I move—

1. (1) That on and after Tuesday the 6th May, the House suspend business at six o’clock p.m. and resume at Eight o’clock p.m. on Tuesdays.
2. (2) That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Standing Orders, if at five minutes to six o’clock p.m. on Tuesdays the business under consideration by the House be that of which a private member has charge, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt such business, and dilatory motions, if any, shall lapse without question put. If there be no motion as to the day upon which such interrupted business shall be set down for resumption, or if debate arises upon such a motion, Mr. Speaker shall direct such business to be set down for the next sitting day of this House or for such subsequent sitting day as the member in charge of such business may appoint.
3. (3) That Government business have precedence on the resumption of business at eight o’clock p.m. on Tuesdays.

I do not think it is necessary to add anything, except that the only free night of the week there now is, except Saturday, is being taken for Government purposes. The afternoon will still be available for hon. members, until we may require it. It seems to me that the evening is now of practically little value to most members, while it can contribute a good deal in expediting our work. As hon. members see, we still have a long agenda to dispose of, and I therefore hope, inasmuch as everybody is anxious to get away early, that there will be no objection.

seconded.

I do not want to object, but the Prime Minister will agree with me that this drastic step is always taken in the very last stages of the session, when the end is in sight, and I should like him to assure us whether we are within the sight of the end now. We have worked very hard, and judging from the rate at which we are working night and day now, I presume we must be within the last days of the session. We would like to know how long the session is to last, and when we shall be released from the slavery we have had during the last few weeks. The House would very much like to hear from the Prime Minister approximately how long the session is likely to last, and what the legislative programme of the Government is. We have a long list of Bills—I believe 18 or 19— many of which are in their early stages, and have to be read a second time. I admit the bulk are not very contentious, and should not occupy much time. The Minister of Justice has just given us another Bill to curtail gambling in the Transvaal. He might as well plough the sands of the sea. There are the necessary financial measures still to come forward too. Is it the intention to stick to this programme, and not to introduce further legislation of a contentious character, because, if so, the session may be prolonged.

I am not rising to oppose this motion, but would like, when the Prime Minister replies, if he would give the House some assurance that the time now to be taken will be utilized for Government purposes and not for private matters on the order paper, because there is at present a Bill, ostensibly a private Bill, No. 21 on the order paper—(second reading, Humane Slaughter Bill)—which is likely to give rise to a great deal of contention, and to ritual and religious questions.

I am afraid I have to deal only with Government work; at the same time, I am always open to conviction, as far as private members are concerned, and if good cause can be made out for what looks like an innocent Bill like this I may be persuaded.

I hope the Prime Minister will not be open to conviction on this.

As far as my right hon. friend is concerned, I would very much like to answer the question, and say when the session could be brought to a close. Unfortunately it is not within my power. I can only hope. In view, more or less, of what is on the order paper, I think we ought to finish by about the 7th of June.

Make it May 28th; you have only to say it and it is done.

As the right hon. gentleman has said, these matters on the order paper at present, although many in number, are not of very much importance, as far as contention is concerned. They are important, and there are a few which do have contentious points, but they are not such as to require so much time as to prevent us from finishing early in the course of June. On the order paper, apart from the financial measures, the estimates and so on, there are ten orders I can say which must be passed. There are a few more coming, but not of any contentious nature. The most contentions is a measure to amend the Currency and Banking Act; so that I do think we ought to finish, either at the end of May or not later than the 7th of June. The measures on the paper which we shall take are Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; and then, of course, there are the railway measures which are so closely connected with finance that they are measures which will have to be passed.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The case which was made for the Bill when the Bill was introduced to the House was that we have to deal with an emergency of a very serious character. No other case was made but that of an emergency. There has been no pretence that the present state of affairs is considered a normal state of affairs in the country. The case made out is based upon the fact that it is said there is a certain class of agitators who are stirring up the natives. We have accepted that, but we have differed as to the remedies for dealing with this state of affairs. I submit that the amendment which I am putting now is a logical and correct method of dealing with the situation as adumbrated by the Minister of Justice, because it is in effect making this Bill an emergency measure to deal with an emergency situation. Limiting the operation of the Bill to a period of one year makes it an emergency measure, and enables the Minister to deal with the emergency by the very drastic powers contained in the Bill. My contention is that with the powers which the Bill confers upon the Minister he ought to be able to clear up the situation within the period of time which is provided for in this amendment. I introduced this amendment towards the end of the proceedings in committee, but we had had a long and tiring debate on the subject, and the House was not, I am afraid, able to give full consideration to the amendment, so much so that the Minister of Justice did not give any response to the suggestion I made in the amendment. I propose to give the House another opportunity of dealing with the matter on the basis of the measure being placed on the statute book for such a period of time as will enable the Minister to cope with the situation. In putting forward the amendment I am sure it will not be taken that I am in agreement with the principles of the Bill. Under the rules of the House it is a very sad necessity that we have to regard the principles of the measure as principles we cannot touch. It is a bitter pill to some of us, but we have to swallow that pill for the purposes of discussion to-day. All that we can do is to beg the House once more to face the facts, to look at the situation, to see what are the implications of the Bill, and to accept the suggestion which is made that we should not put on the statute book as a permanent thing a Bill which some of us consider contains most obnoxious provisions. We have recognized the necessity of coming to the assistance of the Government as far as the strengthening of the law is concerned, but our differences have been with regard to method. In the original select committee the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) proposed an amendment which was rejected by the Government. During discussion on the renewed second reading debate we made a promise that we would endeavour to produce an amendment which would enable the Minister of Justice to deal with the situation. We did produce such an amendment, but under the ruling you gave we were unable to have that amendment discussed in the House. We have however done our part in endeavouring to show our good faith by producing something in the way of an amendment which meets many of the objections which the Minister of Justice raised. We have kept our promise. In committee we endeavoured to minimise by amendments some objections to the Bill. For instance we tried to substitute a magistrate for the Minister as being a person who, from his position and knowledge of the facts, would on the whole be less objectionable than the Minister if he acted alone. Then we endeavoured to limit the clauses by which people are to be banned from attending public meetings, and to make those persons liable only who preside at or address such meetings. In none of those cases would the Minister accept our view at all. On every principle of importance in this Bill— e.g. sub-sections 4, 7. 12 and 16—we divided the House. Unhappily in each case we were defeated. We now desire to limit the gravity of this situation as much as we can by placing a time limit on the Bill. The clauses which we tried to amend will confer powers which are capable of tyrannical abuse. Those wide words in the clauses of the Bill which we seek to limit are capable of tyrannical abuse such as we may live to regret. Some hon. members consider this as a Bill directed only against native agitators. While that may be according to some people, the reason for the Bill, the words of the Bill are not confined to natives; they are equally applicable to white and coloured people who may carry on any sort of agitation, couched as they are in wide and drastic terms. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) the other day when I appealed to him, was evidently uneasy about these wide powers; but said that at all events, we should be safe, because public opinion would not allow the Minister of Justice to go too far. If hon. members believe that, they are hugging false comfort to their bosom. How is the public opinion to be created? How is the public to be informed as to what the Minister is doing? The information on which the Minister acts will be confined to himself; there is nobody who will know what induced the Minister to act in any given emergency. There will be no knowledge on which public opinion can develop. We are asked to trust to luck, and to the good sense of the Minister. No freedom-loving people has ever entrusted its freedom to luck. Let us face the position squarely. We have had the matter put before us by the Minister of Justice in the light that this is a question of the rule of law versus the rule of administration. That is the crude issue—and it is bad enough. But we shall have entrusted to the Minister of Justice, if this Bill becomes law, unlimited power to decide what is, in his opinion, a breach of the law. We are leaving it to the administrator to decide what is to be, in his opinion, a crime. One of the strongest principles of both Dutch and English jurisdiction is that in order to be convicted of a crime, a man must have an intention to commit a crime. The law must define what he is prohibited from doing and should not leave it to the administrator to say “I think you have been guilty of a crime; e.g. of “acts leading up to hostility.” We have up to now always had an impartial tribunal to judge on questions of fact—on questions of whether a man is guilty or not. Embodied in this Bill we have a pernicious principle—the right to say what is to be, and what is not to be, a crime. Can anybody speak too strongly of such a policy. We are trusting to the whim of the Minister without any check or control such as that created by courts or by public opinion; trusting ourselves to “one man” rule; putting our peace and our liberty at the mercy of the whim, the temperament—even the prejudices—of one particular man. This is one of the last opportunities we shall have to warn the House of the grave state of affairs to which we are committing ourselves. If the House deliberately elects to perpetuate on the statute book a principle so objectionable to every right thinking man, I say we are making a tame surrender of our most sacred rights and privileges; dealing a blow to the prestige of Parliament and to the safety of the country. In reply to a suggested amendment from this side, the hon. the Minister of Justice said “I do not like that because by proclaiming an area on this account a disturbed area we shall be placing a stigma on the district concerned.” But what greater stigma could be put on the whole country than we shall do by placing ourselves in this sad and pitiful position. We can only feel the gravest concern at this departure from the principles and traditions of Dutch and English jurisprudence. We ask the House to face the facts. It is a fact that by what we are doing to-day we are setting up a precedent which is fraught with the gravest issues, with the gravest possibilities and should be fraught with the gravest concern to everyone of us. I feel strongly that we are bartering away our precious birthright. I say that we are giving away something which has been handed down to us by our forefathers as a priceless heritage, something that they won with tears and blood and sacrifice. Are we going to hand down that freedom which has been guaranteed to us by all the safeguards that have been secured by those who won our freedom through generations of sacrifice and effort? Are we going to barter that away and give away the freedom we have obtained; to barter away our birthright? Are we going to give away those rights and privileges which we have won, in the liberty of speech, the liberty of the person? I make one strong appeal again to the House to pause and reconsider the matter. Let us try to come to some conclusion which is more worthy of ourselves, and deal with this position by means that will be more worthy of the prestige and dignity of Parliament, and of those traditions which have been handed down to us.

I second the amendment, and wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). He has dealt with the subject in an eloquent manner and has made an appeal to this House not to allow such an easy way of dealing with this matter to become law and to remain on our statute book beyond the 1st May next, as the measure violates all our traditional ideas of justice. We all realize, and I for one do not sympathise, with those agitators and mischief makers who are stirring up strife in the country. I believe that the time has arrived when we should deal with them with a firm hand. The House has already accepted the principle to entrust powers to the hon. Minister, powers which I am sure, if we could read his heart, he himself is not too anxious to possess, and not too anxious to exercise, but, unfortunately, by virtue of his position as Minister of Justice, he feels that these powers are the only way in which he can deal with these agitators at the present time when the rule of law has failed him and when a sufficiently strong definition of sedition cannot be framed to rope in those michievous agitators. We sympathise with the Minister in that respect, but I do appeal to the Minister as an eminent lawyer, whose whole training has been in favour of the rule of law, where it is possible to enforce that law. This is an exceptional measure to deal with exceptional circumstances, and I am sure that the time has passed away when there should be any need for the carrying out of an Act of this sort, and we shall be ashamed to think that an Act of this sort should have been placed upon our statute book. I do appeal to the House to accept this amendment. Let us try the measure for a year, and let the Minister have the power for a year to stifle these mischievous agitations that are taking place and then let us revert, as soon as possible, to the rule of law. It is admitted, that this Bill is a departure from our life-long ideas of our criminal code of the trial of criminal cases by the courts of our land. It is purely an expedient measure to deal with something that is only temporary. Such being the case and being exceptional legislation, it should not find a permanent place upon our statute book. If the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) were accepted, then, at all events, in 12 months’ time when the Minister entrusted with these powers finds that he cannot stifle the agitation taking place, he will be able to come back to this House and ask for a renewal of this measure for a further year.

He will come back every year.

No, it is only a matter of altering the date to the 31st May, 1932, and the Act will come into force again. I am sure that hon. members are not proud that it is necessary that we should resort to such a measure. I have no sympathy with the agitators. I think they should be dealt with a firm hand. If the Minister is acting upon his own personal knowledge in each case, I am prepared to concede a tremendous amount of necessity for this Bill, but he has to rely upon outside information. I have every confidence in the police force, but there are black sheep amongst them, and they are not all like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. The Minister, to a large extent, has to depend for his information upon outside sources. That information will not always come from magistrates. It may come from police officers, or political agents or from anybody. The Minister will have to depend upon those people for his information. I ask, can we, under such circumstances, accept the position that the Minister must act upon that information and so pass a law of this nature, and be able to exercise these very drastic powers without giving the accused the opportunity of being heard or of defending his actions. I can quite conceive under such circumstances that there can be a grave miscarriage of justice. I believe that the Minister truly intends only to use his powers in very exceptional circumstances. He has already indicated that to the House. Therefore, he admits by that that this is an exceptional measure and being an exceptional measure, under exceptional circumstances, I maintain that the sooner we get it off the statute book of our country, the better. It is introducing a principle which is distasteful to every one of us who have been brought up in the traditions of regarding our courts of law and our judges as the supreme authority to deal with all cases where there is a contravention of the law. I appeal finally to the Minister to give the matter his consideration. It is not a very big thing that we ask. At all events, it will be something in the nature of a bona fide of his admission that this is an exceptional measure and it should be moved from our statute book as soon as possible.

The two hon. members opposite, the hon. members for Mowbray (Mr. Close) and Cathcart (Mr. van Coller), have in a most affecting way protested against the giving up of what they call “sacred rights” for more than a year. I am somewhat surprised to find such a spirit on the opposite side, because I recollect things which were done by their Government and which occurred in the country while the previous Government was still in office. I am thinking of cases of the same kind as those with which we are concerned in the Bill before us. Sixteen years ago when there was no martial law, or talk of martial law, a newspaper was published in Pretoria, copies of it were stamped and duly delivered at the post office. The subscribers, for whom the papers were intended, never received them, however. It may of course have been that the newspapers went to other people. They were intended for Nationalists, and it may be that the post office sent them to Saps. In any case, those papers never reached the subscribers. These were suppressed by the authorities, who, therefore, stole the papers from the owners. That was done without there being any question of martial law. I mention this case to prove what was done by the previous Government at that time. At that time, sixteen years ago, letters to certain persons in Pretoria were also opened. The people concerned found it out when they noticed that the letters were not sealed up in the same way again. An hon. senator, a superior officer, and your humble servant had that experience. Their letters were secretly opened every day and subsequently delivered. That took place under the “sacred rights” about which hon. members now use such heartrending words. There is some trouble going on in India at the moment, in connection with a movement which we may call the “don’t shoot” movement. Regulations have also been issued in connection with the newspapers, which are worse than have been proposed by the Minister here. With regard to these regulations, I want to quote something from yesterday’s Cape Times. The collaborators of the papers say—

This is in connection with the Gandhi movement, a “don’t shoot” movement, while the movement that we have in South Africa not only utters threats of shooting, but shooting has actually already taken place. Let me bring something further to the notice of hon. members opposite. They should consult their leader a little more in connection with such matters. This Bill proposes to give certain powers to the representative of the king in our country which at present he does not possess. The protests we have listened to are therefore protests that the “sacred rights” must not be granted to the representative of the king, while the leader of the Opposition thinks that our respect for the king demands that we should give even more powers to him. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) made an interesting speech under the chairmanship of Mr. Snowden in England, and it is entitled: “Some reflections on the British commonwealth, the League of Nations, and the United States.” In that speech he said an important thing which, in principle, also applies to this Bill. He made it clear that the British Parliament is entirely weakened as a bond between Great Britain and the dominions. But he adds that there is one bond which must always be strengthened, and that is the bond of the joint kingdom. He says that we must always make more of the kingdom. In his speech he stated—

I admit that He said it in a different connection to this Bill, but the intention was that more powers should be given to the king or his representative. He says, further—

I admit that this was said in a different connection, but in the end it amounts to this: that the leader of the Opposition, according to this important speech which he made in England, was afraid of one thing, and that was that the king, or his representative, would get less power.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, has the address of the hon. member anything to do with the amendment? If he is allowed to continue we may not reach the prorogation until the 8th of August instead of the 8th of June as hoped for by the Prime Minister.

It is rather difficult to find a connection between what the hon. member has been saying and the subject before the House. I trust he will now come to the point.

I hope that the hon. member will have no difficulty in seeing the connection between this Bill and the ideal of his leader in giving larger powers to the king. As an Imperialist, because he is one of them, I cannot see why he objects to that policy. But who now are the persons whose so-called sacred rights” are being taken away? They am natives, and what do they know of “sacret “rights,” about which hon. members opposite are so concerned? What did Chaka, or Dingaan make of sacred rights? To whom did they grant sacred rights, and are there even any educated natives who realize what sacred rights mean? The native can only be kept in his place by a firm and strong government, and this Bill makes provision for strong measures. Hon. members will say that Europeans are also concerned in the matter. What kind? They possibly have ideals but they are communistic, which is disastrous to South Africa, and the communists will yet cause greater danger to South Africa than any native. I think hon. members opposite can really now stop talking about the “sacred rights” of the native.

I followed, with some amazement, the statements which have been made by the hon. member (Mr. Oost), none of which, I am sure, is agreed to by the Minister of Justice. The hon. member has referred to the press law in India; apparently he approves of it, but evidently he does not know that it has been introduced in order to suppress a nationalist movement. In addition, he seems to have overlooked the fact that conditions in India, at the present moment, are vitally different from what they are in this country. My hon. friend, in his desire to bring forward arguments in support of the Bill, has overlooked these points and his own ideals about nationalism, republicanism and sovereign independence. If I followed the hon. member aright his other argument in favour of this clause was that because certain principles, or lack of them, were carried out by Chaka, therefore it is quite appropriate for the Minister of Justice to apply the same ideals and system to South Africa to-day. I do not think many hon. members sitting on the opposite side are so forgetful of nationalist ideals as to suggest that. I have more respect for the Minister than his ardent supporter behind him On the other hand I must say I sympathise with the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). In effect the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) told the Minister he entirely agrees there is need for a measure of this kind, but says that in 12 months’ time, perhaps if there is no longer need for it, let the present Bill come to an and, and if the Minister can satisfy him there is still need for legislation like this, the Minister can continue it. That is surely not an argument for the amendment of the hon. member for Mowbray. I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) said the other week— this Bill is bad, root and branch, and no amendment can improve it; that being the case, we support the amendment of the hon. member for Mowbray, not because we think it is an improvement on the Minister’s proposals, but because by accepting it we will be in a position in 12 months’ time to fight the matter over again.

Amendment put and negatived.

New Clause 2,

I move—

Section 21 of the Act of 1914 provides for the laying on the Table of the House of papers when various things have been done under the principal Act. Unless this section 21 is amended the position will be that although Parliament is to be notified when a public gathering has been prohibited, it will not be necessary to notify Parliament when certain other things have been prohibited. The Minister said on a previous occasion that there would be a safeguard for persons dealt with, in that papers relating to cases dealt with would be laid upon the Table of the House. That will not always be the case unless this further clause is added to the Bill, and I therefore move the new clause.

seconded the amendment.

Are we not going to have anything from the Minister?

I am sorry; I should have indicated to the House, as I have to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper), that this amendment is an improvement, and I accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Bill as amended adopted; third reading tomorrow.

