as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the University of South Africa (Amendment) Bill, reporting the Bill without amendment.

Report and evidence to be printed; report to be considered on 27th February.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 27th February.

as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill, reporting an amended Bill.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill withdrawn.

When the committee last considered this Bill, the question had arisen what was the position, or what it ought to be, with regard to the entrance in future of the wives and minor children of those persons who would, under the Bill, fall under the quotas of their respective countries, but who were married and resident in the Union on the 1st May when this Bill would come into operation. The attitude I have taken up before was that ample provision had been made, both under the quota of 50 allotted to each particular country, and also under the unallotted quota of 1,000, entrusted to the Board which is to be appointed under the Bill. Now, hon. members on the other side tried to make out a case for the unrestricted entrance in future of such wives and minor children, and a gesture was made from that side whether we could not grant them that concession for three years. As a result of that I said I would consider that point, but at the same time I said it was only right and just that if we did that, we should reduce for those three years, the unallotted quota from 1,000 to 500. I said I would consider it over the weekend, and tell the committee to-day what I was willing to propose. I have considered the matter very carefully, and in general I should say I think it is right that the Bill should in general be outlined as it is, that is to say, as far as the quota of 50 and the quota of 1,000 are concerned; but at the same time it is only right that provision should be made for the entrance of the wives and minor children of those married and resident in the Union on the 1st May, and that it must be clearly understood that these wives and children must exhaust the quota of 50 and the unallotted one of 1,000. I am willing to put on the order paper as an amendment to be dealt with at the report stage that a new sub-section (c) be added to section 3—

If they get the right of priority to that extent, I think that will meet the situation.

I was not a party to the suggested amendment beyond that I realized that an amendment on the lines of that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) would be some concession. The main objection to the position has not been met by the Minister. The main objection taken was that if we accept the proposal of the Minister, it will mean that the wives and children of residents in South Africa, although they could come in under the 1,000, or under the 750, are not coming in as a right; they will have to get permission. It is true that the board will have to give them permission, in preference to others up to 750, but before they can get that permission, they will have to answer all the questions to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has referred. Difficulties will be placed in their way. The only right principle is that the wives and children should be allowed to come in subject to their answering the requirements of the present immigration law, namely, that they are desirable citizens, not that they should be subjected to all the disqualifications and disabilities laid down in the present Bill. I object to the thing in principle. I believe as a matter of right that anyone who is lawfully in the Union, or domiciled in the Union, or anyone who comes in under the quota, should have the right to bring his wife and children, and, I think, his aged parents, for that matter, into the Union, provided they answer the requirement of the immigration law that they are desirable. Otherwise this is a Bill to prohibit any further immigration into the Union. In spite of the very startling ideas which some hon. members seem to hold on the question of family rights, hon. members who appear to be quite unconcerned about the breaking up of families. I submit that the right principle to adopt is that family life shall not be broken. Those people who come from Lithuania are so much concerned with family life that that is one of the strongest principles they hold, and if they find that under this Bill, if they come to South Africa they may not be able to get their families out afterwards, you will have no further immigration from Lithuania. Possibly that is what the Minister wants. If that is what he wants, why is he not frank about it? Why does he not say that the Bill is one to prohibit any further immigration? I am sure that hon. members on the other side of the House are still believers in the ten commandments. In all humility, may I suggest to the Minister an eleventh commandment? Practise Christianity. If hon. members accept that eleventh commandment, they will not then have the position that we are faced with at the present moment. I move the amendment which stands in my name—

Under the amendment I have moved, provision is made that anyone who is domiciled in the Union, or anyone who becomes a lawful resident in the Union, will have the right to bring his parents, wife and children here, provided they satisfy the requirements of the immigration law.

Will the Minister inform the House whether the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is in conflict with Section 2. It appears to me that it is in conflict.

I am proposing an additional proviso by which certain other people will be exempted from the operation of that clause.

I submit that there is no essential conflict between the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and what we have passed. Under the clause, anybody who comes in as part of the 1,000 quota must perform one of two sets of conditions, and the second set of conditions is that such a person must be the wife or child of a person permanently resident in the Union. What the hon. member for Troyeville proposes is to say that the latter class of person shall be entirely outside the scope of the Act. That is to say they shall be allowed in free from any restrictions proposed by the other sections of the Act. Subject of course, to existing immigration laws; and therefore there is no conflict between the amendment moved by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the provisions already agreed to.

No, I am not satisfied on that point.

Then I take it you are putting the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville. I would like to give a word of appreciation to the Minister of the Interior for the way in which he is endeavouring to meet the difficulties of this side of the House. Let me recall that at the last discussion, many members, on this side of the House felt it was a mistake—almost a crime—in a law of this kind to compel the wives and children of persons already living in South Africa to run the risk of coming in only as part of the quota. We thought they should have an indefeasible right to come in irrespective of anything except the existing Immigration Act. It seems that the Minister was impressed with the arguments we laid before him and that he has endeavoured to meet us half-way. But I will submit that the amendment he has moved will not meet the position. The best way to meet it would be to accept the proviso moved by the hon. member for Troyeville. Let me point out what the suggested amendment really means. Under Section 3, provision is made—

That is to say, the board may permit persons to come in. Then the Minister says: provided that the board shall grant all the applications for admission to enter the Union under this section, but not exceeding 750 in any calendar year, made by or on behalf of wives and children under 21. In the first place, it seems to me these conditions are in conflict. Does the Minister mean these wives and children will be admitted in any event, whether the board wants to have them or not? If it is his intention to meet us to this extent, I suggest that sub-section (c), as now drafted, does not bear out that meaning clearly; it looks to be in conflict with sub-section (1), and sub-section (1), therefore, should be amended to read “Subject as hereinafter provided in subsection (c)”, so that the provisions do not conflict. But what does the Minister say? He says he will allow wives and children to come in, but only up to the limit of the first 50, and as part of the quota of 1,000. Now has the Minister any figures to show how many have come in during past years? I have not looked the point up, but all I can say is that if the number of women and children who are likely to come in is so large as to exceed the quota, then in effect we are closing the door altogether. This practically means we provide that after a certain day there shall be no more immigration from the countries of southern and eastern Europe. I ask the Minister to tell us the figures of immigration of women and children in past years, and to give us some information as to how many are likely to come in under this new provision. Since last discussion was held I have looked up the laws of Canada and the United States. Both impose a stringent limit on immigration, and in the case of both an exception is definitely made in the case of wives and children of those domiciled in those countries and they are not part of the quota; they have an absolute right to come in. The only logical way to proceed is along the lines of the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville. But I think he is going too far in including parents. I move—

I think we should confine our plea to the wives and minor children of persons already living in this country. If we include parents, we might include uncles, aunts and cousins. Quite definitely, wives and children stand on a different footing to any other relationship. If the hon. member for Troyeville accepts this, he will secure a wider support than for the amendment as it stands at present.

Regarding clause 3, sub-section (5), that has been agreed to by the committee, and if we allow the amendment by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that nullifies the whole sub-section as agreed to. The very same persons who are subject to certain provisions are also allowed to enter free. So I have to rule this amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville out of order.

I wish to point out the difference between this amendment and my amendment is that under the sub-section referred to those coming in would have to satisfy all provisions of clause 3, by means of necessary examination. In the amendment that I have submitted the real object is that those people shall be allowed to come in provided they are desirable immigrants. I would point out this, that when the discussion took place, the hon. Minister will remember, the whole question was discussed on this paragraph. We then said we were to move the deletion of this sub-section (5) if we could get in assurance that something on the lines of the amendment I have moved would be accepted by the Minister. It was because he was going to consider such an amendment to clause 9 that the House agreed that the discussion should be adjourned until we came to clause 9. That was the position.

It must be clear to hon. members that we cannot have a section imposing certain conditions under which specified persons will be allowed to enter the Union, and then at the end of the Bill to make a proviso that these very same persons can be exempted from these conditions. I cannot allow the amendment at this stage. The hon. member will have an opportunity at the report stage to move in the direction he has pointed out.

May I point out that paragraph 1 of sub-section (1) of clause 3 deals with all wives and children whether they are wives and children of persons who are here now, or the wives and children who may come in hereafter? I think I would be in order in moving an amendment to clause 9 to the effect that the Act shall not apply to the wives and minor children of persons lawfully resident in the Union. They will not come under the same objects as in paragraph 5, sub-section (1), of clause 3. Should I be in order in moving as an amendment a new amendment exempting wives and children of persons lawfully resident here now ?

That can only be moved at the report stage.

I was trying to make this point. I was endeavouring to make my submission to you, and you yourself expressed yourself satisfied that an amendment could be moved. At a later stage you apparently reconsidered the matter and came to the decision you are making now.

Sub-section (5) refers to the very same people you are dealing with now.

I read that section to you. I took it that it was that very sub-section which was causing the difficulty you were expressing. When I was on my feet I was actually endeavouring to show that there was no conflict between the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and that section which I have read out to you. I think that was the section that was causing the difficulty. I shall now try and show that there is no conflict between the amendment now moved and the section referred to. Of course, if there is, you cannot allow this amendment. Unless you are forced to the view that they are in conflict with each other you would not rule out the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville. This section 5 enquires into the context. I must say that, at first blush, it looks to be entirely on the same point. If you read sub-sections (5) and (6) and read the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville as it appears on the order paper, it looks as if the two are in conflict. But look at the setting under which sub-section (5) finds itself. The setting occurs in the word “provided”. It says provided every person so admitted must conform to one of two sets of conditions. The first is that he must be a person of good character and assimilable, and not likely to be harmful to the economic welfare of the Union. Further, he must not follow an occupation that is already full up. That is the first set of conditions. He must conform to that, or, in the alternative, he or she must be a wife or child. They are laying down conditions that those persons who come under the 1,000 quota must conform to it. That does not relate to the original 50, but to the unallotted quota of 1,000, and it is confined expressly to that. What does the hon. member for Troyeville say? He says “I do not care what you say in regard to the 50 or to the unallotted quota. My contention is that the wives and children of people already living in the Union shall be allowed to come in free of any quota, be it the 50 quota or be it the 1,000.” The provisions of subsection (5) are very narrow in their application, applying only as one of the conditions to be fulfilled before anybody can be allowed in. I submit that there is no conflict really between the amendment and sub-section (5) as it appears in the law already passed.

The sub-section (5) specifically refers to the wives and children, and they are allowed in under the unallotted quota. The amendment again refers to the very same people exempting them from that quota. That is in direct conflict one with the other. For that reason I must rule this amendment out of order. Again I say that during the report stage the hon. member will have an opportunity of bringing forward an amendment on those lines.

I should like to ask for your guidance. You have ruled that amendment out of order. I do not contest your ruling. Clause 9 specifically exempts certain persons, which certain persons the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) desires to exempt from the operations of Clauses 1 and 6. Supposing this committee decides to amend that preamble to Clause 9 and says that the provisions of Sections 1. 3 and 6 shall not apply to those persons. In that case would not my hon. friend be in order in adding his amendment to those already established ?

Assuming the position to be as it is now, and if there are more than 1,000 individuals besides the number of wives and children, does that mean that the difference between the numbers provided for by the Minister and the others would be definitely excluded ?

I cannot rule on hypothetical propositions, and I cannot allow any further discussion.

I move—

I am very sorry, but, for the very same reason, I have to rule the amendment out of order.

I move—

This evidently is a misprint. I made it quite clear to the House that we shall leave the right to anyone who on 1st May is resident in the Union, and whose wife and minor children are overseas, to introduce them into the country. We want to leave that right. Another point I also wish to make quite clear is that all these persons so introduced into the country shall be included under the quota laid down in the Bill. I have suggested to the House that they shall be included under the 1,000 unallotted quota only to the extent of three-quarters. That is to say, up to 750 they shall have the right to come into the country. Only 250 would then remain for the others whom the board might wish to allow into the country as desirable immigrants. A point has been raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), which, I think, we must admit is right, and that is, as Clause 3 stands now, it is not necessary for the board to allot the 750 out of that 1,000; they may even say they are not going to allot a single one out of the 1,000, and then, of course, the wives and children would, to that extent, be excluded. So I would suggest the House leave it to me to introduce the necessary amendment at the report stage of the Bill, to make quite sure and clear what I intend—that they have the absolute right to come in—a right of priority over others. I have considered the whole question very carefully, and have gone just as far as I possibly can to meet the wishes of some hon. members. As far as the suggestion of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is concerned, I cannot consider that for a moment, as it would open the door to the admission of the parents of people already here. A large number of those who come to this country are between 20 and 30 years of age, so their parents are comparatively young, and if they were allowed in, they would ask to be allowed to introduce their children as well, and that would open the door too wide. Last year over 600 married people came into the country with their families, but I have not the figures for the other years.

What would happen if women and children desire to come in in excess of the number of 750 ?

They may probably have to wait for a few months.

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

It is necessary, as everyone can understand, to prevent all sorts of cases from being brought before the courts. In case of discrepancy, the court will say the original Act shall prevail. If we make it quite clear that this Act shall prevail, no misunderstanding or difficulty will arise.

