laid upon the Table—

*May I just say that the Government has decided to accept the recommendations made in the report just laid on the Table.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

In opening this debate on the budget statement I wish to express, on behalf of myself and, I am sure, every member on this side of the House, our acknowledgment of the very bold and clear statement which the Minister of Finance made in this House with regard to the financial position of the country. We are accustomed to that from the Minister, and I can say, without hesitation, that the statement we had last Wednesday fully complied with the standard he has set, and which we expect from him. I do not propose, in what I have to say, to deal with the railway position; I propose to leave that to other hon. friends on this side, and I propose to confine myself to the statement of the Minister of Finance, who certainly established a record for himself. We have been accustomed since he took office to have overflowing surpluses and unbounded prosperity. We had almost become accustomed from the speeches we have heard from platforms in the country, to believe that with the Nationalist Government in power you are certain to have surpluses. The spell is broken; I am afraid these days are gone. We must find some other explanation.

Are you speaking for twelve months hence?

I do not know what the position will be twelve months hence; I am afraid the Minister’s forecast of what it will be twelve months hence is optimistic; but, in any case, we have to face on this occasion a different situation—a budget which provides for a deficit; and we have to face a budget which leaves that deficit unbalanced. After the surplus of this year is swallowed up, and after the Minister has taken away what he calls the temporary concession given to the income tax payer, he is left with a deficit of over £400,000, and he says: “I will do my best to cut the expenditure down, and I am hopeful we will come out.” But that I say is an unbalanced budget—it fails to deal with the deficit expected to accrue at the end of the coming year. I want first to deal with the actual deficit the Minister forecasts. He budgets for a deficit of £1,388,000—quite a respectable figure—and almost worthy of his predecessors in office. Well now, I have looked at the figures as well as I can, and I must say it is very difficult to deal with a statement such as we had on Wednesday last from the reports which we got in the press which are the only ones we can use, because we find anyhow that this year the reports we have are anything but complete and satisfactory; but one has to deal with them as best one can, and in dealing with the materials one has, it seems to me that the Minister, in estimating the revenue which he expects to receive during the coming year, has been unduly optimistic. It has been a complaint against him in the past that he has underestimated his revenue. I think, looking at the figures he has given us for the coming year, that complaint no longer applies; the complaint is whether he has not over-estimated. Take one or two items. He estimates a decrease of customs revenue of £800,000. It is true that figure we have to take, after allowing for the proceeds of the additional duties he is going to put on; we are not exactly told how much he expects to get from these new duties.

It is very difficult to estimate.

My point is that in estimating a shortfall or a falling-off in customs duties of £800,000, that is, after taking into account the additional duties put on—

No.

You are not estimating any increased revenue from that? Has the Minister made due allowance for what we know is going to take place, that is, a big reduction in our imports? The Minister told us we had been over-importing, which, I think, everybody realizes. It is not a time of depression, but times such as come at the end of a period of prosperity such as we have had, when you have a big drop in imports, in the consuming power of the public, you have reduced purchasing power, restricted credit, unemployment and the dislocation of employment—particularly when we have been through a period of excessive importing, imports are liable to drop very fast. The Minister has not made sufficient allowance for the drop in imports we are likely to see during the coming year. He told us that during the past year, the year that has just ended today, there has been a very rapid drop in the last two four-monthly periods of the year, and that the average monthly collection of customs duties over a period of four months had fallen off at the end of the year as compared with the beginning of the year by £140,000. I think it is not unreasonable to suppose that that process is going to continue. I know it is very unsafe for a member sitting on these benches to prophesy, but I certainly venture to think that in regard to the customs duties the Minister has taken rather too sanguine a view as to what he is going to receive for the year. Take post office revenue. The Minister has told us that during the year just ended there is going to be a falling off, but I see in his estimates of revenue for the coming year he puts the post office revenue up by £120,000. In a time of restricted business, when people are economizing in every way they possibly can, one of the places where the pressure is felt very quickly is the post office. Take the income tax. I find it very difficult, from the figures we get in the report, to ascertain exactly what shortcomings the Minister estimates for under the income tax. We know that the temporary concession of 20 per cent. is going to be withdrawn. The Minister made allowance for that in his estimate for the coming year. I gather that on the whole he is putting his estimate down by £367,000. Whether that is before making allowance for the removal of the concession, or after, I am not quite clear. I come to the diamond revenue. We are all glad that an agreement has been arrived at among the diamond producers with regard to the output of diamonds. The Minister is optimistic, and let us hope that his optimism will prove to be justified. But diamonds are a very sensitive article. The difficulties of the United States are not quite over yet; we do not know what their tariff arrangements are going to be, and we do know that there is a very large stock of diamonds being held ready to be put on the market as soon as opportunity offers. I doubt again whether the Minister has made sufficient allowance in his estimate of revenue for the circumstances. All these things make it doubtful whether the estimates of the Minister during the coming year are going to be realized. If that is so, I think we may expect an even greater deficit than £1,388,000. But let us take that estimate as the deficit, as given to us by the Minister, and let us ask ourselves how it is going to be met. As the Minister told us, he is going to meet it, in the first place, by withdrawing the reduction of 20 per cent. on the normal income tax. He tried to put a soothing ointment on that sore by telling us that after all it was only the re-imposition of a burden temporarily removed. So much for one of the great reductions of taxation which the party opposite has claimed. It was a temporary removal of what is, I am afraid, a permanent burden.

When removed it was a relief.

When a load is removed it is a great relief, but when it is put back again it makes us feel sorer than before it was taken off. Another thing the Minister does, he carries forward his surplus of the present year of £400,000. After both these things are done, there still remains £425,000 unprovided for—in the air. With regard to that, the Minister does a gamble. He says: “Well, I am going to trust to luck. Something may turn up, or I may be able to reduce expenditure to that extent.” He says: “I am going to do my best to reduce expenditure to an extent which will cover £425,000.” That is not a very satisfactory position to put before the House. Why does the Minister put estimates before the House which are over the mark by £425,000? Why cannot we have some indication of where this reduction is going to come from? It is not going to be a reduction merely of £425,000. He has got to reduce expenditure by that amount, and to have no additional estimates.

The Opposition must say where we are to economize.

I am sorry that my hon. friend has thrown up the sponge, and that he now says: “We can do no more; come over and help us.” No one can limit expenditure except the Government in power. This House cannot reduce expenditure, because as soon as we put up a motion to reduce expenditure we are called all kinds of unpleasant names, and the solid phalanx of the Government vote as one man against such a motion.

Your front benchers quit.

The front benchers on the other side seem to be quitting now. But let us realize what we are left with. We are left with the problem of not merely reducing expenditure by £425,000, but also of having no additional estimates. On going back a few years on this point, I find that for the five years ended 1928-’29 we had, on the average, additional estimates over all savings, whether available or not available, amounting to about £200,000. That is to say, we had additional estimates, which covered not merely the savings which could be used to reduce additional estimates, but also all other savings, amounting to £200,000. Above all the balance that has not been surrendered on the original estimates has been about £200,000. I want to know what has been done in the way of decreasing expenditure before this budget can balance up. Accepting the estimated deficit of £1,388,000, you have not provided for it by a very large amount; and this time next year there will be no surpluses to play with. Unless, therefore, we have a sudden and unexpected return to prosperity, or a large and even less expected reduction of expenditure we shall be burdened with serious taxation and the imposition of heavy and fresh burdens. I hope my hon. friends will be there to meet this burden, and that they will not abandon the task to the Opposition. There has been only one serious reduction in expenditure in this country, and that was while this party was in power. I do not like to take a gloomy view, but that is the position. Apart from the actual budget figures there is the general financial situation. The Minister claimed that he had been a good and faithful steward of the revenues in his hands; that he had not squandered them; and with these claims I agree. But what we have always asked on this side is why did he have such enormous revenue to deal with; why not some reduction of taxation while times were good? Give the taxpayer something more than a mere temporary easement. I admit that he has made good use of it; that our credit is good inside and outside the country; but what we say is that during the time this Government has been in power there has been no real economy in expenditure. Expenditure has constantly and continuously gone up, and we are living on a scale that the country cannot afford. I am not basing that criticism on a mere comparison of totals; the expenditure of seven years ago and now. That, I think, is fallacious, because we realize that expenditure must grow; that in a developing country such as this we must have a certain increase of expenditure. We realize that you are making good deficits of pension fund and other social matters; that you have to undertake these, which your predecessor did not. We do not grumble at expenditure on social matters such as old age pensions, child welfare, and so on. If they are wisely administered they are an investment to the country. But what we criticize is the continual mounting up of our purely administrative expenditure; the continual pressure on the treasury from all departments for new boards, new departments, which tend to grow, multiply and spread, with the result that our administrative expenditure is growing at a pace too rapid for the productive powers of the country to support. I notice that these estimates before us provide for an increase in the administrative and clerical staff of 735 additional persons. That is the administrative machinery of the country; not temporary labourers or casual employees, but the permanent civil servants of the country, and that is the average by which they have gone up in the last seven years. If you compare the figure in 1923-’24—

But you are taking the lowest figure.

Well, I leave the hon. Minister to elaborate that for himself. Since 1923-’24 the administrative and clerical officers of this country have been increased by 5,000 persons; that is an addition to the pensionable staff of the country. We have not observed a sufficient check on the administrative services of the country.

How many have left?

I do not know; I have no means of knowing, but I can say this: that new appointments number 5,000.

Surely that is nothing unless you give the other figure. You have just admitted that the same number might have left.

Well, I make the Prime Minister a present of this point. If he can show that the service is no larger in 1931 than in 1923-’24, I will be satisfied. It is within the knowledge of all of us that there has been a constant addition of new departments, new boards, new branches, new services. I am not speaking of the railway; they have taken on men by tens of thousands. Then I say, without any hesitation, that there has been no real reduction in administrative expenditure since the South African party went out. I do not blame the Minister of Finance. I know that pressure is put upon him from every side to create new appointments, new branches, and services, and when he has a surplus, it is most difficult to deal with them, and expenditure mounts up. There is another point which, I think, is rather alarming to many of us. That is the growth of provincial expenditure. The Minister made a settlement in Durban in 1925 in regard to the provincial subsidies. It was a very generous settlement. It was a settlement that they all accepted and were very glad to get, even the Cape. Now, they are going to ask for more. Well, what are we going to do about it? The Minister very rightly says that it is contrary to good finance that public bodies should have the spending of money and no responsibility for collecting it. What are we going to do? Are the provincial councils going to put on fresh taxation? Are they going to put on a land tax, for example? I think I can see the Minister of Lands having something to say if that was proposed. Where are they going to get their revenue from? Are they going to get another dole from the Treasury? Whether the money comes from the Union treasury or is collected from the provinces, it is the same old taxpayer who bears the burden. I think that that is a bad financial principle whereby persons have the spending of money and no responsibility for collecting it. I think it shows evil results. I am speaking of the Transvaal particularly, but the provinces, generally, undoubtedly, have been too extravagant. You have only got to go through the country and see the high schools, other educational buildings and hostels. Some of them, I am told, are already empty and there is no need for them. But whether there is a need for them or not, they have been built on a scale far beyond the requirements of the country. It is time that something was done to bring home the responsibility to the people spending on such a large scale as the provincial councils are. There are deficits I think in every one of the provinces, and I am afraid this country is going to carry another burden over and above that of the deficit in Union finance. I will say that the time has come when these bodies are going to be tested, whether they can raise revenues to meet their own expenditure and some responsibility for the expenditure that they create must be laid on them, or we are going to go on in the same old path of whatever they are up against in the matter of a deficit, they are going to have an increased subsidy. If that is the policy, I can foresee further extravagance in that direction. Expenditure in itself is not a bad thing. Large Government expenditure is necessary in a country such as this where we are developing our resources and going ahead in all sorts of ways. But we have to look not merely to reduced expenditure, but to reduced cost of the administrative machine, to reduced cost of Government. We have here the Union Government and four provincial governments in the provinces, and what seems to me, and to many of us, is that these governments and the Union Government are being overwhelmed with the mere weight of their own machine going on with an impetus that they cannot stop. We have to consider whether the productive power of the people is being increased proportionately to the increased expenditure which we are carrying. Well, there are one or two rather dis quieting features which must strike one as one looks around at our position in this country. One is that a large section of our people are below the level of efficiency. They are below the level of efficient productive capacity. I do not think anybody can deny that. We are even having committees and commissions of enquiry to see in what way this can be remedied; but undoubtedly it exists. We know from our old age pension statistics that a very large proportion indeed of our population over the age of 65 years, are wholly without means, relying upon old age pensions and what other help they can get elsewhere, for their living. Let us look at the figures in regard to child maintenance. On the estimates this year we find a sum of £145,000 for the maintenance of children in orphanages and for what are called “mothers’ pensions”. Again, I say that is a form of expenditure of which I approve, and which, if it is wisely administered, can be of great benefit to the country. But it is disquieting, in my opinion, to see the rate at which this figure is mounting up. It is disquieting to see the number of children who have become a burden upon the state, and whose parents cannot, or will not, support them. That, I think, is not a good index of increased productive power among the people. There is another thing we have to consider. One of the important factors in the production of our national income is native labour. Native labour comes in from outside the country, works here, and produces wealth for us here. I think we are going to see a big falling-off in that labour force. I think we shall see a big reduction. The signs of it are already evident. We made a treaty some time ago with the Mozambique territory under which a large reduction was to take place within a certain number of years in that labour force, and that will go on. I do not see that it will help us much to remove the restrictions on recruiting north of latitude 22 degrees south, or any other latitude. The fact is the natives are not there. The demand for native labour outside our borders has increased everywhere, and we must make up our minds we shall not get, in the future, this force of imported native labour from outside to add to our national wealth. Inside the country we hear a good deal of talk about segregating the natives in their own reserves, building up their own civilisation and working out their own destiny there. Well, if we are going to do that, our mines, factories and farms will have to make up their minds that they must put up with a reduced native labour force in the future from what they have had in the past. That is what one must take into account when we try to arrive at whether the productive power of the people is growing and keeping pace with the increasing expenditure. One is bound to notice the point that our expenditure is still high, and is growing faster than the productive power of the people would justify. We have our gold mines, and, in more precarious fashion, our diamond mines, and we live happily on them while they last. We know, as practical men, that a mining asset is a wasting one, and I think we also ought to know that every addition that has to be made to the working costs of the country shuts out a large field of wealth and of employment from ever being brought into use. I am thinking of the low grade mines, and the ore fields in the Transvaal which are just under the rate of profitable exploitation on the basis of present working costs. We ought to be devoting a little more attention to bringing that field of industry into useful exploitation. We had an interesting address the other day by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) who brought before the House, in very telling form, the question of bringing into working these low grade deposits which we have, but which, at present, we cannot mine. Unfortunately, that address met with very scant attention from the Government. We were told by two Ministers, “Well, perhaps there is such a problem; we cannot find a way out; it does not immediately concern us.” But another Minister promised that he would give the matter more serious attention.

The mines don’t want that enquiry—Mr. John Martin said so the next day.

If the mines don’t want it, the country does; we are not governed by the gold mines on this side of the House. Being dependent as much as we are on the exploitation of such an asset, the question of opening up fields of mining which are now unprofitable ought to attain the first attention of the Government.

In which way—state mining?

I do not think state mining would reduce working costs—state work does not generally lead to lower working costs. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) told us that in state industries you have the Government stroke, and you have to have an inspector behind each man. That is a new idea from the labour point of view. The mining industry has been too long the milch cow, and bears a large number of burdens which can be reduced and must be reduced, if the industry is to expand.

What sort of burdens?

The Minister listened a few weeks ago to a relation of the burdens borne by the industry, such as customs, railway rates and miners’ phthisis compensation. The Government should take these matters into account, instead of making up its mind that the low-grade mines must be let go. I do not say the mines should be freed from the payment of customs duties, but there are some they could be relieved from the payment of It has been the custom with every careful statesman that the revenue from mines should be used, as far as possible, to build up industries which are not dependent on wasting factors. There is no doubt our agriculture has made enormous progress in the last 20 years, but, as soon as a little set-back comes, and as soon as prices begin to go down, the agriculturists at once run to the Government for assistance in one form or another. We have no reserves. We live from hand to mouth, and go to Government in times of difficulty. That should give us pause in comtemplating this growing burden of purely administrative machinery and administrative expenditure. What we want is a productive people, not an army of state employees. The budget is remarkable in another way, that is, it proposes to increase the taxation on articles required by the poorest classes of the people, for we are to have additional duties on bread, salt, sugar and clothing. All these things hit the poorest people, and add to the cost of living. I know we shall be told not to be frightened, and that no matter what additional duties are placed on wheat, they will not increase the price of bread. But the price of bread already is far too high in South Africa. Even if these duties do not mean an increase in the cost to the consumer, they mean a delayed fall in price, and that we should not have a reduction we should otherwise have had. One of the serious things that has to be faced in our modern economics is that, although the prices of primary products are falling, there is no corresponding fall in the cost of living. The other day the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) brought forward a motion dealing with the cost of living, and all we were told in reply by the Government was that the board of trade would enquire into the matter. I hope they will, and that they will come to same satisfactory conclusion upon it. It is a problem that affects us, and affects other parts of the world too. I read the other day in The Economist a statement showing that in the last six years wholesale prices have fallen by 24 per cent., but the cost of living has fallen by only 6 per cent. We have the same thing here. The wholesale prices of wheat, meat and other primary products have come down, but the cost of living does not fall to a corresponding extent. The result is the producers are in financial difficulties, and the wage-earner receives no corresponding benefit. These increased duties which have been put on light-heartedly, if they do not actually increase the cost of living, help a lag in the fall and help to maintain the cost of living. We realize on this side of the House that protection is a necessary policy for a country such as this, which wishes to, and ought to, have secondary industries. But we also realize it is one of the most dangerous medicines and drugs which can be administered to help to re vitalize industries, because the result is that as soon as an industry is in trouble, sales and prices drop, and competition comes along, they come to the Government for more protection. The boot industry, I am told, has now come along for more protection, and that is why I say that protection is a thing which ought to be carefully watched. These industries have no incentive to bring about cheaper production and to have better management; they have only to go to the Board of Trade and Industries and say “Czecho. Slovakia is competing with us; give us more protection.” It will require the most careful handling by the Government to prevent us from drifting into a position similar to what they have in Australia.

interjected [inaudible].

