the world, your salvation depends on being able to cut down to the lowest possible fraction, your overhead expenses. The hon. gentleman will not tell me that if I put up a shed for the packing of my fruit and instal the necessary sorting machinery and deal with a small quantity of fruit, and if one or two adjoining farmers are so situated that it is as easy for them to bring their fruit to my shed as it is to have their own sheds, that it is possible for us to put that fruit on the market as cheaply as we otherwise should be able to do if all those farmers have their own sheds. On many fruit farms in this country the expenditure in connection with sorting and grading machinery and things of that sort is so heavy as hardly to leave any profit, and very often a loss. If you could only, by combination, save a few pounds, it would mean all the difference between profit and loss. The argument raised about us wanting to start big boot factories and all sorts of things, is all camouflage. It is a smoke screen that will not appeal to the farming representatives in this House. You can hedge this about by any protection you desire within reason, but we have a light to demand that a primary producer in this country combining with another primary producer, especially in articles of food, and articles such as wool, should be able to do so without going hat in hand to the Minister, or any other Minister, owing to the laws of the country. I want hon. members on both sides of the House to know what the real position is — whether they are parties to obliging a farmer if he desires to combine with his neighbour to go to the Minister, hat in hand, and ask him to give his consent, or whether they desire to see that reasonable provision on behalf of the farming population is embodied in the Bill which is now before the House.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that this is not a matter to get heated about. I am not a farmer, but I suppose one may have some rudimentary knowledge about the laws of nature which tell you, for instance, that fruit-packing is an occupation that you do not carry on all the year round. Fruit does not ripen all the year round—

That was disposed of on Friday.

That sheep-shearing does not go on all the year round.

That was disposed of on Friday.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort cited the case of a fruit-packing establishment and the case of a sheep-shearing place, and I point out that these are seasonal occupations, where exemption is granted.

What exemption?

The exemption with regard to hours, and so on, which the Minister does grant.

Not " and so on —hours only.

I do not know that one is not permitted to address this House on this subject, unless one is a farmer. There are certain quite common-sense considerations which occurred to me in listening to this discussion. The first fact is that this is not an amendment to my hon. friend's Bill at all, but to the original Act. That Act has been working for some years, and farmers have felt no sort of disability from its operation, for which hon. members opposite are responsible. You have border-line cases. Very well, here we have an Act which has worked without any sort of difficulty or trouble to the farmer whatever.

Oh, go on.

That is common ground. If you administer this Act severely I can quite understand it causing friction, but administered as it is it does not. What the hon. member really proposes is an extension of this exemption, which would certainly open the door wide to the establishment of the country workshop, and I know that is not the hon. member's intention. You say if this is abused it is time to legislate. Cannot one, with perfect propriety retort when the present state of affairs really becomes a hardship then it will be time to legislate? There is no hardship to remedy to-day. On the other hand you ask us to open the door really wide. That amendment means that if I have a farm I can establish a regular factory on the largest possible scale so long as I grow a stick of the material used, and I can buy material from any other bona fide farmer.

No; it does not allow you to buy anything.

So long as it is grown by a bona fide farmer.

So long as the produce belongs to bona fide farmers who have co-operated. They cannot buy an ounce of anything.

Supposing a big tobacco establishment owned other farms they could establish as big a factory as they liked. The hon. gentleman, I am quite sure, has not got that in contemplation, but I am speaking of a tobacco trust—only one tobacco firm, and growing tobacco in other places. It could establish as big a factory as it liked on a farm and be exempt. Hon. members do not want that. Surely it is a reasonable proposition to say that under the Act that cannot happen. No sort of inconvenience has been suffered, and the Act is going to be administered on the same lines. No inconvenience is suffered. If it is found to be harsh, then surely it would be ample time to amend the Act, but why amend an Act from the provisions of which no one has suffered inconvenience?

I wish members of the Government when they get up here would speak upon matters which they understand, and which they know something about. We are perfectly well aware that this side of the House was responsible for this Act, but as long as the late Government were in power and were administering this Act, there was no inconvenience, and there were no complaints, so far as the farmers were concerned. That came with the advent of the present Government, and we had the ridiculous anomaly in my own constituency of the Factory Act being applied to individual farmers, where a man had power, so long as he was dealing with foodstuffs such as maize, wheat, etc., he was exempt; but immediately he transferred that power to his wattle plantation and began sawing timber for the mines, he came under the Factories Act.

I admit that.

The Minister of Defence must not say that this Act was never any inconvenience to the farmers. I could mention many cases, and the Minister of Defence is misleading the House when he says that farmers have never been inconvenienced by this Act. Let us go further. Supposing a sheep farmer wants to instal a machine for shearing purposes. For his own flock it may not be worth while going to that expense, but if he can do the shearing in combination with two or three of his neighbours, it may be well worth while to instal the plant. Why should they come under the Factories Act? Surely the farmer of South Africa has enough drawbacks without having more. This Government claim that they are a farmers' Government, and that they are out to help the farmers. If they are, let them prove it. Let us take the fruit farmer. In Natal the citrus growers are all small men. It would not pay one man to set up a grading machine to grade the oranges, but if two or three can act in combination for the grading of their fruit, it no doubt would pay to embark upon the expenditure. Any man who buys a sheep-shearing machine or a grading machine is a public benefactor. He is presenting the produce of this country on the world's market in a better condition. Why should the Minister quibble over a little thing like this? We do not ask that the big co-operative factories, where hundreds of men are employed and where life and limb have to be protected, should be exempt from the Factories Act, but we are making an appeal on behalf of the small men and the small co-operative societies.

It does seem strange that the Minister cannot meet this particular case. He admits that in case two farmers join together and bring their fruit for packing, or their sheep for shearing, they make themselves liable to bring their establishment under the Factories Act. That the Minister admits, but he says that no one would think of instituting a prosecution in a case of that kind.

It might be a technical offence.

At any rate, the two are liable. It is simply to remove this liability entirely that this amendment is brought forward, and it appears to me that actually the English language cannot find words to meet the position. The Minister says that it would be abused, and he mentioned the case of the tobacco people and the match people and so forth. The match people could not do it. How could the tobacco people of this country take advantage of this? The tobacco trust could not possibly take advantage of it, that is perfectly certain. The tobacco company could only make use of the tobacco grown on their own farms. If a man went out to buy wool and buy fruit in order to use it in a factory on his farm, then he would, of course, come under the Factories Act. We do want to allow farmers who happen to be neighbours to join their forces together for the purpose, as my hon. friend (Sir Thomas Smartt) says, of making us, for instance, of one shearing machine without laying themselves open to prosecution. I do not suppose the present Minister would take action against them, but then, as has been pointed out, Ministers come and Ministers go. My hon. friend won't be there for ever. We do not know who may succeed him. Suppose it was the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) or the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I do not think they would have the same consideration for the farmers as my hon. friend has got. Does my hon. friend say he cannot meet the position I have mentioned to him? If I start a fruit factory, and use my own fruit, and then go out to buy other people's fruit—

This amendment goes as far as that.

Then we will alter it. Will you accept it if we alter it to meet the position?

We have heard a good deal this afternoon about the farmers, but the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) have been making purely party speeches with the deliberate intention of setting the Nationalist party farmer against the Labour party. That is the idea. The South African party is not worrying about how the farmer is going to suffer. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort talked about the sheep farmer. Will he tell us what the sheep farmer does in Australia, where he is under a much more severe Factory Act than this one? How is it he can land his wool in England and compete with the South African sheep farmer?

You don't know how those sheep farmers are suffering.

They are producing a £65,000,000 cheque. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Australia is forging ahead. Australia is taking thousands of people and we are losing people. Under the present Government the country is gaining a population; under the last Government it lost population. You cannot get away from the facts and these are absolute facts. We are told here that if two or three sheep farmers combine together and put up a small shearing appliance, they will come under this Act. Every man on this side of the House knows that is not true. They will not come under it. Has there been any trouble under this Act before? A man produces milk in the town. He comes under the municipal regulations, which are very stringent. Outside the towns they come under stringent regulations. Does the farmer complain? Of course he does not. They are far more stringent than the Factories Act. Take the creameries. Inside the towns and outside the towns they come under stringent health regulations. Does the outside farmer complain? Will the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) tell me if they have ever complained at Nelsrust and these places? It is purely party capital and nothing else. Why should the farmer have the right of treating his employees worse than a man who is in the town? Because if this goes through he will be allowed to do it. A farmer in the Heilbron district will be able to get his neighbour to send maize to him and then send out the products of the maize. He can have a place which, is not hygienic and he can employ people at any hours he likes. That is what the South African party are standing for now. I would like to hear the hon. members from the Rand on this. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), perhaps, could tell us whether he agrees with the hon. members beside him. I would like him to go to an election on the Rand on that particular cry, and tell the workers on the Rand that he is in favour of men outside the town treating their employees differently from men inside the town. It is not fair to the workers. It is not a fair thing to bring up in the House. Then you have the fruit farmers. How many prosecutions have there been under the Factories Act? The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has deliberately moved this amendment, not to benefit the farmers—there is not a farmer in his constituency who has ever talked of the Factories Act—but to cause trouble between the two wings of the Pact,

You are talking about the two wings of the Labour party.

No, I am not. There are no wings of the South African party, and the bird is dead and rotten long ago. The only complaint I have with the Minister is that he has been weak on this question. The Minister must stick to his guns. He should not listen to what the South African party tell him. They are not friends of his; they are enemies of his. The Minister should stand by his original Bill and make it as strong as possible, because the time will come when he will have to take the Factories Act further into the country like other countries have done. The farmers are not going to kick at it; they are not going to grumble about it. In the Free State to-day in many places you have the Factories Act going, and I have not heard one complaint yet. But if this is allowed to go on you will have tobacco farmers, match makers and everybody running factories on quite different lines from what they have in the towns, and the man in the countryside will be much worse treated than the man in the town.

I have an amendment I would like to move. The Minister seemed to doubt whether the amendment as drafted covers the case where the fruit produced or the produce produced must be the property of a farmer and not bought for the purpose of manufacture and so forth. That was not the intention of the amendment, but to make it quite clear, I have an amendment here—

That is clear enough, surely. This says the owners themselves can only co-operate together and the farmer cannot go out and buy it for the purpose of increasing his own business. It must be purely a case of co-operation. Surely my hon. friend will accept that. How can it lead to abuse so long as you cannot go out and buy? Here he is debarred. It must be the property of the people who combine with him and send it to the same place. So long as it is purely co-operation of neighbouring farmers only I do not see how it can be abused.

I have listened to what has fallen from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and the argument they seem to use is that in matters of this kind there should be no distinction drawn between town and country workers. If you follow the argument of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) to its logical conclusion, it clearly visualizes the time when the whole of our social legislation will be applied to the industry of farming. There is just this point to be looked to; social legislation is very valuable, and on this side we stand where we have always stood as far as that is concerned, but the question is whether opinion in this country is ripe for an extension of the whole of our present system of agriculture, and whether the farming industry itself desires the extension of a system which would so greatly affect their working costs. With regard to what the hon. members for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) have said, I call to mind the Wage Act, introduced by the present Government, in which the principle of exemption was introduced in the widest terms in favour of agriculture. I remember also the dispute that: arose in this House in regard to the building industry, where the Minister was much inclined to extend the National Council agreement in the building trade to farmers, and came into conflict with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, in that connection. That is really the reply to the hon. member for Jeppes. It must be a very desirable thing to ensure that both town and country workers should be on the same footing, but we cannot legislate in advance of public opinion, and place burdens on a primary industry which it cannot bear. I submit that the Minister would be well advised to give more careful consideration to the representations which have been made to him. He said on Friday night that this matter had been discussed so fully that nothing more could be said about it, and took the exceptional course of applying the closure, but we now find, after his consultation with the officials of his department, that although there is this defect, farmers throughout the country are asked to accept his assurance that there would be no prosecutions. He referred to the reports from his various inspectors that no such prosecutions had taken place in the past. We are faced with this position: is it desirable to accept the assurance of the Minister, or put something in the Bill to meet this defect? The principle is accepted by the committee, and the Minister himself has said that he does not wish to interfere with cooperation amongst bona fide farmers, but he is not prepared to put his assurance into his Bill. As was pointed out on Friday night, he leaves the matter in that unsatisfactory state; that it may be interpreted in a certain manner one day by one Minister, and may be interpreted in another manner by his successor. That leaves the farmer in a very doubtful position. I can picture the case of a farmer who desires to buy expensive plant and who might not be able to make it profitable without cooperation on the part of his friends, but who is immediately faced with this Act, he must consider whether it is safe to expend this money—for, although the Minister and those who follow him abide by the assurance given, he may find a different Minister adopting another interpretation. You are really restricting the operations of bona fide farmers, and the Act should rather be styled a farmers' restriction Act. Only one argument has been used this afternoon, which shows that there might be a probability of abuse. The hon. member for Jeppes said you might have a large company owning a farm, establishing a factory there, where hundreds of employees might be engaged; you would, he said, have an urban industry established on a farm. If this is the only objection the Minister has or which is entertained by some of his supporters, why not limit the total number of employees? I suggest an amendment which might meet the point of the hon. member for Jeppes, and yet will meet the case of a bona fide farmer engaged in co-operation with his neighbours. I move as an amendment—

This clause will first have to be omitted before the amendment can be put.

I want to give the committee an opportunity of considering the possibility of an alternative to what has been put forward by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). [Time limit. ]

I think I might propose an amendment to meet the Opposition in some way, if they want to be met, but I wish to remind them that we are dealing with an Act not passed by the present Government, but by the South African party Government.

What we complain about is not the Act, but its administration.

We are trying to improve on the mistakes made by the previous Government. All these defects should have been foreseen in 1918. It has taken the South African party ten years to come to the conclusion they have come to to-day. We are trying to improve what they have " messed up we are doing that all along. I hope my amendment will satisfy the very few farmers on the Opposition benches.

Are you a farmer?

Yes.

I may point out to hon. members that according to our rules no interruptions are allowed. The Chairman will, however, allow some pertinent interruptions now and then.

My amendment reads—

You had better add to that—" and to change the Minister."

I hope we shall always have a very good Minister in the future. As the Act stands, a farmer may not go to his neighbour's farm and prepare his produce. I propose this because there is a possibility of tremendous abuse if we open the door wide. The farmers on this side of the House are quite willing to leave it to the Minister to decide whether they should have permission.

A Labour Minister?

The Labour Minister is doing good work for the country and for the farmers, whereas the Opposition Minister, some time ago, did not do that. We ought to honour the Minister for doing that.

