When the debate was adjourned the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) had completed his scathing criticisms of some government appointments. My remarks are intended to be supplementary to those criticisms. The hon. member referred to the appointment of the Labour Adviser, and the Minister of Labour interjected that that appointment was made because Mr. Strachan was held by him to be the best man for the job. We know that Mr. Strachan was a defeated candidate at the last general election, and probably neither efficiency nor competency were the determining factors in regard jo his appointment, because other defeated candidates of the Creswellite persuasion were given Government appointments. The Minister of Defence, I have no doubt, was instrumental in bringing that about. It was not only the appointment of Mr. Strachan to a post carying a salary of something like £800 per annum, but there was Mr. Waterston being given a post on the Railway Board. Another promotion, if I may so call it, was that of Mr. Boydell to the Senate. I do not know whether the Minister is going to contend that all these gentlemen got these appointments because they happened to be the right person for the right job at the very moment these appointments were open; if so, it is a very extraordinary coincidence. I think they are very fortunate. The Minister of Defence has to thank the Nationalist party for his presence in the House; he is not there by the Labour yote, but by the Nationalist vote, and those who adhere to him are also there because of the Nationalist vote; so there is no doubt the Prime Minister has been a loyal friend to his political supporters. I am coming now to appointments made from outside the service, and the public servants are smarting under the injustice of this. If race distinction and political distinction are to be the determining factors in making these appointments, we can never hope to have an efficient and contented public service. We have two glaring instances of recent date, and these appointments have been made notwithstanding the protest of the public servants’ association of the country against appointments outside the service. There are numerous officials inside the service eligible for these posts. Dr. Botha has been given an appointment from outside the service and he is now placed on the fixed establishment, thus throwing an additional burden on our pension fund, and at a salary more than double that he enjoyed before, together with other perquisites. Then we have Mr. Steyn, taken from outside the service and given a salary more than double that which he enjoyed when he was private secretary to the Prime Minister. He too is now placed on the fixed establishment with pension rights. The Estimates show he has been appointed consul-general at a salary ranging from £1,250 to £1,400 plus £775 allowances, pro-consul’s allowances, clerical assistance and so forth, making a grand total of over £3,200 I protest against these appointments from outside the service. There is no necessity for them, as there are numerous officials in the service competent to fill them. In the interest of the finances of the country, it is a great pity to make unnecessary appointments of this sort which are simply overburdening the pensions fund. The Prime Minister’s private secretary Mr. Steyn was allowed a joy ride to England at the expense of the State on the pretext that he was going to the High Commissioner’s office to learn to carry out his duties at Lourenco Marques. What possible training could he obtain there that would be of assistance to him at Lourenco Marques? I submit this further expense was quite unnecessary. The great trouble today in the public service is the making of appointments in the higher grades from outside the service over the heads of men who have devoted their lives to the public service, and whose claims to promotion should have first consideration. Of course, there is the other factor—entrants into the service are admitted, not on the grounds of efficiency, character and educational attainment, hut on racial grounds or political expediency. Surely the principle of entrants joining the ranks it the bottom of the ladder and working their way up is the only sound one, but it is a principle which is entirely disregarded by the present Government. These appointments from outside the service have been going on under the eyes of the fixed establishment officials, who are suffering under the disappointment of blocked promotion in consequence. One can imagine their feelings. They are disspirited and disheartened, and embrace the very first opportunity given them of taking their retirement from the service—only too glad to do so, because they know the future holds out little hope for them. Public servants have expressed in unmeasured terms their disapproval of these appointments from outside the service. They not only object to these appointments from outside the service, but they go further than that They put their finger on the weak spot when they contend that the whole trouble in the public service to-day is due to the fact that the present Public Service Commission is not an independent commission, but a mere puppet of the Government, a rubber stamp. Appointments are made on the recommendation of the ministerial head of each department.

It has always been so.

No, it has not. This is a sorry state of affairs when we have the public service of this country publicly denouncing the Public Service Commission as being a puppet of the Ministerial heads. We have never had the spectacle of the Public Service Commission being denounced like this until the present Government came into power. The mistake the Government made was to retire the old Public Service Commission with which the public service was satisfied. Here again the retirement of the late public service commissioners was done regardless of cost to the State. I have a reference to this in Hansard. The question was put by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) in 1926 to the Minister of the Interior, the hon. member asking whether it was a fact that the three public service commissioners were being retired, what led to their retirement before reaching the retirement age, and what was the anticipated cost of the change. One of the commissioners, Mr. Robinson, was at that time on the pension list, but Mr. Hofmeyr upon retirement received a pension of £1,333 6s. 8d., and the other commissioner received a pension of £772. Neither had reached the retiring age and their unnecessary retirement has helped to swell the pension fund. The public servants themselves at a conference in Pretoria in 1929, passed resolutions with regard to appointments to the service. The Minister of the Interior knows all about these resolutions. They have been sent to him from time to time, but he has not paid the slightest heed to them. The committee of the public service association stated in their report—

That was the report of the committee of the public service association in 1929. I do not suppose that any further protests have been lodged. The Minister of the Interior knows that at the annual meetings of the association these protests have been received and forwarded to him, and to-day the association say that not the slightest heed has been paid to their protests. That is borne out by recent appointments from outside the service It would be a happy day for this country if we could get away from these political and racial distinctions in the making of appointments, but I do not think any hon. member opposite will dare to say that appointments since this Government has come into power have not been based on such distinctions.

Question.

There is no question about that. I will give some instances of appointments made which are of a political colour. I suppose the arch-culprit in connection with appointments is the Minister of Agriculture. The first thing the Minister of Agriculture did was to make a clean sweep of the stock-inspectors throughout the country. He followed that up by giving jobs to friends of his in the work of locust extermination, and, of course, relatives. Hansard is over-burdened with the names of relatives of the hon. the Minister who have been given appointments. I have already given figures to prove the princely salaries which were being paid in the locust division. If it were not for the fact that friends of the Minister had to be provided with jobs—

Who ?

I will give you some names presently. If it were not for that fact, this work of locust extermination could have been done at considerably less cost. We know that the cost to-day exceeds a million of money. I maintain that the work could have been done much cheaper if political expediency and racial considerations had not been brought to bear on appointments made. This is the way the Minister went about purging the service of good and faithful servants. I have one or two examples. Take the dismissal of stock-inspector Froneman, an officer employed by the late Government. When he was dismissed, he was informed that “owing to reorganization of the sheep division, it has become necessary to terminate your position in the department.”

Where did he come from ?

Bethlehem. I am glad the hon. member asked me that. Mr. Froneman was a stock-inspector in the Bethlehem district. The Minister was taken to task in this House for dismissing him. The Minister did not attempt to show that Froneman was inefficient. The man had unquestionably rendered valuable service. When driven into a corner, the Minister said, “I dismissed him because he was a political agent of the South African party”.

Was he?

No. I have already said that as far as the appointments made under the old public service commission are concerned, the public servants were largely satisfied with those appointments. At that time, we did not have the degrading spectacle of public servants meeting in conference and denouncing the Public Service Commission for the manner in which appointments are made. To return to the stock-inspectors, I will give another instance. After dismissing Froneman, the Minister proceeds to dismiss another sheep inspector at Bethlehem, Mr. van Rooyen, and his notice of dismissal is couched in the same terms as Froneman’s.

Was he a member of the public service?

I have plenty of instances to give before I have done. When the Minister of Agriculture was asked in the House why van Rooyen was dismissed, he said it was because van Rooyen was a political agent of the South African party. Then, in the place of Froneman the Minister appoints a brother-in-law of the then member for Bethlehem, and in the place of van Rooyen, he appoints a brother of the then member for Bethlehem, and in the same breath he talks about political agents of the South African party. Then let us come to the appointment of the Chief of the Division of Economics and Markets, Mr. Geldenhuys— another outside appointment—an officer of high standing in the service was nominated and provisionally approved by the Public Service Commission. This officer had toured the United States and Europe to gather knowledge and experience for the position. The Minister of Agriculture, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, disapproved this nomination and appointed a man from outside the service, namely, Mr. Geldenhuis, to supersede the gentleman in question, a Mr. Lamont, to whom he objected on the ground that he was not a trained economist. Eventually the post of under secretary became vacant. The Minister then appointed Mr. Geldenhuys to this post, blocking the promotion of another officer of long standing in the service and who had acted as under secretary on several occasions, and then appointed Mr. Lamont to the position of Chief of the Division of Economics and Markets, which a few months before he had said he was not qualified to fill. What became of the gentleman whose promotion was barred? I can give you his name. He had devoted his life to the service and was a competent official. So disgusted was he that he seized the first opportunity of getting out of the service. Strangely enough, in such circumstances, the opportunity is invariably given as vacancies are thus created, for friends of Ministers. He retired from the service nine years before his retiring age at a pension of £560, and an accumulated leave allowance of £640. The Minister of Finance will correct me if I am wrong; but I understand this pension is a charge on general revenue. When the retired officer reaches the retiring age his pension becomes a charge on the pension fund, so that general revenue is bearing the burden of men retired on the pretext of reorganization and abolition of office to-day, and in the course of a few years we shall find these pensions an additional burden on the pension fund of the country, which fund is going up by leaps and bounds, largely because of the policy of the Government of retiring officials who are imaginary South African party agents, notwithstanding the fact that they take no part in politics. In order to make room for his friends, the Minister of Agriculture is imposing a heavy burden on the taxpayer of this country. The gentleman who was retired from the service was in his prime, full of energy, and his services should have been retained; he had earned the right to the promotion to the vacant office of under secretary. But his rights were ignored, and he felt the public service was no place for him, and got out. I wish to refer to another appointment in order to show how callous the Government is in regard to expenditure. General Manie Maritz came down here representing the oppressed people of Namaqualand. It was not expedient that he should return, and his silence was purchased here by a post being created for him in Namaqualand. The position was so farcical that even the Minister could not stomach it and after a lapse of two or three months, not knowing what to do with the gentleman in question, he abolished the post and sent Maritz away to German South-West at a salary ranging, I suppose, from £1,000 to £1,200.