America has internal markets; we must be very chary about applying analogies from America.

I thought you adopted a protectionist policy?

I said that, and that we regard a protectionist policy as necessary, but also what a dangerous slope you are on when you accustom your industries to look to the tariff whenever they are in difficulties. I do not know on what grounds the Government is giving an increased duty on clothing. I suppose before these increased duties are agreed upon there is an enquiry by the Board of Trade. We have not seen the report and we do not know on what grounds they are recommending it. The clothing industry, I believe, is one which started from small beginnings, and it has grown, but I think it is also quite clear it cannot and does not meet to anything like the full extent the demand for ready-made clothing in this country, and to that extent everyone who buys a ready-made suit, and it is not the richest part of the population, has to bear that. It is a factor in pushing up the cost of living, and the cost of industry to the mines and to the farmers. I know the farmer is a great protectionist, but he has not yet realized to the full how some of these protective duties will come back and hit him; how they will stimulate a demand for increased wages from his labourers. He will learn, before very long. In most agricultural countries farmers are trying to set up a free trade party. In Canada, Australia and even the United States of America farmers are turning away from protection because they realize they are the first to be hit.

Are you against protection?

I have just told the Minister we are in favour of it, and in favour of helping to establish secondary industries, and you cannot do it without protection; but where I criticize our protectionist policy is that we are too ready to accede to the demand from these industries for increased duties. I know that when the duties in the boot industry were fixed, when the South African party Government was in power, part of the arrangement was that after a certain number of years the duty would gradually come down-two-and-a-half per cent. every year—but when the time came for the first reduction to take place, they would not have it, and it never took place; and now they come and want some more.

You did not fight it in the House when I brought along the proposals.

We should be more careful in dealing with protective duties. We are embarking on a vast sphere of industry ourselves—the steel industry—and we are committing ourselves to a liability of £5,000,000 in the first place—I do not know what it will come to later on. I hope it will be a great success. But I notice all over the world iron and steel masters are reducing their production, and closing up works, and we step into the breach. What I am afraid of is that this industry is going to live by the tariff, and that we are going to have a tariff on imported steel as soon as this industry begins to shed its first chicken feathers, and the cost to industry will be put up all over the country. I think it is a scheme at least twenty years ahead of its time. We have, I realize, to protect our industries, but above all, we have to protect our markets and to expand them. That applies outside the country and inside. You have to hold on to the markets outside and make the most of them, not put our customers off, but do our best to work in with them, and to increase the hold we have, and to increase freely the relations we have with them. We have also to increase our markets inside South Africa. We have a large section of the people living on a wage on which they cannot be consumers to any great extent—living just on the border line between starvation and existence. It is not a good thing to have a vast army of urban natives clothed in rags, and living in hovels. We have a large section of the population who are far too near the margin of subsistence, and whose wage ought to be better in order to afford an increased market for the products of the country.

Could they buy more commodities with the same wage?

Yes, if they had to pay less for them, but I would like to see them receiving a larger wage. We have to look to increased markets, outside the country for our primary products, and inside the country for others. That will do the industries of this country far more good than an extra shilling on the tariff. An increase of the tariff may be at times necessary, but I say that it is dangerous. The other policy leads to healthy expansion, but the raising of the tariff is a drug, and the use of a drug is dangerous in that whenever we feel weak we are apt to fly to it for relief. There we have to exercise the very greatest care and control. I should like to see our Board of Trade and Industries stronger and better equipped to deal with these demands which come along from every industry in the country for protection from time to time. The situation as I see it is that we are face to face with a time of difficulty. We have come to the end of a long period of prosperity, and we are at the beginning of what may be a period of depression. I do not think we are yet entitled to come to the conclusion that we are going to have a depression, but we are up against all the difficulties of dislocation and readjustment after a long period of prosperity. But there is no need for any panic. What there is need for, and what I hope this period is going to drive into the minds of the Government, is care in regard to our administrative expenditure. It is not only the establishment of brilliant diplomatic posts, and our claims to be a great nation, that should occupy the attention of the Government, but the productiveness of the country and the contentment of our people. Too much of our expenditure is devoted to mere administration; too much to the creation of new posts and new departments, and not enough attention is given to the efficiency of our departments and the productiveness and contentment of the people of the country.

I must say at once that I sympathize very much with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and with the whole of the Opposition in connection with the unfortunate position they are in to have once more to criticize the financial policy of the Government and the financial position of the country. It has also not surprised me, therefore, that, although the hon. member’s speech was interesting, it contained very little actual criticism. His strongest point was his reference to the provincial councils and their expenditure. I hope they will pay attention to his criticism, because in connection with that we, to a great extent, agree with him. The hon. member said that not the least provision had been made for what he called the unbalanced deficit at the end of the year, viz., that the Minister expects that we shall have a deficit at the end of the year. He was glad of it if one is to judge by the way he referred to it. Yet the hon. member finds fault with the anticipated deficit, but if the Minister had a surplus then he would also find fault with it. What does he actually want? There is no deficit as yet, and at the end of the year hon. members opposite will possibly again be disappointed. It will not be the first time that the Minister of Finance has surprised them, and perhaps he will again surprise them at the end of the year by announcing that there is no deficit. He said, further, that the Minister of Finance did not take count of the bad times in his estimate of the income tax. We know, of course, that the income tax must drop. I cannot blame the hon. member because the newspapers did not publish the Minister’s statement. I listened very carefully to it, however, and the Minister did actually allow 10 per cent. for it. The hon. member further said that there have been 5,000 more appointments, of new appointments in the public service since the present Government came into office. His object was to show that 5,000 more people were appointed because why, otherwise, does he mention it. I do not think that it is fair. It was the hon. member’s duty first of all to enquire in order to find out how many were discharged or retired. The public service is much more efficient to-day.

That was the net increase.

Let it be the net increase. The state does not stand still. We have a young growing country which cannot possibly stand still. New appointments must be made, and the Opposition will have the fullest opportunity of showing which appointments were unnecessary. The hon. member spoke at length about the protection policy of the Government, and yet he pretends to be in favour of protection. He criticizes every step the Government takes to protect our industries and businesses, but, nevertheless, he represents that he is in favour of protection. The boot and shoe industry is in a difficult position. Possibly provision will have to be made for more protection, and then I hope that hon. members opposite will make their views very clear whether additional protection is to be given or not. In the past they have always talked with different voices. We always had the play, e.g., of Mr. Jagger opposing protection, while other hon. members opposite were in favour of it. Further, the hon. member for Yeoville said that we must go and look for markets overseas as well as in our own country. But as soon as we do anything to find markets abroad, and persons are appointed to go and look for markets overseas, then the Opposition says that this money is being wasted. They cannot have it both ways. If we want overseas markets, then we must be willing to pay the people who go to find those markets for us. Now I also want to say a few words about the budget. In the first place, I want to congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours on the wise policy which he has followed in building up a reserve fund to equalize rates. The result of that is that, now that we are in a difficult position, it is not necessary for him to increase rates, as the previous Government usually did. We have a nest egg and can, consequently, provide for the bad times. One would have thought that the Opposition and the Opposition press would have been glad that our national finances in these difficult times were in a good position. The hon. member for Yeoville said, with a smile: “The spell has broken.” He said, smilingly, that in the end difficult times had also arisen for the Nationalist party. It looks as if he is pleased about it. The South African party’s press goes still further, and does not even enlighten the public about the actual state of affairs. I take the Cape Argus, which was the first paper to publish the budget speech. This paper announced in big, black letters that there would be a deficit of £425,000. Not a word was said about the surplus. Nor does it appear that the deficit is only expected by the Minister in a year’s time, and, as I have said, nothing has been said about the surpluses. They are not satisfied to merely bring the public under the impression, because that is the inference which the man in the street would draw, that there is an actual deficit, but to further emphasize it they add the following in an adjoining column: "Since he became Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga has been able to point to the following surpluses: 1925, £800,000; 1926, £422,000; 1927, £1,150,000; 1928, £1,750,000; 1929, £3,000,000,” but no mention here either about the surplus that year of £400,000. I think this is a record for a Minister to be able to announce a surplus in his budget speeches for six successive years. The only record which is anything like it is that of the previous Government, that record, however, was not a record of surpluses, but a world record for continuous and successive deficits. The previous Government regularly provided deficits, although it imposed severe and pressing taxation to try to make things balance. As against that we have the surpluses of the present Minister of Finance, and in addition to his surpluses he reduced taxation, and met the public in other ways. We must also remember, although of course it cannot happen year after year, that the previous Government employed considerable sums from the loan accounts for current expenditure. Notwithstanding all this the previous Government had deficits while the present Minister has shown surpluses and, at the same time, made better provision for the redemption of the debt. That is the difference in policy between the two Governments, and the public outside will appreciate it. The one necessarily had to lead to bankruptcy while the other laid the foundations of stability and progress. Then we hear, and we have this afternoon heard again, that economy is necessary. I have never yet met a man who is opposed to economy, but what does the Opposition mean by it? Economy does not actually consist out of stinginess and meanness. Sometimes it is necessary to spend more money to get more benefits from what the money may produce. If a farmer buys a one-furrow plough when he can use a three-furrow plough just as well with greater effect, it cannot be said it is economy, because he has got a one-furrow plough a few pounds cheaper, which eventually will come out more expensive to him. The Opposition, however, takes up a peculiar attitude with regard to retrenchment. The hon. member for Yeoville again failed to reply, this afternoon, to the question as to where retrenchment can be effected. He said that it would mean that a motion of no confidence would be put. I am glad to see that he realizes that he cannot improve on this Government, and that he, therefore, is not entitled to propose such a motion. What, however, does his call for economy then mean? Year after year we hear it, and year after year the Opposition do not show where it can be effected. But that is not all. If we notice the motions which, from time to time, come from the Opposition do they mean economy? The whole party, so far as they were in the House, voted, e.g., for a motion to increase the wages of the European railwaymen to 10s. a day. They even said that it was uneconomic, and then used the strange argument that it must be paid, but had to come out of the consolidated revenue fund. Is that economy? That is what we get from the Opposition. I know that the front benchers got a fright, and did not remain here to vote, but they surely assume responsibility for what their back benchers do, and I hope they will accept the responsibility. Then the Opposition say that the old age pensions must be increased. They were in office for 14 years and did nothing. The Government has now made provision and the Minister has shown that 50 per cent. more has been spent on the vote than was estimated, viz., £1,300,000 this year up to the present. Is it economy if the Opposition say that we must increase the pensions? And worst of all is that they propose that the grants to the provincial council of the Cape Province should be increased. I am glad to learn from the hon. member for Yeoville that he disapproves of that, but why was he not present the other day to speak against it, and to say that it could not be done? No, then they thought that they could make a little party capital out of it. There is an election pending in the Cape Province, and it would look too bad if one of their front benchers disapproved of it. They must in any case give this Government the credit of always looking after the interests of the country, and it does not “smouse” for the sake of a few votes

You appear to like the word very much.

Yes, and how splendidly it fits the case. I have never yet heard a word which better applies to the acts of the Opposition. Another proposal which certainly did not need economy was that a grant should be given to the low-grade mines to keep them working. Where does the economy come in? They preach economy, but do not practise it, and would like the Government to spend more. In the past the Minister of Finance constantly announced surpluses, and then the Opposition said that he estimated his revenue too low, in order to show a surplus in that way. This year surely the position is not so. If we examine it a little we shall find that the Minister last year announced and estimated that there would be a surplus of £83,000, and there is a surplus of £400,000. If we examine the figures we find that the estimated revenue was £30,485,000, while the revenue actually was £30,400,000, as near as it could possibly be. The revenue coincided with the estimate. Where then does the surplus come from? The hon. member also suppressed that. It actually comes from economy. The expenditure was estimated by the Minister at £30,317,000, and later the additional expenditure of £220,000 was voted, which means that the total estimated expenditure was £30,537,000, That is the full sum which was approved by Parliament, but in reality only £30,100,000 was spent, which means that there was an actual economy of £437,000 on the amount voted by Parliament. Do they give the Minister credit for that economy? Not a word was mentioned about it. We know that it is very difficult for the Minister to estimate, especially when he has to deal with such things as, e.g., diamonds, which is one of the chief sources of income. We find that the export tax on diamonds this year produced £375,000 less than the estimated amount. Nobody, however, could surely think at the beginning of the financial year that there would be such a collapse in Wall Street, and, therefore, the Minister was not justified to estimate the amount. Notwithstanding that, the Minister could balance the loss of £385,000 under the estimate by the fact that more was received in income tax and customs duty. While speaking of diamonds I want to express my satisfaction on the fortunate fact that for the first time in the history of the Union we have had an amount of over £1,000,000 from the export of cut diamonds, viz., £1,323,000. That is an amount which has been obtained from diamonds cut in the Union. While speaking on this I want to refer to the rumours in the newspapers that the diamond cutting establishments cannot carry on. I hope the Government will be sure to take the necessary steps to enable the establishments to make a living here. I assume that the Government is doing so to-day, because they all realize what it will mean to the future of those establishments when they have once been established for a few years in the country. Then our sons will be trained, and we shall have qualified men, and the industry will stand on its own legs, so that we need not hear the threat that the cutters will go back. I do not expect much support for the diamond cutting establishments from the other side of the House. We know how they opposed the agreement at the time the establishment of the cutting establishments took place. I hope the Government will see to it that these establishments get sufficient diamonds of proper quality to make it possible for them to make a living here. I have already said that in all progressive countries the expenditure increases as the population grows. We have in the Union, e.g., the Department of Agriculture, which is growing tremendously. Our Department of Mines and Industries and our Department of Education have also developed very much, and the cost will, of course, rise, but as long as the increase in expenditure keeps pace with the productivity, there is not, to my mind, much fault to be found. The hon. member for Yeoville rightly said that we have had a period of five years’ prosperity, although some parts of the country, like the northern Transvaal, and some parts of the Cape Province, have not shared in it, but on the whole we can say that we have had five years’ prosperity. That prosperity is not only due to good fortune or chance, but it is, to a considerable extent, due to our Government, which saw to it that we had five years of industrial peace, which we hope will continue, as opposed to the previous Government under which we had continuous and continuing strikes and industrial troubles. As we have had five years of prosperity the question arises whether we have, during that time, provided for the future. The Ministers of Finance and of Railways and Harbours have in this respect set a very good example to the public, by providing for the years of stress that may come. It was always a characteristic of our people to be thrifty, and I dare almost say to be stingy, but I am very sorry to say that I fear we do not any longer possess that virtue. It is worth quoting as an example that the wool farmers, who for years got excellent prices and good production, before there was any talk of a depression, and they merely heard that they would no longer get such good prices for their wool—and one could actually expect that they would have made provision in the good years—were the first to come to the Government to ask what it was going to do for them. We, of course, all sympathized very much with the farmers, not only with our wool farmers, but with all our farmers in the unfortunate position they are in, but the Government was fully entitled to expect that the wool farmers would take care in the good times to provide for the bad ones.

The wheat farmers as well?