I hope that the Minister of Labour will take an early opportunity of giving the House a full statement on the unemployment position. There is a great deal of unemployment in the country, and it is an extraordinary state of affairs to have a Ministry whose Minister of Labour is the titular head of the Labour party of this country, while anything said against a South African party government with reference to the unemployed is mild indeed as compared with what the unemployed now say against the present Minister. Despairing of getting any sort of remedy or relief from the Minister of Defence, the unemployed have actually cabled to Moscow for help and funds, because they have been unable to obtain any support from the Minister, or from the Ministry to which he belongs. I noticed the other day that the municipality of Potchefstroom has been compelled to abandon its unemployment relief scheme because of lack of funds. Other local bodies have been similarly situated. The Minister was approached to receive a deputation from the unemployed on the Rand, but would not receive them. I wish to know whether, during his visit to the north in the recess, he has seen these people, and whether he will tell the House what the unemployed position is. I think we are entitled to ask him to take the House into his confidence in the matter. I want to say a word with regard to Doornkop, which, like the poor, is always with us. I want him to tell us what the present position is. I know that there is an action proceeding by Mr. Rosenberg and his friends against the Government. The case being sub-judice, I cannot expect the Minister to tell us anything beyond the fact that there is an action. I also want to know from the Minister whether for the whole of this year we are paying arrear interest, on the Doornkop bond to the Imperial Government, and if so, how long this state of affairs is going to continue? If we are liable, would it not be better for this Government to admit responsibility, take over the liability, pay out the British Government, and make the best of a bad job. I see an item of £500 in the vote set down for a compulsory work colony under Act 20 of 1927. We remember with what a flourish of trumpets this Act was passed three years ago. We were told that it was to be one of the means of solving the problem of the “won’t works,” but as far as I have been able to ascertain, that Act has been a dead letter. I believe this sum of £500 is merely put down pro forma. I understand that the only attempt made to establish a work colony was made at Nuweberg. The hon. the Minister was warned in the plainest possible terms by the hon. member who represents the constituency in which Nuweberg is situated, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who said the site was unsuitable, and that Europeans could not live on the site. The site, for at least six months of the year, is an impossible one for Europeans to live on. The hon. member for Caledon stated that the rain falls there in torrents. What happened? The site was found to be an impossible one. Only a few people went there, and they would not stay. I believe the position now is that the huts which were erected were removed to a site lower down. A considerable sum of money has been spent at Nuweberg, I believe, and the whole story has been one of ineptitude and failure. If the Minister can tell me that there has been one moment in the history of that colony which has been a success, I shall be extremely surprized. The Labour Department is frequently criticized because of the ill-starred efforts it makes in regard to Labour legislation. It is almost a remarkable thing for any form of Labour legislation to stand the test of an ordeal in the country. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) gave a few instances the other night. Let me give one instance. In my constituency there is an old Scotchman named Lowson. He told me of his troubles under the Apprenticeship Act. He is a painter, and has a lad in his employ, but under the Apprenticeship Act no one can be apprenticed as a painter unless he has passed a certain standard at school. He may be the best wielder of a paint-brush that South Africa has ever produced, but unless he has reached a certain standard, the Act prohibits him from being apprenticed. But Lowson said, when I told him that the law must be observed whether one agreed with it or not, “I’ll be hanged if I obey the law. He is the best apprentice I have ever had, and I am going to teach him to paint.” Lowson was brought before the courts, and what happened? His attorney at once rode the proverbial coach and four through the Act, and he got off. It was only recently that the Minister produced a Bill to ratify the wage determinations of the Wage Board, a case of panic legislation because of so many determinations being upset on appeal to the courts. We have got accustomed in this country to the fact that whenever any piece of labour legislation is passed, it is odds on that when a test case is brought, it will be held to be invalid.

I must point out to hon. members that they must not criticize legislation passed by the House. They may criticize administration.

My criticism was mainly directed to regulations passed under that legislation. [Time limit.]

I want to support the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) regarding the question of unemployment in Johannesburg. Apparently conditions there are getting worse and worse. I believe they interviewed the Minister and he made promises doubtless in the hope that he would hear nothing more about it. I would like the Minister to make the statement called for by my hon. friend. The Minister has always pretended that he had the solution for this problem, and I should like him to tell us what it is. I would like to refer to another matter—the report of the controller and auditor-general, page 288, when the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) has finished.

You are addressing the Chair.

But I am speaking for the information of the Minister. The report of the controller and auditor-general deals with the industrial review, and states that the following information for the year has been obtained: Cost of printing, £3,050; revenue from sales and subscriptions, £228; advertisements, £705. In addition, the sum of £16 has been spent for special articles contributed to the Review. I would like the Minister to tell us what those articles are. The loss on the year was £2,123 The country wants to know what it is getting for this loss. We want to know whether it is intended to continue this class of free advertisement for Ministers, who constantly contribute articles—and their photos— to this journal, and I hope the Minister will tell us.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) raised the question of Doornkop, and in doing so, anticipated me. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this case of Doornkop is still sub judice.

It is.

Then there are some questions which I placed on the order paper some time ago, and which I wanted to repeat, but which will have to remain in abeyance for the time being. But in regard to the interest paid from year to year, mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I am quite sure I know what the Minister will say; namely, that his distinguished predecessor—the hon. the Minister corrected me and said, “exceedingly able predecessor”—bound himself under contract of guarantee to pay that interest so long as the bond held by the Trades Facilities Board remains unpaid. Not one shilling has been paid in reduction of that bond, and it is not difficult to imagine how long we are going to pay this sum of over £3,000 per annum to the Trades Facilities Board as interest on the amount borrowed from them. I expect the Minister to tell us he is bound to go on paying this amount regardless of what happens to the law suit. I do not want to pursue the matter further at present, because I shall review the whole Doornkop position after the case is disposed of. I understood it had been set down for the 1st of April—a very appropriate day for a very appropriate occasion. I ask the Minister, has the case been disposed of now? If not, what is the cause of the delay, because it has been hanging fire now for a very considerable time, and there seems to be some obscure reason why it has not gone to trial. Are negotiations going forward for a settlement out of court? Will the Minister let us know the reasons for the delay. I also want to refer to Zanddrift; another Doornkop in the offing. I have questioned the Minister again and again regarding the Zanddrift settlement, and I must protest against his evasive answers he has given to my questions What has become of the enormous amount of money spent by his department on this Zanddrift scheme.

Now how should he know?

It was his distinguished predecessor who spent that money, as he spent the Doornkop money. He was a very, very expensive Minister to this country. What was the object of the Zanddrift scheme? Was it the policy of the Labour department to usurp the functions usually exercised by a benevolent society, or was the aim to make it a self-supporting scheme. The Minister has intimated that it was to be self-supporting, in reply to one of my questions, when he said—

The Minister knows as well as I do that those trainees found that after the department had taken away four-fifths of the proceeds of the saleable produce, and left them one-fifth, they found if impossible to keep body and soul together on the percentage allowed them and reported accordingly, and it was found that this scheme was bound to break down. The Minister will have an opportunity of correcting me, but my information comes from a most reliable source. Eventually the scheme, having broken down, it was decided to approach the Department of Lands with the object of that department taking over the whole scheme. I challenge the Minister to deny this. But the Minister of Lands refused to take over the scheme, if he had to assume responsibility for the expenditure incurred by the Labour Department. Will the Minister deny that? No. The only liability that the Minister of Lands would assume responsibility for was the £30,000, being the purchase price of the farm. That left, approximately, a matter of £58,000, which the Minister will be obliged to tell the House this afternoon he is going to write off as a bad debt. That amount was, approximately, £58,000 unaccounted for. Here are the figures given to me by the Minister in reply to a question which I put to him: £11,000 for general expenditure, £4,160 for rent which was paid on this farm before the department exercised its option to purchase. Am I right there? Yes. A sum of £4,160 was paid for rent of the farm Zanddrift before the department exercised its option to purchase. There was a sum of £23,097, advances to tenant farmers. Is that correct? There was a sum of £4,893 for buildings. I have not included that in the figure mentioned, as we have value for the money there. There is a sum of £15,799 for livestock and implements, and fertilizers, unless this amount is included in the globular sum of £23,097 I have referred to. That gives the total of £58,000. Deducting the cost of the buildings, £4,000, that leaves a sum of £54,000. I want to know from the Minister to-day in what manner he expects the Government to be reimbursed in respect of this expenditure? Is there any possible chance of recovering it? If there is no chance of recovering it then the Minister will be obliged to admit to the House that the taxpayer is going to bear the cost. This is another of those wild cat schemes of his distinguished predecessor.

Extinguished.

Distinguished and extinguished predecessor.

It was my scheme.

I think the Minister will have to agree with me that most of this expenditure was incurred under the regime of his distinguished predecessor. Am I right? Yes. The Minister cannot shake his head. I am right again. This distinguished predecessor expended between £150,000 and £200,000 at Doornkop, and he has expended this £50,000 on the farm Zanddrift.

I do not intend to attack the Government or the Minister, because I would like to say something about unemployment. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that unemployment had increased to an extent unheard of by him. I hope the hon. member is not a stranger in Jerusalem. Has he forgotten how in 1923 we voted £750,000 for unemployment? There are circumstances in our country from time to time causing much unemployment, which subsequently disappear.

I thought it did not exist under this Government.

Do you remember that after the 1922 strike the Government had to assist the people, 19,000 or more of whom were employed on the railways, and many of whom were put on the land. The Government is doing its best, and I do not want to criticize, but to show what the actual position is. There is much unemployment, and one of the chief causes is the Lichtenburg diggings, which have collapsed, with the result that the people are flocking into Johannesburg. That is the place where they accumulate and look for work, with the result that unemployment is very great there. I can assure the House that tremendous misery is endured. There is a class of people that positively suffers from hunger. There are women and children to-day who are always dying of hunger, and some scheme must be thought out. There are not only unemployed who stream in from the diamond fields and the countryside, but right inside the towns there is one class, viz., the silicotic who also suffer from hunger. It is not necessary. The state is rich, there is enough money, and it is not necessary for women and children to die of hunger. I pointed out last year that there was a screw loose. We have a shortage of labour in our country; the farmers have not enough labour, nor have the mines, nor the industries. Day after day thousands of natives are imported from Portuguese Africa, but some of our own people are dying of starvation. I pointed out last year where the fault lay. The natives will not work on the farms, nor on the mines, but want to encroach upon the work of the Europeans. If, however, the work is properly divided, each section of the population can get enough work to live from. There is no time to delay, and I appeal to the Government. I know that the Government is doing its best. They have again started the big Boegoeberg scheme to assist people, but there is a proverb which says, “that the horse dies while the grass is growing.” We cannot leave the matter to the future, but must tackle it at once. Often when I sit at my means I remember the people who are not privileged to fill their stomachs. A man came to me yesterday whom I knew on the Rand 30 years ago. He always had work, and made a good living, but got miner’s phthisis, and is unemployed now through unfortunate circumstances. He went right up to Namaqualand to look for work, but has now returned by ship to Cape Town, and is unable to move; he cannot get work: he is one of the most honourable and hardworking people that I know. There are hundreds of people who pray for work, but have none. I am not speaking about people who will not work, but of those who want to work and cannot get it. I therefore ask the Government to deal with the matter at once. This is a prosperous country and there is enough money.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Pretorius) has made a very determined indictment against the Government, and I am sure he has spoken from his knowledge of the conditions which exist at the present time on the Rand, where unemployment is very rife. According to the inspector of white labour, there are 3,000 people on the books of the Labour Department alone.

Where do they come from?

They are South Africans, and it does not matter where they come from. The House is entitled to have a comprehensive statement as to what measures the Minister is taking, or proposes to take, to cope with the question of unemployment, instead of being confronted with a policy of drift or being satisfied with replies on matters of detail. In dealing with a question of this sort, naturally one expects a Minister of Labour, whoever he may be, to have a definite national and economic outlook. Naturally, the economic outlook must be based on the principle of doing something definite to organize industry and development so that people shall be provided with useful and adequately remunerative employment. The matter should be dealt with in such a way as to include not only individuals and private industry, but Government departments as well. A Minister of Labour with a broad economic outlook could become the most powerful Minister in the state, because it is for him to influence every other department so far as employment is concerned. Take the railways for instance. Surely a Minister of Labour should be able to exercise a very substantial influence on the Minister of Railways and Harbours as to how the work of his department is carried on, so that the railway employees shall work reasonable hours. Then take the question of wages. From an ordinary economic outlook If will be an advantage for the Minister of Labour to establish the principle that workers shall receive adequate remuneration, so that their children shall be saved from joining the ranks of the unemployed, or swelling the number of poor whites. The Minister of Labour should, more than any other Minister, study the question of markets—the South African market, the inter-dominion markets and the foreign market, so as to secure the fullest amount of employment for South Africa. In all these matters a Minister of Labour with a definite outlook can exercise such influence as to secure the maximum of employment and the minimum of unemployment. Similarly on questions of finance which affect the question of unemployment. We are entitled to know to what extent the Minister of Labour has been exercising his influence on the Department of Finance with a view to a general policy being adopted to grapple with the problem of unemployment. The Minister of Labour should regard this subject from a national outlook; I do not mean a rigid national outlook, but national from the point of view of national pride, and, if need be, racial pride, so that our people shall not sink lower and lower, and instead of their moral and physical wellbeing being neglected it should be considerably improved. Looking at the matter from that point of view one is entitled to know what the Minister is, or is not, doing. We know that when people are unemployed or under employed, their physical, as well as their moral, standard is bound to be sapped. From the point of view of the national pride of the people of South Africa, it is imperative that a policy shall be followed to improve their physical and moral stamina. I say in all seriousness that so far the Minister of Labour has given no evidence that he is dealing with these matters from either the broad economic, or the broad generous national outlook. To deal with the matter from the national outlook one has to have a certain amount of racial and national pride, but, and I say it with all respect, the record of the Minister of Labour during recent years has not displayed much national or racial pride. If that is the position what assistance can people expect from the Minister in the handling of this very grave question? It is not the English-speaking people who are so much affected as the Afrikaans-speaking people and the poor whites. If we may take a little joke perpetrated by the Minister last night as an indication, it does not seem that he is much concerned about racial pride. He told the House that when a Dutchman puts on the uniform of the Scottish Highlanders he becomes a Scotsman, and says: “You must no longer call me Piet, but Jock.” Presumably, therefore, if you don the uniform of a German you become a German.

The hon. member will confine himself to the vote.

I am giving this analogy as to the attitude of the Minister in dealing with the problem under his vote. Whether by way of a joke or otherwise, the incident shows that he is not very much concerned with the racial pride of the Afrikaans people, who are largely concerned with the question of unemployment.

You changed your name—where does your racial pride come in?

I have never disguised my pride in my race and my activities o” behalf of it. We find that the majority of the people who are affected by this evil of unemployment are members of the Afrikaans-speaking community, and the Minister knows that on the Witwatersrand that’ is so. [Time limit.]

I move—

Agreed to.

On the Witwatersrand there is at present an unemployment committee attempting to some extent to improve the conditions of the unemployed. I believe it has sent a deputation to the Minister and to this House, and marched to Pretoria. During the last few days they have done something startling, of which we must take cognizance. The secretary of the committee, a certain Mr. Botha—I do not know the gentleman, but it bears out that the majority are Afrikaans-speaking—said that the committee had become so disappointed and hopeless as to getting assistance from the Government that it had actually cabled to foreign Governments that the Government, whose main duty is to look to the people of South Africa, and especially Afrikaners, had neglected them.

What Governments are they appealing to?

According to press reports, one cable was to the Soviet Government, and they said they were sending other cables to other Governments. I hope they will, otherwise we have to assume that a large section of the Afrikaans-speaking people is becoming communistic. I read that in Pretoria these unemployed people had a meeting and passed a resolution of no-confidence in the Minister. We know perfectly well from the speeches and statements of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp), to whom we always listen with the utmost respect, that in other parts of the Union there is not only much unemployment, but a great degree of poverty, which is not adequately, or not at all, attended to by the Minister and the department. There are various directions in which the Minister should certainly move. On the one hand, we have insurance against unemployment. A commission was appointed in 1925, of which the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was a member, and we know he is always capable in matters of that kind. The commission dealt with old age pensions, sickness and other matters, and also with unemployment insurance. We are entitled to know whether these reports have been put into the wastepaper basket, or whether the Minister and the Government are doing something to consider the matter, because we have to remember that the unemployed are own citizens, and if we have to maintain our self-respect, we have to see that work or maintenance is provided for them. Secondly, the Minister ought to tell us what he is doing with regard to hours of labour. We have spent a considerable sum of money on the League of Nations, and nobody begrudges that money. Every year we send delegates to Geneva, and we are a party to the recommendations of the Washington Convention. So far I do not know whether the Minister has made much exertion as to whether we in South Africa are doing anything to honour our signature. It is a matter of importance in dealing with unemployment, because it means that, instead of our people working longer hours than are necessary, under proper organization and the eight-hour day, it would mean probably thousands of people who are now unemployed securing employment, and carrying out the agreement to which we are a party. If you take the question of wages, there again we, to a certain extent, are responsible for the position. The Government has definitely agreed on a policy of protection—a policy with which I definitely agree—but while protecting the employer it is a condition of the law that the employee should also be protected, not only as far as wages, but also as far as hours are concerned. By a decision of one of the courts of law, it has been decided that the provisions of the Factory Act come before, and are superior to, any determination made under the Wage Board determinations. The Minister should definitely say whether he will do something to bring the provisions into line in the interests of the working classes. On the question of wages, the Minister would do much to solve the unemployment problem if he brings in the principle with which I know he agrees—the establishment of a minimum wage of 10s. a day. It is only by doing that that you find that people who are employed in industry will be able to maintain themselves on adequate lines, prevent their children from dropping lower and lower in the scale of life, and creating, at the same time, that home market which is so necessary. By reason of cutting off the consuming capacity of these people, yon are also cutting down employment in this country. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the Minister whether the reply he has given me with regard to Zanddrift is not misleading, because I am told now that these people are being dealt with by the Lands Department as probationary lessees. My information is that they have been taken over as ordinary settlers by the Minister of Lands under the Land Settlement Act.

You have had your answer.

I have had no answer. I have not had an answer from the Minister of Lards. I do not know whether this reply is correct. Is it?

Yes.

Then I wish to know whether the Minister took the ordinary business precaution of having this farm valued before purchasing it for £30,000. Why does he refuse to give access to the papers? I want to know whether the Department of Labour has at last become sane, and whether it is now adopting sane business methods. It has not done so in the past. We find that only a short time after the lease was entered into with the option of purchase, the Department of Lands took over the farm at £8,000 less than the price fixed in the lease as the option price. We want to know whether this farm was purchased in the same haphazard way of doing business we have experienced in the past. If the Minister would only give access to the papers, it would render these questions unnecessary. I will say this for his predecessor, that the papers with regard to Doornkop, when asked for, were placed at my disposal. The present Minister takes up a different attitude. I would like the Minister to tell me why he refuses to give me access to this file. There surely would be no harm in allowing me to see the leases, and to see what the procedure was and the business methods adopted from the time the negotiations were opened with the previous owner of the farm. My objection to the way this scheme has been administered is this. We had the same experience with Doornkop. It was found there that the subsistence allowance paid to the farmers was inadequate, and, even though it was apparent that the scheme was going to fail, and the department was aware of it, or should have been, the department continued to pay out allowances on an increased basis. Precisely the same thing has happened in connection with Zanddrift. The figures are alarming. I think the Minister had control of this transaction in 1926. At that time the allowance to each of the farmers was £150 per annum. In 1927 it went up to £200 per annum, in 1927, later in the year, it went to £215 per annum, in 1928 to £250 per annum, in the second half of 1928 to £300 per annum, and in 1929 to £350 per annum. There has been a jump in the allowances paid to the tenant farmers from 1926 to 1929 of more than double the amount paid in 1926. I want to quote from the auditor-general’s report.

What page!

Page 344. The other figures I have given will be found in page 345. While these annual or half-yearly Increases were taking place, the Minister should have known that this was a bad scheme, and should have stopped all further facilities. My information is, and I want the Minister to deny it, if he can, that this frittering away of large amounts of money annually was done when the Minister must have known it was simply throwing the money away, that there was no hope of recovering it. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I want to get to the bottom of this thing. We are faced with this position, that owing to the lack of control of expenditure in connection with Zanddrift, the amounts paid out to these tenant farmers are going to be placed on the shoulders of the taxpayer—a burden on the taxpayer. I tell the Minister that these amounts constitute a bad debt which will have to be written off. Will the Minister deny that? No, he cannot deny it. A sum of £23,000 of the taxpayers’ money has gone in this way. As soon as it was found that the scheme was a bad one, the department should have stopped further facilities. I am producing further figures showing the average, the highest and the lowest amounts paid out during certain financial years. The auditor-general says that in connection with the original tenant farmer and the tenant farmer extension schemes, Table No. 1 below, shows the lowest, the highest and the average amounts outstanding, per tenant farmer as at 31st March, 1929, and Table No. 2, the average amount expended per man in respect of advances and maintenance allowances up to 31st March, 1929. With regard to the first table, the lowest amount was £4 14s. 1d., the highest was £738 7s. 7d., and the average was £64 3s. 10d. Let us come to Zanddrift. The lowest amount was £164 6s. 5d., the highest £419, and the average was £335 12s. 4d., as against £64 3s, 10d. under the original scheme. It must be Apparent to the Minister that from the inception of the scheme onwards the department has been paying out this money without having ample safeguards. Where there is no responsibility; where a man has no security to offer for money, he will take all you have to give him. And that is what has happened. They have asked for increases year after year, and, in spite of the fact that the scheme was a bad one and could not possibly repay the money advanced, the requests for increases have been acceded to. [Time limit.]

I cannot congratulate the hon. member on his curious use of figures. He waxes very eloquent and indignant because I will not give him access to the papers of my department. When an hon. member has aspersions made on his honour by another hon. member who has not the manhood to apologise, he will get no fort of privileges from me. I am just telling him my opinion that is all. The hon. member works himself into a state of fury and denunciation regarding the payments to these tenant farmers. He says that in 1926 we gave them a certain amount, and year by year it was increased until it reached £350 a year. Rubbish; that is the accumulated amount. His document does not mention the matter of £37,000 worth of produce repaid to us. I will tell the hon. member what the scheme was, and a very excellent scheme. I was responsible for the origination of it.

Then it must be good.