We want more information.

The Minister will have his opportunity. I do not know whether this gentleman will be placed on the fixed establishment, but I will ask the Minister, is this country under any obligation to Gen. Manie Maritz, the man who tried to break down the constitution of this country ?

What about Jameson?

If there was one man who was not entitled to preferment at the hands of this country, it was Gen. Manie Maritz. I suppose the Minister knows a gentleman of the name of van Dolson. He was the manager of a bank, and was appointed by the Minister of Agriculture as registrar of the Division of Economics and Markets. It is wonderful how rapid is the promotion of these gentlemen from outside the service. A year does not pass without some substantial promotion. He was appointed at a salary of £850 per annum, and the excuse made by the Minister was that he was needed because he was a professional accountant. Rut the Minister had an officer waiting at the barrier who was a fully qualified accountant, whose claims were ignored. I can give his name. His promotion was barred and will, I suppose, be barred for all time. Would the Minister like me to give the name?

You seem very anxious to give it.

I am ready to give the name. After devoting his life to the service of the country he suddenly found his promotion blocked by the introduction of a man from outside the service, who is put over his head on racial grounds or political expediency. I want to say a few words to the Minister of the Interior. We all know—it was common talk at the time that the magistrate of Wakkerstroom in 1924 was known as the hero of Wakkerstroom. He got the credit of having won that seat for the Nationalist party. He was taken out of that position shortly after the election and put into the public service as public service inspector at a salary from £800 to £930 per annum. He was not there long before he was promoted to the post of Secretary of the Public Service Commission at a salary of £950 to £1,000 per annum; then he was promoted to the post of Secretary for Mines and Industries at a salary of £1,400 to £1,600. The Minister of the Interior was asked by me, or the hon. member for Illovo, what this gentleman’s qualification was to justify his meteoric promotion. This is the question which was put—

He held no such qualification. Let me show the House how the public servants have suffered by those meteoric promotions In respect of the first appointment, the public service inspector, from £800 to £930, the number of officers senior to him and whom he superseded was 145. In respect of the second appointment, the secretary of the Public Service Commission, £950 to £1,050, the number was 86. In respect of the third appointment, secretary of Mines and Industries, the number was 83. How can we ever hope to have an efficient and contented public service, when that sort of thing is going on? What was it that justified this phenomenal promotion which that gentleman got? I can give another instance which brings us back to our highly esteemed friend, the late Minister of Justice. He is very blameworthy in regard to some appointments, and this is one of them. He takes a young man out of an attorney’s office in Pretoria and promotes him to the position of private secretary to the Minister of Justice in July, 1924, at a salary of £25 a month. Early in 1925, less than a year afterwards, his emoluments were increased to £390 per annum, plus £60 local allowance. In August, 1925, again a few months after his previous promotion, he is appointed as costs and conveyancing clerk in the attorney-general’s office at a salary of £450. His present salary is £950, ranging from £950 to £1,100. The Minister was cross-examined in regard to that appointment. The Minister was asked—

That is what I want to stress. The question goes on—

The answer to No. 8. was the usual reply—

That is what is going on every day. The ministerial head of the departments directs the Public Service Commission that a certain gentleman is to receive a certain appointment, and it is done. I should like the Minister to give me a single instance where the Public Service Commission has run counter to the recommendations of the ministerial head of the department.

Yes, when I was there.

No. The hon. member will have an opportunity of making his statement later. Let me give you the names of the gentlemen senior to Mr. van Rensburg who were superseded by this appointment of Mr. van Rensburg. The question was put—

The answer was an interjection by Mr. Speaker—

The question was further put—

The Acting Minister of Justice replied—

A further question was—

These were all officials in the service senior to Mr. van Rensburg, who were made junior to Mr. van Rensburg on his elevation to this post, The Minister’s reply was the same old stereotyped one. I do not know whether you will allow a repetition of this sort of thing.

There was another reply given on another occasion.

The hon. Minister will have an opportunity of quoting it. I cannot look up that portion of Hansard at the present time. The Minister will have a full opportunity to reply. I invite the fullest reply or criticism of my statement in the House to-day. I do not know whether hon. members opposite want any more instances. They can be multiplied ten-fold or twenty-fold. I just want to quote a further resolution which was passed by the Witwatersrand district branch of the Public Service Association. It is a most damning indictment of the Government—

That is a nice sort of thing for the public service to say in conference assembled. It is a very grave reflection on the Government’s administration. It is the gravest reflection that the Government can receive at the hands of the public servants.

Why don’t you read the reply ?

I have not got it. The hon. Minister will have an opportunity of replying to it, and I will welcome his reply. I want to give you a few figures to show what effect this has had, this drawing of racial and political distinction in making appointments. [Time limit.]

On Monday afternoon and again to-day the House has listened to members of the Opposition attacking the Government about expenditure on and the appointment of officials. One can very easily see through it that it is nothing else but race hatred, because Afrikaners are getting certain appointments. It is nothing but the old Unionist shouting that an Afrikaner may not be employed in the service, and when one is appointed, we get criticized.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) objects that I want to point out that the old criticism of the South African party is again being made. The South African party is dead to-day. It is only the South African party in name, but in reality it is the Unionist party. It is the hand of Esau, but the voice of the Unionist. Let me quote from Hansard what Mr. Jagger said on this subject. In Hansard for 1912 he attacked the present leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) as follows—

So it proceeds. Mr. Jagger mentioned various cases, and the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), who was then on the Government benches, gave the ministerial reply—

Here we have exactly the same thing to-day, because Afrikaners are given appointments a fuss is made. It was mentioned that Mr. Steyn was appointed as Consul-General, but what right have Government officials to that appointment. Is it an appointment in the public service, or is it a political appointment for which persons have to be appointed by the Government? What right have public servants to say that it is an injustice if it is not a public service appointment at all. But if he had had an English name we should never have heard about Mr. Steyn’s appointment. That is the reason why the appointments are protested against. It is the same reason for which the appointments of Messrs, de Kock and Roos were attacked. The leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) said in 1912 that the attacks were made because the people had Afrikaans names, and it is the same thing to-day. They have also criticized the appointment of Mr. Ross Frames. That is not an Afrikaans name, but because he does not stand together with De Beers and other companies, but is an independent man, his appointment is disapproved of. If he was a man who was appointed by De Beers, we should have heard nothing about it. As for the appointment of officials, I shall not shrink from what I have already clearly said in 1924, viz., that other things being equal, I shall give the preference to members of my party. The opposite side did that for more than ten years, and now we are doing it, it is, according to them, an unheard-of thing. I say again that with regard to appointments I have to make and which do not come under the Public Service Commission, they will be made by me as I think fit. Now I come back to what the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) said. He thinks the Locust Commission will cost the country such an enormous amount of money, and that it can be done much cheaper. He charges me with appointing my friends in the services with high salaries. He said that Mr. A. P. J. Bezuidenhout got no less a salary than £1,400. Can the hon. member support that statement? He ought to know that the statement is ungrounded and untrue. In 1928 the hon. member put the question—

1. (1) On what date did Mr. A. P. J. Bezuidenhout enter the service of the Department of Agriculture;
2. (2) what is the total amount received by Mr. Bezuidenhout as a senior locust officer of a locust intelligence officer in the Department of Agriculture by way of (a) salary, (b) subsistence allowance, (c) motor mileage, from the date of his appointment to the 29th February, 1928; and
3. (3) what amount has been paid to motor garage proprietors for motor hire for Mr. Bezuidenhout’s journeys during the same period ?

Notwithstanding that the hon. member got the following reply from me, he always repeats all the old accusations—

1. (1) 18th July, 1924.
2. (2) Total amounts paid to Mr. Bezuidenhout for period from 18th July, 1924, to 29th February, 1928, are: (a) salary, £1,334 5s. 3d.; (b) subsistence allowance, £819 7s. 9d.; (c) motor allowance, £1,791 16s. 9d. (to 30th June, 1926).
3. (3) £1,305 3s. (from 1st July, 1926).

Is that £100 a month, or did the hon. member only intend bringing the country under a wrong impression, and to make political capital out of it? Why does the hon. member every time come here and say that the expenditure on the destruction of locusts was so enormous. Is he jealous of our success in fighting the locust, so that they did not destroy the crops of the farmers? It is pure jealousy of the efficiency of the administration that they are unable to find any point of attack to make political capital. The hon. member has again mentioned the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys. One thing is certain, that if an appointment has to be made of a secretary or under-secretary, a man who has to be responsible for the department, then surely the Minister has some say in the matter. The Col. Williams I appointed, I have, although he is a man with an English name, because he is a soldier, and because he knew his work, recommended that he should be appointed. Dr. Geldenhuys, of the Economics and Marketing Department, was recommended by me because he was efficient. No, although I am a man who grew up behind the plough, I challenge hon. members opposite to prove where the Agricultural Department has done anything to the detriment of the farming population, or made a mistake during the last six years. In spite of all the debates and the attacks, they now remain absolutely silent. I was, therefore, justified in making these appointments, and to ask the Public Service Commission to approve of them. The hon. members say that I did an injustice to Mr. Lamont. He was head of the agricultural school near Stellenbosch at the time, subsequently he got the appointment for which he was cut out. I am, however, convinced that the hon. member is not speaking here on behalf of Mr. Lamont. When the matter was up the last occasion Mr. Lamont came to see me and said: “This is not being done at my instance.” He was very sorry about it. I am certain that if he knew that the matter was mentioned here this afternoon, he would be sorry about it. I now come to the appointment of Gen. Maritz. It has been criticized. Why? Because he was a rebel. There are people in our country who have obtained a much higher appointment than he has who were rebels. There is one who became Prime Minister of the Cape Province. That is approved, and yet hon. members have the temerity to attack the appointment of Gen. Maritz because he was a rebel. Who made more rebels in South Africa than the present leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts)? During the second war of independence he came to the Cape Province, and how many rebels did he not make here? When, subsequently, another rebellion broke out, it was a terrible sin, but he was the example. Some of those people who were made rebels in the Cape Province lost their property and became poor and were ruined. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is the greater creator of rebels we have ever yet had in this country. Unfortunately, some of them have been left in the lurch by that hon. member. The administration of South-West took him over; they can appoint there whoever they like. They wanted him, and I had no objection to giving him up. But I want to say this: that Gen. Maritz did good work in Namaqualand as long as he was required there. But hon. members opposite are, of course, sorry that we used him to put an end to the trouble. They wanted an outburst then like there was in Johannesburg in 1922. But because the Government was wise, and used people who understood the difficulties, they are now sorry that they had the opportunity of making use of the fact that there had been trouble.