I do not think “discrepancy” is the right word to use in that context. I move, as an amendment—

I accept the amendment.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

I move the amendment so that if this Bill is passed, as I am afraid it will be, it will be in effect for a period of three years. My reasons are, in the first place, this is entirely novel legislation, as far as we in South Africa are concerned, and it is only right that, instead of making a general law, we should continue it for a few years, and by that time we can reconsider the whole position. That is what took place in the United States of America, which the Minister so badly followed. When the first quota Bill was introduced there—and it was a proper quota Bill—it was laid down that it should be effective for a period of two years, so that the Government, Congress and the Senate, could go into the whole question, whether it was working adequately or otherwise. I am leaving it till 1933, so that the Government and the Minister can decide for themselves whether there is any need for this law then, or amend it, or drop it altogether. The second reason why I submit the amendment is that I rely on the Minister’s whole contention when he moved the second reading, and assured us he is not really against these people as such, but said we can allow only a certain proportion, as at present we have reached saturation point, as it were, and there is a shrinkage of the English-speaking population coming into South Africa, of which type we want more. May I point out to the Minister that if that is his contention, it is surely right that the provisions of this law shall apply for only a certain period, and between now and 1933 we may find there is an increase in the number of the immigrants coming from Great Britain, the British dominions and Nordic countries, although I do not know whether the Minister knows what a Nordic country is. I have looked up the matter, and find Lithuania is a Nordic country, and Germany and particularly Prussia, Slavonic and not Nordic at all. Parts of Great Britain, and Ireland, are Celtic, and not Nordic. There is another reason; it may be that the Minister, in his new-found love for English-speaking people, may decide in 1933 to introduce legislation in favour of state-aided British immigration, a proposal in which I will support him, and which will have the support of a large number.

The hon. member must confine himself to his amendment.

I am doing so. I am giving reasons for my amendment. If the Minister is honest about it, and says there shall be a greater proportion of English-speaking immigrants in 1933, there will be no reason for this legislation. This proposal of mine is not a novel one; in 1920—I am referring to only one session, and I think we have had similar Acts in other sessions—a number of Acts were passed in this House and limited in their effect. The precedent is there, and the reasons have been given by the Minister.

I fear I cannot accept the amendment. In the first place, I think that legislation of this kind ought to come as little as possible before this House and the country, and also we ought to intervene as little as possible with legislation which has once been passed. For many easily-imagined reasons we cannot accept the motion. It so happens that the motion of the hon. member to enact the Bill for three years only, will just bring us to the eve of the probable date of the next general election. Then we should once more bring the whole matter before Parliament whether the Act should be introduced afresh or not. I ask whether it is desirable, or in the interests of the country, that a discussion of such a serious matter should take place just before the election, and whether it can then be dealt with purely on its merits? For this reason, I cannot accept the motion. If this Government, or a future one, after a number of years’ experience, has good grounds for altering or repealing the Act, then they must simply take the responsibility of it, and introduce such a motion.

I think the Minister should be congratulated on his exposition of political expediency. His explanation is that my amendment is apt to be inconvenient, and he has made reference to an election. That is just my point, that this Bill deals with the whole question before an opportunity is allowed to the people of the country of expressing their opinion with regard to it.

Amendment put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Buirski, Coulter, Kentridge, Madeley, Nathan and Rockey) voted for the amendment, the Chairman declared it negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the schedule,

I move—

It is a very small amendment, and in asking the Minister to accept it, I can assure him it will cause him no trouble. In speaking in reply on the second reading of the Bill, the hon. the Minister admitted that the number of immigrants who came from Greece in the preceding year barely exceeded the quota. He was, however, wrong in the number he gave. The total number which came in from Greece in 1929 was 207, and that number probably includes the wives and children. It is well known that a Greek does not go to any foreign country without taking his wife and children with him. It will, therefore, be seen that what I have asked is a small concession. At the second reading speech of the hon. the Minister (Dr. Malan), it is said that he classed the Greeks with the Asiatics, which has hurt the feelings of the Greeks very much, and I hope he will take the opportunity now of saying either that he did not make that statement or if he did, that he was mistaken and regretted having said so. I would like to read to the committee a little circular letter which has been addressed to all hon. members by Archbishop Isidore of Johannesburg and three other gentlemen. It is dated 11th February, this year, and reads—

I would like to say that the Turks will not fall under the quota of the Greeks—

I understand the word assimilable has been used in the United States to refer to persons who used the language of the country to which they were immigrating, and also that their form of religious worship was well known. It has been stated that the largest wheat-grower in the Transvaal is a Greek. I would ask the hon. member for Kroonstad to relinquish his objections and allow my amendment to pass.

An argument has been used throughout the debate on this Bill that it is directed against a particular race, the Jewish race. If we were to accept what the hon. member is now proposing, and if his motion were passed, then it will not be the last because there are other countries as well that hon. members would like to insert. Then we shall get to the position that it will look as if this Bill was only aimed at one race. A good proof that that is not so is that it is not only these countries, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania that are excluded, but the restriction is also applied to Greece, Finland, Czecko-Slovakia and other countries; and if we are going to exclude one after the other of these countries then we shall soon reach the position hon. members say we are in, which really is not a fact. We shall then be giving good cause for the old charge against which I have throughout objected. The hon. member pleaded for Greece, and referred to the United States. One of the countries which the United States has most strongly restricted is Greece. America has a population of 125,000,000 and she only allows Greece the right of 100 immigrants compared with our 50. Our quota is therefore much more liberal. After 1927 it was a little more; in any case it was only about 300. My actual objection the hon. member has not mentioned, viz., that Greece effected an exchange with Bulgaria, Turkey and Asia-Minor and other countries of people born in Greece. The exchange affected about 1½ million men. Those people who were born in Greece and who do not wish to retain it any longer as their native land are now residing in the surrounding countries. If then we exclude Greece from the restriction, we are going to open the door for that 1½ million people, or a quarter million of them to come to South Africa, although Greece does not want them. For that reason it is dangerous and undesirable to make this alteration, and to leave Greece unrestricted.

I think it should not be difficult to meet that objection. There are a great many refugees who have come over from Greece and Turkey, and who were born there. Under the wording of this Act they would not have been born in Greece if they were born in Turkey even though they might be Greek citizens. Why not then confine Greece for the purpose of this Act to the boundaries it had when we made this treaty? The Minister has not yet dealt with the question of this treaty of the 10th November, 1886, under which those who were nationals were permitted to enter the Union. I make a suggestion. The hon. Minister knows that treaty to exist—the information has been furnished by the Minister of Mines and Industries—if the treaty is in existence I suggest in order to restrict the terms of this amendment we should add words to make it relate to Turkey and Greece as they were when this treaty was made. In this way the Minister can avoid denouncing the treaty. I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the schedule, and I should like to ask why some countries are not included in the Bill. Why have you excluded Greece from the schedule and included Spain? I believe Portugal is also included, probably because she is a neighbour of this country? Why do you include Spain and give her all the liberty she wants?

Because Spaniards do not come here.

I refer particularly to Spain, although I do not want to see it deleted for that would be an injustice. But I consider the whole Bill is an injustice and gives more power than is required, power which is included in the 1913 Act which worked very well. My hon. friend (Mr. Coulter) referred to the treaty of 1886. There is an agreement between three parts of the Union and Greece and the hon. the Minister in one fell swoop says: "I am not going to regard this treaty That may be a very serious matter indeed. It has never been denied that that agreement exists between Greece and three portions of the Union, and you may have some trouble over it. Greece may become so powerful that she may swamp South Africa. She may send her fleet over here some day, and may swamp us unless we call on our big brothers across the sea. Let us recognize the rights of these people which exist by reason of the existing treaty.

These amendments put and negatived.

Schedule, as printed, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

I should like to ask what this applied to.

Only recently we had on the establishment of the Union Tender Board, a Government buyer. But we consider the time has arrived to reorganize the whole buying system. The Government buyer was retired and a Government Supply Board was established, while a Tender Board was given increased powers and much more to do with the actual buying.

You do not give the actual salaries that are paid. I take it that these are only salaries for a portion of the year. Then also you do not give the grade.

I think the Controller has a salary of £1,200 a year, and the secretary is graded first class.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Pensions”, £50,238.

In regard to Vote 7 (A) old age pensions. I think there are hundreds or even thousands who are receiving these pensions, and they are not entitled to them. I say that deliberately. I should like to ask whether some other method, by way of a commission, can be established so that each individual case can be gone into. Right through the country there is a general cry that there are hundreds of people enjoying pensions to which they are not entitled.

I do not know whether the hon. member realizes it, but he has made a very serious statement. From time to time, hon. members have represented to me that certain people in their constituencies are receiving pensions to which they are not entitled. If such cases are brought to my notice, they will be investigated by the department. In very few cases have pensions been improperly awarded. Parliament has laid down specific provisions under which pensions can be granted, and in all those cases we have enquired into, only a very few have been found in which people by giving wrong information, or perhaps in a few cases, deliberately misleading information, have obtained pensions to which they are not legally entitled. In all those cases, the pensions have been cancelled. I do not think the hon. member is correct when he says there are hundreds of these cases.

There is no doubt there is considerable feeling in regard to the allocation of pensions. The question is whether the subsequent reading of the Act really coincides with the intention of Parliament when it passed the measure. I understand that if a farmer who may have been making a thousand a year for the last ten years makes a loss in one year, although he may have capital worth £5,000, he is entitled to go to the pension office and receive a pension of from £30 to £50 a year.

No.

The Auditor-General’s report gives the case of a man with property worth £4,200, and he gets a pension, although that was never the intention of Parliament. I am perfectly certain that even the strongest supporters of old age pensions—and the Minister of Finance is one of them—if a case like that had been suggested when the Bill was going through the House, they would have said no to granting pensions under such circumstances. The Minister should take the matter up and clarify the position, because these cases are doing harm to the whole theory of old age pensions, and to some extent, making a farce of it. I do not go so far as to say there are hundreds of cases, but even half-a-dozen cases make people in the districts in which they occur very dissatisfied with old age pensions. I hope the Minister will take steps to obviate such a ridiculous state of affairs as a man with £4,000 worth of property receiving an old age pension.

I do not think there is anything in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The Act lays it down that if a person has fixed property, for instance, and he does not put that to profitable use, an income is presumed to accrue from it on the basis of 4 per cent. The case the hon. member referred to occurred in this way. There have been instances in the north-west of the Cape Province where, as a result of droughts lasting three or four years, although the owner had tried to carry on farming operations, he was not able to draw a single sixpence. These cases come under the Act in which it is laid down that the actual income of a person is taken from his property, and if a man does not use his property, we presume he derives a certain income from it. But I do not think an award under the circumstances outlined by the hon. member would be against the intention of Parliament. Of course, when there is an actual income from property, the pension is cancelled. All these cases are reviewed from time to time.

I want to point out to the Minister that there are other cases besides where people get nothing from their property owing to drought. I want to call the Minister’s attention to certain cases, viz., those of people who have attained the age limit, and are in possession of a house and the surrounding erf valued at from £500 to £600. Owing to the man living there having no direct income from his house and erf he gets an old age pension. I think it is time that not merely the earnings of a man should be taken into account, that we ought not to grant pensions on the basis of what a man’s income is per annum, but on what be possesses.

But that is done.

No, it is not done. I am now coming to my point. In cases in my constituency where things are rather irregular, there are people who get pensions without being entitled to them. It would perhaps be better to have a more or less local committee who could make an enquiry in place of the police, because policeman Brown at Potchefstroom will probably act quite differently to his colleague at Lichtenburg. I am not talking from prejudice, but I wish that proper care were taken to put the old age pensions on a sound basis. I suggest that the Minister should not leave the grant of pensions only to the report of the police, but that the time has come to have a committee in a constituency, or group of constituencies, to report on the desirability of the granting of old age pensions. The position is rather difficult because the man who owns property valued at £500 or £600, but gets no income from it, gets an old age pension, while another who has a small income and possesses nothing else, suffers damage in consequence, because he then gets no pension or a smaller one. He is therefore worse off than the man owning £500. I hope the Minister will go into the matter, because there is dissatisfaction on the countryside about this state of affairs.

Why do not the hon. member, and other hon. members who know of such cases notify them to the department? The hon. member says that it is not taken into account when a man occupies his own house, but I say that it is. A certain amount is added in calculating his income for the occupation of the house; then the hon. member says that a policeman in Potchefstroom will possibly decide differently to one in Lichtenburg about a case. The pension, however, is not granted as a result of the report of the police constable. We use them to obtain certain information, but the pension is granted upon the replies that are given to special questions put in a form fixed by the regulations. If there are sound objections let us have them. Where there is any doubt an enquiry takes place, but I must say that we usually find that the people are entitled to a pension. The hon. member advocates committees in every district. What position shall we have then? We shall have no uniformity but a committee in Potchefstroom, e.g., will exercise great care but a committee in another district will be much more generous. There must be a central authority, and all pensions must be granted on the same basis.

I am thankful for the information. I am basing my remarks on what the Chief Pension Officer in Pretoria told me. I brought a case to his notice of a man who occupied a house and erf, and drew a comparison between it and another case that was different. I was then told that the Minister considered the matter according to income. It may be true that action is not always taken according to the report of the police officials, but there ought to be a local committee, or, in any case, an inspection to prevent unfairness.

I hope that the Minister will not accept the suggestion. If we are to have local committees the position will be hopeless. My idea is that even if it costs a little money an independent committee from some other place shall go through the whole country when it will undoubtedly be found that many people are drawing pensions who are not entitled to them.

I think, from the criticisms which have been made, the Minister must recognize there is something wrong. It seems to me the regulations require tightening up a little, and probably under the Act the Minister has the power to make regulations. There is one point—“profitable use”. It is a very big question what that is. If I have a 2,000 morgen farm and put 20 head of cattle on it, just to put the pension people quiet, is that “put to profitable use”? It seems to me there are many who are unfairly getting a pension, and I only hope that the Minister will recognize we are only helping him to tighten this thing up.

The only way to help me is to bring specific cases to my notice; this is not the first time.

I agree with the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski). I am not in favour of local commissions. We have too many commissions in this country, and too many people wandering about looking after other people’s business. I agree you must have central control. The Minister should bring in some amendment of the Act if he has not enough power, so that he can stop it.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has not quoted any case where it is over £50. A farm may have a paper value of £3,000. What the hon. member forgets is that if you take a place like Namaqualand, which has been drought-stricken for years, whatever value you may put on a farm these people are in the hands of the Government because these old people must have support. If the hon. member means these old people must receive relief, I cannot see how the Government can act in any other way. [Auditor-General’s report read.]