Well, it is one of the schemes of this Government, and they are all good. Here is the position. The whole object of the Losperfontein establishment was to have a place where one could take unemployed and keep them doing useful work until employment could be, found for them, and where those from the country might have a certain amount of re-training, giving them a chance of starting life again. The whole scheme depended on keeping the outlet open. So far as I am concerned, I hoped that there would be more openings—we all hoped so—but what I tried to do in Zanddrift was, instead of keeping them on daily paid work, to appeal to a sense of hope in them. One cannot account for the irrelevance of hon. members. The whole scheme at Zanddrift was that there was no question of permanent tenure. We gave them an allowance of £5 a month to keep them, and we retained the whole of the crop and set aside a certain amount for them in repayment of the £5 a month, and the amount loaned to them. This started in 1926, and it ran for two years. In the same way at Doornkop, it mainly depends on their courage being kept up. The very natural fear in their minds— possibly it was not a justified fear—is if by any misfortune this Government should not be continued in office and hon. members over there came into office, they would be abandoned and get nothing out of it.

Yon told them, I suppose.

No, but they feared it. They had the same impression about the sympathy they would get from hon. members opposite that we have. My hon. friend, Senator Boydell, purchased a farm, and then later on the position was that he could not find any place to put them forward, and the Minister was then prepared to take them on their farm and place them on probationers. The hon. member has not taken any account of the repayments.

You would not give me the repayments.

You never asked for them.

I asked for papers.

I am not going to give you papers. The hon. member said these people had their salaries and their grants increased. Here was an opportunity of getting them settled not only on Zanddrift, but on larger holdings. There were 64 on Zanddrift, and others on adjacent land, where, if they properly conducted themselves, they would become beneficiaries. It was a great deal cheaper than the Opposition’s ventures of land settlement have been. If I could get more families settled at £300 a time, I should be very proud.

It is difficult for us to understand the mentality of hon. members opposite. They say that the Government does not do enough to solve unemployment, and the next moment they severely attack the Minister of Labour because his department is trying to place some of those people at Doornkop and Zanddrift. We must acknowledge that throughout the world the experience is that settling people is not an easy matter. Experience shows that settlement is expensive, and even in Australia and America they have found that the people placed on settlement’s cannot always remain there. Here we intended to put 100 families on Doornkop, and this has not even cost us £150,000, because the loss on Doornkop is not yet established. It may be that the loss will be very much less, Out at most it will amount to £150,000, and if it had been a success, it would have been worth much more than £150,000. In answer to the hon. member I still assert to-day that if those Natal members had not been out to poison the atmosphere about the Doornkop scheme, and if they had not tried, in all kinds of ways, to make it a failure, the scheme would have been in a good position to-day. Instead of hindering the success of the scheme, hon. members ought to have assisted it. If the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) wants to criticize the money spent on settlements, I want to ask him why he does not criticize other schemes as well. Hon. members possibly do not all know that this Government is responsible for £400,000 which was borrowed for the Umfolozi scheme. Up to the present the scheme has not yet paid interest, and we shall probably lose the money. Why do not hon. members complain about that? There are only 30 sugar planters on that scheme, and they are responsible for the £400,000. The previous Government started these obligations, and to make a success of the scheme the present Government had to increase the amount. We do not, however, hear a word to-day about the £400,000 spent there.

What is wrong with the Umfolosi?

Well, the scheme has never yet paid interest on the debt of £400,000, and it is possible that we may lose the whole, or a large portion, of the amount. Why do not hon. members remember that? Is it because English-speaking people are working at Umfolosi?

The hon. member cannot now make a budget speech.

The reports on Umfolosi show that there is just as much chance of failure there as on any other scheme. I wish the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) would understand that the present Government is concerned about unemployment, and that we are trying to improve the position by settlements such as those at Doornkop and Zanddrift, and the Government is ready to make sacrifices for the solution of the unemployment question. I must say that I, personally, am disappointed that the Government did not continue with Doornkop, because I still believe that a success could be made of it. In view of the fact that so much is required to keep the sugar industry going, I hope that we shall place some of the people who are out of work on the Natal sugar plantations. I know that if that happens then the same objection would be made by hon. members from Natal, because they would like to reserve them for the few sugar planters in Natal, although the whole country has to bear the burden of that industry.

The hon. Minister has not given the statement that the House has been waiting for in regard to unemployment, but, as I suppose we shall get it in due course, I shall not say anything further about it now. I want to ask the hon. Minister for some information about the head office of the department. There is one Labour adviser on a scale of £850, plus £86, the total cost being £936. The Minister and I have discussed the point already. The adviser referred to is Mr. “Tommy” Strachan, who used to be a M.L.A. for Pietermaritzburg (North) in the last Parliament. At the last election there were a number of casualties in the hon. Minister’s personal followers, and I suppose that Mr. Strachan received a political pension in the form of his appointment to this particular post. The hon. Minister seems to think that the answer to any possible criticism from these benches is to point out that the immediate predecessor of Mr. Strachan was another “Tommy,” namely, Mr. Orr, who had held the post of Minister of Finance many years ago under the Botha or Smuts Government, and subsequently was appointed to the post of a railway commissioner at, I suppose, the usual salary of £2,000. He said that any guilt that was thrown upon the present Government in regard to Mr. Strachan’s appointment was amply justified by the previous appointment of Mr. Orr.

Not guilt,

They spell it “gilt.”

They may even spell it “gelt,” In any case, that was apparently his justification. Let us consider the two cases. In the first place, Mr. Orr held a distinguished office in this country as Minister of Finance, which is probably the most important portfolio in the Cabinet, even more important than the portfolio of defence. He was appointed, quite justly and rightly, to serve for a limited period as one of the Railway Commission, just as the henchman and follower of the hon. the Minister with a far less distinguished record and position, the late member for Brakpan, and the would-be hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Bob Waterston) was also appointed a railway commissioner. In this case what do we find? A gentleman, a former member of this House, a close personal follower of the hon. Minister of Labour, is appointed to a post in the ministry of Labour under his former chief, as a member of the public service. I want to ask the hon. Minister one or two questions about that appointment. I want to ask if ever the Public Service Commission was asked to advise on that appointment. Was it asked to concur in the creation of the post, if it was a new post, or in its perpetuation if it was an old post? Was it asked to concur in the appointment of Mr. Strachan? If it was intended to make a new appointment from outside the service, and if it was thought that there was no servant in the civil service capable of filling the post, why was it not advertised? Why was the impression created that this was a job created for the purpose of providing a political pension to one of the present Minister’s erstwhile followers? If ever anything smacks of jobbery in regard to the public service of this country it is this particular post. I say nothing whatever about Mr. Strachan. He was one of the most genial men we had in this House, and we were all fond of him. But to get these henchmen appointed and Waterston promoted to the Railway Board—

Order. The hon. member must refer to the Labour vote.

I am referring to the Labour vote. I am referring to Mr. Strachan’s appointment. You have your appointment of Mr. Strachan in this particular case as a full time member of the public service. What can the Minister expect the civil service to think when, whenever an appointment of this sort is made to a highly-paid post, an ex-member of Parliament and an actual follower and a close personal friend of the Minister himself is appointed to serve under the Minister? This is upsetting all the best traditions of the service when a Minister brings in a friend and puts him in a job in his own department; in this or any other country this would be called a " piece of jobbery.” I have been trying to find out why the Zanddrift settlement was taken over from the Labour Department by the Lands Department. I put a question on the subject to an official and the only reason advanced was that the Department of Labour could not give land titles to the settlers, whereas the Land Department could. My intelligence rejects that as the only or principal reason for the transfer. Having regard to the unhappy history of other settlements schemes, it does seem that the real explanation is that the Labour Department, finding it impossible for it to carry out the scheme to a successful conclusion, asked the Land Department to take it over.

I have given you the reason; if you don’t believe it—

I have never expressed my disbelief, but the explanation does not seem to cover the whole of the case. However, if the Minister with his hand on his heart says that is the full explanation, I have nothing more to say. There is now a staff matter connected with the Minister’s department to which I wish to refer. Some 18 months ago, it was brought to my notice that there was a case of an apparent injustice in regard to a member of the staff of the Labour Department called Long. This young man was a second-grade clerk, and he had shown sufficient initiative, ability and intelligence to pass the M.A. examination of the University of South Africa while he was in the department, and to pursue certain researches that led to an offer by the Carnegie Trust, through its South African representatives, one of whom is Senator Loram, of a research scholarship to enable Long to go to America to study trade union conditions as they affect the negroes in the southern states. Long applied for leave—some months’ leave were due to him—but he was told by the head of the department that he—a second-grade clerk— could not be spared. However, he kept on hammering away in order to obtain leave, and he was informed by the Carnegie representatives that if he did not take up the scholarship at once, he would forfeit it. A friend of Long’s brought the matter to my notice, and I took it to Mr. Boydell, the then Minister of Labour, who treated the matter with every sympathy, sent for the papers, and gave his decision. First of all, he got an extension of six months in which the scholarship could be taken up from Senator Loram, and then wrote a ministerial order saying that at the end of the six months, provided Long’s services were satisfactory, he was to get his leave and be allowed to proceed to America. [Time limit extended.] When I came to Parliament at the beginning of this year I met Senator Boydell, and he said to me; “Do you know what the sequel to the Long case was?” I answered: “No.” Mr. Boydell replied: “At the end of the time, after Long put in his application to get his leave, I had been defeated and was no longer Minister of Labour. Long was not allowed to get his leave, and, as Col. Creswell knew nothing about the matter, Long resigned from the service in despair rather than forfeit the scholarship.” Mr. Boydell and I were exceedingly angry, and I went to see the present Minister of Labour, who received me courteously, as he always does. He sent for the papers from which it appeared that towards the end of the six months’ period within which Long’s application for leave was to be renewed, he was again told that he could not be spared, and, in the meantime, he had been moved to another office of the Labour Department, at Port Elizabeth, I think. The matter was the subject of correspondence for weeks, and during none of the time was the present Minister of Labour told of the previous ministerial decision in Long’s favour. Finally, despairing of obtaining satisfaction, that boy resigned and went to America, and until I brought the matter to the notice of the present Minister of Labour, he did not know what was being done. Evidently if a head of a department is determined not to grant leave to a member of his staff, he can always beat his Minister. What form of loyalty can you expect in the civil service under such conditions? I make no attack on the present Minister or his predecessor. Senator Boydell was most fair, and went out of his way to see the Carnegie Trust representatives, but the head of the department was determined that Long should not get that leave, and, as a result, this country has lost the services of one of the most promising young men of whom I have heard—a young man ambitious enough to make a special study of labour problems and who was thought worthy of being given a special scholarship to proceed to America. I do not know Long personally. The incident reveals a state of affairs which fills me with indignation, and makes me wonder where our civil service is going to. Any other Minister would be equally helpless if the head of his department desires to beat him.

The papers I showed the hon. member show that the young man was a hit precipitate in resigning. The sands had not by any means run out.

Why should they run out at all?

There are departmental difficulties, and it should have been brought to my notice when that young man’s resignation was accepted. I very much sympathize with what the hon. member said. As to the other point which has been raised, I take all the blame. Mr. Orr was Minister of Finance and when he left that office he thought he should be given a position on the Railway Board. Mr. Strachan did not fill the position of Minister of Finance, but he had better qualifications for the post he occupies; he had a lifelong association with labour, trade unions and industrial work. He had far Better qualifications than filling the high position of Minister of Finance.

Mr. Orr was the auditor-general of Natal for many years.

Yes. It may have been a qualification that he should have been the Minister of Finance. I am merely saying that Mr. Strachan had the qualifications for filling that post. It was one which had been filled by Mr. Ivan Walker, who besides his other qualities, had a great aptitude for business, and when he was appointed under-secretary, Mr. Strachan was appointed to do the work which Mr. Walker originally did; that is, to keep in close touch with industrial matters, and with disputes which arose; generally keeping in touch with labour matters. The Cabinet has not expressed its disapproval of the appointment. It was an appointment which I submitted to the Public Service Commission—I was guilty of that. Does my hon. friend, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who is smiling, mean to say that when they were in office they never made any suggestions to the Public Service Commission?

The Public Service Commission had the backbone to stand up against us.

Does not the present Public Service Commission have the backbone to stand up against us? They stand up against many a proposal I have made to them. No, that is unworthy, if I may say so, of my hon. friend, and it is not in his usual style at all. I go further, and say that if the Minister does not take sufficient interest to make suggestions to the Public Service Commission, he is not worthy of his job. Has he not to watch how the work is going on? He is perfectly right in making suggestions, and if they put them down, it is reported to Parliament. It is an unworthy suggestion that the Public Service Commission are mere puppets in our hands. How does the hon. member know?

I will tell the hon. the Minister. When the Government wanted to appoint Gen. Maritz as a welfare officer, the Public Service Commission said it was necessary, but ten weeks afterwards they said it was not.

In Namaqualand information was wanted, and when the work was done, why should we keep him on: There is no indication that the present Public Service Commission has not done its duty as well as the last one. As to Mr. Strachan, it is an exceedingly good appointment, and he is doing good service. As far as unemployment is concerned, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) mentioned that there are 3,000 men on our register in the Cape Peninsula and on the Rand. It is quite wrong. The position is there are two kinds of unemployment. There is one kind which is common in every civilized and industrial country. There is want of employment arising from depression and inactivity in the commercial world. When it exists among skilled persons, it is very difficult indeed in this country. It is a matter of comparatively small dimensions, but never a cause of great anxiety and trouble. In industries like the building industry, people draw in their horns, and there is a certain amount of unemployment; but there is another kind. You have, scattered through the country, families living in a comparative state of indigency, and you have a process going on throughout the country with the progress of agriculture of men farming more and more of their own lands, so that the opportunities of those who used to live as bywoners are being restricted. The tendency is for them, more arid more, to drift into the towns. It is a distinct process going on throughout the countryside in South Africa. A similar thing took place in Great Britain about 200 years ago, through the enclosure of the commonage. There the displaced men became farm labourers, but here the deep ingrained tradition denies this opportunity to the Europeans who are drifting into the towns. Here the position of farm labourer is taken by the native. This process has been going on for many years, but probably it has been accentuated of late. There are some 15,000 to 17,000 men on the railway and in other Government employment against whose conditions hon. members are continually protesting, but if hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, what would they do? They would supplant them with natives every time. Those men, under the policy carried out by hon. members opposite, would be added to the ranks of those who are unemployed.

And your Wage Board is doing precisely the same thing.

Nonsense, the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), with that immense commercial generosity which distinguishes him, is a member of that community that hates wage regulation, and accuses it of being responsible for unemployment. The Government has relieved the unemployment position to an enormous extent, and so far as the resources at our command will enable us, we have done everything possible, and we have also worked in co-operation with municipalities and provincial authorities. Durban, I am glad to say, has relieved us to some extent in the employment of able-bodied men.

Natal always does that.

No, it does not. It can be stingy too on occasion. I would like to mention an instance in the opposite direction—Potchefstroom. The municipality of Potchefstroom, I was informed, threw out of employment men who had been employed under them for from 15 to 18 years. If a municipality makes unemployed that way, I am certainly going to be exceedingly sticky about extending any subsidy to them.

That is a Nationalist constituency.

No, it is a constituency which recently elected a South African party provincial councillor. In this matter the provincial authorities and municipal authorities, and the Government, have a share, but it is a matter in which the private employer should also take his share, instead of telling me “This particular thing, my enterprise, is not a place to employ white labour, but my friend has an enterprise which is the place to employ white labour.” That is what goes on all the time. I hope to arrange with the Pretoria municipality in regard to certain works of theirs, to have their work done By European labour. If I can find any corporation or any contractor carrying out big works, and if I can make arrangements with them, on a subsidy basis, to use European workers, then I am not purely limited to municipal bodies and provincial authorities, and so on. I wish my words to be heard, but they are greeted with scorn by the hon. member for Newlands, who does not care a snap of the button about the poorer people of this country. But I believe there are many public-spirited men in this country who would employ European labour if they thought they could do so to advantage, if they were not filled with the delusion that European labour on unskilled work must cost more than native labour. In the Haartebeestpoort, area we have many miles of roads for the Department of Lands. The arrangement is that the estimated costs should be obtained by the Lands Department from the chief road engineer of the province. We build the roads, and I should recover from the Lands Department the estimated cost of native labour. It is absurd to pretend that Europeans cost 8s. or 9s. a day more than native labour. It depends on the ability put into the organizing of the work. There is never a more shameful and libellous reflection on white men than this idea that they will not work in this country. What is true is that the big bulk of employers will not go to the trouble to properly organize European labour so that it can produce economic results. The fault is not with the European labour, but with this superstition we suffer from that the same results cannot be got by European as by native labour. My business is to use every effort to get European labour employed instead of native labour; I am speaking of unskilled labour. I hope the appeal will be heard throughout the country. If we are going to stem what is really a national disease—the throwing of more and more people into the ranks of poor whites—it is not healthy or good or right that you should establish a sort of tradition, that every man who is out of work should wait until the Government can employ him. Private employers throughout the country, if they recognized their national duty, would be able to employ thousands of these persons, instead of crying out as they do for more and more native labour.

I did not intend to speak in this debate but when the Minister is guilty, I will not say of deliberately misleading the House, but of making statements which are not borne out by the fact—he has told us that white labour is as cheap as native labour, where the employer has the organizing ability to use that labour—I cannot understand it, unless the Government have not the organizing ability necessary to employ this labour. It has come out in connection with the Public Accounts Committee that in the afforestation schemes of this country, every acre afforested by white labour costs £16. and every acre afforested by native labour costs £4 per acre. I take it those must be correct figures given as they were by one of the heads of departments, and the only conclusion I can come to is that Ministers have such poor organizing ability that they cannot get the best out of European labour. Everyone wants to see the greatest possible employment given to white labour. Let the Government employ white labour; but let them run the railways and other departments on business lines; let the hon. Minister of Finance put aside a special sum on his estimates for the employment of white labour.

You might have a member of Parliament cheaper than a native if you go on that principle.

The Government should vote a special sum; let railways afforestation and the Labour Department show what they are spending on white labour, and show what the excess costs are over those for employment of native labour.

The hon. member cannot discuss the general policy of white labour.

I think you allowed the hon. Minister a very wide latitude in discussing the matter, but I do not intend to stress the point. It is nonsensical to say that the cost of white and native labour is the same. The Minister casts a slur on employers when he says that they employ native labour in preference to white labour because they cannot organize. It is an extraordinary thing that when other Ministers have replied to criticism, there has been a chorus of “hear, hears” from the back benches. The Minister is almost made to think he is a super man; but the long suffering Minister of Labour has stood up and replied to criticism and there has been a deathly silence behind him.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

They do not love the hon. Minister. Something has gone wrong. I do not know whether there should be a vacant space where he is sitting; whether they are not getting value for their money. If we are to employ white labour to the exclusion of native labour, then the Minister will create a very uneconomic state of affairs. I will ask the Minister if he will be good enough to make a statement and criticize these figures which have been given by other departments showing the actual cost of white and native labour. Do not tell us fairy stories that you can employ the one as economically and as cheaply in this country as the other.

In regard to the appointment of Mr. Strachan, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. The first question is, whether Mr. Walker’s post to which Mr. Strachan was appointed was a graded post in the public service? I should like to ask if there is no understudy in the office capable of filling the vacancy. If he tells me it was not so, I want to know the reasons. It is curious that there is no one trained to follow in the steps of a man who has been in charge of these duties so long that he has earned transfer to another post. I also want to know if this particular post is always to be regarded as one to be filled from outside. Further, I should like to know when Mr. Walker’s post became vacant, was he offered promotion or asked to move on, or was it a mere coincidence that the post became vacant at the same time that Mr. Strachan lost that election? It is too much of a coincidence to be accidental. I want to know in what circumstances did Mr. Walker move on, or was induced to move on. Finally, I would ask whether the Public Service Commission was consulted about Mr. Walker being induced to move on, and about the post which he filled, and at the same time, was it consulted about the Mr. Strachan’s appointment to the post.

The post of under-secretary in my department only became vacant by the regrettable death of Col. Muller, some months after the general election. When it became vacant, I certainly had no hesitation whatever in proposing the name of Mr. Walker for that post. In regard to the second question as to whether there was anyone else in the public service capable of filling it, I appointed Mr. Walker, in the first instance, from outside the service. So long as a post of that sort remains to be filled, and I am the incumbent of my present office, I shall always, so far as I can, get some one trustworthy to fill that post from outside the service, so that he comes into it fresh, not from the official, but from the unofficial, world, and from the rough and tumble outside. That is my personal policy.

What is the salary attached to that office?

You will see that in the estimates.

Is it a fact that quite a number of persons have been appointed from outside to other posts in the Labour Department, for instance to the posts of inspectors? Also I should like to ask whether the positions of the various inspectors in the Minister’s department are positions which also can only be filled from outside? Is it also a fact that there are men in the service who are capable of filling those positions, and that people from outside, people from trade union circles, have been appointed over their heads?