Maritz was bought.

Is it buying anyone when you appoint him as an official? Then all our officials are bought.

But his appointment was not necessary.

If the hon. member wants to take it that way he is welcome. There is also another official who was mentioned here, and it was said that he was retired on pension nine years before the time. Does the hon. member wish the state, when the Public Service Commission says that an official is superfluous, to continue to keep on that official and pay him? No injustice was done to that official because he draws his legal pension. There were mentioned still other officials, viz., van Rooy and Froneman, they are not officials coming under the Public Service Commission. Apparently the hon. member does not know that. He does not know that sheep inspectors do not come under the Public Service Commission. If an official goes and makes political propaganda instead of doing his work, then I will definitely assume the attitude that he must not be kept on. But in this case the position was that there were too many of these officials, and I had to discharge some of them. Scab is diminishing, and I must economize, and, therefore, I had to discharge officials. East coast fever is getting less frequent, and am I then to keep on all the officials, even if they are superfluous? Hon. members now remain perfectly quiet. They realize how flat all these attacks fall. Now I have disposed of the points in connection with my department, but let me refer to a few of the attacks which were made on the Minister of Labour. Reference was made to the settlements at Doornkop and Nuweburg. Let us pause a moment on those matters. I agree that the Doornkop settlement was not the success we expected, nor the one at Nuweburg. The building cost approximately £25,000, but it is almost complete, and even supposing that the undertaking was a failure, then the state would only lose some thousands. In connection with Doornkop, it is still possible that the state will get back all its money, but how do these mistakes, if we may call them so, compare with the misdeeds of that party? Let me mention a few of them. The first is the large irrigation works at Cannon Island in the Orange River. While an election in Prieska was in progress and irrigation work had suddenly to be started, the Irrigation Department said that it was impossible to start work there, but it had to be done. When the election was over the work was stopped. £50,000 was spent there, and to-day there is nothing left but the pillars. How does that compare with Doornkop and Nuweburg? Take the case of the Durban grain elevator. I see hon. members opposite want to say that that was the mistake of the technical advisers of the Government. In our case, of course, it is not the technical advisers, and we must bear the blame ourselves. But more than £200,000 was wasted on that elevator. Take the flour transaction of Mr. Burton, on which the country lost £800,000 in consequence of the rotten administration of the party on the opposite side of the House. This transaction cost the country over £800,000. and that at the expense of the wheat farmers and maize farmers. I am going still further, I take the purchase of ground in the Free State from a certain Somerville. There 6,000 morgen were purchased.

Mr. Kolbe recommended it.

That makes no difference. That hon. member is responsible for it. That ground was bought, and the hon. member says that the officials recommended it. He wants to hide behind the officials. But when this side of the House does anything on the recommendation of the officials, then the Government is held responsible for it. The ground was bought for £60,000 from an owner who is now living in Durban, and no settler can live there. It is a piece of springbuck hills, and there is no water.

Blesbuck.

The only things that can live there are springbuck and blesbuck. The previous Government themselves abandoned it because they saw that it was hopeless for a settlement. We asked the Free State to take it over from us and to allow buck to run there. That was the line of conduct of hon. members opposite. And then we hear them attacking about a little mistake like Nuweburg. There is another case of buying ground, and this was at Riversdale, while the person concerned was a member of Parliament. Very much too much was paid for the ground. We further find that the previous Government, just before it resigned, bought ground along the Sundays River. For that also an enormous amount was paid, and we had to write off a large sum. No, hon. members opposite are silent about all this, but then they want to tell us that we make many mistakes. We are not perfect, but in comparison with the blunders that they made, our mistakes are so few, that one could not see them with a magnifying glass. I am sorry that hon. members opposite are so bankrupt that they have again brought up these things which were disposed of two or three years ago. They are desperate, remediless, hopeless and without a leader. When there is an important matter before the House, they run out of it as if they had no responsibility in connection with it. We had an example of this only last week, when all the members of the front benches of that party rushed out of the House. They will not take any responsibility for the things the back benchers advocate. I want to say again that I am sorry to have to say all this, but if hon. members want to attack us in that way, then they must expect counter blows. We have possibly remained quiet too long for the sake of expediting the work. Now we shall do so no longer, and we shall take up the glove if it is thrown at us. I am not ashamed of the administration of the Agricultural Department. The administration will be continued in the same way as in the past, because I have challenged hon. members to tell me where, during the last six years, anything has been done to the detriment of the farmers, and they had to remain absolutely silent.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture can always be relied upon to make an excellent fighting speech when the question of jobs or of racialism happens to be the subject of discussion, but one regrets that we have got to the stage when any criticism levelled at the Government in connection with State departments brings the Minister to his feet with the argument that a heinous offence has been committed in tendering such criticism. This policy of jobs for pals has secured a very ardent convert in the present hon. Minister of Defence, who would have nothing to do with the policy of jobs for pals until he had split his party in twain, but who now goes the whole hog in carrying out this policy. I notice that in the Cape Times this morning there appeared what was apparently an inspired statement to the effect that a very important commission is to be appointed to deal with native affairs and policy. According to the report, that commission will be almost as wide in its ramifications as the commission of 1903. It will deal with questions of land, labour supply, native wages, and general matters. I would like to ask the hon. Prime Minister whether the Government which a few days ago refused to accept an amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) when he asked that the committee to be appointed from this House to deal with the Native Bills before the House should have instructions on all matters of native policy— has changed its view, and whether in the last few days the hon. Minister of Native Affairs has come to the conclusion that he is not so omniscient on the question of native policy as he appeared to be a few days ago, and whether he has decided to reconsider the whole native question and appoint a commission to examine and report. I think the House is entitled to know if that is the policy the Minister has now adopted. If it is, we are also entitled to ask the Prime Minister whether he will, in these circumstances, hold over all those native measures which are to come before the House until the commission has sat. I hope the hon. Prime Minister will, in the course of the debate, find an opportunity to give information about this. I do not expect his attention at the moment, because we are accustomed to the polite manner in which the Prime Minister usually treats this House and hon. members of it. There is another matter touched on by the hon. Minister of Finance when he introduced this part appropriation Bill; the failure of the loan which had been placed in London. I am sure that all sections deplore the bad response which the loan received in London. So far as the Union is concerned, from a financial standpoint, we are not in difficulties, because we shall get the money from the underwriters at the same rate of interest which we should have paid had the loan been fully subscribed, but the fact that the underwriters have been saddled with 75 per cent. of the loan will certainly do us harm, because it will prejudice our credit, and can only accentuate the depression through which South Africa is passing. I feel that the failure of the loan will add to the causes which have materially contributed to the depression, one of the most important of which was the ill-considered pronouncement of the Prime Minister, who told the country and the world generally that South Africa was about to enter upon a period of depression.

Nonsense.