I am not a farmer, but if I were I would blush to hear a towndwelling lawyer making a special plea to exempt me from the provisions of the Factories Act. I have just been re-reading some of the clauses of the Act to see what the South African party farmers wish to be exempted from. Clause 18 says—

Then there is a provision for the prevention of sweating. Do the South African party farmers wish to sweat their employees? The Act further says factories shall be kept in a clean state and not smell. Is all this bother over an endeavour to obtain exemption from the very necessary provisions of the Act? Farmers are already exempt from the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Apprenticeship Act. I think farmers get far too much consideration. Instead of the backbone, they are now becoming the wishbone of the country. I hope the Minister will not weaken in any way—in fact, I hesitate to support him as far as the Rill is now concerned. Not a single member of the Opposition has shown why farmers should be exempt. Why should the country worker not be treated on a basis of equality with the town worker? I hope the Minister will make it clear that he has gone quite far enough to please " the cheese-making member for Griqualand " (Mr. Gilson). I have been to some of these cheese-making places, and they are not worthy of the name of a factory, there being only one or two men and a dog about the place. No fail-dealing farmer would desire to get away from the provisions I have quoted.

We have heard a great deal of sound and fury from the hon. member signifying nothing. We know perfectly well how he will vote. We know there are certain reasons that compel the hon. member, notwithstanding that he would like to see the Factories Act in its most rigorous manner applied to the farming population, not to force his view on the committee, but I rise to show how entirely erroneous his views are with regard to these factories in Griqualand East. Is he unaware of the fact that on two or three occasions these little despised cooperative factories brought together by a combination of farmers in Griqualand East have taken first prizes at the Islington dairy show against the whole of the British empire? If the hon. gentleman knew a little more of the good work that these factories have done, he would not make these cheap sneers for the delectation of hon. gentlemen on the cross benches, against the farming population of this country. It is because we know these cooperations have done such an enormous amount of good in getting the farmers of this country a market that they would otherwise not get, that we are so strongly urging the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) with the further amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), to make it clear that it applies solely and entirely to the produce of the farmers so long as it is not associated with produce bought from any other farmer who is not associated in the undertaking. Would the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) alter his amendment? He says the Minister " may." That is what the Minister has been telling the committee for the last two days. Will he say the Minister " must," and I will be inclined to support my hon. friend, because there would be no ambiguity? He knows his amendment as now put forward is of a farcical character. It is only doing what the Minister can do now. I am afraid of the period of time when there is a Minister in office who yields to pressure not from the Nationalist side, but from the other side of the Pact, and the farmer will find he may come out badly It is to assure the position of the farmer, and not make him liable to the idiosyncrasies of any Minister that we want these amendments.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) would make the provisions of the Bill quite different from what they are to-day. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and his colleagues have been emphasizing all along that they do not want to put any farmer who wants to go on to his neighbour's farm to crush his mealies or pack his fruit in a wrong position in the eyes of the law. Today I say they might be committing a technical offence. He says he wants to remove all doubt whatever that they are committing any technical offence. I say I could not remove that doubt without opening the door to tremendous abuses. What is provided for in the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp is that where a Minister is satisfied that there is no abuse and where the conditions are as they are to-day, and perhaps technically against the law, no action will he taken whatever. There will be no difficulty whatever in granting the permission asked for, but reserving to the Minister the right to refuse permission in certain cases if he thought it was being abused. If the representations of hon. members on the other side are bona fide, they can accept this amendment and we can regard it as a settlement. If not, I am afraid they want to make as much capital as they can out of the matter. The position they have argued for the last two or three days is amply met and safeguarded in the amendment which prevents abuses which they say they do not want.

This is a very interesting and important discussion affecting the farming community. It is a curious thing to me that so far only the two Labour Ministers have been running this debate. Their opinion may be very interesting, but, after all, they are to-day leaders without an army.

That is cheap.

It is true. Where is the hon. the Minister for Agriculture and the hon. the Minister for Lands?

They are confident that the farmers will get a square deal at the hands of the Labour Ministers.

We would like to have something more than the assertion of the Labour Ministers. We should have had the Nationalist Ministers here this afternoon. I think the committee is entitled to the views of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on the subject. Only one member of the Nationalist party has got up this afternoon so far as I have listened to the debate, and his intervention amounted to a very considerable watering down of the Minister's Bill, and I could see he would have gone very much further if he had dared, from the hesitating way in which he spoke. It seems to me this discussion is not getting the attention it merits from the farming members on the other side, or from the Nationalist party. I hope the farming community will take note of the way in which their interests are being represented by the hon. members across the way.

After listening to the speeches of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), I must really say that I see more and more how necessary it is for the Bill to be as clear as possible on this point. It seems to me as if hon. members on the cross-benches are getting their way, are going to apply all kinds of socialistic legislation to the countryside, and the more I listen the more I get the impression that the members of the Nationalist party are supporting them in it.

Was the Act of 1918 not socialistic?

The hon. member knows very well that if I had said in 1918 that he would to-day be under the thumb of the Labour party he would have possibly taken great umbrage. I want to remind him that he said at a meeting, I think at Cradock: " If my party co-operates with the Labour party I shall resign from it."

What did you say about the Unionists?

The Unionist party no longer exists. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) now says: " Let us leave everything in the hands of the Minister." It would be good enough if we and the farmers had just as much confidence in the Minister as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has. We have already had the unpleasant experience when the same Minister applied the Industrial Conciliation Act to the farmers, and his colleague, the Minister of Justice, had to tell him that he was wrong in applying it to them. I, therefore, have no confidence in the Minister, and I ask that it shall be clear that the farmers are excluded. I cannot understand why Nationalist members do not assist in forcing the Minister of Labour to exclude the farmers so that this legislation shall not apply on farms. It seems to me that, if we are not careful, socialistic law will also be applied on the countryside.

Our opponents, while in office, made many mistakes, but here they admit that their own legislation was so weak it could not have been weaker. They introduced this legislation in 1918, and I was always opposed to it. The result is that at the very beginning the greatest defect in the whole Act is to be found in Section 1. That section describes what a factory is, and according to that description, a small blacksmith's shop in a village can fall under the Act. If a poor woman in a village tries to earn a living by needlework she comes under the Act. In certain circumstances she can come under the Act. So it goes on, and one does not know where it will stop. We were never opposed to a Factories Act, and we agree that provision should be made especially for factories in large towns, as sometimes, as hon. members have said, starvation wages are paid. The other side drafted the Bill in great detail, and now that we have found out how far it can be applied, we are making it better, and trying to protect the farmer, and to meet all the difficulties as much as possible. We do not want to exclude all large factories, that is the last thing we want to do. There are, for instance, large creameries on the countryside, and it is wrong to exclude them. There are large cooperative societies, and many of them manufacture cream from milk of their shareholders, but also of private persons who are not shareholders, and I think that, in such a case, they ought automatically to be excluded from the ordinary meaning of the words " co-operative society." There are other important industries as, for instance, the tobacco co-operative societies. The tobacco factory at Rustenburg, for instance, is so large that it would be wrong to exclude it. What we want is to exclude cooperation by farmers on a small scale, and I think that no one in the House is opposed to exempting farmers who assist each other on farms. We have gone so far as to make provision in sub-clause (2) to exclude farmers, and the amendment of the hon. member for Krugeradorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) improves it. It is true that the amendment does not say that the Minister shall be obliged to grant exemption, but the difficulty in the whole case is that it is impossible to mention every industry that may be excluded, and if the Minister is approached, and grants exemption, then it is a precedent for other cases, and I cannot see that this proposal is not a great improvement. If, however, we lay down in the Bill that all are excluded, we shall have trouble. Then, for instance, the sugar king in Natal, who erects a sugar mill, will be able to say to 100 or 200 farmers in the neighbourhood that he will mill the sugar for all at a certain percentage, and he will not come under the Factories Act. That is only one example, and we do not know where it would lead to. The trouble is that if we were passing a new Act then we should be able to alter Section 1, but here we are not at all concerned with Section 1. It is very difficult to define every factory which will fall under the Act. It is quite impossible. Let us, therefore, pass the amendment which, to a great extent, meets the difficulty, and let the farmers who co-operate in a small way apply to the Minister for exemption. In the last mentioned case we are just as anxious as the South African party for the farmers to be exempted from the Factories Act. A certain timber industry has been mentioned, and it has already been considered, but I believe I am right in saying that that industry came under the Factories Act, while the South African party were in office, while if the Bill and the amendment are passed it is possible to give exemption.

I think that the remarks of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) have been more to the point than any of the remarks from that side so far. We do admit the difficulty, and we are honestly trying to find a way out of it. I want to say to the Minister what I said to him a month ago: " Send your Bill to a select committee, and we will thresh it out." The Minister declined, with the result that we are continually wrangling across the floor of this House trying to find a solution, and we have had the unedifying spectacle of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) holding a caucus meeting in the lobby over his amendment with certain members opposite. I think it is a great pity that we cannot have a round-table discussion over this matter so as to find a way out of the difficulty. The Minister has, however, made up his mind to force this Bill through the House, and we are going to have this patch-work quilt.

I have accepted the amendment, and that meets the position.

I can tell the Minister that it does not meet the position. We might have special circumstances, and a Minister who is not sympathetic. I do not consider it is a satisfactory amendment. Two or three members have said: " This Bill was passed by the South African party, and it has taken them 10 years to find it is wrong." Why? Because it is only now that their party has taken over the administration of it. So long as the administration of this law was kept out of the hands of Labour it worked perfectly smoothly, but, since a Labour Minister has taken it over, difficulties have cropped up. I think that is a very fair answer to the arguments of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). I am very sorry the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is not in his seat. He made some sneering remarks about the farmers of East Griqualand, myself in particular, but I suppose he has now retired to the safe seclusion of some of the antechambers, and is not here to listen to the reply I have to make. Oh, I beg his pardon. Perhaps he may later return to his seat from the safe security in which he has entrenched himself, and then I can reply to his remarks. One thing struck me as very noticeable, and that was that during the debate on the Liquor Bill, the question of the tot system in the Transvaal cropped up. What was the reason advanced for the extension of that system to the Transvaal? It was that technical breaches of the law were occurring every day, and it was necessary to lay down a hard and fast Act. That is just what we want to do here. There are technical breaches of the law being committed every day. I think one might take that as a very fair analogy. We have gone a certain distance, but we have not gone far enough. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said: " We are thoroughly satisfied on this side that we are getting a square deal at the hands of the Labour party, and that our interests are absolutely safe." If we are going to take the speeches made this afternoon by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) as expressing the honest sentiments of the Labour party, then I think no farmer in this House is going to be satisfied that his interests are safe in the hands of any member of the Labour party. I hope the Minister is going to accept our amendment, that, even at this last hour, he will be prepared to meet us to make it absolutely definite and plain that a farmer is not required to obtain permission, leave, or licence of any Minister at all, but that on certain conditions it is laid down that certain operations are within the pale of the law, and he is not committing a breach of the Factories Act if he conducts those operations. I am going to press my amendment. I hope the Minister will not harden his heart. The end we are working for can be better attained by the amendment I have moved, than by that emanating from the legal ecclesiastical farmer from Krugersdorp.

We all know that the fuss being made by the Opposition is only for the purpose of making political capital out of the provisions of an Act they themselves passed. We all know as well that that provision has never yet been construed as the Opposition are now trying to construe it. We also all know that no Minister or lawful authority has ever yet prevented a farmer from co-operating with his fellows, and that the Minister has expressly stated that he never would hinder any such co-operation. Seeing we know all this, why should we vote for an amendment under which the farmer who wants to co-operate with his neighbour in packing fruit or some such thing will first have to go and ask the Minister's consent? Because that is what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) is going to move.

Do you deny that such co-operation is illegal to-day?

The Minister has never had the slightest objection to it, and the legal authority has never yet intervened.

Do you deny that such co-operation is actually illegal?

If everything which, theoretically, according to the strict letter of the law, can be declared illegal were to be applied, the hon. member for Krugersdorp would pass his whole life in gaol. One can discover theoretical illegality in almost everything. Instead of the hon. member for Krugersdorp assisting the farmers, he is only going to make; life more difficult for them. According to his amendment no farmer may join his neighbour in packing fruit, or in shearing sheep without previously having obtained the Minister's permission. Just imagine, every time you want to co-operate with your neighbour you must first send a letter or telegram to Pretoria! Not only that, but it is only in " special circumstances " that the Minister will have the power of exempting you from the operation of the Act. So reads the amendment. Is that beneficial to the farmer? The hon. member is going to create a crime which nobody has hitherto regarded as a crime, and he is going to impose an obligation on the farmers with which they have never been bothered before. You ought not to give any Minister the right of deciding whether you are to co-operate with your neighbour or not. You have the right, and must retain it. Custom has given it to you. The provision then would work out most unpractically. If you do not send a long telegram to the Minister stating why you want to co-operate with your neighbour the next day, he will ask you for further information, because he can only give you the desired exemption in special circumstances. We all understand quite well what is meant by a factory, so we need not tamper with the Act any longer. If you want to tamper with it as the hon. member for Krugersdorp wants to do, you will draw the halter tighter round the farmers' neck instead of making it slack. The farmers are already burdened with too many annoying Acts. Do not let us further compel them to ask for exemptions from doing something which they have never before been prevented from doing. The hon. member for Krugersdorp need not be so terribly afraid of the Opposition bogeys. I hope he will not move his amendment, at any rate, In the form in which it has been drafted.

I am sorry that the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) should be received with hostility on his own as well as the opposite side. It is an improvement on the existing position. Under the existing law, if the Minister allows such things to go on he is breaking the law, but under this amendment this thing is regularized and legalized. Suppose you put in " shall in certain circumstances", this will still be interpreted by the court as " may ", unless you set out all the circumstances. Unless you are prepared to tear up the Factories Act you must still leave discretion to the Minister. There are gentlemen who, if allowed to do certain things, will do them, and you may have huge factories started, just outside municipal areas, which would not come under the factory law, competing unfairly with people in the urban areas. We know there are cheque-book farmers and large companies. You cannot let all co-operative farmers in without also letting in other people. The Factories Act was introduced for the first time in 1918, and was in the nature of an experiment then; ten years have now elapsed, and the time has arrived for an enquiry into the working of that Act. Conditions have changed, and an enormous number of factories have been established. But, with regard to the farmers, the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp has the merit that it makes legal what is now illegel. I would advise the Minister to accept the suggestion of putting in " shall " instead of " may ", It has exactly the same legal effect. If I may, I should like to move—-

Why move it?

If this has, as an effect, the saving of the time of the committee, I think the Minister would be wise to accept it.

The amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) does not meet the case, and introduces an element which is undesirable. Where we endeavour to define a principle, and he says it should be left to the discretion of the Minister whether that principle be given effect to he makes a confession of legislative incompetency. To say that A or B shall be allowed to do so under certain special circumstances, still leaves uncertainty and doubt, which will stand in the way of development. Which are these special circumstances the hon. member feels might be taken into consideration? How is the Minister to decide what were special circumstances, and what were not? If he made a mistake he would have to accept responsibility. Once he granted permission he might take it away. There is nothing in this amendment which would debar the Minister, after a period of time, to say: " I have come to the conclusion that I shall withdraw permission." Or he might attach conditions to his permission, and the whole object would be defeated. The principle for which we are contending should be expressed clearly, definitely and finally. As far as the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is concerned, it does seem to me it does not carry the matter any further. The Minister is afraid this may be abused, and this principle for which we are contending, if expressed in the Bill, may be liable to abuse. This seems to me a bogey. If a company is formed to go through loop holes in the Act, the Minister might make provision for that, if it does occur. I shall propose an amendment in place of that of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) making it clear that a bona fide farmer may co-operate with his neighbour. Should there be any abuse the Minister could come to the House for assistance to stop that abuse, but there is nothing to indicate that there will be any abuse. It has been suggested that a trust might grow tobacco, build a large factory outside a, municipal area, and claim exemption from the Factories Act. Is that likely to occur —can anyone point to such a place?

This Bill has passed its third reading and the attitude of the South African party amounts almost to a breach of faith. When the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) moved that the Bill be re-committed, if was understood that that was only for the purpose of amalgamating it with another measure, and that the two Bills would go through the House concurrently. The whole of the present discussion was gone over on a previous occasion; all the arguments used this afternoon have been used before, and every argument has already been answered.

Not on this Bill.

You're all wrong.

If the object in having the Bill re-committed was to start the discussion all over again, the Opposition should have said so. The arguments of the Opposition members have a little hypocrisy attached to them; I mean they are unreal. Hon. members have raised questions, not to assist the farmers, but to try and make a little political capital out of the business, and to frighten the farmers sitting on the other side. In all these questions the Minister should confer with farmers on the Government side, and should pay no attention to farmers on the Opposition side. The hon. member for Griqualand held the Minister up for several hours on Friday, and is doing the same to-day, and he will go back to his constituents and say: " I am the man who fought for the farmers." None of the arguments of the Opposition should have any weight with the Minister, who should pay no further attention to the points raised by the Opposition.

The House generally listens to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) with a great deal of attention, for usually he discusses matters about which he does know something, but on this occasion he is in a mess. This Bill has never gone to its third reading, and the hon. member has confused it with another measure. With his desire to come to the assistance of the poor, unfortunate Minister, the hon. member has committed himself to an entirely false interpretation of what took place. Does the Minister think that any body of farmers will combine for the purpose of building a shed to be used jointly by them and in which they may have to instal extremely expensive machinery, unless they have some safeguard against vexatious and unnecessary interference? Are they to depend on the whim of the Minister whether he is going to take a liberal interpretation of the Bill or not?

No factory may be built anywhere without the approval of the chief factory inspector.

The building I have indicated would not be a factory. The wool-growing associations are strongly urging combined shearing, because there are not sufficient wool classers to go round to every farm. The associations recommend farmers to shear in one shed, so that they may have the benefit of the knowledge of a wool classer who can assist them in classifying of wool, and in this way obtaining a very much better price. A manufacturer who desires to buy a particular class of wool does not like to become a speculator, as he must when he buys a whole clip and has to sell that portion of it which does not suit his requirements. I am sorry that the majority of the farming representatives opposite were out when the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), representing a farming constituency, fully expressed his opinion. It has been said that I and others are expressing these opinions for political considerations. Surely it cannot be said that the chairman of committees who left his seat for the purpose of taking his place in the committee, and who is, perhaps one of the strongest supporters of the Pact Government, expressed his views for political purposes. The views of the hon. member for Piquetberg are due to the fact that he represents a farming constituency, and his constituents would ask him if he had not expressed those views what action he adopted on a vital question of this sort. His constituents would say: " Have you on account of the necessity of maintaining this extraordinary political combination deliberately voted against the interests of the farming industry? " if he had not taken up the position he has.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has not given a correct explanation of what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has said. He gave a completely wrong view of it. We are wandering entirely from the merits of the case. A Factory Act was passed in 1918, the second section of which exempts farm work on farms, but it was laid down in the section that it would only be excluded for the production of food or drink for human consumption. All the time since 1918 there has been no trouble under the Act, but apparently, according to the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), there have been cases in Natal where people erected machinery with electric power to saw wood for their own consumption or sale and they got into difficulties; they came under the Act, but this has now been rectified. That has been the only difficulty for ten years since the Act came into force, and it is now being obviated by the deletion of the words " food and drink for human consumption." The amended section will thus be much wider than the original one, and give much more room for exempting farmers on the farms. Now, however, hon. members opposite try to frighten our farmers with restrictions which are imposed by their own Act. They say that, during their regime, the farmers were safe, because they would never apply it, but that the farmers are not safe under this Government because it will be applied. We have just as much confidence in our Ministers as members of the Opposition had in theirs.

Much more.

In any case we have just as much confidence in our Ministers. Apparently the whole object and tendency of the Bill are to exclude the farmer and his farm work, and we are quite satisfied that there will be no abuse, and that no farmer will be prosecuted for simply co-operating in a bona fide way with a few other farmers in the performance of farm work. The hon. member for Piquetberg has no objection to the clause as moved by the Minister. He does not defend the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). He says the Minister's proposal is good enough for him, that it gives him sufficient guarantee that the interests of the farmers are protected, and that the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) will have just the opposite effect, as it proceeds directly from the assumption that the Minister will regard it as illegal, because first of all a request for exemption will have to be made to the Minister. The hon. member for Piquetberg fears that, by the very passing of the amendment, we take up the position as if every farmer when he co-operates with a neighbour will first have to obtain the Minister's permission. If it were so it would not be so bad, but we know how things go. The letter will go in the first instance to the magistrate, and then to the Minister. The latter may possibly be away, and then it may take months before the farmer gets a reply. This would, of course, irritate the farmer. I agree with the hon. member for Piquetberg that we must not start with the assumption that the application must be made to the Minister. There have been no difficulties, and we are convinced that there will be none in the case of farmers wanting bona fide to co-operate to pack fruit, shear sheep or other bona fide farm work. I will go so far as to assure the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that, if any difficulty is experienced, and the farmers are interfered with we will co-operate with him to get an amendment immediately. We must, however, also keep the other side in view. Hon. members will ask why we will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand. Just because there is the danger of people putting up a kind of factory under the name or under the guise of farming. It can happen very easily. Take a wealthy farmer like the hon. member for Cape Town(Central) (Mr. Jagger), a very rich man able to establish a large factory. He could get a big plant for the packing and grading of fruit, plant that would cost much money. It might possibly not pay him for his own farming, and he would go and induce all the farmers in the neighbourhood, all the farmers of the whole district, to send their fruit to him for packing and grading, and he would then make a business of it. It was not intended to exempt that. I therefore say that we are quite satisfied with the proposed Bill as now amended. Bona fide farmers are fully protected, and better protected than under the Act of the S.A.P.

I think you can very easily get away from the fear of the hon. the Minister. He says that under the amendment I propose it might be possible for any man to erect a factory employing thousands of hands, and so altogether get outside the idea which this amendment adumbrated. Is any man going to do that knowing that the feeling on both sides of this House is entirely opposed to anything of this sort? Is he going to risk spending thousands and thousands of pounds in putting up an enormous factory knowing full well that legislation would be introduced immediately to stop it, and he would be left with the factory on his hands? I take it that that alone would be enough to prevent any sensible man from erecting such a factory. I think the Minister is raising a bogey only to knock it down again. I think he can be quite satisfied that this evasion is not going to take place. I think the amendment I have proposed meets the position better than that of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). Under that amendment the Minister may permit any person to pack produce on a farm of which he is not the owner or occupier, but that is not the point at all.

When you erect a packing shed you are not going to cart it over to another farm. You are going to pack his fruit, and that is not covered by the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. The point is not whether I occupy the farm or not, but whether those goods are produced or grown by me or from animals kept by me. The occupancy of the farm is nothing. You cannot, if you erect a packing shed, and have shearing machinery, or if you are making butter or cheese, come along and operate your factory. That is an absolute impossibility. I believe the hon. member intends that the man who produces stuff shall bring it to the factory and he should himself take charge of it. No farming member on the other side need think that he has got himself out of trouble. [No quorum.] It is very interesting indeed, when a discussion is taking place which is really of vital importance to the farmers of this country, that it should be necessary for one of the farming members on the other side to call attention to the empty condition of the benches. I want to press this point home to the Minister about this amendment, because it is going to be very serious. If you negative this amendment which I have proposed, you are left with a blank, and the blank is proposed to be filled by an amendment which does not meet the bill. This amendment is absolutely distinct. The farmer whose goods are to be packed will have to come over and take possession of the shearing shed. I, as owner of the shed, cannot pack those goods myself because they are not produced on my farm or from animals kept by me. I hope some of the legal members of this House will drive this point home, and that it will be dealt with by the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

I must say that I am sorry the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) is not here. I am surprised at his attitude, and it seems it is the same as that of many hon. members opposite. It looks as if he has to apologize for the Government, I am not referring especially to this Government, but I think it is one of the greatest hindrances to the farmers here that the Government mixes itself too much in the affairs of the farmers. The hon. member for Gordonia says that we must pass this Bill as it stands because, if we do not, then a man might elect a factory on a farm without the law protecting the workmen. It seems to me that the question must be looked at from the other side. We must say to the Government, " Do not interfere with the farmer in so far as his farming is concerned." If, then, there are shortcomings or circumstances make it necessary to interfere, then it will be time enough to introduce the necessary legislation. It has been said that this Factory Act assists the countryside population. I say that it ought not first of all to be applied in all the small villages. When the Act was introduced ten years ago, we heard that the law was only to be applied to the big towns. What has happened? Within a short time a number of officials were appointed who travelled round the whole country to see that the factory regulations were observed. Where objections were made they said they were following the law, and now hon. members want to go further, and tell the farmer he has a factory on his farm if, under certain circumstances, he works with machinery. Let us clearly say that the farmer is exempted from this law. I thought that hon. members on the other side would stand up for their constituents and see that the Minister of Labour did not go on with his socialistic legislation. The Minister of Defence laughs now, but he knows nothing about it. He knows nothing of the circumstances on the farms. When we were discussing this matter he was trying to patch up a big quarrel. He must now raise the dust to show members of his party and the people in general that the Labour party still counts for something. I shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand.

I want the House to understand the position quite clearly. I must use the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp to illustrate my argument. The clause says that the provisions shall not apply to any farm or any bona fide farmer who is the owner and occupier thereof in regard to produce grown or animals kept by him. If a man grows his corn, milks his cows and so on, the Act cannot apply to him. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) proposes an amendment which does not carry us one iota further. What we are asking for, or at least what I am asking for, is that that owner of a shed or owner of a factory can take his neighbour's produce and deal with it, that the owner of a threshing machine can take his neighbour's grain and put it through the machine. We are not asking that your neighbour shall come over and take charge of your threshing machine and put his grain through it. We are not going to permit it. It is out of the question. Yet that is what the hon. member's amendment is going to do. It does not meet the position at all. I am going to oppose this amendment. It does not go nearly far enough, and it does not make the position one iota better than it is at present. If you accept this amendment, you will find yourselves just as much in the soup as you were before. I am not prepared to go back to my constituents and say " I have accepted the position where you have to go to the Minister, who may, at his own sweet will, give you permission, or he may not. He may revoke that position at any moment." It is an undignified position for any farmer to be put into. I intend to press this amendment of mine, because the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp will not meet the position in any shape or form. Members on the other side sympathize with us in this matter, but they are torn between their duty to themselves and to their constituents, and the duty they owe to their Labour friends. I hope their duty to themselves and to those who sent them here is going to be stronger in the end, and they are going to stand firm and accept an amendinent which will make the position clear and remove any necessity to go hat in hand to get any special permission to assist their neighbours in this way.

May I, on a point of personal explanation, say I will not move this amendment after the discussion in the House?

You realize it is useless.

The announcement of the hon. member has come as a relief to farmers who were under no illusions as to its meaning. What we object to is that we shall put our farmers in the humiliating position of having to bow before the great panjandrum of the Department of Labour and ask permission to do things which otherwise would be punishable by law. It seems so absurd that the whole of two days should be wasted by the Minister simply because he will not see the obvious. Here we are pleading with him not to insist on the clause in its present form, showing him the innumerable ways in which farmers would be laid open to prosecution if the clause were passed with its present altogether insufficient provisions. I support the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) in all he has laid before the Minister in his painstaking and patient manner. I hope the Minister will realize that this is a matter upon which we are not prepared to allow the farmer to be sacrificed to please the Labour wing of the Pact. We maintain that the farmer's rights deserve recognition in this House, that the farmer's rights are quite as important as those of the Labour party, and that, as far as the Factories Act is concerned, we are entitled to have this reasonable exemption from interference by the Labour Department with the legitimate carrying on of our industry. The point the Minister will not see is that the provision he proposes in the Act will interfere with the proper development of farming. Farming is difficult enough under the most advantageous circumstances in this country, but if, in addition to its ordinary drawbacks, we are constantly to have the prying round of the Labour Department in regard to the carrying on of legitimate farming, it becomes very difficult indeed, and I hope, even at this hour, the Minister will realize it is incumbent upon him to give ear to the reasonable representations made to him and to meet us in the objections we have raised to this clause.

I think the Minister of Labour can settle the matter by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). He will in that way remove the appearance of wrong. It can do him no harm. I do not think it will injure him in any way. Let him make it clear that where bona fide farmers co-operate they will be exempt from the operation of this Bill. The Bill, without the amendment, creates an impossible condition, and we have heard from various members what difficulties may arise. I therefore hope the Minister will agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand. That small defect in the Bill is unnecessary, and it makes the farmer suspicious. I think the Minister must consider the matter carefully, because it will do him no harm.

I really do not know the position we have arrived at now. At last, after a tremendous lot of difficulty and argument, we have got the Minister to admit that the position is not satisfactory, that the opinions he held yesterday were wrong and that the opinion he held that farmers could co-operate in the way he outlined was inadmissable under the Act. Now the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) in the afternoon, gave us a most interesting Statement of his opinion on this Bill. It came with all the force of a great legal mind behind it. What happened? The other members of the legal profession in this House tore him to shreds. They have hardly a rag left to cover their decency with. Now the hon. member moves an amendment which he says he has persuaded his farmer friends will meet the position; after we have torn that to rags in the same way, and shown the utter fallacy of it, he gets up like a child and says that after the criticism, " I will not move it at all." I put it to my hon. friends opposite whether that amendment was not moved as a way out of the difficulty. Where do we stand? Does it not show that our attitude was right from the beginning? It took a tremendous amount of time and argument to persuade the hon. member that we were right, but he admitted it at last. Now the amendment which was to " clarify the whole position " is withdrawn. Are the farmers not going to get any protection whatever? Are we to remain in a position which was acknowledged to be a false one, and which the Minister had not foreseen before? I do ask before the amendment is put that the Minister will clarify the position, after the frail craft that was to come to the assistance of the farmer has been swamped.