I should like to revert to the figures I quoted to the hon. the Minister which he brushed aside as being rubbish in his usual high-handed way. I referred to the auditor-general’s report and quoted therefrom which I shall quote again. It will be found on page 345—

Does the hon. the Minister deny that? No. The allowance was £150 in 1926, and £350 in 1929. The advance was more than doubled as the hon. the Minister will see by comparisons. The hon. the Minister does not deny that. He has, therefore, no justification for treating my remarks in the way he did. It is a most discourteous thing for him to tell me that I was talking rubbish. I was quoting the increased advances made from year to year from 1926 to 1929 as disclosed in the auditor-general’s report. The auditor-general’s report says that the Zanddrift advances have been more than doubled in the course of four years from £150 to £350. Does the Minister question that? I do not think the Minister should treat the remarks of hon. members in the way in which he treated the remarks I made in connection with these figures. It is not fair, and if I had not had the opportunity of getting up and correcting the hon. the Minister, a wrong impression might have got about. We come down to this, so far as Zanddrift is concerned. A bad debt has been made. That bad debt may be £20,000 or £30,000 or £40,000. We do not know. There must be a writing off of the amount. Until I further probe into the matter, I do not suppose the hon. the Minister will divulge the exact amount, but I shall get it from him in due course. Meantime, we come down to this, that the taxpayer is to be called upon to pay for the maladministration and mismanagement of the Zanddrift scheme, I want to ask the Minister to give the House some information regarding the settlement called Coetzeestroom. That is another very interesting position. My information is that it is occupied by natives or run by natives. There are some 150 natives there, and a European forester and two European foremen. In view of the unemployment that obtains in this country, it would be rather interesting to know why the Minister is filling up that settlement with natives, when we have thousands of Europeans looking for work.

It is not my settlement.

It is not your settlement? I expect it is one of your predecessor’s settlements. It sounds rather like one of your predecessor’s. I should like to ask if the Minister will do me the courtesy of making some inquiries and endeavouring to give me the information I ask. Coetzeestroom is a Government settlement in the Barberton district.

It has nothing to do with my department.

I would like to impress on the Minister the necessity of pushing on with the work colonies to the utmost. If the Minister will inquire from the boards of aid and the magistrates, he will find that we have many more won’t-works than he thinks. There are a great many of these people who swell the ranks of the unemployed, and cause a lot of trouble and irritation. They should be sent to a won’t-work colony. When we passed the Bill dealing with this question, we thought there would be a colony for such people, but unfortunately these won’t-works continue to enlarge the number of the unemployed, and to cause dissatisfaction. With regard to the forestry settlements, the conditions of entry lay down that a man must not be above the age of 45. One man said to me: “It seems that the law of Dinizulu is still in force, for if a man is over 45, and has not passed matriculation, which seems to be an ‘open sesame’ to everything in this country, then he is left stranded.” Obviously the Lands Department cannot possibly supply everybody with land, and the poorer people especially have no chance of obtaining allotments. Then, when they go to the railway Department, or to a forestry settlement to obtain work, they are informed that they are too old, because they are over 45 years of age. I ask the Minister and the Government what they intended to do with the men over 45. Men should be judged on their physical capabilities, and not on their age, as many men of 50 are more fitted to perform manual labour than are men 10 years their junior. The postmaster of Nelspruit has on his list of unemployed two men just over 45 years of age. Both of them have large families, arid as a result of the slackness in the building trade, they are unemployed but are really anxious to obtain work. At the forestry station, there is a lot to be done, such as transplanting, overseeing and police work which does not require great physical effort. At one of these stations I am informed that a native policeman is employed. Why could not that position be filled by a European? I appeal to the Minister and the Government to try to place these men over 45. There is one other matter to which I desire to draw attention, and I know that the Minister is anxious to meet me if possible. It concerns the trading stores at these settlements. The men are paid 6s. 4d. a day, but 4d. is deducted for housing allowance, leaving 6s., but if these stores are allowed to rob the people, it does not matter whether the men are paid 6s. or 10s. a day. The earning capacity of these people is not 6s. if the costs at these stores are 7s. or 8s. These people are on relief work, and if the Minister will consent to Government supply depôts, to pay them 5s. a day will be better than paying 6s. when they are charged so highly at these stores. These depôts should supply these people only with the necessities of life at cost price. If electricity can be supplied by the Electricity Commission at cost price, surely these depôts can supply these people with groceries and so forth, at cost price.

What do they charge for sugar?

I do not know the retail price of this, but probably these people will have to pay far too much, as the Government has protected the industry too much. I would rather they protected them less, so that the people could pay the price. Then a lot of the materials stocked at these stores is shoddy—bad boots for wet climates—because most of these settlements are in wet climates.

It is an arrangement entered into between my own department and the forestry department, largely necessitated by the very arduous character of the work, and for that able-bodied men are necessary. Undoubtedly age does tell. I would like to meet my hon. friend very much, but if you lay down an age limit, which is the rule, approximately, you must keep to it or you may get men not in the full vigour of life, and you will get a settlement of persons who are not in full vigour of life. As to the stores, I can assure my hon. friend we always keep a watch on them, and every time a cession is made the matter is carefully enquired into. It is one of the things I undertake to have a very thorough investigation into during the recess.

When the hon. the Minister promised to give us information as to unemployment we expected to hear some instructive suggestions from him as to how he proposed to solve this problem, but as usual we have had many platitudes, the usual wild remarks about how the blood-sucking employers are treading upon the people, but never a constructive suggestion as to how he is going to solve this unemployment problem. On many occasions he has told us how employers whine when they are asked to conform to the wage regulations, and how the business men of today are not equal to the business men of old days. It is not for me or other business men to make comparisons with the old days, hut there is this to be said that if the employers of the old days had to deal with the Minister of Labour of to-day they would give him a short shrift. With regard to the question of unemployment—by the way the Prime Minister stated unemployment to be non-existent a few months ago—I want to refer to the registrations which have taken place at the Labour bureaux. It is interesting to see how these figures have remained fairly constant during the last four years, in spite of the fact that it is frequently stated that there is no unemployment. In the year 1927 the monthly applications registered at the Labour bureaux and the Post Office, averaged 4,176. In 1928 the registrations were 4,284 per month, in 1929 they totalled 4,028 per month, and in January of this year, 1930, the number of applications were, 4,631, being roughly 600 over the average for last year. Although I have not got the latest figures, I am given to understand that the unemployment applications during the last two months are higher than those I have quoted. That being the case, I want to ask whether it does not go to show that the measures the Minister has taken are provoking and creating unemployment. The tendency of the Minister has been to adopt measures which must attract men from the rural areas to the urban centres. That must tend to increase unemployment. It is perfectly true that the Minister has undertaken certain schemes during the last year or two, and I propose to refer to one or two of them, and to criticize them from the point of view of whether the expenditure has been correctly charged, and whether the schemes themselves are sound. I want to take first of all the Oudekloof irrigation scheme, referred to in the Labour vote of last year. I do not want to criticize the irrigation scheme itself, but when this House is asked to spend £50,000 on labour relief vote, I think there should be some sound business methods behind it; I think the hon. Minister should show that organizing ability which he is so found of twitting us about. I have before me the annual report of the Irrigation commission for the year ending March, 1928, regarding Oudekloof. This project was submitted to the commission on the 8th April, 1927. The commission realized that it was not a feasible scheme and subsequently, in October, 1927, recommended that the scheme be not adopted. In the following year they made a similar recommendation. After making certain suggestions, they said—

Is the Labour Vote under discussion?

This amount was provided on the Labour loan vote for the relief of distress last year. I now want to ascertain from the Minister what progress has been made by the scheme which was dammed at the outset by the Government’s experts?

The hon. member cannot criticize the scheme itself; he must confine himself to discussing the administration of the vote.

The hon. member says the scheme is not being properly administered. That is not my department.

The Labour department has asked for the money, and has to account in this House for the scheme.

The Minister informs the Committee that he is not administering that scheme.

Will the Minister tell us who is the accounting officer for this Vote?

We hand over the money to Irrigation and they carry out the work. The Minister of Finance is not here. The House is fully aware that as an irrigation scheme, this was not at all an economic one. That was owing to the distress from unemployment, and rather than put them on a scheme of no value, they were put on to this.

The vote we are discussing comes under the head of the Labour Vote to be accounted for by the secretary for Labour. Whether or not for the purposes of administration, it is handed over to another department, surely this is the vote under which it should be discussed.

If the Minister assures the House that he has nothing to do with the spending of the money, then surely he cannot be responsible in any way for the Vote.

Does it not come under the heading of unemployed expenditure and advances, for which the Minister is responsible? If that is not so, how does the Minister come to ask for the Vote at all?

Unfortunately, I was not here when the discussion started, but I gave the House information on the matter on a former occasion. Last year, in the drought districts of the country, the position was very bad. In fact, hundreds of people, we know, were being fed by the Government. It was then possible to start these works in the districts, the Buchuberg and the Prince Albert schemes. Work of this nature could not be started, under our legislation, by the Irrigation Department, unless there was a report from the commission. The Government, however, decided to start these works purely as relief works, and they were put on the Labour Vote. We could not get the money at the time to start them as irrigation works. I may point out to hon. members that the whole question of irrigation and what is an economic rate, or what the subsidy should be is now the subject of investigation and legislation will have to be introduced. This will be adjusted later on. The adjustment will have to take place in the Treasury, where we shall find a resting-place for the expenditure. Under the amendment, it has to remain with this particular vote.

Who is responsible, the Minister of Labour?

There is no doubt about it that it can be discussed here. The hon. member will know that as far as the actual carrying out of irrigation works is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Irrigation controls that. Of course it can be discussed here, and for the moment it does not matter whether it is dealt with by the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Irrigation. In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman will rule that it can be discussed here.

Amendment put and agreed to.

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

With reference to a point that arose earlier in the day, I wish to state that I have ruled on previous occasions that matters could be discussed on the vote for the Minister who is responsible for the spending of the money concerned. In this case, although the money was voted under Labour last year, the whole sum was handed over to the Department of Irrigation, and the Minister of Labour had no control over the expenditure of the money. On the Irrigation vote, if the Committee so desires, I will allow hon. members to get all the necessary information, but it is clear that the Minister of Labour is not able to elucidate any point in connection with this question.

The money was voted last year on the understanding that it was to be accounted for by the Minister of Labour. If we change round like this, how is a member to know on which vote to raise these points?

Suppose the Minister of Irrigation takes a similar objection and is opposed to this matter being discussed when we reach his vote, then we should be—like Mahommed’s coffin—suspended between heaven and earth. Surely the Minister technically responsible for the expenditure should be responsible to this House. How can the Chairman allow this subject to be discussed under the Irrigation Bill?

The question can be discussed on the Irrigation Minister’s salary. The reason for discussion is to get information, but if a Minister cannot give the information it is unnecessary to discuss the question at all.

When I said that, when this amount was voted last year, it was to be accounted for by the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Labour interjected that that was not true.

If you want information as to the carrying out of the works I cannot give it.

My point is that the money is voted by this House to the account of. Labour, and it is for the Minister of Labour, under whose vote this is discussed.

As far as this amount is concerned, the work is being carried out by the Department of Irrigation, and I hand over the money on their requisition, but with the administration of irrigation we have nothing to do.

I think the Committee will appreciate that on the facts of the case the Minister of Labour cannot give the information, and I do not think the Committee can expect it from him, but the Chairman, I think, would be in order to allow the discussion on this vote, as it has been voted under the Minister of Labour. I am not saying your ruling is not correct, sir, but you would be entitled to say there could be discussion.

Perhaps, under another set of circumstances, the vote on which you say we can deal with the matter might have been passed by the Committee before we came to the vote on which we are. I submit that under these circumstances the Committee will be prevented from dealing with the matter at all.

May I just explain the position? I do not want to go into the merits of the question whether the matter should be discussed under this vote or under my vote. It would certainly be much more convenient to discuss it under the irrigation vote, because as far as the carrying out of the work is concerned the Irrigation Department is responsible; as far as the people employed there are concerned they are recruited by the Labour Department to do the work; but the whole of the money has been expended by the Irrigation Department.

Who fixes the rate of pay?

That is done by the Labour Department. It is all piece work.

If the irrigation vote had already been disposed of we would not have had an opportunity of discussing this matter, except on the Labour vote, and we might be told you could not allow this discussion, because the matter was being managed by the Irrigation Department. It shows the danger of departing from the practice of discussing a vote under the department to which it has been put. It is sometimes asked: “Under which particular item is the hon. member addressing the Chair?” Here an hon. member is addressing the Chair on an item under Labour. There is no rule which says that only one Minister may take part in a discussion on that, and it is quite competent for the Minister of Native Affairs to say that the Minister of Labour does not know much about this, and that he can answer. If we get away from discussing the matter under the vote in which it appears and transfer the discussion to a vote under which it does not appear, there is a great danger of confusion to members of the committee, and especially to new members. I can quite understand that we should discuss the vote under the Minister who spends the money; there is a certain amount of common sense in that. Why should we not be able to have this discussion on the Labour vote, and where the Minister of Labour says he does not know, as he has not spent the money, or is not spending it, his colleague is present and can answer.

Any other Minister cannot be forced to be present when the vote of one Minister is under discussion, and if the Minister whose vote is under discussion is unable to give information, another Minister cannot be forced to give it. But I am quite willing to allow this to be discussed now.

I hope that after this discussion the full time will be allowed me. I am not going to discuss the soundness of the scheme itself, but I want to discuss the extra expense involved because of treating this as an unemployment relief scheme. The commission went into this and made its remarks in 1929. They said in the course of their report—

Some £50,000 has been provided for on the estimates for that scheme, and I understand it is anticipated that a further large sum will be provided. How much of the money that has been provided for can be fairly attributed to the relief of distress, and how much of it should be treated and accounted for under the vote, and not as loan expenditure? By treating expenditure in this particular way we are concealing the true expenditure on the relief of distress each year, and unduly boosting up the loan funds. The true way to deal with this expenditure is to vote it each year. The next scheme is the Buchuberg scheme for £100,000. When schemes of this kind are included in the Labour vote, information should be given to the House as to what the cost will be. No information is given as to what the future commitment will be in regard to any of these irrigation schemes. Having received the sum of £100,000 on account of this, how much of the money will be rightly allocated to the relief of distress? Can the Minister give the House information as to how many settlers will be placed on the land as the result of these relief schemes? It is anticipated that these schemes will cost £500,000 and that some 200 families, I understand, will be placed on the land, which will work out at £3,000 per family. I should like the House to be informed to what expenditure it is to be committed to under that particular head. I want to deal for a few moments with the Wage Board, which the Minister has stated is the bugbear of a section of the business people of South Africa. I do not know that in some respects I would find fault with the Wage Board if they were operating and working as they were originally intended to do. I think the primary object was to create a board which would deal with sweated industries and businesses, and I do not think any member of this House would find fault with the board if they confined their operations to the sweated businesses and industries of this country. What they have done is to go very much further than that. The Wage Board have tried to set up a standardized wage throughout the whole of industry and commerce. They have endeavoured to fix a standard wage based upon a certain cost of living which is absolutely inflexible. The wage is to be fixed at a certain date, and the Minister is now forced to come to this House and ask for authority so that he will be able to suspend, vary or alter the wage determinations that are passed. That shows that there is a very grave weakness in the work of the Wage Board. I want to quote one or two instances to show how extraordinary are some of the measures they have taken in their wage determinations. In one of their determinations they pointed out the difficulty of fixing a wage determination owing to the varying cost of living figures in the different parts of the country, but they considered it fair and reasonable that there should be a discrimination in industry between the wages paid in different parts of the country, because of the variation in the cost of living in those areas. [Time limit.]

All the questions put to the Minister with regard to unemployment have been evaded by him. I had an insight into the manner in which the Minister deals with the unemployment question last August, and I regard with apprehension the attitude of the Minister towards this question in coming months. His attitude towards it in August was one of callous indifference. The unemployment question which arose in Cape Town at the time I refer to was a very minor matter compared with the problem which will confront the country in the near future. I do not blame the Government for the economic situation; it is a world situation. Other Governments, however, and other Parliaments are making provision to cope with the position. But not so with the Minister. We know that the economic situation is bound to accentuate the unemployment problem. It is bound to be a big national problem. I wish a more sympathetic Minister had to deal with this problem. We know that the spending power of the country is seriously reduced owing to the fall in the prices of primary products, and we know that the amount of business done in the country will be less. There will be a smaller turnover, and unemployment will ensue. When unemployment grows, as we know it will grow, the local authorities cannot be expected to deal with it. It is the central Government’s responsibility. The unemployed and their children cannot be allowed to starve while the Minister of Labour folds his arms and says the matter is something for others to attend to. He said that there was scope for civilized labour with the farmers, but that they did not employ them. Let me tell him that they are employed by farmers. I have employed these men at £8 per month and all found, and others have done the same. What right has the Minister to cast a slur on the farmers of the country in this way? The Minister took up the same attitude when he had the case put before him in Cape Town last August He said it was a matter for the rural people. Yet he ought to know that his colleague, the Minister of Railways, is replacing civilized labour in the rural areas in Natal with native labour. I put a question to the Minister, concerning this matter, and I was informed that it was for the men’s own benefit, but I have information from someone able to speak with authority on the subject. Listen to what he says in regard to this. The Minister had said that these men were transferred in their own interests—

With natives displacing civilized labourers on our railways is not the way to build up a white South Africa !

The hon. member can-Bot deal with the policy of the railways.

Does the Minister say that the railways are not displacing civilized labour with natives?

Don’t get excited.

I cannot help feeling very deeply, because I recognize it is an injustice, and I recognize the inefficiency of the Minister. It is common knowledge how the Minister bungled the question of unemployment. Why is not the Minister casting about for new avenues of employment? Other countries are doing it. They are starting new industries to deal with this question. Afforestation has been a success; why not treble it to meet this problem? South Africa is not bankrupt in the way for new avenues of employment. We have a right to ask what the Minister’s policy is, and I demand that the Minister should give as the policy of the Government in regard to dealing with unemployment.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) is heartily in sympathy with the poor people, although, of course, there are a few crocodile tears as well. I, however, want to say a few words in connection with the statements of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) about Zanddrift. He spoke about the purchase price of £30,300. Does he know the farm?

I do not want to know it.

I think he would be very thankful to be able to buy it for £30,000. It is one of the best farms in our district, and I would advise the hon. member just to go and look at it a little. He is a good farmer, and I do not want him to speak from hearsay, but that he should look at the farm where almost anything can be grown. The Labour Department has made a good buy. We are thankful that the Government is trying to put the people on the land. It possibly costs a little money, but every family that is given a farm is a gain to the country. The more people we draw out of the towns and put on the farms the better. I just want to say again what I said last night, viz: “Here say leads to a lot of lies.” I quite admit that there is unemployment to-day, and I do not think we shall ever entirely solve it. We see that there are between two and three million unemployed in Germany, five million in America and two million in England. There as a general depression and unemployment, and South Africa is undoubtedly better off than other countries. If we examine the figures, we find that under the previous Government it had risen to 120,00.

Where do you get the figures from?

Those are statistics. Under the previous Government the position was deplorable.

The position is exactly the same to-day.

I know they are feeling hurt because we tread on their corns, but I will continue to tread. They had relief works, and the position constantly got worse. Now the figures have dropped to 70,439, so that we have reduced unemployment by about hah.

It is ridiculous.

Those are the figures. But there is still unemployment to-day I admit. The position is that we chiefly get people between 50 and 65 years who are in difficulties. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) presumably never comes into touch with the people, and knows nothing about it. He only knows coolies.

It is untrue.

I can quite understand that he does not appreciate the position, but we come into touch with these people in Pretoria and Johannesburg, and also in Cape Town. In Pretoria there are about 300 people between 50 and 65 years who are in distress.

Many more.

I am speaking about something I know, because I come into daily touch with them. Anyone with a heart for the poor people comes into touch with them every day and possibly tries to give them food at his own expense. In Johannesburg there are between 1,000 and 2,000, and we are trying to assist them. As for the Department of Labour, I admit that there are some officials who do not have the sympathy for the people they ought to have. We feel that there ought to be a change. We shall never be able to provide work for all, but there is a section of our people who, owing to circumstances, are unsuited to any other work than work on the roads. In England you have the navvies, in Holland the polderworkers, and we in South Africa have a class of people who can only be used on the roads. This must be done, and they must be given permanent work there at a living wage. They must have proper housing, and must work on the roads under supervision. The Labour Department must be sympathetic towards them, and do something for them. When this Government came into office the Prime Minister issued a circular saying that we must follow a policy of civilized labour, and from that day file position improved. Thousands were employed on the railways, and many on the roads, but there is still a section unprovided for. I was glad to see that telegrams had been sent to Pretoria and Johannesburg to employ people on the roads. These people are not only Dutch-speaking, but also English-sneaking, and the Labour Department’ must assist as much as possible, but not by relief works; permanent work on the roads must be given, because the relief works demoralize the parents and the children and their children. [Time limit.]