I do not think the hon. member has ever read about this matter. I want to submit to the Minister and the House that we should fully consider this matter. There may have been causes, which deserve the fullest attention from the Government, for the regrettable failure of this loan. It has not fallen through because of any shortage of money in London at the present moment. The rate of interest is so low to-day, and there is so much money available, that investments are being sought after. Financial reports show that there is more money to invest at the moment than it is possible to find investments for. The terms which the Union Government offered in connection with the loan were exceptionally generous, and the security was adequate. In spite of the hon. the Prime Minister’s occasional foolish speeches, South Africa stands high from a financial point of view, and there must be some other reason for the failure of the loan, which it is our business to investigate. We should not take an ostrich-like attitude, because we must find the causes in order to remedy them. I want to tell the hon. Minister—and the hon. Minister of Defence will corroborate me—that the money market, whether in London or Wall Street, is very sensitive both from a financial and political point of view. That was illustrated when, several years ago, a loan was submitted to the London market by Mr. Theodore from Queensland. The London market refused to subscribe to the loan because they disagreed with some of the labour legislation of Mr. Theodore and the Queensland Government. The result was that the Queensland Government had to repeal the legislation to which the underwriters objected. That indicates how powerful these financial houses are to influence political considerations and development in other countries. We may speak to our hearts’ content about the sovereign independence of South Africa, but unless the Minister of Finance and the Government are prepared to consider very seriously a complete alteration of our present financial policy—and the hon. Minister of Defence supported such a policy in his more honest days —unless the Minister accepts that position, he must admit that any talk of the independence of South Africa is mere nonsense. The wellbeing and development of South Africa is dependent on the goodwill of the money markets, whether they be in London or New York. It may be, for instance, that just as in the case of Queensland, the money houses objected to the legislation for which Mr. Theodore was responsible, so to-day the houses in London may object to some of the legislation for which our present Government is responsible. There is another reason, a very definite reason, I want to submit to the Minister and to the House which, in my opinion, is mainly responsible for the failure of the loan. That is the commercial policy indulged in by the Government during the last five or six years, since 1925. I can speak more freely about this commercial policy, because, in 1925, when this policy was first introduced into this House, under which some of the preferences which had been given to British commerce, have been done away with, although I was then sitting behind the Government and supporting the Government on its general policy, I then criticized that aspect, and indicated that, in my opinion, that policy adopted by the Government in connection with its commercial relations with Great Britain and other countries, was likely to be harmful not only to the country as a whole, but harmful to the people generally in South Africa. In the pursuit of that policy, we had two or three years ago another measure, when I was also sitting behind the Government, which I definitely and frankly criticized. I refer to the German trade treaty. The German trade treaty in itself might have been of very little consequence except as a piece of window-dressing. It could not have had much effect, because Germany was not then in a position to do very much trade with South Africa. The evil of it was that it indicated, so far as the present Government is concerned, that it is frantically looking for markets, and is open to business with every part of the world, while neglecting to a considerable extent the commercial relations with its best customer, Great Britain. The result of that policy has been such that, whilst, on the one hand, we have been buying more goods from other parts of the world, without being able to get any trade with them so far as we are concerned, or any reciprocity, on the other hand, considerable reductions have been made in the amount of trade we have been able to place with Great Britain. I want to state, for the information of the House and of the Minister, the latest available figures for the first nine months of 1929, of which an analysis has been made. We find, when we take a few of the principal illustrations, that during the nine months to the 31st October, 1929, the Union of South Africa imported from Great Britain goods to the amount of £27,000,000 odd, as compared with £26,880,000 for the same period in 1928. There has been practically no increase, or an increase of only a couple of hundred thousand pounds during that period. For the same period the goods which we sent to the United Kingdom came to £41,619,000, as opposed to £35,705,000 for the previous nine months of the previous year. So whilst, on the one hand, we have been able to find a market in Great Britain over the same period for an amount of about £6,000,000 in excess of the period during the previous year, our imports from Great Britain have hardly been increased, as shown by the figure I have given, with the result that for that period the trade balance in favour of South Africa in its trade with Great Britain comes to £14,440,000 for the period in 1929, as opposed to the trade balance in our favour of £8,000,000 odd in 1928. So in 1929, the trade balance in our favour is £6,000,000 more than during the previous period. When we come to Germany, we find a peculiar fact. Now that we have a trade treaty with Germany, you would imagine that Germany would buy our goods wholesale. We find that during the same period, we have this peculiar comparison, that for nine months in 1929 we bought from Germany goods to the amount of £4,343,662 as against £4,030,000 in 1928 for the same period. So that Germany has benefited in its trade with South Africa over that period to the extent of £340,000 odd. When we take the goods we exported to Germany, we find that the balance is entirely different. We find that whilst in 1929 we exported to Germany £3,098,000, in 1928 we exported to Germany £3,814,000. So, on the one hand, our exports to Germany have been reduced by about £800,000, and, on the other hand, our imports from Germany have been increased by over £300,000, and the balance against South Africa is now £1,245,000, as against a balance against South Africa for the previous years of £215,000. Then we take the United States, with our consular service, minister plenipotentiary and our trade commissioner. We find, in so far as the United States are concerned, that we have imported from the United States goods to the value of £12,000,000 odd, whilst for the nine months in 1928 we imported from the United States £9,669,000. So that we have increased our imports from the United States by an amount of £3,000,000. If we take our exports to the United States, we find that in 1928 they amounted to £1,283,000. In 1929, we had only increased the amount to £1,610,000. On the other hand, our imports from America increased by over £3,000,000, while our exports to America increased by about £300,000, with the result that the balance of trade against South Africa for that period was £10,500,000 as opposed to £8,000,000 odd in 1928. If you take France, you find much the same position. In Italy, the position is hardly different. We have our minister plenipotentiary there, and, as a consequence, we have actually increased our trade with Italy, by the tremendous figure of £200,000. We have reduced the £860,000 that we imported from Italy in 1928 to £837,000 for the same period in 1929, and increased our exports from £771,000 to £1,000,000, a matter of something like £200,000 increase. You will see from these figures that, as far as we are concerned, if we are going to continue this policy of looking for business with people who do not want to do business with South Africa, and whose tariffs are so high that in any circumstances we cannot do business with them, instead of pursuing a policy of developing to the fullest extent our commercial relationships with Great Britain, and increasing and improving the position of our own home market in South Africa—unless we do that, you will find that our interests will continue to be neglected and prejudiced to a greater extent, and I am afraid that Great Britain will, with perfect justice, say to us, “Borrow your money from the people with whom you want to do the trade.” If we come to that stage, I think the Minister will agree with me that if he has to borrow money from countries which do not do any trade with us, we shall have to sell our goods in British markets so as to obtain money with which to pay the interest on these loans. This is a hopeless policy which can be justified only by this shibboleth of the higher status and independence. This policy is doing incalculable harm to the farming population of South Africa, to our primary producers, and to our poorer classes. The latter, as a result of these restrictions in the development of trade, are finding themselves being forced down to a lower standard of life, and more than a hunrded thousand people who unfortunately are known as poor whites are unable to buy the produce of this country to any appreciable extent. My friend the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) will tell the House in a few days about the poverty that exists in Namaqualand; alas! poverty exists not alone in Namaqualand, but in every other part of the Union, and tens of thousands of Afrikanders now look upon bread as a luxury, and mealie pap as a necessity. It is important that the Government should reconsider its whole commercial policy. I have referred to the poor whites, who largely contributed to placing the Government in its present dominant position, but I am afraid they have been very considerably neglected by the Government. I wish to refer to another section of the population, which has been very badly treated by the Government —the miners on the Rand. There can be no question that when the present Government first came into office the three sections of the population who mainly contributed to the Government’s success at the polls were the poorer people in the rural areas, the railwaymen and the miners. Since then the people in the rural areas have been sadly neglected, the railwaymen have been very sadly betrayed, and now we have the sad spectacle that another group—the miners on the Rand— are being very sadly bluffed. In 1924 the miners on the Rand voted against the late Government in the hope that the conditions under which they worked prior to 1921 would be restored to them under a new Government. But when this Government came into office, the miners were bitterly disappointed because their expectations were not realised. I refer to the De Villiers Award. They became resigned to this disappointment, but were encouraged by the Government supporters on the Rand to look for an alteration in the phthisis compensation policy from lump sum payments to pensions. Towards the eve of the last general election, the changing of the payment of lump sums as compensation for miners’ phthisis into pensions became a keen political issue on the Rand. Hon. members from the Rand promised that the lump sum payment should be changed to adequate pensions. On the eve of the last general election, Mr. Fordham gave notice in this House of a motion for the appointment of a select committee to investigate into the workings of the Miners’ Phthisis Act. We objected to that, and pointed out that it was futile to appoint a select committee to deal with the question of administration, and that something more definite was required. Mr. Allen, who then represented Springs, tabled an amendment to widen the scope of the committee so as to enable it to deal with the whole question of miners’ phthisis, benefits and pensions. Unfortunately, we were told that if we persisted in the amendment, the Government could not accept it, and an assurance was given by Mr. Beyers, the then Minister of Mines and Industries, that the select committee would have an opportunity of dealing with all the points contained in Mr. Allen’s amendment. On that assurance the amendment was withdrawn, and the select committee was appointed. Within a few weeks, however, it reported that it was impossible to deal with all these matters. After the general election, the Government appointed a miners’ phthisis commission. The Government had the opportunity then to make the terms of reference so wide as to enable the commission to deal frankly and honestly with the payment of pensions. Instead of that, the Government limited the terms of reference to those of the select committee. We find from the evidence given before the commission that although a suggestion was made that lump sum payments as compensation for miners’ phthisis should be changed into pensions, no concrete scheme was submitted to the commission. Now it transpires that the commission has told the Government exactly what we told the Government in 1929 —that the terms of reference were so limited that it was impossible for them to deal with the matter which the miners were anxious to have dealt with and fully expected would be dealt with. I am sadly disappointed with the reply given by the Minister to a question on this subject. I do not know whether he is trying to save the face of the Government or his party. He said it is quite all right as the commission will be able to deal with the matter in the form of an appendix to its report. The Minister knows that this method of dealing with the subject will be of very little value, and would carry very little weight. If the terms of reference are restricted, I fail to see what possible right the commission will have to take additional evidence, unless the Minister is prepared to widen the scope of the commission by issuing extended powers of reference to it. In any case, this will mean that the poor miners will have to wait another year for the Government to indicate whether they will listen to them or not. If the present commission were to take evidence on this particular question, I wonder whether the Auditor-General would not come on them and say “You are drawing fees you have no right to do in respect of the time occupied by you on matters which fall outside of your terms of reference.” I submit to the Minister, in the first place, a gross blunder, to say the least of it, was made when the terms of reference were not made sufficiently wide to cover the requirements we submitted to the House, and in the second instance, when the commission was appointed, a gross blunder, to say the least of it, had been made by the Government in so framing the terms of reference to cover that issue, which had been raised before the miners right through the election. I say, without any hesitation, it seems to me the Government had never any intention to deal with the matter; at any rate, we have a right to know whether the Government had any intention to deal with the matter, of whether it was election bluff. I think that although the Government may satisfy its whip-driven supporters in this House, the miners will he deeply disappointed when they find that as the poor whites have been neglected and the railwaymen betrayed, the Government is now trying to put over a gigantic bluff on the miners on the Witwatersrand.