I move—

Upon which the committee divided:

At the request of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter.) I propose—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 1:

Proposed new clause put and negatived.

Clause 2 will have to be negatived, as this Bill has to be amalgamated with the other one.

Clause 2 put and negatived.

On Clause 11, Factories Act, 1913, Amendment, and Control of Factory Machinery Bill,

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported that, pursuant to the instruction of the House, the committee had consolidated the two Bills into the Factories (Amendment) Bill, with an amendment.

I move—

That the amendment be now considered.

objected.

Amendment to be considered to-morrow.

I think the usual procedure is to let hon. members first ventilate a number of questions, and then reply. But I think it is much more convenient on an important vote like this if I can possibly anticipate some criticisms by explaining at the outset the policy pursued. I notice the defence vote last year went through without discussion, although my hon. friend, who was looking after the department, was quite prepared to answer anything.

That was out of consideration for you.

I am exceedingly gratified to find so much consideration for me on that side of the House, but I thought it was rather an oversight. Candidly, I think one of the things we have to bear in mind is that defence differs from every other department of State in this respect: every other department is from day to day and year to year performing the functions for which it is designed. The Defence Department, on the other hand, exists for war.

I promised I would reply to certain speeches at this stage, and I propose to do so now. I think I can best reply to them by trying to sketch as lucidly as I can the principles, which we are following in our defence arrangements. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) and the hon. member for East London dwelt on the inadequacy of our defence arrangements to meet what I might call the maximum danger which might confront us. Both those hon. members pointed to the immense emergency that might confront us in the case of a great war between the East and the West. Of course, that is something which may be in the womb of time, and it is quite clear too that in such an eventuality, this bit of Africa jutting out as a sort of bastion into the southern ocean will be of great strategic value. The point I wish to make is that really the only great danger of invasion by sea would occur in the course of such a great world conflagration. In such an event, the very fact of the importance of this strategic position, even supposing for a moment we were entirely alone, guarantees that we should, certainly not be alone in defending our position. In any case, I do not think we need contemplate, and I do not think any power in the world does contemplate, the keeping of its armaments sufficient to meet the maximum possible danger which may have to be encountered I am regarding this from the point of invasion from the sea. Do let us recognize that, situated as we are, with the population we have and, with the immense sea board we have, we cannot alone possibly put forward any naval effort which would safeguard us against a landing on our shores. Our defence must be land defence. The third point I would like to emphasize is that ultimately the real basis of all our defence must be the man power of the country; that during the time we are developing our country the more we take away from our financial resources unnecessarily to increase our defence, the more ultimately we are really diminishing arriving at a stage when the man power of the country will be adequate for the defence of the country. Therefore, the problem is to keep some reasonable balance between your effort to maintain your defence and other necessities of the development of the country. The hon. member for Marico charged me with having said that it was superfluous to prepare for war, because we can rely on the protection of the British fleet, and he went on to castigate me severely for using language which he said was quite unworthy of our aspirations to be a self-dependent, independent Government able to look after ourselves. I am bound to say I do not remember making that statement in those words. But most undoubtedly, for the reasons I have given, we cannot prevent invasion by sea by relying entirely, on our own resources. We are, in point of fact, an independent people, associated with the other dominions, in the British commonwealth of nations, and one of the senior partners in that great commonwealth has a very big fleet. Personally, I am confident that this commonwealth is not a mere phantasm. Independent as we may be, there is a reality behind that association. I am confident that any one of us who are wantonly attacked or hard pressed would find that the others would certainly not see us mauled and badly used without coming to our assistance. I am also quite certain that we, in a similar position, would feel ourselves called upon to go to the assistance of the others. I, for one, cannot see any shame or indignity whatever in a position where, such a development as we have, our capacity for sea protection is practically nil, Nor do I think that we need be kept awake at night while we know that another partner in this great Commonwealth is very much in command of the sea, or that we should feel a shiver running down our spine in regard to any danger that we can imagine.

Providing we do our share.

One hears a great deal of unconsidered talk on that subject. If the British fleet were wiped off the picture, if we were alone in the world without a friend, our sea power for such time as we need contemplate, with our resources, with our population,—our sea power so far as we would be able to prevent the invasion of our shores would be practically nil, and if there was a great war our assistance towards that sea power must, we must frankly face it, for a long time to come, be practically negligible. I deduce from these two facts that one inference must clearly arise, and that is we ought to contemplate for our defence policy certain clearly defined ideas. In the first place, as far as sea defence is concerned, let us adhere quite constantly and consistently to the existing arrangement, an arrangement arrived at between our predecessors in office, and the British Government under which we undertook, as our part of this present position, the defence of the naval base in South Africa, and we undertook to keep the channels open to our ports by organizing a mine sweeping force to do that work. But I say it is idle at present to contemplate going beyond that. Besides all that, we ought to devote ourselves to developing those arms, those military forces which we are best capable of developing, and those are our air and land forces. I should think the third principle of defence in this country should be that we should, as far as possible, keep all our nerve centres, the big manufacturing workshops the Government may be interested in, within the mountain barrier, so that if the worst came to the worst and we were invaded, we should hold our own against any invading enemy in the future. I have the greatest sympathy, and I think we all have, with the sort of aspirations that are embodied in the Navy League, the demand that we should have a cruiser or something of that kind, and go on expanding our naval effort. It seems to me that in the present stage of our development, we are doing far more good from the standpoint both of South African defence, and also any assistance that we might render in the event of a great world conflagration, by devoting our energies and those resources that we can spare, to the development of those arms and those forces which we are in the best position to develop. What are we doing now in pursuit of that principle in regard to these two things we undertook to do, defence of the naval bases and our ports and mine-sweeping? In so far as the defence of the naval bases and our defences here in the Peninsula are concerned, and the other principal port, Durban, if hon. members will remember, I said in reply to a question two years ago that we were awaiting the examination of the question by the Committee of Imperial Defence, who had undertaken to make recommendations to us. The Committee of Imperial Defence have examined these questions and have sent a report and recommendations. They made certain recommendations with an analysis of the position and recommended certain alterations, not of a very important character, except in regard to the defence of another port, but they told us certain matters were being tried out, certain new ideas were being tried out in connection with another great work which is in progress in another part of the world, and with a review of the whole position they recommended that we should defer any alteration in our present arrangements for another few years. The committee will understand that in these matters it is inadvisable to specify very particularly what these matters are that are being tried out, but if the right hon. leader of the Opposition desires further information, I shall be only too pleased to give it to him; but there are very good reasons why we should defer for another few years any alteration in our existing arrangements. In regard to our mine-sweeping flotillas, I think we undertook to supply five flotillas. There are certain other changes in the arrangements which may be brought into being in case of another great war—in which our ports will be of very essential value—and which necessitate our making arrangements for training men for another flotilla. That all came in since our defence estimates were framed, and we shall take these measures, and if we cannot make it on savings on our vote we shall probably have to come with supplementary estimates next year. All that was undertaken, and it is our duty, I consider, to see it is properly performed and thoroughly done. We come then to, the air force. Air and laud, I said, we ought to devote ourselves to. In our air force, as hon. members will know by that paper I placed on the Table, at present we are confining ourselves to one service squadron, 13 machines, to he raised to 19 on a war footing, and another 12 or 14 machines in reserve. We have our air depot, which we are developing, and in which most excellent work is being done. I would like hon. members to understand this, because I think very few people appreciate the way in which we are becoming more and more self-dependent in a number of these matters. The machines we are using to-day are part of the gift from the Imperial Government. Each machine appears in the log as the same machine, but it is very much like the Irishman's gun, which was given to him by his father, but he got a new barrel, a new stock, a new trigger, and everything else. Machines crash, they are smashed to bits and taken to the workshops. The whole of the work is our own, and pretty nearly all the materials are of our own construction. With the exception of certain small things which have to be im ported and the engines, these machines are practically re made in our own workshops. We have added recently—tried to organize—two citizen units, one a small citizen pilot force, and the other a citizen force of mechanics, because the air mechanics will be something we shall be liable to want to augment in case of wastage or in a great effort. We are trying to arrange a small unit 40 or 50 strong— apprentices—to come up for training once a year for three or four weeks at Roberts Heights to learn their job, and to form a small citizens' unit in connection with that.

I think we may wish our air force to be larger. I think it is sufficient for the time being for such wants as we may reasonably contemplate, and our aim is to keep up our force to the best, condition of efficiency. The House voted £100,000 the other day to the aircraft replacement fund, which will be expended as I explained to the House for the purpose of re-engining those machines we have, and adding something more than 20 miles per hour to their speed and making them excellent service machines. In that connection I would like to say I do not know if hon. members appreciate a certain little paragraph which appeared in the paper on Saturday. Two of our four machines on the air flight from Khartoum had a little bit of engine trouble—one had to stop halfway and the other stopped with it—but two left Khartoum on Tuesday morning and landed at Swartkop heights on Friday afternoon—four days—which is pretty good work. I think we have the greatest right to be proud of the quality of our air force, and I wish to say here the very great appreciation I have of the excellent work that is done by Sir Pierre van Ryneveld, director of air services, in keeping up that small force in the way in which it is kept up—as good as any small force as far as efficiency and equipment are concerned. With regard to the land forces, two years ago I explained fairly fully the principles on which we were proceeding, and that as the result of post-war changes and the demand for economy the permanent striking force as originally planned had been reduced to two squadrons— hardly even an escort for artillery—and other anomalies, and we had clearly to envisage the position and clearly decide what the whole principle of the Defence Act meant. The logical consequence of it was that in contemplating a South African army, we had to contemplate a citizen army, looking upon the permanent force we retained practically as an organization existing to teach and help the efforts of the citizen forces in making themes efficient and administering the Citizen army. Well, we have been following that. I told the House then that that was the direction in which we were going. We kept up the permanent garrison artillery, although that is reduced as in Great Britain to small dimensions, and have increased the citizen force to serve the artillery—increasing that pari passu with any reduction we have made in the permanent force. Now we are in such a position that the permanent artillery force in the Cape Peninsula cannot be decreased further. Outside that and the three remaining batteries of artillery—these are practically the only fighting forces on the permanent strength—all the rest of our land forces are citizen forces. In this respect I dare say there will be a good deal of discussion, but it is in regard to our land forces that the greatest problems arise as to how far you should go to make the very best use of the money that the State provides to spend on the development of our forces. We have unrivalled material, but the country varies in its population. In some parts there is intense keenness, but in other parts there is rather a reluctance. Speaking purely as Minister of Defence, I suppose there never was a Minister of Defence who would not wish to do a great deal if the State consented to devote more of its resources to defence and neglected a good many other things. It is right, however, that we should place a limit on what we can do. The Defence Act has been in force for a good many years. I have designedly not introduced an amending Act, although in the near future there will have to be some amendment of the existing measure. The Defence Act compels every boy of 17 years of age to register, and if he has not put in the necessary service by the time he is 21, he is liable to serve up to the numbers the State makes provision for. Up to the present we have had no necessity to put in operation any such compulsion, for we have never made provision for training approximately the number of youths who are prepared to enter voluntarily. We can compel service, but we cannot compel people to make a private expenditure of their own money in performing that service. In every case where you have regular units, and men are compelled to attend drills, if you introduce compulsion in any respect, you have to meet that by spending money on transportation to places where the men have to assemble and all the incidentals in connection therewith. I presume it is on that account that active citizen force units exist only in the towns, as the assembly of youths in the towns is very much easier and places very much less burden on the State than would be the case if you make boys assemble who are scattered over a much larger area. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. '3. J. Pienaar) said I had not made the least attempt to train the young men in the country. He is wrong there. What we have done is to make a beginning. I am willing to accept some of his jibes as to the insufficiency of it, but I do not think the hon. member has visited all the special training squadrons, or he would not have spoken of them in the terms he did.

made an interjection.

The hon. member is old enough and experienced enough to know that it is unwise to use merely what you have from hearsay. I went to see a parade of the special training squadron of the Rustenburg commando, and for the training they have had—it is not so much as I should like—those boys put up a very good show indeed. There are others too. It has only been going two years, and it is a distinct advance.

How much training do they get?

They only get four days a year training, and I am going to come to the difficulties in connection with that presently, because I think that is a direction in which we must expand. I found things such that, outside Natal with its four-mounted regiments, the active citizen force was entirely confined to the towns, and the country districts were grumbling at no training being provided for the country youths. We have made certain steps in the direction desired, but I think at present not sufficient. Then the Defence Rifle Association organized into commandoes, are our big reserves. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) said representations are being made to me continually, and we have turned a deaf ear to them. Representations made to me both at the commandants' conference which takes place at the military college every year, were of one tenour, with which I perfectly sympathize. They say we must have compulsion so as to enable them to exert and teach the necessary discipline. That is all very well, but if you are going to have compulsion my reply has always been: Remember that compulsion carries with it the necessity for very heavy expenditure to meet the expenses of those who are compelled, and you cannot have the large numbers together with the close knit formation with discipline that you desire. We have our choice.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.8 p.m.