I think the views put forward by the Minister are perfectly fair, and nobody wants to take away the pensions quoted by him. But these cases are not always assessed on the basis instanced by the Minister—it is not always possible. When you assess on the value of the crops, i.e., ascertain the value of the usufruct on that basis, you must be careful to see you do not encourage a person who will not work at the expense of a person who does work. A person who works and obtains a small return which places him above the pension limit will get no benefit, while a person who will not work does get the benefit.

I want to amplify what the hon. member here says. In one case seemingly the old people let their farm, or portions of it, to their children. If they do so at ridiculous prices, why should the state pay their old-age pensions? The only thing I want the Minister to feel is that there is a case here for investigation. If he cannot deal with it by regulation, he must amend the Act.

I think that all the complaints are very far-fetched. I represent a stricken constituency. Complaints are often made to me. I have investigated them and found that in most cases the complaints are unfounded. There was, e.g., a man with a farm of 4,000 morgen, but for all the years he had no income from it, because he could only run a few cows and ostriches on it. Is that man now to be deprived of his pension? If hon. members will only enquire, they will see what the position is. In every case I asked that all information should be given to me, and I found, in most cases, that the complaint was due to jealousy.

To interpret the Old Age Pensions Act too strictly, and to narrow it down too closely, would, I think, be contrary to the spirit of the measure. The intention of the Act is to grant old age pensions, and I would be sorry to see anything done which would have the effect of preventing deserving persons from receiving the pensions the Act was intended to confer upon them. We should manifest a liberal spirit in administering the Act. I would oppose the idea of a board administering it, because we should then have poor relief instead of old age pensions. These pensions belong to the old people as a right, and I think members generally desire that the Act should be liberally administered.

The whole Parliament is concerned in the matter. We are all in favour of old age pensions, but still it is the duty of Parliament every year to go into the matter and to see that the Act is properly administered. I am convinced that the Minister is doing his utmost to administer it properly, but it is very difficult. I know of complaints about people, who draw a pension, abusing the money.

I should like to remedy that if the cases are brought to my notice.

Such complaints lead to the system becoming unpopular with the taxpayers. The original estimate for pensions was £800,000, but now, after two years, it is already £1,200,000. Those things have a marvellous way of growing, and the pension burden is getting larger every year. We should like to see every deserving person who needs a pension getting it, but yet there is a danger that there may be sound complaints, and we must try to prevent abuse, otherwise there will be no confidence in the administration of the Act. I do not know how the Minister can obviate it, but I think Parliament can expect things to be investigated, because we have to vote the money every year, and must see that everything is fairly carried out.

I must say that, according to my experience, nothing has yet come under my notice of so serious a nature as to force us to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act should be altered. I think that the machinery also is good. It may possibly be found later on that the Act and the machinery can be improved, but as things are to-day there seems to me to be only one possible way of preventing abuse, and that is not only for hon. members of this House, but everybody in the country, to bring special cases to our notice, when they are investigated.

It is a very delicate matter.

Everything is treated confidentially. Complaints have already come in, and I instructed an investigation by the magistrate and the police, but I can give hon. members the assurance that we have had very little success in cancelling pensions. We found that in nearly all the cases the persons were entitled to them; as for abuse, the department has the right of intervening, and to pay the pension to a certain person who administers it on behalf of the pensioner, and we are taking this step. I hope that hon. members who actually know of cases of abuse will bring them to the notice of the department. As for people in old men’s homes, it has been found that old pensionable people were living in many of the institutions. The provincial administration then asks to draw the pensions for such people. It was only allowed if the old people consented. The Treasury has never withheld a pension without the consent of the pensioners.

The remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen), when we discussed this question on a previous occasion, had reference to old people resident in infirmaries and homes. The hon. member made the statement that in a number of cases these old people were no longer receiving pensions because of certain action taken by the Treasury. The hon. member must have been misinformed. A number of these old age pensioners have been housed for a long time in these institutions. After the Act was passed, a suggestion was made to the Treasury by the provincial authorities to the effect that the Treasury should in future pay these pensions over to them. The attitude which the Treasury took up was that in no case would we be prepared to do that unless the provincial authorities obtained the consent of the pensioner. These unfortunate people were housed at an expenditure much in advance of the amount of the pensions, and the provincial people said: “If we have to carry this burden of maintaining the old people, this amount should be paid over to us.” In addition to that, I took up the position that the amount of 2s. or 3s. a week should be left to the old people by way of pocket money. In no case have we withheld or cancelled the pension, unless the pensioner voluntarily gave his consent to the provincial authorities. I think hon. members will agree that this was in the interests of the pensioners themselves.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply, but I have not been misinformed on this question. I am fully alive to all the arrangements that have come about, and it amounts Do the same thing. I thank the Minister for his assurance that under his personal ruling the arrangement was not to be entered into without the consent of the old age pensioners themselves. I can assure the hon. the Minister it has been a formal matter to invite the pensioners to consent to the arrangement. Their books are asked for, and then handed back; the man has no option. We know that no other institution in the country could possibly house anyone for £2 10s. a month, and we know that the provincial people were housing these people, and no exception was made to them by excluding them from the benefits of a pension. But the moment they received it, the provincial administration at once took advantage of the opportunity to augment their funds, and approached these indigent old people with a view to participating in the benefits which Parliament had conceded to them, and expect them to pay 25s. a month. It is true in many cases these old pensioners had gone out and drawn their money and, having the unaccustomed sum of £2 10s. in their pockets, they had a good time, and returned with not much left, with the result that the provincial administration realized at once that if they were to be allowed the privilege of drawing a pension in some cases, they (the provincial people) were not likely to get the amount required from them for their keep. I want to assure the Minister that the old people here in the Cape Province are not given the voluntary right of becoming parties to these arrangements. I say it is quite unfair. They appreciate the dignity of receiving £2 10s. and of paying over a small balance of it to the provincial authorities. I quite understand the Minister not being a party to it, because (a) the pensioner has to consent, and (b) the province pays 2s. or 4s. a week pocket money to these people. If these old people are allowed to pay a portion of their pensions to the provincial administration by way of board and lodging, they have some dignity left; but they have been deprived of the right which Parliament has given them. I assure the Minister they have not been given the right to elect whether they should draw their pensions and pay the balance over to the provincial administration or draw from the treasurer the whole amount. I ask the hon. Minister how many pensioners have not come into this scheme; my information is there is not one. One I know at least was forced into the scheme; that is, he was asked for his book, he did not know what for. When he found he had nothing, he left the infirmary. I want to say that this arrangement is unduly adding another indignity to the hard lot of the old age pensioners.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations”, £32,634,

With reference to the additional amount of £32,634 under the provincial administration vote, I wonder how long these provincial councils are to continue. Last year, I think it was, we were told by the hon. the Minister of the Interior that he was seriously considering certain necessary reforms in provincial councils. I hope he will reform them out of existence, as I am no lover of them. In making up another little schedule list, I hope he will keep his promise in connection with provincial administrations.

The hon. member cannot discuss legislation.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 9. “Miscellaneous Services”, £1,388, put and agreed to.

On Vote 15, “Superior Courts”, £3,542,

The amount of £3,541 14s. 10d. represents an amount which was embezzled by a clerk of the Supreme Court in Johannesburg. He pleaded guilty to the theft and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. I may state for the information of the committee that the registrar himself, the man in charge of this office, has been charged before the Civil Service Commission with negligence in connection with the supervision. Now that hon. members know that, I hope there will be no discussion which may in any way interfere with that trial.

I do not want to discuss that trial. Anybody, however, who has looked at the auditor-general’s report for the last year or two must come to the conclusion that these defalcations from the civil service are becoming rather serious. They are not diminishing either in number or in amount. I should like to know whether any general enquiry is being made as to the supervision in force, or want of supervision, or whether there are any special reasons during late years which have led to this epidemic of defalcations.

I do not think there has been any epidemic of defalcations. The Treasury has been rather perturbed about this matter, and has taken such steps as will, it is hoped, tighten up the control of the various offices. We have issued circulars to heads of departments suggesting certain steps which can be taken, and we hope we shall have some success in limiting the numbers of these unfortunate incidents, owing to closer supervision in the offices.

I understood the hon. the Minister to say that this was done by one clerk, and in one sum. Can he tell us what was the particular fund involved?

Witnesses’ fees and jurors’ fees.

I suppose there must be something wrong with the supervision. I should like to know what was the salary paid to this clerk. I also think I am right in saying that in many cases the punishment does not suit the crime. Is there any hope of recovering this money ?

None.

None. There should be some security furnished by these clerks who handle money. I have seen in many other institutions that this system obtains. Why cannot the Government insist, where money passes into the hands of certain officials, that those officials provide security? When an official can get away with £3,000 or £4,000, at the rate of £100 a month, three years’ imprisonment with hard labour pays very well, for one-fifth of the sentence is taken off for good conduct, while the man also has free board and lodging. What was the salary paid to him ?

£310 per annum.

So that in three years’ time he will have earned what would otherwise have taken him ten years to earn.

It is rather difficult to speak about this case now, because it is under enquiry. Perhaps I can illustrate it better by referring to another case, one that occurred at Springs. It is a rather curious fact that the majority of these cases of defalcations that are reported seem to occur in the Department of Justice. They seem to think that that department is fair game, or is it that the department has not the capacity for keeping a check on things which other departments have? The Department of Justice was done down for £700 at Springs by the public prosecutor. One would naturally ask why does the public prosecutor handle money? I would like to suggest to the Minister whether he could not decrease the number of people who handle money, and whether he cannot keep a better eye upon them. It is rough luck on the bulk of the men in the civil service when these things happen. It is not nice to know that these things are happening in the service you are connected with. The auditor-general’s report shows that there is some weakness in the Department of Justice in regard to the question of handling money. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us why a public prosecutor should be handling money. I think that all civil servants responsible for handling money should be guaranteed. I would like to ask if that is the case.

No.

I thought the Government pursued the ordinary course of business with persons handling money, and had proper guarantees. Perhaps the Minister can give us some information about the Springs case, which seems to be rather curious.

We cannot discuss the Springs case here under this vote. I suggest to the hon. member that he should raise the whole question under the main estimates. There is a good deal more to be discussed than appears on this item, and under the main estimates, I shall have full information.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 19, “Defence”, £77,400,

Under Item No. 19, this is a very large sum, and I think we are entitled to some information about it.

During wartime a very large amount of ammunition of wartime manufacture was accumulated, and it has become increasingly difficult during the last six or seven years to use it up. The amount of ammunition we use annually is between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 rounds. When I took office, already there was great difficulty in getting this ammunition used up, and from year to year I have been expecting this ammunition to be condemned. This year it has been absolutely necessary to condemn it. We do not want to issue this ammunition any longer. There are about 13,700,000 rounds left of .303 ammunition.

The men who were compelled to use this ammunition for several years past could not get through their tests successfully, and bad ammunition has had to be used on the ranges by citizen defence force regiments for some time past, because, as the Minister informed me in this House when I raised this question two years ago, it had to be used up and the commandos refused to use it! I am glad the Minister has seen fit to condemn ammunition which has been positively dangerous for some time past.

Not dangerous.

It appears to me that the amount should have been written off the standard stock account some time ago.

All stocks become obsolete in time. For the last three or four years I have felt myself in the position of a man passing false money by trying to get rid of these cartridges. This year’s examination showed that it was not right to use these cartridges for any purpose.

The stock has been paid for and has been condemned, and it is not quite clear why we should vote money for stock that has been written off, unless we propose to replace the stock.

We have a standard stock account and 13,000,000 rounds of ammunition had to be condemned, and, consequently, we had to write off £93,000. This vote of £77,400 will enable us to keep our small arm ammunition up to the figure at which we like to have it.

I am not a gun man, but I would like to be informed whether the £77,400 is the value of the condemned stuff, and what has become of it.

The condemned cartridges will be broken up, and we shall get a certain amount back for the bullets. The sum of £77,400 is to be spent on the purchase of ammunition to replace that which has been condemned.

Supposing the Minister receives £20,000 for the condemned ammunition, what will be done with it, and will the House be informed?

Any sum received for the condemned cartridges will be credited to the department, and the fact will be notified in the auditor-general’s report. I do not think we shall get £20,000 for them.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 20, “Interior”, £5,000.

With reference to the grant of £5,000 for the Frobenius expedition, will the Minister tell us why it was necessary to employ this gentleman when we have such a long list of qualified South Africans who are quite competent to do the work if funds therefor are available. I do not wish to cast any aspersions whatever on the work Dr. Frobenius has done, but why spend the money on that expedition when the money could have been more usefully expended in South Africa by highly-qualified scientists already in the country?