I think this is the most opportune moment I can find to redeem a promise which I made to the House (hiring the last session. During the debate on the estimates last year a very great and pressing problem was referred to by members on all sides of the House relating to the lack of housing accommodation for the poorest classes of the community in urban centres. Concurrently with that, a so-called housing week was organized in the city of Cape Town, and by that means public attention was drawn to that problem as it exists here in the Cape Peninsula. It was then revealed that conditions of misery and degradation as we can find anywhere in this country, and a good many other countries, existed so to say, on the very doorstep of Parliament. At that time the slogan was raised that the slums in South Africa in every urban centre must go. I then told Parliament that after the general election, which had then just taken place, the Government did not have sufficient time to consider this very great and complicated problem, but I defined, as far as I could at that time, the attitude of the Government, and I undertook to study more deeply this question during the recess; when it became clear to myself and the Government what steps we were able to take I would make a statement with regard to that in the House, as soon as possible after we had met in the new year. Now the first question which, naturally, engaged my attention, was the question of procedure—how I should approach this great and very complicated questions Naturally, I have to consider very earnestly the suggestion made by several hon. members that I should appoint a commission to go into this whole question, and investigate conditions in all parts of the country, and then report to the Government and advise us with regard to future policy. Naturally, what was very heavily in favour of the appointment of such a commission was the fact that we had to do not only with a very difficult and complicated question, but also one which concerned very intimately human life and happiness; on the other hand, as far as actual conditions were concerned existing in the various parts of the country, it became quite clear to me that the appointment of a commission could not carry as very much further; in the first place, we have a standing, statutory body in the Central Housing Board, one of whose functions is to keep in touch with housing conditions as they exist in all parts of the country, which it was necessary to investigate from time to time. During the time I occupied this office requests have come to me from various urban centres that the Central Housing Board should be sent down to investigate, and recommendations made to local authorities. That was done from time to time. Further, we receive, as hon. members will know, every year the report from the medical officer of health in every urban centre, not only with regard to sanitary and health matters generally, but more especially with regard to the conditions of housing. For that reason we must necessarily see that it is unnecessary to appoint a special commission to go round the country and investigate conditions. As far as policy was concerned, I also came to the conclusion that a commission would not assist us very much. On a large number of points in connection with the housing question the issues which had to he decided were quite clear cut. It was not so much a question of devising new methods as a necessity, if we were going to do anything in the future, of coming to a decision. We must not forget that the housing question is not particularly a South African question alone, but that practically all civilized countries, since the war period, have had to deal with this particular and very pressing problem. Policies with regard to housing have been formulated practically in all civilized countries in the world, and these policies and various schemes brought forward have been tried, rejected, and adopted, or after they had been adopted, have been improved from time to time; in addition to that, there is a mass of literature in connection with the housing problem in various countries, and two years ago an international conference under the auspices of the League of Nations was held in Paris, where the experiences of the various civilized countries of the world in connection with the housing question, were, so to say, pooled for the benefit of all. For this reason I say it was not so much necessary for a commission to he appointed, and to come forward with definite recommendations to the Government; it was more a matter on various definite points for the Government to come to a decision. I personally came to conclusions as far as I have light on the subject. I discussed them with my colleagues, and after I got approval from my colleagues for these various recommendations I placed before them, I convened quite recently a conference on housing, where we had representatives from all parts of the country, from the larger municipalities, from municipal associations, from provincial administrations and from other local bodies. We also had present with us the Central Housing Board, which could give us advice on the basis of their experience. During all the discussions that we have had in this House, and outside this House, one great fact has emerged, and it is this, that the real essence of the housing problem is in connection with the housing not of the poor who are still able, with a view to their incomes, to pay an economic rent, but the real essence of the problem concerns the poorest classes who earn so little that they are unable to live in a decent house, and to pay for that house an economic rent. In connection with that there is the other question, what we are to do with the slums which at present exist, or are supposed to exist, in most of our larger urban centres. If that is the problem, proper housing accommodation for the very poorest class at a rental which they are able to pay, then I think we must all agree that everything that has been done up till now by way of state loans for the improving of housing accommodation in the country has hardly touched this problem at all. There has now been allotted for housing purposes since the Act was passed in 1920 a sum of £4,065,000. Of this sum £780,000 has been allotted of the last £1,000,000 made available. It has been allotted for particular schemes, but has not yet been issued. In all the Government has provided £4,065,000. All this money has gone for the provision of houses for the poorer classes, but for the poorer classes who are able to pay an economic rental for a decent house. That has provided for the needs of a certain class of the poorer population, more particularly the clerk and the artizan class, persons with small incomes but able to pay an economic rental for a decent house. But nothing has been done for the unskilled labourer, the man for instance who earns 10s. per day or less. That man, as far as our experience has gone, has not benefited in any way by what the Government has done so far. It was supposed in the beginning when that loan money was made available that the building of the houses provided for would mean a levelling up, as it were of house accommodation, and that the poorest classes would benefit by it. Experience has shown that that has not taken place to any extent, simply because the slum dweller was not in a position to pay more than he pays now for his housing in the slum. On the contrary, we find that conditions have even grown worse. We find that in most of our industrial centres there has been an influx of people, and because they could not pay an economic rental for a decent house they went to the slums, and instead of eliminating the slum the slum has been expanded, and it has drawn into its deadly folds surrounding areas. I wish first of all to deal with the question of the slum. It was suggested during the debate last session that the only proper way of dealing with the slum would be to pass legislation empowering local authorities or the Government to expropriate slum property, not at the ordinary market value of the slum property, not on the basis of income, but on the basis of site value. Now we are in the fortunate position to benefit as far as this suggestion is concerned by the experience of other countries, notably Great Britain. We find that legislation has been existing in England for quite a number of years empowering local authorities or the Government to expropriate slum areas at site value. We are fortunate in having one of these older countries as an example by which we can benefit, because there is no lack of slums in many of the larger centres, and with the strong support public opinion has been giving since the war to the improvement of housing accommodation for the poorer classes there has also been no lack of funds. But this legislation has on the whole proved to be absolutely futile. We find that of all these powers given to local authorities practically no use was made. It was found in the first place that on the whole it was much cheaper to build new houses than to expropriate a slum area, pull down the houses existing there, and build new houses in their place. Further, it was found that the system of expropriation at site value does not work out quite fairly to everybody concerned. In a slum area there are always found good houses, kept in proper repair, which are, or can easily he made, suitable for housing purposes. Further, we find that there are a good many business premises which have nothing to do with houses at all, and it is manifestly unfair to expropriate such properties, also at site value, not because blame attaches to the owners of such properties, but because the authorities want to carry out a rebuilding scheme. For these reasons it has been found that the legislation on the statute book in England, has proved to be a dead letter. The question is, what constitutes a “slum”? If we know what it is, we can determine whether, to any great extent real slums exist in our urban centres in South Africa. If a slum means a house or a group of houses unfit for human habitation, then I think the slums we have in centres like Cape Town, or Port Elizabeth or Durban, are very small in extent. But if by a “slum” is meant a group of houses which can be made fit for habitation, after they have been reconditioned or brought into repair, then the slums we have are largely in that state; but if we mean that a slum is situated everywhere— however good the houses may he where you find overcrowding, and as a result of overcrowding, unhealthy or filthy conditions; if that constitutes a slum, then we have slums in this country in most of our larger urban areas of very considerable extent. It is further necessary that we should recollect what exactly are the powers which local authorities and the Government already possess under the existing law. First of all, I would like to read the hon. members certain sections from the Public Health Act passed in 1919. Section 121 reads—

In the next section we find—

1. (a) Any dwelling or premises which is, or are of such construction or in such a state or so situated or so dirty or so verminous as to be injurious or dangerous to health, or which is, or are, liable to favour the spread of any infectious disease.

In section 129, we find—

Then comes this very important provision in the Public Health Act—

He can recover the expenses from the local authority, and it is further stated that if the Administrator does not act, then the Minister has the right to assume all the duties and exercise all the powers laid upon the public authority by the Act.

Has he ever acted under that section ?

No, he has not. These are very wide powers to prevent overcrowding and to effect, through the slum owner himself, and at his expense, necessary repairs to dilapidated houses, and to generally improve slum conditions in urban areas. Now, the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) has asked whether these powers have ever been exercised. These powers have been practically a dead letter, and the reason for that is clear. Whenever a local authority applied to the magistrate’s court for a demolition order in the case of any particular house, the court has always asked the question: “What about the present occupiers of the house? Where can he go to live?” And as long as the only alternative was the street or the mountainside, the court has refused—and justly refused —to grant the demolition order. That is the reason why the wide powers entrusted to local authorities have remained a dead letter to the state. Now this points to the real solution, I should say, of the whole question. That is, we must concentrate, if we are going to solve this question at all, upon the creation of alternates for the occupiers of slum areas. In other words, we must provide houses of a minimum standard, a decent house of a minimum standard for the poorer classes, for the slum-dwellers, at rentals which they are able to pay, and which are within their means to pay. In other words, we must establish, or create an inducement to the slum-dweller to move from the slums to a decent house. He must be able to move to a decent house without any loss thereby.

What are you going to do with the other occupiers ?

I am coming to that. When this is done, and decent houses within the means of the slum-dweller are provided, then the other part of the solution consists of the turning on, let us say, of the screw. If a house is so far empty that it is no longer overcrowded, measures must be taken to see that that empty place created by the movement of the slum-dweller to a better house, is not occupied by any other person and overcrowding cannot continue. Then a demolition order can be obtained from the courts, in the case of houses unsuitable for human habitation. Orders can be given to slum-owners to put their houses in a proper state of repair, or they can receive instructions to recondition their houses, so that the houses shall not be injurious to health any longer. When the screw is, in that way, turned on, we empty the slums on the one hand, and at the same time provide better housing accommodation for the slum-dweller. As I have said, the slums will be emptied of any surplus population, so that the slum, if it consists of fairly good houses, houses which are likely to be good enough if reconditioned or repaired, will be emptied, so that there are no longer any slums. Demolition orders can be got as far as that may be necessary, and that will cost, excepting the provisions of new houses, nothing to the local authorities and nothing to the state. It will be all done at the expense of the slum-owner. This method, this policy to be followed, is certainly not showy, and does not strike the imagination as the clearance of the slum would do, if that is done on a large scale by means of expropriation. At the same time, it would be very effective, and it is as inexpensive as it can be. The next question to be asked in this connection is: Can houses be provided for the poorest class to which I have referred, at such a rental which they will be able to pay in view of their small incomes? If it can be done, then how can it be done? I think we all agree that the municipalities should not be relieved of all responsibility in connection with this matter. After all, they are the local bodies. They are on the spot, and, after all, they are the right persons to carry out a building scheme, and could do so in the most economical manner possible. They will do so, if they have something to lose by ignoring economic principles. At the same time, I think we will also agree in this matter that if it were left to the municipalities alone, then nothing would be done. It has been left to the municipalities and, so far as this particular class is concerned, nothing has been done actually in the past.