Yes, they also. It is a pity, but our people no longer possess that necessary spirit of independence. In the past every one looked after himself, but to-day when difficulties come, such a group comes to the Government for help and they expect that the Government will even assist in individual cases. It is very deplorable that that feeling of independence is commencing to die out, and I hope that when our farmers have a very bad time they, in the future, when better times return once more, which we hope would soon be the case, will, themselves, then provide for the future. I acknowledge that in the extraordinary circumstances the Government must assist as much as possible, but a Minister by himself cannot remove a depression, in that the farmers must themselves assist. We are very much indebted to the Prime Minister for the warning he addressed to the public last year, that we are running into difficult times. The warning came very appropriately, because at that time no one as yet expected that the depression was coming. All the signs pointed to a favourable year, wool production was greater, and the quality better, than ever before. The wheat farmers expected a record harvest, and with the good rains there was every reason to expect that the maize harvest would be extraordinarily good, so that no one could expect bad times. The Opposition press even went so far as to ridicule the Minister, but, fortunately, most people took notice of the warning, and many of the farmers went to work more carefully, and spent no unnecessary money, in which way they were saved difficulties. South Africa is no exception in the world to-day, and the question arises what we ought to attribute the financial stress to, and in connection with that I would like to briefly mention a few points. I am optimistic enough to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that the present position is not even a depression. It will possibly not last much longer, and much will depend on ourselves, and the less we talk about depression the sooner it will end. I think that the chief and practically the only reason for the stress is the fact that with the rest of the world we have to experience the drop in price of our principal agricultural products. The export of agricultural produce during the past year decreased by £5,500,000, and the chief drop was in the price of wool. We exported 33¼ million lbs. more wool, and the quality was also better than in 1928, and yet we had to take £3,333,000 less for it. With regard to wheat, we produced much more than in the previous year, and 1929 was a record year. In 1929, also, we exported £598,000 worth less wheat than in 1928. This is very gratifying, because the money stops in the country, and circulates here, and after the Government have taken steps to protect the wheat farmer I am convinced that within a reasonable time a proper price will again be obtained for wheat. As for our maize harvest, our production last year was 18½ million bags, but the export figures show a reduction of £1,861,000, and this year we expect a record harvest of 25 million bags, according to calculations which have been made by experts. I now come to our chief article of export, viz., gold, which represents about 45 per cent. of the total value of our exports. I do not agree with all the hon. member for Yeoville said in this connection, but I only want to debate one side of the subject. The public are, e.g., constantly brought under the wrong impression that the present Government is not sympathetic towards the mines. The yield for the past year was £44,229,000, which was another record, and shows clearly that the Government have not injured the mines. I need not plead for the mines, but one feels more and more how necessary it is for the progress of the country to encourage the gold industry, and to keep it alive, especially in times like the present, It is especially important in times of stress for the industry to go ahead and supply work to the population. The gold mines influence the prosperity of the whole country, and when we find that the mines annually bring into circulation no less than £30,000,000, £15,000,000 of which is spent on local produce, and £15,000,000 in salaries and wages, then we realize how important it is that the mines should be properly looked after, so that they in turn can assist the country. According to the statistics the Minister laid on the Table, we find that the mines alone employed in 1929 21,644 Europeans and 191,861 natives. We know that the mines complain that they cannot get sufficient native labour, but when the mines are not able to satisfy their need, then the position of the farmers is much worse still, because they cannot pay such high wages as the mines, and accordingly the mines attract the labour which the farmers would otherwise get, and the scarcity becomes still worse. Therefore, I want again to appeal to the Government to allow the natives to come to work here from north of the 22 deg. south latitude, even if we do not get the support of our Labour friends in this. They are at present actually prohibited immigrants, and, even if our Labour friends do not agree with us on the point, I must say that I cannot quite understand their argument in the matter, because the fact remains that if we have more natives on the mines then the mines can also give more work to white persons. The Government can easily provide that the present proportion of approximately nine natives to one European shall continue. Then, surely, there can be no objection if the native does not take the place of the white man. I know that the Government is doing its duty towards the public and will not be frightened away from it, even if our Labour friends do not agree with us. With regard to the depression, we can say the position is certainly far less serious than it was in 1920 and 1922. If we look at that period we find that there were regular deficits, and that the Government even had to come to the assistance of the banks, because their gold reserve was inadequate. Nothwithstanding the increase in railway rates, the railways were run at a loss. We constantly had strikes, thousands of bankruptcies, because the banks themselves were in difficulties, and unemployment was at its worst. We need not, therefore, regard the position too gloomily, because it is far less serious than during the period I have mentioned. Our people must be prepared, especially in the case of agricultural produce, to no longer get the prices that they had in 1927 and 1928. We shall have to get accustomed to the change of prices. I hope they will not remain what they are today, but will considerably increase, but we cannot expect them to go as high as they then were. As we are in difficult circumstances, I know the Government will do its duty to assist the people as far as possible. The wheat farmers have been met by the Government, and the Government has assisted in other directions, but there is one thing I would like to mention, and I hope the Minister of Finance in his reply will explain the circumstances, because it is inexplicable to me, and it is in connection with our banking system. The Minister told us in his budget speech that we had an organized banking system to-day, which could meet all demands of lawful undertakings. I agree that that is so, but there is something I cannot understand. Although in England there is also a scarcity of money, and industries had a bad time owing to the financial pressure, the rate of interest was brought down in a few months from 6½ per cent. to 3½ per cent., and now we are told that it will probably drop further to 3 per cent., or even 2½ per cent. We, here in South Africa, are, as far as I know, the only dominion that has made the experiment of a reserve bank, and I should like to know from the Minister of Finance whether the Reserve Bank which we put up is at the present time really answering its purpose. We understand that the object of the creation of the bank was to stabilize, to some extent, the financial position of the country, and to control it, and that the object was not to make large profits. Is the Reserve Bank answering to its purpose? I cannot then say why the rate of interest still is at 6 per cent.—I think that the Reserve Bank increased it last August to 6 per cent., when everybody already realized that we were going to have a difficult time. I can understand that the Reserve Bank in a time of great and exaggerated speculation, when people are possibly too optimistic, should keep the rate high, and try to oppose unsound speculation in that way, but in times of stress the position is different. Then the bank, in my opinion, is obliged to assist our industries, agriculture and other industries, when it is necessary and sound. Why can the rate of interest be reduced to 3½ per cent. in England in times of stress, and why does it remain 6 per cent. in South Africa? We know that the ordinary commercial banks do not use the Reserve Bank too much. That is, unfortunately, a fact, and I do not know why. I can, however, understand that if they have to pay 6 per cent., they cannot at present use the Reserve Bank for re-discounting purposes. The Minister told us that £5,500,000 more was discounted by the bank at the end of the year compared with the same period last year, but that the deposits were less (fixed deposits) by £2,000,000. That means a reduction of £7,500,000, that the bank is weaker. We must, therefore, take it that the banks have not too much money to lend to provide for the needs. There is, therefore, every encouragement and desirability for the Reserve Bank to reduce its rate, but yet we find that it stands at 6 per cent, The Government has approached the commercial banks, and asked them to assist the farmers, especially in these bad times. I hope they will do so. We know, however, that complaints come from the countryside—we do not know if it is so—that bills which are long overdue and which the farmers possibly cannot release at the present moment are being called up, and that re-discounting privileges are refused. I do not know if it is so, but the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) showed me a letter from a bank which stated that the rate of interest has been raised. I now understand that in the Cope Province, at any rate, the banks have decided to increase their rate of interest generally, that for bills, and that for promissory notes, as well as on overdrawn accounts, and I should like to know if that is the case generally. It would be deplorable. If, however, the Reserve Bank keeps its rates so high, it is bringing about that position. If it lowers the rate the commercial banks will be able to get cheaper money from the Reserve Bank. I want also to say a few words in connection with our national debt. There is much misunderstanding about our national debt. I want to show how sound our position is at heart. In a young growing country like ours it will certainly, for many years yet, be necessary for us to incur debt to develop the country, especially as in South Africa such undertakings as the railways, the posts and telegraphs, the telephones, and land settlement come under the Government, while in most other countries they are private enterprises. The money for development is expended on a sound object. Therefore, we must expect national debt to increase. Let us briefly examine the increase and see what the present position is. In this connection I was very pleased to read what the chairman of Barclays Bank, Mr. Goodenough, said about South Africa at the annual meeting of the bank in England on the 21st January. He said—

That is a great feather in the cap of the Minister of Finance, who is chiefly responsible for that position, and it comes from someone of high authority in financial circles. That is, however, not the opinion of the South African party press, which are only too ready to foul their own nests if they can only make a little party capital with their unenlightened supporters. We, therefore, read, e.g., in Ons Land in its recent article on the position, inter alia, the following—

That organ is disappearing.

Yes, fortunately it is dying, and no one will take any notice of a dying newspaper like that. But the Opposition is always only too ready to depreciate our own country, to paint our own country black, and to injure our credit, if they only think that they can get a little party capital. The Opposition is prepared to foul its own nest for the sake of political gain, but fortunately we have the opinion of unprejudiced persons like the chairman of Barclays Bank, but let us now briefly examine the actual figures in connection with our national debt. I give the position at the 31st March, 1929, because we, of course, have not got the loan estimates before us yet. On that date the national debt was £244,044,000. There was, however, at that date a credit balance on hand of £1,007,000, which must be deducted, and on that date, according to the report of the public debt commissioners, the value of the money paid into the sinking fund was £20,233,000. This, therefore, leaves a net balance, after deducting two amounts of £222,804,000. Now if we examine how the money was spent and we see what the assets are that were bought, and we enquire further into the position of the debt, and see how much was productive, and how much was dead liability, then we can judge whether the position is so sound or not. Of the net debt of £222,804,000 far away the largest amount was voted for our railways, viz., £161,000,000, that represents the capital amount of our railways, but it is not secret that the immovable assets of our railways are considerably more than that amount. The ground, buildings, etc. are worth millions more than that amount, and if we were to float the railways into an ordinary private company there would be no difficulty of getting the full amount which is invested in the railways. The second large amount is the money voted for the land bank, viz., £11,040,000. We get interest on that money and further we know that the money is issued in the form of first bonds on farms which are valued at only 60 per cent. of the actual agricultural value. The various provincial administrations owe £12,200,000. £12,400,000 was voted for public works and buildings, and here again we find that public works and buildings represent a far larger value than that amount, because money was voted out of current revenue for public works. This year the amount is only £70,000, and since the present Government came into office it has been the fixed policy to put £100,000 annually on the ordinary estimates for smaller works. This money is then paid into the loan funds, and it is used for smaller works, so that the value of our public works is considerably more than £12,400,000. £14,500,000 was voted for the departments of irrigation and agriculture from loan funds, and the largest part is due, and repayable by settlers for whom the land was bought, etc. I admit that considerable money has to be written down for the irrigation works. That is the result of the work of the previous Government. I do not blame them for it, but I must mention the fact here. Forestry got £1,650,000 from loan funds, but here we find that our forests which were planted are worth much more than the insignificant amount that was spent on them. There are already about 100,000 morgen planted with trees, and the full value of them is about ten times as much as the money spent on them. £8,020,000 was voted in the loan funds for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and here also it is a fact that the assets of the post office far exceed that amount, while the amount is productive. Our universities and colleges, £2,070,000. Local authorities owe £3,450,000, but this amount also is secured. £7,281,000 was lent to the Electricity Commission but this amount also is secured and bears interest. If now we add all these amounts together then we find that in all with smaller advances they amount to £235,539,000, and as I have said our net debt is only £222,804,000. The position is therefore particularly satisfactory, and it is getting more so every year. There is another matter of great importance which also shows how our country is progressing and becoming more and more independent economically; it is the relation between our overseas debt and our internal debt. In 1910 at the establishment of Union the position was that our overseas loan amounted to £106,897,000. and that was 91.76 per cent. of the whole, and in the Union we had £9,604,000, or 8.24 per cent. of debt. Now the position is that we have £150,500,000, or 61.31 per cent, of overseas debt, and £93,500,000 or 38.31 per cent, in the Union. There was, therefore, during this period, an improvement of about £80,000,000 in our internal debt. This money has been borrowed in our own country. The position becomes still better if we look at the interest which we pay on our national debt. For last year it was £10,294,000. and of this no less than £4,240,000 was paid to people within the Union. It is unnecessary to show how much it is in the interests of our country to keep as much as possible of our national debt in this country. These figures show that we are engaged in becoming more and more economically independent. There is another interesting fact which I would like to discuss in connection with the interest payable on our national debt. While we had to pay £10,877,000 interest and redemption last year, we got back from the railways the land bank and other bodies the sum of no less than £8,108,000. That means that the actual burden of interest which the taxpayers had to find was not more than £2,769,000. Another favourable fact is that although our national debt has increased, to take the two last years, from £238,926,000 to £244,044,000 the amount of the interest which the ordinary taxpayer has to find has decreased from £3,249,000 in 1928 to £2,769,000 in 1929. There was a reduction of £480,000. This, of course, shows very clearly that our national debt is becoming more and more productive and this is one of the things which the country is especially indebted for to the present Minister of Finance and the present Government because they made proper provision for the redemption of the debt. We find, therefore, that the financial position of the country is sound throughout although at present there is a temporary setback. But we shall nevertheless have to teach our people and to encourage them to be more thrifty and to economise and in this connection I should like to bring to the notice of the House and the public how many articles of luxury are imported. I want to confine myself specially to motor cars because I feel the time has come for us to realize that we cannot go on in this way. I quote these figures chiefly from the census returns and the position is really alarming, because the motorcar is not necessary in many cases, but is a pure luxury. In the year 1923 there were 38,815 motor cars in the country, and at the end of 1928 the number had risen to 113,000. This number is constantly increasing because in 1929 no less than 21,475 complete motor cars were imported and 10,009 underframes to be assembled in this country. If we add these figures to the total for 1928 then it means that at the end of 1929 we had about 145,000 motorcars in the country. I am sorry that practically all the newspapers did not correctly report the Minister’s figures regarding motors and motor fuel, and I therefore want to repeat them. In 1928, 18,348 motors were imported, and 8,247 underframes, at a valuation of £3,200,000 and in 1929, 21,475 motor cars and 10,009 underframes at a valuation of £3,670,000. The value of the underframes in 1929 was £789,000, but in 1928 the value of the underframes was included in the spare parts. The fact therefore remains that in 1929 motors and underframes to the value of £4,000,000 were imported in a single year, or an increase of 4,000 motors and underframes in one year. The petrol which was imported is just as bad, and is constantly increasing still. In 1923 it was 14,500,000 gallons and in 1925 it was just under 70,000,000 with a value of £2,051,000, or another increase on the quantity for 1928 of over 20,000,000 gallons, or in money value an increase of £591,000 in one year. Tyres and tubes were imported to a value of £1,060,000. Now if we compare the figures with the number of income tax payers we find that throughout the Union the proportion is approximately that there are two motors for every taxpayer, and the proportion is constantly getting worse. If we take the provinces then we find that in Natal there are 1½ motors for every income taxpayer; in the Cape Province just over 2 motor cars; in the Transvaal If motors, and in the Free State—the Free Staters will of course say the Free State is always on top—there are no less than 3 motor cars for every income taxpayer.

Most of the taxpayers are there.

Unfortunately the figures do not show it. The position amounts to this that there is one motor ear in the country for every twelve European persons. We find, moreover, that in 1928 people were at work in our motor garages and factories who drew wages amounting to £3,327,000. The value of oil apart from petrol which was used was £500,000, and if we add all these amounts up then we find that we have spent almost £14,000,000 a year in connection with motors, and what do they bring in?

Do the railway workers also buy motor cars?

Yes, unfortunately they do, although they ought not to. The question now arises what are we to do? The position is getting so serious that the Government will have to take steps. It ought not to be very difficult to do something. We find that it is often persons who cannot afford it who buy motor cars. The Government knows that most motor cars are got on the hire purchase system. I do not believe that cash is paid in one out of ten times when a motor car comes out of the garage. An old car is exchanged and the rest is paid for on the hire purchase system. I think that provision ought to be made not to abolish the hire purchase system, but to provide that at least half of the purchase price must be paid in cash, then at least the buyer will give proof that he will probably be able to pay for the car. Further, the terms should not be for so long, so that a person need not pay for years. Then the bank also can do much to improve the position by not allowing garages and companies to get facilities where it is not clear that the maker of the promissory note is himself in the position of being able to pay. We do not see any signs of thrift now, although as a going country we very badly need the money for development. The other great difficulty is that the dealers import the motors and have to pay within a reasonable time, but the cars are sold here on terms. The money in that way is got from the banks on bills, money which we need badly for the development of agriculture and industries. It too often happens that a man buys a motor he cannot afford, but it is of course different when a farmer buys a tractor on the hire purchase system, because then the thing pays for itself, and increases the production of the land, but the money for ordinary motors goes out of the country and only impoverishes the country, and does not encourage the virtue of thrift. I will end by congratulating the Minister on the position and I agree with him that everything will come right. We wish the Government and the Minister long life in the interests of South Africa.

On a point of order, under Standing Order 102, there are certain changes made in regard to procedure. Prior to this rule being adopted, a 40-minute speech was allowed. Since then, it has been unlimited. The practice has been for the Minister to introduce his budget, and for an adjournment to be then taken. On the resumption of the debate, a nominee of the Opposition would follow the Minister, who in turn, would be followed by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and, after him, a nominee of the Labour party. That is the practice that has been followed ever since the adoption of the rule.

On a point of order, I submit that that is not a point of order.

I claim the courtesy of the chair, and I hope that in any remarks I may make I shall uphold the dignity of the chair to the utmost of my power. I want to point out that we are a distinct and separate party in this House, completely distinct from all others and in opposition. We represent a very large body of public opinion, much larger than one might suppose from our representation in this House. That expression of opinion has been considerably reinforced during the last few days, and I have no hesitation in claiming from you that we represent the point of view of labour. I want to impress upon you that in view of the time limit there are peculiar circumstances surrounding the debate, and if we are debarred at this stage of the proceedings, the probability is we shall have no opportunity of making representations as to policy on behalf of those we represent. The practical effect will be that we will be completely debarred from participating in a debate of considerable importance in the interests of a large section of the public whom we represent in this House. It is due to us that we should have an opportunity of expressing ourselves through the man we have ourselves nominated.

I cannot take cognisance of parties in the House. The rules make no mention of any parties, but Mr. Speaker can use his discretion in choosing those who are to take part in these debates, and I am quite satisfied that members who speak on this question will not have any reason to complain of not having the fullest opportunity of taking part in this debate before the time expires. I cannot allow this question to be argued.

I was not in the House when the Minister of Finance made his budget speech. I was up-country, and had to read it in the paper, but I felt, when I read one particular passage, that I need not buy my Punch for that particular week. The Minister said—

Now that the national income has fallen as the result of the fall in prices of products, the individual has got to cut his coat according to his cloth and the country will have to do the same. In these circumstances, the credit of the Union has become somewhat strained.

It is rather a poor report.