It is possibly necessary that I should inform the House about this £5,000 which was granted to Prof. Frobenius for his work in South Africa. In the first place, I want to answer a question which was asked on a former occasion by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen). He asked why this collection of paintings was being given to the Cape Town museum and not to Pretoria. My reply is that the Pretoria museum never made any claim to be given a collection. That museum has not applied itself to work of this kind, and the only question was whether the paintings should go to Bloemfontein or Cape Town. The Bloemfontein people stated their case to me. Well, I said that I had to look, not to certain surroundings, nor to particular museums, but that I should consider the interests of the public in general. In the circumstances I could not forget that at the establishment of the Union it was decided by Parliament that there should only be two national museums in the country, viz., in Cape Town and Pretoria, and the other museums were to be considered of provincial interest. Circumstances were such that the Government ultimately also accepted the Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg museums as national museums, but the intention of Parliament was that there should be only two national museums. Another consideration was that in Cape Town there is a much larger concourse of visitors than in Bloemfontein. Moreover, at Bloemfontein there is only one institution for higher education, while in the immediate neighbourhood of Cape Town there are various institutions, such as the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch, where there are a large number of students who want to study this matter scientifically. I, therefore, concluded that the paintings should go to the Cape Town and not the Bloemfontein museum. As for the £5,000, I want to point out that it was not meant for the purchase of the paintings. It was at first my idea to grant an amount to Prof. Frobenius for his research work, but that that support should be given by the Government buying the drawings from him at a price at which it was valued by competent persons. It appeared that this procedure would lead to much difficulty when the market value of the drawings had to be fixed. It is impossible to make a proper valuation. We, therefore, decided rather to give an amount to Prof. Frobenius for his research work in South Africa, and then to leave it to him as a matter of honour, and he promised to regard it as such, to make as complete a collection as he could, and to give it to South Africa as a contribution to the material which we want to collect for further scientific study. There is nothing in the nature of a purchase. I want to say also that not a single penny of the £5,000 will go for the research journey which he is making to India. All he is spending on that he has obtained through another source. The £5,000 is not only for the research work, but it is actually financial help with respect to the publication of the results of his research work. He intends to publish a book which will give the results of his work, so that they shall be at the disposal of the scientific world. To be able to do this, he will have to publish plates in such a work and, in view of that, it will cost a great deal to put the results of his research at the disposal of the world. It is necessary that it should be published for the benefit of the scientific world, and a large part of the £5,000 will be devoted to that. It has been asked who Prof. Frobenius is, and what right he has to be supported by the Union Government. Let me explain that he is connected with the University of Frankfort, and not a mere individual who had arrived here. He lectures in ethnology there. He is also connected with an institute for archaeological research which employs no less than twenty persons. Hon. members can see from that that he is not a person of no standing. He is a prominent person in the world of learning, and has already published thirty or forty works. I may say, further, that he started as a private research worker in 1904. He has made various research expeditions, and this is his ninth, in connection with the African continent, to which he confines himself. Hon. members will say that there are many archaeologists in South Africa who will not accept the conclusions to which Prof. Frobenius has come. I admit that that is so, and it is also possible that there are learned men in Europe who will not support his conclusions, but what does that amount to? Ought that to stop the Government in giving him some financial aid if he does such work as he has already done here? I want to point out that the discoverer, or, in any case, a very learned person who has published the theory of holism, has come to certain conclusions, and has published them to the world. There was a congress recently of scientists in Cape Town, where it came out that there were many famous pundits who would not accept that theory at all; but does that throw any reflection on the learning and scientific knowledge of that hon. member of this House ?

But it cost the country nothing.

But my point is that, because there are people who differ from Prof. Frobenius, that does not detract anything from the scientific value of his works. I should like to say a few words on his work in South Africa in connection with which this amount was granted. It has spread over twenty years, and cost £16,000. The German Government had such confidence in his scientific knowledge that they financially supported his undertaking. Support was got from the German Government and from private scientists. He also made research in Rhodesia, and the Rhodesian Government took so much interest in his work that they gave him free transport over the railways, and also other facilities. The point has also been taken that we have archaeologists of our own. It is said that we have done nothing for them. I have already said that it cannot be stated that we have given them no financial support. There are our museums. The conditions of the museums have been improved during the last few years, and if hon. members will look at the estimates which will be laid on the Table on Friday, they will see that the position of the museums is being improved still more. Archaeological research is being carried on in our universities, and our own universities are liberally supported in this connection just as in other scientific matters. For that reason, it cannot be said that we have done nothing to assist our own people in this department. I know, of course, that some people feel that way, and, because they differ from Prof. Frobenius, they are opposed to the grant of this money. Such things are not unknown in the world of learning. In politics, in trade, we have often to remind people of the commandment: “Thou shalt not covet.” It is necessary to remind some of our learned people of this also. What is the difference between Dr. Frobenius’ work and that of other scientists who have worked, or are working, in this department, which would justify these grants? In the first place, there has, as far as we can ascertain, never been an investigation on so large a scale. He has not only examined the caves over a large area, but also made drawings, and, at any rate, labelled them territorially, and shown that the drawings coming from one part of South Africa differ greatly from others found in other parts. Furthermore, Dr. Frobenius regarded the whole problem from a general antiquarian and broad standpoint as has never been done before. The drawings I am referring to are generally regarded as bushmen drawings, i.e., connected with a specific race, the bushman; Dr. Frobenius approached the whole question from a much broader standpoint, and collected all the evidence he could to get a view of the culture which existed in South Africa. He collected the evidence from the old mines that existed in South Africa and Rhodesia. He enquired into the quality of the gold which was found in the old graves of Egypt or Arabia, the age of which can be established, and compared them with the gold which was found in South Africa in the old mines. The same has been done with bronze. Then he also investigated the tradition in religious matters of the various old peoples of South Africa and compared them with the traditions in Egypt, Arabia, and also India. Then he made a much more complete and comprehensive enquiry than has ever been done in South Africa. Hon. members opposite have apparently blamed me for my calling Dr. Frobenius a Columbus in this respect.

Yes.

He made discoveries that we were not aware of. We regarded the bushmen drawings as a remains of the bushmen, but in the light of his research, and of course also that of other persons, we found that we had to do with the remnants of an old culture. He has shown the world that there is culture behind those drawings.

He did not discover it.

If he did not discover it, he, at any rate, took the discovery much further, and his investigation was far more comprehensive, but if hon. members are not pleased with my calling him Columbus, then I withdraw the term and substitute Copernicus. If he did not discover it, he has, at any rate, changed the centre of gravity. Where there was nothing to be seen by the bushmen drawings he showed us that behind it all there was a whole world we did not know of, viz., a culture that existed there. I should like to leave Dr. Frobenius and read what is the opinion of a man who was welcomed everywhere in the country, and who was so highly thought of, that he received a doctorate from the University of Cape Town. I refer to L’Abbe Breuil, who was here during the visit of the British Association. Before he left he said in an interview with the Cape Times—

He also said—

That is precisely what Dr. Frobenius did in his investigations—

What is the date?

It was shortly before L’Abbe Breuil left South Africa. As the rock drawings are of so much importance, it is right that when a man comes here, apart from the conclusions he arrives at, to conserve them for us by having them properly drawn, and enabling us to have a collection in our museum, so that the material is available for scientists here and overseas, that we should support the undertaking. What is the objection to that? With regard to the support of other archaeologists, I may say that, so far as I can remember, no request was made before that grant was made to Prof. Frobenius. As far as I can remember, no request came before then for special assistance for that work, but thereafter an application was made which, however, was connected with a scheme for a special institution in South Africa, which I shall have first of all to consider a bit, and it will cost thousands of pounds per year.

I am sure we are all very grateful indeed to the hon. the Minister for his lengthy and informative disquisition on the subject before the committee. Perhaps he has not satisfied the curiosity of some hon. members; but we are grateful for small mercies. That is exactly how I feel about this vote. I welcome the vote, because I am also grateful for a small mercy. I accept it as a token of favours yet to come. The hon. the Minister has spoken in highly metaphorical language of the qualifications of Professor Frobenius. Although I agree with the desirability of voting this money, I cannot go quite all the way with him in regard to the importance of the work which Professor Frobenius has undertaken. Speaking for myself, and for those interested in science, and in our universities, we are willing to accept this proposition, because we are not going to look a gift-horse in the mouth, even if the gift-horse is not readily assimilable. But we do not accept all that the hon. the Minister has said with regard to Professor Frobenius as a new Columbus. That might have been an apt remark in an after-dinner speech, but not in the sobriety of 11 o’clock in the morning. I think if that statement were brought to the notice of scientists in other parts of the world—France and Germany, for instance, it would be received with polite amusement. While the hon. the Minister has quoted the opinion of the Abbe Breuil about other matters, I would have been interested to know the opinion of the Abbe Breuil as to the Minister’s description of Professor Frobenius as a new Columbus. That is not, I think, an opinion widely held even in Professor Frobenius’ own country. If it had been, it is difficult to understand why the funds necessary for the financing of his expedition should have failed after a certain period. As it was, Professor Frobenius could not get sufficient funds in his own country and was compelled to appeal to the generosity of the Minister. One reason why the Minister’s view of Professor Frobenius would not be so widely held is that Professor Frobenius has one disqualification which is fatal in a scientist; he makes up his mind as to his conclusions before he has examined his facts at first hand. The view which Professor Frobenius held when he came to this country was the same as that which he has given us now, and it does not seem to be a strong recommendation of one whom the hon. the Minister is calling “a new Columbus”. I would class him with what I call the “feminine” group of scientists. A wise man once said that in nine cases out of ten a woman arrives at a conclusion sooner than a man, but that in eight cases out of nine she is wrong. I think this is the case with Professor Frobenius; in that sense also, I think the hon. the Minister’s description of him as a new Columbus is not inapt. Columbus went out to find the way to India; but he made a slight mistake, and all he did was to point the way for others. Those who appreciate Professor Frobenius’ work will agree with me that it is highly stimulating and suggestive and that at least he will point the way for others. Although one cannot accept the metaphorical description of the hon. the Minister, one does accept the voting of the grant, as it indicates a change of heart of the hon. the Minister, who, as Minister of Education, has hitherto shown a gradual hardening of heart towards our universities. He has gradually reduced the rate of increase of their grants, some time ago by 5 per cent.; and he now proposes the stabilization of the grants, which threatens to become another blessed word with him. We welcome this generosity in the cause of science and education as a sign of a change of heart and an earnest of better things, and we hope that the hon. the Minister will show that same generosity to our university institutions, especially to those which have themselves pioneered in this branch of science in which the Minister has evinced a new-found interest.

I regret the remarks of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). He says he is in favour of the vote, but there is a sting in it. He is not quite satisfied that Professor Frobenius is capable of giving us full value for money. It would seem that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has only now heard of Professor Frobenius for the first time. I would point out that he is a Columbus in the history of Africa, Thirty years ago, when he made his first visit, he made discoveries which are described in his book “Und Afrika Sprach”, which aroused the intense interest of authorities in regard to the questions dealt with, in which the professor has been interested for 40 years. I make bold to say he is the Columbus of whom the Minister spoke, and it was simply a piece of small-minded jealousy which induced hon. members to dispute the decision of the Minister to help forward Professor Frobenius’ expedition in the cause of progress of science in South Africa. It is a small sum of £5,000.

Are you a Columbus?

At any rate, that is the point. This man deserves that term, and whether the Minister wishes to withdraw it or not he still deserves that term of “Columbus” with reference to his investigations into the historical past. If there is any more money available for research, no one will be better pleased than we ourselves.

I join in this debate, not so much to draw attention to the merits or the demerits of Professor Frobenius, but to draw attention to a subject of paramount importance to South Africa. I have been able to follow the work of Professor Frobenius sufficiently closely to be able to express an opinion on the value, or otherwise, of the research work he has done here. I assume it must have been valuable, otherwise the Minister would not so readily Have given such a large sum of money to this particular cause. There is no doubt that this question of our prehistory, the ancient archaeology of South Africa is one of the most important problems in our science. There is no doubt that South Africa is attracting the attention of the whole of the scientific world, because it has turned out now to be the centre of great scientific interest from the point of view of its archaeology and its history. I think the Minister must regret now the somewhat exaggerated references that he made to Professor Frobenius. I am not sure that he has not done a very grave injustice to a man in South Africa who, for many years, has been working in this field and doing work of first class importance, and doing his work under very great discouragement too. I mention one gentleman who must be well known to the Minister, who has done work of really first class importance, namely Mr. van Riet Lowe.

What is the name ?

The hon. the Minister of Lands does not seem to have heard of Mr. van Riet Lowe. This gentleman is a Government servant, one of our public servants, and he is a man who, in our lifetime has done much for the advance of our archaeology, for working up the pre-history of South Africa. I know of no other man who has done so much. It is well known that he is a man of quite outstanding achievement. That gentleman has done his duty as a road inspector for many years in the Orange Free State province. He had to carry on this very heavy task of conducting research into our pre-history and archaeology without any assistance from the Government, in his spare time, and whilst he was conducting his work as a public servant. The hon. Minister has quoted the opinion of the Abbe Breuil on the importance of the work which lies before us in our archaeology. I may tell him that I saw the Abbe Breuil here in South Africa, and subsequently in England he wrote to me on this matter. There is no doubt whatever that the Abbe Breuil is the outstanding figure in European archaeology to-day. He is a man of quite undisputed authority, and he is known as the leading archaeologist of the world. In a conversation he had with me, the Abbe Breuil said that we had no conception of the value of the work that this gentleman was doing, this humble, modest public servant who was inspecting roads in the Free State, and who, outside the course of his duty as a civil servant, was doing first-class work in the archaeology of South Africa. The Abbe Breuil was most anxious that Mr. van Riet Lowe should be released from this minor post in the public service, and be set free by the Government in order to devote attention to this work of our archaeology. Here is a son of the country, one of our South Africans, not a Columbus. He has done work which is attracting the attention of the foremost men in the world in archaeology. The Abbe Breuil not only spoke to me, but he subsequently wrote to me in England, and said he hoped that something would be done to release this man from his present duties as a road engineer, and that he should be set free to conduct this first-class work that he is doing now. In a sense, I welcome the generosity of the Minister to Professor Frobenius. Although the fact, in itself, may be the subject of criticism, at any rate it shows good intentions. It shows that the Minister wishes to help forward this great work which is of such scientific importance for South Africa. It shows that the Minister does recognize the value of science of this type to South Africa. But I do wish to impress upon the committee and on the Minister, that they will, in showing this generosity, this recognition of the work of others, not forget the work of our own sons. I hope it will be possible for the Government to make better use of the very special ability and training which Mr. Lowe has shown hitherto. I am sure that representations must have been made to the Government on the subject, although I am speaking without any special knowledge. I am sure that they must have heard of the prophet that we have amongst us, a prophet not recognized because he is a modest man and does not advertise himself. He does not give interviews to the newspapers, and there is no occasion to call him a Columbus. He would not like to be called a Columbus. Yet he is a Columbus, if ever there is any man who has done such work and opened this door of our far past and has made us realize that South Africa has been, from time immemorial, for tens of thousands of years, an inhabited country by one race of men after another who left their marks here, their tools here, and their art here. If there is one man, more than any other, who has done this work and made us realize this far past of South Africa, it is Mr. van Riet Lowe, one of our South African boys. I hope that the Minister, in his generous instincts, will not forget this civil servant of ours. I hope the Government will realize the importance of the work for which he is quite suited, and will release him and enable him to set his mind on work for which he is eminently qualified, and which not even Dr. Frobenius can do as well. I have the support of the Abbe Breuil when I say that. I hope it will be possible for the Government to help in this work, and show some recognition of the work of Mr. van Riet Lowe, and let him continue this work of research for the rest of the time that he is in the service.