Cape Town has put up a big scheme.

Yes, they are only beginning now. A further question in this connection is: is it possible for the Government to consider the housing of this particular class of inhabitants of the town, to consider the provision of proper housing for them, as a national concern, affecting the health and the morality and the future of the people of the country? In reply to that question, I may say that the Government accepts a certain share of responsibility in connection with the matter. It is willing to bear its share. The way in which the Government can assist in the housing of this particular class of people can be done in three possible ways. The first way would be to let the Government share along with the municipal authority the loss incurred by what we call sub-economic housing more or less on the lines of the so-called Addison Act, which was passed in England some time ago. Now that scheme has been discarded in England itself, because experience has shown that it leads to an enormous amount of waste. We cannot adopt that line of policy. The second way in which the Government can assist is by granting a subsidy per house. That is the unit system. That has been adopted in England and tried for a considerable time, and they seem to adhere to that policy. Under that scheme, the Government provides a subsidy of £6. In some cases it was £9 per house of a certain standard. Now the objection to this way of assisting is that it is not at all certain that the money provided by the public through the Government goes to the benefit of the tenant of the houses. There is a good deal of suspicion, justifiable suspicion, that a good deal of the public money so provided goes into the pockets of others. Now we have not been able to adopt this particular way of assistance. There is a third method. That is the one we have adopted. That is, that the Government should assist the housing of this particular class to which I have referred by providing loan moneys at a particularly low rate of interest, and to provide that money to local authorities on conditions which will ensure that the local authority will also, on its side, bear its reasonable share of the loss incurred. Now that is the method that we have chosen. Let me say here at once that the Government has decided to provide over and above the £1,000,000 on the four years’ scheme which has already been provided, but which has not all been utilized yet. It has been allocated, but it has not been issued yet. The Government is willing to provide another £500,000 to be spread over three years, and on the coming loan estimates we may provide £100,000 as part of that scheme. That money will be given to local authorities for the purpose of housing this particular class to which I have referred, at 3 per cent., and the period over which the loan will be repayable will be 40 years. This money will be provided for letting schemes only for this particular class, for, as a rule, they being unskilled labourers, working here to-day and there to-morrow, they never become property owners. The municipalities, on their side, will be expected to make a contribution, and the Government will give, more or less, on the £ for £ principle. Included in the contributions of the municipalities will be remission of rates on these particular houses, repairs, and the cost of supervision; also rents not recoverable. [Time limit extended.]

What will be the average cost of these houses ?

Under £400; many would cost from £150 to £200 each. When all these indirect contributions on the part of the municipality have been taken account of, then the rental will be fixed at such a low level that the loss to the municipality would be more or less equal to the loss incurred by the Government by lending this money at 3 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. or more. This is, more or less, the scheme, and perhaps I can make it clearer by summarizing it as follows: The Government will assist local authorities by lending money at 3 per cent.; the money under this scheme will be made available for building small houses for letting purposes; before any such scheme is authorized the administration and the Central Housing Board must satisfy themselves that the scheme is likely to involve a loss, and that the estimated loss of the local authority will, at least, equal the Government’s loss; that rentals be not increased without the consent of the administration and the Housing Board; if the houses are occupied by people who can pay an economic rental and the rentals are increased, the balance of the loan outstanding must bear interest at 5 per cent.; advances will be repayable within a period not exceeding 40 years, and reduction moneys be immediately repaid to the treasury. It will be a condition of every such advance that the local authority, as far as possible, in carrying out schemes of new construction, will actively proceed with measures for the prevention of overcrowding, the repair or demolition of dilapidated insanitary or unfit habitations and the improvement or removal of slums and unhealthy areas. The proposal is that £500,000 be made available at 3 per cent. This amount will be additional to the additional £1,000,000 at 5 per cent., which was approved under the Housing Act, for assisting the housing of persons of very limited means, including artizans, shop assistants, and others. The whole of this amount has been allocated, although some £600,000 remain unused. I have been approached by the Utility Company and the Citizens Housing League of Cape Town, and they ask that they should benefit in the same way as municipalities. That request will readily be acceded to. They desire to have direct dealings with the central Government, and not through the municipality or the Administrator, but I have not come to any definite conclusion in regard to this point. It is still under consideration, but if it is acceded to, it will entail an amendment to the Housing Act. In view of the facilities I have provided to the municipalities for the housing of the poorest classes, the Government, Parliament and the country generally have the right to expect that municipalities generally will put their houses in order. In the first place, I think we will have the right to insist that they shall make a proper survey of their housing conditions; such a survey has not been made, for instance, by Cape Town. In fact, I think Cape Town does not know what the real position is. We must know by means of such a survey how many houses there are which are unfit for human habitation, which have fallen into disrepair, or which can be made fit for human habitation by reconditioning. We must know how many houses are overcrowded, the number of surplus families, and how much provision should be made by way of new building schemes.

How will the municipalities get that information ?

By making a proper survey.

Will they have the right to insist on obtaining the information?

The Government can make it a condition that such a survey shall be carried out; it is only reasonable for us to expect that after the survey a programme should be laid down by municipalities for a number of years to come. They must tell us what their problem is, and how and within what time they are going to deal with it. Now, if that is done, it will naturally be an immense assistance in the way of supplying labour to carry out such building schemes in such a way that it would not ultimately result in unemployment. Further, I think Parliament and the country generally would expect, if these facilities are given to municipalities, that the powers which already exist under the Public Health Act shall not remain any longer a dead letter if it is necessary to exercise them. I wish here to say that the slogan has been raised that the slums must go, and the slums could not go as long as the facilities which I have described have not been provided, and so long as the municipalities have to bear all responsibilities in connection with any possible losses, but now they have been relieved of that responsibility, I wish to advocate in the most emphatic way that the slums must go, and must go within a reasonable time. I realize that the problem of housing is only part of the much wider one of social reform. There is the question of town planning, and we will have to see, if we eliminate the slums of the urban areas, that new slums do not arise on their borders. I am not going into the matter, but wish only to state that it is necessary that the town planning position in the country should be looked into, because in some centres, notably in Cape Town, the decisions of the Town Planning Board with regard to the number of housese to a particular place are simply ignored. Further, I may say everybody realizes that the question of housing is very intimately connected with the wage problem, into which I am not going. It is a problem of its own, which is very complicated and difficult, and will have to be treated on its own merits. I have been very much impressed by the fact that to some extent the congestion of the slums of Cape Town and overcrowding in a good many houses have resulted from the influx of natives, who live within the urban area among whites; the municipality is absolutely helpless, and cannot get these natives out, simply because, under the existing law, any native who is a registered voter has the right to live within an urban area wherever he likes. I am stating my own opinion here when I say that where in this way we cut off a native from the rest of his race and give him a special inducement to go on the voters’ roll, not because he wishes to take his share of national responsibility, but because the vote brings him a personal advantage—it is a vicious system, and contributes very largely to the problem of Cape Town. Further, the housing question in urban areas is roted very largely in the greater problem of the influx of people from rural areas, which is also a big problem which has to be dealt with on its own merits. We must make the countryside more attractive than it is at present.

Higher wages.

I wish to say that if this scheme I have outlined is carried out, municipalities would have better control of the influx from outside than they would otherwise have. If there is too great an influx, they would, as far as new houses are concerned, lay down residential qualifications, and no newcomer from outside would be able to occupy such a house, and at the same time they will provide new houses and have a better control of the slum areas, which must prevent overcrowding, and will give a municipality a much better hold on the influx of people from outside the urban areas, where, perhaps, they are not wanted. Now, I wish in conclusion to say that the scheme I have outlined here must not be regarded as a permanet element in our national economic policy. I believe extraordinary measures of this nature have been made necessary—we cannot avoid that—but I think most of us will agree that a subsidy for housing as a permanent element in our national policy is not sound economics. I say we have to do with a special problem because the lack of housing with large classes of the community is part of the aftermath of the war, and building operations have been at a standstill during the war period, and for a considerable period after that; we must make up leeway. Further, slums must be considered as a legacy of past neglect, a lack of idealism, and a lack of common humanity. Every section of the community must bear the blame for that. What we must do now is to sweep away this legacy of the past, but when that has been done, I think it is necessary that this country and every country in the world should, as soon as possible, revert to the old and sound economic policy of supply and demand. It is for this reason that the loan moneys which are being made available now will be repaid into the treasury—the Consolidated Revenue Fund—and not further be reissued. It is open for the Government at the time to consider its future policy. This scheme can be made a success only with the hearty cooperation between the Government and local authorities. I have every reason to believe local authorities generally are taking a great interest in this scheme, and are going to avail themselves of it when necessary, but we must not forget that very often they cannot help themselves, because they are up against vested interests, and where they have to face these they require the very strong support of the general public. The slogan has been raised in some centres that the slums must go; it is necessary that that slogan be taken up by the public and the nation generally, and if that is done, and municipalities which are not doing their duty are stigmatized and branded as obstacles in the way of progress and of humanity, we will certainly take a very big step forward.