I am sorry for that. I admit I did not hear the Minister’s speech, but anyway this exhortation has a particularly comic flavour coming as it does from this Government, a Government which has found itself quite unable or unwilling to keep expenditure within ordinary bounds. I think the country will retort to the Minister, “Physician, heal thyself”. “Show us some earnest of that spirit which you and the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) have advocated in your pleas for economy, and we will gladly follow.” This Government entered into power six years ago on a plea of economy. We have watched them put party and individuals beyond the welfare of the country; they have never hesitated to create a job and put a friend in it; never hesitated on mere sordid matters of pounds, shillings and pence, if they could do a good turn to a particular interest they were pledged to serve. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that you cannot give figures of growth of expenditure by themselves. I agree with him, but I say that the foundation of any indictment of extravagance must be such figures. You can fairly quote what the expenditure was when the Government came into power, compared with what it is now, and leave the Government to defend itself from the implications those figures create. In 1923-’24 the expenditure was £24,000,000, and sitting in the Opposition seats then was Mr. Charles Fichardt who then said—

That was after the Government had made the most drastic, and politically most unwise, reductions in expenditure. Yet the Government that came into power largely on that economy cry has increased expenditure since then by £1,000,000 per annum. In 1928-’29 the figure had risen to £28,500,000. The estimate last year was £30,100,000 and this year the expenditure has gone up to £30,813,000, an increase of £713,000. I want to point out that the Minister is at least £1,000,000 better off than Mr. Burton was. Hon. members will remember the famous "Burton cut”. That had the effect of bringing about a progressive reduction in the emoluments paid to civil servants which eventually was to amount to £800,000. To-day the Minister has got the advantage of the full “Burton cut” of £800,000 per annum. In 1923 Mr. Burton had to bear the full burden of war pensions. Today they are something like £200,000 less than they were in those days. Our expenditure on defence is considerably less than it was in those days. The Minister to-day in the respects I have mentioned is £1,000,000 better off than his predecessor was, and yet is spending £7,000,000 more in his budget. I am perfectly prepared to admit that a case can be made out for a very large proportion of that increase, but we do not control the purse. We have not the responsibility for the swelling of the figures. The one person on whom we are entitled to lay the responsibility is the Minister of Finance, and we say to him there has not been that control of the growth of expenditure which we are entitled to expect and particularly from the Minister of Finance of a Government which came into power on a plea of economy. I want now to give figures showing the percentage increases or decreases. In 1921-’22 there was a decrease in expenditure of 1.9 per cent. In 1922-’23 there was a decrease of 11.03 per cent. In 1923-’24 there was a decrease of 1.0 per cent. In the succeeding years the figures of increase were 2.14, 7.13—that was the year the Government framed their own budget. The next year the figure was 4.30, and the next year 4.34, and the next year 1.3. This year, 1929-’30, there was an increase of 5 per cent. If you average it out over the seven years you get an average increase in expenditure of £1,000,000 a year. During that time public expenditure has increased by 37 per cent., yet the European population, who in the main has to bear the burden of taxation, has increased by something less than half of that amount. Our revenue from taxation when the Minister came into power was £16,850,000. Five years later—and they are the latest figures I have—for 1928-’29, that figure had increased to £21,649,000. That is an increase of the rate of almost £1,000,000, or £5,000,000 over a period of five years. I can, therefore, say that expenditure has gone up at the rate of £1,000,000 a year, and that the burden on the people of this country has increased at the rate of £1,000,000 a year also, and now we have reached a stage when even the Minister must, as he indicated in his budget speech, cry “Halt.” He says that he will do his best in the year to come to remove the deficit in his budget by using economy. Party or no party, I say that we shall stand behind him in any effort he may make to balance his budget by economy and to reduce the finances of this country to something like order. I shall specify in a moment some items of expenditure which certainly stick in the throats of many of us on this side of the House. It is idle, we say, to inculcate the spirit of economy into the minds of the people when the Government itself is the greatest offender. I intend to follow the lines in the speech I delivered in the (Part) Appropriation Bill, and at every possible time, on every possible occasion, to rub it into the Government in regard to the scale upon which it has been creating these new appointments and the salaries it has been paying to the holders of those posts. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, as I wanted to tell him that I do not intend to be deterred by any cries of “racialism.” We have got past the stage in this country when it is going to be an effective reply on the part of any Minister of the Crown when I criticize the creation of new posts or the appointment of any person to such posts, for the Minister to say: “Oh, it is a Dutch name, and that is why you are criticizing him.” If someone went into the backveld and talked to a Nationalist audience and said: “You cannot sell your wool. The price of maize is down to a figure we have never known before. Lucerne is an unsaleable commodity. You do not know where to find the interest on your bond, or to pay the next instalment on your motor car, or to feed and clothe your children, but, never mind, the Government is spending £2,400 a year on a consul at Lourenço Marques, and Mr. Strachan has been appointed to a new appointment in the Labour Department at £950, and we are spending large sums of money in Italy and America, therefore do not take any notice of the criticism of Blackwell and others, for they are only actuated by race hatred when they draw attention to such expenditure,” I wonder what that audience would say. The day for that sort of answer has gone. If there is any substance in my criticism, let the Government justify those appointments and that expenditure, but let them not bleat, as the Minister of Agriculture does when you hit him, and say: “Oh, it is all purely race hatred.” Even on the Nationalist benches many hon. members are beginning to shake their heads over this expenditure, and many have misgivings in regard to this continual growth of expenditure, and the creation of new and expensive posts in the Government, for they look at the money involved and the spirit of wastefulness which it is creating. The farmers are passing through lean times, but our estimates are loaded with such expenditure of which I shall give a few more instances. In passing, I would say this: that no Government is ever going to be efficient or able to carry on economically which adopts for its slogan what the Minister of Agriculture repeated the other day, that “other things being equal,” he will appoint to all posts possible people who are members of his own party. That is the most shameless thing I have ever heard stated in this House.

Have you not done it?

No. But supposing we had done it, if we did it we were ashamed of doing it. The Minister of Agriculture gloats over the fact that he is going to confine appointments, for that is what it means, to people of his own party. I say this: that any Government with a sense of real patriotism would give the post to the man, be he English-speaking or Dutch-speaking, who could best do the job. The fact that the Minister of Agriculture can get up—

That is exactly what he said: “All things being equal.”

Let us strip this matter of all camouflage. We know those words: “All things being equal,” mean absolutely nothing at all. We know that that is only the sugar which coats the pill, and we know from our experience of the Minister of Agriculture that he is going to use his political power and influence and his position as a Minister of the Crown to forward certain political ends which are not in the best interests of this country. The mere fact that he can, without shame or remonstrance from his own party, make such a statement, is the best description of the party to which he belongs, I ever want to see. We are getting back to the state of affairs which exists in South and in Central America. I am perfectly certain that the Minister of Finance does not agree with that. I felt that I could not allow such a statement, freshly made by the Minister of Agriculture, to pass unchallenged. I say that once a Government can subscribe to a policy of that sort, it is good-bye to any sense of loyalty and efficiency in the civil service of this country. If this party, of which I am a member, gets back to power, and it is getting back much quicker than hon. members on the other side think, and if I have anything to say in the direction of that party, I would sooner resign my seat than subscribe openly or indirectly to a doctrine so damnable as that enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture. I want now to get back to the Minister of Finance. One criticism that could be directed against him is that he has on many occasions shown a regrettable lack of financial responsibility. When he introduced the old age pensions, he told us that the initial cost was to be £800,000 per year; but the initial bill turned out to be £1,200,000 a year, an increase of 50 per cent. When I ventured to point this out to him three or four weeks ago, he replied: “I followed the estimates that were given to me by the commission on old age pensions.” Surely that is not an attitude that should be adopted by a responsible Minister of Finance! He should, before committing this country to a particular scheme, find out independently what the cost is going to be, and when he discovers that it is 50 per cent. above the estimate, he should tell the country the figures. His neglect to do this entitles one to say that he shows an absence of ministerial responsibility.

Are you finding fault with old age pensions?

No. I am attacking the Minister of Finance for the unpardonable fault of giving this House an estimate of expenditure which bore no relation to what the old age pension scheme costs. I will give another instance. A few years ago an hon. member for Pretoria brought before the House a scheme for giving additional pensions to exrepublican officials of the Transvaal. He had a select committee which made certain recommendations. These were accepted by the Minister of Finance without any enquiry into their financial implications. When we came to foot the bill, we found that there was a lump sum expenditure in one year of £331,000 and an annual addition to our pension bill as well of £17,000. The Minister of Finance has confessed that when he agreed to the scheme, he did so because the House recommended it, but that he did not know what it was going to cost. This was a case in which the Minister failed in his function as the watch-dog of the public purse. On the estimates for this year the cost of our pensions is shown to amount to no less than £3,573,540. That is a dead weight of unproductive expenditure which the taxpayer has to bear. It is amounting almost to as much as our income tax receipts. The time is fast approaching when income tax and supertax payers will bear on their shoulders the burden of our pensions. I am not prepared to resist the pensions, but I beg the House to watch very carefully this growing expenditure for which we get no return and which is growing at a rate which fills me with misgiving. And as the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) points out, that expenditure is being swollen by the premature retirement of men still able to perform useful work. I will give further details of the spendthrift policy of the Government. I gave some the other night, and I do not wish to repeat them, but I might again refer to the Department of External Affairs, for when I study the rate at which this expenditure is mounting up, I perceive that the Minister of Labour will have to look to his laurels as the head of the champion spendthrift department of state. The secretary to the Prime Minister and Secretary for External Affairs draws a salary of £1,738. He was a professor at Stellenbosch and was dragged from the academic groves of Stellenbosch to take that post, because he was said to be an expert on international law. He had not been in office for very long before a young man—a very charming young man—was brought down from South-West Africa and appointed professional advisee on international law to the Prime Minister at a salary of £1,587 the under-secretary to the Prime Minister, who is also under-secretary for External Affairs, and clerk of the executive council, draws £1,071. At Geneva we have an “accredited representative” who draws a salary and allowances of £1,405. That is our old friend, Mr. F. F. Pienaar, who used to be organizer of the South African party. Subsequently he disappeared into obscurity and afterwards was given this appointment. What the country gets for this expenditure, I should like to know. Then we are spending in representation in Rome—why not in Berlin or Paris ?— £9,832, and representation in Washington and New York, £13,340. I do not believe that that representation is worth the odd £340 so far as material benefit to South Africa is concerned. Again, we spend in representation at The Hague and Hamburg, £10,623. These estimates, however, do not tell the full story, for buried in the estimates of the Minister of Mines there are votes for trade commissioners in London and Kenya which add another £10,000 which ought to be debited to the Department of External Affairs. In the High Commissioner’s vote, I notice an item “Political Secretary to the High Commissioner, £1,150.” The Government seems to have gone mad in the direction of expenditure of that type. Mr. Charles te Water, our High Commissioner in London, is a perfectly good politician. What does he need a political secretary for at a time when the Minister of Finance is budgeting for a deficit? I suppose I am filled with race hatred when I say this, but in point of fact, I do not know whether this political secretary’s name is Jones or Smith or Viljoen. Let us now look at the Labour Department. Its vote has grown to £82,000, notwithstanding the fact that it made such a mess of a large portion of Hartebeestpoort that it was taken away from the Labour Department and is now being run by the Department of Lands. The Department of Labour has spent £450,000 from loan account at Hartebeestpoort, and the Department of Lands £297,600. The Minister of Lands now asks the House to write down the value of the settlers’ holdings from £260,000 to £195,000—the first, I am afraid, of a series of writes-off. To-day Hartebeestpoort has cost us £3,000,000, of which about half was spent by the previous Government, and half by this Government. I do not want to be an unnecessarily dismal prophet, but I wonder how much we will ever get back. The only explanation that has reached me why the Department of Lands has taken it over is that the Department of Labour found it could not give title to the settlers. That is an insult to one’s intelligence; as if it could not be put right by an amending Act in five minutes.

Who told you so?

The Secretary for Lands across the floor of the Public Accounts Committee, but I am not supposed to say so here. If the Minister of Labour will tell us that Hartebeestpoort was taken over by the Department of Lands for any other reason, we will be glad to hear it, because the general impression is that such a muddle has been made that the Department of Lands had to intervene and take it over from them. I am saying this to give my hon. friend the necessary opening for giving an explanation. I would not give 5s. in the £ for what the state could get from it. Seriously, how much will the public purse of this country not suffer, and how much of the money which we spent there will we see back? The Government some years ago spent £112,500 on ostrich feather purchases, and if you look at the auditor-general’s report, you see the figure standing at the same. It was done to help a particular section of the farming community, and if the Government does this every time a section of that community desires help, where is it going to stop? Is the Government going to make a wool purchase; is it going to help the lucerne farmers, or help the tobacco farmers of the north? It is an unpleasant statement to make, but I wonder what would have happened if Oudtshoorn had not been represented by a Nationalist, and it had been represented by a South African party member. Would the Government have made that advance in the face of the warning of the Land Bank? You can go on and multiply such cases. Let me give another instance just brought to my notice. Let me refer to irrigation projects—to the Oukloof project which was initiated under the Minister’s regime. It has cost the country to date £110,000, and in the face of the plainest possible warning from the commission which the Government set up to advise it on irrigation matters. It said—

The commission, however, realized that it was not a feasible scheme and reported—

So that, even on the basis of a relief scheme, to relieve these unfortunate people in the Prince Albert district, this commission said: “Do not touch it, and do not go on with it.” Did the Government take that advice? No, it went on with it. As to the economic value of that scheme to-day, I doubt whether it is worth the odd £10,000. I look through the estimates, and see them inflated in every possible direction. With regard to some, it might be retorted that they were also the case under our own regime. I see the Senate is costing £40,000. Do we get value for that money? Was it necessary when the salaries of our members were increased, if that were necessary, which I doubt, to increase the salary of members of the Senate? That House may possibly have useful functions, but not under present circumstances. I know you feel, Mr. Speaker, I am getting to delicate matters. I will not pursue that too far—I am not criticizing it, but feeling that the money is on our estimates, and we have to vote it. It is a direction in which economy could be effected. There is not a conscientious member of that House to-day who would not confess that he is drawing money under false pretences. Let us come nearer home, and come to this Assembly, the cost of which is £138,425. People outside are asking whether they are getting value for the money they spend The Minister of Finance complained of the slow progress of the parliamentary machine, when it was being used, in his opinion, in a quite illegitimate way. The remedy is to reduce the number of members. We have too many members, and it costs the country more than it can spend. Australia can get on with a Commonwealth Parliament of 75 members. This is not a party matter. I feel that the framers of our constitution erred when they fixed the maximum number of our House at 150, at which we have nearly reached. The Government might very well consider whether, with equal efficiency, the number could not be reduced to 100. We are spending on the Senate and the House of Assembly, together, something like £180,000, and when you remember that added to that there are the four provincial councils, I do not wonder that the taxpayer outside who has to pay, sometimes feels that the legislative costs in this country are far too high. Our vote for higher education has reached £889,000, or very nearly £900,000. At that rate of progress, it will be £1,000,000 two or three years from now. When are we going to call a halt? Do we want to create this a country of university graduates and poor whites? I am all for education, but I do not shrink from saying that proportionate to our population, to our income and to our taxable capacity, I very much doubt whether we are justified year after year in piling up the costs of higher education. I see that the vote for child welfare is £258,000. It is difficult to criticize that vote, but if you study the progressive expenditure under that heading you wonder whether we are not outrunning the constable there. The Minister of Finance some years ago set up an income tax court. That court functions only for a portion of the year. He has a full-time officer at the head of that court—I don’t know that he is entitled to be called a judge, but he is styled the president of the court—who draws £2,000 per annum, and the court costs over £4,700 per annum. We spent on the Board of Trade this year £13,824 and on Assize £17,130. I admit, of course, that the Assize department collects certain revenue. The civil service commission this year is costing us £28,147, a lot of money to spend on a rubber stamp. If you want a concrete example of how that commission does its work, I would ask members to turn to the last auditor-general’s report. There is a paragraph there with regard to the appointment of a welfare officer. On the recommendation of the public service commission this post was created in the Department of Agriculture on the 18th January, 1929, and Gen. Manie Maritz was appointed to this post in Namaqualand at a salary of £50 per month, plus £30 per month transport, and 15s. per day subsistence. He was employed until the 31st March, 1929, when the post was abolished, also by the public service commission. On the 18th January, 1929, the public service commission finds that the existence of a welfare officer in Namaqualand is highly essential. Two and a half months later it finds that the post is no longer necessary, and the post is thereupon abolished. If anything is required to show what the public service commission is coming to, that paragraph will show it. We know how Gen. Manie Maritz came down whilst Parliament was sitting breathing threatenings and slaughter against his friends, and how they adopted the old practice of converting a highwayman into a police officer. It was a clever thing to do on the part of the Minister of Agriculture, but the point is that as soon as the Minister saw the necessity for the appointment the public service commission also saw it. It may seem a severe thing to say, but as my hon. friend near me suggests, he was a welfare officer, but the person whose welfare concerned him most was the welfare of Gen. Manie Maritz. His two and a half months’ service cost £379. I see on the estimates a figure of £210,000 for the state alluvial diggings. That is expenditure very difficult to control, and almost impossible to audit. Inside the public service the Minister cannot rage unchecked, but on the alluvial diggings the doctrines of the Minister of Agriculture can. I see that they are paying the very high salary of £3,500 a year to a gentleman called Grobler. I do not think that he is one of the numerous Grobler family you find in the civil service. He was an inspector of mines, and was suddenly translated to this post after Mr. Hofmeyer of the public service commission elected to go back to the commission. He has the support of a technical manager at £2,100 a year. I have given some instances of extravagance and of over-spending on the part of this Government, quite enough to show how these estimates get inflated year after year. Now we are faced with the position that expenditure has gone up to £30,800,000, and the Government is budgeting for a deficit. It would be budgeting for a deficit of over a million pounds but for the fact of that convenient law passed by the Minister of Finance which allowed him to collar the surpluses. Under the old regime that surplus of £400,000 would have gone to debt redemption, and he would have been obliged to make ends meet next year. Therefore, when you talk about next year’s deficit, do not forget that the real deficit is the amount he mentions plus £400,000. How is he going to meet it? Partly by increasing the income tax. We have got to pay income tax in hard times on the income we have received during a good year, and 20 per cent. in addition. No step he could take would be likelier to dry up credit, and yet he is forced to do it because he is not keeping expenditure within bounds. Side by side with that we have nearly a page of extra duties that the Minister is going to put upon us—maize, patent foods, dried fruits, dates, nuts, peas, beans, salt and starch, and then we come to our old friend, ready-made clothing. I remember the fight we had in 1925 or in 1926 on that duty on readymade clothing. On this side of the House we fought against the proposal of the Minister to increase that duty from 15 to 20 per cent. We were told then that that would satisfy the needs of that growing industry. You remember at that time he proposed to include a duty on boys’ clothing. Fortunately the Minister reconsidered his decision on that point. The trouble is, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said, that protection is like a drug. The more you take it, the more you want it. The more protection you give to an industry, the more you have to give. My own bias lies in the direction of free trade, but I am prepared to support a certain amount of protection. Two or three years ago, we had to fight the cause of the kafir and his blanket. To-day we have to fight the cause of the poor white and the clothing that he wears. No proposal is likely to be more unpopular than this. In 1925 we imported £2,400,000 worth of ready-made clothing, the duty then being 15 per cent. In 1926, on a 20 per cent. basis, the amount fell to £1,900,000. In 1927, it was £1,400,000, a drop of £1,000,0000 in two years. In 1928 it was £1,500,000, an increase of £100,000. The figures for 1929 are up to the present £1,200,000 for ten months. The increase from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. has made £1,000,000 difference in the importation of ready-made clothing into this country, and, presumably, is benefiting the local trade to this extent. But these industries, like Oliver Twist, are always asking for more. They now want an additional 5 per cent. I tried to get the report of the Board of Trade and Industries, but was informed that it had not yet been laid on the Table of the House. Of all the illegitimate claims to protection, I think the claims on behalf of the clothing industry is the most illegitimate. If you have to have protection, protect those trades which have some relation to one of the primary industries of this country. Do not protect a bastard industry. I have not the figures for 1926 now before me, but I believe that the industry then imported into this country a million pounds’ worth of cloth, lining and thread, and used local products amounting to a few thousands. The trade imports linings, thread, buttons and cloth; yet it claims to be a South African industry, and at the behest of such an industry, every man who wears ready-made clothes, the farmer, the artisan, the railwayman, is to be told he has to pay another 5 per cent. duty. This Government has done nothing since it came into power but put up the cost of living. There is no case to be made out in this House for putting up the cost of clothing, unless you can show that you are stimulating primary production. They are importing the cloth, thread and linings, and simply putting them together. What protection are we asked to give them? Do not forget that they import their cloth on a five per cent. basis, and that linings, thread and other accessories pay nothing at all, so that they are getting that form of protection as well. They also have the advantage of an abundance of cheap labour in this country. If the Government gives way to the new requets of the boot manufacturing industry of this country, it will deserve all that will come to it at the hands of the wage-earners of the country. It does seem as if the Government has at last written off the towns as a wasted asset in the political sense and thrown them to the dogs, and is concentrating on the platteland of this country. I protest against this new proposed form of taxation: it is unfair to the poorest. There is no protection of tailor-made clothing. It hits the man who has to clothe himself. No permanent benefit will be received by the people of this country. It is a bastard industry and can only be built up at the expense of a further rise in the cost of living. I have dealt with finance, and I now want to deal with the peculiar position in which the Government finds itself to-day. I will ask you to cast your minds back some eighteen months, when Mr. Madeley was ejected from the Cabinet of the day. A very prominent member of the Nationalist party gave an interview to the daily press and said—