When proceedings were interrupted at six I had just mentioned the commando organization, our big reserve, and for a moment, had been led off a side track in regard to demands for compulsion in that organization, but I will deal first with the active citizen force units and the active citizen force organization. In the last two years, following the line that I indicated to the House two years ago, we have been carrying out the policy adumbrated there of maintaining the existing units and adding to them a number of other units, essential units for actual war, such as, for instance, three field companies of engineers, four supply companies, two veterinary sections, and that air force unit which I have already mentioned. We have got these new units and services. As we were formerly there were a number of independent units and it was for any emergency that they were called out. Higher formations had to be improvised, and we have brigaded all the various units into three infantry brigades and one mounted brigade in Natal. On the whole the active citizen force has been considerably improved. The efficiency is better, and I think the system we introduced, the capitation grant, certainly has been a convenience, and has had good results. In the camp I have just visited at Potchefstroom we had a very good camp; I think one of the best I have seen yet, and altogether I was entirely satisfied with the progress we have made in these directions. I mentioned two years ago what we were doing designed to increase the number of active citizen force batteries, our artillery armament. In those days there were three permanent batteries, and only one citizen battery. I said two years ago I designed to have one of our permanent batteries divided up between Bloemfontein and Bethlehem, and the other between Pietermaritzburg and Piet Retief, in order to assist in the training of active citizen force units in those places. We have carried out the dividing up of one battery into two sections between Bloemfontein and Bethlehem. We have half carried that out. The other section will be at Bethlehem towards the end of the month. Bethlehem is the first place in which we have tried to organize a citizen battery in a rural district. I have been very much pressed by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) to carry out immediately my design to organize a citizen battery at Piet Retief. I hesitate to do that, and I am not going to take the step until one has had more experience of the success of the organization of a battery in a country district. At Bethlehem our experience has been there is little or no difficulty in getting the necessary rank and file, but the efficiency of any battery depends immensely upon obtaining and training really efficient officers, and that has been our difficulty there. Up to now at Bethlehem we have had in the rank and file out of the 103 strength something like 40 per cent. changes. That I am quite prepared for among the rank and file and non-commissioned ranks. Gradually I am perfectly sure it will take on and we shall have a good battery there, but our difficulty has been in obtaining efficient officers. In the towns, in Johannesburg and Bloemfontein and Maritzburg, the larger populations will always find men who will serve and who have experience in that arm. But at Bethlehem our experience has been that it has been extremely difficult to get men of the right type to devote themselves to the work in the way in which an artillery officer must. At the Potchefstroom camp, where our permanent artillery go for five or seven weeks and the citizen battery go out for citizen training of ten days separately to that camp. Bethlehem was up there the other day and only had one officer left. The captain had resigned on the eve of going. That, I think, will be gradually improved when we get our section of permanent artillery at Bethlehem, and when we have placed that battery under training by our permanent men. But until I am satisfied that is going well, I am not going to do what my hon. friend would like, and the hon. member I am sure will agree with me that when you are making a new experiment it is better to see it tried out and made a success in one place before carrying it on to the next. We have already organized four extra citizen batteries. Except in the case of Bethlehem, the report upon the non-commissioned officers and men was excellent. I am quite sure we shall win out, and it is an excellent thing to have our forces, particularly the active citizen force, more spread through the country. Then I come to the commando system. I remember the right hon. gentleman two years ago saying in a sort of deploring way we had gone back to the commando system. We did nothing of the sort. He went back to it ten or twelve years ago. The commando system, the Defence Rifle Associations organized into the commando system, are our great reserve in the country. The efficiency of them, let me say, and the military value we get from our expenditure there, undoubtedly varies very greatly from province to province, and from districts of provinces to districts of provinces. Without exciting any jealousy, I think on the whole I should say it is in the province of the Free State that we get the best value for the expenditure we give. Its population—and, after all, a good deal depends upon the circumstances of the population —is one where they take a great interest in these matters and where, I think, their circumstances are such that it is possibly more easy for them to give effect to the interest they take than, perhaps, in some portions of other provinces. I am met with this great difficulty. In the original scheme as the right hon. gentleman will remember, in the days before the great war, the scheme was to organize a number of active citizen force regiments throughout the country. That was hardly born before, in the stress of war, there was nothing left but the defence rifle associations organized into commandos. That was the position as we found it. There was a very great deal of discontent; a great deal of grumbling in the country districts because more was not done for the training of the young men. In 40 commandos we decided to set up training squadrons, each eventually to be of a strength of 200. To-day we have about 4,000 in those training squadrons, hut it is not satisfactory in the way we are doing it now. There is this which must be supplemented—we call these young fellows up to do four days' drill a year. It is not sufficient, but a good deal more and better than we made before. Our instructions are they are not to be called up outside a radius of from ten to fifteen miles of their training place, and care has to be taken to call up young men who have the means of locomotion. In some cases we have been approached by commandants to be allowed to take their four days in one spell and it has been permitted as a matter of experiment. In one or two cases it has answered very well, but it is only in those cases where those in command have taken particular measures and drawn on public spirit that the whole thing goes off without hardship. There have been a good many other cases in which there was a good deal of hardship in calling up these men, and that is to be altered in future. We will have to make more provision for the expenditure in the training involved. I am convinced we are gradually introducing into the commando system an element of training which will result in the course of a few years of having as men who form the commando men who are already settled down and have been through somewhat similar training in the active citizen force. Another considerable advance which will involve expenditure is an institution to which a large number of keener commandoes voluntarily asked for, by which the officers and non-commissioned officers go voluntarily into camp every year, make their own arrangements; we supply them with tents and instructors and for a week they undergo this training. That was commenced by a request in the Free State, caught on in quite a number of commandoes, and is a very valuable adjunct to increasing the efficiency of a commando. Again we have instituted a military college five weeks' course to which adjutants and commandants come and receive a considerable amount of military training. This has lead to something vastly more disciplined, and to a greater knowledge of war than in former times. We have just got about to the point in what we are doing if in future we want to continue this process, there will have to be a gradually increasing expenditure judicially applied along lines where it will increase the efficiency amongst the forces we have. In relation to what the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) complained about, and that continual representations were made to me, and we took no notice of them, I presume they were identical from those I have received pretty well at every commandants meeting, and the courses at the college where I have a long afternoon with those who attend— to introduce a system of compulsion.

Up to a certain age.

That is not the demand. The rifle association system is very deeply rooted in the social life of the country, and is an excellent thing for the country, but as rifle associations merely, I doubt whether the country gets value for it. What the adjutants and commandants, who take a keen interest in this, want is more power of compulsion with men who are enrolled, in order that they may have more discipline. The only element of compulsion you can introduce is in the training squadrons. I have constantly to reply that no such compulsion can be enforced if it is not accompanied by the necessary expenditure to defray the expense to which the men would be put. The complaint is made that the young men in the towns do more training, and that there is none in the country. That is not correct. That was so, but we have remedied it to a certain extent, and we are going to do so to a greater extent. The position is in the country districts that the whole expenditure is distributed over a large population of every age, and in the urban districts it is concentrated upon only a percentage of the youths; and on the older, nothing at all. If you take the total expenditure, it works at 1s. 8½d. per head of white population in the towns, and 3s. 2d. per head in the country. I think we have to continue and expand the system of training squadrons, giving more training to the young men ih the country districts. What We aim at, as I said two years ago, is to put on the field within 72 hours a force of 10,000 men, and supplement that with another 15,000 Within the course of a week or ten days. I can say to-day that in case of emergency we shall not fail to be able to carry out our promise. If we compare our position with 1924, we have more efficiency in our units and in our commandoes, more essential service units. Following on the brigading we have adopted; the next step will be the brigading of certain selected commandoes into brigades, so that, instead of having disjointed units, we shall have formations of a military order. Besides that, we have been working on a most essential matter which, in the stress after the war, did not receive the attention it should have done—carefully worked out mobilization arrangements, so that, in case of emergency, one can go to work according to regulations already thought out. All that has been going on, and I can safely say that, compared with three or four years ago, the defences of this country are in a more efficient condition than they Were, if not on a scale which many hon. members would like. There will have to be expansion, but I can claim that although we are spending £12,000 less than in 1923-'24, we are in a greater state of preparedness than we were then. We have been doing more on the money; we have now got down to about bed-rock, but I want to warn the committee of this—with the money that is available we are doing about just as much as we can. The reduction in number of the military districts from 15 to 6 has been a good measure, substituting the principle of command in the districts and control at headquarters for command at headquarters and control through the staff officer in the district. We cannot, however, remain where we are—as the Country expands so defence expenditure must expand. We ought to look upon it as our duty as the revenue and business of the country expand to keep the defence expenditure at the same ratio to the general expenditure at which it stands to-day when we have got down to bed-rock. Every penny we spend today is well and economically expended. I have one or two remarks of a general character to add. May I ask without appearing to be in any way Pecksniffian or hypercritical that in this discussion as far as possible there shall be no introduction of recriminations or insinuations of political bias in the defence force. I know hon. members have a rod or two in pickle for me in regard to certain commando appointments which I am quite ready to defend, but I refer to certain constant insinuations that this or that officer in the permanent defence force is actuated by political sympathies. I have now had the honour of presiding over the defence force for four years, and I can assure hon. members that I am perfectly convinced that the officers of the permanent defence force look to the efficiency of the force, and that I get the fullest sympathy from them, and just as much loyal service from them as our predecessors in office did. I made it a point from the day I took office to help, as far as I could, to keep party political considerations out of the defence force, and I hope I can rely on hon. members here and in the country helping me in that respect. Another observation I would make is this: The country very insufficiently recognizes and appreciates the amount of Work and Sacrifice of time made out of pure public spirit by the commandants and by citizen force officers and men, and by the very large number of men in the commandoes in the country districts. The position of commandant is looked upon in the country districts as most desirable, because it carries with it a certain cachet among those With whom they mix. Can hon. members say that in the town there is sufficient civic pride in the local regiment, or that it receives the assistance it ought to receive? There are towns — Durban, I think, stands at the top—where the people look upon the regiment which is raised in their midst as something they Ought to take a very keen interest in, and do their utmost to Support in a thousand and one ways in which no Government ever supports a unit. I have always done my best to inculcate that idea. In the big towns a great deal can be done to help the local regiment and to look upon it as the town's own property, as Durban does. I think I have covered the whole of the ground. I thought it better to open the discussion in this way so the committee might understand the principle upon which we are going. I have not entered into the details of training. In the training camps we are more than formerly training subordinate leaders instead of spending most of the time in forming fours, which should be done in the drill hall; instead of that, we are carrying out company and platoon schemes. In conclusion, we ought to develop our land and sea forces, although not possibly to the extent that many might desire, but fully to the extent I am confident that we should require in any great emergency we need contemplate in the immediate future. But I am not oblivious of the fact that now we have got down to bed rock we should not be niggardly, and because we spend £923,000 this year, we should not be content with spending that amount in, say, 1945. Expenditure on defence must keep pace with the expansion of our population and the needs of our country.

Not only the committee, but the country at large. Will welcome the Minister's introductory Words which will be read With great satisfaction, showing that we have advanced distinctly in our arrangements for defence. In other years I have pleaded for a more definite statement as to the objects for which the defence force exists, and, while we don't expect to get a statement in great detail, at all events we have advanced considerably We have it oh the authority of the Minister, speaking no doubt for the Government and for his party, the definite statement—I do not to say the admission—that we are an interdependent nation.

No, an independent nation. We are an independent nation, but we are a member of the British commonwealth of nations with all the advantages that gives us. I am not going to quibble, but for heaven's sake don't let us get on to that discussion again.

I am quite satisfied with the Minister's statement. We do not disagree for a moment, but I may be permitted to paraphrase it, and if his statement means anything he realizes that in building our defence force we must get down to what I call rock-bottom, and that is our connection with the commonwealth of nations known as the British empire, based on the security afforded us by the navy. Obviously that is the rock-bottom on which we will build the foundations of a defence force.

It is not quite as I should put it.

No, but I may be permitted to put it in my own way, and there is nothing derogatory to South Africa in stating that we are interdependent. I will go so far as to say that Great Britain is interdependent with South Africa. I have emphasized on several occasions the enormous strategic importance of the Cape, to which the Minister has alluded, and if the British commonwealth of nations is necessary for our existence, we may pride ourselves also on the undoubted fact that the possession of the Cape is necessary to the security of the empire. It cannot be too clearly stated that it is now an admitted fact in our organization for defence that we rest on our membership of the great commonwealth of nations known as the British empire. I only wish that had been said two or three years ago, it might have saved a great deal of trouble, but it is none the less welcome now. We can begin to build up a force having some idea of what that force is required for.

We should have to do the same thing if the British empire did not exist.

We would have to operate on entirely different lines. I do not want to be side-tracked into that. The Minister was less than generous to this side of the House when he commented on the absence of criticism last year. I assure the Minister that it was not because there was nothing to criticize. It was entirely due to his absence, and we on our side on such an important matter did not want to make party advantage or to put the Minister's substitute at a disadvantage.

I have never heard that before. I acknowledge and appreciate it.

I think the Minister may rest assured that it is not the desire of anyone on this side of the House to take a party advantage. I, for one, have refrained from going over the Auditor-General's report to find out small points of criticism. It is necessary for someone to do it, and I hope someone will continue to do it, But I do not want these minor matters continually to obscure the greater issues. I think the Minister will not deny that his round-the-world trip has been of great benefit to him in his management of the portfolio of defence. He cannot fail to have been greatly impressed by what he saw in Australia. He rather unjustly accuses his critics sometimes of wanting to have everything brought up to the guards standard.

I haven't said that.

The Minister used words to that effect two years ago. He accused us of having a standard impossible to attain to in this country. This afternoon the Minister alluded to his critics as those who wished to be prepared for the maximum danger. I have never heard such a contingency in criticisms of the defence force, but we must order our plans so that we can expand for the greatest danger with the least possible dislocation of our ordinary affairs. In Australia the Minister will have seen that this maximum danger is not a figment of the imagination. He has seen that in Australia they think it is a real danger —the inevitable conflict, as they consider it, between western and eastern civilization. We know they are spending a lot of money that they cannot very well afford in preparing for that danger. We know this great danger is not so remote as some ignorant folk imagine, and we ought to do our share in preparing for its incidence on South Africa. The Minister, or whoever wrote this report, fully justifies most of the criticisms that have been made in the past. He says that now for the first time since 1912 the department has reached a state of stability. There were, no doubt, many causes to prevent stability being reached at once. He goes on to say that it is hoped that re-organization has now resulted in settled conditions, under which the department will be able to devote its energies to the successful peace training of the citizens of the Union. What on earth were they devoting their energies to heretofore? Evidently in the past they were not able to devote their energies to that object to the extent desired, but we hope for greater things now and improvement in methods. We base our defence arrangements primarily on the security afforded us by the British navy. That security is likely to exist for a long time, because of the boundaries of the British empire: no less than 80 per cent. are sea boundaries. It is obvious that a large and powerful navy will be in existence for a long time to come, and we will benefit from its existence. So far from my criticisms being directed to preparing for the maximum danger, I devoted most of my remarks to the necessity of preparing against raids. In all military history there has never, I believe, been an unsuccessful attempt at a landing on a considerable scale. What happened to the landed troops afterwards is quite another story. At all events, it shows that a raid is not only likely in the future, but may be successful up to a point. That gives us a line to go upon to arrange for our defence. Against what part of our possessions would a raid be directed? We are interdependent, and if we have power through our independence we have also responsibility, and we cannot expect the navy to keep the seas unless we provide adequate harbours where they can refit and obtain rest and comfort for their crews. That is a primary function of our defence arrangements. [Time limit.]

In order to enable the hon. member (Brig.-Gen. Byron) to continue his speech, I may say that some time ago I asked the Minister whether he intended to take disciplinary measures against a certain officer who had published an attack on his fellow officers in the press. I would like to know whether the Minister has taken any disciplinary measures.

As I was explaining, power and responsibility are political twins. The one must go with the other, and it is, therefore, altogether desirable that we should have this statement of the Minister which I hope will be amplified as to our responsibilities and how we propose to meet them. Also, there is a significant phrase in this report, that the department would be able to devote its energies to the successful peace training of the citizens of the Union. I am glad that the Minister realizes, at least I infer from this statement that he does realize, that peace training is altogether different from war training.

Unfortunately, it is.