I am sure the House has reason to be grateful to the hon. the Minister of Public Health for his very interesting and very valuable statement on the housing problem. There are, in all parts of this House, many members who have a very keen interest in that problem, many members who feel there are conditions prevailing in nearly all the chief towns of the Union to-day which constitute a reproach not only to those towns, but to the nation at large, and who, therefore, welcome any step forward in the direction of removing those conditions. We appreciate what has been done under the Housing Act, but we realize that the Housing Act has not touched effectively what the Minister has described as the essence of the problem,” that is, the question of the housing of the poorest classes of the community. That problem can only be dealt with when we are prepared to arrange for the erection of houses which will be let at a sub-economic rental. We are glad that the hon. the Minister has taken steps to make that condition operative. I feel that the general principles he has put forward are sound. Whether the provision he now proposes to make will deal with the problem adequately is another question. It is all very well to ring out the slogan: “The slums must go!” The slums are not going to go on an expenditure of £500,000. There is another point that will need careful consideration. It is correct, as the Minister has said, that if such a scheme is given effect to, the screw will have to be turned tightly on the municipalities. That is the more reason for us to assure ourselves that the scheme is a fair one, both to the municipalities and to the Government. We are grateful to the Minister, but I think we have also reason to be grateful to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) for the way in which he poured oil on troubled waters—waters which were deeply troubled by the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. It is long since I have listened to a speech which has reminded me so much of the classic instruction given to the barrister who had a bad case to defend, and it is long since I have listened to one which has done more to give the impression that the speaker has a guilty conscience. The Minister adopted two lines of defence. The first was to attempt to prove that two blacks make a white. The Minister has done many things, but he has never yet succeeded in making two blacks make one white, and he succeeds even less when he has to delve over 18 years of history to find a particular black which will make his black into white. The other line of defence the Minister pursued is that of dragging the racial red herring across the trail. I have noticed that whenever a criticism is made from these benches of an appointment, and the officer mentioned happens to have a Dutch name, there is a tendency on the part of the Minister to say that the hon. member mentioning the case is actuated by racialism. In so far as the present policy of the Government is having the effect of making the civil service more bilingual, there is no one who welcomes it more cordially than I do, because I believe it is a necessary contribution in the building up of the nation; but I do think it is most unfortunate that this line of defence should be resorted to again and again. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticize appointments of this kind, whether on grounds of economy or efficiency, and surely we should have passed the day when it can be regarded as an adequate counter to such an attack to say that the hon. member making it is actuated purely by racial motives. But I have not risen to take part in this debate to pursue that particular line, nor am I going to be so bold as to discuss the Government’s general financial policy. I do, however, want to bring before the consideration of the House a particular question of policy which, it seems to me, does need consideration at the present time—perhaps more than it has needed it for some time past. I refer to what is usually called the “provincial problem.” We, and when I say “we,” I mean the public of South Africa, have been tending to overlook this problem. For some years now, since the Durban agreement, in fact, partly because of that agreement, and partly because of the general economic conditions in the country, the provincial councils have, generally speaking, not found it necessary to impose additional taxation. I think it is reasonable to state that most of us only think of the provincial councils when they tax us, and so we have tended to forget the provincial problem. There have even been some enthusiastic admirers of the Government who have told us that the Minister of Finance at Durban found a solution of the provincial problem. I am quite sure that the Minister of Finance has never made such a claim, and that he will not make such a claim. I am sure he realizes that at Durban he dealt with only one aspect of the provincial problem, and of that aspect only found a temporary and a partial solution. The Durban agreement, in one of its features, is based on a system of taxation of the same sources by both provincial and Union authorities. To that extent, I am sure it cannot be regarded as a sound one, and the Minister of Finance would be the last person who would wish to be regarded as having given that feature permanency in our financial system. The problem, however, has not, if one may judge from ministerial utterances in the recess, been forgotten by members of the Government. I should like to recall to the House some of those utterances, in the hope that the hon. the Minister will, in his reply, give some attention to this question, and give us some indication of what is passing in the minds of his colleagues and himself. The first Minister to speak on this question was the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who told us, shortly after the general election, that an important part of the work which the new Government Would have to tackle was the solution of the provincial question. The provincial system must be ended or mended. Then at Ceres, on the 3rd September, he made a more specific attack on thé present system. He said—

Surely the Minister must at that time have contemplated some attack on the provincial system; an attack such as he since made on immigration from eastern Europe, and as he contemplates making on our institutions of higher education. But this attack was followed up at Bloemfontein six weeks later, by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister said—

That is a very serious statement—

And the Minister of Finance followed that up by saying—

These statements were made in October, 1929, and they appear to be the last published statements made by Ministers on this question. But, to complete the picture, I should say this: About a month after these statements, there appeared a declaration in a Natal newspaper in which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were represented as giving a definite assurance that the provincial councils could not be tampered with. It was made to appear as though they were as much attached to the provincial councils as was Mrs. Micawber, who never would desert Mr. Micawber, that interesting gentleman whose record has sometimes been strangely paralleled by the history of some of the provincial councils. But let us leave that out of account, and confine ourselves to the first-hand statements of Ministers. I think the House will agree that those statements are important and striking statements, which justify us in asking what is this policy the Government is hatching in regard to provincial administration? If that was necessary at any time, it is the more necessary at the present moment, because the provincial councils are fast approaching a crisis, and it is well that the Government and the House should be prepared to meet that crisis. It is a crisis which is, coming on the financial side, and I venture to think that many more people will be talking about provincial problems in the near future than are talking about them to-day. Let me say this before I go further. The remarks I am making in regard to the provinces have special reference to the Cape, the Transvaal and the Free State. Relatively, the position of Natal to-day is reasonably good; that is, as far as the latest available figures show. The crisis will not commence in Natal. On what do I base my statements in regard to the impending crisis? First I will make this point. Behind the fine front of provincial surpluses which we have been viewing with admiration there is a festering sore—a growing financial problem, the essential feature of which is that in the provinces expenditure has been growing more rapidly than revenue. Taking each year by itself, as far as the three provinces I have mentioned are concerned, the provincial administrations have not been making ends meet, and have only been able to keep the wolf from the door because they have been in the enjoyment of surpluses created in the good years of the past; surpluses which are gradually decreasing, and have now reached the vanishing point. Take the figures for the Cape Province. Revenue and expenditure figures for each year, leaving out of account the carried-over surplus, show, for the Cape Province in 1925-’26, surplus £145,000; 1926-’27, surplus £90,000; 1927-’28, deficit £18,000; 1928-’29, deficit £116,000; 1929-’30, a budgeted deficit of £188,000. As clear an illustration of the rake’s progress as anyone could desire to see. In the Transvaal for 1925-’26, there was a surplus of £123,000. In 1929-’30, it will probably have, on the figures of the year itself, a deficit of about £150,000. The balance has been changed to the extent of £270,000. It is clear that expenditure has been growing far more rapidly than revenue in the three provinces I have named. My second point is this: The carried-over surpluses to which I have referred are now exhausted, and provincial revenues are falling in harmony with Union revenues, and will certainly continue falling for a longer period. It follows that at an early date the provinces will have to face budgets in which revenue falls considerably short of expenditure and to face them without carried-over surpluses, and with a falling revenue. Take the Free State. It was stated the other day that the deficit for the present year was £50,000. I cannot vouch for the figure.

It will be very much more.

I will take it as it is given. In 1929-’30, the Free State started with a carried-over surplus of £82,000. On the working of the year, therefore, the Free State has a shortfall of £132,000. In the next year it will have this carried-over deficit of £50,000, and, apart from that, it will, on the basis of this year’s figures, fall short of a balanced budget by £130,000, and how it will reduce that shortfall I cannot say. With the carried over deficit, the Free State then have to face a budget deficit of £180,000. Take the Transvaal. It started this financial year with a surplus of £60,000. The Administrator told the provincial council the other day that it would end the year with a deficit of £80,000, but on the basis of certain other figures which he gave it looks as if the deficit will be £120,000. However, those other figures may have been incorrectly reported. I shall, therefore, take the figure of £80,000. That means that for the current financial year the province has a shortfall of £140,000. If in the next financial year it has no bigger shortfall on the actual working of the year, then you have to add to the £140,000 next year a carried-over deficit of at least £80,000. Taking all the facts into account, even after allowing for the fact that the province will get an increase of subsidy next year of £60,000, I do not hesitate to say that the deficit which the next Transvaal Provincial Council will be faced with for 1930-’31 will be something like £250,000. This may seem a small figure to the hon. Minister, but it is very serious indeed to any provincial council in this country. So far as the Cape is concerne, I cannot get any figures. The hon. the Minister of Mines very wisely, in August last, when he was still Administrator, took the precaution of passing a Part Appropriation Ordinance, which will carry the provincial council well into the year 1930-’3l. I think he exercised rare foresight, and as a result of the fact there will be no need now for the council to pass a Part Appropriation Ordinance, and the electors of the Cape Province will go to the forthcoming election not knowing what the financial position of the province is. I pass to my third point. I think it follows, from what I have been saying, that some, at least, of the provinces will have to tax in the forthcoming financial year. The Free State and the Transvaal will have to tax, and the Cape may have to tax. If it does not tax this year, it will have to tax next year. In the light of that statement, I think we ought to consider what are the taxable reserves which the various provinces have. The provinces are limited by schedule to certain sources of taxation, and if we compare that schedule with the powers which the provinces actually exercise, we arrive at the following results: We find, in the Free State, that practically all that is left to the Free State Provincial Council is increased taxation on motor vehicles, and taxation on immovable property. I ask hon. members to remember the warning issued by the Prime Minister to the Free State six months ago, when he told them that the provincial council could only continue to exist if they have the courage to tax the people. That, he said, is an unescapable condition. I do not think the Prime Minister’s warning will be acceptable even in the Free State at the present time. I pass on to the Cape. I find there, setting side by side actual taxation and permitted taxation, that the Cape is left to-day with its only really effective taxable reserve in the form of taxation on persons and on income and on companies. There again we are up against this question of overlapping taxation to which I have referred. I pass on to the Transvaal. What has the Transvaal left? It has left the wheel tax, the entertainment tax, the importers’ licence, the property tax and an increased tax on incomes. That sounds very impressive, but most of that taxation will not yield a great deal. When the Transvaal Provincial Council is faced with the problem of balancing a budget with a shortfall of £250,000. it will have in effect to choose between the property tax and the tax on incomes, and it will probably raise the tax on incomes from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. Once again, then, we are up against this question of overlapping taxation. From what I have said, I think two things follow. Firstly, that this country is faced with the probability of increased provincial taxation, and in regard to that I only want to say this, I hope that the Minister of Finance is going to bear this probability in mind in framing his budget. May I remind him of some words addressed by the President of the United States, President Hoover, to Congress in December last. He was referring to the threatened depression in the United States. He said—