The gentleman who said that is the present Minister of Justice. How does he feel to-day with one of those on whom he poured such derisive scorn sitting beside him? What does the Government intend to do as a result of the recent elections in the Transvaal? I see that a member of the press has had the courage, or perhaps I should say the temerity, to approach the Minister of Defence, with that question, and he got sent away with a flea in his ear. It was surely unnecessary for him to do that; anyone on this side could have given him the answer: they will hold on till grim death; you may insult them, kick them, do anything that a political opponent or erstwhile friend could do, but they will sit there still. Anything more insulting than the comments of the Nationalist press I do not know. That is the present position. The Minister of Lands goes to Germiston and says to the people of Germiston and of Jeppe and of other parts, “Look here! Vote Nationalist! Vote against the Labour party, and vote Nationalist.” From these benches, in the same Cabinet, in the same House, goes a message from Col. Creswell to the electors of Jeppe and other parts, in effect: “I am surprised and sorry that the Nationalists have put their noses into our constituency, but stick true to Labour principles. Vote for Labour and beat the Nationalists.” Yet you see them still sitting opposite us in the House this afternoon. We have been referred to as a “smous.” I wonder what epithet you will apply to hon. members who belong to the so-called Labour party. The Minister of Defence will go down in history in South Africa as the man who found the Labour party a flourishing and well-furnished house and left it a hovel, if that. He will go down in history as the man who preferred to hold on to office, though he knew his holding on to office was wrecking the party to which be belonged. The figures of the recent provincial council election in the Transvaal show that the Creswell Labour party has come down very low. It has been able to get 2,700 votes in the whole of the Transvaal. It has not run a candidate in the Free State and it may run one poor miserable fellow in the Cape Province.

Where?

Perhaps it won’t run even one. I say that if ever a party were thoroughly disrupted, a party which bad 18 representatives in the last House, it is the present Labour party. In 1924 I made a speech in this House and I said this to the Minister of Defence (Col. Creswell), when I quoted a letter he was reported to have written on the subject of a coalition some years earlier. I said that there you have the Creswell of 1914 saying that we stand for a party with a definite principle which we shall not sacrifice merely for the sake of gaining power. I said that the Minister of Defence must since then have taken this for his motto: “Take the cash and let the credit go: nor heed the rumbling of a distant drum.” That was in 1924. Those drums to-day are beating the funeral dirge of the Labour party. Yon need not worry, the hon. Minister will not be there. Be there not a single voter to put his cross against a Creswell candidate, he will still hang on till the end of the present Parliament and then, like the Arab, he will fold his tent and silently steal away, and this House will know him no more, and the Labour party will have to build itself up afresh. What can you say of a Government whose claim to remain in power is solely by the aid of a party which is now utterly discredited in the eyes of the people of this country? The Nationalist party can hold its own and it may get a majority in this House or it may not, although it may get very near it, but it is a party with a definite claim on the people of this country. The Labour party has now got to the stage of the little flea on the back of the big flea: “Big fleas have little fleas on their backs to bite ’em; little fleas have lesser fleas, and so on ad infinitum.” The Labour party has got so low that it is dragging the Nationalist party down and the Government have reached the stage which we always said it would reach. The people of this country are sick to death of Pacts. They can tolerate a Nationalist party or a South African party, but they are tired, as the people of the Transvaal have shown, of the present unhealthy state of affairs which will not be allowed to continue very much longer.

The hon. member, who has just sat down, at the end of his speech tried to make an attack on the Labour party. I do not intend to follow the hon. member’s example, and to rebut his arguments, Because I think that that party is quite able to look after itself. I only want to make a few remarks on the criticism which the hon. member ventured to make. I think that the attack he made on the Senate when he went so far as even to ask whether they received their salary under false pretences, and when he said that the Minister was irresponsible in regard to certain estimates, was unworthy, and caused the question to arise whether such insults were not also the work of an irresponsible speaker. The hon. member discussed, inter alia, the Board of Trade and Industries, and asked whether the board was not spending too much money. I think that that board is one on which the money has been well spent. It is a body by means of which we have got a much better insight into the economic conditions of our country, and their work was of the utmost value to the country. Then the hon. member thought it necessary to attack the Public Service Commission, and connects with that the incident which took place in Namaqualand. The hon. member called the Public Service Commission a rubber stamp. If we want to abolish all rubber stamps we will have to go further than that. The facts in connection with the appointment of a welfare officer in Namaqualand have shown that it was a very necessary appointment. Now we find that the South African party reproach the Government for abolishing the post within three months; we all admit that at that time the position was dark and difficult, and the Government had to intervene and do something, and what the Government did on that occasion was in the especial circumstances very wise, and I believe that the fact that it was possible to abolish the post within three months is the strongest proof that the appointment was necessary, and that good work was done. The hon. member reproaches the Government for saying to the Public Service Commission that they needed an official, and who the particular official had to be. That was also the practice when hon. members opposite were in office that the head of the department went to the Public Service Commission and said whom he wanted appointed. The department first decides what post is necessary, and the commission then recommends the person to be appointed. Did hon. members opposite when they imported the engineer Littlejohn Phillips for the grain elevator at Durban go to the Public Service Commission and get an engineer appointed? And what about the salary? It is very easy to throw mud. Then we see the farce of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout attacking the Government for its protection policy? He tells us that he is in favour of free trade. The hon. member who spoke before him, however, said that he was in favour of protection and that he admitted the protection policy was necessary. That is the kind of criticism on the budget. A responsible member on the front bench of the party opposite, who if the South African party again came into office would certainly have a claim to a seat in the Cabinet, says that he is in favour of protection, but another hon. member, who also aspires to a similar post in an eventual future cabinet of the same party, says that he is in favour of free trade. We are expected to take notice of such criticisms. Take pensions. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout with dramatic voice pointed out how the expenditure on pensions is increasing every year, and already amounts to more than £3,000,000. Will the hon. member say that we are to abolish pensions? He will not say that, but he tells us to “beware.” Of course we must take care, but what does such criticism amount to? Where are the pensions to come from? Are they pensions which the Government merely hands out to anyone who asks for them, or are they pensions granted according to laws passed in this House, and is it not a fact that most of them were passed under the regime of hon. members opposite? The only pension Act which this Government has passed is the Old Age Pension Act, and the hon. member admits that he is not prepared to abolish that. What are we then to do with the “beware” criticism? We want criticisms of such a kind when hon. members tell us how and where we must economize so that the expenditure of the country is reduced. The whole of the hon. member’s argument was merely to the effect that expenditure was too high. It is possibly true. But where is it too high, and where must it be reduced? Such loose criticism does not advance us one wit. Then the hon. member attacks the Government in connection with the grants given to Oudtshoorn farmers for ostrich feathers, and he says that he wonders whether the Government would also have given the grants if Oudtshoorn was not represented by a Nationalist, but by a member of the South African party. I want to ask the hon. member whether the South African party Government, when they were in office, would also have bought certain land which they did buy for land settlement purposes if the sellers had not been supporters of the South African party? I should like a reply to this. But then I further say that our Government makes no distinction in such matters. Just think of Port Elizabeth. Is there a place in South Africa which has advanced so much in the last few years as Port Elizabeth? Why? There is not a nationalist member for Port Elizabeth, and Port Elizabeth is one of the places which has already been strongly opposed to our party. Yet the Government has so aided the industries of Port Elizabeth that this progress has taken place. Think of Natal sugar. Is our party represented in this House by the districts in Natal where sugar is produced? Yet our Government has protected the industry so that it could develop.

The Government does not buy Natal sugar.

That is true, but the Government there also has shown that it looks after the interests of the country, and not of parties. The hon. member admitted that Hartebeestpoort Dam was started under the previous Government, and continued by this Government, but he agitates against the expenditure. What does the hon. member propose in this respect? Does he want to imply that it was this Government’s duty when it came into office to stop work on the Hartebeestpoort Dam scheme?

It was finished.

Does the hon. member say then that the Government ought to have let the scheme lapse, and ought not to have tried to make it pay? Those arguments surely are useless. Show us where the expenditure was too high, and can be reduced Then we shall possibly be able to call it criticism. Hon. members opposite admit that the finances of the country are absolutely sound, that appears from their speeches. Further, it is obvious that if the Minister during the past five or six years had listened to all the criticisms of hon. members opposite, the finances would not have been in so sound a position. We so badly want criticism which will be valuable to our country, and to promote national progress. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) admitted that our credit to-day was good, both overseas and in this country. Would it have been so good if, e.g., we had followed the criticism that hon. members opposite have constantly made when they time and again reproached the Minister of being guilty of wrong estimates, because he always under-estimated his revenue, and so obtained surpluses? Say, e.g., that the Minister, in accordance with this criticism, had systematically over-estimated the revenue, and in that way had not had the surpluses, would the position then have been so sound? Of course, the revenue and expenditure had either to balance or there would have been a deficit. The argument against the surpluses is that it leads to unnecessarily high expenditure, and hon. members say that we must over-estimate in order to get a deficit. Where will that lead to? It leads to too high expenditure before we ever have a revenue. We shall spend money in advance without getting the revenue for it. Such a remedy is much worse than a disease for which hon. members want to use it. Hon. members opposite do not get much honour from their criticism on our financial policy. Leaders of the party opposite said that the Minister ought rather to have deficits than surpluses, but to-day, when the Minister had announced a deficit, that in certain circumstances there would probably be a deficit at the end of next year, hon. members opposite talked contemptuously of an unbalanced budget. On one point we must agree with them, that it is the duty of the Minister to see that in time of prosperity we make provision in some way or other for the lean years, or, in other words, build up a reserve, and, further, that we must, in that way prevent times of adversity pressing too hardly on the taxpayers. I say that this Government has actually followed that policy. They have built up reserves so that the South African taxpayer need not be so heavily taxed as in their time. I just want to mention a few instances. Our system of repayment of the national debt is in itself a very great improvement on the policy of the last Government.

Worse.

I say better. We pay £250,000 more out of revenue into the sinking fund than was done under the S.A.P. regime, and we have built up out of the surpluses a very strong financial position, and have still further in that way strengthened the sinking fund. Further, we have strengthened the pension funds. The hon. member for Yeoville himself admitted that as a result of the policy of this Government our credit is thoroughly sound. Hon. members opposite have always recommended that when there is a small surplus it should be used for relieving taxation. I do not agree. If we are to give up so much taxation in prosperous times, what about the days of adversity if we are only able to come out in times of prosperity? Now we have reserves for the bad times. The criticism amounts to this that in prosperous times we ought to leave more money in the pockets of the taxpayers so that in bad times it is asked that they must pay as much as possible to the Government. This Government has followed a policy calculated to build up reserves for the evil day. I want to mention a few more examples. I say, firstly, that the Government has surrendered many taxes which in itself is the building up of a reserve. I think that this is a justifiable question to ask. What was the tax reserve in 1924 when the present Government came into office? Did we then still have an available tax reserve, and what was it? Was not the position that we had no tax reserve? But because the present Government has surrendered and reduced taxation it has a reserve of sources of taxation over for bad times. A rebate of 20 per cent. was granted on the income tax. That rebate has now been withdrawn, and the Government can, therefore, go further without an extra tax. Suppose now that the Minister of Finance a few years ago instead of giving the rebate, had reduced taxation permanently by that amount, then he would have had to introduce a new Bill now to levy a tax. That was a tax reserve which has come in handy for bad times. There are hon. members here who complain of the withdrawal of that rebate of 20 per cent. They forget that last year other concessions were made as well, e.g., with regard to the improvement of farms, the raising of the age limit, etc. Those things are all still existing. It is only this one item which has been withdrawn. Therefore, the Government still has a very important reserve. Another example of the building up of the reserve we find in the loan account. The Government decided that the loan account must be strengthened. With that object certain amounts were paid in to the loan account which formerly went into the ordinary revenue. Here we are concerned with an important point because it also affects the reduction of the dead liability of the country. The receipts from the Bewaarplase and mining leases were put into the loan account, and an amount of about £100,000 a year as well out of the ordinary revenue, which had to go for the construction of smaller public works. All these things may be insignificant apart, but they form part of the important matter of a system of building up reserves, and of strengthening the financial position of the country. Do hon. members know that, as a result of this policy, the taxpayer to-day actually pays less interest on the national debt than in the year 1924, although the total national debt is many millions more? The position is as follows. In 1929 an amount of £10,592,000 was paid in interest by the Treasury. Of this the railways contributed £6,387,000, and the Treasury therefore, £4,205,000. But by way of interest on investments, surpluses, etc., the Treasury £2,155,000, so that the taxpayer need only contribute £2,050,000. What was the position in 1924? £8,400,000 was paid in interest. The railways contributed £4,900,000, and the interest on investments, etc., was only £900,000, so that the taxpayer in 1924 had to pay £2,596,000, or £546,000 more than in 1929. That is the actual position, and it shows that the position of the national debt has so improved that the taxpayer to-day pays less interest, although considerably more money is invested in the country for development work. That was the result of the policy of the Government in strengthening the revenue of the country, and using the funds in such a way that the dead liability of the country would be reduced. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) kept us a long time on customs duties, and he attacked the policy of the Government. In connection with customs duties, it is difficult to get an argument from the opposite side that holds water. It is difficult to get any criticisms from them of any value. One pulls this way, and the other the other. We get no constructive criticism because they themselves have no definite system. We know that that party formerly only had one principle, and that was to have one tariff of 20 per cent. for all goods that were taxed, in order to get a fixed income in that way. The obtaining of revenue was the only principle in connection with the matter. Up to the present there has only been one definite scientific system debated by this House, and that is the system in force to-day.

At the adjournment I was discussing the customs duties. I pointed out that hon. members opposite have never spoken clearly on the subject up to the present. We know the farce we formerly used to have in the House when Mr. Jagger year after year attacked the increased expenditure and advocated free trade. We were also accustomed thereafter to listen to another hon. member who immediately rose to show that free trade was not a good business policy for South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now putting on the shoes of Mr. Jagger.

What a poor successor.