Therefore, it is no good blinking the fact that our training and parade movements in peace are altogether different from what we would be called upon to do in war, but I do not deny the value of peace training on that account; I realize that we must prepare for the greater responsibilities in war by a system of peace training that will lead us up to that. Our forces in peace, again, are the foundation for war, not our war forces, but the foundation on which we build. Again, I say we must begin lower down even than our active citizen force. We must begin with the school population. There is another unsatisfactory paragraph in this report where the writer admits that many of the would-be recruits for our active citizen force escape training. The paragraph says—

While there is a gratifying expansion in the cadet force, it will be very desirable that that should be even greater in the future. Another grave adverse factor to efficiency is the unpopularity of service in the active citizen force, which is disclosed in this report. We find that 311 of our citizens were actually prosecuted in the courts for offences against the Defence Act; 1172 cases were submitted for prosecution against citizens not yet posted to units for failing to notify their addresses, and 775 citizens were prosecuted for failing to register, making a total of 2258, which is a very large proportion of young men who are officially reported as having committed offences of this nature against the law of the land providing for our security. The point I want to make is this, that the active citizen force is not popular, and it has not got hold of our young men to the extent to which it should have done. The Minister knows that in a country like Switzerland, military service is looked forward to eagerly by the young men because it has got a grip of the country. A young man is not looked upon as socially desirable if for any reason or other he has failed to complete his military training. I would suggest that to popularize the force a bit more, and to develop what the Minister complains is absent now, civic pride, it is necessary, I think, to go back a little bit and to take a leaf out of the old volunteer book, when every considerable centre had a volunteer corps in which it took a pride and in which men were proud to serve. It conferred, if you like, a certain social distinction upon these people. It is very difficult to develop that morale of a unit under existing circumstances. I realize the difficulty. There are very few regiments now that are in a position to maintain their old and proud traditions, because the older men are drafted away, they are not encouraged to stay, and the younger men feel that if they have put in their minimum amount of training they have done all that is required. I think a great deal might be done towards making the units of the Citizen Force more popular by allowing a certain number of the older men to stay on and develop amongst the younger men that regimental spirit that is so desirable. Coming once more to our naval defence, we are in the unhappy position of being that member of the Commonwealth that on the whole makes the lowest contribution to the naval defences of the empire. We find that the proportion of expenditure on naval defence to the total import and export trade of South Africa is only .08 per cent., the merest trifle. Perhaps that does not convey very much to hon. members, but it may bring it home if I say that this .08 per cent. is less than one three-hundredth of the amount paid by Great Britain. It is only about one-thirtieth of the amount paid by Australia and about one-tenth of the amount contributed by New Zealand. While the Minister is quite right in saying that possibly we cannot do very much in the way of providing vessels for the assistance of the British navy, and I agree with him that the three vessels we have are doing most useful and most indispensable work, there is one direction in which we might expand a good deal, and that is the development of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve to greater numbers. The Minister does not seem enamoured of that idea, but we know that in any great emergency that we may visualize, man power would be indispensable and even a number of partly-trained or fairly trained men whom we could provide to man the ships of the navy or man a cruiser that might be placed at our disposal for the time being, would be a valuable help. Of course, it is out of the question our maintaining a cruiser on our account. It has been said that one gun alone is no gun so one cruiser alone is no cruiser, because if a cruiser has to be laid up occasionally for refitment, repairs, etc., during that time, the coast is unprotected and there is nothing to take the place of that ship and perform her duties. The provision of a South African-owned cruiser is, I think, out of the question, but I see no reason why there should not be a gradual but considerable expansion of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and later on we should work up to the ideal of being lent a cruiser by the admiralty, manned to the extent, say, of two-thirds by our own personnel. Also, I would ask the Minister to seriously consider the question of arranging for officers' training corns in connection with our universities. As the Minister said, trained officers are very difficult to obtain.

Artillery officers.

But all officers are difficult to obtain, and I think steps might be taken in that direction without serious dislocation of the studies of these young men. There is another important matter which is not receiving—perhaps for very good reasons— the attention it deserves, and that is to give our senior officers the opportunities of handling large bodies of troops. That is the greatest difficulty in the training of senior officers— to give them that opportunity. It may be mechanical work, but it is absolutely necessary to handle men efficiently. That is where expansion of the cadets would come in. [Time limit.]

I want to begin with a quotation from the annual report of the Defence Department. On the first page, under the heading " Cadets." in the introduction, we find—

What is the position of the active citizen force on the countryside to-day? We find among the burgers to-day, especially young burgers on the countryside, many who can neither ride nor shoot. The promise was made in the past that an opportunity would be given to young burgers at more or less central spots, to be properly trained. I am sorry that that promise has not been fulfilled. The question in my mind is wherein does the great strength of South Africa lie as regards its inland defence? Undoubtedly it is in the citizen force. It is of extraordinary great value, and it is our duty to see that our citizen force is a good one. As hon. members notice, it is said in the report—

That is what we want, that our lads shall have an opportunity of being trained, in the interests of our people's future. I know, in fact, that they no longer have the opportunity which we formerly had to learn to ride and shoot, and it is gradually becoming forgotten, and many of our boys know absolutely nothing about it, so that the Government should do all in its power to instruct them in the rifle and its use. I should like to quote what an English friend writes to me. I want to quote it to show the Minister what the people on the countryside think. He says, inter alia, apropos of a statement by the Minister that he has enough arms in reserve to be issued in time of hostilities—

I do not want to quote more, but just wanted the Minister to appreciate what the impression of the people in the country is, and what the position in those remote parts is. The people feel that much money is being spent, but that the citizens on the countryside are not considered. That is the impression many people have, and I want to mention a few figures which undoubtedly create the impression. What is being spent on the active citizen force? £14,500; then £8,000 on allowances, £10,000 on uniforms, £6,500 on rations and £1,600 on arms. We further see that the pay amounts to: headquarters, £70,000; salary allowances for the citizen force, £13,000; maintenance allowances, £13,000 and uniforms, £7,500. I find that with regard to uniforms for cadets, £26,000 is spent, while, as I have said, we spend £1,600 on arms for the citizen force. I am quite in favour of cadet training, but if we spend £26,000 for cadet uniforms it is a matter which should give us pause. The cadets can drill in their own clothes, and we can save the amount. I want to instance Switzerland. There the cadets do not drill in uniforms, and yet the Swiss system arouses the astonishment of half the world so far as drill and physical training are concerned. If we spend the money used for uniforms on rifles for the citizens, it will be much better employed. I do not want to go into the exemplary citizen forces of Switzerland and Sweden, but just to quote them as examples. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) spoke about patriotism. I agree with him that we must develop it in South Africa, both among the English and the Afrikaans boys. I read an article the other day on patriotism in the " Outspan." The writer says it is very clear that patriotism must be developed in our young Englishmen by making them understand the great meaning of the history of our people to teach them to feel strongly on the point so that when the cadets are drilled they will think of the history of our country, and know that they can be proud of being bearers of our arms. There undoubtedly is great dissatisfaction on the countryside, and I particularly want to call attention to it. One can address any meeting there, and as soon as defence is discussed, the people become excited because they feel that in that respect they do not get their due. I therefore want to ask the Minister if he cannot use the £26,000 spent on uniforms better in connection with the rifle associations on the countryside. Secondly, I want to urge that the young men on the countryside, where the population is fairly dense, should have an opportunity of training, of learning riding and the use of the rifle. I do not think there is any danger threatening South Africa now from Europe, but we must never forget that gradually the fighting machine is coming down from the north to the south. Our French friends every year take 30,000 to 50,000 coloured troops out of Africa and keep them five years, owing to which a strong black cloud is gradually arising in the north, and our first thoughts are for our white civilization, and of the danger that trained force may be to us. It is, therefore, necessary that our young citizens should be made aware of it while young. We are a small country and inadequately developed, but if we cultivate patriotism in the youth of South Africa, then we shall gradually get a generation of young men who really are patriotic, and who will apply themselves to learn to ride and use a rifle, and who will amount to something in the defence of our country. I am not militaristic, and, if it is possible, I should like war to be abolished. We have the League of Nations, and I should like to see it extended to become a mighty movement in the world. But although America on the one hand holds out the olive branch to us, we see on the other hand that it, as well as other countries, are armed to the teeth. Italy and France are so armed, more than before the world war. We cannot, therefore, but doubt very much about the power of the League of Nations to prevent war in the world, and we must fear that for the present it is only an ideal and that we must expect further wars. Our first thought in South Africa is the defence of our own country, the protection of the country for which we have sacrificed so much blood and property. That is what our young men must know, and I believe that gradually in South Africa, especially on the field of sport, love for South Africa and for each other will be born among English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, and that in the future it is going to play a big role in the life of our people The strength of South Africa, however, lies in the citizen force of the countryside, and in the second place in the air force. I think every South African is proud of the development of our air force. I think that the expenditure of £200,000 for the purchase of airplanes is brought up separately, and is not included here. Everybody feels the great importance of the air force to South Africa. We notice, e.g., how France has developed a mighty air force, and we fear that in time the big fleets may more and more lose much of their value, possibly owing to the air forces. We are grateful for the development of our force, and for the achievement of our airmen. I wanted, however, particularly to draw attention to the dissatisfaction on the countryside. There is a general feeling among the people that they are not getting what they need.

It seems to me that the Minister of Defence is quite satisfied with the defence force. I just want to bring to his notice a few things which I do not approve of, especially in connection with his statement that the defence force is better to-day than it was a few years ago. What is the position on the countryside? I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen). What is the position with reference to the rifle associations? I hope the Minister will find time during the vacation to attend a rifle association meeting, but he must not give notice of his coming beforehand. He must arrive unexpectedly, without their knowing that he is paying a visit, and then he must tell me whether he is satisfied with the position. I will tell him what takes place. The commandant or officer says that on such and such a day rifle practice will take place. The target practice starts early in the morning. Then the farmers walk up, fire the few cartridges they have to, and go back to the land to cultivate it further. It keeps on like that all day. There are never more than four or five people on the range. Can we be satisfied with such conditions? Can we be satisfied at the members of the rifle associations firing 15 shots every three months, that is 60 shots a year, without anything else? What will be the value of such a " trained " force against an enemy which is highly developed and well trained? When they have fired the 60 cartridges the members are satisfied because then they have attended the rifle practice as ordered. But it is no good. The officers themselves go for a short training to Pretoria; they stay there for three or four weeks and attend a course, but they do not even tell the men what they have learnt there, because the associations are entirely disorganized. I do not want to attack the Minister, but I challenge him to come and see, and then to state that the position is satisfactory. I have often attended rifle associations, and I say that that firing of 60 cartridges is useless.

What do you suggest?

That we return to the old system by which youths went for a month or so into camp and received proper training and learnt discipline, and if they go into camp every year for three or four weeks and learn proper routine and the use of the rifle then they will be of some use.

That does not affect the rifle associations.

When a boy has once attended such a rifle practice and course, and learnt to use a rifle and to ride a horse, then we have advanced a good deal. But at present the youths do not come into touch with rifles, there is occasional shooting, but it amounts to nothing. Take my own son; he has also joined a rifle association now. He never had the opportunity of learning how to shoot, and was very anxious to be trained. But now he fires off his cartridges every three months and comes home. It is a hopeless position. Then, another thing. The Minister talks about rifle associations. How are the shoots held? What is the position with regard to rifles? The association consists, let us say, of 40 men, but there are no rifles for them. The whole lot have to fire out of a few rifles, and these become so hot that you can no longer handle them. And the rifles are so used up and worn that if one puts in a cartridge on one side, it falls out at the other. That is the position. There are not even rifles for the burgers to shoot with at the rifle associations. They get no rifles, but must buy them themselves, if they want them, and the rifles are so worn that one cannot shoot properly with them. If a man wants to hit the bull's eye he must borrow his companion's rifle to be able, for once, to make a good shot. That is the way our farmers are treated. Then, as for the four days' training, the Minister said in his speech that it was better than the old system. I do not know what old system the Minister is referring to, probably the old system under the last Government. The Minister says that four days' training is better than a long training.

I did not say that. I said four days was better than nothing.

I agree, but the four days do not amount to much either. What use is it to train once in your life for four days? It only gets the parents into trouble, and the boys get no good at all from it.

I have only one complaint to bring to the Minister's notice, but it is felt throughout almost the whole district, and it is in connection with the active citizen force. It is considered unfair that better provision is not made for the boys when they are called up for a few days' training. I have just received a postcard from a poor fellow who was called up; his parents are practically by-woners on a farm, and he was obliged to go. They had to borrow a horse for him to get in, and he had to be in the village the night before. The following day he had to do exercises all day and remain overnight in the village. This does not cause much trouble to parents who can put their sons in a boarding house or hotel, but it is very difficult for the people who cannot afford it. It is very hard, and provision must be made for the poor lads. I am glad to learn that the Minister said that provision must be made, and I hope he will see to it.

I must say at once that I do not agree with the Minister of Defence. I am sorry to say that when the Minister came into office a change in the force was made. He said that a great change was necessary, but the great mistake he made was introducing politics into the defence force. Politics are carried on in it, and this is the reason why the defence force is unpopular today. I am not one of those who have no time for the defence force; I have been an officer almost the whole of my life; I was one in the time of the old republics, and until quite recently, when I retired. I can assure the House that I had a popular commando. I do not say this to boast, but I always looked after my men. What, however, do we find to-day. Politics play a part in the appointment of officers to-day.

Where?

In the Free State and Transvaal. There was a case quite recently, e.g., in Zoutpansberg. When people nominate commandants and the Minister appoints someone else of a different view, it gives rise to dissatisfaction. That was done in many districts.

Saps, were appointed in my district.

If commandants with different political views are appointed, it often causes dissatisfaction. If my hon. friends do not see that this is going on, then they will not see. The defence force is unpopular to-day and is incompetent to take the field against any hostile invasion. If an enemy attacks us the Minister will run around and shout: "What next?" The first reason for the unpopularity of the defence force is that politics were dragged in, and the second is that the country population, which is the heart of the defence force, on which we ought to be able to calculate, is treated badly. In the first place, therefore, politics are dragged into the citizen force.

Where then?

If my hon. friend had ever been a commandant he would know a little more about it. What happens at the rifle associations? When shoots are being held, there are alternately three, four or five people on the range throughout the day, as the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said. Is that training? The rifle associations are not made attractive.

Too many Saps are appointed.

We had much better organization under the old republican Government than we have to-day. We had popular commandos and we could do anything with our burgers. When rifle practice took place there were not four or five men, but 200 met at the same time, and the Government encouraged it. In every district a fund was provided for prizes. In that way the commandos, and the rifle associations were made popular, and the last Government also did so, but the Pact Government had to break down everything. There is an obligation now to serve, and everything is done by way of compulsion. The Minister must not forget that one cannot catch hares with unwilling dogs. The old people are out of the way today, and the young people of to-day have not learnt to ride like the old people. Of course, many farmers' sons to-day have no horses.