In the first place, I must apologize to the Minister for having smiled at him this afternoon as I should have recognized that his nerves were in a rugged state. But that hardly justified the hon. Minister in savagely attacking me and saying I did not care a snap of the fingers for the poorer classes. I am sorry he has that opinion of me, but I do not think it is shared by others who know me better. Probably I am to blame as I am not accustomed to exhibit my bleeding heart as the Minister and others of his kind are so fond of doing, but I wonder if the working man prefers the silence of those like myself to the constant re-iteration of the hon. Minister and his followers that their hearts are continuously in a state of hemorrhage about working class conditions. The working man is now coming to the conclusion that all this loss of blood has not bettered his conditions one iota. The amount of unemployment is as bad. The sums of money voted annually for relief show no signs of decreasing. The working man is now reduced to appealing to Moscow against the Minister of Labour. One of the unwisest things the hon. Minister has done was to take office. I am thinking this from the Minister’s own point of view and in his own interests. As long as he remained a Labour leader he could put forward these fancy ideas of his, and everyone said: “How wonderful !” As soon as he got into the job in which he had to do something or be found out, then the trouble arose. Everybody in this House is remarkably sorry for the Minister of Labour. I believe there is genuine sorrow in this House that he was put into this very unfortunate position. So much for my indifference to the working classes, and the Minister’s statement in regard to it’. As regards my smiling, I am very sorry, but I can assure the hon. Minister that it is impossible for anyone with the slightest sense of humour to keep a straight face while he is doing an egg dance between his Labour professions of the past, and his strong Nationalist tendencies of to-day. It must be very difficult for him. I will do my best in future not to annoy him in such an unfortunate way. The Minister took up the position as Minister of Labour and said: “Would it not be better to pay white men in the Government employ 5s. a day rather than nothing at all?” Good gracious me! That would positively make the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) squirm. He has said in regard to white men being employed by other people that they must have ten or fifteen shillings a day or starve. The Minister of Labour has gone back upon that doctrine altogether. When the ordinary man gets up and points out that he should help in some way the semi-skilled man who has probably worked up to the age of 40 or 45 and has not had the opportunity of becoming a fully skilled man, then it is suggested that that man should be helped, and that he should have a job at 10s a day. But the hon. Minister says: “No, throw him out, do nothing for him, it’ is absolutely against my principles to allow that man to earn 10s. a day rather than starve.” When he is advocating the Government policy, he says that 5s. a day is enough. When he is talking of the man who has to put his hand in his own pocket and not into the taxpayers’ pocket, the Minister says: “Make them pay £1 a day or chuck the semi-skilled man out into the street and let him starve.” I suggest that the two doctrines expounded by the Minister do not square, and personally I laughed at the Minister. The Minister in the same speech used two diametrically opposed arguments to deal with two similar cases. Another point he suggested that the employers should engage more Europeans. That was another thing that made me smile. The Minister spoke for half-un-hour, and he never dreamt of mentioning the coloured man, who also has to earn a living and maintain a wife and family. The Minister did not care twopence what happened to the coloured man, hut he was very keen about employers taking on more Europeans. I know the majority of employers would much rather engage whites than any other class, and they do engage Europeans as far as they can, but there is this difficulty that employers cannot give work at an uneconomic wage, for if they did they would go to the wall in these days of keen competition. It is entirely different with the Government, however, for when they employ men in the Railway Department at an uneconomic wage the taxpayer pays. [Time limit.]

Owing to the numerous occasions on which the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) spoke to-day, he reminded me of my experience with Ford motorcars. Some of them backfired, others cross fired, some did not fire at all, and the hon. member reminded me of a stutta-ford. I have had more experience than any other member of this House in regard to unemployment. The question is a burning one, and unless more serious attention is given to the question on the Rand, something very unusual must happen there, and I am afraid it will necessitate a very unusual procedure to solve the question. I am very much afraid that it will mean not only feeding many people but a very serious concentration. The question of unemployment should be approached from the angle of the South African party organization which is purposely causing unemployment in order to down this Government. I am trying to show in my simple way the angle from which the unemployed question can be attacked. The more serious way in which it can be attacked is to crush out the South African party organization. Their organization goes so far as to come to this House—

The hon. member must discuss the vote now under consideration.

If you can allow the South African party to say that the Minister of Labour is to blame for unemployment surely I can be allowed to tell the House more truthfully that the South African party is responsible. I say there is a deliberate organization on foot to stand up in this House to damn the Government’s policy, and to attack the Minister of Labour for unemployment, which admittedly is rampant as the result of the South African party’s tactics. The mines employ on the surface alone 14,000 natives. Hundreds of men could be employed profitably by the mines, but simply because attention is directed against the Government and in favour of the propaganda to get the Government unbalanced [laughter], Hon. members can laugh if they like.

I cannot allow a budget debate now.

If the mines were sympathetic to the country, and if they paid a portion of the debt they owe to South Africa, because everything they possess is extracted from the country, they would to-morrow employ a thousand more men prontably. I can quote instances of men brought from overseas with as much knowledge of mining as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) and the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) have of a flea bite. I thought it was the business of the House to devise ways and means of finding work for the unemployed, but if this is a place for destructive criticism only then I will not speak. Show me one-tenth of the criticism from that side of the House during the whole of the budget debate, which has not been directed against the Minister of Labour.

The hon. member must only discuss the Labour vote.

I am, sir. I was saying the Opposition is not offering any constructive criticism against the Department of Labour. [Time limit.]

The apparent reduction in the vote for Labour has been brought about by the transference of a large amount to the Lands Department, so the Labour Department is still increasing its expenditure at a time when an appeal has been made by the Minister of Finance for economy in every branch of the Government. We are still pilling up expenses, and when he had an opportunity of reducing them, he appointed a Labour adviser. The whole point is not whether he is a suitable man or not, but whether he would have been appointed if he had not been defeated at the last election. Carnot the Minister reduce some of his staff? It was said at one time that the Government would set an example in reducing expenditure, but it has not done so. The Wage Board is also an expensive item. If the Act had been applied properly, to help the unskilled man, who has no organization, some good might have come out of it, but it has not been used in that aspect except in one instance. The much maligned commercial community have laid down in Port Elizabeth a minimum of 24s. per week whereas the Minister’s own department fixed a rate for Bloemfontein of only 21s. for natives. In Port Elizabeth the Wage Board forced a determination upon us regarding commercial employees. We had the skeleton of an employers’ association, and told the department it could be brought into operation in 24 hours, but this did not please the Minister of Labour. The employees had no organization, and therefore the Wage Board must come between us. It did not affect many of us, but it had a serious effect on firms who had large numbers of girls and young men in their employ who were not earning the Wage Board determination, and they lost their billets. Did the Minister find them a job? No, he did not. I do not blame the Minister in toto for all these muddles of land settlement and relief works, because one can understand his not understanding much about it. But I blame the whole Cabinet. Surely the Minister of Agriculture might help him, who has a Division of Economics, or the Minister of Irrigation might do so. Their lack of cooperation is perhaps reflected in the trapeze act cartoon we saw in the paper this morning. As to the white labour policy, I think it was the late Gen. Botha who introduced it many years ago. The Minister states that white labour is as cheap as native labour; but it you give me a native who is well fed, not half starved, and put him to work at 5s. against white labour at 10s. a day, you will find the native holding his own. By way of comparison the Minister gives us an estimate for a bit of road, but you know what Government estimates are. Why does he not quote the Economic and Wage Commission? It does not suit the Minister. They point out that for about 9,900 white labourers an additional expenditure of £300,000 was involved. They say it is possible to employ Europeans on work done by natives and secure a larger output, but the cost will be considerably higher. In Port Elizabeth an experiment was tried with regard to handling wool by means of white labour, but the cost was considerably higher than it was when native labour was employed. The Minister should not try to delude us by saving that white labour is as cheap as native labour, because it is’ not. I admit it is a good thing to find work for white people. We can employ our white labourers, however, on far more profitable work than the making of roads, on which they cannot live when they are finished, or by putting them on relief works, like Sanddrift and Oak Kloof. What is the good of putting men on work like than unless you settle them on the land, so that they do not become a burden? I suggested the other day that they should he put to work to stop soil erosion, clear out prickly pear and jointed cactus on land which the owners state it would not pay to clear. On that land it might be possible to settle our white people but this means too much trouble for the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the hardworking farmer who has allowed his land to be overgrown with those pests. [Time limit.]

We have been listening all day to speeches critizing the Government for not doing enough for the poor whites and the unemployed. We know that there has never been a Government that has done so much for the poor whites as this Government. We know that it was this Government that tackled the poor white question, and was then criticized by the Opposition. They even called the poor whites civilized vagrants. To-day they say that they are defending the poor whites and the unemployed. I am glad to hear it if they are really in earnest, but I fear it is only another case of trying to catch votes in the country.

The hon. member most keep to the vote.

We all realize that our workers are having a bad time, not only the townspeople but also the farmers experience great difficulties, and the Government has given its attention to the whole problem, and as to unemployment, I maintain that it is now only half as bad as it was during the South African party regime. Those of us who were already here then remember that the people chained themselves to the gallery and shouted, “Give us bread”; that happened during the South African party Government, but what has the present Government done for the poor-whites? Take, e.g., old age pensions, owing to which 48,000 people are now assisted. Ought not the country to be thankful for that.

The hon. member is wandering away from the vote.

The Government gives permanent appointments to these people on the railways, but the previous Government only established relief works. I quite agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) that those relief works were only a temporary solution, because when a road is completed, the people are once more unemployed. We felt that we must find permanent work for those people, and that is what this Government has done. I want to repeat that if my hon. friends opposite are really serious in their advocacy of the poor people, I appreciate it, but they will have to admit that the present Government has done a hundred per cent, more for the people than what the previous Government did.

I have listened to many of the speeches delivered to-night, and it was illuminating to hear the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) say that on this side of the House we are trying to embarrass the Government, when he ought to know that the Government have embarrassed themselves. It is astonishing to hear the hon. member say that unemployment is rampant in the country, seeing that the hon. the Minister says that there is no employment at all.

The Prime Minister said that.

It would be funny if there were no serious aspects to the matter. The hon. the Minister, speaking this afternoon, said that all the acts of the Government were good. The Minister slapped himself on the chest, and told the House what a fine fellow he is. I want to refer to a wage determination which affected the sweet industry. A firm in East London, who took the Minister at his own valuation, trusted him to such an extent that they fell in with the determination. They considered him a responsible man, and fell in with his determination, with the result that they have lost from £8,000 to £10,000. Employers in Cape Town who have not the same faith in the Minister as that trusting firm in East London went to the court, and the court decided against the Minister. Numbers of employees in Cape Town, who looked to the Minister and trusted him, said, “Here is the Minister of Labour with a wage determination. We are going to receive decent salaries.” But those poor employees have not received the wages that were their due. I don’t know whether this determination Bill brought in lately is to camouflage the Minister’s mistakes in the past, but what I want to ask him is this: Has he any degree of honesty? I expect he has; I hope he has, because there are those people in East London who have lost anything from £8,000 to £10,000, and I would like to know if he is going to recompense them. I would also like to ask the Minister what he is going to do for those poor employees whom he informed that he was going to give decent wages, and who have not got them. All this shows the hollowness of the scheme which, we were told, was so great and fine. I would like to refer to one other matter. The Minister tool? it upon himself to refer to an hon. member of this House in a manner which left the impression on my mind that this gentleman— a large employer of white people—was practically a blood-sucker Now I know the gentleman referred to has a large establishment employing numbers of white employees. I also know that these people are thoroughly satisfied with the wages paid and with the treatment generally extended to them. I would remind the House that there is a difference between a private employer who has to finance and carry on a business and a political employer of labour. The Minister this afternoon in a speech of fiery rhetoric invective said: “I am not addressing this House—I am addressing the country.” Well, I am not addressing the country, but I am addressing the Minister and would like to say a few words with regard to to the appointment of inspectors under the various activities carried on by the Department of Labour. Does the Minister always make these appointments from the ranks of men who understand their jobs? We have many men in the civil service who are perfectly capable of carrying out this work. [Time limit.]

As one who is not only keenly but actively interested in the unemployment problem, I want to deal with it from a different aspect. In this country, we have a very small white population as compared with the native population, and a large percentage of our white population are people who, through no fault of their own—through poverty —are to-day subjected to a condition that they cannot account for and that we must account for. Talking about the unemployed; when you feed them or find employment for them, you may have solved the problem in that respect, but it is the salvation of these people that counts so far as this country is concerned. Some few may be beyond redemption, but there is only one way to deal with this aspect of the question and that is by settlements. We have to get the people there as parents in order to get at their children; to bring them into an environment likely to lead to improvement of character, cleanliness and decency, and so that they may go to an educational school and later to a trade school and so qualify for good citizenship. We are dependent in this country, not so much on immigration but on the birthrate. Among the educated, and more cultured classes, the birthrate is small; but among the poorer people the birthrate is large. If we want to keep up the standard of civilization; if we want to keep up a standard of character which will help us to keep a white South Africa, we must see that they retain their sense of superiority over the coloured races of this country. That is the principal thing which appeals to me. It is little use to find fault with the Minister of Labour, who is only too anxious to uplift the working classes of this country.

It is most unfortunate that the portfolio of labour is coupled with that of defence. This is so important a matter—particularly the unemployment side of it— that it is fit for control by an individual Minister who would not have his attention misdirected or distracted by any other portfolio or any other consideration. I put it to the Cabinet that the control of employment and unemployment is such a tremendous responsibility—the bread and butter of the people and the uplifting of the people—these matters are so important that the time has arrived to urge upon the Cabinet the desirability of having a portfolio to deal with nothing else but these important questions. I do not propose to deal with the unemployment question at the moment, although that is perhaps the most serious question that can come before this House. I believe that we should clear the decks of all matters such as the question of inspectors, Doornkop, etc., and settle down to a real solid discussion of this question of unemployment. Therefore I propose to deal with one or two other matters quite apart from unemployment which come within the purview of the hon. gentleman and under his direction. Now, sir, I am going to clear the decks, but I do not propose to start on unemployment half-way through the ten minutes allotted to me. I have a word or two to say to hon. members who are finding fault with the appointment of certain individuals by the Labour Department, such as the appointment of Mr. Strachan. My quarrel with the hon. the Minister of Labour in years gone by, before I became a close associate of his in the Ministry, was that he did not appoint a sufficient number when he was starting this Labour Department, because on him rested the responsibility and the credit of having started the Labour Department. My complaint is that he did not appoint a sufficient number of people having trade union sympathies and trade union experience, and experience of the work-a-day world. He did not appoint a sufficient number of them in his department originally to run it. I feel perfectly certain that had he done so we should not have had one tithe of the mistakes that have been made. I regret that he did not do so. The extraordinary thing is that in those days he was of the opinion that there was not sufficient brain power in the trade union movement, and not sufficient men in the movement fully-qualified to undertake the responsibilities of office of that description. That is entirely wrong, as he proves himself when he presents solatiums to people who fell by the way, largely the same people who had trades union experiences of such a character that I am certain qualified them to help him to open up a department in which he himself was all at sea, because he had very little information and knowledge, especially of a practical character. They would have helped him to avoid making tremendous mistakes. I want to say this that no better appointment could have been made than that of Mr. Strachan. I am not going to be one of those who is prepared to bait the hon. Minister because he happened to have made that appointment. I want to deal with a thing which concerns me very much. It was an instance which occured this afternoon in relation to a speech by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson). It appears to me, first of all, in a minor degree at all events, to affect the constitutional question. I am rather concerned about constitutional questions. The hon. Minister stated to the member for Klip River that he had definitely and obstinately refused to allow him access to a certain file.

Shame.

That is a most dangerous precedent to set up. If there is anything a member of Parliament has the right to, it is to have access to files, unless there is a matter of extreme secrecy in them which the hon. Minister feels it is dangerous to allow the public to know. But where are we going to get to if hon. members are deprived of the necessary-information to enable them to arrive at definite conclusions upon the merits or demerits, as the case may be, of a particular case? It now rather throws a different light upon certain relationships I, personally, have had with the hon. gentleman. I have had numerous letters sent to me from men who have been out of work, and who are looking for employment, and who have complained to me about their condition. When I thought those letters interested the Department of Labour I sent them on to the Minister over my own initials. I have never had any acknowledgment of them. I have always thought it out this way: “I suppose he does not want to waste time when he is going into the matter, but it will be all right.” Now, I have a different view. After what the hon. Minister told the hon. member for Klip River, I have come to the conclusion that because he does not like the member for Klip River he would not give him any information, and because he does not like me he will take no notice of the letters I send him. I should like to ask, is that the right attitude that a Minister of the Crown should take up? Personalities should not enter into it. Whether the hon. Minister likes me or not, or whether he objects to the hon. member for Klip River or not, if he has not got any grounds for impugning the honesty, the veracity and honour of any member of this House in any communication with him, he has no right to withhold from him the ordinary courtesies which are expected from man to man. I am very suspicious of those hon. members who keep trotting out this Doornkop affair, because I am satisfied of this that the genesis of the Opposition, whatever may be the cause of it to-day, the genesis of the Opposition, was a desire on the part of certain interested parties to prevent that Doornkop scheme from being a success. I am satisfied of that, and therefore I am suspicious. Because of the confusion into which the whole business has got, including the Minister, I want to take the opportunity of urging upon the Minister a point of view which I know he held at one time. That is that he should cut the whole business and let us waste no more money. The hon. Minister is agreed that we stand committed not only to the interest, but we have to shoulder, as guarantors, the whole of the indebtedness, because, if our friend Mr. Rosenberg does not come up to scratch, the State will have to pay. Realizing that, why does not the Minister take the bull by the horns and make the Doornkop scheme into a real State scheme, a State settlement with a State sugar mill?

No, no.

I knew I should get into the ribs of hon. members whose concern in regard to Doornkop is to make it ineffective for fear of certain financial interests in Natal. Let us try it, and if you have one sugar mill like that, plus Umfolozi, in the same direction under the State, owned by the State, controlled and run by the State—

And the losses made by the State.

No losses. All this talk about losses leaves me stone cold. But if you do this you will have a healthy check upon the machinations of the sugar ring and the refineries of Natal. It is wonderful how the members for Natal spring to attention when this sort of question comes up. [Time limit.]

I do not think we can make much progress when so many charges and counter-charges are made. I could make charges against hon. members opposite, but the matter we are concerned with is too important, and I do not want to talk in a frivolous way about it. It is a fact that there is more unemployment within our borders to-day than a little while ago. The unemployment is chiefly found in large towns, but I find that recently there has also been a considerable rush from the various villages to the alluvial diggings, which shows that the position is bad. I want to say something in connection with the labour colony at Nuweburg. I understand that the Government has decided to close it down, and that there is a chance of it not being reopened. Some thousands of pounds have been spent there in preparing the colony, and it would be a great pity if all the money were wasted in the present circumstances, if the settlement cannot be used for something else. I, therefore, want to suggest to turn it into a plantation, and beneficially to use the houses, etc., that exist. It is necessary to do so. I learn that from fifty to seventy families have been placed there, and it would be a relief to a number of unemployed, who to-day see no other way out, and which the State will anyway have to assist later on. I hope that not only the Minister of Labour, but the whole Cabinet will give serious attention to the matter, and will see that the money is not wasted. I would like to say something about conditions on the diggings. The people are eagerly looking out for help, they do not want favours, and charity, but to be put into the position of doing something for themselves. They are hardworking people, and the best thing for them would possibly be if they can be employed on afforestation. The need is great, and they are people who in these circumstances are almost ready to go anywhere, and to accept any pay, as long as something is only done. The Minister will agree that it would be a crime against the public to allow the labour colony to lapse in the present circumstances, and to waste the money. It is said that the colony is being closed because there is too much rain, and the occupants cannot work on many days, or for full days. My information, however, is that the superintendent who was in charge of the colony was from the start the person who was not happy at the settlement, and made no attempt to prevent its being a failure, because he thought that the Minister would subsequently buy another place where he would probably be better satisfied, and possibly be able to make something out of it. He was, of course, disappointed in his expectations, but we also are disappointed, and I only hope the Minister will take my hint. There is another point of importance, especially to the Western Transvaal, viz.: that the Labour Department has appointed a welfare officer to be especially occupied at the diggings, who, according to my information, will possibly be recalled. That would be a great pity. Nowhere in the country are there more fewer unemployed than on the Lichtenburg diggings, and if the Labour Department wants to do anything there it must have an official, and the official must not have his office in one of the large towns hundreds of miles away. I hope the Minister does not think of recalling him. The people are in need, and winter is at hand. The Department is doing something there, even if it is on a small scale, and I am thankful something is being done, but I feel the Minister and the Government should do more, and in any case the welfare officer must not be recalled. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) followed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has asked the Minister for a statement of his policy regarding unemployment. The Minister gave the House a statement. I think I can say that the House heard that statement, and the country will read it to-morrow, with a very keen sense of dissatisfaction and disappointment. The country expected some indication of a policy to deal with the position —some constructive ideas, but we had to content ourselves with a few pious platitudes. We know that present conditions in regard to unemployment are by no means satisfactory; we get news from all parts of the country regarding the increasing numbers of the unemployed. We also know, and I think the Minister knows full well—and if he does not his advisers will tell him—that there are several factors which tend to make the position increasingly grave as time goes on. One of those factors was indicated by a statement which appeared in the press yesterday. The Minister of Finance has issued a circular stating that vacant posts in the civil service should not be filled in view of the financial stringency. When the Government gives such a lead, private employers will follow, and along those lines an increase of unemployment must come. Another very important factor has been suggested by the hon. member for Lichtenberg (Mr. Swanepoel). I refer to the position in regard to the diamond diggings. I do not think all hon. members quite realize how important a factor the diamond diggings have been, and are, in regard to unemployment. Perhaps it may be brought home if I just mention one point: that in the temporary schools at Lichtenburg, 2,700 children are to-day receiving primary education. That represents a factor of great social and educational importance to this country, and it also suggests the economic importance of the diggings to-day. It points to this: where the Government claims credit for the reduction of the amount of unemployment in recent times, that credit is largely the result of employment provided not by the Government, but by the forces of nature at the diamond diggings. But it suggests also that if the flood is to be turned back from the diamond diggings on to the towns, the question of unemployment will become very serious indeed. Those are some of the factors which tend to aggravate the position, and it does suggest that we do need some constructive ideas and a definite policy. But the Minister is content to trust to the Lord and to benevolent employers to provide, and he tells us we must go on hoping that the employers will be willing, to give employment to civilized labour to an increasing extent. The employers have responded to appeals of that kind in the past.