I am obliged to my hon. friend for putting the debate on a level it ought to be on. I must say that I am glad of the debate this afternoon, because I hope it will put an end to one of the most distasteful debates which has taken place in a number of public newspapers in connection with the grant of £5,000 to Prof. Frobenius. I do not think there is anyone who attaches any value to our national prestige who, in any way, approves of the discussions which have been going on every morning for a whole sequence of weeks if not for months. Let me say that I am possibly the greatest offender in this matter—if there is anyone who has offended—because I drew the attention of ray colleague, the Minister of the Interior, to the work of Prof. Frobenius in order to assist him, but unfortunately everything in connection with the grant of the £5,000 is brought home to the Minister of the Interior, I do not want to evade my responsibility in the matter, and accept it with pleasure because I consider if ever anything has been done by a Government worthy of praise by the people of South Africa then it is the grant of £5,000 for this work, whether Prof. Frobenius is a Columbus or not. The question is whether the work he has done here is of so much value that we ought to recognize it. It is very unfortunate that as soon as it became known a spirit showed itself among certain people which throws a very bad reflection on our science, and does not allow our science to hold its own. The comment was not made by our scientific men, but by quasi-scientists and politicians and I must honestly say that what they have said during the time could make no other impression on an impartial man than that for the most part it is disguised envy. That is the whole tone of the correspondence, and I deplore it very much. Let us just see what took place. We are concerned here with a matter in our history about which we have heard for years that it is of the greatest importance in our country history and even culture for us to conserve and appreciate it. Anyone, however, at all acquainted with the history of South Africa knows that the drawings which in my youthful days could be seen everywhere in the Free State have almost or for more than a third part, disappeared. I am thinking, e.g., of Vegkop near Rouxville, where are the drawings that I saw in my childhood? A short time ago I was in the caves at Kuruman; one only has to go there to see what happens to the drawings. Fires are made under the beautiful drawings and everything is burnt, or the drawings are broken up by stone. I should say that it is worth while for South Africa to spend £5,000 or even £10,000 or £20,000 to save the drawings for all posterity. Prof. Frobenius comes on the scene with a big staff to try and save the drawings. He divides them into numbers of groups, and all the groups could be erected in one hall for the study of our history, of our country. This is all of the greatest importance. The professor employed a large staff but he found that he had to go back, that he had stayed here too long and could not finish the work. He then visited us to enquire if we could not enable him to complete the work by coming to his assistance. I felt at once that if anything was to be done in that connection the support could be given then and to that person. He had more than half finished the work and it would have been unfortunate if he had had to leave with his experts and take the incomplete work away with him. If we had to do the work over again it would not cost £5,000, but £10,000 or £20,000. It has been asked here why the work was not given to our own scientists. Here we have a man who with his whole staff—I think there were as many as ten men—had done more than half the work, and if we wanted to reap the fruits of his work just as much as the original persons who sent him out, then it was important for us to get all we could for our museum. I am not going into the matter any further. I immediately felt that it was a case where we were called upon to take action, but I must say that I likewise felt at once and most hon. members here with me—the House will excuse me for saying so—that if it had been an Englishman—

Oh no.

Yes, if it had been an Englishman with an English staff then we should not have had this shouting and wailing. It is one of the unfortunate things that Prof. Frobenius is a German. It reminds me of what I read only two years ago in a great English periodical. I always had the greatest respect for the periodical and in my young days as a student I read it regularly; it is to be found here in the reading room of Parliament. Two years ago it had a review of the work of the great chemist Fischer, but first of all the paper devoted two pages to an introduction to excuse itself for daring to write about a German at that time. It really made me feel that we had here to do with another such case, and I think that the time has come, especially when we are dealing with scientific people, to get rid a little now of the prejudice of 1914-1919. [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 25, “Mines and Industries,” £9,250,

Will the Minister give us some information as to what the result of the working of the diamond mines has been, the State alluvial diggings? He is asking for an additional £9,250.

Will the Minister tell us how much of this Vote has been spent in sending an armed force to repel an anticipated raid on the diamond workings.

Will the Minister explain the item of £2,000, Item No. 2? Does it relate to salaries, and, if so, what for?

The first increase here is additional provision for police on the diggings. The number of police that were there during the previous year was considered insufficient by the Commissioner of Police. He decided that the number should be increased, and this caused an additional expenditure of about £17,000. It was absolutely necessary for the diggings and for the surrounding parts. During last year, 1929-’30, there were 55 policemen, one coloured person and 54 Europeans, that number was increased to 119 Europeans and 3 coloured persons, so that there are now 122 police instead of 55. It is chiefly in connection with that that this additional amount is required. The cost was £17,000, but there was economy on other heads leaving this balance of £7,250. In connection with the amount of £3,000 for an advisory committee, I want to point out, as the committee knows, when the department was established there was no question of the production and sale of diamonds by the state. The state has now to produce and sell diamonds, and we do not in our office possess the necessary machinery to give ourselves advice, and therefore we have created this committee which is of a purely temporary nature. Its duties are purely advisory; it is not a statutory body and has not been appointed according to law. It is the duty of this committee to give us advice in connection with the administration of the State diggings, the diamond cutting establishments, the regulations, the market price of diamonds, and their sale. On this temporary board, or committee, has been appointed Mr. Boss-Frames, Mr. de Villiers Roos, and Dr. de Kock of the Board of Trade and Industries. It has only been working a short while and has already given the department excellent advice and been of great service. The amount of £2,000 is necessary to cover the expenditure of the committee up to the 31st March.

With regard to the payment, I would like to ask the hon. Minister what arrangements he made. I think there is a rule that retired civil servants, when employed again, are paid a salary which with their pension does not exceed the salary at the date of their retirement.

I may add that the three members are paid £1,500 per annum so long as they remain on the commission. In the case of Mr. de Villiers Roos, this makes no difference to his pension.

As far as one knows from the names the hon. Minister has given. Mr. Ross Frames seems to be the only one who can speak with authority on the diamond industry in the past. Do I understand that this sum of £2,000 is to be divided between Mr. Ross Frames and Mr. Roos, because I take it that Dr. de Kock, who already gets paid for his services, will not get any fees for his work. Perhaps the hon. Minister would also give us some idea as to who is the person who decides the price paid by the local diamond cutters. I understand they have been complaining recently that the price paid by them does not render continuance of work remunerative.

Will the accounts of this committee be audited by the Auditor-General and shall we have a report in due course of the Auditor-General on the ex-Auditor-General’s position.

Certainly. This sum of £2,000 goes towards the three. Dr. de Kock is seconded temporarily to this diamond control committee. The accounts of course will be duly audited by the Auditor-General.

Do they each get £1,500 a year ?

Yes.

Is not that a very high wage for the sort of work they do, occasional advice to the Government ?

They are constantly busy.

It is very high pay. Is Dr. de Kock’s place taken by somebody else on the board? He is seconded from his work on the board of trade and paid this salary of £1,500 as a member of the diamond board, and if the diamond board comes to an end he goes back. In my opinion this is very high pay unless we know something more about the functions of this body. Are they in permanent session? After all £1,500 a year is a salary of a high official in this country. Unless this is a permanent post, an all-time post, requiring all the services of these gentlemen, I should say that we are paying an extravagant sum of money. The Minister may conceivably alter this opinion if he tells us of the work done by these gentlemen.

I think we are very fortunate indeed in securing the services of these three gentlemen even at that figure. Of course we were indeed very fortunate when we had the services of the late Mr. Arend Brink, but unfortunately he is no longer with us and we have to make other provision. So far, I can assure the hon. members opposite, that this committee have been constantly busy in their office. They have an office here. There are very many matters connected with the diamond business which we refer to them. They have even visited, during their short period of office, the State diggings and have made a thorough investigation of them, and are busy every morning in their office from 9 o’clock to 5 o’clock. Everything in connection with the diamond business is referred to them. At the present time the diamond business is passing through a very hazardous time, and I think that the committee have been of considerable assistance to the country.

I should like to ask the Minister whether this extra amount paid to Dr. de Kock is pensionable.

No part of his salary is pensionable.

What is the difference between the amount of Mr. Roos’s pension and the amount he receives ?

He receives a pension and an allowance.

Am I correct in stating that the three gentlemen who serve on the Diamond Control Advisory Committee each receive £1,500 a year, and one of them is Mr. J. de Villiers Roos, who has just retired from the position of controller and auditor-general on a pension of £1,200 a year? Am I also correct in saying that he receives his salary over and above his pension? If that is so, a principle is raised which ought to be discussed very fully to-night. I always understood that when a public servant was reemployed, he did not draw both his salary and his pension. Here, however, we have the case of a gentleman for whom we have the greatest esteem who received a salary of £1,800 a year. He retired on reaching the age limit, the inference being that he could no longer give of his best to the Union, and he received from a grateful and appreciative country a well-earned pension of £1,200 a year. If he is willing to do further public service at £1,500 a year, by all means let him do it, but not in addition to his pension. In his last report this very question of the re-employment of pensioned persons is dealt with at some length, and it shows that when a pensioned person is re-employed, then the department which employs him is debited with the actual cost of his pension. I am perfectly certain that if Mr. de Villiers Roos were still auditor-general, his next report would absolutely ring to high heaven over this employment of a person drawing a pension of £1,200 a year at a salary of £1,500. That is all wrong. The next member of the Diamond Control Advisory Committee is Dr. de Kock, who was also a member of the Board of Trade and Industries, which appears to be a sort of forcing-house for pensons proceeding to higher jobs. In his last annual report Mr. de Villiers Roos draws attention to the emoluments of the acting trade commissioner in New York, stating that Dr. Botha, a first-grade economist on the staff of the Board of Trade, was made acting trade commissioner in New York with emoluments of £2,350 made up of his pensionable salary of £550 and non-pensionable allowance of £700, a representation allowance of £350, cost of living allowance of £500, and a foreign service allowance of £250. He has now been confirmed, I believe, in that appointment. And so the process is going on. We have a Government that was once preaching rigid economy, and is now appointing members of the board in this way. Whereas, as a full-time employee, he got £1,800, now he gets £2,700 a year—£1,200 pension and £1,500 for services on this board. With all due deference to the Minister of Finance, it would be a fair request to Mr. Roos that he should serve on this board at £1,500 a year, and that his pension be set against this. If we do employ them, we should offer them these terms. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Roos, and I think the Government did an excellent thing when they got him to serve on this board, but the state should not be expected to set up a precedent of this nature. The late Sir William Hoy had a pension as general manager of railways and harbours, and he got a lucrative position in Rhodesia, but we could not do anything about that. In the post office, which is a department of state that employs most pensioners, we do lay down that rule. Yet, when you get to the top of the tree, we say that over and above your pension we are prepared to pay you that salary.

The hon. member is apparently under a misapprehension. We have made no sacrifice at all. The hon. member is referring to the republican pension Act. It has been the invariable rule of the treasury, when there is a reappointment, to insist on an abatement. Here it is a post altogether outside the public service, and it was a question of paying Mr. Roos the salary attached to the post. This is not a case at all where the ordinary principle applies for which the hon. member is contending. I have no power to abate here. As for the salaries paid to members of the board, hon. members know how salaries in the service compare with those outside in private employment. The salaries of our chief officials compare very unfavourably with those for similar posts in private employment. We are continually losing members of the service. I have frankly stated to the House that the State cannot compete with wealthy outside firms for such employment. The hon. member knows what diamond companies pay for their expert men. We were very anxious to get a man of standing and in whom the public has confidence, and we were fortunate in getting Dr. de Kock, knowing what services he has rendered.

I do not think any member on the Government side appreciates the position as it is to-day. The Prime Minister is gradually acquiring the habit of taking bright young men for his External Affairs Department, and nearly doubling their salaries. The Minister of Mines and Industries is following his lead in this respect. It seems perfectly clear, if you take a civil servant, Dr. de Kock or anybody else—

Dr. de Kock is not a public servant, and this is not a post in the service.

It does not make the difference the Minister suggests. You take a man at £700 or £800 a year and you put him up to £1,500. It is perfectly clear that you cannot offer that man in future anything less than £1,500, because he will not take it. The essence of my complaint is this. Mr. Ross Frames, I agree, has been connected with diamond mines for a considerable portion of his life. I quite agree that he is a suitable man to employ. But take Mr. Roos. I do not think anybody on this side has ever suggested that Mr. Roos was anything but a most excellent auditor-general, but you may have an excellent engineer and he may make a very poor surgeon. You take a man who is a good auditor, and you are going to turn him into an adviser on diamonds. The same thing with Dr. de Kock. I do not think he has had anything to do with diamond mines. It is said that these men have done a lot of work. Amongst other things they went to look at the diamond mines. Probably they have never seen a diamond mine before. But you don’t pay a man £1,500 a year unless he has technical knowledge of the subject you want him to work on. You don’t pay an engineer £1,500 a year to be a surgeon. If you do, you make a mistake. Mr. Arend Brink is just the class of man you want, and he did not take £1,500 a year.