Motors.

Yes, it is very difficult under this Government.

Did you chase the rebels in motor-cars?

No, we had the best horses, but the young people to-day are not trained in the same way as in the past. I know quite well that they have not such an opportunity for riding, but what I want to emphasize is that it is the duty of the Government to educate the people, and to teach them that it is an honour to serve in the defence force, and that they should put South Africa over everything. If we should have hostilities the Government would, in the first place, have to fall back on the police. That is the best organization. The defence force may possibly be put in one place, but if there are two or three places where there is trouble, then we shall primarily have to use the police. Our young people know nothing, and the burgers in the country are practically unarmed. The young boys do not even learn to camp in the open. They sleep in pyjamas. Can they camp in them in the open? If an expert from abroad were to inquire into the South African defence force, he would say that it meant absolutely nothing. If difficulties should come, the Minister will not know what to do. I warn him. The Sap officers must disappear, but I wish him luck with the defence force if nothing but Nationalist officers are to be appointed.

I deplore the speech of the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler). The hon. member says that we have dragged politics into the defence force, but I do not think anyone has made such a party speech this year as he has. The hon. member spoke about horses and motors. Is it the fault of this Government that many motors have taken the place of horses to-day? I will at once say that we have respect for the military achievements of the hon. member for Bethal, but a big man like him ought surely not to make such speeches, and to say that our defence force is rotten. I agree that there is a great deal of room for improvement.

Hundreds of places.

But the hon. member did not say where improvements were to be made. He has only criticized.

Why was the old system abolished?

We still have the same defence force. It seems to me the hon. member's grievance is that too many Nationalists are being appointed as officers. That is the great grievance, but the hon. member must be a little careful. I was an officer in the defence force, and was always complimented on the work I did and the way I drilled my squadron, but because I was a Nationalist I was put out of the force. We must really try to avoid that kind of criticism. I know of many cases where the Minister appointed an South African party man, and where he said that he thought he was the best man for the post, although the Nationalists were very strong there.

Even with us in the Free State.

I do not think that such charges are nice from the hon. member. I admit there is room for improvement, and I will state where I think it can be effected. I say that we are not spending the money we do on defence force in the best way. I say we feel that we cannot provide for our safety in such a way as to be absolutely safe. It is impossible, and our greatest duty is to bring our force into a proper state, and so to create a state of things by which in time of danger, we shall have the best possible defence. I say that every boy must learn discipline at school, and that it is his first duty to obey. He must not only learn to shoot straight, but to go when he gets an order. That must be taught the children on the school benches. If I could alter the educational system, I should like every teacher to pass an examination in military matters. It need not be a difficult examination, no terrible training, but they must at least be able to drill the boys and to instil discipline. In the second place patriotism must be aroused, and after school they can go to camp and train once or twice a year. That will not entail much expense if every boy is taught patriotism and discipline at school, and if the training is subsequently given. Let us change the education laws on those lines. I admit that we cannot afford to give the boys a further expensive military training after they have passed their matric. or B.A.

The hon. member objected to my attacking the Government.

If the hon. member had said it, I should have applauded him. It is a national question. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhunzen) that we cannot attach too much value to the talk about peace. I do not believe in the League of Nations very much. I hope it will effect a good deal, but I fear that war will continue as long as there are human beings, and therefore we must instil patriotism and a spirit of sacrifice into our boys. I want to ask whether the time has not come to consider seriously altering the Education Act, and to see that every boy gets a military training at school.

You admit that the whole thing is wrong.

It is no good talking about this Government and the last. The hon. member is leaving the House after he has finished criticizing. I want to suggest to the Minister and the leader of the Opposition if working in the direction I have indicated, is not worth consideration. Many parents will be opposed to their children receiving military training, but I believe in the old laws of the Transvaal and the Free State, under which every citizen born was a soldier to defend his country in time of trouble. I grew up in the Free State under that system, and I still like it. As young boys, we learnt patriotism and discipline, and that is what we very badly need in South Africa.

Our rules of debate in committee only permit us really to offer a few notes and may I say, friendly suggestions to the Minister. The point I want to make is this: We have now got to the bed-rock principle on which we are going to build our defences. The Minister has admitted that the training that the defence force receives has little reference to war in future.

No, no.

Well, then, I will put the question to the Minister, does he think that the training which the defence force is receiving now will be the sort of training they will put into operation when they are called upon to fight? If the Minister thinks that, he is in a minority in the world amongst those who have given their thought to this subject.

I will answer at once. Certainly the training they are getting now has reference to what they have to put into operation when they fight. The hon. member himself knows perfectly well that a great deal of elementary training has a good deal of relation to their fighting. I certainly never said or admitted that it had no relation to their activities in war.

Obviously the Minister has not followed me. I would ask him if the training which our units are undergoing, the movements they are having, and the weapons they are using, are likely to be of much use in the next war. If he thinks so, all I can say is that he is in the minority. If he, sits down and thinks over the subject, I think he will agree with me that the next war will probably pot be fought with rifles to any extent, but chiefly with machine guns.

Very largely with machine guns, but certainly with rifles, too.

War is changing. The Minister will admit that. What we are training our men to do to-day has no reference practically to what they will have to do in time of war, except for the cohesion and sense of discipline it will give them,. On what should we build? We should arrange to have such a reserve as would readily adapt themselves to any change that might occur in war, and, therefore, I say, give the growing young men, the schoolboys, collegians, etc., such a training, which, received at that age, they will not forget, and which will enable them to adapt themselves intelligently to whatever changes may be forthcoming later on. That, I think, is almost a, truism. We will not have these formations which we see being practised by our defence force units used in war. They are only useful in the sense of implanting discipline, and it is a very slow and, in some ways, painful way of reaching it. I am glad to note that we hear very little objection now to cadets on the score of militarism. I think that, is an exploded idea, and that the more people see of war the more inclined they are to be peace protagonists. I know of no distinguished general either in Great Britain or in the dominions who has not devoted a large part of his energies after the war to promoting the cause of peace. So the idea that by giving boys a certain military training you will imbue them with an objectionable spirit of militarism is an altogether exploded idea, but, unless we are going to scrap all our South African history, we must tell our boys something of the necessity of being prepared to defend the liberty they have by force of arms, if necessary. The advantages are innumerable. The Minister promised to deal with the question of the physical unfitness of a large proportion of our young men. That is a very important matter and all the medical evidence that is available tends to show that many of the physical disabilities that people suffer from when grown up could be detected, and, perhaps, cured if they were taken younger and received proper treatment. I think it would be quite worth while considering the possibility of excusing those cadets who had got the cadet efficiency certificate from further training in the active citizen force.

The best of them are the keenest to go on.

All the better. Those are the men who will eventually make the officers and the non-commissioned officers. But I think the suggestion is well worth considering. Now, with regard to the air force. Again it may be emphasized that this is a country pre-eminently suitable for the development of a very strong air-sense and a very strong air force in time of war. The best way to build up a strong reserve of airmen is to develop civil aviation in this country to a very appreciable extent. The country lends itself to it by the nature of the country—its sparse population separated by long distances—and the atmosphere and the temperament of our young men. I wonder if the Minister has considered that a very warlike tribe, the Arabs of Mesopotamia, are kept from disorder by an air force. The military operations in Mesopotamia are entirely in the air force hands. Surely that will give him a line of thought. If he fears any disturbance from the native population or even outside, there would be the means to his hand to, deal with it. I think the Government ought to consider very seriously the question, of developing air lines or transport, subsidizing them to the necessary extent and so building up a strong reserve of airmen. The problem, when examined in that way, becomes further simplified I think the line I have, indicated would be found to deal with internal trouble, and outside raids would not be of such a serious nature as to cause us to mobilize the whole of our forces. Those raids would be only a preliminary, but if we were in a position to deny them possession of the valuable places that would give us time to develop our vast resources, and if those resources consisted in ten years' time of practically the whole of our adult population which had been trained as cadets, we should be in a sound position. I would call the Minister's attention to the unsatisfactory arrangements about the headquarters staff. The Minister knows well it is a military principle of all armies of the world that no staff officer should hold his position for more than four years at a time. It is considered his period of usefulness has come to an end, and he is apt to get groovy, and it is in the interests of the force, and, perhaps, in his own interest, that he should make way for another map. It is very important that the higher staff commands should not be held indefinitely. I appreciate there are difficulties, but they are not insuperable difficulties and, I am sure, a general change now and then would be to advantage. I am not sure whether we still continue the practice of the interchange of officers with Great Britain, India and so on. If not, it is most essential that should be gone on with. I can see a great advantage to our officers if they had the opportunity of serving for fairly long terms in England and India and, perhaps, attending manoeuvres on the Continent and so on. Again, it would be of great benefit to our forces if we had officers from the British army, or the Indian army out here to keep in touch with us, to give us the latest ideas that were obtaining in the armies they came from and also there is again the essential idea of giving a considerable number of these officers " knowledge of South African conditions [Time limit,]

I read with interest the memorandum of the Minister about the defence force. There are, however, a few points I want to clear up which might otherwise cause misunderstanding. In the first place, I did not think that it would be unworthy of us if we were at war, and had the protection of the fleet of one of the chief members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That was not my argument at all. My point was that, if we claim independence to-day, and at the same time rely on the protection of another, we cannot make the highest claim to complete sovereign independence; it at least is of less value. That is the point I want to make, and I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) recently wrongly understood me, and it appears from the speech of the Minister of Defence to-night that he apparently misunderstood me. The other point I want to mention is that I said that, if we wanted to contribute our proper quota to the British fleet in accordance with the interests of our trade, in proportion to the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, we should have to pay £2,000,000 a year, and not £72,395. which we spend on naval defence to-day. But, as we are unable to spend the £2,000,000, and that £72,395 is not even a drop in the bucket, I said that it might possibly be better used for the land forces. Then, moreover, in case of joint action in the event of war we should be able to give better assistance. As for the memorandum, I only saw it to-night, and I am sorry that I could not go through thoroughly. If I said anything about our defence force, then I did not intend to attack the Minister, personally. I think the country's defence is a national matter. It is a matter of the people, and a country which does not defend itself is not worth being called an independent country, and I say that emphatically. The people ought to be proud of its share in the defence force, and we ought to do our best to arouse that pride. I see things according to the light on my path, and I speak on this matter just as I feel. I have only gone into the memorandum briefly, and if there is anything which literally supports what I said about the defence force, then it is the memorandum itself. I want to quote a few points from it. In the first place in regard to our active citizen force. In my previous budget speech I said that our boys from 17 to 21 years are not being trained according to the provisions of the Defence Act. The average number of boys every year who come between those ages is about 70,000. I notice, however, under the heading " training " that only 7,738 persons took part in the training camps. I asked the Minister of Defence what the membership of the active citizen force in the Free State was, and the reply was, one battery of guns. It follows, therefore, that none of the boys between 17 and 21 have taken part in the Free State peace training, except those who took part in the battery training. The same can be said of the countryside active citizen force in the Transvaal, the Cape Province and Natal. Now I come to the defence rifle associations, of which the members amount to 141,000 according to the annual report. Are they commandos or sports clubs? I say they are neither. If they were sports clubs we should expect the members to take part as sportsmen in the shoots as we used to do in the old days, with clean rifles that shoot well. That cannot be said of the defence force rifle associations. If they were commandos they would be useless, because the members vary in age from 17 to 60, and sometimes 70 years. Hon. members acquainted with the matter will agree with me that such a commando is ineffective. If there is one thing necessary in a commando it is close co-operation within it. For that purpose it is necessary that we have people of about the same age, e.g., people between 17 and 25, then from 25 to 35, and from 35 to 45, and finally people over 45 years. In that way it is possible to get people together who are more or less on the same level as regards physical powers, experience, etc. Only then is co-operation possible. Therefore, in this respect also the defence rifle associations leave much to be desired. I do not merely want to criticize, but also to make suggestions. I see many parts of the defence administration which we can simplify for the simple reason that the only defence force which we can rely on in the Union in case of trouble is the police force. The police have their ordnance and supply sections, and various divisions which, in my opinion could be used to do the same work for the defence force which can then more usefully employ the funds in other directions. The police are well trained, and have the requisite physical powers, and if necessary we can call upon them. We there have the administration which is so established that in time of need it can be extended to build up the whole defence force. I admit that the amount available is not adequate to give the boys and girls the disclipinary training to make them good citizens and citizenesses in the future. I admit that is more necessary than the amount which is available for defence to-day. Fourteen years ago, when our budget amounted to £14,000,000, we could spend quite one-and-a-half millions per annum; to-day the budget is £28,000,000, and we cannot spend £1,000,000. I say this is wrong, because, if there is anything a people needs, then it is a good defence force. No country can be self-reliant and independent if it does not have a force to defend it. What I feel, and what I have already often emphatically said, is that the Minister does not think sufficiently about the discipline of the youth. When the Governor-General recently visited our district I tried to get some of the members of the defence force together for a guard of honour. It was impossible, because they were not properly uniformed and armed. I was not able to find 20 who could form a guard of honour. They were improperly equipped or had no rifles. The Minister must not, therefore, object at my being dissatisfied with the position. The Minister quoted the Rustenburg commando as an example. That is quite right, but we do not find a commandant everywhere such as they have there, one who gives almost his whole time to having a smart commando, but that is not the case at other places throughout the country. If we take the whole country the Minister will agree with me that in regard to the defectiveness of the defence force there is much to be desired, and the sooner its reorganization takes place, the sooner will the burgers be satisfied. The Minister must understand that in the past, the burgers of South Africa were always proud of being the soldiers of the country. I remember well how proud I was when I was 16 years old and could bear arms. It meant that you were a man. It would be a great pity if that spirit were lost.

Mention has been made to-day of the fact that in the appointment of certain persons in the defence force political matters have a bearing, but when one refers to this one is dragging politics. Therefore, I had better say nothing. When citizens recommend persons as commandants of commandos, and the persons are beloved and are not appointed, but others who are not popular are appointed, then such a commando is not popular. Another hon. member has said that the young people can no longer ride and shoot, I think it is the universal experience that a man who cannot ride can hardly take part in a commando, and a man must have been riding some time, so that it is not necessary for him to take beeswax and sticking plaster with him. We will remember the Minister of Public. Works saying a few years ago that the Minister of Defence worked so hard that he was afraid he would collapse if he continued in that way. But. I think that, notwithstanding the hard work, the boys, must learn riding. We must make it a little more interesting. We can do so, for instance, by making the commandos go into the interior, instead of making a camp of tents, often pitched by the sea, where it is sandy and conditions are unpleasant. Say a commando of 100 to 200 men who take supplies with them and to whom blankets, etc., are issued goes from its own district up near a town, e.g., Bloemfontein, then the men not only learn to ride as well, but also how to pack a blanket in front of a horse, and how to tie the kettles and other belongings on to the horse. They learn how to handle a rifle, etc. The Minister will possibly say that this will entail expenditure, but it is necessary if we want a defence force of any value. We must not have people who merely learn to shoot at targets, or who can only sit a horse, but cannot properly ride it, but men who, e.g., are able to travel for fourteen days going and coming. It is not only good for the people, but it will also make it more attractive to the boys of the countryside, and of the towns if, instead of remaining in one place, they can go for a journey of fourteen days.