Have they?

The Minister, or his predecessor, has claimed that as a result of the appeals made, employers have responded to them in the past. But it is difficult to foresee the likelihood of that appeal of the Minister meeting with a considerable response at the present time and under the present circumstances, and we have a right to expect something more from the Minister to indicate how he is going to deal with the problem as it is to-day, and as it increases in gravity in the days that are to come. When we look at the Vote, the suggestion which will occur to one, in the first instance, is that the amount of unemployment in the country has decreased. The Vote falls into two parts. The first subsection, A to G, deals with administrative costs, where there is an increase, and the remaining sub-sections, H to P, deal with unemployment expenditure and advances, where there is a substantial decrease, rather more than 25 per cent. I know of course that there is no real decrease but that the expenditure is provided for somewhere else. But it is rather remarkable that while we have that decrease, we should have an increase in administrative costs. There is also an increase in the staff —not an increase merely in the industrial inspectorate, which might be justified, but in the head office staff. We have a right to ask why, when the activities of the department are diminishing, its administrative costs should be going up. On the other side—advances to unemployment—we get a decrease due as I have said mainly to the transfer of certain services to other departments. Certain services have been transferred in connection with the Hartebeestpoort area, to which I need not now refer. Another reduction is due to the failure of the Nuweberg scheme. In that connection I want to say in passing that I hope that the Minister in his reply will give some indication as to his policy with regard to the compulsory Work Colony Act. He has made one experiment which has been an unhappy one. We have been led to believe that work colonies are desirable and necessary; are we to assume, that because of the unfortunate experience of the Minister at Nuweberg, he is not trying again? We come then to the advances to the provincial administrations. In that connection the contribution towards the promotion of civilized labour has been reduced by something like £12,000. No doubt the Minister will be able to give a reason for the reduction; I know that it does not indicate a reduction in employment, but that the answer is to be found in whole or in part in the fact that a special grant of one million pounds has been made to the provinces on condition that civilized labour shall be employed. In this connection I should like to say a few words about the economic aspect of the policy of employing civilized labour on road construction. These grants to the provincial administrations are solely in respect of civilized labour on road construction. On that point the Minister knows there has been a good deal of correspondence and discussion between himself and his predecessors on the one hand, and the provincial administrations on the other. On the one hand it has been the policy of successive Ministers of Labour to secure increases in the number of European labourers employed at the expense of other people. On the other hand the provinces, assailed as they were by the public with the slogan “We want good roads,” felt that they should use such funds as they had on road construction, and not on the relief of distress. As a result of that controversy common cause has been found in regard to two points. It has been agreed that it is desirable to provide, as far as possible, avenues for civilized labour on road construction, and it has also been agreed that it is natural that the provinces should desire to conserve their available resources and make them go as far as possible in the matter of road construction. [Time limit.]

I think the committee ought to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) for having got this debate on to something which really matters, something the country is really looking to, and that the Minister may be able to deal with, without the extraneous matter which has been raised during the past two or three hours. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) indicated what the country really wants, and what the unemployed are anxious for—that is, what is the policy of the Government, with regard to unemployment. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has drawn attention to the increased cost in administration against a reduction in the amount for assistance towards unemployment. If the Minister is going to tell us that he is going to settle this problem of unemployment by increased expenditure in administration, then I can only say that he is playing with the problem. He blamed the municipality of Potchefstroom, who, I understand, have discharged about 40 white men, many of whom have been in the employment of the municipality for years, and in some cases for as long as fifteen years. He says to Potchefstroom, “Take those people back, and we will go fifty-fifty.” The Minister’s method of dealing with unemployment is to tell the municipality that the Government will give half the wages if the municipality will take these people back into their employ. That is no position for the Minister to take up. When the present Government first came into office, they took on many poor whites on the railways, but that is no excuse for the position which exists to-day. The official figures of the Labour Department show that we have 2,000 men unemployed in Johannesburg to-day, but that figure is not the true figure. Mr. Miller himself has 3aid that, although the official figure is 2,000, he quite believes that there are between 3,000 and 4,000. I said a few weeks ago that the unemployed in Johannesburg number between 5,000 and 6,000, and I am prepared to stand by that.

How do you prove it?

I take the figure of the department, the statement of the gentleman in charge with regard to it, and then my own experience in going around the town. There are many men who are unemployed in Johannesburg to-day who do not go to the Labour Department because they find that there is no encouragement or hope for them there. I do not blame the department; I blame the system. There is only one thing to be done. The Government has got to bring forward a scheme for insurance against unemployment. Insurance against unemployment is an established fact in Great Britain and in Australia. The unemployment situation is becoming acute, and all the more so because it is the son of the soil who is suffering, the English-speaking and the Afrikaans speaking born South African. Men who were born overseas who are out of employment go to some other country, whether they are English, German, Hollander or French. They go to New Zealand, Australia, the United States—

And Rhodesia.

Yes, and to Rhodesia in a small degree. I believe that to a certain extent we are faced with the economic problem as far as the native is concerned, but at this stage what we have to do is to say that every person out of employment in this country, who is able and willing to work, shall be placed under some control so that they may be secured against being out of work without means.

It is affecting to hear how concerned hon. members opposite now are at the fate of our poor people. I want, however, to show them what is going on under their Government. There were no less than 245 strikes under the Government of the Opposition. It cost no less than 2½ millions in wages, and it cost the Treasury £10,500,000. I also want to remind them that the present Government has done much to remedy and to save the position although their attempts were often met with sarcasm. There was great unemployment when the present Government came into office, but no less than 19,524 people were employed on the railways. In consequence of the protection policy of the Government 10,000 more people were employed in our factories. On the land and elsewhere about 16,000 made a living, so that under the present Government no less than 45,000 people have been given work. But this does not mean that there is an end to the matter, and that it is not one which is of the greatest importance to-day. Unemployment exists, and it is a cancer in our national life, which we must take effective steps to remedy. Our people are not educated enough to battle with conditions and changing circumstances. As the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) said the unemployed chiefly come from the countryside. They were not able to hold out against the droughts, and the changing circumstances made it impossible for them to compete in other directions. The result is that there is a stream of people to the towns and villages. The one way of assisting them is education, as tile hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) suggested, and to put them on to settlements. There ought to be three kinds of labour colonies. The first the labour colony, the second, the forced labour colony, and the third the penal colony. The first is intended for people who are anxious to work, the second for the loafer who is too lazy to work, and the third for people who have been convicted, such as persons who have been convicted for illicit liquor selling. It is demoralizing to them to put them into gaol, and we ought rather to try to put them into penal colonies. Another way of combating unemployment is the extension of our factories. The Government’s protection policy has already done a great deal in this direction, and since the commencement of the present Government our factory production has increased by 12 million pounds. As, e.g., we can take the establishment of the General Motors Factory at Port Elizabeth where hundreds of people are employed. When once the iron and steel factory is established then work will be found for hundreds of people. But the big question is that of our youth. Give them the right education, and the difficulty is, to a great extent, solved. We must get them into industrial institutions, and with a view to that our educational system must be changed. When the child leaves school he often finds himself on the streets without a living because he cannot use his hands, and often not his head either, what is the use of teaching our girls mathematics at school?

The hon. member is far away from the vote now.

I just want to suggest something. I only want to say that because the education is not effective we have many educated lads who possibly have the B.A. degree, who cannot find work. I hope the Minister will not blame me for it, but I want to bring to his notice that he ought also to give the church a share in the solution of the poor white question. We appreciate the fact that two of our ministers are serving on the Carnegie Commission. The church has already shown what it can do in this direction. We have the settlement at Kakamas, and a great deal is done for the orphans at Langlaagte. I hope the Government will also consult the church with regard to the solution of this problem, and give the church an opportunity of doing something.

I should like to continue my remarks on the question of the employment of civilized" labour on roads in its bearing on the unemployment problem. It has an important bearing on this matter, and indeed the employment of civilized labour on the roads has always been a stand-by of the Minister of Labour, and as far as the Transvaal is concerned it is doing a very great deal to help him in his present difficulties. My point is this, is such employment merely in the nature of relief work or of such a nature that it can be regarded as a final solution of the question? We have heard a good deal to-day on both sides in condemnation of relief works. Now when in the days of the previous Government civilized labour was employed on roads, it was called relief work; but when the present Government makes provision for the employment of civilized labour on roads, it is not relief work. This point needs careful investigation, and it raises the question of the cost at which civilized labour can be employed. On this point a certain amount of information has become available as time has gone on. The Minister has referred to certain experience attained in his department which suggested that the cost of road construction by European labour could be brought down to the same figure as by native labour. The Minister seems to be particularly fortunate in his experience because certainly up till a couple of years ago that was not the experience of any provincial administration and also not the experience of the Irrigation Department. Some few years ago one of the engineers of the Irrigation Department made detailed observations on this question and wrote a paper of considerable scientific merit, which suggested that the gap cm the economic side, between the two types of labour, must remain for a long time very considerable. The Minister of Labour has been fortunate in his experience; certainly more fortunate than the provincial administrations. And that being so it seems remarkable that when the Government had a million pounds to spend on road construction and desired to spend it by the employment of white labour, the Minister should have given that money to be spent by the provincial administrations, which, apparently cannot organize white labour satisfactorily, and should not rather have spent it through the Department of Labour which has had such admirable results in the employment of white labour on the roads. That is the more remarkable because the Department of Labour incurred a great deal of expenditure for equipment in connection with road work, and that equipment is now being allowed to rust. On this matter, however, further investigation is undoubtedly needed. On the one hand the experiment to which the Minister referred in his own department may perhaps be regarded as unique. On the other the experience of the provincial administration is vitiated by the fact that the works undertaken by it even of a small and scattered nature, do not provide a fair test. Eighteen months ago the Transvaal administration, together with the Department of Labour, agreed to embark on a policy to test this matter out, to find out whether under wise and sympathetic administration and by the concentration of the works this work could be done by European labour on an economic basis. I do not know what the result of the tests have been; but if I can judge by what the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) recently told the House the results are not eminently satisfactory, but perhaps on that point the Minister may be able to enlighten us

What tests are you referring to?

The employment of white labour on roads in considerable numbers in limited areas as on Springbok Flats, and in the Bethal district in order to test out the economic possibilities of these two forms of labour. This matter is of considerable importance from more points of view than one. I see, for instance, in the Transvaal, that a new departure has been taken recently in regard to road policy. A couple of years ago, a road fund was instituted in the Transvaal. It was instituted out of the proceeds of additional taxation on motor vehicles. The taxpayers were given very solemn assurances that the money would be very definitely ear-marked for road construction. Now, I understand, that the proceeds of the road fund are to be used for the construction of roads by white labour, if these tests have been satisfactory, and if it has been proved that the Minister’s contention is correct that road construction by white labour is possible, on an economic basis, as compared with road construction by native labour, no one will have any ground for complaint. Likewise, no one will have any ground for complaint if the Minister should subsidise these works. If, however, that is not the case, and it is the position that road construction by white labour costs a good deal more than road construction by native labour, the position is that the road fund in the Transvaal is being raided in order to provide for the relief of unemployment, a position that was never contemplated when the road fund was instituted. I have spoken so far in regard to the general question, but I wish to touch upon a matter of detail. Some 18 months ago quite an extraordinary thing happened in regard to the employment of Europeans on loads. The provincial administration in the Transvaal which had been employing Europeans on the roads in the Potchefstroom district, with a subsidy from the Department of Labour, had to suspend the works because its funds were exhausted. The department came along with the offer that it would pay the whole cost of those particular roads and find the whole amount of wages paid to those men, providing the provincial administration would continue to organize them. I should like to know very much whether that extraordinary arrangement is still continued, in other words, whether the Department of Labour is paying one particular province in respect of one particular piece of work the whole cost of the wages of those employed on that particular work, and if so, how the hon. Minister can possibly justify this particular procedure? I seem to remember that at one stage, on the decision of the Minister’s department, the wages of these particular employees were raised from 5s. a day to 5s. a day. I do not quite know why it was done. I was out of the country at the time. Certainly, we should like to know if that is being continued and whether, after the termination of the circumstances which gave rise to that increase, the wages were reduced to their former scale. [Time limit.]

The question now under discussion is certainly one of the most serious matters we could deal with. It cannot be argued away that there are a large number of people who are suffering, especially among our Afrikaans-speaking population, and it is no use throwing accusations at one another and saying: “You did so and so, and we have done otherwise.” We must try here to solve this serious question. There are hundreds of people to-day who, owing to drought and other circumstances, are very poor, and keep on trying to get work in order to alleviate their lot. We must try and find means of assisting the poor whites, and there are many that could be employed. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel) recommended that the labour colony, which is no longer to be continued, should be changed into a plantation. I agree with him that that is a good way of improving the position. The Government has already done a great deal since it came into office, but it remains a fact that we are still saddled with hundreds of people who cannot keep body and soul together, and who have to suffer hunger and go to their beds in tears. I admit that it is almost impossible to solve the poor white question, but it can be much alleviated. In my constituency, Ventersdorp, there is land along the Mooi River which is quite suited for afforestation, and where the Government could put people to work at little cost. There are farms along the Mooi River which cannot be used for any other purpose, but which are suited for afforestation There are hundreds of people, especially owing to the alluvial diggings no longer producing sufficient, who are not able to make a living, and the Government already has to give the people, in some places, food in order to keep them alive. If such places as those I have mentioned are now set aside for afforestation quite a lot of people could be given work, and they would, at any rate, temporarily be helped in their troubles. I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider whether he cannot undertake that matter.

I agree with several speakers that unemployment is the most important question that has been raised in this House for some time. We are not dealing now with the unemployment problem such as exists in Great Britain, the United States and other industrial countries. The Minister was right in saying that unemployment in this country arising from the contraction of industry is very small. What we are really dealing with is a festering sore. In 1906—I mention this to show that the problem is by no means a new one—the old Cape Parliament appointed a select committee to consider the question. That committee in the course of its report stated that the conviction had been forced upon it that the number of poor whites was increasing and the problem of finding a solution was daily assuming a more serious aspect. A commission was also appointed in the Transvaal, and it arrived at the same conclusion, and pointed out that unemployment was largely due to the fact that men grew up without being trained to work. When we read about the Johannesburg or Pretoria unemployed, we must remember that they are not local men, but have drifted into the towns from the land, and we have been encouraging that drift. A man came to me not very long ago to see if I could obtain him a job. He told me that he had come from a town in the Cape midlands, his minister having informed him that if he went to Germiston he could find work, and the minister gave him railway tickets for himself and family. Then country magistrates are advising these men to go into the towns, so that the drift of unemployed has been from the land into the industrial centres. A partial solution of the problem may be found by the establishment of relief works, but we must not rest content with that Hon. members opposite have been criticizing the Government over this matter, but the South African party should remember that they have 15 long years in which to tackle the problem, and they did not do it. That, however, does not justify the present Government for not having a very definite policy. I would like to offer a suggestion. These unemployed men should be encouraged to go back on to the land. I am not suggesting that you will ever make farmers of them, but you may teach their children to become farmers. Hon. members opposite, when they were in power, spent money galore on settlement schemes, which proved a failure owing to the fact that the men placed in them had never learned to work. I have a very important memorandum drawn up by Mr. van der Byl, who has a descendant in this House now. The report was framed in 1870, and shows how Mr. van der Byl, and other farmers in the Caledon district, attempted to employ these men; although they could not do much for the fathers, the children learned to work. The problem demands the attention of the entire Government. The Minister should form a labour army, combine these people into regiments, and start irrigation schemes. He should get the best engineering irrigation skill possible, and embark on some large irrigation works. Coupled with that, everything possible should be done to enable the farmers to make agriculture pay, and thus to be able to employ additional labour permanently. Then we should get the drift back again on to the land. These people are sons of the soil, and can never be absorbed into industry. We have tried to make miners of them; many failed, and a few succeeded until they contracted miners’ phthisis.

Have you ever farmed?

I suggest the Government should take steps to make it possible for farmers to employ these men by means of irrigation schemes and so on. I am only offering this information; I am not a farmer; I am a simple mechanic, and some of these men when we have got them young we have been able to train. On the Witwatersrand I have several young men working with me, and we have been able to make capable mechanics of them, but the bulk are men who have drifted in from the land and could not be taught anything in trade and industry, and we must make it our policy to draft them back to the country, and to make it possible for them to be employed on farms.

I can only regret that the Minister did not see fit to ask the committee to vote his salary on this vote, because then I would have had an opportunity of moving a reduction of it, and of speaking for forty minutes; not that that would have been sufficient to deal with his sins of omission and commission. People outside the House are wanting to know many things about the administration Of the Minister’s department.

Long winded?

They may be long winded, but they are very short of food. I should really like to know whether the statement the Minister made this afternoon was meant to be a comprehensive one on the question of unemployment, because, if one has to accept that bald statement as an answer to the criticisms raised, not only by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), but by hon. members on both sides of the House, then we are very disappointed indeed, because it was most unconvincing and evaded the true issue. The Minister contented himself with a few generalities and platitudes. Everyone knows that one of the greatest complications in our social system is the drift from the country to the towns, a process which happens in every country in the world. But what the country expects from the Minister was not a series of platitudes, but a comprehensive solution. We have been waiting many years for it. We were told about six years ago, before the 1924 election, that the solution was about to come if the Nationalists were returned to power, and the electors are surely entitled to ask what the Minister has done, what his present policy is, and where that policy is to lead us. This is a far more serious question than some hon. members opposite would lead us to believe. I was extremely surprised and pained to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Boekhuizen). It came strangely from him to hear that a portion of our people are fit only for road work. I feel, as an Afrikaner, that some sort of protest is necessary against such a statement from a responsible member of this House. I should have thought that the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) was the last person who would get up in this House and malign his fellow Afrikaners. As an Afrikaner I enter a protest against his statement. I ask the Minister of Labour what is his policy in regard to this question of unemployment. The Minister must not think that these criticisms come from a handful of irresponsible back benchers on this side of the House. We have heard this afternoon the voice of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius). The Minister may say it is only the still, small voice of the hon. member for Fordsburg, but it is the first sound in a rumble which will grow into such a deafening crescendo that it will drown the voice of the Minister. The hon. member for Fordsburg has the courage of his convictions, and he expresses the discontent which is gathering force. Other hon. members have attempted to make light of the feeling of discontent which exists, but they know that, despite all the protestations of the past, the hon. the Minister has signally failed to deal with this question of unemployment. I say that this matter is serious, because, as the hon. member for Fordsburg has told us, there are thousands of people who are unemployed, and who are in very grievous circumstances. The seriousness of the position is that these are the people who Were led to believe that if they only returned the present Government to power all would be Well. One is fully entitled to utter a protest tonight, not only against the Minister of Labour personally, but also against the Government, for the way in which they have misled the poorer classes of the community. We have a large number of people, particularly the Afrikaners in the country districts, who, unfortunately, because of their environment, are not as well off as others. The most blatant appeals to their sentiment have been made in the past by hon. members opposite, who told them during election times that they would obtain a living wage if only they supported the present Government. The most blatant political untruths have also been told in regard to the sentiments of members on this side of the House by members opposite and I do protest that, if this Government wishes to justify its existence, it should attempt in some measure to do something for these poor classes who exist in thousands in the country to-day. In a country such as South Africa with a small European population, there should be no problem of unemployment. Our European population is 1,500,000 more or less. There should be no unemployment in a population of this size. We are not faced with the difficulties of the older countries in Europe and in America. And if we come to examine the way in which nature has favoured South Africa, it becomes clear that it is utterly incongruous that we should be faced with unemployment, as we are to-day. Let me refer to Namaqualand—a region favoured by nature with innumerable mineral resources such as diamonds and copper; so favoured that the Treasury is expecting to derive millions of revenue from these sources—and yet a country in which at the present time we have thousands of people crying out for food. I cannot paint this picture in the lurid colours in which it was painted by the member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp), but I will draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this striking incongruity; that here you have a Government drawing millions from that region, yet the people of that region are crying out for assistance. A member of a well-known family in the north-west, who had been lured down to the Cape under the so-called civilized labour policy. [Time limit.]