He will in future be the champion of free trade in this House. I now, for a moment, want to give my imagination free rein, and suppose that it may happen that hon. members opposite may form a Cabinet in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be Minister of Finance. He has to propose his customs tariff to the House as Minister of Finance. One of two things must happen; he must either follow his convictions and propose that South Africa should no longer continue a protection policy, but adopt free trade. The Minister of Finance of that time would then have to move that the customs duty on readymade clothing shall be the same as on piece goods. We should then find that an hon. member opposite, who takes an interest in one of our industries, will ask him whether he really intends to cut the throat of our industry. He will then be in the position that the hon. members behind him, and who have to support him, will be opposed to him. Then, also, we shall hear the argument, which he has used here this afternoon to a Minister, viz., that he was sitting in the Cabinet without any followers. It may also be that the Minister of Finance of those days will decide that discretion is the better part of valour. He will not propose free trade but decide on some form of protection or other. What a difficult and unenviable position the Minister will then be in? The members on the cross benches who want to handicap the Minister will ask him whether he really believes in what he is proposing, and he will be in the difficult position of having to reply to them. Let us try to go a little further. The period of office of the hon. member’s party has passed, and there is another election. I will not say that the hon. member will go to the country as Prime Minister; I do not say this to injure his dignity, or to damp his ambition. I now suppose that he is still Minister of Finance, and someone else Prime Minister. There is, I am supposing, an election on. The Prime Minister holds meetings in some business centre or other and, as a result of questioning, he finds it necessary while the election is at its height to announce that if they are re-elected and form a Government that the policy of protection will be continued in order to protect industries. I ask whether the Minister of Finance of those imaginary days will also promptly hand in his resignation as his predecessor did in connection with a special policy. These are subjects on which our hon. friends opposite can safely tell us what their policy is. The Union is anxious to know it. It is useless saying that the customs duties are too high, or the cost of living is too high, they have, however, never yet in this House announced their policy in connection with customs duty. Our experience in the past has been that the receipts from customs duty have risen by about £500,000 a year since 1924. If we go into it we find that 40 per cent. of the receipts came from duties on articles of luxury; if we further investigate the increase of £500,000, which for the whole period amounts to an increase of about £3,000,000 then we find that the increase was the result, to a great extent, of the increase in the importation of luxuries. This shows that the increase was the result of prosperity, and we must infer from that that the ratio of decrease will be just as rapid or more rapid than the increase in times of depression. We must, therefore, bear it in mind that as long as a depression lasts the receipts from customs duties will decrease by at least £500,000 a year. The Government has, of course, borne that in mind, and the Minister makes provision of nearly £1,000,000 for next year. There is one point in connection with customs duty that hon. members forget, and that is the particular position that we are in in South Africa with regard to industries. Some people think that we should give more attention to our industries, and others criticise the policy to push industries. Our extraordinary peculiar position is, and we have already on more than one occasion emphasised it, that we, just like other countries have a number of people in our population who are not able to make a living except out of unskilled labour, but that we are the only country in the world that gives our unskilled labour to natives and coloured people, with the result that the white population, who have to live on unskilled labour, cannot immediately get work. They are between two millstones; the one unskilled labour which they cannot get, and the other skilled labour for which they have not been trained. Now all kinds of schemes are being planned to maintain our white civilization in South Africa. What hon. members opposite do not appreciate is that the policy of protecting our industries is, to a great extent, calculated in supplying the particular needs of our people; we are trying to give those people work in our industries. If we do absolutely nothing else with our industries other than succeeding in giving work to the people who are called poor whites by hon. members opposite, and keeping them alive, then I say we have still done a very great work. Hon. members opposite have always tried to use what they have regarded as the utmost economy, the lowest labour, and they have made no attempts that have amounted to anything to assist the European that can only do unskilled labour. They forget that we cannot, in South Africa, apply the economic laws of other countries. We are placed in an extraordinary position, and this places extraordinary obligations on our shoulders of providing for that section of the population for whom we cannot provide in any other way. If we, and hon. members opposite, realise that, they will grant that this policy of the Government of protecting our industries, and that section of our white population, which otherwise would sink, of employing them in our industries, is an attempt to provide for this special defect in our society. We cannot maintain the white civilization in our country and, at the same time, say that all our work must be done by the cheapest labour. We must treat the people in a special way in our country with its special circumstances, and I say that we are doing so by encouraging our factories. Even if it does cost us a little more. It is always much better than any other scheme which hon. members opposite suggest of putting the people on relief works. There is only one other alternative, i.e., the dole. I do not know whether hon. members are in favour of that, but they have hitherto done nothing to settle this particular question in South Africa. Hon. members opposite asked why we increased the customs duties by about £3,000,000 during the period of office of this Government. I have gone into the figures and find that there were two reasons for the increase. The first is that the import trade increased during that period by £14,000,000, the second is that the importation of luxuries, such as motors, cigars, films, etc., has increased. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has argued that owing to the increased tariff of the present Government the cost of living has been so raised that the poor man is injured in consequence. That does not tally with the facts. According to the official figures we find that the index of the cost of living since 1924 has dropped by 1,000 points. If, however, we had examined the policy of the present Government since 1925 we find that the customs duties on the one hand, are less by £1,300,000 a year, against which there is an increase per annum of £800,000. That leaves a net reduction of over £500,000 a year. If hon. members opposite now criticise the Government because the amount obtained from customs duties is £3,000,000 more in 1929-’30, than it was in 1924, then we must remember that if the Acts of the South African party had remained in force the amount would have been £500,000 higher than what it is to-day.

How do you get at that calculation?

These are the official figures of the Department of Internal Revenue, and I think the hon. member will agree that they ought to be able to work out the figures. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has contemptuously interrupted to the effect that the Department of Internal Revenue is not able to make a simple deduction like this, I want to refer to his statement in connection with certain appointments. The hon. member must realise that he has arrived at a point where he radically differs from the policy of this Government. The criticism is not directed at the increase of expenditure, but is against a principle which he does not approve of. It will be better if he came out with it, and said clearly that he does not agree with the appointment of a representative abroad. The hon. member said that the Minister of Agriculture had said in this House that other things being equal he would give the preference to a member of his own party. He knows very well that his party did the same thing before. The only difference is that his party was not honest enough to frankly admit it. Whom did they prefer in connection with appointments on the Railway Board, and the Public Service Commission, and whom did they prefer in various other posts? The hon. member says that the statement that preference is only given when all things are equal means nothing. He means that the present Government anyhow gives preference to a Nationalist, even if all other things are not equal. Just imagine the hon. member having to appoint a plenipotentiary minister at Washington. There are two candidates, one belonging to his party, and the other a Nationalist. The qualifications of the two persons are equal; is he going to tell us that he will appoint the Nationalist candidate? I am convinced that he will not do so. It is useless using such arguments in this House. Hon. members opposite do not want to realise that there can be honesty in politics. They are so accustomed to say one thing and do another that they do not expect honesty from others. They have always said that they appoint the best person, and yet they give the preference to their party supporters. In conclusion I want to say that this side of the House can congratulate itself on the financial policy of the Government. We are satisfied that the criticism of the other side cannot shake the foundations of the Government’s policy. It amounts to very little, and it is clear that the financial position of the country is absolutely sound.

For the last five years, the Minister has been fortunate enough to have surpluses every year, and it is becoming an article of faith with him and with the Government that nothing could possibly happen which would make it possible for him to have anything but a surplus. We are told that the surpluses have been due to some virtue of the Government. Even good seasons have been attributed to the Government. One sympathises very much with the Minister who, having become accustomed to budget for surpluses, now finds himself in the position not only of budgeting for a deficit, but of leaving that deficit unprovided for. The unfortunate part of it is, that with the exception of some passing references to the cost of living, the whole discussion has been based on the question of economy. On the one hand, Ministers and members of that side of the House say they are carrying out a policy of economy. On the other hand, the Opposition is claiming that the Government is hot carrying that policy of economy into effect. In these circumstances, it is a pity that we cannot get the Budget sent to a Budget Committee to go into the whole question, to obtain explanations from the Minister and for the Budget committee to produce a Budget in accordance with the wishes of the Whole House. That is done in the French parliament, and we have a precedent for such a course in the old Cape Parliament, when Sir Starr Jameson was Prime Minister and Sir Edgar Walton was Treasurer when as a result of pressure and criticism from Mr. Jagger the Budget was sent to a Budget Committee. If the Minister could agree to leave the whole question to the House he would not have blame attached to him and the House would be responsible for the Budget for the coming year. I assume that will not happen, and that the Minister is not in that frame of mind; but I want to make this reference to economy. On these benches, we are as anxious for a policy of economy, as any other party. We are anxious to avoid wasteful expenditure, but we look upon economy from the point of view of efficient services. We object to putting up the plea of economy and making a virtue of it because you may economise to the detriment of the country, or spend money to the advantage of the country. Passing through a period of depression, it is imperative that instead of embarking upon a policy of stringent economy, the Government should adopt a policy of developing to the fullest extent. I take first the question of public health—the slums. What do we find? In the Estimates an almost infinitesimal amount is set aside for public health and child welfare, whilst something like £1,000,000 on defence and a very large sum on police services. I am sure every hon. member will agree that expenditure on public health is a matter which is much more vital to the welfare of the country than the police and defence services. Medical officers, including Government medical officers, consider the position in regard to public health is serious, and we are faced with the position that nothing is being done. One of the causes of the ill-health of the people of this country is undoubtedly the slums. Here is a situation when we are passing through a period of depression, when it is not only necessary to deal with slums, but it would be a good thing usefully to spend money to clear away slums, and the Government comes forward with a heroic policy of allocating half a million pounds to be spent over three years, £100,000 of which will be utilised in the coming year, and the slogan that “the slums must go.” My hon. friend reminds me that it should be “the slums must go on.” I submit to the Minister we have had information in this House from time to time that there are requests for necessary public work by public bodies and Ministers which cannot be carried on because there is no money. At a time of depression it is not only imperative, but also good policy for the Government to spend to the fullest possible extent, to provide public works that are necessary; to deal with housing on a much more generous scale and generally to set an example that the Government is prepared to spend money, not wastefully, but usefully, and so create new spending power and set an example to the community to do likewise. To-day we are in the fortunate position that men who have nothing in common with us—men like President Hoover and Mr. Ford—are preaching not economy, but useful expenditure on the largest possible scale. Instead of advocating economy, President Hoover is appealing to industrialists to lay down a policy of useful expenditure. But, of course, the Minister is a great believer in economy and so nothing of the kind is being done here. We cannot overlook that we have that depression and something will have to be done if we are going to get rid of it. I think that one is entitled to enquire what are some of the causes which have brought it about; whether, just as in America, a period of speculation, encouraged by the banks who prefer to give credit for speculative purposes rather than for legitimate productive expansion, is partly accountable for the depression; whether it is not also the position in South Africa that in the last few years we have been faced with the same situation, where, for speculative purposes, for buying land which is going up in value day by day, the banks are prepared to grant facilities, but for all reasonable development purposes these facilities are not forthcoming to the same extent because it is not as profitable to the banks. The Minister still has great faith in these wonderful banking institutions. I notice that, at the conclusion of his speech, the Minister said that these financial institutions are still helping to tide us over a period of depression. One is inclined to ask also whether that famous speech of the Prime Minister did not considerably contribute, if not to to the actual depression, to the accentuation of that depression. It is likely that the Prime Minister has not given much study to finance, and the banks were probably speaking through the mouth of the Prime Minister. He had probably been advised by the Reserve Bank or other financial institutions as to what the position is, and the speech of the Prime Minister, at any rate, has given the banks the excuse for carrying out a policy of creating severe financial stringency. We were told a few days later, after that speech was made by the Minister, that the banks are not going in for restricting credit. I should like to ask the Minister to ask the farming population of this country whether that is so. I should like the Minister to ask the commercial community of this country whether that has been their experience, and if the banks have not gone directly to farmer “A” or farmer “B” and called up their overdrafts, there can be no doubt that the banks have brought severe pressure to bear upon the commercial community who, in their turn, have had to bring pressure to bear upon the farming community and force the farming community to sell off their produce probably at a very much lower price than they could have obtained for it if that pressure had not been exerted. To a considerable extent the banks have been responsible for accentuating the depression through which we are passing, and the Prime Minister is responsible for encouraging the banks to embark upon that policy. I take the question of the farming population. I am sure that our friends on the other side of the House are interested in the well-being of the farmers. One finds, so far as they are concerned, that they are faced with the position that they have no means of getting facilites—I am speaking of produce—through the medium of the bank, or through the medium of the country storekeeper who takes their produce from them and generally finances them. Therefore, once a bank adopts a policy of stringency of calling up overdrafts, the farmer is placed in the unfortunate position that he had to dispose of his produce at a sacrifice, and be has to be forced, in many cases in the country, into the bankruptcy court, and that further accentuates the depression. I should like to ask the Minister what is being done by the Government to assist the agricultural population to tide them over the depression? I should like to ask if any special provision has been made to give them facilities to hold on to their stocks, or by which they can safeguard themselves against being thrust into the insolvency court through the pressure of the banks or the commercial community? I should like to ask if special provisions have been made to give facilities to the farming population to tide over their present difficulties. I venture to say that nothing has been done in that regard by this Government which pretends to be the protector and the friend of the farming population in South Africa. I ask the hon. Minister whether the farming population would not be disposed to regard the Government as its friend, if the Government really took some steps to assist, not by means of doles, but to enable them to maintain their independence and self-reliance? I know that the moment one suggests that, as was suggested by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) we shall be told by the Government, “Oh no, don’t do anything to sap the self-reliance and independence of the people of South Africa.” That is not sapping their self-reliance or the independence of the people. To assist the people in times of difficulty and distress is a policy which will enable them to safeguard themselves and to save themselves, to remain self-reliant and again gradually to become very useful citizens in the general economy of the country. We have our agricultural banks. They are very restricted both in their methods and in the amounts that they have available. I suggest to the Minister that if the Government really has the well-being of the farmers at heart, at a time when, unfortunately, the Minister appears to have no control over the private banks, whether some measure cannot be initiated by, which the agricultural banks can be given greater power than they have at present and can be converted into something of a trading institution with branches in various parts of the country, so that the farmers can use these banks as trading and depositing banks where they can get advances on their produce and so be able to tide over their present difficulties? Whether the Minister calls that state banking or otherwise, the position remains that the Government could have some method by which they can assist the farmers to a substantial extent. Then I bring to the Minister’s notice that, according to the statements made in connection with the depression by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, one of the difficulties, apart from the motor cars we have heard so much about, and I am sure that Port Elizabeth is not thankful to the Government for all this talk about there being too many motor cars, one of the causes of the present trouble has not been the speculation in land. We are told that the farmers, having done well in a good season, have immediately bought more land with the result that the value of land has gone up considerably. It has become a speculative business, and they naturally cannot get an adequate return on the full price that they paid for their land. If the Government really believes that is one of the causes of the present difficulty, I ask the hon. Minister whether the time has not arrived for the Government to take into serious consideration the imposition of a tax upon the unimproved value of land. I notice that the Minister of Defence smiles with amusement. Well, after all, it is a principle we have always advocated. I have sometimes felt, and I do to-day, that from a socialistic point of view, it is probably not good policy. It means breaking up the land and having a large number of landowners to deal with. But at the present moment it is a practical policy which would help the farmers and which would help the landless section of the Afrikander people. Under that system the farmer who uses his land usefully would not be made to pay extra. The more he does with his land and the more produce he gets, the better off he will be, because he will not pay any tax on developments, or improvements, or fencing or on his produce. He will simply pay a tax on the bare value of the land.

We cannot sell our produce to-day as it is.

The owner would be taxed on the bare value of the land as a result of this provision could be made to ease some of the indirect taxation and the farmers would be benefited to a very appreciable extent. Large areas of land owned by large landlords or corporations are not being beneficially used while there are thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people who are only too anxious to get access to that land.

Where is that land and how much malaria is there on it?

I advise my friend to make a tour of South Africa and then he would know.

I know South Africa better than you do.

That is not a reply. I am sure the Minister of Defence is fighting in the Cabinet in favour of a land tax. Let me remind the Minister that in September. 1928, according to a report in the “Burger” of the 5th September, 1928, speaking at East London he said—probably not in these words as he probably cannot speak Afrikaans— [translated]—

At any rate, I hope with his great influence he will submit that question to the Cabinet, for I believe that in this period of depression, this would be an excellent time in which to make a start with a land tax. We should not start with a farmer who has, say 500 acres of land, but we should tax the big land corporations, and, I believe, that once you do that, you will find the farming population here —as was the case in Australia—will be in favour of a land tax as it will be to their advantage. Another matter which should be considered is the commercial policy of the Government. We are told that, to some extent, the present financial difficulties are due to the fact that the price of our wool and other produce has been so reduced that less money is coming into the country. Take the figures given by the Minister. We find that, whilst the actual spending power has not been greatly reduced, the exports for 1929 amounted to £97,842,000, being an increase of £1,314,000 over the exports for 1928. The imports for 1929, including Government stores, were £83,478,000, but the exports of farm products fell from £32,199,000 in 1928 to £26,763,000 in 1929. This, however, was more than counterbalanced by the exports of gold, coal and diamonds. The fact remains, however, that, so far as the farming population is concerned, they received £5,500,000 less for their products. If that is the case, the remedy is to see that they secure the best possible markets so that, as they produce more, they will have a secure market and, by creating that secure market, they will prombably stabilise the prices they obtain. To a very considerable extent, the commercial policy of the Government in rushing about to exery corner of the globe, in the endeavour to secure markets which are non-existent, has had a prejudical effect on the farming population of the country, because the opportunity of developing trade in their best markets has very considerably been prejudiced. I am in the very happy position of being able to quote the Minister of Lands in support of my contention, for the other day in holding a post mortem over the results of the Transvaal Provincial Council elections, he stated that one of the reasons why the Nationalist party did not do as well as they expected was that the German trade treaty was used against them.

I never said anything so idiotic.