I hope the hon. Minister will help to fertilize the soil of prosperity in this country. The other point is this, that the necessity for the imposition of taxation by the provinces is going to bring us up against the most serious weakness in our present provincial system, as far as its financial aspect is concerned. That is the question of overlapping taxation. A statement was made by the Royal Commission on taxation in Australia ten years ago, when dealing with the same problem. It was to this effect—

That, I believe, is also the view of the hon. the Minister of Finance. Certainly, at Bloemfontein, he made the statement that the people of this country will no longer stand for duplicate taxation. It is just that weakness in our system of financial relations which is going to be revealed in the near future by the necessity of increased provincial taxation, and it will reveal also another weakness in the system, a constitutional weakness. That difficulty will be revealed as soon as you get a provincial council faced with the necessity of imposing taxation, in which there are either three minorities, or in which there is a majority not in agreement with the majority on the executive committee. These questions are going to arise, and I suggest that we should be forewarned and forearmed in regard thereto. I submit that we should look ahead, and we should prepare ourselves for dealing with this provincial problem. In the light of the Ministerial statements which I quoted at the commencement of my remarks, this matter is obviously very much in the minds of members of the Government, and I hope that the hon. Minister will, in his reply, give us some enlightenment as to what his intentions are.

I shall not follow the hon. member in his interesting speech on the provincial council system. I rise, principally, at this stage, because I do not want the effect of the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to go forth to the miners that the Government has played false to them. The facts are that at the beginning of the 1929 session a motion was placed on the Order Paper asking for a select committee to enquire into the Miners Phthisis Act of 1925. There was some difficulty owing to an amendment proposed to it by another member. Mr. Beyers, then the Minister of Mines and Industries, read a letter written to Mr. Allen, assuring him that under the terms of reference those matters which he wished to be considered by the select committee would be considered. The hon. member for Troyeville will remember that. That select committee was unable to carry out its labours to any effective extent. The matter was delayed owing to certain objections raised. That was removed by the step taken by Mr. Beyers in writing to Mr. Allen and giving him the assurance I referred to. Well, the select committee was not able to proceed to any effective extent, with its enquiry. Well, we felt these matters should be enquired into. Immediately after the general election and before Mr. Beyers relinquished office, the Government decided that the enquiry should go on and take the form of a commission under precisely the same terms of reference. The commission has taken evidence on the points referred to by the hon. member. Only some two days ago it came to the knowledge of my colleague that the chairman of the commission considered that under the terms of reference the commission could not report on these matters. The Minister of Mines has seen the chairman and told him that the Government wants to have the commission’s views on them. If more evidence was needed the chairman was told to obtain it. We are anxious that there should be no delay and if necessary the terms of reference will be extended. I think the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will now see that his insinuations that the Government have attempted to bluff and fool the miners are not in accordance with the facts of the situation.

I made the insinuations.

I say in answer to that insinuation that the hon. member was entirely wrong, for the Government acted entirely in conformity with the assurance Mr. Beyers gave to Mr. Allen that these topics would be entirely in order in the select committee.

Why don’t you widen the powers of reference now?

The Minister of Mines and Industries has already told the chairman that if it is necessary for the commission to have additional powers to call for further evidence the terms of reference will be widened accordingly. I now wish to refer to a few observations made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) the other evening. The hon. member who has just spoken in referring to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture remarked that the whole effect of that speech was really nothing more than saying that two blacks make a white. I say that when the Opposition raises a serious charge against the Government’s actions which are entirely paralleled by the actions the Opposition committed when they were in office, it displays a certain amount of insincerity in attributing to those actions an almost wicked immorality. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) particularly drew attention to the appointment of Mr. Strachan in my department, and spoke of it as if it was a piece of extravagance, an increase in the expenditure and a mere giving away of a dole to a political friend. Is he aware that the post occupied by Mr. Strachan is graded at a lower salary than the post vacated by Mr. Ivan Walker? When the Labour Department was formed, I desired to have someone there who was thoroughly cognisant of, and familiar with, the trade union movement, and the position of labour organizations; also a man who was accustomed to, and had great experience in negotiations between employers and employees.

Hear, hear; and also a supporter of Creswell.

I venture to think that in matters of employers and employees, the great majority of employers prefer Mr. Walker to someone the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would prefer. I consider that no person in the service is so able to take up the post as Mr. Walker was, and in that capacity, for the first two or three years of his service, he was in the position of labour adviser, and he was young enough to enter as a member of the public service. He had the business and the administrative capacity which made me consider he would fill the vacancy of under secretary with advantage to the department— I feel I shall incur the displeasure of hon. members opposite, who will say, “the Minister should wait until the Public Service Commission makes a recommendation I hold a different view, and if I think that some particular servant is desirable owing to his executive capacity, the Minister would not, in the least, hesitate to suggest to the Public Service Commission and saying he believed that he is the best man. I will not discuss the previous Government, but did they simply sit down, open their mouths and wait for what the Public Service Commission would suggest? I say that when that post became vacant, I felt that the best man in my department and the best man in the service for filling that post of undersecretary, where industrial matters were concerned so much, was Mr. Ivan Walker, and, that being filled, the same qualities that Mr. Ivan Walker has were also possessed by Mr. Strachan, and I was Very glad to offer Mr. Strachan the position. For the purposes of a labour adviser, you want a man coming in fresh from the outside world. The hon. member opposite would suggest that I ought to get someone in the service who has no knowledge of industrial affairs at all. The hon. member knows Mr. Strachan was the member for Pietermaritzburg (North), and that the person he defeated in 1920 was Mr. Thomas Orr, and he is perfectly well aware that as soon as Mr. Thomas Orr was defeated, he was put on the Railway Board. [Interruption.] I say it is a distinct betrayal of their sincerity in these matters when hon. members accuse us of having done something which is precisely which they have done under similar circumstances. I am not implying that the membership of Pieter maritzburg (North) should always carry a right to an appointment.

What are we going to do with Deane ?

If you are in office, I have no doubt you will do something for him.

Did you never grumble about Orr being placed on the Railway Board?

I never did. The hon. member’s memory is somewhat defective. The hon. member went on to say that there are £71,000 on the estimates for salaries and wages, for this department, and if every one of that staff were put on board a ship and sunk in Table Bay, they would not be missed. That is an absurd statement, that there is no result to the country from the department. I thought I might have had something more sensible from an hon. member recently promoted to the front bench. The country will get nothing for that. I will just point out a few things the country does get value for.

You seriously say your estimates are down.

No, but it has led to a very greatly increased amount of work at practically the same figure. The wage board has worked incalculable benefit to a large number of persons. Only last session we bad an assurance that hon. members on that side of the Houst were entirely in agreement with the principle of wage regulations and of the wage hoard. We have been giving a good deal of employment, lately, to the attorneys, but the country will see that the anarchic conditions which previously prevailed have altered for the better. This £71,000 spent as we have been spending it has been used to some effect. Although much remains to be done conditions have been enormously ameliorated in the large towns. That is due to the efforts of the department, to the efforts of the juvenile affairs hoard and the work of the Labour Department. In many other respects in the administration of the Conciliation Act and the Wage Act the unemployment has been relieved. The work they have done has given this country a degree of industrial peace which it did not enjoy under the late Government, and has induced a totally different atmosphere between the employers and the employees of this country. I say that was a commencement. I say that £71,000 has been spent, and it has given more money’s worth than all the efforts of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), as far as the effects produced in the country are concerned. The Conciliation Act was introduced by hon. members opposite. That is the truth. If the hon. member will look at the Bill as introduced by the Minister of Mines for the South African party Government in 1922, and the Bill that was reintroduced as amended by the select committee, he will see that nearly every clause was altered in the Bill and pages and pages of the present Bill were inserted. That is not a question of myth. It is a question of fact, as hon. members who served on the select committee will remember. Then so far as the Apprenticeship Act was concerned, they permitted an amendment to be made in it by the Senate prohibiting apprentices from belonging to trades unions. That provision made the Act inoperative and owing to our pressure, we got it altered in the last session. Up to that time the Act was entirely inoperative. Under sympathetic administration, not the sort of administration the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would like, those two Acts and the Wage Act have made the industrial situation in this country, far from perfect as it is, unrecognizable as compared with what it was in the time when hon. members opposite were in the Government.

It is an education to new members to hear the interest that older members take in each other. Past history is an interesting form of entertainment in this House. I was particularly struck by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He made a very fluent speech, so fluent that some of us could hardly follow it. The hon. the Minister has tried to stir up strife again. He is like a bull in a china shop where peace is concerned. The new members of this House have come here with a purpose. We are going to try to see that old sores will not be opened up too frequently. I think, in the interests of the country, that 1912 should be forgotten. Let us get to the period starting say from 1925.

That is the period of progress.

That is the period when a new party started to try to govern this country. A new spirit has arisen, but old problems remain. I think it is in connection with the old problems that remain that new members can, in some way or another, help to solve. It is in that spirit that I want to approach this question of giving the Minister a part of the appropriation of the whole amount which he desires.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.