The hon. member Who has just sat down wants me to spend money like water and for every commando to have three days training every year. Are we preparing for another great war immediately?

Why have we a Defence Department?

So unless we are all armed to the teeth what is the use of having a Defence Department? According to our conception, the actual effective force we could put into the field at very short notice is sufficient to meet any emergency we might reasonably contemplate. As the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) said to-day, we know from the experience of the great war that within a few months you can train men to be very effective soldiers, particularly if they have had training in their youth.

They hadn't motor bikes then.

We have training to-day on foot and on horseback. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) has rather gone to the extreme of wanting a great deal more training and a great deal larger force than this country requires.

What I want is not a bigger but a better force, and a more highly trained force, especially among the younger men.

We are trying to have the citizen force more highly trained. In the Rustenburg commando we have officers who take perhaps an exceptional interest in the training squadron, and that is the direction in which we have to build; In the changing circumstances of the country, however, there are quite a number of little things to-day which are operating against the effective popularity and enrolling of the Citizen Defence Force. We have had a committee considering this matter for some time. With the introduction of the Apprenticeship Act and the insistence by the apprenticeship committees of young apprentices receiving training at technical institutes, there is a continual conflict between one duty and another which is considerably interfering, here and there, with a number of people whom we have to exempt. I must refer again to what I regard as a lack of sense of public duty on the part of a large section of the population in giving youngsters a feeling that because they have to ask to get away earlier on Saturdays in order to attend parades that they are not quite so useful and not so well thought of as other youngsters who have not to do that. The present system is sound, and we have to meet difficulties as they arise. With reference to the remark of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) that £1,600 is only for " make-up " as we have £50,000 worth of arms in the hands of the citizen force. The whole discussion resolves itself into this. Many members want us to spend a great deal more on our defence organization. With our predecessors, we do not think it right in a period immediately after a great war to be extravagant in our expenditure on defence. We believe our arrangements are adequate, and we have to devote our attention to more careful training and expansion on present lines. Go to a citizen force camp, and any officer will tell you on the ninth day of training that they are just beginning to learn and they would like to have another week's training. You have an increasing difficulty on the part of employers if you lengthen the time of training to 16 days. We have to take all these things into consideration. I want another two or three days added, but you have to be careful. The opening remarks I made indicated pretty clearly, I hope, the lines on which we are going, and I do not believe that apart from perfecting what we are doing and expanding in that direction that they are other than the right lines and the proper application of the Defence Act. I would like to refer to cadets which have been mentioned. There was a good deal of doubt expressed as to whether the alterations we were making would not result in less efficiency in cadet training. I have asked, I believe, every officer commanding a district—certainly three of them—their considered opinions as * to the changes. I have been told that certainly at the high schools the standard is thoroughly well maintained, and I believe also in the other schools. Certainly the standard of efficiency for shooting is very well maintained, seeing that South African cadets have won the King's trophy two successive years, and I hope are going to win it again. Apart from any desire to equip ourselves in a more expensive manner, I believe we are spending the money the country cares to afford in the best way we can do at the present time.

I have several points to raise though there are very few points the Minister has not dealt with. One thing that has stood out in the discussion is the demand for more discipline, a need which was referred to a few days ago by the Minister of Justice. The channel through which you will get that discipline best is cadets and the active citizen force regiments. The Minister, for reasons of economy, has reduced the active citizen force regiments very considerably, in proportion to the smallness of those regiments. I have had the pleasure of going to two well run defence force camps and I have seen the impossibility under which the officers labour in getting sufficient men at their disposal to do the ordinary field training. What with camp duties and special classes and so on, they cannot get sufficient men out into the field to give them the full training they ought to have. The discipline in those camps, the general conduct and smartness of the men, and the sanitary arrangements of the army medical corps I think are really creditable, but they are very much pinched for funds and numbers, and I want to emphasize, in time of continuous training. The Minister says he cannot extend the time owing to the expense. I think it is well worth while to expend that extra money. I say those youths ought to be for 10 full days in camp, which probably means a fortnight altogether. The active citizen force regiments are easier than commandos to train because of their being in a smaller area and everyone of them has created a tradition which is being upheld to-day. I do not think they should have been reduced to the extent they have.

They have not been reduced.

Their strength has been relatively very considerably reduced. I know the defence rifle associations did not receive the number of recruits until recently that we expected they would when the defence force was instituted. I welcome these 40 training squadrons, but I believe there are only something like 4,000 men enrolled in them although you are aiming at 8,000. I think this is going to be a most useful innovation. Those men have at least some continuous training. Four days is little enough, but better than no discipline or training which is what happens in the case of the D.R.A.'s now. I would be glad to see that movement increased, but do not neglect the foot regiments in favour of commandos. The horse, even in South Africa, is not going to occupy the same place in warfare that it did in any previous war.

The horse is not going to be here to the same extent.

No, and therefore it is all the more necessary to develop our mechanical transport. When you compare the mobility of these two arms, I say the foot regiments with proper motor transport are going to be more rapidly mobilised, and quite as if not far more mobile than your commando mounted on horses. My view is that the active citizen force regiments are being neglected. This discussion is over a year old I admit, owing to the fact that the Minister went away to Australia, and I think he might have been a little more generous to this side of the House in crediting us with the true reasons for our silence last year. We deliberately refrained from raising questions, so as not to embarrass the Minister of Agriculture who was acting for the Minister in his absence. One postponed question was in regard to these training camps. I believe I am right in stating there were 15,000,000 rounds of rifle ammunition, most of which was presented to the Union, and only about three-quarters of a million was being used annually in defence force camps and district rifle associations and so forth.

You mean live ammunition?

Yes, of course, rifle live ammunition. It will take about 12 years to fire that off at that rate. I would like the Minister to go into this point. I would like to know whether it is not a fact that the old stuff is being issued out to the active citizen force regiments and, naturally there is replacement going on, and that new fresh stuff which is better for shooting purposes is issued out to the district rifle associations and commandos. These active citizen force youths have to fire their test shoots with old stuff which is not as accurate as the newer ammunition, and therefore it is a handicap to them in going through their musketry courses and efficiency tests. I would like to know if that is the case, why it should be done. Whether the D.R.A.'s are clamouring for good stuff and refuse to fire with the old stuff and so it is palmed off on to the other side of the force, I do not know. When the Minister says that the active citizen force have not been reduced much in strength, I think he is wrong.

[Time limit.]

We certainly did away with one of the Peninsula regiments, but there is an inequality in strength in the various units of the active citizen force. We take about four hundred as the right figure and the average all round; that is what we have under consideration to even up. And I think the hon. member (Mr. Struben) is thinking of a unit in Grahamstown which is rather below strength, but it is one of the matters which is under consideration now to even up. The hon. member said that I rather lacked in generosity in regard to their not raising any questions last year, but it never occurred to me that they did not put questions to my colleague in my absence, and I wish to express my appreciation of what I understand was their attitude. In regard to this question of ammunition we have a lot of ammunition, a good deal of war ammunition, that we got in exchange for that American ammunition. I am in monthly expectation of hearing that that ammunition is condemned. After a certain time this cordite does not last. We have been anxious to use as much of that ammunition as it was possible to use. Our consumption is rather over five million rounds a year. I cannot force the D.R.A.'s to use it.

Why not?

I have got no power to tell them to fire that off in musketry. They can buy other stuff. Let me be candid with the House, for the last few years I have felt something of the feelings possibly of the man who was going about trying to utter forged money. This year we have been issuing this ammunition to a considerably greater extent to the active citizen force regiments. It is seaworthy ammunition, so to speak, it is there, but we know that it is not up to the quality of the post-war ammunition that we are now getting.

The Minister stated that he cannot make the D.R.A.'s use this ammunition, but he can make the defence force use it, but surely he should make the D.R.A.'s share in the use of that ammunition until it is finished. My point is that it is not fair to ask one man of our defence force to pass his shooting classification tests with one stuff which is most erratic in its explosive power, while the other man uses good stuff and therefore perhaps shows a much better record.

I will answer that at once. I have no power at all to make any man go to the range and shoot. A part of the regulations is that the active citizen force must go through a certain amount of musketry. I grant you it is not fair, but I do not think that is the result. The test of shooting and general reputation is much more largely determined by the district Bisleys, so I am landed with this amount. I have £70,000 or £80,000 worth still unused. It is one of the relics of the war. We had a large consignment of American ammunition which was very bad, and the British Government as an act of grace exchanged it for the best of their war stocks, but that was not the same thing as post-war ammunition. I am trying to get rid of it. I recognised the injustice of loading the active citizen force units up with it at a meeting I had with the commanding officers at Pretoria. I hope in the course of next year I shall find that is to be scrapped.

I would like to add my meed of congratulation to the Minister for the very generous admission he has made as to our dependence on the British navy. It is an excellent thing that it should come at this particular period of our history. It is the first time, I think, since the government's accession to office that we have had a Minister of the Crown frankly admitting we have something to be grateful for to the British navy and the British people for what they are doing for us. We realize how very little South Africa is doing to assist the British taxpayer in carrying the tremendous load he is bearing on his shoulders. I have here figures recently given in the House of Commons which are well worth repeating as giving some indication of what other portions of the empire are doing, how much the British taxpayer is doing, and how little we are doing in connection with naval defence. In the event of a general upheaval, no country stands to lose more than South Africa if our seaborne traffic were interfered with. It is the British navy which gives us that security and safety which we know will see us through any eventuality, and which alone is responsible for our prestige. In 1927-28 the estimates showed that Great Britain provided £58,000,000 for naval services; Canada, £1,725,000; Australia, £5,736,000; New Zealand, £667,000, including £125,000 as a first instalment of a contribution to the Singapore base; and South Africa, £125,000. The proportion of expenditure of naval defence to the total import and export trade during 1926-'27, was Great Britain, 2.87 per cent. and 2.83 per cent.; Canada, .07 per cent. and .08 per cent.; Australia, 1.63 per cent. and 1.91 per cent.; New Zealand, .60 per cent. and .70 per cent.; South Africa, .09 per cent. and .07 per cent. The expenditure per head of population during 1926-'27 was: Great Britain 306 pence, Canada .16 and .19 of a dollar, Australia 198 and 221 pence, New Zealand 96 and 112 pence, South Africa 121 and 18 pence. Those figures I think are worth listening to, and reflect very little credit on South Africa when we bear in mind how dependent we are on this overseas naval defence. The Minister said it was no good talking about it, and that Britain does this extremely well.

Does she do it for herself or for us?

She is certainly doing it for herself and for us as well, and the Minister sheuld bear in mind her other generosities. Great Britain presented the department of the Minister with 1½ millions worth of aeroplanes, equipment and stores, to say nothing of millions of pounds worth of other war assets. Surely the time has come when we should take this question of our naval defence more seriously and with some pride in ourselves. Our mine sweepers are very efficient, thanks to the naval C.-in-C., but their possibilities and capacities are extremely limited, and if we are not prepared to go as far as the Navy League advocates—that we should offer a cruiser of our own—we might assist the British taxpayer with regard to the burden he is carrying to-day for our benefit by means of a generous annual contribution in view of the tremendous gift we have received from Britain. Perhaps I have put the Minister's words in more emphatic language than he did himself, but I acknowledge with gratitude his admissions. Now this £100,000 expenditure on new aeroplane engines rather surprises me in that the Minister's department should have experimented with different kinds of engines. If there is one engine that his proved itself efficient it is the Jaguar, which I think Cobham and other long-distance fliers used. One fault I often found with this Government is that they will experiment with matters which have already been settled on a larger scale by other people and the results of which are known. It cannot see why we should experiment with aeroplane engines when the experiments have already been carried out in England by the Royal Air Force. There is no trouble in finding out from the air force at home the best engine to use, but if the Minister will read his own report he will find that much of his limited funds have been wasted in purchasing engines which have failed to come up to the test. [Time limit.]

There is another point I wish to raise—that of the uniform. As regards invisibility it is very bad indeed. At 500 yards, in most parts of the country, the men might as well be dressed in black. The shade of grey which has been chosen by the Defence Department is most unsuitable for South Africa. Further, it is very bad stuff as regards the dye, and it does not retain its colour; defence force officers I know say they have to buy two uniforms a year. The Minister shakes his head. I meet these men, who are not wealthy, and they say they have to replace their uniforms more frequently than they can afford.

A bad colour was chosen. In summer, on very green veld, it is fairly invisible, but at other times it is rather striking. But the great difficulty was the choice of a colour, the dye for which will not hang on to cotton.

There is another reason against it. We do not use very much and it costs more than it would if we had a large force or if we used a colour used by some other country of the Commonwealth, or something of that sort. We have to buy small quantities and it has to be especially made, and the expense is therefore higher than it need be. The accoutrements are really a disgrace to anybody. That horrible looking green, it is not a grey, which the canvas is dyed, almost disappears within a few weeks. The fatigue jackets look like white coats in a short time. I think the Minister, if only for the sake of the country's finances, ought to do something. It is expensive for the officers concerned and the men, and expensive for the country in replacements, and it is not at all creditable to see men turned out in those faded uniforms in which they are to-day. I would like to asy a word about what we call " military crime." Under the Defence Act, I believe the magistrates have to try all breaches of regulations, such as not turning up for drills and so on. I know the men object to it. Young men hate having to go to the magistrate's court possibly along with " drunks " and others to answer for what is a crime in the army but what is a minor offence. Parents object to it, and the objection is a very reasonable one. At least district staff officers should be given especial magisterial powers to try these cases under the regulations of the Defence Act. The officers commanding regiments who can very well deal with these matters should also be allowed to deal with them. The present system is ponderous and makes a crime of what is really a minor military offence and in every way it is objectionable. If the Minister could find means of giving district staff officers and officers commanding regiments magisterial powers with regard to breaches of the Defence Act, or of the regulations framed thereunder, he would be doing an excellent thing to make A.O.F. regiments more popular, and removing from the minds of the parents, at least, the objections I have raised. We have heard to-night from the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) that you must popularize the defence force. But when you have a man in the defence force treat him as soldier. If he commits breaches of the regulations certainly make him toe the line and abide by the regulations in the Act, but do it in such a way as to show him that he is being treated as a soldier, and not as a criminal, or a person of that kind.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.