May I say with the utmost respect that, because the remark may be described as idiotic, that is no proof that the Minister never said it. In any case, his quarrel is with the press which reported what he is alleged to have said and not with me. Supposing the Union were completely independent and ceased to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and we were entirely on our own, it would still, from the business point of view, be sound commonsense to nurse our best markets. We import motor cars, machinery, railway rolling stock, and agricultural implements—none of which we manufacture in South Africa—and as they are all being manufactured in the biggest market South Africa has, namely, Great Britain, is it not a sound proposition for us to say to Great Britain “we will take your manufactures on condition that you take our produce”? That is surely a better trade treaty than the one of which the Minister is so proud. I submit if we went in for that policy it would materially benefit the agricultural population, and it is because that population has begun to realise that the commercial policy of the Government is on the wrong lines, the Government has not done as well as it would otherwise have done. I hope the Minister, when he goes to the economic conference, will not go there with his mind made up to negotiate with countries that cannot purchase our goods, but that he will go there with the definite desire, intention and policy of saying, “I come here willing and anxious to enter into an arrangement for mutual trade, by which you take our products and your products will be taken in South Africa.” That will help the farming as well as the commercial population to a material extent. I come to another question which affects the present position of depression, and we have to deal with it very seriously— that is the question of the cost of living. I speak as a profound believer in the policy of protection to foster industries. I speak as one opposed to free trade, particularly as in the past it has meant nothing but free imports. From our customs we have a revenue amounting to £9,000,000, and I submit without any hesitation that to that extent our policy has failed, because if we were successful we would not be deriving that sum on articles which are imported. The object of protection should be to foster the development of industries so that it would not be necessary to import them. To the extent that we have to continue importing to bring in that revenue, to that extent our policy has broken down. I submit to the Minister that in fostering industries, which he must continue to do, the time has arrived to make a thorough investigation into what industries can be built up and what industries cannot, and when you come to the conclusion that certain industries cannot be built up under any circumstances, stop wasting public expenditure on these; but as regard those which can be built up give them the most protection, but rely to a more substantial extent on the policy of bounties. You will not only help them to manufacture the goods they are capable of manufacturing, but you will help the public not only by keeping down the price of the goods which have to be imported, but also by making the locally manufactured goods cheaper to the community as a whole. May I point out to the Minister what I said several years ago? So far nothing seriously is being done to carry into effect the provisions of clause 4 of the Tariff Act of 1925. When that tariff policy was embarked upon by the Government one of the definite conditions was that the Board of Trade would see that while giving protection there would be two safeguards; one, to safeguard the worker as to his wages and conditions of labour, and two, to safeguard the consumer so that he would not be unduly mulct in what he had to pay. The time has arrived when the Minister should definitely lay down the policy that in all matters where industry is protected there will also be a fixing of prices as regards commodities, so that the manufacturer will not be able unduly to benefit himself by reason of the protectionist policy. If I am told this policy will encourage further importation, I submit to the Minister the third proposition, which is that you should take power to control imports, and that is the more necessary because under our present protectionist policy you have no adequate safeguard against countries in which sweated conditions of labour apply. We have been told, and it is nothing novel as far as we are concerned, that the real difficulty of the boot industry in South Africa is that while they have no unfair competition from Great Britain they are faced with the position that boots are being imported from Czecho-Slovakia, where the conditions of labour are bad and sweating applies, with the result that a country which tries to maintain a decent standard of life and conditions of labour cannot compete. I remember several years ago in dealing with the question of imperial preference I pointed out how inadequate it was when you had to compete with countries like Czecho-Slovakia. Supposing by chance the Board of Trade were able to devise a high tariff to keep out the goods of that country, and China and Japan with their even lower wages and standards of life started to send goods to this country, you would again have to raise your tariff. Where would you stop? I realize that, in conjunction with that, something would have to be done to protect the consumer. The only effective way to protect the consumer is to tell those manufacturers, that, although we are going to protect them whether by tariff imports, bounties or control of imports, we are going to fix their prices, so that they will only get a reasonable margin of profit. The hon. the Minister, in his Budget statement, announced that he had decided to increase the duty on ready-made clothing. When he made that statement, I was surprised to find that the Minister, who is usually a very logical person, made that statement in a very illogical way. He said that the increase of the duty would benefit the revenue, and also protect the industry. If it is going to benefit the revenue, that means that we shall continue to import, then how can you benefit the industry.

It does not affect it at once.

The moment you announce your tariff, it takes effect. It is not a new industry. It is an industry which is in existence. They have everything ready, and, therefore, it takes effect immediately, and if the Minister contemplates obtaining revenue, additional customs revenue, the consumer will have to pay more without the industry benefitting. I think it is bad policy to do anything which is going to unnecessarily increase the cost of living. I do not think 5 per cent. is likely to help the industry very much. On the contrary, I think it is going to help the revenue, as the Minister expects, and that it will tax the people a little more. It will tax the poor people, because they are the purchasers of ready-made clothing. Take another article— sugar. Here we have the strange position that in a time of depression the Minister is going to increase the duty. I know that the selling price is fixed, but it might be less. In the past we have been told that we shall have to adjust ourselves to world’s prices, but you cannot have it both ways. You have imposed a huge duty and you have a policy of fixing prices. I congratulate the Minister on the policy of fixing prices, but the sugar people have made no political return for what has been done for them.

How do you know that?

I am judging by the results of the elections in Natal. When it is proposed to fix prices with regard to sugar, it is said to be a sound policy, but when it is proposed to fix prices of other products, it is said to be unsound. We have been paying £25 per ton for our sugar, and it has been exported at £15 per ton. We have been subsidising sugar at the rate of £10 per ton. The point I am making is that because the prices have still further gone down overseas, we are having an additional duty imposed to protect the sugar industry, and I submit to the Minister that if instead of fixing the price at what it is to-day, the Government fixes a reasonably lower price, then you would have less sugar exported at a huge loss, and more consumed in South Africa, because the price of your sugar controls the quantity consumed in South Africa. It would pay us very much better to reduce the price. The price that has been fixed for the consumer is very much in excess of the price at which the consumer could buy sugar but for the tariff. Sugar to-day could reasonably be sold at 2½d. to 2¾d. per pound. You are selling at a very much lower price overseas, and the people who have the first claim on a lower price are the people in South Africa, and not the people overseas. The commercial community says, “If we can import sugar at 3d. per pound and the price is 5d. we can sell it at 4d. a pound and still make a profit.” But for this arrangement sugar would be sold in South Africa at a very much reduced price. It would be a good thing for the sugar industry if it had a bigger home market, instead of having to the extent which it does on exports at a loss. Then I take the case of wheat and flour. It is a matter which has been fully discussed in this House and in respect of which the Minister had confessed that it requires further elucidation. When the duty was imposed by the Minister for the protection of wheat we pointed out then that by imposing a duty on wheat, the (wheat farmer could not be benefited in any way because he would still be at the mercy of the miller. Then the Minister increased the tariff on wheat. A few weeks later the Minister came along and admitted that he had found that the imposition of the duty was not protecting the farmer, and the only policy was to control markets by means of an embargo. When we supported that and said “you must do the same as regards flour and fix the price of bread to protect the consumer,” the Minister said “you need not worry about bread, its price will not go up, because I am not putting an extra duty on flour.” Now the Minister says, “I am going to increase the duty on flour,” so that he gave away his whole case. If the Minister was right in the first instance, how is he going to protect the public? Either he was wrong then or his argument is wrong to-day. If he wants to help the farmer, it is not enough for the Minister to see that there is control of importation of wheat and flour; he must fix the price of bread so that the public will not be mulcted as they are to-day. Unless you do that you are going to have an increased price of bread before very long. But the Minister is in such a state of confusion that he admits that it is possible that there may be an increase in the price of bread, and he warns the farmers and millers that if he finds that the increased duties are used as an excuse to increase the price of bread, then that is in a few months’ time he would refuse to enforce the suspended duty.

Once you put on a duty, we know how difficult it is to take it off. The Minister comes along with a suggestion of not applying the suspended duty, and the result is that the public will be prejudiced by an increase in the price of bread and the farmer is still in a state of insecurity because he does not know whether to go on growing wheat, and the farmer will still be at the mercy of the miller. The Minister, if he wants to help the farmer should take his courage in both hands and say “I will go in for the policy of controlling the import of wheat and flour and fix the price of wheat so as to give the wheat farmer a reasonable margin of profit; I will provide that for every portion of imported wheat which is manufactured into flour, a proportion of South African wheat will be manufactured in the flour; I will fix the price of flour so that the miller shall have a reasonable margin of profit and fix prices of bread so that the baker shall have a reasonable profit and reasonable price for bread to the consumer may be secured. The Minister has done it in the case of sugar, and what is right in the case of sugar is surely right in the case of bread. There are tens of thousands of Afrikaans speaking people to whom unfortunately bread is a luxury and mealie pap a necessity. If the Minister established an importation board which will control the imports he will be able to benefit the consumer also; because he can get the additional flour which has to be imported without any tariff whatever. If he does not do this, then the Minister is doing a great deal towards still further putting up the cost of living, not to the well-to-do people to whom bread is of no consequence, but to poor struggling people, when wages are likely to go down if the policy of the Government is to be pursued.

Can wages go down?

If the policy of having bonus inspectors on the railways to see that men do the utmost possible work for the lowest possible money, is continued and generally followed, then wages may still further decline and you are mulcting the public by increasing the cost of living, not to the well-to-do people when we know that unemployment is no longer “a pimple,” as the hon. Minister of Defence had stated, but is a growing menace. Only a few days ago, Mr. Miller, the inspector of white labour in Johannesburg stated that there were three thousand unemployed in Johannesburg on the books of the department. In this budget, we are faced with the unfortunate position that whilst unemployment is on the increase, nothing is being done to provide employment for these people, and even the little relief—the £100,000—that was provided for relief of distress last year is being taken away this year by reason of the deficit and the Minister’s belief in the policy of economy. That is not a reasonable policy to pursue. There is nothing in the budget which indicates a reasonable or reasoned policy for the relief of distress and for the relief of the farming population. The Minister relies on economy and the increase in tariffs which he is applying in a floundering way—an unreasonable policy which cannot lead us out of the present state of depression.

We have become accustomed lately to seeing our hon. friends of the South African party on the Opposition benches making a point of applauding their left wing on the cross benches whenever those friends have deemed it fit to say something to the detriment of the Government. This evening that left wing of the South African party has apparently broken out in open rebellion. While the South African party leaders have held forth at length that expenditure should be curtailed, their left wing has contended this evening that the Government should bring about an increase in expenditure. I shall leave it to the South African party to settle this affair with theih allies. What has struck me further is that the left wing of the South African party has suddenly blossomed forth as the new friends of the farmer. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) wishes to know what the Government has done to alleviate the difficult position in which the farmer finds himself at present. I do not wish to enter into that question except to give the hon. member for Troyeville the assurance that there has never yet been a government in South Africa which has looked so well after the interests of the farmers as the present Government. If ever there was a section of the population which should be grateful to the Government for what it has done, it is the farming community. I do not wish to enumerate everything the Government has done for them, but I merely wish to point to the loans which are rendered available by the Land Bank and to the loan societies which have been established.

Who made a start with the Land Bank in this country?

Not the Unionist party.

The present Government introduced lower railway rates with the exclusive purpose of carrying the farmers’ products at cheaper rates to the foreign markets. The Government further extended its protection to tobacco farmers, in spite of the fact that the whole of the Opposition press and every member of the Opposition at the time of the negotiations with Rhodesia was always intent on rendering difficult the position of the Government. We have never yet experienced anything of the kind that a party or a press, instead of supporting its own Government, should go out of its way during such negotiations to render difficult step by step the position of the Government at a time when that Government requires the support of everyone.

Which press are you referring to?

Well, I am referring to the “Cape Times" and the “Argus," those are the S.A.P. papers, because “Ons Land” is dead. The Government has gone further and has helped the farmer by imposing customs duties on wheat and several other products, even on sugar. All the farmers realise this to-day, but apparently the Natal people are not yet convinced of the fact that this Government has fostered the interests of the farmer in the best possible way. We on this side need not be discouraged, and we must hope that the eyes of even the Natal people will eventually be opened. Those new friends of the farmers on the cross benches desire to know what the Government is going to do for the farmers in order to promote their interests. The hon. member for Troyeville wishes to inform the Government what it should do next. The first thing he suggests, and that is practically the only thing he has suggested, is that the Government should tax unimproved land. The hon. member refrains from saying what unimproved land is. It is significant that his friends on the Opposition benches did not applaud him, but instead declared at once that they do not agree with their left wing. I have always been under the impression that land taxation was one of the main principles of the old Unionists.

Ask the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh).

Is that so, do hon. members confirm this?

We have no left wing.

I was always under the impression that land taxation was one of the main principles of the Unionist party.

Yes, it is.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) confirms it. Will the hon. member also admit that when the Unionists swallowed the South African party, he and the other Unionists declared that they would not surrender any of their principles when they joined the South African party? The hon. member for Yeoville was one of those hon. members who influenced his own people by the contention that it would not do any harm to the Unionists if they went hand in hand with the South African party, because they would retain all their principles and would even have more chance of carrying out those principles. If the hon. member for Yeoville denies this, then I shall quote what he said according to the Volkstem. He, and the late member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), stated that they were not surrendering any principles and that the constitution of the Unionist party was open to a different interpretation. This exactly is our difficulty that we never know where we are with them. I think it must be quite clear to all of us by this time that the seed sown by the hon. member for Troyeville may possibly fall in fertile soil, not merely because the left wing of the South African party has now adopted that principle, but because, as it has appeared, it has continued to be the principle of the other side.

Did not the Nationalists in the Cape Province maintain the land tax?

Who introduced it? The Unionists did. The danger remains that the seed which is sown to-day will fall in fertile soil, and it is essential that the farmers should be warned in good time. The hon. member for Yeoville has never yet surrendered one iota of his principles and as a Unionist he has always stood for, as he stands to-day, for the principle of a land tax.

It was you who joined up with the Labour party, not we.

The hon. member and other members on the Opposition benches are apparently excellent lovers, because so far as I can see they have courted half of the Labour members away from us. So far as the protection policy is concerned, the hon. member for Troyeville made a peculiar statement here when he said that the Government’s policy so far has been a failure. Is the hon. member really a stranger in Jerusalem? Does he not realise that as a result of that protection policy an industrial development has taken place which has been so great that the production of our factories during the past year has exceeded £100 millions. If we take that into account, then I ask whether there is anyone left who can continue to make such unfounded statements? It must be clear to anyone who desires to judge fairly and reasonably that the Government’s policy has been a great success. I can give the assurance to the hon. members for Troyeville and Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on whom Mr. Jagger’s mantle has fallen, that the Government, supported by the people, will continue with its protection policy, and also that the country is convinced that economically South Africa was never more sound than it is to-day and that employment is given to many poor people. It struck me that the hon. members for Yeoville and Bezuidenhout apparently rejoiced when the Minister stated that at the end of the current financial year there would in all probability be a deficit. One would have imagined that, as good patriots, they would have felt grieved at the prospect, but they merely smiled and said “the spell is broken.”

Is not that correct?

Possibly there will be a deficit, but is that a reason for the hon. member to rejoice? The speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout too created the impression that he rejoiced at the prospect of the country possibly being faced with a deficit. If responsible members on the Opposition benches wish to make party capital out of the existing economic depression, then I can only say that I have no respect at all for their patriotism. Another peculiar fact is that the hon. member for Yeoville reproached the Minister that he was too optimistic in regard to his expectations of revenue. The hon. member for Yeoville thinks that the position is more serious even than that painted by the Minister. When, however, the Prime Minister, a few months ago warned the country that such a depression might come, the same members on the Opposition benches and the whole of the Opposition press took exception to the fact that he should have warned the country. I myself am convinced that if a statesman ever rendered a service to his country and his people by betimes giving sane counsel, it was the Prime Minister. The warning given by the Prime Minister together with the German treaty are now stated to be the causes of the depression, even of the alleged failure of the loan in England, about which, however, they are very silent just now seeing that it was far from a failure. More ridiculous things cannot be. Do hon. members really think for instance that the collapse of the share market in New York is the result of the warning given by the Prime Minister or of the German treaty, or that the over production of wheat in the world and its consequent lower price is attributable to that, or that the mealie market has collapsed as a result of the over production of mealies in the Argentine and Roumania? I hope that hon. members on the other side, when they discuss financial policy and general policy, will be a little less superficial. I revert to the remark by the hon. member for Yeoville that the Minister of Finance is too optimistic; but we all remember only too well that year after year they blamed the Minister for having under-estimated his revenue. And now they reproach him for overestimating his revenue. I have certainly never encountered anything more illogical. It is said that women are illogical, and I myself and others who are opposed to women’s franchise attach a great deal of value to that argument, but we have to ask ourselves now whether women can be more illogical than hon. members on the Opposition. The whole argument amounted to this: that the Government must reduce its administrative expenses. If this is seriously meant, why then did the hon. member for Yeoville allow the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) to come here with irresponsible propositions so to increase the country’s expenditure with a minimum of eight shillings per day that it would possibly amount to £1,000,000 per year more? Why did not the hon. member raise his voice against that, or at any rate why did not he use his moral influence on his side against such an irresponsible proposal? Then the hon. member asked why the Government did not reduce taxation in days of prosperity. By that question he created the impression that all the time it was in office the Government did not reduce taxation. If he was not in earnest, why then did he put that question? This is more or less on a par with the other contention that this Government has allowed most of the votes to increase to such an enormous extent. The hon. member for Lindley (Dr. Conradie) has already pointed out how many reductions have been brought about in respect of customs duties. I wish to combine everything and to give the figures, not because we, on this side of the House, and even members on the opposite side, are not familiar with these facts, but because it is essential that the public outside and also members opposite should again be reminded. In 1924-’25 taxation was reduced by £40,000 by means of changes in the customs tariff; by the abolition of the tobacco tax, taxation was reduced by £20,000; by the abolition of the tax on patent medicines by £75,000, a total of £135,000. Will hon. members say that is not correct? The next year there were further reductions, and I should like the hon. member for Troyeville to take notice of this. There was the abolition of the tax on leaf tobacco, £200,000; there was the return to the penny postage on letters, £400,000, and the reduction in the postal rate on newspapers which amounted to £30,000 for that year, so that in that year there was a total reduction of £660,000. We now come to the year 1926-’27. here we have the increased rebate for married The increased interest on the guardina fund, persons in connection with income tax, £205,000. £15,000; altogether £220,000. In the next year we have the allowance in connection with income tax to mutual life insurance companies, £90,000; reductions in customs duties, £125,000: making a total together of £215,000. In 1928 we have once more the reductions in customs duties amounting to £503,000 for that year and the rebate of 20 per cent. on income tax, £770,000, or together an amount of £1,273,000 for that year.

What about railway rates?

The railway rates have been mentioned. So far as I can remember those reductions amounted to something like £1,500,000, but I leave those alone and only mention the reductions of the other burdens on taxpayers which in 1928 amounted to £2,503,000. I really hope that this will be the last time that we shall hear from a responsible member like the hon. member for Yeoville the old story that this Government has done nothing to reduce taxation.

I did not say that.