There are one or two points I should like to deal with. I note on the estimates a provision is made for 29 industrial inspectors as against 20 last year. I should like to hear the Minister’s explanation of this increase in inspectors. Personally I hope his reply will be that, owing to these wage determinations, it has been necessary to increase his staff of inspectors; and, personally, considering the enormous number of wage determinations, which, I suppose, will now actually take effect, I almost doubt whether 29 Inspectors will be enough, because nothing is more disastrous than to put wage determinations on the statute book, and allow them to become a dead-letter or be observed by the more considerate employer and evaded by others; and that is the great danger in connection with the wage determinations which have already been arrived at. Owing to the mismanagement of the Labour Department a great hardsmp has been caused to many persons, both employers and employees, owing to these wage determinations being upset. Many employers paid wages at the rate laid down at the time by a determination and other employers have not paid those wages and the former have now found that the wage determinations were illegal and they have been paying out wages which their competitors have not had to pay, and their competitors have thereby gained an advantage. The only way to see that these Acts are carried out is by a thorough system of inspection, and I hope to hear from the hon. the Minister that the department is fully alive to that necessity. While I mention the Wage Acts, I should like to say one or two things about the Wages Board. I Have very little quarrel with the Wages Board as regards their handling of the unskilled labour force. But the Wages Board seem to be entirely oblivious of the fact that there are such things as economic conditions which must be complied with, otherwise they will do more harm than good. That is a grave difficulty. A fair instance of that was their attempt to apply a wage determination to the commercial employees. As far as the Wages Board is concerned, they seem to consider that the words “commercial employees” covered one industry in the same way that the masons’ industry covers all bricklayers, but they were entirely wrong. The difference in values of commercial employees are enormous, whereas in the case of the bricklayer, one may be more efficient than the other, but the trade union decides that trouble by insisting that a bricklayer shall only lay ‘x” number of bricks per day. If he lays any more, a brick drops on his head. The position of the commercial employees is entirely different. The range of value of the commercial employees is entirely different. One may be dear at £200 a year, and another may be cheap at £1,000. Therefore, the Wages Board ought to have taken that into consideration, and they ought not to have made a determination dealing with commercial employees simply as one whole. If they had taken the advice of people perfectly willing to give it, and honest advice at that, they would not have got into the trouble they did. As it was, there was more complaint from commercial employees than from the employers. It was the employees who complained, and not the employers. There is no doubt about it that a great many employees lost their jobs, especially in the cheaper classes of trade. I should like the hon. the Minister to point out to the Wage Board exactly what he pointed out to the House to-night, that is, that it is better for a man to get 10s. a day and not to starve, than it is for him to get nothing and to starve. If he did that, it would put some reason into the Wage Board people, You cannot get away from the difficulty in this country, or in any country where you start wage determinations, that in the initial stages there are a certain number of semi-skilled people. I am not talking of the younger generation, or the youths who have to learn their trade thoroughly and stand by the wage determination. It is up to the Wage Board to recognize that there are a considerable number of men who have earned their living out of a certain job for 10, 15 or 20 years, and if they are not thrust into the unskilled labour market, or have to go to the Minister to get work, but are treated leniently and decently, they can get on until their working days are ended. It is only a question of commonsense for, without doing an injustice to the people for whom you want to raise the wage scale, you can give these other men a chance to earn a living. [Time limit.]

I just want to say a few words more about this matter. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) asked me where I got the figures I quoted from. I will tell him, and he can, himself, go into this book, “Die Arbeidersvraagstuk in Suid-Afrika.” It is the best book that has yet appeared on the subject in this country.

Who wrote it?

Professor Botha, who graduated in Holland. In this book he mentions the various commissions of enquiry that were appointed in connection with those who needed help, and the poor whites, and shows that the name “poor white” was used for the first time in 1906. According to him there were about 67,000 poor whites in 1916, and the figure rose to 120,000. That was the position when the present Government came into office since when the figure has been reduced, so that to-day it is about 60,000.

Where do you get that figure?

We have given work on the railways, and also in other directions to the people.

There are 150,000 poor whites.

No, you are wrong. In 1922 under the South African party Government there were 7,900 people on relief work; in 1924 there were 10,600; in 1925 the number came down to 3,857, and in 1927 it was further reduced to 3,550. All persons were given work on the railways, and elsewhere, and in that way the number of unemployed and poor whites was reduced. I do not want to go into this question any further.

That is wise.

The hon. member thinks himself very wise, but self-praise is no recommendation. We have just had a speech by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). He is still young and full of vanity, he wears a red tie apparently to show his present love for those to whom red is symbolic. When he spoke here personally about poor whites, it was plain to us that he, as a young member, only knows a little about poor whites and has not been much in touch with them. I repeat that a section of our people are only suited to work on the road. We must assume that they want to do, and can do, that work. It is a hundred times better for them to work on the roads, and make a living, than to put them on to relief works which demoralizes them. I had the privilege to visit the labour colony at Nuweberg. I felt that we had passed the Bill to assist in solving the unemployment problem. I well remember that we pointed out to the then Minister of Labour that the success of the colony would depend on the overseer. The right man would have made a success of the colony. We now, however, find that people who are criminals were sent to the colony at Nuweberg. There is one man who has been sentenced nine times, another five, another seven, and yet another nine. Those people ought never to have been sent there.

Who sent them there?

The magistrates under the Department of Labour. I do not think the intention was to have that class of man there, and the magistrates made a mistake.

Parliament passed the Bill.

Yes, but the object was to send people there who did not want to work. If the object was to send criminals there, then I understood the position quite wrongly.

Who appointed the manager?

The manager is Capt. van Niekerk, and he was appointed by the Government. But what about it? He was an officer in the defence force, and the Government thought he was the right man. When a mistake is made we must admit it. The wrong people were sent there, and the wrong head was appointed. My own opinion was that Col. Bredell ought to have been appointed as head. We could not have had a better man for the position. He understands farming, and can maintain discipline. The labour colony was a failure, but I hope that the Minister of Labour will feel that such a colony is necessary. We, therefore, feel that the matter must be tackled. I am sorry that it is being turned into a party matter here. Unemployment is a national question.

But it is especially you who wants to make a party matter of it.

No, when I mentioned that the previous Government did not do its duty, I am not making a politcial matter of it. It is a national matter, and we must all assist in solving it. The Government is doing its best to give work to the people in all its departments. There are settlements at Losperfontein, Zanddrift and other places. We are doing all in our power, and therefore I feel that we must not abandon this labour colony, although it was a failure. [Time limit.)

It is rather late, and I see hon. members propose to discuss these matters for a long time to come, so I think I prefer to make a few remarks now rather than wait until the end.

When will that be?

There will be an end some time in the morning—about 2 or 3 o’clock.

Optimist !

I will first reply to what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has said in regard to the work colony. I have already explained why I closed it down, and I have a Bill of one clause for the purpose of remedying a vital defect in the Act, which is a provision that enables magistrates to commit to the work colony for an offence the cause of which is poverty. Instead of men who do not want to work being sent there, we have a number of men practically of a criminal class, and that is not the class of men for whom the colony was intended. With regard to the actual carrying out of the work, the place was first of all started as a forestry settlement. We were warned by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) in very exaggerated terms that the place was under snow for months, but we found that during the summer there was an excessive rainfall. We can shift some of it over the pass where the rainfall is less, but the trouble arose from the antipathy of supporters of the hon. member to having anything of that kind in their neighbourhood. As soon as I can, I hope to get that work colony into some shape. These gentlemen thought it was a terrible thing to have this work colony of poor whites there. The complaint was made that they would contaminate the stream, and they were much concerned at the idea of the river being polluted. It was said that some of these people were bathing, and when our superintendent went around to see, he found that it was a very distinguished inhabitant of this country. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr), who wanted to know more about what we are doing, I referred this afternoon to the fact that the employment of cheap kaffir labour is one of the principal causes of our trouble Hon. members have called my observations “platitudes,” but they are the truth as to the principal reason we have this problem before us. He has stated his belief that it is only by cheap labour that you can get sound results. Hon. members wanted to know what the Government is doing in regard to granting relief. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) said we had a large amount on the estimates for the provincial administration, while our administrative force has been increased. It has been increased, and the increase is for the provincial administration. The Government granted a large amount, a considerable proportion of which we anticipated would be spent in building roads with civilized labour. In this little demonstration this afternoon, may I acknowledge the testimonial which the party on the other side has paid me in their intense dislike to me in my political capacity; the party on that side which has displayed less interest and more indifference to the poorer classes of this country than the party over here. Look at the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), with that pleasant way of pointing out how obviously the experience I gave differed from their provincial experience, displaying in every tone, an absolute conviction that everyone who employed European labour, however skilfully, would spend more money than by employing natives in the sloppy way in which the provincial administrations employ them. The position, I am glad to say has changed, and from the present administrator of the Transvaal we do receive more assistance in maintaining the civilized labour policy. I would like to explain what we are doing in the administration of this grant. In the Transvaal we employed some 790 Europeans. The Transvaal administrator, I am glad to say, has got assistance now borrowed from my colleague, the Minister of Railways, in the person of one of the railway engineers, and I hope very much that there will be increased efficiency there, and that our money will go further than I feared it might do at the beginning of this year.

Do they get 5s, or 6s. a day?

They are working on piece work. The difference between relief work and the work that I am trying to do is that relief work is demoralizing, and you do not get either the educative effect, or the work, unless a man knows that he is being paid according to results. That gives him more chance to earn more. In the Free State there are a matter of about 200. In the Cape Province they have been rather slow in getting to work, as all these things have to be done through the divisional councils.

The divisional councils do not like it.

They are accessory to the idea. By devoting intelligence and skilful organization they cannot get anything like the value out of European labour as out of cheap and inefficient labour. Hon. members will remember a conference between the provincial administrations and myself, where it was agreed that the work should be done by piece work based on the railway schedule, which has been in vogue on the railways for seven or eight years. This has been tested, and it has been found that the men can earn decent wages. On railway construction, owing to the lack of the shortening of the railways, at the end of March, they were only employing 136 odd. There are other roads going on, and there will be a good many more within reach before very long. In Natal there are 170 employed there.

What can a man make per day?

Will it interest the hon. member to know that? Is he asking for information?

Yes.

In the Transvaal in one road the Silkaatsnek to Pretoria road, the maximum gang was getting 16s. 2d., the minimum 7s. 4d. and the average was 12s. On the Pretoria-Delmas Road, for the for night ending 15th February, the maximum was 18s. 9d., the minimum 4s. 5d., and the average was 10s. 3d. Let me say that by that thereby hangs a little tale. Those two best gangs are the best gangs from those roads at Brits, to which I referred this afternoon, where they had been under tuition and were trained and accustomed to the work, and according to our schedules on the Brits works, they were averaging between 9s. and 10s. per day. The earnings indicate to me that the schedule works very much less effectively under the provincial council administration than it does on our own works. In one district, there was defect in the application of the schedule with the result that some men, who received a meagre pittance, did more arduous work than men who were drawing larger sums. The average earnings of the Strandfontein road party were 8s. 10½ per day.

What was the minimum?

6s. 7d. and the maximum was 11s. 7d.

Is it true that one day the minimum was 2s. 6d.?

You do not expect me to know the average earnings every week for every party throughout the country? In the Free State, the average was 8s. 11d., and in Natal, the daily wages vary—5s. 8d., Sis. 1d., 6s. 7d., 7s., and 6s. 8d.

Is that all pick and shovel work?

Yes, the average is between 9s. and 10s. per day. Our policy is to encourage provincial and municipal authorities and to help them by subsidizing work, especially in the initial stages, if they hold out prospects of training men and if they will try to use civilized labour. It is not a sound policy that the Government should be the employer. If we can get rid of this traditional idea that it is only by using cheap kaffir labour you can get economical results, the problem will be eased immensely and patriotic and intelligent men feel that it is a duty they owe to the country to go to the trouble and expense of trying to employ more and more of their own flesh and blood, instead of continually howling for more and more natives. The people in the locality should make their municipal councils realize their responsibility in this matter, and I am not going to come to the assistance of municipalities who deliberately dismiss men who have been in their employ for a long time. For every kind of opportunity that occurs, and whenever my department hears of a big job being undertaken, we try to get into touch with the authorities concerned, and we see if, by halving with them and giving them some responsibility, and we give them some assistance, we can induce them to carry out that job with civilized labour, and give relief to a large number of men. Along those lines I shall proceed. I shall not be deterred by hon. members’ criticisms. This demonstration which has lasted several hours has not had one single constructive suggestion, and the keynote has been: “You cannot employ these people, without costing the country a great deal of money; you ought to employ them.” The party opposite do not care a snap of the fingers about the unemployment problem, and they have a closer connection with the big employers of labour than we have. The Government is determined to get over this difficulty and see that a larger proportion of Europeans will be employed than to-day, but hon. members opposite do not care about flesh and blood, they will not be troubled to alter their methods, and to assist in the difficulty of providing work for more people of their own flesh and blood.

This is one of the most momentous questions of the day; we ha ye waited for an expression of policy from the Minister, and have had nothing but a number of platitudes from him; we have had claptrap and a tremendous amount of rhetoric. How is he going to solve the problem? By putting the blame on everybody but on his own shoulders. He resents our criticism: and he forgets that half of the most serious criticism has come from his own side. I pity him and sympathize with him; he has been having a harassing job, and has earned his salary more during the last two days than any man for the last ten years.

He is not paid as Minister of Labour.

The hon. member of Newland (Mr. Stuttaford) has done more for the poorer classes of the country than the Minister in all his life. The Minister has talked of what he has done. When the commercial employees’ association combined with the employers’ association last year, in requesting the Minister to relieve them from a wage determination, he insisted on the determination being put into effect. The Minister was obstinate, and the result was that a considerable number of employees were driven into the streets, driven into poverty. Hon. members representing the poorer parts of the Cape Peninsula will tell you that many people suffered in this way at the hands of the Minister. The Minister insisted on going through with his academic theories, and I accuse him of having caused a large amount of pain and suffering to the poorer people of this country.

I did not intend taking part in this debate, but it seems that the debate is going to last late to-night, and as some members appear to be too tired to speak I had better give a little help now. The interest which is shown in this Bill is astonishing. The question arises with me whether it is actually the mistakes of the Labour Department that have elicited this long discussion. Is it, as the last speaker said, the Minister of Labour who is so inaccessible and who has thrown people out of work with the Wages Act? Is that true I believe not, because it is the first time in the history of South Africa that a Labour Department has been created, and I believe the department has done its best. I also believe that the people have made mistakes, but I think the people who work a great deal must make mistakes. It is a new department, and they have made mistakes, but throughout all the efforts of the department there has, nevertheless, been given work to 30,000 during the last five years. Has that ever happened in the history of South Africa as yes? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs, and does not like to hear that the question of unemployment has, to a great extent, been got rid of to-day. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) said this afternoon that when the present Government came into office there were 130,000 un employed. I think that figure a very conservative one, and that there were many more. But what is the position in our country in comparison with others? In Germany, where a great deal of work is done, the percentage of unemployed is 13.7, in Australia 10, in Denmark 19, in America 16, in England 9, in Holland 19, in Sweden 10—and until recently it was 17—and the figure for the Union is 6.30 per cent. We assume that 4 per cent, is a normal figure for any country. It is accepted in all industrial countries. Of course when we speak of unemployed, we do not always mean poor people. All the poor people are not unemployed. There are many poor people who are not unemployed. We talk about unemployed in the country, and we find that our figure is 6.30 per cent. Are there then so many mistakes made by the Department of Labour, and is the position which compares favourably with other countries due to the Department of Labour? Why all this interest? Why are no longer speeches made on this vote than on any ether vote? The reason is that the poor white question is very good water in which to catch political fish. I only recently received a letter from an hon. member of this House in connection with the poor white party. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) who speaks with so much concern about the matter also stated his views in connection with the central party, in which the poor whites could be a great help. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) also spoke about a new central party, who would find it very beneficial to have the poor whites on its side. Someone approached me with reference to the matter and asked if I would not corroborate. I asked him, “man, what are you going to do any more than the present Government has done for the poor whites, are you also in five years going to give 30,000 work?” He said that they could not undertake that, but that there was dissatisfaction among the poor people, and that our party had in 1924 made use of the dissatisfaction of those people, and that they were now going to make use of it as well. Here you have the great interest which is shown in the House about the poor white, and that movement in the country to organise the poor whites into a new party is behind the whole thing. Hon. members say that there is much dissatisfaction among the poor people, and I admit that much can be done for them. They got 3s. a day on the relief work under the Government of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and they now get 5s. to 6s., and an agitation is going on at present about their “scandalous” wages. On the one hand, the Opposition say that we spend too much money, and on the other that we ought to give these people a higher wage, that more people ought to be employed, and that they ought to be paid a living wage. It is wonderful always to hear it said that we must put the people on to the lands. Let us put the idea out of our heads that we can make a farmer of everybody. There is no country in the world that can exist solely on production. The great mistake in our country is that we are backward in industrial matters. This side of the House is not to blame for the insufficiency of factories in the country. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member who has just spoken has indicated definitely why his party views this question of the poor white of such importance. He has definitely stated that there is an indication here that the whole discussion of this unemployed question is simply because we on this side are out to get the poor white vote. By inference he has indicated that his side of the House views as of outstanding importance the fact that they must hang on to it. It is unfortunate that the speeches on the other side have definitely been made with the object of making out that members on this side have no sympathy with the poor white and have no sincere feelings so far as unemployment is concerned. I say that even the Minister has suggested that we on this side are callous where the poor are concerned. I think the majority of members on this side of the House can speak from experience. They were not born to the comfortable walks in life as suggested by the Minister. They are ordinary South Africans who have been through the mill and know the difficulties to which the poor whites are passing. I say that the Minister of Labour has definitely proved that he has not the grip of affairs connected with his department that he should have. His replies to the various speeches this afternoon and this evening indicate that definitely by its evasiveness. That is a very serious statement to make. I make it in all sincerity and with due consideration. I believe it is mainly because the Minister is burdened with another portfolio, that of defence. Because of that he has to give divided attention to his work. The portfolio of Labour is so important that I support the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) when he said that it should be set aside as a portfolio worthy of the consideration of one man only. There has been much discussion on unemployment, but on no ground that I can see can the Government and its supporters claim credit for viewing the question from a national standpoint. Their idea is merely a party one, and while they call themselves nationalists, they are so in name only. They do not understand true patriotism and true nationalism but use the terms for party purposes. We on this side of the House may have our faults, but on this question of poor whites we have been sincere. The Prime Minister said that he was going to solve the problem, but even now we have not a clear survey of the position, and you have to go back to the van Heerden report to find a clear idea of the magnitude of the poor white question. The latest information we have is contained in Professor’s Macmillan’s report and lectures on this question, so that it is difficult to judge whether the position has improved. It is about time the Government found out de, finitely how far-reaching the problem of the poor whites has become. An immense amount of ignorance has been displayed during the discussion of employing poor whites on public works. The Minister has boasted that the engineers of the Government were now able to construct roads by white labour just as cheaply as if the work were done by native labour. He quoted Durban as an instance, but it cost Durban 50 per cent, more to have works built by Europeans than by natives. But we are paying the difference, thus showing that the English-speaking towns are carrying their share of the burden. The trouble is that the department never planned ahead, and that is why I say the department, when it tackles a job, gets into difficulties halfway through. We do not say the Minister is responsible altogether, but I do say that he has not the best advice in the works sections of his department.

I move—

I have heard from the Government side that this is looked upon as a national question, and also from this side. We say it is a national question, and it being an admitted fact that unemployment has reached a stage which gives concern to everybody in the House, it is unfair to the country, to the House and certainly to the great army of unemployed that we should be playing for time, as it were, instead of having a generous, honest debate. I have spoken on several occasions, but owing to the ten minute rule I was able to make only one constructive suggestion, and I have two or three more. We on these benches have suggestions to make which will meet the position.