No, he got nothing.

Yes, and then the Minister tells me that nothing is not any less than £4,500 a year.

You expect a man to work for nothing.

No, but I expect that when you offer a man £1,500 a year, you expect him to know something about the job. I think you have got Mr. Ross Frames very cheaply at £1,500 a year. I take it that you have taken Dr. de Kock from a job he does know, for which you paid him £1,000 a year, and put him into a job he does not know for £1,500. That seems to be an extraordinary way of going to work, but the Government is accustomed to taking men from various departments and adding 50 per cent. to their salaries without any regard to whether they know anything about their new job. The Minister of Finance compares the public service to employment outside the public service. It is not comparable. Many of us cannot understand any man of any great attainments going into the public service. You have to remember, however, that when once you are in the public service you have got to do something very bad to be moved out of it. Moreover, when your life’s work is finished you get a pension, which you might not get in private service. There is also a security of tenure in the public service which does not obtain outside. I do not think it is comparable. Men of enterprise, however, do not go into the public service.

I think a complete reply to the arguments of the hon. member will be found in Hansard. I remember the occasion when Mr. Roos was appointed auditor-general. The hon. member has told us what a wonderful auditor-general Mr. Roos made. But he can find in Hansard what his friends thought of him. We were told that Mr. Roos was a lawyer, and we were asked what he knew about figures and what he knew about finance. Now the hon. member asks: “What he knows about diamonds.” He probably knows as much about diamonds now as he knew about the work of the auditor-general when he was appointed to that post. We looked about for a suitable man for an auditor-general and we got him, and I have no doubt that the results in this case, as in the former one, will fully justify the appointment.

If the Minister suggests that objection was taken to Mr. Roos because he was a lawyer, then his memory is at fault.

The main objection was that he was Dutch-speaking.

A very large number of members on this side of the House considered that the first thing required in an auditor-general was competent legal knowledge, and the only member who criticized the appointment on the ground that he was not a qualified accountant was the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien). With regard to the remark of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), I only wish to say that it is absolutely unworthy and quite untrue. Mr. Roos has met with nothing but the greatest and most loyal appreciation on this side of the House. Twice to-day we have had to sit on these benches and to listen to unworthy taunts from hon. members opposite. About a fortnight ago an hon. gentleman on this side of the House referred to the effect of protection on farmers, and said the effect of it would be to make they lazy. He referred to farmers in general, but the Minister of Agriculture got up and said that three-quarters of the farmers were Dutch-speaking, and it was, therefore, an attack on the Dutch-speaking farmers. We have had remarks to-day from the Prime Minister with regard to Dr. Frobenius which were deplorable.

The hon. member must not proceed with that subject any further.

The point has arisen whether you are justified, however much you want a man, in saying: “We will re-employ you, we will pay you the whole of the pension you have earned, and, in addition, we will pay you a high salary.” There is nothing in Mr. Roos’ make-up and accomplishments which made it so imperative to get him that the Minister should go contrary to all that ever was done in the public service of this country. He admits that under the Public Service Act it is laid down in regard to civil servants; the Minister tells me that if Mr. Roos had been employed in the public service he would not have been eligible for pension rights; but, because he is employed outside the public service, it is found possible to pay him £1,200 a year pension in addition to £1,500 a year salary. The Minister is, I believe, laying up a lot of trouble for the Government in agreeing to this appointment. Does he know of any other case in this country where this course has been followed ?

The case of Hefmeyr in German West.

No, when Mr. Hofmeyr went to South-West Africa as administrator he drew a pension which was in abeyance while he was holding the appointment. In other words, from the moment he vacated the post of clerk of the house until he took up the appointment as administrator, he received the pension, which was discontinued on his assuming his new office. Can the hon. Minister tell me of any case where a person has been allowed to draw his full pension from this country and also to draw from revenue funds a full salary as well. If he cannot tell me of any case, I say we are breaking new ground to-night, and it is a wrong principle which ought never to have been established. When hon. members go back to their constituencies and are asked to defend this Government; when constituents ask them questions about Mr. Roos receiving a pension of £1,200 a year while he is paid an additional salary of £1,500 a year, what will they say? This is only a part of the spendthrift policy the Government has embarked upon. Whether it is Mr. Roos or anyone else, I protest against a precedent of this kind.

This is not the class of case contemplated in the Pensions Act; as a general rule the treasury insist on an abatement. I have already told the hon. member that it is a case of either getting his services or not getting them.

I would have preferred not to have got them.

Mr. Roos said he would not accept the other appointment unless he was paid his pension. Parliament would have appointed him as auditor-general; he was asked whether he would go on as before, but he said he would not serve if his pension had to be abated. We were anxious to get Mr. Roos’ services on the board.

Of course, the hon. the Minister has the right to do what he thinks fit, but we have a right, in our turn, to contest the point of view and the action taken by the Government. It is a very interesting situation, and I do not think we have got all the information we ought to have. For instance, we have not yet heard whether Mr. de Kock is also drawing the salary of his post in the Board of Industries.

No.

But he is not retained on the books of the Board of Trade and Industries. It is difficult to reconcile that with the further statement made by the hon. the Minister. This we are told is a temporary business, at pleasure. So, presumably, you can sack any members of this advisory board at six months’ or three months’ or one month’s notice.

Or to-night.

Well, it is very hard that Mr. de Kock, who was getting £1,000 a year—

He has been seconded.

Oh, he has been seconded, that is the difference. In reply to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), the hon. the Minister said that some of the South African party had complained that when Mr. Roos was appointed he would not have to be a success, because he was not a qualified accountant.

I did not say that.

No, I want to make it clear; the Minister of Finance said that, and made great play with it. It appears that Mr. Roos proved an ideal auditor-general, and a very versatile gentleman he seems to be. He was at one time Secretary for Justice, and then he was appointed auditor-general. As auditor-general he was not himself advising, but had at his beck and call a tremendous staff, who gave him all the information he wanted, and filled up his case. All he did was to lick it into shape, and put it into the language he thought fit. But this is a very different pair of shoes. Here he himself is not to be advised; he is to advise, and on a subject which, so far as we are aware, he knows nothing about. Mr. Ross Frames certainly, although beyond question someone who was in a sort of opposition business, was at least an expert on diamond questions, and they are of a most intricate kind, markets, production, restriction of production, disposal, etc., and side by side with this one expert, Mr. Ross Frames, we have Mr. de Kock and Mr. Roos, who, so far as we know, have no knowledge of diamonds whatever. Why have the three of them? It is begging the question for the Minister to say that this is not a public service appointment. The principle surely holds; either it is good for a man to have both a pension and a salary, or it is not good for him to have both a pension and a salary. It does not seem to me to matter very much whether he happens to be a part of the Government service or to be employed by the Government in another capacity. The hon. Minister said it was a choice between salary plus pension, or no Roos. Are we so badly off for good men as to say that Roos was the only man whom we could get to advise the Government ?

If we had to employ another expert, can the hon. member name one who would satisfy our requirements?

I am dealing with the Minister’s appointment, not mine. The Minister does not seem to think he should have experts. He does not want another expert. Therefore, I have the right to ask if Mr. Roos is the only man in South Africa that you have to pay him £2,700 a year because there is nobody else qualified to do his job? I want to enter my protest against this dual salary, and enter it most strongly indeed. My hon. friend, the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) drew attention to the Posts and Telegraphs branch particularly, who are the most lowly paid men that have bad a pension. If they go back to work, their pension be comes void, and they only get a salary or wage for the job they are in. I myself had to discharge a poor unfortunate individual who was a doorkeeper and drew £4 a month pension, because he had that pension. If the principle is good for the poor unfortunate, lowly man, how much better is it in the case of the very highly paid man? No, I have yet to be convinced that you cannot find another man. I think we have the right to ask for considerably more explanation than we have had from the Minister. Mr. Roos is not the only man in South Africa, and South Africa is paying heavily for the services of Mr. Roos.

For the information of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) I will say there is one case I can recall, that of Mr. Justice Matthews. He had retired and become entitled to his pension. He was made a judge in Natal and he receives a pension and a salary.

That is withdrawn now. We complained about it in select committee.

Mr. Roos himself criticized that actual payment.

Mr. Roos may have drawn attention to it, but it is for the Government to take responsibility and for Parliament to approve of it. I am not prepared to accept what the hon. member says, that we should not have appointed Mr. Justice Matthews to the Bench in Natal.

What are you doing with Dr. de Kock ?

If he had reached the retiring age he would have been entitled to his pension, but he has not reached that age.

I would appreciate a request from that side of the House, a demand from that side of the House, to ensure that the sale of our one, two or three millions pounds’ worth of diamonds that we have to sell every year, was properly protected. If that side of the House had asked me “What steps are you taking to ensure the proper sale of the State’s diamonds?” I could have understood it. Then I could have understood from that side of the House an anxiety to ensure that the Government would deal properly with the assets of the State; but from what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and his hon. friend over there have said, I have heard nothing about the State’s assets. It is nothing to them that we have one, two or three million pounds’ worth of diamonds to put upon the market. The hon. member who has been so voluble the whole of this afternoon, and who pretends to know everything about everything is the great “know-all” of this House. I say that advisedly. He is the great “know-all” of the House. This hon. member is not concerned about the assets of the State, or whether these assets are put upon the market to advantage, or whether they realize full value for the State. He is not concerned about that. Neither are hon. members over there concerned about it. They are not concerned about the proper price we can get for the State assets.

But you admitted it.

The hon. member over there is also a great “know-all.” He knows all about the diamond industry.

You admitted that Mr. Roos knows nothing about it.

I admitted that, but my hon. friend for Bezuidenhout knows about everything. He knows all about diamonds, and he knows all about the gold trade. I also heard that hon. member interject that the Minister of Mines and Industries himself does not know. Well, I admit that I do not know. I say candidly I do not know the value of diamonds.

Does Mr. Roos?

I am talking about myself. I shall challenge the hon. member to stand up and say that he knows the value of diamonds, although, perhaps, he will say that he does. I am taking the hon. members over there seriously.

But we are not taking you seriously.

I have taken hon. members over there seriously. If they had asked me about the value of the assets of the State, and the assets to be put upon the market, and what steps we are taking to ensure that we are getting full value for them, I would have appreciated it. But we have not heard a word about it. In regard to these gentlemen who have been appointed to this committee, I say as one who knows, that they have been of inestimable value to the department in the advice that we have got from them in the six or seven weeks that they have been functioning. We can compliment ourselves on the fact that we managed to get a gentleman with the qualifications of Mr. Ross Frames who was drawing ten times as much in salary before he joined the board. Dr. de Kock has proved himself as an economist.

Why do you want art economist on the board ?

Economy is a very essential factor in all business. As for Mr. de Villiers Roos, I hope that he will not leave us in the lurch, but will continue to function on the board for some time. I am very, very anxious to retain his services for a further period, at any rate, until we have decided whether we shall establish the Diamond Control Board, with full powers or not.

I am sure that every member of the House will join with me in deploring the exhibition we have just seen, and I am sure when the Minister gets home tonight he will be sorry that one of his first appearances in debate has been the most undignified exhibition of abuse to which he has just given vent. It is almost amusing to hear the hon. gentleman say that I claim omniscience, particularly in regard to diamonds. I have never mentioned diamonds in this House either during his term of office, or that of his predecessor. All this ill-tempered and undignified outburst on his part is entirely beside the point. Whatever interjection he heard was from me, and had no relation to himself.

I heard it from you.

I have no acquaintance with the Minister’s knowledge of the diamond trade. Surely it ill becomes the Minister, who is usually quite a good fellow, and one for whom we have a high regard, to behave like a spoilt child. Now, let us get back to serious topics. Surely the Minister has enough sense of proportion to know that I was discussing a matter within the scope of the Minister of Finance. If I cannot raise on the estimates the question of the appointment of a pensioned official to a position involving the payment of a salary of £1,500; in addition to a pension of £1,200, without being subjected to the almost hysterical outburst of the Minister of Mines and Industries, what are we coming to in Parliament? The Minister of Mines would be well advised in the future to leave such matters in the hands of the much more experienced Minister of Finance who can deal with a subject graciously, whether we agree with him or not. In an almost Pecksniffian way, the Minister of Mines said he had heard nothing from me about the spending of £4,000,000 received from the sale of diamonds. The Minister has worked himself up to such a pitch that he cannot help being offensive, but I am not going to be deterred by any unmannerly or ill-tempered outburst on his part.

The hon. gentleman has pursued the subject at sufficient length.

I presume, sir, you will give me the same latitude that you allowed the Minister of Mines and Industries.

I think I gave the hon. member as much latitude as I allowed to the Minister.

These things are not measured in length of time. The Minister was enabled to make a most unmannerly and undignified reply to me, largely consisting of personal abuse.

The hon. gentleman must not continue the speech in the same vein, and must not repeat himself.

I will continue my defence without any repetition. If a member of the Opposition is singled out by the Minister for a personal attack which seeks to hold him up to derision, then you, as Chairman of Committees, will allow me the same liberty in reply as you allowed when the attack was made. I gave the Minister full opportunity of “getting off his chest” all the spleen which apparently has been accumulating there. I will endeavour not to repeat myself, but to reply to this absolutely uncalled-for and entirely unwarranted attack. I hope, sir, we may feel our liberties are safe in your hands.

I always give all possible latitude, and I am convinced that I allowed the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) as much, if not more, latitude, as I allowed to the Minister of Mines and Industries. I am also satisfied—and I have listened very carefully to what he has said—that he has put his case from his point of view as fully as can be expected. If, however, he wishes to say anything else, on the subject under discussion, he can proceed.

On a point of order, sir, under what rule is the hon. member stopped— has he said anything unparliamentary ?

That point is not under discussion, but if we allow this to continue, debate will be impossible. The hon. member should confine himself to the point under discussion. When there is an attack, the Chairman will always allow defence on the part of the person attacked.

It is not the province of the Chairman to curtail debate. If an hon. member is not making use of expressions which are unparliamentary, or is not wasting the time of the House by frivolous or irrelevant talk, I do not know under what rule he can be stopped, however long the debate may last.

Might I say a few words? I think the hon. member, Mr. Duncan, and I should intervene to see to it that the debate in the House is really useful. The hon. member will remember—I remember it well-—that in the old days there was a time that for hours nothing else was done from one side of the House and the other than to quote what had happened years before, and to make personal attacks. If there ever was anything wrong in this House then it was waste of time. Much to my satisfaction the Speaker and Chairman subsequently pointed out that they would not permit members of the House wasting time on matters which were possibly of interest to hon. members of the House but which did not serve the interests of the country. I think that it was a great improvement on the debates of the House when the speakers and chairmen of committees insisted more and more that we should see to it that so much of the time of the House was not used for personalities. Let me say that I can understand that the members of the same part as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) sympathised with him, but if the hon. member feels himself offended I must say that the Chairman gave the hon. member every opportunity of hitting back. I therefore appeal to the hon. member to let it rest there. May I now just say a few more words to my hon. friends opposite with reference to the appointments. The whole question that was at stake was that the Government had to appoint three men who really understood their work well.

I spoke to a point of order.

The Government was faced with the question of obtaining members for the committee. I think hon. members will quite agree that we were not able to get the services of persons with such a knowledge of diamonds as that possessed by the late friend of South Africa, the late Mr. Aaron Brink, and at his death we were practically without advice, and we had to appoint men on the advisory committee who could assist the Government, but it was a matter involving millions of pounds especially diamonds from Namaqualand. Thus we had to have three men of whom at least the Government could say that they were trustworthy. It was not a matter of appointing diamond experts. It is not intended that they shall examine diamonds, but they must make themselves acquainted with the general business concerns about diamonds, and it was sufficient for the Government to be satisfied that the persons could be trusted. For that we required men who actually could be trusted. The first man on whom we could reckon for his knowledge and who has a great reputation, Mr. Ross Frames, is not a Nationalist, but a S.A.P. man.

No, we do not know what he is.

No, then I am very glad, but I always thought that he was a S.A.P. man. Be as it may, he is one who understands the business. Further, we have Mr. Roos who has always shown that he can get hold of any subject however important. That is why he was a success as auditor-general, and he was a very reliable man in other respects. Dr. de Kock is one of our most promising young men in the service, and one of the cleverest young South Africans in the service. It is of great importance to the State that in view of the great interests concerned the most capable and reliable men should be chosen. Mr. Roos cannot be compelled to sacrifice his pension, and he said that is the least for which he can undertake it. As for Dr. de Kock the question is whether he is worth his pay, and none of the hon. members opposite has dared to say that one of the persons is not worth the salary. I do not believe that one of the hon. members if they had made the appointment would have omitted to say that £1,500 was too little for such a position. A great responsibility rests on the people, and I feel that the Government has succeeded in appointing an excellent board. It is a new institution and is concerned with great public interests. Millions of pounds are involved and the work of the board is very important. I think the criticism of hon. members is very premature. Let them wait until next year, or a few years, and see whether the persons do not suit. If they do not suit they will have very good cause for attacking the Government for appointing them to such responsible positions. If the men do not come up to expectation hon. members will be able to criticise

I want to call the attention of the committee to rule 90 which states that—

That rule gives full power to the Chairman to rule at his own discretion in cases of this kind.

I had intended to accept the Prime Minister’s appeal to allow this matter to drop. Do you rule, Mr. Chairman, that I was guilty of irrelevance and repetition ?

Tedious.

Tedious? I want this little war between the Minister of Mines and Industries and myself to die out. I had not been on my feet for more than three minutes and had not said more than half what I wanted to say.

I have given my ruling, and I abide by it.

I accept your ruling. I have said that the attack was entirely gratuitous, and that I was amazed at the suddenness and ferocity of it. My intervention in this debate was entirely on the broad principle that it is wrong to employ a pensioner in the service of the State and pay him full salary and his full pension.

Cannot you distinguish between a general rule and one or two people appointed to specific posts, like the case of a judge.

It was done I know in the case of Mr. Justice Matthew. He got his pension as law adviser, and then he was appointed a judge in Natal at £2,000 or £2,500 a year, with the result that he is drawing about 50 per cent. more than his brother judges. I submit that in such an instance pension should be counted as part salary once a pensioner is appointed to a post in the public service. With regard to Mr. Roos, I think the Minister should have objected to paying him full salary and full pension. I am very sorry for my part of the incident that has occurred, but if one is attacked one must reply.

The debate to-night was really painful, and I rise because this is not the first time that it has happened that certain persons are attacked who have been appointed by this Government on the allegation that they are not qualified to do the work they have to do. Particularly in the case of Dr. de Kock and Mr. de Villiers Roos we have to-night had another of these attacks. Hon. members opposite admitted that Mr. de Villiers Roos is a man of outstanding capacity, but now they say that he is not competent for the post he has been appointed to. Poor Mr. Roos. He has had a lot to put up with during his life time from hon. members opposite and their friends. Never yet has he been competent for any post in the public service to which he was appointed. When in 1912 he was appointed as Secretary of Justice a tremendous attack was made on him because he had a Dutch name.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I will just quote them a little from Hansard. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was Minister of the Interior at the time and he made a tremendous attack on account of certain things which had been said by Mr. Jagger and others. He said inter alia—

I do not like quoting, these bitter things but because hon. members say that it is not true I want to point out what their own leader said. In 1916 when Mr. Roos was appointed auditor-general it was the same thing.

He always bore a Dutch name.

When he retired everyone praised the auditor-general. Now it is once more said that he is not competent. Poor Mr. Roos is pursued all his life with such statements. He has shown that he is a man of outstanding capacity and he will still further show it. Take Dr. de Kock a few years ago when he and other young South Africans were appointed to the Board of Trade and Industries, the Opposition spoke about the kindergarten and tried to ridicule the members. The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) even read out a play that Dr. Bruwer had written for the purpose of making him ridiculous. To-day the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) says that he has done much good work on the Board of Trade and Industries and knows all about it so that he ought to have been left there. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has already testified in this House of the efficient work of Dr. de Kock and his colleagues. Now, however, he is suddenly inefficient. I am going to trust, and I think the whole of the House will trust with me in the capacity of these people. They will show once more that they are efficient.

On a point of order, is the hon. member speaking on the subject matter of the debate ?

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) may proceed.

My point is that we repeatedly had to hear that the people were not suitable for the post to which they had been appointed, and each time they proved that they were capable in fact. The criticisms will now also turn out to be wrong.

The Hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Swart) has been very unfair to Mr. Jagger. Mr. Jagger has, on more than one occasion, said that he has withdrawn everything he had said about Mr. Roos, and has admitted that he was mistaken. When a gentleman like Mr. Jagger says a thing like that, surely the older members should accept it and leave it there. When the hon. member suggested that there was something racial about Mr. Jagger’s criticism of Mr. Roos, I can only say there has never been a man in this House who has shown less racial feeling than Mr. Jagger. He should be an example to the hon. member opposite.

It seems our friends opposite are a little thin-skinned. When any kind of criticism is developed from this side on a matter of principle connected with an appointment, hon. members opposite get behind a smokescreen by raising the point of racialism. We have heard that also from the hon. the Prime Minister, whom we greatly respect, in connection with Dr. Fobenius, when he said that if Dr. Frobenius’ name had been English, there would have been no outcry. We regret that statement. Now the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has also raised the question that the appointment of Mr. Roos was objected to on this side of the House because he bears a Dutch name.

No, I never said so.

I am glad the hon. member retracts. I do not think we need pursue the matter. I will refer to the views expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He said he objected to Mr. Roos not because he was not able, or efficient, but because he was drawing a pension.

No, I did not say that. I said he should bring in his pension as part of his salary.

Well, that seems quite fair. Perhaps the salary is not sufficient. I think the pension for the present should be suspended and the salary for this office be made inclusive. I think that would meet the whole of the case.

Then he would be getting less than before.

But he has retired on pension.

We regret that the question of “jobs for pals” seems to have gone by the board. I hope the debate will now follow lines of sanity. When members go back to 1912 and dig up Hansard, that does not show sanity on that side of the House.

I would like to say that Hansard is quite a useful institution at times, but it is just as well not to delve into Hansard, as perhaps it is not pleasant to use on an occasion like this. I am glad it has dropped, but there is one thing we all have to learn from it and that is a little politeness and courtesy. I suggest the hon. Prime Minister might institute a little kindergarten in the House for Ministers —chiefly new ones. It is idle for hon. members over there to bring in side issues, however important they may seem to them. The point is we are taking this question on a point of principle. It appears to me that dual pensions and salaries seem to be a necessary qualification in connection with the diamond question. Before the present hon. Minister of Mines and Industries climbed down from his position as Administrator of the Cape, there was a Hofmeyr who was sent down as general manager of the State diggings, and he had not a pension, but his salary as commissioner plus his salary as general manager of the diamond concern, and it was this very Mr. Roos who happens to be an example at the moment, who drew attention to this anomalous state of affairs, as a result of which the Minister had to exercise his treasury right and recall Mr. Hofmeyr. Is that not correct? It may be wrong in detail, but not in fact. Mr. Hofmeyr went down there and was recalled because of the fact that he was getting a dual salary.

The hon. member is quite wrong.

Oh, ho, ho! It will be very interesting if the hon. the Minister will get up and tell us exactly what took place. We do not want to take advantage of wrong information.

I will.

I hope you will tell us everything in connection with it. The fact is that, whatever the Minister says, he cannot gainsay that fact. Mr. Hofmeyr went down there and had two salaries.

No.

As the result of Mr. Roos’ strictures he had to come back again.

One salary was called an allowance.

Just the same, I know you are shuffling behind these things, but I know what you have said. My hon. friend over there also says foolish things. He tries to vitiate the principle we are discussing, behind the cloak of the fact that Mr. Roos was not in the public service. What we were contesting was that the principle is precisely the same whether he is in the public service as such directly employed on fixed establishment, or whether employed by the state in some other capacity. I hope he will not shelter behind a side wind like that, when dealing with this question of Mr. Hofmeyr. What I want to bring before the House is this, and it must have appealed to the House many times in the past. It is, how useless the auditor-general’s report is to us as members of Parliament seeing that he deals with everything in retrospect. I can quite imagine how helped we would be if we could have any information upon this question, while it is warm, and have Mr. Smit’s comments on the appointment of his predecessor. It would be very interesting, informative, useful and helpful to the Minister of Finance. I know that he does not like these dual jobs, and is only too anxious to avoid them. All his efforts are in the direction of real econonmy. I shall deal with the Minister’s statement that it is essential to have an economist upon this board. What on earth is an economist? There are various opinions as to what an economist is. I presume an economist is a man who keeps a tight fist on things, and he comes to the Minister and says, “Be careful, do not allow this and that to be spent”, or that you can get another bob or pound per carat. If that is so, you want an economist advising the Cabinet, if those are the qualifications of an economist which the hon. the Minister has in his mind. I think we might have an economist advising the Minister of Finance. I cannot understand how the Minister came to agree to allow this board to be composed as it is, and that Mr. Roos should be appointed with a salary plus his pension. Further, I would ask, “Tell us about Mr. Hofmeyr”.

I do not think I can allow my hon. friend’s statement in regard to Mr. Hofmeyr to pass. He is quite wrong in regard to his facts. Mr. Roos did not question the double salary. There was no question of a double salary. Mr. Hofmeyr was seconded as a member of the Public Service Commission to this post, and he was drawing a salary which attached to the post while his salary as a member of the Public Service Commission was in abeyance. The Auditor-General queried, under the Public Service Commissions Act, the appointment, and the fact that Mr. Hofmeyr could not be seconded, and said he had to resign to go to another post, and he would not have the right to come back again. Mr. Hofmeyr resigned his appointment, and he came back to his previous post on account of illness. He could not stick it. The facts are that the Auditor-General questioned the fact that Mr. Hofmeyr had been seconded to that position, and he claimed the right to come back to his previous post. He apparently resigned on the ground of ill-health.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 26, “Union Education,” £6,135, put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Agriculture,” £5,750,

I should like to ask a question in connection with locust destruction. I notice in the press that there is a serious invasion of locusts, and I should like to ask the Minister to tell us what the position really is.

A report appeared in the press a few days ago that there has been a visitation of locusts of considerable magnitude. I should like to ask if it is true. I should like the Minister also to give us the locust position at the present time. The expenditure on locust extermination amounts to something like £1,000,000. One would like to know whether there is any possibility of the expenditure going up at an early date. If it is true that we had had a visitation within recent weeks, I should like to ask if there is any possibility that we shall be obliged to revert to the rate of expenditure we had a few years ago. I am not going into the question of the administration of locust extermination. An opportunity will be given me to do that during the debate on the Budget. I want to repeat what I said before, that I consider the Minister’s expenditure in this particular department has been extravagant, and the work could have been done at considerably less expense. I pointed out in what respect it was extravagant. I intend, however, to deal with the matter again when the Budget comes up. The Minister knows that I consider it is extravagant, and the matter of locust extermination is responsible for a vast expenditure of about £1,000,000. It is excessive, and could be cut down by one-half. I should like to know if the Minister will give us full particulars in regard to the position to-day.

I should like information about the additional £5,000 which is provided for locust destruction. I should be glad if the Minister would tell us whether it is intended for fighting the pest or whether it is for research work. Then I should be glad if the Minister can inform me in what districts the locusts have hatched out, and what the information of the department is, whether the outbreak has remained over from previous years. Then I see that £400 is provided for the inspection fees for wool. I should like to know whether this will be covered by the levy on wool.

Is the item “Inspection charges upon wool exported, £400" connected with the proposed wool levy?

In connection with the £400 for inspection fees I should like the Minister to say whether it is repayable from the yield of the levy on wool, and whether the salaries will be paid out of the levy.

I should like to answer the hon. members for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), Hopetown (Dr. Stals) and Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) all together in connection with the fighting of locusts. They ask whether there is any hope of this expenditure ever being reduced, and what the present position is. Let me tell the House plainly that during the last five years money has been put on the estimates each year for the destruction of locusts. It is a thing which is apparently everlasting. We cannot ever kill all the locusts, and they hatch out slowly and gradually increase. If we do not stop them from time to time we shall once more have the same position that existed in 1922-23. It is better to spend money every year and so to keep the pests under control. If this money had not been spent this year, then we would not have had the splendid harvests in the Transvaal and Free State, and I think every farmer will be glad that we have used the money for that purpose. The hon. member for Hopetown asks where the locusts have hatched out the most. At the moment it is in the midlands at Middelburg and De Aar. They are hatching there in independent swarms. The locusts are still active and it is very difficult to kill them. The hon. member for Klip River attacks me every year about the expenditure being too large, and that the Department is wasting money in a luxurious way. The Department is very economical, and we can be thankful that we only require such a small amount now to fight the pest. The previous Government required twice or three times as much, and yet they allowed the locusts to eat up everything. I do not know whether the hon. member is jealous of our having the success that former Governments could not achieve. I do not know whether he wants to make political propaganda in this way. Every year it is asked why this money is being spent, but when once the money is spent then we get letters of thanks for having stopped the pest. Why does the hon. member continue raising the matter every year.

Yes, but you pay £1,400 a year to inspectors who only earn £500.

I do not know where my hon. friend gets that from. They get a salary and travelling expenses. If he is prepared to go to the desert and pay his own expenses I will give him a balloon, if he is capable to do the work, but I am afraid he will lose his way and die in the desert. The hon. member for Hopetown, and the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) asked whether the £400 to be paid for inspection fees will be refunded from the yield of the levy on wool. The Minister of Finance in moving to go into Committee made it plain to the House that that would occur. Inspection fees are paid out of the levy, and the money will be returned to the Treasury.

I think the Minister has made a mistake. We did not attack him in regard to these expenses, but we said that according to the press there is a very serious invasion of locusts from outside our borders, and we asked him to tell us what the position is. The country would be glad to have the information.

If the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) had listened he would have heard that I did not say he had made an attack on me. I said that the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) had attacked me because he stated that my administration was too expensive. He cannot compel me to be silent when I am assailed. If there has been extraordinary expenditure then the Auditor-General will draw attention to it. We are keeping an eye on the position, and, in spite of the messages contained in the newspapers, I do not doubt that our farmers will reap their harvests, and that we shall become masters of the position.

The Minister says that I am repeatedly making these attacks, but every time I have brought up this question of locust expenditure I have given figures showing that, after making due allowance for all motor-car maintenance and other expenses, some of his locust inspectors are drawing from £1,300 to £1,400 a year. Thus, they are receiving princely salaries to which they are not entitled as the work could be done at less expense. The Minister has never questioned my figures and I challenge him to do it. I challenge him to disprove what I say. It is no good for the Minister throwing it in my teeth that I am constantly raising this question. I do it in all seriousness because I feel expenditure on locust extermination is excessive and unnecessarily so. It can be done for considerably less. I would like the Minister to go into the figures I have quoted. There is no check on these inspectors, who have a perfectly free hand, and all an inspector has to do to earn a competence in a few years is to reel off so many miles a day at 1s. a mile motor allowance, and send in his account to the department.

I am glad that the Minister has assured me that that £400 will be returned, and that the £1,040 is being spent on the salaries of the three inspectors. I ask the Minister to carefully see that the interests of the farmers are carefully looked after. The three inspectors are appointed by the Minister and not by the Board, because the Board was nominated ofter the inspectors had been appointed. I want to ask the Minister if he will not appoint two more inspectors because I understand from the reply he gave a few days ago that two more are to be appointed. Then the total amount for their salaries will be between £1,500 and £1,600 which will have to be paid from the levy. Members of that Board are appointed by the Minister. It is a levy on the produce of the wool farmers. A meeting of the agricultural unions was held in Bloemfontein and the recommedation was made that the members of the board should consist of 5 or 7 members who are elected in co-operation with the national wool-growers associations in the provinces. I understand that the Cape National Wool-growers’ Association has sent in two names—and I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—for appointment on the board, and two members of the agricultural union have been appointed. The Minister must clearly understand that the members of the agricultural union are not necessarily wool farmers, it is a body which represents wine farmers, tobacco farmers, and other farmers. I want to ask the Minister why the two persons recommended by the National Wool-growers’ Association have not been appointed, because that is a body which represents the interests of the wool farmers. Then I should like the Minister to say what the work of the inspectors really is. When is the inspection held, before the sale, or after the wool has been sold? If the Minister says that the inspectors must examine the wool before it is sold then the wool farmers will object because he cannot inspect the wool without breaking it up. If the inspection takes place after the wool is sold what is the value of the inspection? Is there anyone who can better judge the wool than the man who buys it himself? In this case the inspection appears superfluous. Are we to appoint men at a salary of £1,500 and not get the services we expect? If the Minister says that the levy of 1/- a bale is willingly paid then he is correct. But I am now speaking about the work of the inspectors. During one season no less than 50,000 bales of wool are shipped from the ports, all of which, therefore, have to inspected. I should like the Minister to say what the character and the object of the work of the inspectors are. The Minister must understand that I am not opposed to the levy of 1s. a bale of wool, but if the amount is used for research work, or to provide for the improvement of the wool market, then I have no objection to it. But I do object to it if the money is used for inspection which will not better the matter at all, because, as I have said, if the inspection takes place before the sale, the wool bales are damaged and if it takes place after it is futile because the wool has already been sold.

The hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) objects to certain appointments on the board. Let me just say that the Agricultural Union of Bloemfontein and the organizing body of the wool-growers met and made certain proposals, viz., that recommendations for appointments on the board should be made through the agricultural unions. I have already explained this in my reply.

The names of the persons were not sent up through the wool-growers.

If the Agricultural Union did not send me those names it is not my fault. I stand by the names they recommended, and I think that those persons are competent. Then the hon. member asks the question with reference to the payment of the inspectors. The Act of 1917 and that of 1922 which deals with agricultural produce provides that when a levy is made on a product the inspection fees must be paid out of it. I can assure the hon. member that only a few weeks ago one of the worst of the fraudulent packings, which has ever taken place, occurred in Port Elizabeth. It was discovered and are we merely to remain still and allow that kind of wool to be exported overseas and ruin our market ?

It would have been discovered without the inspector.

But then I do not understand the honesty of the hon. member either. I sent him a circular letter of four pages carefully describing what the levy would be used for. I have the letter in which the hon. member approved of it. Now he comes and asks what we want to use the levy for. I have nothing further to say about the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 31, “Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones,” £28,000,

It will be noted that the turnover in the department is about £4,000,000, while the profit shown is slightly under £100,000. I would like the Minister to give the House some reason for this shortfall in revenue, seeing that all the charges maintained last year, have been maintained this year. The peculiarity of the position is that the posts and telegraphs, with a turnover of two and a half millions, shows an actual loss of £330. We have the telephones with a one and a half million turnover, and a profit of £99,528. Is it in the estimating that these peculiar discrepancies occur? Then there is an increase in the revenue of the year of £130,000, not an unusual amount on a total of £4,000,000, and an amount that in an ordinary business would be secured without any additional expenditure. I want the Minister to tell us why we have spent a £112,000 extra in order to secure that £130,000. Surely that is an unheard of position. It would be perfectly fair to suggest that with an increase of £130,000 spread over the whole of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs there should be no increase in expenditure. The employees have also increased in number in order to bring in this £130,000. In 1927-’28, they numbered 12,805, while in 1928-’29 they increased to 13,182. I suggest there is no warrant for such an increase with such a small increase in revenue, Then there is a further grievance. It has been pointed out in this House over and over again that the war charge maintained on telegrams should have disappeared years ago. It has remained up to the present.

The hon. member must not discuss policy.

I am discussing the particular point with regard to telephone charges. That is closely associated with this £28,000.

That does not fall under this Vote.

I want to be permitted to show that it is partly because of maintaining the old high charges that the profits of the department are small.

On a point of order, I wish to inform you that in this estimate, we are not dealing with revenue.

I quite understand that.

The hon. member should confine himself to a discussion of the increases appearing under this vote.

I shall be glad to get all the information possible with regard to the increase.

When the main estimates are before the House I shall have no objection to discussing the point raised, and to giving the hon. member any information he may desire. I may tell him now that Item A., Salaries, Wages and Allowances, was underestimated considerably in view of the great increase in the volume of business. It must not be forgotten either that, due to great pressure from all sides of the House, extra postal facilities have had to be provided. An attempt was made last year to bring down the amount for salaries, but we found, however, that the position was untenable. We were soon in the position of not having sufficient postal and telegraph clerks and overtime resulted. Another reason for this additional expenditure is that we are utilizing the services of the railway motor service for quicker and more frequent transmission in the country districts. The item for Postal Stores explains itself. There is a larger volume of business, but there is not a very great increase on the total vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 33, “Lands,” £2,200,

With regard to the item of £200, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a statement regarding the Hartebeestpoort settlement. It has been said that a change had been made and the settlement taken over from the Labour Department. I do not know whether the Labour Department has shown itself incapable of controlling the settlement or not. Perhaps the Minister of Lands will be good enough to tell us what lies behind it.

The hon. member cannot expect me to say whether the Labour Department has made a failure there or not. What happened was that the persons under the Department of Labour, the tenant farmers, could not become owners of the ground. The Department of Labour cannot grant land. They work there but could not become owners, and therefore it was urged that my Department should take it over so that they could come under the ordinary settlement provisions. This, however, only applies to a part of the settlement.

What part ?

About 7,000 morgen. It would be taken over on the 1st of April, but preparatory work has already to be done.

I want a little more information. Has the actual organization of the Hartebeestpoort settlement been taken over by the Department of Lands from the Department of Labour? Are the officers in control still under the Department of Labour? If so, why is the committee of control shown under the Lands vote, and not shown under the Minister of Labour? I would like the Minister to tell us what the change is, and how it has come about. I understand his department is the only one that can give titles, and that that is the reason for the change. Are we to look to him for the future, or partly to him and partly to the Minister of Labour ?

It is incorrect to say that this settlement was under the Labour Department, because it never was. These poor people who have no assets are placed on this settlement for three years where they are trained by my department and get a share of the profits. The committee of control has been established by the Department of Lands, not by the Department of Labour. I have taken over only a certain portion of the area. The hon. member will recollect that only a part of the land falling under the Hartebeestpoort dam was taken over. I have taken over about half for probationary settlement, and for that I am responsible.

Are you going to take over the settlers, as well as the land ?

Yes. These people I have taken over are taken over for three years. That is the whole situation.

Vote put and agreed to.

We had to advise the Land Bank that they should carry out their functions with the capital they have. Hon. members will have noticed that only this afternoon a notice of motion was introduced, asking Parliament to confirm that control of banks. I have been hoping the time would come when we could seriously curtail funds of the Land Bank, but up to now that has not been possible. Lately the amounts have not been so large as in former years. As far as this particular amount is concerned, it is for the agricultural credit scheme. Up to now we have 800 loan companies, 6,800 credit societies, and we have to write off about £7,000 for this scheme. This £7,000 is to finance this scheme under the Agricultural Bank. As the scheme develops, it will be necessary for the Treasury to make additional grants to enable the bank to carry on.

What interest does the bank pay ?

Just a shade over 5 per cent; the rate varies according to the particular loan.

The hon. Minister may have noticed the decision given in the courts and reported in this morning’s paper.

I have no information about it.

It is an important matter. We are informed that there is another £200,000 which the Minister tells us is to go to the agricultural credit societies. Well, that money is given on certain securities. But the courts have held that that security is invalid. The securities, therefore, that are held by the agricultural credit societies are unsound. It seems to me it is a very important matter. I think the Minister said that a sum of £700,000 is already out to these societies, and there is going to be at any rate, a large proportion of another £200,000. I come back to the point that if this judgment of the court is right, is the Minister going to correct either by legislation or in some other way, before the agricultural credit societies get this additional £200,000. I bring this up now because I understand that Mr. Herold has reached the retiring age and it is very important to know who will replace him. There is a tremendous amount of government money at risk in this bank. If we have many cases such as reported in this morning’s paper, the security may vanish. I think there is some weakness in the form of a security.

I think the hon. member has fairly stated the case. The court has held that the securities are valueless. I should point out that it is merely a magistrate’s court decision. It has not yet been tested. It is stated under the Act that amongst other things the bank will have a lien on growing crops of the members of these societies, but the magistrate’s court has held that this does not extend to the proceeds of the crops after the crops have been sold. Obviously, in regard to the security available to these societies, there is a defect in the Act and it will have to be remedied. We shall go into the matter and if there is a defect in the legislation it will have to be remedied. In regard to the other points raised with reference to the retirement of Mr. Herold, I can inform the hon. member, as I think the country knows, that Mr. Herold will be succeeded by Mr. Wilmot, the present acting manager of the bank, and the same policy will be pursued.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K., “Agriculture,” £20,000, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds to be reported without amendment.

reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds without amendment.

Report considered and adopted and a Bill brought up.

Will not the Prime Minister now adjourn ?

If there is to be more discussion on the following order I am willing, but I thought it would have gone through.

I understand there is to be further discussion.