I accept the hon. member’s word if he denies having said so. He did ask, however, why the Government did not reduce taxation when times were good. And if that is not the meaning of his words, then I do not understand English. The hon. member has also stated here that the expenditure of the provincial councils has increased and that something should be done to curtail their extravagance. He went further, and said that the cause of that extravagance was to be found in the Durban agreement, which allowed greater funds to the provincial councils. The hon. member rightly stated that the Durban agreement was fair towards the provinces and that it is regarded in that light by the provinces. If he honestly means that statement, and I take it that he means it honestly, why then did he not raise his voice when the hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper) proposed that a larger subsidy should be given to the Cape Province? Why was he absent again when that proposal came to be voted on? He is one of the leaders on the other side, and it is his duty to raise his voice against such proposals and to prevent a wrong impression being created in the country. What happened however? Every Transvaal member ran away from the House and it was only the Cape members who voted for the proposal with the exception of the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste). He had the courage to vote for it. I do not know what the Transvaal will think of his attitude, but if that is his conviction then I honour him for having openly stood up for what he feels. I only hope that the leaders from the Transvaal will be a little more honest and will not here, in the House, and outside, create the impression among the public that when the South African Party comes into power all these matters will be put right. I should, however, like to know from the South African party members who walked out, whether they were afraid to vote against the proposal. Were they afraid to express their views? If not, why then did not they do so? Or must we take it that anything may be proposed by members on the Opposition side and that their leaders will not raise their voice against it if there is the least chance of party capital being made out of such proposals and out of the irresponsible speeches which go with such proposals? Do they merely aim at vote catching and at political gain? Do not they consider that they have a duty towards the country? Do not the interests of the country weigh more with them than political gain?

We shall do our duty.

I hope the hon. member will do his duty in future when his followers make irresponsible proposals. The hon. member for Yeoville further discussed the question of customs duties on wheat and sugar, which, according to him, the Government imposed in so irresponsible a manner. Must we take it from that that he is opposed to the protection of sugar and wheat which the Government has imposed? If he is opposed to it, then he is entitled to his opinion, but let him state so clearly and openly so that the sugar planters and the wheat farmers may know quite plainly what they can expect from the S.A.P. He states, however, that they on the Opposition side are in favour of protection. Just imagine, they are in favour of protection, but every argument which they adduce is directed against protection, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout declares openly that he is opposed to it. The hon. member for Yeoville states one moment that he is in favour of protection, but nowhere does he plead for it, and his whole plea aims at making people hostile to protection. It is time, therefore, that hon. members opposite should realise that they have a certain responsibility towards the country and that the country has the right to know from them exactly where they stand in regard to important matters. So far as protection is concerned, we claim and the people claim that the South African party shall state and say clearly what their policy is, or are we to behold the same farce again at the next election as we did in 1924 when Mr. Jagger on the eve of the elections resigned as Minister, and the next night slept again under the same blanket as the pseudo-protectionists of the South African party? I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not her, but I wish to say a few words in regard to his contentions this evening. The hon. member referred to the expenditure under this Government and he maintained that this expenditure has increased at a much greater rate than was the case under the regime of the previous Government. He stated that the expenditure under this Government went up by about £1,000,000 per year, and that the present Government found itself in a very much easier position than Mr. Burton; that they actually had £1,000,000 less expenditure, due to the fact that Mr. Burton had to pay out war pensions, which had since come down. But has the hon. member for Bezuidenhout lost sight of the fact that the present Government is paying old age pensions which more than counterbalanced the war pensions? The hon. member also quoted figures to indicate by what small sums the expenditure annually increased under the South African party regime. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a barrister, and he may possibly be an excellent pleader, but I wish to direct his attention to the fact that the Court expects an advocate to bring all matters in connection with a case to the notice of the Court, and that he shall direct the Court’s attention to all legal points, in other words that he shall not mislead the Court. Let me say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with his figures has done only one thing; he has misled the public. It is significant that he only mentioned the last two years of the South African party Government, when they were forced to economise, but he did not mention the figures of previous years, for the simple reason that if one mentions them, one almost falls on one’s back. In the year 1918-’19 the increase in expenditure over the previous year was about 16 per cent., in 1919-’20 the increase was nearly 17 per cent. in 1920-’21 the increase was 26 per cent. more than the year before, that was the year prior to the one which the hon. member started to mention. I repeat that if he remains silent about those figures and only mentions the figures of the last two years of the South African party regime, then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is in the same position as the advocate who misleads the court by not mentioning certain facts. I must say that the figures which he mentioned were correct, but as hon. members will see, the increases under the present regime were a great deal less than, for instance, for the preceding seven years of the South African party regime. But the hon. member also refrained from saying to what the increase was attributable. He created the impression that this Government had squandered the money. It would possibly be well in connection with this point to quote a few figures. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has apparently forgotten the additional £1,000,000 which this Government gives to the provincial councils. He has apparently also forgotten the £1,600,000 which this Government has placed to the credit of the pension funds because the South African party had left those funds in a bankrupt condition. He has also forgotten that this Government pays almost £1,000,000 in old age pensions, and that we have to pay an additional £1,000,000 interest on public debt owing to the fact that the public debt has naturally increased; that this Government spends about £250,000 more for technical education than the South African party Government did, as the Government has taken this over from the Provincial Administration, and because the Department of Labour, which did not exist in their time, costs £200,000. The telephone and telegraph services have been greatly extended under the present regime, so that they cost about £300,000 more annually than what they did under the late Government. Will hon. members tell me which amount of the votes which I have referred to should be curtailed? If they are honest, they will admit that all these increases are necessary. They do not, however, make the public acquainted with the true state of affairs; they simply quote a few figures in order to mislead people outside. We also hear a great deal about the enormous increase of public debt which has taken place under this Government. If we study the figures, we find that the public debt during the last years of the South African party regime increased by about £8,500,000 per year, and under this Government it only increases by about £7,000,000 per year, in other words, the annual increase of the public debt during the last few years of the South African party Government was £1½ million per year more than under the present Government. In spite of this fact, however, the hon. member for Yeoville goes through the country with a smiling face telling the people that the public debt under the present Government is mounting up in an unhealthy manner.

When did I say that?

During the recent elections. Have you forgotten your speeches again? The hon. member for Yeoville, but more particularly the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, again referred contemptuously to the amount which we have set down for our foreign representation. I hope that we have heard the last from the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) about “flunkeys.” The hon. member for Bethal is apparently proud of the fact that our foreign representatives are described as “flunkeys.” Why is it that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and apparently also the hon. member for Bethal are so opposed to the idea that we shall be properly represented abroad? The Prime Minister has on previous occasions pointed out that they cannot swallow it that we should give expression to our independent status.

No; that is not so.

The hon. member for Yeoville now also pretends that he embraces our independent status with both arms. Has the hon. member forgotten what he said when the Prime Minister stated that we should have a flag as a symbol of our independence? The hon. member for Yeoville, speaking on the East Rand on the matter, said more or less that the Minister of the Interior had stated that we should have a national flag as a symbol of our independence, and his words on that occasion were “as a symbol of what we do not possess.” There the hon. member denied our independent status, and it still is an issue between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) whether or not we are independent. Hon. members opposite still find it difficult to realise that South Africa no longer is a dependent state, but is sovereign independent. We have the same position today as we had when under the lead of the Prime Minister we set up the motto “South Africa first.” In those days they would not hear of that either, in exactly the same way as later on they would not accept the doctrine of the independence of South Africa. But we have progressed, and the result is that to-day they also say “South Africa first.” This gives me courage, and just as they have been compelled to accept the motto of South Africa first, so will they be compelled to accept our sovereign independence, and in exactly the same way will they agree in the end that we should be represented abroad by competent Ministers. I can see the time coming when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be in Berlin as our accredited Minister, or possibly we should prefer to send him to Moscow. The hon. member for Bethal will be sent to Palestine. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout further made an onslaught on the Department of Labour. It is not my intention to defend that department, because the Minister concerned is quite able to do so. I wish to ask, however, why members like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are so strongly opposed to the expenditure of money on the Department of Labour. I shall tell the House what the reason is. The reason in the first place is that the Department of Labour renders assistance in the solution of the poor white question, because during all the years that they were at the head of affairs they did nothing towards the solution of that question.

We did do something.

I will admit that they did something. They started relief works here and there, in my constituency, for instance, where they had a road built at a cost of £6,000 per mile. It was not a railway, but an ordinary gravel road. The manner in which they set to work in those days was such that the labourers did not have to work. The hon. member appears to be surprised, but if there is any doubt, hon. members may go to the Waterberg district and make enquiries in those areas and they will hear that the only thing required of the labourers was that they should not sit down. So long as they remained standing, they were regarded as having done a good day’s work. That was the condition at the relief works in the days when the hon. member for Yeoville was in power. In those days a road was built which cost £6,000 per mile, but apart from that the South African party never did anything of a constructive nature towards the solution of the poor white question. And it is only because this Government has tackled the question that they are so hostile and so strongly opposed to everything we do to solve the question. When the Government first took up the matter there were no data available. This was something new, and when a problem is tackled one has to expect mistakes to be made in the beginning. We must even expect to make mistakes in the future and we must expect that there will be failures in view of the fact that this is something new. I myself rejoice at the fact that so far we have lost so little. The South African party make the most of the little money which has been lost in connection with the Department of Labour, but if we reckon on the same basis the millions and millions which the South African party have lost over irrigation projects and if we refer to that—

You do it.

If we apply that argument to the South African party—

That is always your argument.

Will the hon. member apply it to his Party? They had no experience either so far as irrigation projects were concerned, and it is selfevident that mistakes had to be made. Large sums of money were lost. Will the hon. member describe that as mis-government on the part of the South African party? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a violent attack on the Minister of Agriculture, because of the fact that in making appointments he gave preference to Nationalists, everything else being equal. Can the hon. member show that when his party was in power a Nationalist was ever appointed? I am speaking of appointments made by Ministers, the appointment of members of land boards, sheep inspectors, etc. Did they ever appoint anybody except a member of the South African party?

No, they cannot do this, because they carried out the policy of the Minister of Agriculture in a much aggravated form. The Minister of Agriculture is honest: they were not. They talk of “jobs for pals.” The best example that has yet come to my notice was just after we had taken German East Africa. Commandant van Deventer returned then. Did he go back to his farm? No. A position had to be found for him and he was appointed as Inspector-General. Nobody knows what he had to inspect. This by itself was perhaps not so serious, but there was another General, Coen Brits, who threatened that if he was not appointed Inspector-General as well, he would join the National Party. The idea was thereupon born that the Defence Force required two Inspectors-General, and he was also created Inspector-General. If instances of that nature can be cited, then surely it does not become hon. members to talk of jobs for pals. And what about Gen. Enslin, who also had to get a high post very suddenly? He was appointed as chief of the sheep division, and later a whole lot of sheep inspectors were appointed. What were the duties of those sheep inspectors under the S.A.P. regime? I am speaking from experience in my district. Although there are hardly any sheep there, all the sheep inspectors and all the justices of the peace were S.A.P. men, as well as other officials. It was not expected of them that they should work as inspectors, but they were S.A.P. agents. Did the present Minister for Agriculture also use sheep inspectors as agents?

Yes.

Can you prove that? Where? The hon. member cannot prove it and should not say it. The Minister for Agriculture took drastic steps against any official who unnecessarily interfered in politics, and he even had Nationalists dismissed because of their doing so. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said that if his party comes back to power, and if it follows the pernicious doctrine of the Minister for Agriculture, and all things being equal, appoints its own political followers, that he will then immediately go out of politics. I would advise the hon. member to resign in anticipation, because if he honestly intends to carry out his promise, he will have to resign immediately his party comes back to power. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has also made an onslaught on the Public Service Commission. I only wish to say that the previous Public Service Commission consisted merely of supporters of the S.A.P. I myself was a member of the Public Service, and I know that no Nationalist ever ventured to proclaim his political views. Had he done so he would have been in constant danger of being dismissed, but to-day no S.A.P. man runs any risk by stating that he supports that party. We, as young Nationalists, however, did not dare to come openly forward with our views. An attack has been made in connection with the appointment of Gen. Manie Maritz as welfare officer. As the hon. member for Bindley has already shown, this was an excellent appointment. It had always been the custom, whenever anybody was temporarily required, to create a position outside the Public Service Commission and to abolish the post immediately the work was concluded. Gen. Maritz dealt with work of an urgent nature.

Very urgent.

Yes, I know why they raise so many objections. There were difficulties in Namaqualand and Gen. Maritz was the man who could stop them. The fact that the post could be abolished after three months proves how well he did his work. Hon. members opposite deplore the fact that the Government succeeded so brilliantly in overcoming their difficulties. They are sorry that the Government did not allow matters to develop, and that they did not go in for the "shooting down policy” which the late Government embarked upon.

That is very cheap.

No, these are facts. Was the hon. member opposed to Maritz because he was a rebel? Did he not do good work? What is the objection? Is not the fact that everything was quiet in Namaqualand within a few months sufficient evidence that he did good work?

What did he do?

He is a man who knows Namaqualand and he could supply the right information. The Government desired to prevent these people being misled. If there is one thing which members opposite are sorry about then it s that there was no outburst. But if they should ever come back to power, they will at any rate have learned something from the present Government, and that is how to behave in such difficult circumstances. If they had had a Maritz to send to the Rand in 1922, there would possibly not have been an outburst on the Rand. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was most concerned about the fact that the Creswellites had suffered defeat in the Transvaal Provincial elections. I cannot understand why the hon. member should be so concerned about the Labour party. Is his grievance that they sit on this side and not on the other side of the House? I believe that that is the real grievance. If that is so, then I offer him this consolation that he has now got a left wing and that he will in future have his hands full to keep that left wing in check.

I really think we have got to the stage when we should look at the position as it is actually to-day. There is no doubt that the condition of the country is anything but satisfactory; in fact, it is very far from that. I feel it is necessary for us to take a fair and square view of the position of things so that we can as far as possible look at them in the true perspective. There was one point raised by the Minister of Finance when he said “we should not look at things in a panicky way.” I agree with him in that direction. I realize we should not become panicky, because it would be ridiculous and stupid, for in the long run, things will come right again. The bigger a trouble is and the nearer it is, if you are taking it in its right sense the more determined you should be to overcome the difficulty with which you are confronted. I feel there are some false prophets who want us to forget all our troubles. Do not let us run away with the idea that the condition of things is not as bad as it appears to be. The farming community is going to have a bad time in future. Unless we realize the position of things, there is going to be worse trouble than if we look at them in the right way. The Minister of Finance told us that the day of depression is universal and that it is a world condition, but during the five years we had a good time, we were not told that, but we were told it was because we had the right Government and a Nationalist Government at the head of affairs. Now things have changed, and since they have gone the wrong way, it is not the Nationalist Government at all, but world conditions. If the Minister were consistent he would have told us all along that it was world conditions that brought about the good times. We have to depend on the prices we receive on the other side of the water. In the old days it was all very well for a farmer to stand on his own feet and not to be dependent on the outside world. We have found that not only are we dependent on our neighbours, but on the adjoining provinces, and on the countries on the other side of the water. To-day we cannot export because world conditions are against us. I would like every member of the House to realize the position of the primary producer. He has got the prices of things he has to use as a farmer rising against him, and when he cannot sell his produce at a reasonable price he has to take what he is offered for it. It is rather rough to be in the position that we cannot better ourselves because we have conditions overwhelmingly against us. I think it is the duty of those who are directing the affairs of State to assist the farmers as far as possible. I do not think that that has been fully realised by the governing body. The farming community have not had the consideration they need. Far more interest should be concentrated on the producer, because the whole of the welfare of the State depends upon his position. The Government has told us that we have to spend less money, but the Minister of Finance has come along and asked us for nearly £750,000 extra. Year by year the expenditure has been going up. Now the progressive farmer will have to pay 20 per cent. more income tax. What about the unfortunate farmer who is generally looked upon as an unprogressive farmer?

He does not pay income tax.

The Minister is going to tax ready-made clothing, and the first person who is going to be hurt is the poor man. When you put on your pyjamas at night you will also be taxed, so you cannot even sleep in peace. I would like some of the hon. members of this House to tell us if they are satisfied with the position. A lot of money has been spent and where has it gone to? It puts me in mind of the man who had swallowed 10s., so they got a stomach pump to work. The man was a lawyer and all they recovered was 3s. 4d., so they came to the conclusion that 6s. 8d. must be absorbed in his legal system. I have come to the conclusion that all the millions absorbed by the Minister must have been absorbed in his administrative system. We are really in a bad position and I do not think the Government has realised it. There is another point and that is in regard to some officers who have got special consideration as far as salaries are concerned. I am only seeking for information, and I would like to ask the Minister to explain to us in what way the welfare officer who has been referred to carry out his functions; was he a welfare officer for himself or for the country? If for the country I do not think the Government was justified in getting rid of him after a few months. Some of us will remember that a short time ago the Prime Minister said that there were a large number of people from the country drifting into the towns and that he was satisfied, as he wanted to revitalise the town community. Can it be that any man in authority can look on the matter in this light? I feel that if you are going to wean away the people from the land who have the love of the land inborn in the marrow of their bones it will be a bad thing for South Africa. We should do everything in our power to stem that as far as possible. There is one point which has been recognized by the Government of the day; we have been told to co-operate, but there is a sad lack of co-operation on the part of the Government itself. In this respect you have some agriculturists living on the Fish River. They have to go to the Railway department when they want a siding to get at the store to put away their lucerne. They must go to another department when they want to cross the river. They go to the Public Works department to build a bridge, then they go to another department when they want a telephone line to put them into communication with the markets so that they can be told how and when to sell. Then they have to go to the Minister of Finance to get the money for this work. They must go to the Band Bank as well. How is it possible to get co-operation amongst these people when the members of the Government are not cooperating amongst themselves? How is it possible to bring about such conditions so that these men can make a decent and honourable living? Until that is realised to the full by the members of the Government, it seems to me it will be hopeless on the part of the producer to get that assistance he is entitled to look for. I feel that the whole economic position of the country should be taken very seriously. I feel that the Minister should look into it with the object of getting at the root cause of the trouble of the man on the land. I do not think it is good enough, or that it is right for the Government, especially, to wait until such time that the farming community is in dire need and then to come along with some palliative to help them over their troubles. Droughts will come again and we shall have all this trouble again. Unless we can forestall it, by some better method than we had in the past, so long shall we have a recurrance of drought conditions and the troubles which beset the farmer. I wish to touch upon a few points in respect to telephones. It has been suggested that I should be in order in moving the adjournment.

On the motion of Mr. Hockly, the debate was adjourned; to resumed on 2nd April.