I should like to support the motion. For two nights we have sat late, and the Prime Minister cannot say that there has been undue talk, much less anything that could possibly savour of organized obstruction. We have to sit five nights a week, and we are but human. The Minister of Labour has reached the stage when he cannot give his mind to further discussion on this matter. What the hon. member who has just sat down says is perfectly true; we cannot in a tired House give proper consideration to this matter.

It is only a waste of time to discuss this matter in this way. If the hon. member really wanted to raise a question of policy he had his opportunity yesterday afternoon.

I hope the Prime Minister will not agree to the adjournment of the debate. I have to sit here this evening for the pleasure of the Opposition and listen to the greatest nonsense in the world, and now, at midnight, they want to report progress. I trust the motion will not be agreed to.

I must urge upon the Minister that it is rather an unfair advantage that he is taking when he says that, because some members did not take the opportunity of addressing the House upon his salary, which happens to be as Minister of Defence, they are therefore to be barred now. Is it fair to the very men we are discussing; the unemployed, that at midnight we should be considering a matter of such vital importance to them, and incidentally of vital importance to the whole country.

Vital importance? We have been here the whole of the day.

The hon. member’s interjection is an illustration of the truth of what we say. The hon. member has got into such a jaded condition that his nerves are jangled, and he is prepared, without any cause whatsoever, to get angry with me. Why? Because I am drawing attention to the importance of the subject.

Don’t be personal.

The hon. member was personal, not I Let us get away from that. I would remind the Minister of Labour that it is peculiar to labour that we should discuss the matter on the Labour Vote. How would this matter have been contemplated if the reduction of the Minister’s salary had been moved when he was talking of machine guns and camping at Potchefstroom; to sandwich the serious position in South Africa in between machine guns and tents. I want to direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that the unemployment problem is more important than anything else the House can discuss, and the Minister in the old days used to say the same thing. Is it fair that we should be discussing that at a time when we cannot bring the freshness of our minds to bear on the problem ? I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision. I think they get into the habit of rushing these votes through. I do not care if he gets half a dozen votes through if they are unimportant; but this is a matter for calm consideration, and not one for discussion when hon. members are fatigued. Our friend has said that he has a solution; I flatter myself I can make suggestions to the Minister. It is not fair that the Minister should decide that no further discussion should take place.

I just want to say a few words on the matter, and also to ask the Minister to agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). We think that it is quite unfair that we should sit in the small hours of the morning to debate such important matters. I want seriously to ask the Minister to give us a chance to come back to the House fresh to-morrow to debate the matter. I, personally, represent a constituency where there are many poor people, and I shall have much to say about the matter. Give us an opportunity to debate the matter thoroughly morrow.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour on bringing Labour Day into effect. Nothing could be more appropriate that that this House for the first time in its history should inaugurate a discussion on unemployment on Labour Day, it now being May 1st.

A labour muddle on Labour Day.

We are starting in this House a discussion on the fundamental right of all labour—the right to work. We are not going to count the hours we are spending on discussing this question, for we think the subject is deserving of far more consideration than it has received by the Government. The unemployed demand either work or maintenance, and that is my May Day message to the Minister, to the House and to the country. When it is suggested that insurance may be the best means of dealing with the difficulty, the Minister may reply that England has a large number of unemployed despite her system of unemployed insurance. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) said, “Put the people back on the land,” but the gerat bulk of the unemployed in Johannesburg are the children of people who come from the land, and to suggest that all the children of bywoners should be put back on the land is not possible, or to send back the children of industrialized people. It is simply playing with the position. The road programme about which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) spoke leads nowhere as far as unemployment is concerned. This question should be entirely in the hands of the Minister, and there should be no other work attached. Clause 4 of the Customs Act definitely lays down that protection can be taken away from any industry that is not carried on on the basis of civilized labour or of the fair wage clause. I can point out a number of industries which are not entitled to that protection. If the Minister was free from defence and those other responsibilities, he could go into this. I have heard that there is 86 per cent, of white labour as far as the Port Elizabeth boot industries are concerned, but in a number of industries it is the reverse. In your boasted sugar industry, I question very much if there is any proportion of civilized labour, besides overseers and people in the offices and so on. The sugar industry is bolstered up, and the Minister of Labour could take up the question of the sugar and other industries with the Minister of Finance. If the Minister would do that I am satisfied a great deal could be done. The hon. member tor Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) sidetracked the question of unemployment, and dealt with the poor white question. These questions may be similar. When we go into the country districts the unemployment question becomes the poor white question. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) said that the Nationalist party was only national in name, but not at all patriotic. He made out in his speech that the other side are excellent patriots, who have the interests of the poor man at heart. I want to ask him how he explains it, and how he can abide by that charge in view of his speech on the 21st April, 1930, at the Junior Sap congress. He said—

There you have the patriotism. When they are amongst the richer classes then the poor whites are stamped as uneducated and ignorant. Here in the House where they try to make political capital of the question they plead for the poor whites. While the hon. member was speaking, I could not help seeing two men standing, the man who had spoken at the Congress, and the man who was now speaking here. I must say that his attitude throws serious blame on the policy of the South African party. It reminded me a great deal of the Jew who always gave his horse less food with the object of training the horse to eat less; when one morning he found his horse dead he said, “What a pity, now that he can almost get on without food he dies.” The South African party has constantly given less, until they were so dead that they got no more votes, but now this afternoon they are trying to instil fresh life into the dead horse by their interest in the poor man.

The hon. member must keep to the vote.

Hon. members opposite have much more influence with the Witwatersrand mines than we. Why do they not see to it that the 40,000 natives who do not want to work underground, and who, therefore, want nothing there, are discharged, and that 1,000 white people are employed? That is constructive The hon. member for South Peninsula said that something constructive must be suggested. He asked what the policy of the Government was. What is the policy in other parts of the world? That kind of destructive criticism leads to nothing, and certainly not to a solution. Instead of making an attempt to solve the question, they prefer to make efforts to render the position worse, so that the clatter can be kept going. The Minister rightly said that the industries are not run on business lines, and that there is much extravagance, so that they cannot employ more whites. There are cases on the mines where people come from overseas who have never seen a mine, and who are put at the head of a gold mine, over people who have been working under ground for ten to fifteen years. Those newcomers must supervise the people and give a lead. The result is that the profits of the mines disappear, and the whole business organisation collapses. For the sake of one, two or three persons hundreds of poor people have to suffer. If, however, the people get on to the street owing to the method of their friends then a fuss is once more made on the other side of the House, but they are not serious in looking for a solution. If they are in earnest then they should first exhibit a different spirit. I admit that the position is serious. In Jeppestown a shopkeeper fed no less than three hundred people with the result that the people who were better off boycotted his shop. They were afraid of also being counted among those who were getting free food. In his attempt to do good the man almost lost his whole business.

I should have thought the Minister would have sympathized with our anxiety to bring fresh minds to bear on this question, because I see in the papers—of course the papers do not always tell the truth—

Was it the rising “Sun”?

No, it was not the rising “Sun”; it was the descending “Star”, I see that the Minister of Defence attended a banquet at Potchefstroom on the occasion of the week’s training at Easter, and on the following morning, the Minister of Labour had to interview a deputation of unemployed, but he said that he was much too tired to discuss the matter with them. That was reported, and if we had to-morrow to discuss the matter properly, the Minister might be able to dispose of it.

Will the hon. member allow me to deny that statement?

But the hon. the Minister banqueted while the unemployed got nothing to eat. That is the seriousness of the question. I must repeat that the Minister was too tired as the Minister of Labour to discuss this matter at length with the unemployed.

Does the hon. member not believe my word?

Oh, yes, I accept it. On an occasion like this, it is rather unworthy of the hon. the Minister to make gibes of the description he was, and appealing to the ignorance of his supporters.

Your gibe was that the unemployed are not getting enough to eat.

I think it was a statement of fact. Will the hon. the Minister deny that as he denied the other statement? I will make some suggestion to the hon. the Minister for dealing with the unemployed question. I congratulate him upon his courage in attacking the old traditional belief that you cannot conduct your South African work except by natives. I congratulate him on that, but I fear that he will have the utmost difficulty in instilling that belief into the minds of hon. members behind him. I shall tell the hon. the Minister how he can put his principles into force. I believe he still holds the principles he held before. He should endeavour to use his influence with his colleagues in the Cabinet to institute something that his own conference passed at the beginning of this year, namely, a ten shillings minimum for unskilled labour in South Africa. If that is done, all this dependence on the native will fade away. If you would establish a fundamental rate in South Africa for unskilled labour of 10s. a day, then you have wiped away all the effect of cheap native labour, and you will at once put the industries upon a sound footing and a sound basis. I think that the assevations of hon. members on this side of the House on the unemployed question are so much eyewash. I do not think that they have any interest in the matter whatever.

Oh, oh !

I do think so. As the hon. the Minister rightly says, the friends of hon. members on this side of the House who are in the position of employing the people of the country, are themselves deliberately occupied in making the unemployment question worse than it is.

No, no.

We had members of the Opposition girding at the effects of the Wage Act. They said that it had resulted in throwing a large number of people out of work, but the employers themselves were responsible for throwing these people—men and women—out of employment.

They would probably have gone out themselves.

No, workers do not like to throw up their jobs. I speak from personal experience. The superstructure of society is built up on the spending capacity of the workmen and industry is dependent on the worker. The Wage Act only establishes a decent standard of pay. Hon. members on the Opposition side, and their friends took advantage of the occasion because the Act made them pay a decent wage. I know that every opportunity was seized upon by employers to get rid of men. The Minister should urge upon his colleagues the institution in the near future of a real state bank.

The statement that our people should all go to the countryside to get assistance is, in my opinion, entirely wrong. There are many of them whom we will never get to do agricultural work. I, therefore, want to suggest something. Some of them will still succeed on the land, and for their sakes I want to ask the Minister to try the probationer lessee system. It was tried before his time, and again by him, and it was, not an entire success. But I would like him to tackle it again. I do not now want to go into details here. If the Minister wishes I will give them to him privately. If we give better support to the farmer, make better inspection and keep in touch with the people, if necessary, by means of local commissions who will do the work gratis, then we can make a success of it. There are people in the office of the department who are in touch with the countryside, and if the Minister will restart probationer lessees, and provide such a link then much more can be done. But I also want to speak about those who will not succeed on the countryside, and who are unemployed because our industries are badly developed. I do not think the Afrikaner is worse than other people, or that our people are on the average too bad to work. What I do believe is that people have special application. It is wrong to think that a person must be a farmer simply because he is the son of a farmer. Children of the same parent differ from each other. If our country were more developed then it would be possible for all our people to choose an occupation to which they were fitted. That is, however, not the case, and what are we to do in the meantime. An amount has been voted for the making of roads. £300,000 is now being spent, but in the Transvaal it only provides work for 900 people, and that is not at all enough. As the commission has recommended that roads should be made we must tackle that matter on a large scale. As the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) said there is a section of our people who are suited to that work, just as the navvy in England is suited to his work. I do not want to insult those people, but that is their metier and we must give them work and make better provision for our people. The percentage of poor whites in our country is not so large as in others. The number has been tremendously decreased, and the Government deserves all praise for what it has done, but do not let us close our eyes to the fact that there are still many poor whites in the country. We must make provision for assistance for these people. I do not agree with the Minister in connection with the Town Council of Potchefstroom, and I want to ask him not to get angry. He ought rather to reconsider whether he cannot meet the Town Council again. He should enquire if he cannot give more money so that the people can stop in employment. I will give him all the help I can in connection with this difficult matter.

I do wish the Minister would realize that in our efforts to have the debate adjourned we are doing so from serious motives. I, personally, have enough to say, to last us at least an hour and a quarter, not to obstruct, but to do my duty to my constituents, and other hon. members also wish, to speak I will ask the Minister to allow us to go home.

The hon. member should discuss the vote.

Well, if I am forced to speak now, I wish to deplore the fact that the hon. member for Wt-nderboom (Dr: van Broekhuizen) saw fit to refer to my apparel. May I disillusion him. The fact that I am wearing a red tie is not an indication that I am a member of the Labour party. But, if he wishes to draw a deduction from its ominous colour, let me tell him that it is a sign of warning to the Government that unless they do something for unemployment they will be in grave danger. As I was showing when I spoke a little while ago, instead of Namaqualand being a land flowing with milk and honey, it is one in which poverty abounds. In the days before the present Government came into power it was said that the South African party gave only palliatives and sops in the way of relief works. We were led to believe, on the other hand, that if the National party were returned to power an entirely different state of affairs would result. An innocent electorate thought, if only there was a Labour Minister, they would find a change. Well, now we have a Labour member as Minister of Labour. Btu it is no use hon. members opposite trying to get away with it, and saying the Minister of Labour only is to blame, because what blame is to be attached for the failure to deal with in employment must be attributed to the whole of the Cabinet. The Government as a whole is responsible. The Minister has told us he is subsidizing municipalities, provided they use European labour, but what does this policy amount to other than relief works? Surely the Minister knows there is no permanency about work of that sort, and that argument applies also to Buchuberg. That is the real gravamen of my charge against the Minister—that not only is he perpetuating the system of relief works, but he is also encouraging people to come in from the country to these works; and not only the Minister but the Government as a whole is to blame.

Right through the spending departments you have the unemployed question being considerably added to by the departments concerned, in consequence decisions of the Government. For example, P. W. D discharged 50 men in Johannesburg recently. Imperial Cold Storage discharging a large number of men. Treasury Circular notifying all departments to leave vacant posts unfilled you have the railways inducing men to take their discharge, to get off the earth, and not only are they inducing them by offers of their pension, but they take advantage of any little loophole to get rid of a man. Unemployment is being added to by the Government. There is the necessity to have a State bank to cope with this question. Lord Melchett wrote an article in one of the London dailies, headed singularly enough, “Unemployed by order of the banks.” In this article he demonstrates how banks restrict credit, and make it imperative that employers get rid of men, and I say that a Government which knows how these institutions, the banks, use their power against the interests of the country, and does not take the obvious step to institute a State bank, is lacking in its duty to the people. I can make another suggestion, and that is a reduction of hours all round. That has been advocated by Labour all over the world. It must be the reduction of hours in all industries by statute, because you cannot get employers to agree to it. To-day we are in an age of machinery, and unfortunately all the improvements in machinery are being used not to lighten the toil of men engaged in the work, but to make profits, and to throw men out of employment. I know of no method so important as the method of reducing hours. Then the Government can go in seriously for a housing scheme. The building industry, for the first time for many years, is feeling the pinch. There is no need for that. There are thousands of houses required in South Africa, and the money will he well spent. Then there is the question of wool. It is very foolish for us to send the raw product overseas, and to have it returned, paying all the expenses and profits, and bringing it back in the form of cloth. Why should we not shift the centre of the wool industry from Bradford to South Africa?

How are we going to do it?

Not by waiting for private enterprise. (Time limit.]

When I last addressed the House, I was referring to the promises made by the Nationalist party to the unfortunate electors who have been deluded by them. Let me give one instance. The organising secretary of the party addressed a meeting at Gansbaai, a fishing village near Danger Point, and the simple fisherfolk were told that if they voted for the Nationalist party they would get all the jobs they wanted. They did not vote for the Nationalist party, but they applied to the secretary of the party for jobs Fortunately, they had the good sense to vote for the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl), but these simple people had preached to them the iniquitous doctrine that they had only to vote for the Nationalist party and they would be given jobs, and in this way they were encouraged to leave their natural environment. The Nationalist party and the Government are largely responsible for the influx of people from the country into the towns, for the people were promised that the unemployment problem would be solved, and they migrated to the towns to seek that employment. The sentiments of the Afrikaners were shamelessly played upon, and they put their trust in the Nationalist party, but, unemployment has not been relieved, and we now have thousands of these people from the rural areas a burden on the towns, because of the hollow promises made by hon. members opposite. The Government has made great play with the way in which they allege relief has been given by bringing poor whites into the railway. We, on this side, do not deny that, if the Government can employ poor whites at a living wage, it is a good thing; but the Government has gone beyond reasonable limits. It the labourers had a reasonable wage, it would be a good thing, but they are not being paid a living wage.

That point concerns the railway administration.

That was a point, raised by the Minister of Labour himself, and I am only touching on it. This haphazard policy of the Government is leading nowhere. The Government is not providing men from the rural areas with any permanent employment. The whole policy of the Minister savours of political hypocrisy.

The hon. member should not use the word “hypocrisy” and he must withdraw it.

Certainly, I willingly withdraw, and I shall say that the hon. the Minister is guilty of very grave inconsistency in his public utterances. He made an attack on the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). He said that the average commercial man is far behind the times, so far as social and industrial work is concerned. His own Wage Board, let me remind him, went into the question of social and industrial conditions, and the way employers dealt with their employees. In the interesting Report on the working of the Wage Board for the three years and February, 1929, we find it stated, at page 13, that—

This is the opinion of the Wage Board, and— [Time limit.]

Last year there was a vote of £100 for coloured labour exchange, but on inquiring we were told that it went to an organization called the African National Bond. I see this year there is also £100 for the coloured labour exchanges. I would like to ask the Minister if the destination of that money is the same as last year. I take it that it is. It is well known down here that the African National Bond is nothing more than a political organization which works in the interests of the Nationalist party. If we are going to admit this principle of subsidising political organizations, the logical conclusion is that, sooner or later we may be called upon to vote expenses of candidates of whatever party may be sitting on that side of the House. We have heard a great deal about precedents, and I think we should consider this very carefully before Government money is spent for subsidizing political organizations. In regard to the coloured people, I do not think they have had a square deal as to employment. The coloured people are restricted in the area in which they can find employment. It seems to me that when Government work is available they should have preference in the Peninsula over European labour brought from outside. After all, the European labour can be used on Government relief works anywhere in South Africa, but our coloured people are largely restricted to this part of the world. At one time there were between 300 and 400 coloured people who could not, under any circumstances, get work, and at that time I know of one road gang in the Peninsula which was largely, comprised of Europeans from the platteland. I think that is a point which the department might take into consideration. That is, if there is any work available down here, why preference should not be given to the unemployed coloured people in the Peninsula before, Europeans from areas outside the Peninsula?

When I last spoke I was referring to the report of the Wage Board. In paragraph 157, on page 24, of that report, it says—

It appears, therefore, that the Wage Board in its report, to which naturally the Minister gives his approval, laid down that a civilized wage means a wage upon which a man can not merely exist, but upon which he can maintain himself and his family in a reasonable degree of comfort; and such a wage was taken as a minimum of £4 per week. I ask the Minister whether he has directed the attention of the Minister of Railways to this report, because there are 15,000 or more men employed under the so-called civilized employment scheme who do not obtain a wage of £4 per week, or even 50 per cent, of that sum. It seems to me that the real problem in South Africa at present is not so much unemployment as we get it in other countries, but that it is really an agrarian problem. The Minister stated this afternoon that it is the unfortunate drift we have from the country districts to the towns which is the root of the evil. The Minister has put his finger on the trouble, but he has signally failed to deal with it. He realises the problem and the big difficulties with which we are faced in South Africa, but he has not attempted to deal with it in the proper way. I think all hon. members will agree with me when I say that any real and permanent solution of the slum problem and the unemployment problem in South Africa cannot be hoped for in the absence of systematic measures, first of all to stem and, secondly, to reverse the drift of the population, white, coloured and native, from the country to the town. Unless we can prevent that drift, we can never solve this question. The men from the rural districts are becoming a burden upon the local authorities. It is true we can put them temporarily in a road party where they may remain for two years or so, but they will again become a burden upon the community. Their children will be brought up in that environment and they will also become a burden on the community. The only way in which this question can be faced is by definitely embarking upon a “back-to-the-land” movement. I thoroughly agree with the Minister when he says we should not encourage men and women in this country to think that whenever they want employment they must run to the Government. That is a wrong policy. What I do say, however, is that the Government must be able to create conditions which will enable men and women in this country to become independent and self-supporting It is not doing that at the present time. Surely it would be better to spend money on land settlements than upon the temporary solution of giving relief by means of doles and otherwise. Let me deal for a moment with the Zanddrift Scheme. The extraordinary part of this scheme is that there appears to be a great mystery about it. I should like to ask the Minister whether he cannot tell us why, after embarking upon this Zanddrift scheme on his own initiative, he should have given it up? Shortly afterwards he embarked on the scheme, his predecessor, Senator Boydell, took it over. I should like to ask why it was decided that this scheme should be taken over by the Department of Lands. I see the Minister of Lands is present and I hope he will give us an explanation. The only real solution of the unemployed problem is to get the people back to the land In these circumstances surely the Minister should, in normal circumstances, have continued a scheme such as this. Surely he will not tell us that he bungled the scheme. Personally, I think there is some mystery behind it and I want an explanation. Why did his predecessor let the Zanddrift scheme go? Even at this late hour I am still prepared to wait another half-hour for that explanation. The Minister has consistently and conspicuously evaded the issue. [Time limit.]

Vote as amended, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed: