laid upon the Table:

Return referred to Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

I move—

seconded.

On the question being put,

called for a division, and then asked leave to withdraw his request.

objected.

A division can be challenged on this matter, and the hon. member is entitled to claim such division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—80.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—27.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff. L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Conroy, E. A.

De Jager, A. L.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: De Waal, J. H. H.; Steyn, Colin.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Before proceeding to give a short explanation of the more important heads of expenditure under which the House is being asked to vote Additional Supply, I would just like, briefly, to refer to the financial position for the current financial year as it presents itself to-day. Hon. members will remember that when I introduced the Budget last year I stated that the Estimates of Revenue would be £24,234,000. That was the original Estimate of Revenue as presented in my Budget. The original Estimate of Expenditure was £24,346,000, leaving a deficit of £112,000, which I stated to the House at the time I hoped would be met by the usual savings or surrenders, at the end of the financial year. I told the House that though that was nominally to be the deficit, I hoped it would be wiped out by savings or surrenders at the end of the year. The revised figures are: Revenue £24,839,000. That gives us a net increase of £605,000. The revised Estimate of Expenditure, including the gross amounts of £456,273 to be voted in Additional Supply, less savings of £131,750, gives a net increase of £324,000, which will bring up the revised Estimates of Expenditure to £24,670,000. That, hon. members will note, will give a paper surplus of about £169,000, and that sum I hope to get, if revenue receipts be maintained at the present rate. If we add to that Sum the usual surrenders, which I expect will take place at the end of the financial year, I estimate that there will be a surplus at the end of the year of at least a quarter of a million pounds. I now come to the expenditure of 1924-5. The gross increase in expenditure which requires to be voted is £456,273, as shown in the abstract of the Additional Estimates which hon. members have before them. The Votes which I have already pointed out show savings totalling £131,750 are the following: House of Assembly, owing to the fact that Parliament this year assembled in February instead of January, £2,550; Treasury, owing to staff changes, shows savings of £1,500; public debt shows a saving in interest of £57,000; the Mines vote, owing to an excess provision for miners’ phthisis, etc., shows a saving of £4,000; Higher Education, owing to casual savings under a number of heads, shows a saving of £5,000; Agriculture, owing to a lesser amount being expended in beef bounties, shows a saving of £31,000; the Public Service Commission, owing to the transfer of two inspectors and reduction in staff, shows a saving of £3,000; Lands show a saving of £3,700. On the other votes minor savings account for £24,000, which gives us the amount I have already mentioned of £131,750. As I have already pointed out, however, many accounting officers do not disclose their savings, and many are anxious as to the amounts they will require from the Exchequer, but it is estimated that there will be a further saving of £120,000 which will bring the actual saving to about £250,000. If hon. members will turn to the Additional Estimates before them they will find three votes, Pensions, Locust Destruction, and Labour These three votes together account for £369,000, leaving £87,000 to cover unforeseen and urgent expenditure on all the other votes before the end of the year. I now proceed to explain some of the more important heads under which hon. members are being asked to vote this Additional Supply. I first take Pensions. Under Pensions the amount which I ask the House to vote is £164,000. Hon. members will see that that is a pretty large increase on the amount originally estimated. The real reason for this additional appropriation is an under-estimate of about £100,000 to meet charges which have arisen during the year on various Votes. The under-estimate was caused by a larger number of officers retiring on pensions than was estimated for, and also to the commutation of pensions. Hon. members will remember that it is open to certain officers to commute a certain portion of their pensions, and these commutations account for an amount of about £80,000. Then another £21,000 is accounted for by contributions to pensions and provident funds which were not disclosed at the time by the accounting officers. Then a sum of £33,000 has been included to meet the liabilities of the Natal Pension Fund. Hon. members will remember that I pointed out, during my Budget speech, the serious position in which several of our pension funds were. The Natal Fund became exhausted towards the end of last year and it became necessary for the Government to assume liability. In future, this bankrupt Natal Fund will involve an annual charge on revenue of about £54,000. Then I have included in this financial year an amount of £30,000 in respect of gratuities which will be payable to the burghers who are entitled to pensions under the existing pension laws. These gratuities have become payable in terms of the report of the Pensions Grievances Commission, which sat during the recess, and whose principal recommendations the Government has decided to adopt.

What is it?

Hon. members will see when the report is laid on the Table that it was pointed out that certain discrimination took place in regard to the treatment of ex-burghers and other pensioners who participated in the Great War, and the Government has decided to award gratuities to certain pensioners whose pensions have been cancelled, but who are entitled to them. Under that head £30,000 is provided in this financial year, and a further amount will be provided for in the estimates of expenditure for next year. Only a portion of these gratuities will be paid out during this financial year, and, therefore, the full amount is not provided for. Then, the next important head which I might explain to the House now is in connection with prisons and reformatories, £7,810. The additional expenditure of £6,400 on the provision for salaries and wages of prison staff is due to the fact that a better class of recruit is now being obtained, and most of these men come under the heading of first class warders, with slightly higher emoluments. Then £1,410 is provided for additional transport and expenses, and is due to an under-estimate of the expenditure under this head. Another Vote which requires additional supply is Police Vote No. 18, £16,000. Last year, when the present Government took office and the estimates were dealt with by me and presented to Parliament, a cut of £20,000 was made in the Police Vote. The Commissioner was told to do his best to, come out on the provision voted, which meant a cut of £20,000 in the requirements originally put forward by the police. Unfortunately, hopes have not been realized. The police during the past year have been up to full strength, and it was not possible to reduce the expenditure under this Vote. The Commissioner has therefore been compelled to ask the Treasury for £16,000 of the £20,000 cut out of the Vote. The needs of the police are becoming greater every year, and, although we have tried to keep down the amounts spent as much as possible, it has not been possible to reduce the expenditure to the extent that we originally intended. The next Vote I wish to deal with is that of Public Health, £10,000. This amount is required for further plague measures which the Department of Health was forced to undertake during the year in order to save the country from the great danger which threatened it in connection with this very serious visitation of the plague. The hon. Minister responsible for the Vote will no doubt give the House the necessary further information in regard to the amount required, and I may just mention that the increased provision is principally for the appointment of more rodent inspectors and general preventive measures which the department intends to take. Then there is the Mines and Industries Vote, £4,000. This is a new service, being a bounty which the Government agreed to pay to the superphosphates industry. Hon. members will remember that, when the House rose last year, the question of dumping duties on superphosphates was a very burning one. The farming community generally complained that the imposition or the existence of these dumping duties tended to increase the price of fertilizers to a very great extent, and, as it was a matter of the very greatest importance that the farming community should have these fertilizers as cheaply as possible, the Government eventually agreed to repeal the dumping duties on superphosphates. It was of the utmost importance not to allow the fertilizer industry, which was then employing a large number of people, to come down for want of assistance, and also, of course, its existence tended to keep down prices for this important commodity. For that reason it was decided to pay this bounty of 5s. per ton of 2,240 lbs. of superphosphates sold in the Union, and that amount will be about £4,000 during the current financial year. I am glad to be in a position to inform the House that during this planting season fertilizers have been used by our farmers all over the country to an extent that has never occurred before, and, owing to that, we naturally reckon on a very much increased production of cereals, etc. Under Agriculture, Vote 28, we have got an increased provision for £179,500. Of this additional appropriation, £177,000 is required for expenditure in connection with locust destruction. As hon. members will know, the original provision for the Vote for this service was £200,000, and that, together with the additional sum now asked for, will make the total appropriation for 1924-’25 £377,000. To that must be added the value of the stores brought forward from previous year’s expenditure, namely, about £100,000. It will therefore be seen that the total estimated expenditure for 1924-’25 for locust destruction is £477,000.

Oh !

Yes; it is a big sum, but we are all thankful that this money has been well spent. The locust position is better now than it has been during any previous visitation, when we also spent large amounts, and if the campaign had not been successful it would have been a real calamity to the country, and therefore the thanks of the country will be due to the Minister of Agriculture, who has undoubtedly had a great deal of success in regard to this matter. I am sure the country will not grudge this seemingly large expenditure in connection with this service. If it would interest members I could give an analysis of the way in which the amount has been spent, but if details are required, I must refer hon. members to the Minister of Agriculture. Then there is an amount of £2,500 in connection with the ostrich feather industry. The previous advance we made, and the advertising propaganda, has been successful to such an extent that it will increase the provision formerly made. This is an advance which will be recoverable on a basis of two per cent on the value of the export.

What does the hon. member for Oudtshoorn say ?

I have no doubt the hon. member for Oudtshoorn will tell the House what his opinion is. Another important Vote is No. 36, Labour. An increased provision is asked for of £28,000. £3,000 of this amount is in connection with the setting-up of the necessary machinery for the new department only created a short time ago, and a further £25,000 for unemployment expenditure and advances. In connection with that I think it best that the hon. Minister concerned should give the House, when we are in Committee of Supply, the necessary information in regard to the matter in which this amount will be spent. It may interest the House to note the total amount which was expended during the present financial year on the Vote Labour, in connection with the relief of distress and in connection with this Labour Vote. I give the particulars for 1924-’25 as follows:—

which gives a total expenditure, or amount which will be expended during the current financial year, in connection with the Department of Labour and on relief of distress, the various schemes of which are being administered by the hon. Minister of Labour and other Ministers, of £1,096,143. I come now to the provision in connection with expenditure from Loan Votes. Of the £4,450, £300, required on Public Works, is the first instalment of the cost of providing quarters for the senior guard at the Mint at Pretoria. The sum of £4,150 is required for the purchase of machinery for the manufacture of buttons, badges, etc., for the Government, Railway Administration and Provincial Administrations. I may inform the House that the activities of the Mint have increased to a considerable extent. Besides minting silver and gold, which they will have to do in the near future, they are making badges, dog-checks, etc., for the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations. Increased provision is being made under that head for the Mint. I think it would interest the House to have the general provision in regard to the Mint at present so far as the amount which has been expended on it is concerned, and, also, as regards its prospects in the future. The expenditure from Revenue Funds in 1922-’23, 1923-’24 and 1924-’25 was £63,257. Under an arrangement which exists these monies are voted out of revenue, but are recovered from the earnings of the Mint. Any profit arising on the working of the Mint is credited to Loan Account. The total expenditure on Loan Account has been £327,707 and against that we have receipts of £310,387, leaving a balance of £17,320 due to the Loan Account. This amount we hope to wipe out during the next financial year and, thereafter, all profit in regard to the Mint will be credited to the Loan Account. In the next financial year all the expenditure in connection with the establishment, buildings, etc., will have been wiped out and all future profits will go to Loan Account. Under Loan Vote C we are providing for an increase of £40,000 which is required to maintain telephone construction work at its present rate and retain the existing workmen on the staff. I stated last year that the Government had agreed to continue the programme which had been laid down, spread over a number of years, in connection with telephone construction. That programme was completed before the end of the financial year and it was decided that, instead of discharging these men and taking them on at some subsequent date, perhaps, we should go on with this programme of construction. Under Irrigation an amount of £30,000 is required to complete the Tarka irrigation scheme. This amount will be recovered in the near future when the Irrigation Board has been able to dispose of certain assets which, at present, it has on hand and the monies will become available to repay this amount, which is only a temporary loan. Under Local Works and Loans there is an increase of £212,000, including unemployment advances, £49,000. The Minister will give the necessary information in regard to that of labour. There is a loan to the Vryburg municipality of £14,000; this provision has been made in order to put in order the water supply for the Vryburg municipality. There is provision for the repayment of school loans in the Cape of £149,000. This provision is made in terms of a section of the Financial Relations Act passed last year. Then comes the biggest vote, Relief of Distress, £200,000. Hon. members will remember that on the existing estimates provision was made for £300,000 under this Act. But during the year the position became so acute that the Government was forced to proclaim further districts under the Act, and it has been necessary to make a further provision of £200,000. In committee I shall be able to give hon. members some information as to how this money has been expended. The whole amount has not been exhausted up to the present, but the position is such that during the year the full amount of £500,000 will probably be required. I now move that the House go into Committee on the Additional Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31st, 1295.

seconded the motion.

I think we have listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance with a good bit of interest, and I think the House and the country will be glad to know of the more favourable position of the Treasury as it is at the present time. This position has arisen, not from savings or economy brought about in the administration of the country, but, because of the better state of trade, the revenue has increased by something like £600,000. Notwithstanding this large increase in the revenue, the only saving that is going to take place is a matter of £169,000. The increases of grants and votes, etc., will, I think, be received by the country with a good deal of disappointment. They will, naturally, expect after the promises made by the Nationalists when they sat on this side of the House and the criticisms they offered, that this policy of economy, which the last Government pursued and from which they are now getting some benefit, would have been continued and some prospect held out of a reduction of the burdens on the taxpayers of this country. There is not the slightest sign nor any prospect held out, as far as I am aware, of anything in the way of a reduction of taxation. Taxation has been increased by over £8,000,000 since before the war. As the Minister has pointed out, taking off the savings, the net increase of these additional estimates is £324,000, which brings the total expenditure for the year to £24,670,000, as against a total expenditure 1923-’24 of £24,026,000. There is an increase on last year’s expenditure of £583,000. Of course, an allowance has to be made of a certain amount of extra expenditure, £106,000 which the departments have got to pay on account of telegrams and telephones now being charged for, which they have not had to pay in previous years. The exact expenditure as stated by the Minister of Finance for this year will, therefore be £538,000 over and above what was spent in 1923-’24. But that is not all. The original estimates laid before the House by the late Minister of Finance (Mr. Burton) in January, 1924, provided for an expenditure of £23,974,000. This was increased in July by the present Minister of Finance through his supplementary estimates to the extent of £372,000, bringing the total of the estimates expenditure under the present Minister’s regime to £24,346,000. We have now further estimates for £324,000, which brings the total now asked for in the way of expenditure for this year to £690,000 more than Mr. Burton asked for in the first estimates for the current year laid before the House. My hon. friend started with a deficit of £1,918,000. Nothing has been provided for that and, as I have said, the country was looking for some indication of reduction of taxation. When hon. members opposite sat on this side of the House there was nothing that they were more keen on discussing than the alleged want of economy and want of supervision in the finances of the country. That was the standing dish. And yet, during the first year of office of the Nationalist party they come forward with estimates amounting to £696,000 over and above their predecessor’s estimates for the same year, or an increase of £538,000 over the expenditure of the previous year. I would ask where is the economy which they used to talk so much about, where is the control of expenditure of which we heard so much ? In these additional estimates there is no sign of any economy, there is no sign of careful control, In these estimates increases are made in 17 Votes out of 36. I would like to have the opinion of the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) on these estimates— his really candid opinion. There are two outstanding items to which I would like to draw the attention of the House in regard to the increases. First of all there is the item of Pensions, £164,000 and then you have Locust Destruction £177,000. In July last year my hon. friend the Minister asked for an increase on Mr. Burton’s estimate for Pensions of £62,000. He now comes forward again and asks for a further £164,000.

I am not responsible for the pensions.

Of course not, but you can have economy even in pensions. We are now paying over £2,000,000 in pensions in this country, exclusive of what we are paying on the Railway. Then take Locust Destruction. I do not agree with my hon. friend at all in that matter. The additional money required is £177,000. That is in addition to the sum which we voted in July of £140,000, bringing the total to £317,000. I admit at once that good work has been done in that direction. But my information is that money has been lavishly spent on a big staff of men and motorcars, and that no regard has been had to economy. It has been simply a case of “get the job done and let economy go.” I will now come to the loan funds. The House granted in July last £13,021,000. There will be a saving of £711,000, bringing the net sum to £12,200,000. We spent in the previous year, when the late Government was accused of piling up the loan account which is about £200,000,000, £10,607,000. It is marvellous how principles are changed. There is not the remotest doubt that if this large sum had been asked for by the late Government they would have been denounced for running up the public debt. The outstanding sum we are asked to vote is £200,000 for the relief of distress in the drought stricken areas. This is in addition to the £310,000 voted last year. We are spending in the relief of distress and unemployment over £1,000,000. Surely that should be sufficient to show the Minister how absolutely necessary it is when spending money that there should be the most strict and rigid economy in administration. We are spending £472,000 on unemployment. That does not look as if we were getting rid of unemployment. Yet the Minister of Labour, in his manifesto issued in the last general election, laid it down that unemployment must be done away with. But it seems to me that this expenditure will increase unemployment. Then the Prime Minister, when the late Government spent £206,000 on unemployment, accused it of wasting millions in doles. Has all this money been wisely spent?

Not on doles.

In some districts the money has to my personal knowledge not been wisely spent. Satisfactory as the financial position of the country is from the revenue point of view, these additional estimates will be received all over the country with disappointment. We have an accumulated deficit of £2,000,000 to wipe off, but the Minister has said nothing about that. I advise the Minister not to squander the surplus, for that is what he is doing. He has an increase in revenue of £600,000 and he has already got rid of £324,000 of it. I think that disappointment will arise because we see in these estimates no signs of economy in any shape or form. Hon. members opposite are new to office, they are full of energy and they are most anxious to put things straight, which is shown by the shoal of Bills we have put before this House. But the financial position of the country requires attention. Even if the Minister balances revenue and expenditure there will be a deficit to wipe off. Also the country is loudly calling for a reduction in taxation. When the late Government went out of office it was busily engaged on that task, and Mr. Burton would have come out with a surplus in the current year. The late Government had to fight since 1920 against a falling revenue. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Burton was bringing the financial position into a sound position when the late Government went out of office.

What about your surplus of £300,000 ?

That has been used to reduce the deficit, as is shown in the report of the Auditor-General. The financial position of the country is not yet in a satisfactory position, and the burdens on the country must be reduced. About one-twentieth of the total production of the country goes in paying the expenses of the Government.

My hon. friend (Mr. Burton) put up the expenses—I am not responsible.

Did you ever know a Labour party to practise economy ? Their sole idea is to spend the taxpayers’ money. So long as you are associated with members of the Labour party you will find it pretty difficult to practise economy. I think the country has cause to look forward to the future with considerable apprehension, for I do not see, with the policy which has been indicated by the Estimates, that we are going to have any reduction in taxation.

I am sorry for my hon. friend, for he is a disillusioned man. He thought that he would be compensated for a change of Government by at least three things—unemployment brought to an end, the native problem settled, and a constant and urgent call for economy. These illusions are gradually fading away, and I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) that as far as we have gone up to now there is absolutely no ground whatever for supposing that the ideas of hon. members opposite in regard to economy are going to be put into practice to the slightest extent. I was interested in hearing, when the Minister of Finance forecasted a surplus, that most of the applause came from his supporters. I remember last year when the late Minister of Finance stated that he had a small surplus of £225,000, that the announcement was received with derision, and hon. members who now sit opposite alleged that it was deception. Exactly the same circumstances apply now. Why did they say it was not a real surplus ? Because he had an accumulated deficit.

Loan moneys.

Loan moneys voted by Parliament. We have, just as we had last year, a surplus of revenue over expenditure, but we have a large accumulated deficit which will much more than absorb the surplus. I thought the Minister would give us some statement in regard to what he was going to do with that deficit.

Very premature.

I do not think it is premature. The claims of an accumulated deficit should have precedence over new expenditure. The time is overdue when the accumulated deficit should be dealt with. I would like to ask why the Estimates of Expenditure have not been laid on the Table. I hope the Minister will try to live up to the practice of his predecessor in that respect. There are one or two other points I wish to touch upon. The Minister has put on the estimates £30,000 for gratuities in respect of burgher pensions, and he has done that on the recommendations of a commission whose report we have not seen. The House ought to see what those recommendations are. I would like to ask also what the Government are doing in regard to the establishment of a Provident Fund for certain classes of Government servants who do not come on to the ordinary Superannuation fund. It is a matter that a number of employees in the printing works and elsewhere take a great interest in. Then the Minister did not touch on miscellaneous services. I see we are asked to vote £7,000 additional on commissions. I do not think this country has ever been so over-run with commissions before. I remember how members opposite stormed at us when we appointed commissions. They asked: Why if the Government has a policy do not they put it into force instead of sending commissions round the country? What is the purpose of all these commissions to-day?

To clear up your mess.

Hon. members opposite told the country broadcast that we were going wrong but now they have to do the work themselves, they find they do not know anything about it.

They are doing very well.

Anyone who takes the hon. member as an authority no doubt would be consoled by that statement. I believe we have nine commissions going round the country at the present time. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Rev. Mr. Hattingh) agitated for a provision to include shops under the Rents Act. The Minister of Justice said don’t worry about that, the Government is going to appoint a commission. No sooner was the session over than the Government appointed a commission which consisted of the hon. member for Krugersdorp as the sole commissioner. They paid him handsomely to go round and enquire whether the statements he had been making were right. I hope the sole commissioner has now made up his mind whether he was right. That, in my opinion is reducing commissions to an absolute farce and that is the opinion of most people in the country. Then when you come to the Prisions Vote, an increase is asked for salaries, allowances and wages. Can one imagine a greater farce than we have recently seen in this country—thousands of prisoners released without any reason ? If the Government repealed the law which makes it a criminal offence to sell liquor illicitly, it might be all right, but they do not do that. All the machinery of the law for bringing these people up to the courts and sending them to prison still exists. The Minister on the one hand is putting these people into prison and on the other opening the door and saying: Go, my children, go. It is the sort of thing one might laugh at in a children’s playground but let us have something different from a responsible Minister of the Crown. I do urge upon the Government to keep their schoolboy colleague under somewhat better control. Then I am glad to hear the Minister of Public Health is to make a statement about plague. That is a matter which is giving the country a good deal of uneasiness. Then I am sorry not to see more savings under the head of Agriculture. I did think we were going to get a large saving under that head after we had heard so much about the inspectors who were to be dismissed. I should like to hear something from the Minister in regard to the question of the resumption of gold payments. I think the Minister might have given the country some opportunity of discussing that question and as he has not done so I think this House should have some opportunity of discussion; The Minister appointed a commission consisting of two eminent authorities on currency, but they were two gentlemen who had no previous knowledge of the question in South Africa. Immediately the Minister received the report it was announced that the Government were going back to the gold standard on June 30th. What actuated the Government in coming to that conclusion?

Commonsense.

Well I flatter myself I have a little common sense and I would like to put some reasons why I think the Government have acted precipitately in this matter.

We are standing up against the world.

It is a very heroic thing to stand up against the world but I would like to know why we should stand up against the world. What good is it to do us? If one reads this report of the commissioners, while it is quite true they advise this country to revert to gold payments irrespective of what Great Britain should do, they point out in very grave language that if we do so we shall run certain very grave risks. They point out, and indeed it is a matter of common knowledge, that while there is no serious risk in going back to gold when sterling is so near to gold parity as it is now, one cannot go hap on that. They point out that fluctuations may take place and if sterling should depreciate below gold parity, it will dislocate very seriously the export industry of this country. They point out on the other side that a big break in exchange cuts both ways. But where you have fluctuations in exchange going on from day to day, where the importer does not know whether the benefit is going to continue or stop to-morrow, the chances are ten to one the consumer will not get the benefit. We know what the position was when there was a large exchange break before between South Africa and England. We do not want that experience repeated. The hon. Minister seems to think that getting on to a gold basis is like catching a train. You have only to jump on and go where it takes you. This country is far too small in its business and financial relations to stand alone in this matter.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think the currency question can hardly be debated at the present moment.

That is all very well. If the Minister will give us an opportunity for discussing the matter, it is all right. But on these estimates there is a charge for a commission which has been advising the Government.

Discussion must be restricted to those items which are new. The policy on the currency question will no doubt be settled at a future date, and I do not think the hon. member is entitled to go into that question now.

I have the greatest respect for your ruling, but I should like to ask when I shall be able to go into this matter?

The hon. member will have full opportunity on the Budget debate.

I do not rise to detain the House long, but it is wonderful how the chickens come home to roost if one considers that with the Estimates to-day before the House an amount is asked of more than half a million pounds than the South African party Estimates for 1923-’24. When the country commences to understand this then its eyes will open with reference to all the promises to make an improvement in all the so-called reckless expenditure of the South African party Government. From year to year during all those troublesome years as far as circumstances of the country are concerned, during the most troubled circumstances with which the Government which then sat here had to struggle, the Government had a spoke put in its wheel and was always accused of recklessly wasting money. The country has been told that money has been wasted in an improper way by the Government of the country. And now this Government comes with Estimates that are £500,000 more than those of 1923-’24. I therefore ask where is the economy ? There was not one hon. member who sits to-day on the opposite side perhaps for the first time, or older members, who did not go round the country year after year and tell the people about the extravagant expenditure by the South African party Government. So far as their ordinary expenditure is concerned, they come now with Estimates that are higher by half a million pounds, and their loan expenditure in the financial year which is ending is increased by over £2,000,000.

For development works.

For development works. When we sat there and introduced proposals for money for development works, was that then appreciated? No, then it was said that the national debt was being made heavier year after year, that the people and the country were being ruined, but to-day the chickens are coming home to roost, and one finds that the loan account for this year is £2,000,000 more than under the previous Government. But there is another point that I specially want to speak about, and that is the removal of the duty on phosphates—the dumping duty. Here in the Western Province hon. members on the opposite side have gone round on platform after platform, more particularly in my constituency, alleging that the farmers are being ruined. They said that we are in the De Beers pocket, that we make concessions to De Beers, that we are their myrmidons. This was done on platform after platform. Because you are in the pocket of De Beers therefore you are not able to take off the duty on phosphates. That was said, and they promised the country that if they came into power they would take off this tax.

It is off.

Yes, it is off; I am coming to that The dumping duty is taken off, but the people must understand that to-day it is being taxed generally for that removal. The dumping duty is less, but the taxpayer must put his hand in his pocket and must pay thousands of pounds to make good the quid pro quo for the taking off of the dumping duty. Who is now in the pocket of De Beers ? The Government that sits there ? Or the hon. friends who at that time sat on the Government benches ? This shows the hollowness and emptiness of the criticisms which were uttered at that time by the party which sat on this side. I would also say that this was not an honourable criticism. For what was the position of the South African party ? The position we took up was always that proper industries in South Africa which have a right to existence must be protected, and we had to be told that we could not take off the dumping duty because we did not protect the interests of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has openly acknowledged that the phosphate industry has a right to existence.

That was done in the interests of the farmer.

The farmer must also contribute to this tax thousands of pounds, but the principle is that we are accused that we kept on the dumping duty because we were in the pocket of De Beers, that we did not regard the interest of South Africa, but that other interests were behind us. I ask to-day: What interests are behind the Government today, are they also in the pocket of De Beers ? The country and the people will understand—it will not take long—they will see that for the most part it was hypocrisy of the Opposition and their conduct. Their conduct has altered to-day. I now come to the hon. Minister of Labour. He is unfortunately not here to-day, but I see on the estimates a new item for the department of labour. My mind goes back a few years when there was a strike in Johannesburg in the nature of a revolt. At that time the South African party were accused that they were the cause of that strike and revolt.

Correct.

Now when the Parliament met last time the Minister of Labour had just assumed office and what was the first thing that occurred? A strike in Cape Town of masons and other people connected with the building trade.

What point is the hon. member upon in connection with the estimates ?

I am speaking about the labour department which appears on the estimates.

But this department was established last year on the general estimates.

I understand that we now have to vote the salaries. £328,000 is asked for for the new department.

The amount which the House is now asked to vote is only an increase of what has already been voted.

I only want to say that the amount with reference to the strike in Cape Town—

I do not think that the hon. member has the right in this connection to speak about the strike in Cape Town.

I am willing to submit to your ruling Later we will have an opportunity to compare the strike in Cape Town with that in Johannesburg.

I am much surprised at the position taken up by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). Is not Caledon a grain district; is my hon. friend not the representative of grain farmers; is he in favour that the grain farmers should henceforth pay an extra 5s. per ton on imported superphosphates?

Who pays the bonus now ?

Not the grain farmers only, because that would be unfair. The grain farmers during the first year that the dumping duty was levied had to pay more than £17,000. The hon. member wanted to ridicule the idea that it was at the request of the De Beers company that the dumping duty was laid on the farmers. Was it not the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) who asked the South African party Government to levy the tax, and was the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) not the recognized representative of De Beers ? What he asked was that the Government should compel the shipping companies to increase the freight on fertilizers or otherwise to put an extra duty on them. He referred to the fact that the rock imported for “Capex” is imported at 17s. 6d. per ton, while superphosphates came in at 12s. 6d. per ton in so far as freight is concerned. Undoubtedly the duty was levied at the request of De Beers and undoubtedly the money had to come out of the pocket of the grain farmer for who else uses superphosphates. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is now so exercised on the point that a subsidy of £4,000 has been given to the fertilizer industry out of the pocket of the general taxpayer, but he has not yet stated his opposition to the fact that out of the pockets of the grain farmers £17,000 per annum was paid to the shipping companies. Would the hon. member rather that the farmer should pay £17,000 extra freight to the ships than that the State should give a bonus of £4,000 a year to industries.

That is not the question. Who has to pay the subsidy?

It is not only the grain farmers that have the benefit of the abolition of the dumping duty. The cheaper the farmer produces the grain the better for the consumer then they all get their bread cheaper. The producer of grain is of the greatest importance to the country. The Nationalist party and I myself have never been in favour of giving the death-blow to a factory, all that we said was that the grain farmer must not be taxed for the benefit of De Beers. I thought when the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) was sitting in the Speaker’s chair what a pity it was that he did not sit on the floor of the House to help me and the grain farmer! Today the hon. member sits as an ordinary member in the House and see what attitude he is taking up ! I am sorry for Caledon.

I am sorry for Piquetberg.

Poor Caledon ! I represent the grain farmers. I thought that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) also represented the grain farmers, but it seems to me Caledon has an enemy in him, not a friend.

The members on the Opposition side are apparently acting on the advice of a certain statesman in England, that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose. It is only on that principle that the criticisms we have listened to have been forthcoming from them, because I am sure the members and the public will agree that the criticism has been very ineffective, and I doubt whether it will arouse any enthusiasm among the rank and file of the Opposition. What in fact has been the criticism on the statement of the Minister ? They have taken three points. The member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) attacked the Government and the Minister for not having made provision to cut down the deficit with winch the country has been left by the late Government. It is true he objected to going into past history, but his very request was a request to go into this history. The Government, having been in office nine months, are accused of having made no provision for the deficit created by the South African party Government. However much I agree as to the desirability of wiping out that deficit, while the present Government is very busy in wiping out the late Government’s legislative deficit, I am afraid it will be necessary to deal with the financial deficit very gradually. After 15 years I think it would be very unwise to wipe it out in nine months. The other charge is that the Government have been talking about economy in the past and that the Opposition can find no trace of economy in the estimates. I hope that the principles of economy which have been preached by the Nationalist party are entirely different from the principles of economy preached, and in certain instances, practised, by the late Government. We believe in economy in the sense of getting the most service and paying adequately for this service. We don’t believe in economy in the sense of retrenching people, in the sense of cutting down services where services are necessary, and of cutting down the remuneration of those who are engaged in carrying out their services for the State. That is not the class of economy that the present Government encourages, and it is because they are not showing any that hon. members are complaining. Now we are not in the position to tell what the reduction in expenditure will be until the estimates are clear. If there is any surplus money available, as apparently there will be—and I think the Government is to be congratulated in that after a number of years we are faced with a surplus— if there is a surplus I hope it will be applied to adjusting the incidence of taxation. Then they come to a further point. Talking about this deficit they say “you have made no provision” for wiping it out, and they go on to complain that over £1,000,000 has been expended in the relief of labour and unemployment. It ill becomes members on the Opposition side of the House to talk about money spent on the relief of labour and unemployment, having regard to the fact that to a very great extent, if not entirely, that unemployment and poverty was brought about by the policy for which they have been responsible. They have brought about unemployment and a state of starvation, and because the Government say “We cannot allow that state of starvation to exist without some effort to relieve it, temporarily ”—ultimately, I hope, to solve it—and because they are spending that money, the Government are charged with spending too much money on this relief. The South African party has been responsible for the present state of: affairs and the present Government is to be congratulated on doing something to relieve the situation. I know public bodies, municipalities, consisting of members belonging to the South African party, who have found themselves obliged to take steps to spend money in the relief of Unemployment due to the South African party Government. I need only mention the case of Johannesburg. During the preceding twelve months before we were in control—when a majority consisting of supporters of the South African party were in control—they found themselves forced to create facilities and work for some of those who had been thrown out of their jobs, and thereafter they went to the present Government to grant assistance and create work for those thrown out of employment, and urged that it was the duty of the Government to come to their relief. It ill-becomes members on the Opposition side to challenge the Government for spending that money. Another point was the amount of money voted for pensions. Surely they cannot blame the Government, because the pension system was created largely under the aegis of the South African party Government, which had been in power for the last 15 years, under which the service has been built up and under which certain pension moneys are due. Surely it is not suggested we should break the law or solemn contracts with those in the service, of the State. I know the Opposition are not averse to breaking solemn contracts, but I don’t see why they should break contracts with those in the service of the State.

Who suggested that?

Then where is the point in talking about too much money being spent in pensions ? You either want to reduce the pensions or not.

You know that pensions come out of the Superannuation Fund, not out of the Vote.

Then we have heard the complaint that there have been too many commissions. But for this we should have been told that this is an ill-balanced Government, hastening to do everything itself; but because the Government is inclined to be patient and considerate and say, “before we take action we are going to get the fullest information,” they are accused of appointing too many commissions. But our friends on this side of the House appointed commission after commission, and the only difference—I believe it is going to be a substantial one—is that the late Government appointed commissions to shelve matters, and very rarely carried out their recommendations. As, for instance, the Unemployment Commission, on which a large sum of money was spent and of which the majority of the supporters were followers of the South African party, and the late Government did not take any steps to give effect to the recommendations. So with the Indigency Commission, of which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was such a distinguished member, and other commissions, the reports of which they did not carry out; whereas the present Government, I believe, will avail themselves of the commissions’ efforts and carry out their reports. I am not going into the question of the merits of the Vissering-Kemmerer report, but I believe that if the Minister, instead of publishing that report and saying that the Government proposes to enforce it, had waited, and suddenly announced their intention—

The hon. member must not discuss the report on the currency question.

May I, with deference, say I am not discussing the Currency Report, but what I said was that if instead of announcing that they were going to adopt that report so as to give banking interests the opportunity to adjust their affairs, they had waited till June 30th, we should have had very righteous criticisms against the Government’s inaction. On the other hand, in, connection with locusts, I believe members on this side of the House who always tell us they represent the farming population would be the last to endorse what has fallen from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I submit, that unless members can say: “You could have saved money on this item,” and show how they could have saved it and what was unnecessary—I submit one is justified in suggesting that they have indulged in criticism only because they have imbibed the principle that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose.

The arguments that we have heard here this afternoon are the tu quoque that we always hear from a party that has been beaten, and we shall not take much notice of it. I would like however to say a few words about pensions. I do not mean particularly the general question of pensions and also not the fact that approximately £2,000,000 are paid out for existing pensions or that as far as the supplementary estimates are concerned the additional amount for pensions is the second largest.

The hon. member cannot now go into the whole question; he cannot now enter into a general discussion about it.

I want to speak with reference to a question that I put to the Minister of Finance about persons who draw pensions, but who reside oversea.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now. He must wait for the general estimates or a later opportunity.

Very well, I shall wait until the general estimates come On the Order Paper.

We, who used to sit on the other side of the Assembly, know how difficult it sometimes is for the Opposition to find arguments to attack the estimates of the Government. If one listens to the addresses of this afternoon we can see that our friends opposite there also experience this. It sometimes is difficult to find sound arguments. They always warned us that the criticism that we made should be reasonable. May I ask them whether the criticism that we have heard this afternoon is reasonable ? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) have only shown one side of the picture. If we, however, look at the supplementary estimates we shall see that the usual expenditure has been increased chiefly in respect of locusts and unemployment. I do not think that those hon. members will dare to argue that the Government should have known beforehand how much money would be necessary for these two items. On the contrary I think that the estimates were particularly good. The member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that his view was that a large sum of money had been wasted in the locust campaign. I acknowledge this, but wish to add that this will always happen with any Government and under any Minister. This is not a department which exists year after year. It is only called into being in certain circumstances. You all know how difficult it is to mobilise thousands of people to engage in a common campaign. He said that he had heard of motors being hired to drive round the whole day and of money that had been wasted. In my constituency there are more locusts than in any other portion of the Union, and there the head officials have only three motors. It is true that they race about the whole day, but they had thousands of people under them. At the time when the locust campaign was inaugurated I thought that it was an impossible matter. I must now acknowledge that I was wrong and compliment the Minister that the Campaign has been well conducted. The country has no idea what the Minister of Agriculture has spared our people by killing the locusts in the Northern Transvaal. If those locusts had reached the flying stage they would have eaten up a large portion of the country. Another matter which has been raised is the increased expenditure on emergency loans. The poverty which exists in the country has been caused by my predecessors and is due to their policy. If they had looked after the interests of the white man better and not acted as they did at the time of the last Rand strike, it would not be necessary to expend so much money now. I only hope that the Nationalist Government will show that it is succeeding in ending unemployment in the country. Another matter on which large sums of money are expended is pensions. But who is the cause of that, who gave the pensions ? We fought against it, we gave the warning that the country would have to pay for it. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said the chickens are coming home; yes, this is where the chickens of the former Government come to us and we must raise them. We would like very much to twist some of their necks, but we have to keep them now and let them grow up. A lot of noise is also made about loan funds. More than £200,000 has been paid out for emergency loan, but this the public will get back. It has been advanced and will be paid back. On the other side the public still have the opinion that the administration of our country is too costly. I still hope that the Minister of Finance will hereafter give us, a clear statement of what the position is and that he will go as far as in England to appoint a sort of Geddes Commission to make the payment of officials proportionate to the bearing capacity of the country and the income of the farmer in the backveld. I hope that we shall later be able to say more on this subject I think it is premature to criticize the Minister now. We ought to give the Minister an opportunity to see in which direction he can go. We do not want to be brakes. We know that the expenditure of the country must, increase as the population increases. We only desire that the increase in expenditure shall not go up by leaps and bounds as was the case under the old Government. So long as the Minister progresses with half a million a year we will be satisfied; as far as we can judge now we must compliment the Minister.

We are living in the year 1925, and the people of South Africa have not realized that our first duty is to find work for the people of our own country without considering the people of other countries. Although the Government has reduced their number of orders sent overseas, we are still having railway coaches manufactured abroad. We are not manufacturing those commodities that we ought to manufacture.

The hon. member cannot discuss manufactures under this motion.

I hold that unemployment should have been reduced, and if the Government had found useful work for the people the vote for unemployment would not have been needed. Work could be found for the people by doing the work required for South Africa in South Africa by manufacturing its own requirements, and the customs should be so regulated that the products of people living under lower standards than those prevailing in South Africa would pay a heavier duty than those people who live under the same standard as we in South Africa. We have had a lot of talk about patriotism, but a patriot is a man who looks after the people of his own country. Australia realizes that the people of Australia should come first, and hence—unless under exceptional circumstances—there is employment for every individual in Australia. But in South Africa we keep on year after year voting money for unemployment when if things were properly regulated there would be work for all. You are not only voting money for unemployment, but by giving people doles and establishing relief works you are destroying them. I am justified in protesting against the abominable system that has been allowed to grow up. Not a man in this country should be unemployed, for the manufacture of the commodities we require is sufficient to provide employment for a considerable number of people. We must consider unemployment as our biggest and first subject for consideration, and we have no right to discuss any other matter when there is unemployment in this country—a country with a vast area undeveloped, requiring manual labour, and manufactured commodities, and yet we allow thousands of our people to be sacrificed for the sake of providing profits for the few. We have not only allowed profits to be made for the few, but we have allowed to become the principle of this hon. House the principle that we should get our requirements manufactured outside of this country. The people of this country should have first consideration and we should do away with this question of unemployment which is destroying the soul of good South Africans by the present method of dealing with it, that is by putting men on relief works. The sooner we put an end to the system of doles the better it will be for the people and for the country.

I notice under the head of Pensions that we are asked to vote a considerable additional sum and in that connection I think the Government ought to tell us to what extent this increase is attributable to the resignations which are taking place in the police force as a result of the recent circular issued by the Minister of Justice. That circular has been published and there is no doubt that it has caused consternation in the police force and that it will lead to many resignations. I am one of the first to admit that it would be an excellent thing were the public servants— not only policemen but postmasters, magistrates, sheep inspectors—thoroughly bilingual, but we have in the service a large number of unilingual officers who became public servants under the Union, having joined the service of the various provinces before Union. These men were assured that their positions were secure under the Act of Union; they have their existing rights secured to them by that Act and it was understood that the mere fact that a man was not bilingual would not hinder him in a matter of promotion. Now, with a stroke of the pen this position has been reversed. We are asked to vote £48,000 for Additional Superannuation allowance together with other items here. This circular has fallen like a bomb shell in the ranks of the police force and it seems to me that it is totally unnecessary, because so far as regards the police force, there is no doubt that the Minister and the Government has the right to lay down, with respect to future entrants, that they shall be thoroughly bilingual, but to say to a man of 35, 40 or 45 years of age he can get no further promotion unless he can pass an examination in the other official language is, I think, to lay down something unjust and something that is grossly unfair to a man who is no longer able —he has no time—to sit down and learn another language. Ad I said before, I am thoroughly in agreement with the policy of public servants being conversant with both official languages, but the policy has been up to now to allow men in the public service who became public servants before the passing of the Act of 1912 to proceed step by step so long as they were able to discharge their duties efficiently. It is quite true that in many cases the bilingual officer has been preferred for certain posts because—in certain districts and in certain positions a bilingual man is the man who can more adequately discharge the duties attached to those posts, but speaking generally, until now the question of bilingualism has not been forced upon members of the public service or upon members of the police force. Does the Government really mean to put it down that a police officer who has discharged his duty efficiently, who has looked upon the police force as his career, is to be suddenly brought up with a round turn and told he will get no further promotion unless he passes an examination which he could only pass after years of study ? I cannot imagine that that is the policy of the Government. Is it to be extended to other branches of the Public Service. Are members of the Railway service to be treated in the same way? Are members of the Defence Force and the Post Office to be treated in that way also ? I should like the Government to tell us what is really their policy in this matter. The hon. the Minister of Justice has sometimes created a little sensation by making statements and speeches and doing things that perhaps were not quite according to rote, and if this is a mere flash in the pan, if the circular has to be withdrawn in a few days, we ought to know of it. If it is the settled policy of the Government then We should know what the policy really is, we should know what the position of the whole service is, because not only are the members of the police force very much perturbed but there are a large number of other members of the service who are very much unsettled and uncertain as to their future. In 1912 the Public Service Act laid it down that after five years from the passing of that Act a public officer should not proceed beyond the grade in which he happened to be if he was not able to pass an examination in both official languages. That one can understand, but it left the men who was in the service totally untouched. It did not interfere with their rights or with their promotion, but with regard to the men who entered the service after 1912, very rightly it was laid down that there should be this bar to promotion so as to compel them to learn the other official language. The men who were in the service however were entitled to go on step after step until to-day, and now they are brought up with a round turn. I think it is unfair and unjust and it does not tend to efficiency either, because we shall get rid of a large number of our best police officers, some of our best men, who have been in the force for many years, but cannot sit down to learn a language now as if they were schoolboys. In many parts of the Union it has not been necessary in the discharge of a policeman’s duty that he should know Dutch. Take Natal for instance, I think I am safe in saying that in four-fifths of Natal it is not necessary for a police officer to know the Dutch language. It is much more necessary for him to know Zulu and in the past there has always been encouragement given to policemen there to become proficient in the Zulu language. Are the English-speaking police officers stationed in Natal hereafter to understand from this circular of the Minister of Justice that they are not to get promotion unless they can pass an examination in Dutch ? I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Justice is now in his place. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but I would like to ask him to tell the House why he has issued this circular to the police force, and to tell us whether these men who have reached middle age should be expected to pass an examination in the Dutch language. Is it intended that the Government will lay down the rule that in future every policeman shall be conversant with both official languages ? I am totally opposed to this circular which affects men in the service and stops the promotion of many good men. It is going to do the service a bad turn and it will be a bad day for the country if we lose the services of these efficient officers.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture why he has made a farce of this compulsory dipping. Why were the Cape Colony exempt from this?

I must point out that this is not a general vote, it only applies to certain matters and that is not one of them.

Am I out of order in discussing the sheep question now ?

Yes.

I am not surprised at silence being maintained by hon. members on the other side of the House concerning the lack of economy displayed in the hon. Minister’s Additional Estimates. During the last election they made the welkin ring with denunciation of the South African party, accusing us of reckless extravagance. The right hon. the Prime Minister was the first and worst offender in that respect. Time after time at political meetings I was faced by irate Nationalists who told me that General Hertzog had been there the previous week or the week before and had told them what an enormous public debt the South African party Government had piled up for this country; a debt of 208 millions. I was told by people whose voices vibrated with passion, and who went on to tell me what an iniquitous sum of money we had burdened the country with. They said the hon. the Prime Minister solemnly promised during the election that he was going to see that an end was going to be put to this policy of borrowing, he was going to see that the Loan Vote would not be increased any further, but in spite of this, in his first year he has increased the loan vote from 10 to 12 millions. I would therefore like the right hon. the Prime Minister to go to the Western Transvaal and eat his words. That is what he ought to do. He has swallowed a good deal, but I think it is his moral duty to go back to the Western Transvaal now and tell these same people whom he assured there would be no further increase in public debt that so far from carrying out that particular election promise he has increased this year’s Loan vote to £12,000,000. We on this side of the House are not opposed to the Loan Vote; there could be no development without that, but we are opposed to that type of electioneering, telling people that the South African party habitually increase the Loan Vote, and then giving solemn promises that they were going to put an end to the Loan Vote and to decrease the public debt. This is how the right hon. the Prime Minister has carried out his electioneering promises, and not only the Prime Minister but every other hon. member on the other side as well. If these Additional Estimates are going to be a foretaste of what is coming in the way of economy, I can only say: God help South Africa. Now, with regard to the question of commissions, the Government has been appointing them with the rapidity of a machine gun. It is said that the commissions have been appointed to clear up the mess left by us, but it seems to me that the reason is because the new ministers were not au fait with their work and they appointed these commissions on that account. The public has to pay the piper for the ignorance of the Ministers. That is the cause of these commissions, not any mess that we left behind. We left the country on a very sound basis when he went out of office. Let me mention a few of the commissions now running—commissions for the education of new ministers. We have a Commission on Workshops, Commission on Pensions, Commission on Mining Regulations, Commission on Hospitals, Commission on Currency and Finance, and so they go on. They remind me of Umbandine’s Concessions in Swaziland, and I am surprised that the Prime Minister has not appointed one comprehensive commission to inquire into everything about which he has forgotten to appoint a commission. Then I see on the Estimates an item of £10,000 for fighting the plague. The steps thus far taken by the Minister of Health to combat the plague reminds me of the story of the Russian Commune where there was an outbreak of plague. The authorities wired to the Commune to take immediate steps to fight the epidemic, and so as their sole precaution the Commune purchased a hundred coffins. We have heard a great deal about locusts. I want to give the Minister of Agriculture credit for what he has done, but he has also been fairly lucky. He has got every right to claim credit for voluntarily-disappearing locusts. I would have done the same if I had been in office. But when one looks at this colossal figure of £400,000 to £500,000 on the Estimates, I wonder how much was spent on killing locusts, and how much was spent in finding jobs for pals. I hope the Minister will give us an analysis of this expenditure, and tell us how many of his pals he found jobs for in connection with it. Then, with regard to poor whites, I think it was the Minister of Justice who told the public that within a year there would be no poor whites, no unemployment. Perhaps he said three years. One year of the three has passed, and the only visible result, so far, is an increase of about £600,000 on the Estimates on this head. So that by the time the three years’ period of the Minister of Justice has passed, I am afraid that the only tangible result will be that we shall be saddled with about £2,000,000 per annum, and a larger number of unemployed. I remember stating last year that the way in which the Minister of Labour was dealing with unemployment reminded me of the ship’s captain who reported that he had passed a shipwrecked vessel and had rendered the crew every assistance through the speaking trumpet! And this is truer than ever. It seems to me that the only assistance rendered by the Government to the unemployed this year is through the speaking-trumpet. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs gave us his solution at Port Elizabeth recently. He said: “Gentlemen, we have solved the problem of the unemployed. We simply take them from the street and dump them on the land, and there you are.” A small boy at the back of the hall shouted “Easy.” That is about the only solution I have heard so far. I have seen very little sign yet of any effort being made to solve this problem. There is another solution which has been brought forward by the Minister of Justice; it is a mixture of prohibition and solving the poor white problem. The native, who is not allowed to drink, is being taken out of the bars, and the poor white and unemployed, who are allowed to drink, are being put in to wash out brandy bottles. As far as I am aware, that is the only concrete contribution towards the poor white problem I have seen so far. When we remember how they made the heavens ring with their denunciations of us, how the Prime Minister solemnly promised that economy would be his watchword, and we see this first taste of economy, then I wonder how the new Government would have fared if they had had the task before them that we had. We were faced with droughts, war, revolutions, upheavals, falling revenues, with disasters of all sorts—

You made them yourselves.

No, we did not. If that remark came from the hon. member for Pretoria South (Gen. Muller), of all the effrontery I have ever come across, I think that is about the worst. I suppose we made the Great War ? The fact remains that during those disasters which the South African party were faced with—bad times generally, droughts, and other disasters—we did economize. We did put the country on a stable basis. To-day the new Government is having the benefit of our work. We went out after having done our job. We had a mess to clear up, largely brought about by hon. members across the way. We had to do the dirty work of this country, and we did it thoroughly. We cleaned up this country. Hon. members may laugh, but in their heart of hearts they must recognize that we had a very difficult task indeed, a far more difficult task than the present Government has to face, and yet we put the finances of the country in order. We handed over a clean slate to the new Government, and they immediately started defacing it.

An overdraft.

We not only wiped out the overdraft, but we left a balance in the bank, figuratively speaking, and we gave the Minister of Finance a brand new cheque book to go on with, but it seems to me that the Minister of Finance looks upon the finances of this country like the old lady who said to the bank manager, “My funds cannot be exhausted: there are several cheques left in my cheque book.” I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that these additional Estimates are exceedingly disappointing. We have no sign of any intention to economize, and I am very much afraid of what the Minister of Finance is going to spring upon us when he brings forward the general Estimates. We have not had a word about reducing taxation; not a word of economy. The new Government cannot go on blaming us; they know that we handed things over on a stable basis, and they know that they are running up expenditure to an enormous extent, and that is the reason why not one member on that side of the House has had the courage to say a word on the lack of economy shown in these additional Estimates. I hope the Minister of Finance will take the lesson to heart. If there was one election pledge which they made it was that of economy, and if there is one election pledge which the country wants to see carried out it is that of economy. So far the Government has not carried out a single one of its election pledges. I only hope that when the Budget comes on we shall find a better state of affairs than has been disclosed by the Minister of Finance in his speech to-day.

The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has brought forward a subject which very seriously affects the police force. Their minds are being perturbed by a circular which has been issued by the Government, and I hope the Minister of Justice will give some explanation on the subject. I would remind him of the provisions of the Act of Union. Section 140 lays down that—

This includes all the police who were in the service at the time when Union was consummated. We find that section 144 says—

Section 145 deals with the question of language, and says—

This circular deals with the language question, and, I believe, states that unless a person in the police force qualifies in both languages promotion will cease. Promotion was a right which existed at the time of the Act of Union. A man was entitled to promotion provided he rendered the service on which he was engaged at the time of Union with credit to himself and the State. Unless it can he said that he has not rendered this service in a proper manner, the mere fact of his not being proficient in both languages should not be imposed as a bar to his promotion. This circular at one fell swoop takes away the rights of a man who is not acquainted with the Dutch and English language.

I was very much amused to hear the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I suppose that is the powerful opposition we were to be faced with this session, the opposition which was going to give us a tremendous amount of fun and keep the Government straight. All I can say is that they are not up to advertisement. I suggest the hon. member should at least make himself conversant with the facts. He trots out the old cry of finding jobs for pals. I should have thought members of the Opposition would be the last people in the country to talk about that. It is absolutely impossible to appoint anybody that is not a South African party supporter to any position whatever without hearing the accusation that you are finding jobs for pals. The hon. member and others accuse the Government of having had to appoint commissions to find out everything. That is just the whole difference between the present Government and the last. The last Government appointed commissions not to find out what was wrong, but to find a policy for themselves.

On a point of order, I would like to know what portion of the Estimates the hon. member is talking about.

The hon. member apparently is speaking on commissions.

Yes, I am talking on commissions. The present Government were forced to appoint commissions to find out where the late Government went wrong.

I thought you knew.

I will give my hon. friend an example. He was complaining about the expenditure on the commission to inquire into pensions.

What I criticized was that we were asked to vote a sum of £34,000 on the recommendation of a commission whose report we have not yet seen.

That makes my task easier. If there was one commission that found out the mistakes of the late Government it was that.

Is the hon. member, who was a member of this commission, entitled to use his knowledge of the report of the commission when its report has not been laid on the Table of this House?

I do not think there is anything to stop the hon. member making use of any knowledge he may have.

This is very important. That is not the question the hon. member raises. The hon. member is referring to matter given in evidence before a commission whose report is not before this House. Consequently the hon. member is making use of inside information obtained by him as a member of a commission appointed by the Government. I ask if that is in accordance with Parliamentary procedure?

The right hon. member is evidently thinking of a Select Committee’s proceedings which may not be made use of until after report to the House. I know of no rule prohibiting the hon. member from making use of the information referred to.

I have used no information which I got as a member. Then again I thought hon. members wanted information.

We want to check your statements.

The hon. member knows that there is no necessity to check my statements, but I am sorry I cannot reciprocate. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) grumbled about the appointments of a Mines Regulations Commission. There are reports as a result of that commission’s enquiry which must point to the manner in which the mining houses have been running their industry to the detriment of the country. Then the hon. member has grumbled about a commission to investigate plague. I think if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) had taken the trouble to establish facts he would have found that more has been done since this Government was in office than in all the years the late Government was in power. It is not only a joke, but, paradoxical as it may seem, it is evidently serious. Hon. members grumble about the Government in connection with unemployment, not verifying their facts, and forgetting they spent this country’s money in powder and lethal weapons in causing unemployment, and this Government is doing its best to retrace their steps— the steps of the members of the Opposition benches—and trying to cope with the situation that the hon. members of the Opposition are responsible for, and as to the facts, go to the hon. the Minister for Railways and Harbours and find out how many unemployed he has placed in employment since he assumed office, employment to which they have a legitimate claim, but which hon. members on the Opposition side of the House denied them. The present Government is the first to recognize that claim and give the opportunity for employment and to accept the responsibility of placing on the railways something like 5,000 men who have been placed on the railways of the country since this Government assumed office.

How many have been dismissed?

No, they are restoring those people whom you dismissed I would like the hon. member to go among the railway men themselves and find out how much the Jaggerian regimé was responsible for their dismissal.

You have meetings at Salt River and tell the men fairy tales.

Of course I go there but my hon. friend is afraid to go there. Many thousands were discharged when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), was Minister of Railways. That brings me to this false cry of economy. I will deal with that in a moment. Then they tried to break a lance with the Minister of Labour. They said he was talking through a speaking trumpet to the unemployed. If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to get the facts they will see that the hon. the Minister for Labour is also engaged in a tremendous task caused by the late Government, of putting men who are unemployed in positions in which they will not be getting relief employment and living from hand to mouth, and having their independence sapped. It is, undoubtedly, a concerted policy. That gentleman has also placed a great many persons in positions which hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side have deprived them of in the past. If these people will go to the right source, they will find many thousands of men being employed to-day whom they threw out of employment. Again referring to economy. It is competent for us to ask what is economy ? I am afraid the reply you will get from the Opposition side of the House will fall short of the right one. Your idea of economy is to sack every man until you have no one left. It will not cost the State so much in salary. On the budget it will not show big, but is it economy to find your citizens out of employment, to so reduce the spending power of those who are still left to such a low level that they cannot fight the battle of life with anything like equanimity or pleasure ? Is it economy to make people live on a lower standard than they should? If that is economy, then the hon. members of the Opposition are correct. But economy does not mean parsimony in spending money. What it does mean is spending money wisely and while we have a single man unemployed in this country you cannot prate of economy. They have been opposed to economy all through. In my humble opinion the Opposition is not bearing out the promise of greatness that was made for them. They are not acting as an Opposition should. They are inert and useless, and we have very little to fear from them. We might just as well let them fulminate a little and then go home.

I can understand that the hon. gentleman who has just sat down should speak feelingly on the subject of “jobs for pals,” for I understand he is one of the pals who have just had a job, that job being a seat on the Commission on War Pensions. All I can say is this—that if the hon. gentleman addressed himself to his task as a commissioner when sitting as a member of that commission in the same spirit in which he is accustomed to address this House, then I do not think the State is getting value for money in respect of his service as a member of that commission, whatever may be his own estimate of the value of his services. We who have been accustomed to hear the kind of speech he has given us this afternoon for the last ten years and to whom his alleged humour has grown somewhat stale, may be pardoned if we question seriously whether he is capable of approaching any question without the customary levity which he shows in this House. The hon. gentleman knew he was out of order, or at any rate, that he was showing bad taste when he endeavoured, from his experience as a member of that commission, to build up an attack on the late Minister of Finance (Mr. Burton), and it was not in any spirit of carping criticism that I rose to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling, but because I thought, to put it bluntly, that it was indecent that a member of a commission appointed by the Government, who happened to be a member of this House, should use his position as a commissioner and knowledge he had obtained through his position, to make statements in this House which cannot be contradicted, because other hon. members have not the report before them. I hope I am not annoying the hon. member ….

It would take a greater member than you to annoy me.

He thinks he is called upon to throw the alleged darts of his wit throughout the House, but he grows extremely restive if one of us has the impertinence to reply. I now want to criticize the action of the Government in respect of two items in these supplementary estimates. I remember when they sat on these benches that they were great sticklers for parliamentary responsibility and were quick, and rightly quick, to criticize any attempted exercise by the Government of the day of powers which the constitutional position did not authorize. Now I find on the supplementary estimates for this year a most extraordinary instance of what I may call Ministerial autocracy. They have committed this country to a policy of a bounty on superphosphates which the Parliament of this country has never had any opportunity of discussing and considering. I understand that the bounty is being paid to an extraordinarily wealthy financial corporation. If that is the case no harm would have been done by giving that corporation a promise that the matter would be brought before Parliament and, if it approved, the bounty would be paid to them. In the meantime there would be no harm done, but I say the House should not be put in the position of being asked to agree to this proposal.

Not for next year, this year.

May I ask why the House is to be asked to make this particular grant in this way ? I remember when we embarked on a policy of beef bounties, we did so in a Bill, and when we embarked on the policy of iron bounties we did so in a Bill with a supporting report of the Board of Trade and Industries. But we are asked to pay this particular bounty on a mere Ministerial statement without his saying how long they are to remain. Am I right in putting it this way ? If so, I think we should have some report from the Board of Trade and Industries. In every case of bounties hitherto there has been a report from the Board of Trade and Industries to say whether there should be a bounty and what the amount should be. Now all we know is that the Minister gets up and says the Government has decided to pay a bounty to these people on the withdrawal of the dumping duties and that the bounty should be so much. I think the Minister will agree that this is not the way this problem should be tackled. It is true the amount is a small one of £4,000, but that is only for the unexpired portion of this year, and we are asked to commit this country for an indefinite period to the payment of this bounty. I put it to the Minister that is not a fair thing to ask of the House. Then we are asked to vote £30,000 for increased payments in respect of pensions in virtue of a report which the House has not seen. The correct procedure would have been to put the report on the Table of the House first of all. The Minister must realize the gravity of the proceeding, and I do not think the House should be prepared to vote the money on the strength of a report it has not seen. I contend that my point is well taken that in both of these respects the Ministers themselves are sinning in a greater degree than the late Government ever did; yet the present ministers were the foremost apostles of the purity of public life and the sanctity of Parliamentary Government. Now with regard to commissions, I see the amount voted was £10,000, and that has been increased to £17,000. Ten days ago I asked the Prime Minister if he would lay upon the Table a return giving the names and personnel of all these commissions. That has not yet been done. This afternoon I asked the Clerk of the Papers to let me have that return, which I am very anxious to see, and I was told that this return is not yet to hand. The Minister of Finance cannot expect us to pass this item, showing nearly 100 per cent. increase, without that return. I remember that when I sat on the Government side of the House it was a favourite complaint that the Government was always appointing commissions on every subject. If we did that, the present Government has out-Heroded Herod, because I have been amazed not only at the number of commissions, but at the names I have seen on those commissions. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) mentioned something about the Mining Regulations Commission—how important it was and how it would expose the iniquities of the mining houses. This was a commission intimately affecting the working of the mines, and the Government was singularly unfortunate in the choice they made of its personnel: Professor Pittman—no doubt a very good lawyer, probably has never been down a mine until he was appointed; Mr. Munnik—hon. members know the hon. member for Vredefort and know with what kindly feelings towards the mining industry his breast is animated; the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston)—we know how much fair play the mining industry can expect at his hands; and finally Mr. Wessels, who I understand was at one time a manager on the Rand, but has not been associated with mining on the Rand for some years. Can the country expect a report of any value from the gentlemen I have mentioned? I have read the reports of their proceedings sometimes in the Press, and more often than not they read like the proceedings of a bear-garden. I remember reading that the chairman of the commission, because a newspaper had the temerity to criticize its personnel and to suggest that the members were not the best of all possible commissioners in the best of all possible worlds, threatened the writer of the article with committal for contempt. I have never heard of anything more foolish and undignified in my life. The writer was the editor of a mining journal, and the chairman took advantage of his presence before the commission as a witness to lecture him on the enormity of his offence, and to express regret that the law in the Transvaal applying to the proceedings of commissions did not give him the same powers to commit for contempt as were given to the judges of the Supreme Court. What are we to expect from such a commission with such a comic opera chairman ? The House has some idea of the value of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) as a commissioner. Really the Minister should be a little more careful in the appointment of members of commissions. When he does the honour to ask those of us who sit on these benches to take part in these commissions he should not expect a senior member of this party—I am not alluding to myself—to sit under the chairmanship of men very much their junior in public life and Parliamentary experience. It will not be done. I am not suggesting that the chairmanship of a commission should be given to a member of this party.

What objection have you to the chairman of the Pensions Commission, of which I asked you to be a member ?

I did not refuse membership of the War Pensions Commission because I objected to the chairman, but because I had not the time to devote to the work. The chairman—the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz)—had been in this House six months, and had I been able to accept membership of the commission, I would have asked myself whether as a member of 10 years’ standing, I could fairly be expected to take office in a purely Parliamentary commission under a member with so little experience of Parliamentary work. Had the former hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk), who was also a member of the commission been asked to take the chairmanship that would have been an entirely different matter. I wish to endorse what has fallen from the hon. member for Dundee (Sir T. Watt) and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) with regard to these bilingual circulars. We are somewhat at a disadvantage in discussing this matter because we cannot refer in precise terms to the wording of the circulars, as they have not yet been laid on the Table. An elderly Dutch-speaking constable in the police force saw me before I left Johannesburg, and he showed me a copy of a notice which had been put up in the police station to which he was attached. The constable said to me: “I can express myself in a sort of way in English, but I cannot write the English of an educated man, and I am told in this circular that unless I Qualify up to the sixth standard in both languages, I will not be kept on after the age of 50. I am due to retire at 50, but under the old regulations I could be kept on until the age of 55.” He was, I think, 47 or 48 years of age. I do hope that if this is the state of affairs that prevails the Minister will see that it is not fair. I am not pleading for either race in particular, and I am perfectly certain that there are many English members of the police force in the same difficulty as the Dutch member who called on me.

Let him improve his English.

Let me remind the hon. member for Gordonia what was said at the time of Union. We said in a solemn Act of Parliament that the services of officers in the Public Service of any of the Colonies at the establishment of Union should not be dispensed with by reason of their want of knowledge of either English or Dutch. Apparently the framers of the Act of Union saw that there might be gentlemen of the kidney of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) who might say: “Let them improve their knowledge of the other official language.” On the strength of this statement in the Act of Union these men have remained in the Public Service. What is the difference between dispensing with a man’s services and telling him that he may be retired at the age of 50 unless he qualifies himself in both languages ? I hope the Minister of Justice, when he spoke on this delicate question of bilingualism at a bazaar the other day, did not mean that no member of the Public Service may hope for any form of advancement whatever no matter what section of the public he is brought in contact with, unless he is fully bilingual. If the Minister means that it is opening up a very wide vista. We would welcome a statement from the Minister in this House, and not at a bazaar as to what he really does mean and as to what the policy of the Government is in regard to bilingualism in the service.

Before dealing with the main point, may I also repeat the invitation which was extended to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir W. Macintosh) to go to the Western Transvaal. I can invite the Prime Minister with much more reason to go to the Western Transvaal, and if he does he will have even a bigger reception than he has ever had in the past. We have heard some extraordinary arguments. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir W. Macintosh) pointed to the fact that a large amount of money has been spent on unemployment, and consequently they urge that unemployment is increasing. I have never heard a more misleading statement. You might just as well say that the more you pay off a mortgage bond the more it is increasing. A greater non-sequitur I cannot imaging. You might just as well say that if you have a poverty-stricken family and you give them 1s. and then somebody gives them 10s. that their poverty has increased tenfold. The question is whether we are making permanent provision for something for which provision has not been made in the past. But the principal point on which I wish to speak is a question of the circular to the police. Let me say at once that hon. members of this House should not be misled by notices interpreting circulars, but should refer to the circular itself. I may say that the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has been stated in the newspapers. It has been said that I have laid it down that police officers should pass a sixth standard examination in English and Dutch. As a matter of fact I do not know what standard of English and Dutch is required by the sixth standard. I have done nothing of the kind, and I would not do such an absurd thing as to tell them that they must pass the sixth standard in either of these languages. The circular which I have issued is perfectly fair, if properly administered. It was dated 13th February, 1925, and will be laid on the Table of the House with other circulars. The first point laid down in the circular is this: “For the proper performance of police duty knowledge of the two official languages is essential.” I see nothing wrong in this point. It would create exactly the same position if a circular issued in England said that in order to do his work efficiently a policeman should know English. The second point in the circular says that: “In future, except in exceptional circumstances, promotion will not be allowed unless the member concerned is efficiently bilingual.” I do not think that anybody can cavil at that.

Yes; but what is the meaning of” except in exceptional circumstances? ”

That means that where you have an efficient man who can be properly used without his having a full knowledge of both official languages, you can deal with him in the ordinary way, allow his promotion and utilize his services to the fullest extent.

What is meant by “properly bilingual” ? Must a man be able to read the other language ?

If I may be allowed to explain the circular further, that point will be dealt with. The next point in the circular deals further with the question of promotion. Under regulation 11, names are sent in to be approved of by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Police, under that regulation, must approve of the names sent in before he allows them to enter the examination. A certificate must be given that the candidate can pass a viva voce test as far as both official languages are concerned. In the examination that follows that test a written paper must also be supplemented by a viva voce test. This is all governed by the previous provision which enables competent men to be promoted without the language qualification. As far as superannuation is concerned, it is laid down that a proper knowledge of both languages will in most cases be a decisive factor in regard to the retention of an officer after his retiring age, and the recommendation for such retention must be accompanied by a report or certificate testifying to the knowledge of the officer concerned. The opening is left for your efficient man to be retained in the service in spite of the fact that he has not a knowledge of both official languages. I do not see how anybody can object to the decision that any ordinary member of the police force coming into contact with both sections of the public should be required to have a knowledge of both languages. We have officers in this country from England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We have them from nearly every part of the world, and if they come to this country to enter our police service it is only reasonable that they should take the trouble to learn both languages.

What about those who are protected by the Act of Union?

If a man comes to a country and wants to be a policeman in that country surely the first thing he should do should be to learn the language of that country. In this country there are two official languages. It stands to reason that if a man went to England and became a policeman there he would have to learn English.

What about the man who was in the service before Union?

Those men are approaching their superannuation so rapidly that there is no need to trouble very much about them. I would point out, however, no regulation in conflict with the terms of the Act of Union can stand. If there is one single word in this in conflict with the terms of the Act of Union it will be ultra vires.

Is it fair to the men who were in the service of the country before Union ?

The hon. member is not asking me now whether I am going to enforce it; he is asking about the fairness of it. Well, I think that it is very fair indeed when you have an Act of Union passed in 1910 to expect men who were in the service at that date to have learnt the other official language in the intervening fifteen years. I think if a man has not done so it is absolutely fair to keep him back in the service. I do not say that I will do this, because there are many factors to be considered. There are, for instance, a large number of valuable officers in the police service who have had no opportunity of coming into contact with members of the public, speaking one of the official languages. In a case of that kind where they do not come into contact with the general public nothing will be done to prejudice their position. That is the position I take up; there is power under this circular to make provision for these cases, and provision will be made for them. Let me take a special instance: I do not know at the moment whether the official in charge of the fingerprint department is bilingual or not, and whether or not a man like that has had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with both official language’s, and whether he is bilingual or not it will not affect his work in the fingerprint department. His position would not be prejudiced in respect of either promotion or superannuation, and in the same way the efficiency and the necessity for the knowledge of both languages will be carefully considered in the case of each individual officer. You must remember that those who have grown up in this country and who have made it their home will not be concerned in future so much with what other people are going to do who may later on enter from overseas; they are more concerned about their own children and what they are going to do. The children are receiving an education making them efficiently bilingual, and to my mind it is the duty of the Government to see that those who must come into contact in the course of their duties with both sections of the public should be drawn from this class of children. I cannot understand how a man is going to carry out his duties properly unless he knows the official languages of the country, and I do not think a man can carry out his police duties properly unless he knows both languages here. Take the position in London. If you require a fingerprint expert, you get him from any part of the world, no matter how little or how much English he may know, but for other work, where a man has to come into contact with the public, he must know the language. I disagree entirely with the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) that so far as Natal is concerned, Zulu is more important than Dutch. In this country a thing of primary importance for the population when they are in the State service is to know both languages. I am not prepared, so far as Natal is concerned, to substitute Zulu for Dutch When Natal came into the Union, I take it that it came in with the idea of shouldering the same burdens as the other provinces had to shoulder, and one of the burdens, if it can be called a burden, is to know both official languages. I do not think special treatment for Natal is necessary. I think that, as far as your police are concerned, you will find that the large majority, can make themselves well understood for all practical purposes to both sections of the community, and that is what is required. I was affected by the touching little story of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) about the unfortunate Dutch policeman who does not know enough English to carry on his duties in Johannesburg properly. I must say I have not met that man. As far as I am aware, the police there can make themselves well understood in both languages. I can give this assurance that as far as I know the police—and I have not got information based on the last few months only, but I have had a fairly good knowledge of the police before that period —not in the same sense in which members of the Opposition have obtained their knowledge —I do not think myself that there is very much wrong with the police in this country. It may be that in certain respects a certain amount of re-organization is necessary. Some people may say that the police force is top-heavy in this country, but, take it all in all, your police force is a very serviceable weapon and I can assure hon. members that I will do all in my power to keep it as serviceable as it is to-day and when it is possible to improve that weapon. In the past you may have had to make it somewhat top-heavy, because you so often called upon the police to perform military duties. I hope that that extravagant wastage of the past will not be imported in the future. Those are the points with which I think I was called upon more particularly to deal. Those are the lines on which I propose to deal with the police force in this country. I may say that I am going to deal with the warders of this country on similar lines. Both in the case of your police and your warders there is going to be ample provision made by me for the man who is a good man and who has not had a chance of learning the other language to obtain his promotion and to continue in the service after the ordinary age of retirement.

What about the question of the release of prisoners ?

I gave an answer to that question. I have nothing to add to that.

Nothing to defend ?

I have nothing to regret. I think it was a perfectly right thing to do at that time.

I am sure the House has listened with a certain amount of interest and a certain amount of disappointment to the lame excuses which the Minister has given.

I have not made excuses.

I think the Minister has made an excuse, and I think he will have to make a good many more before the session is much older. Unless the Prime Minister takes the hon. gentleman in hand he will create such a chaos in the Cabinet and country that he will have to take steps to release himself from the incubus of the hon. gentleman. I think the House has a right to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with the views of the Minister of Justice on this important question and whether the regulations which are being introduced in the Department of Justice it is the intention of the Prime Minister to say will be introduced into the other departments. There could be nothing more touching than in a case of this sort to see this regulation introduced into the Department of Defence by the Minister of Defence. Neither the Minister of Defence nor the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is acquainted with the Dutch language, and a large number of the people who sit on the cross-benches and support the Government are also unacquainted with the Dutch language, and, as I am reminded by one of my colleagues sitting here, that is really one of the reasons why they support these gentlemen, because very often they do not know what they are doing and what they are saying. This is a question upon which the Government as a Government should have a policy, and whether the Government considers that it is courteous, when two members of the Cabinet and many of their supporters do not understand a word of the Dutch language, that a circular of this character should be issued. I think we ought to have on that point an explanation from the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice says that this circular is a very simple one and that there is no intention on his part of getting rid of anyone who is able to make himself fairly efficient and understandable to the public. But that is not what the circular says. The circular says that he must be properly bilingual, that he must pass two examinations viva voce, and he must pass a written examination and be approved of by the Commissioner of Police for the time being. At the opening of a bazaar on Saturday the Minister of Justice said what was the policy of himself.

You took that from the “Cape Times.” It is not what I said.

I suppose the hon. gentleman is not going to put himself in the position of those people who are always misreported. Did he not say that as far as he was concerned he desired to see everybody in the public service bilingual and that, as far as he and his friends were concerned, they would make no promotion in the ease of people who were not bilingual?

I did not say that. I said exactly what I say now.

I think the Minister of Justice ought to tell the House exactly what he means.

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

When the House adjourned we were discussing the extraordinary circular issued by the hon. Minister of Justice in connection with bilingualism in the police force. We had listened with some considerable amusement to the extraordinarily indecisive explanation which the hon. Minister gave when he attempted to interpret his circular to the House. It appeared to me—I may have been mistaken—that the hon. Minister was translating his circular which was handed to him in Dutch, and he seemed to find considerable difficulty in translating the Dutch into English. Having listened to the hon. Minister so fluently speaking English on several occasions, and having so seldom heard him speaking Dutch fluently, I came at once to the conclusion that it was rather a difficult thing for him to translate. Under those circumstances he should be a little kind to those police officers in making them pass two examinations, viva voce in Dutch, and one written as well. What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this: Has this circular been issued by the Minister of Justice himself, or has it been issued after receiving the full consideration of the Cabinet ? Also, I should like to know whether this circular, which has been issued in connection with the Police Department, is to be a forerunner of other circulars dealing with other departments, especially the departments over which the Minister of Defence, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs preside ? I see the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is blushing. Under the circumstances I had thought that a blush would now refuse to sit upon his cheek, but I have been wrong.

You generally are.

The Minister of Defence is now blushing. I ask the hon. Ministers would they issue a circular of that kind in connection with the Defence Department and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs ?

They were issued three years ago.

I would ask those two hon. Ministers whether they agree with this policy of putting impediments in the way of old officers of the service who do not have the opportunity of becoming bilingual, but who nevertheless have rendered great service to this country. Are the hon. Ministers themselves prepared to pass an examination in both languages ? It would be a good thing, if the rules of this House would permit, to have these two gentlemen put through a viva voce examination in Dutch. Will the Minister of Justice tell us that notwithstanding the issue of this circular, he will treat the members of the service as leniently as he treats his two colleagues who have the same disabilities—orimperfections, I should say—as those public servants have. There is no one who does not realize that in a bilingual country you should do all you possibly can to have a bilingual service and I think the rule that has always been carried out since Union has been that after a certain period new entrants into the Public Service are supposed to have a knowledge of both official languages. But after fourteen or fifteen years surely if my hon. friend the Minister of Justice did not want to step in and cause a great deal of dissatisfaction, he would have allowed the ordinary effluxion of time to deal with any want of bilingualism on the part of members of the Public Service. That I think would have been perfectly fair. That is the policy that has been carried on ever since Union and why the hon. gentleman should have barged in and by this circular and by many of his public utterances caused a great deal of alarm and dissatisfaction in the service I cannot understand. It was never the intention of the Act of Union that any officer of the Government service in this country who performed his duties properly should be penalized on account of his knowledge of both languages, but it was distinctly understood that new entrants should have a knowledge of both languages and my hon. friend must realize that there are many men, especially in the police forces of this country who have done admirable service, not only in the discharge of their duties in this country, but in the Great War as well, who have been penalized by the circular which the hon. gentleman has issued and if he is going to carry out the statement he made before that bazaar that he is not going to make promotions in his department unless the officers are bilingual, it is time we had an assurance from the right hon. the Prime Minister that he will not allow an injustice of that kind. The hon. the Minister does some extraordinary things, for instance, the releasing of a large number of prisoners out of the gaols which he evidently did on his own initiative—I am certain he did not consult his colleagues, but the hon. gentleman is not used to consulting them because he glories in saying at political meetings that he is speaking on his own responsibility—but the right hon. gentleman being a responsible Minister, and being in a Cabinet supposed to act collectively, should leave all these little tricks of the past and try to realize his responsibility, not only to his colleagues, but to the country. I do say unhesitatingly that actions such as this of the Minister in issuing circulars and actions such as those of the Minister in making those unfortunate speeches throughout the country, are doing a lot of harm and raising a spirit which we were anxious to see disappear. Everything he desires to do could be done by the effluxion of time, and it is to my mind a most unjust thing if the Prime Minister is going to allow the terms of this circular to be carried out. It would be unjust to a large number of police officers who have rendered admirable service to the country and the Union.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is not in his place.

He is busy learning the two languages.

I think he is a person who would be able to reply to me if he had the opportunity. But I received some time ago a letter from one of the principal members of the Rand. I do not know whether it is right to read a portion of it, but this man says a propos of the culture of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that he is one who talks about everything about which he knows nothing, but I only want to say a few words about economy. What about public health? I see that on the whole nearly three quarters of a million more is being expended and the people that I fought in my district were also strongly in favour of economy but it seems that public health is the only thing on which they economise. We are asked for £10,000 for fighting pests, but what plague is greater than tuberculosis in our country?

I am sorry but the hon. member cannot speak about tuberculosis.

Hospitals and plague prevention are two items in the estimates, however I will submit to your ruling.

Vote 21 deals with hospitals and training schools for mentally defectives, and Vote 23 for plague measures, there is thus no opportunity to speak about tuberculosis.

I shall doubtless get an opportunity later to speak about it. I also wish to mention what has already been touched on by the previous speaker, namely the release of prisoners. It may be entirely right but I only wish to tell the hon. Minister of Justice that on the night the prisoners were released someone was knocked down with a bottle in my district. We do not like that in our district such wild animals should be released. With reference to the language question, we, just as well as the English-speaking people, are nervous about the circular of the hon. Minister. I do not now speak for the English-speaking people in the police force but I am certain that if the hon. Minister is going to fix a certain standard of knowledge of both languages for the policemen then our Dutch-speaking people will suffer more than the English-speaking. Yes, there are some uneducated Afrikanders, who do not know English and are very glad if they can become policemen. I would like to tell the House about the instance of an uneducated man that happened a little while ago. There was in a certain village a policeman and he was getting a certain quantity of numbers, about six numbers, of motor cars whose owners, had not paid their licence money. What happened in this instance ? The policeman stopped a motor car and said “stop, because you have a wrong number.”

I feel I must congratulate: the Minister of Justice on this circular. One-thing I have always felt as an injustice done to the population of this country is the police not knowing both languages. Some years ago I happened to be in the chief town of one of the fairly big fiscal divisions of this country where everybody could speak Dutch, and the only man in that division who was not able to speak Dutch was the chief of the police. Every complaint had to be interpreted to him. He was director of prosecutions and could not speak Dutch. I would say this to my hon. friend the member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) that there are very few policemen in the service who do not know sufficient English to be able to perform their duties and be able to answer all reasonable requests in English, but I am sorry for the large number of Dutch-speaking people who have to address themselves to English-speaking policemen and find they cannot understand them. I once went to the Cape Town docks and there was a Dutch ship loading, coal. Dutch is an official language of this country, but the sergeant of police in charge at the quayside did not understand Dutch, I take it because in the past many of the hon. gentlemen over the way and right hon. gentlemen of the last Ministry looked upon the provisions of section 137 of the Act of Union as a scrap of paper which was put there to satisfy certain people at the time of Union. They forgot that the reason was because the late President Steyn said they felt that when they could not address officials in their own language that they were branded with at mark of inferiority. Therefore, very shortly after very solemnly we had incorporated in the South Africa Act these provisions hon. members opposite, especially the right, hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas. Smartt), who did not hestitate to make Dutch speeches all over the country when standing as a bondsman with the support of the Afrikander-bond, began to contend that officials need not know both languages. When he sought the support of the Bond he never talked as he talked to-night and did not then talk as he afterwards talked from these benches when he said that under the provisions of section 137 the officials of the country could choose in which language they would address the public of the country. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister because at last we have a Minister who will see that justice is done to both sections of the population of the country, and I want to advise all policemen who do not know English to learn it at once. I think the hon. member opposite will find very few policemen who do not know English, and I am almost prepared to state that for every policeman who does not know English they would find one hundred who do not know sufficient Dutch to carry out his duties and answer every request to him. As regards dumping duties on fertilizers, I also want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the way out he has found. I think he has found a very good way out. He has been able to protect a staple industry of the country and the people who produce foodstuffs by taking away the iniquitous dumping duty on phosphates (fertilizers) and he has also been able to prevent the failure of an industry which may do good in South Africa but which up to the present has done very little. The Nationalist party has stood for the protection of industries—not bastard industries. I am inclined to think that the fertilizer industry has been more of a bastard industry in the past than anything else. Most of the stuff they require to produce their article comes from abroad. But now the Minister has found a way out, and if they are really an industry that can do good in this country they are supported. I wish to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I just want to say this, he has used the word “effrontery.” Some of the members on this side of the House give him best in this respect. We remember how he got up in this House and bragged how he had failed to pay his dog licence in the Free State, and because the Free State municipal or provincial authorities thought a man of the standing of the gallant and hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) would have the decency to pay his dog licence without being sued for it he made an attack on those authorities. He talks about dirty work that had been done. We agree they did a good deal of dirty work, and we come to understand why he squeals.

I do not grunt.

I have not run.

I said I do not grunt.

I thought the hon. member said he did not run. I wanted to remind him of his run from Bloemfontein (South) to Port Elizabeth (Central). Whether he squeals, grunts or runs it will not bring him back to these benches for a very long time.

I hope to discuss the matter of bilingualism free from party spirit because I think the time has gone by when we can discuss this question except with goodwill. It is one that affects all sections of the population. It is not a racial or party question. I would remind members that all the Act of Union said in the section quoted, viz., 145, was—and it was unfortunately vague—that existing members of the civil service would not be dismissed because of a want of knowledge of either languages. Members who imply that express provision was made for promotion and increments are quite wrong, as there is nothing specific in the Act of Union about them. It was one of the things that the Convention unfortunately did not directly deal with. All section 145 says is that civil servants cannot be dispensed with because they do not know English or Dutch. We must discuss this firstly from the legal point of view, and secondly from the point of view of what is for the good of the country. It is quite clear that the Act of Union made only direct provision for dismissal. The matter remained in that condition until 1912. Members seem to have forgotten the Select Committee of 1912. The Bill that the Botha Government brought in in 1912 did not contain these promotion clauses. They also apparently decided to leave the bilingual question alone for the time being. The Bill went to Select Committee on which both sides of the House were represented, and they came back with an agreed Bill. Let us look at the language clause in that Bill. One would think that this was the first time that the question had been raised of promotion being dependent on a knowledge of both languages, but if members will take the trouble to read the Railway and Harbour Service Act of 1912 they will see that “After the commencement of this Act” any person appointed to a clerical post, unless he possesses a knowledge of both official languages, shall not be promoted to any higher grade. But as it was introduced into the House the question of languages was left alone. As they emerged from the Select Committee it was agreed that the language clauses should appear in the two Bills—Railway and Harbour Service and Public Service Bills. For these appointed after August 1st, 1912, there were to be no promotions unless officials were competent in both official languages. For these entering the public service after that date no promotion was to take place without an examination in both official languages. There was trouble about it at the time, but after discussion both sides of the House agreed to accept the verdict of the Select Committees, and that remained the law of this country. In 1917 the Government issued a circular on this very subject. Unfortunately I have not been able to get a copy of that circular, but it was issued, curiously enough, on August 14th, 1917—after a little more than five years had elapsed from the Act of 1912. Now in 1923 we had another Select Committee which members seem to have forgotten about, also dealing with this language question, and we again confirmed in the Select Committee, of which I was a member—and I should like to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that because the ex-Minister of the Interior was the chairman I did not feel annoyed that the chairman happened to be a man of shorter Parliamentary experience than myself, and we were able to serve under the ex-Minister of the Interior.

He was a Minister.

The hon. member says he was a Minister, so I take it his argument is that while he is not prepared to sit under a chairman of less Parliamentary experience than himself, he is prepared to sit under a Minister, though he is of less experience.

Why not?

I quite agree it has nothing to do with the case how long the Parliamentary experience is. The present Minister of the Interior will remember how the question of language was very seriously discussed in the committee. There was not entire unanimity in the committee, but in the end there was no division on the matter. And what was adopted in 1923? The language clause as passed in the 1912 Act was definitely confirmed by the committee and endorsed by Parliament without any dissent being expressed as far as I remember. The clause of the 1912 Act was reinforced. The only point in fairness to the Minister is that his circular appeared to deal with persons appointed before 1912. If it does it goes beyond the statutes of Parliament, and so far as this circular deals with officers appointed before those statutes it cannot interfere with those rights. The circular ought to draw a distinction between appointments made before that date and those made after it, and make it clear that only promotions of persons appointed after that date will come under the new provisions If that were made clear the Minister would only be repeating what is in the existing Acts. I may say frankly that some members of the force have spoken to me about this matter and they are much disturbed, but not so much by the circular issued by the Minister as by the further circular issued by the Police Commissioner in these terms—

19/2/25.

It is that particular interpretation of the circular which undoubtedly has caused alarm, and it is contrary to what the Minister has stated. Because to make men who do the ordinary police work pass an examination up to standard VI and put them to a viva voce test of unqualified fluency would be most unfair. I think it may be the way the circular has been passed round that has caused alarm. There can be no doubt that every one wishes to see the country bilingual as quickly as possible, and that is the only way by which we shall ever understand one another. If they want to get on in this country, and want to make this a South African nation, instead of having various hostile camps, they should learn not only their mother tongue but the other official language also. It is impossible, however, that these older officials can pass a high standard, but with youngsters it is not only possible, but it has been done. The number of bilingual officials in this country has increased enormously since 1910, there has been a steady increase since the day of Union, but it is no use forcing the pace. We want to encourage everybody to become bilingual, and, indeed, they are doing so rapidly. But one must not expect too much of these older officials who have got their rights safeguarded; it is only the new entrants since 1912 who should be affected in this way. There is no doubt that the Minister’s statement will give a great deal of reassurance, I mean in connection with the latter part of the circular, with regard to this Standard VI. examination and this question of unqualified fluency. We shall never settle this question by trying to make party capital out of it. There is only one way to settle it, and that is the way that was adopted at the Convention and at the Select Committees that have sat to deal with the matter, where they came to a decision without the necessity of a division. It is only when we recognize the desirability of everybody in the country becoming as efficient as possible in the two languages that we shall settle this question satisfactorily.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and I could not help being amused at the role he was adopting. He started off to prove that legally by the Act of Union the hon. the Minister was entitled to do what he has done and then the hon. member went on to argue that if the hon. the Minister meant more than that, then the circular was illegal. The hon. member went on to say that if there was a misunderstanding it was because of the circular issued by a high official in the police department. I agree that this is a bilingual country and that bilingualism is protected by Article 137 of the Act of Union, as far as I know every hon. member on this side of this House is as anxious that Article 137 should be carried out to its fullest extent. We should not approach this matter from a party point of view, we should approach it from the public point of view and from the point of view of the Public Service. This circular has caused a great deal of discontent and alarm in the public service and in that way is causing much damage to the cause of public interest of this country. When we look at Article 145 of the Act of Union which the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) relied on, he said that the only protection the public servant got from the Act of Union was that his services should not be dispensed with. Do I understand then, that a man can be victimized, penalized and prosecuted under the terms of that Act of Union? Was it not meant for the protection of the public service? But that is the logical consequences of what the hon. member said. He pointed out how perfectly right the hon. the Minister was when he said that all the protection the public servants got was that their services could not be dispensed with. Then, if that is the case, what was the good of the Act of 1912 to give them protection? According to his argument there is no single man who entered the service before 1912 who has got any protection whatever except the bald protection that his services shall not be dispensed with.

You are quite wrong.

I listened for twenty minutes to the remarks of the hon. member; I saw him executing an egg dance with the most remarkable facility. I wonder what the members of the public service will say to-morrow, when they read the hon. member’s speech the speech of their champion, their protector, the man who stood up against Government and power in order to protect the unprotected public servants. When they realize on the strict interpretation of the law as laid down by the hon. member that the Government can do just what it likes with them—

I did not say that.

According to the hon. member they can do anything with the public servant except dismiss him. I will take him on that argument.

Putting up pins to knock them down.

Yes. He tried to knock them down.

Yes, pins that you put up.

No. What are their rights subject to the law of the land, are they not entitled to get promotion from stage to stage, from barrier to barrier as a reward for their good service? That is the protection they got under the Act of Union. My hon. friend has completely ignored section 144. I go further and say that this Article 137 was passed by the Convention in the spirit of the Convention. If there was one single man whether the late revered President Steyn, whether the right hon. the Prime Minister, or whether the right hon. members for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) I do not care who the man was, Dutch or English, who took part in the framing of Article 137 of the Act of Union but I do say that there was not a man that dreamt for a moment that that article was going to be used for the purposes of prosecution, not one man in the whole of the country thought that. But the hon. member stands up and defends the action of the hon. the Minister of Justice If the high official whose circular was quoted by the hon. member for Hanover Street as being the sole cause of this perturbation, caused misunderstanding in the higher ranks, who can blame the constables for taking the same view. It is not the written word alone by which people can govern, it is the spirit and intention and the motive behind the written words which tells time fifty times more forcibly with the people of this country than the mere written word does. What permitted the hon. the Minister to take the course he has taken? The hon. member for Hanover Street has suggested what was the necessity for the circular. The Minister of Justice is a man who has got into the habit of letting out inconvenient truths, but we also know this that what the Minister of Justice says to-day although the Cabinet of to-day says no, the Cabinet of to-morrow says exactly the same thing.

I could not get the last Cabinet to do it.

This manner of blushing modesty sits very well upon the Minister of Justice, but we know better, we know how much he does ride upon a whirlwind and control the storm so far as the Cabinet is concerned. We have known that during the past few years. But if he has got all the powers that he requires under the Act, what is the necessity for this circular? He is not satisfied with the statutory powers because the statutory powers under section 15 of Act 27 of 1923 following the precedent of extending it under the Act of 1912 applied only to the administrative and clerical divisions. So far as those divisions were concerned under the Act of 1912 protection was given for five years, which brings us to 1917. In 1923 what happened? The same principle is adopted and passed by this House that any person within five years after the commencement of this Act should have his right of promotion during the five years, but, he should fail to get that after five years, unless he qualified in both languages, but the last clause of section 15 (1), the provisions of which extend the operation of protection to July, 1928, also extends the provisions of the sub-section to officers who enter the public service after July 31st, 1912. In other words every officer of the public service, in the administrative and clerical branch, is protected to July 31st, 1928, notwithstanding any circular which the Minister of Justice chooses to issue. This is a matter upon which some of us feel very strongly indeed. We believe that a contented public service is one which is an absolutely vital necessity for any country. If that circular contains anything more than the law contains, then it should be withdrawn as speedily as possible. The public service has a reason for the alarm. One of the shields of the public service is the Public Service Commission, constituted by the Act of Union, fortified by the Act of 1912, is giving exactly the powers arrived at after a long discussion between the Government and the public servants of this country. The Act of 1923 was passed so as to put the Public Service Commission in such a position as to be able to protect the public servants by acting as an independent body, and responsible to Parliament only on behalf of the public service. The Minister of Justice has given an indication that he regards with contempt both its existing constitution and its powers. Is there any right or justice, any expediency or policy, on the part of the Government which can thus wilfully, wantonly, and deliberately, thrust daggers into the public service and cause this dismay and perturbation which has now arisen? I do appeal most earnestly to the Minister, if he is as moderate as the member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) tells us, to withdraw this obnoxious circular and make it plain to the public service that he intends to protect their rights and safeguard them by giving the fullest powers to the Public Service Commission. Do let us try to realize that Article 137 of the Act of Union was meant to preserve the peace, the concord and happiness of the people of this country, and preserve their pride and self-respect, and not to be used as a means of persecution, or a means of degradation of one section of the country.

On a memorable occasion, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, speaking at the Labour Congress at Kimberley, referred in a moment of pardonable rapture to the effects of the Pact, and said that this was a case of “Horsey keep your tail up.” I think the speech of the Minister of Justice and the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) have left “horsey’s” tail in a somewhat limp and supple condition, because, if there is anything needed to indicate to the public servant who is unable to speak in Dutch that his doom is sounded, it is the speech of the Minister of Justice and that of the hon. member (Mr. Alexander). Had those speeches been made prior to Union, do you, Mr. Speaker, as one who understands Natal, venture for a moment to think that Natal would ever have entered Union? I venture to say there would never have been any Union.

The Asiatics would have eaten you up.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) undoubtedly takes first place as “barracker” for his side. If any evidence of betrayal of the public service were needed, that evidence has been furnished this afternoon by the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) combined with the interpretation which the Minister of Justice has given to his circular. The Minister of Justice referred with some scorn to the suggestion of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), that it would be of much benefit to members of the police service and render them more efficient if, instead of insistence on a second European language in the case of Natal they were required to qualify in a native language. The great preponderence of convictions in Natal among natives as compared with Europeans (for example in one year 20,896 natives and 2,728 Europeans were convicted of serious offences) strongly supports the view expressed by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). We have been told that the members of the police force must be properly bilingual. In the next breath the Minister interprets that as meaning an ordinary ability to converse in both languages, but we can only be guided by the actual wording of the circular. I wish to point out that the difficulty of learning the Dutch language on the part of older officials who are situated in Natal is a very great and a very real one. Although we have all agreed that the provisions of the Act of Union require that officials shall be bilingual, I do ask that patience should be shown in this matter. I know of instances where it would cost a man the whole of his salary to travel to centres in Natal where he could get tuition in the Dutch language. With the best will in the world, it is quite unreasonable for us to force the pace, owing to the peculiar difficulties in which men are placed in Natal. I hope the Minister in his future dealings with the police or the prisons services will considerably modify the attitude which he has outlined this evening. In connection with the unemployment question, the Minister of Labour has propounded a scheme for placing tenant farmers on the land. I understood from the Minister of Finance that we were to have an explanation from the Minister of Labour as to how this scheme for the absorption of the unemployed was to be carried out.

In committee, I said.

I beg your pardon if I misinterpreted the Minister’s statement. It does seem to me that, in view of the narrow limits placed upon this debate, this is a favourable moment to comment on the scheme outlined by the Minister of Labour in the “Farmers’ Weekly.” It was intimated there that certain subsidies would be paid to unemployed persons to whom farmers were willing to give the use of land or a house.

I must ask the hon. member not to go too far in connection with that because the policy was discussed when the last Budget debate was on. The hon. member must confine himself to the Additional Vote.

I hope I shall not be thought to demur to your decision, Sir, but the policy only saw light on the 22nd of October, 1924, after the end of last session, and I ask indulgence to discuss the matter.

The hon. member will have another opportunity of fully discussing the matter. I do not want to stop him, but he should confine himself to the increase only.

I only wish to remark incidentally upon the way in which the scheme is working out. I do not wish to discuss policy. I wish to point out that a man who was thoroughly qualified as a farmer, who held testimonials from Dutch and English-speaking farmers, was offered by me the use of a portion of ground and the use of a house if these subsidies were available to him under the terms outlined by the Minister. The reply of the Minister was that the man was not qualified to receive the subsidy because he had not been on the relief works. In other words, it was only persons who had been on the relief works —the persons who were least qualified in the opinion of most people—who could have these subsidies. This man was most bitterly disappointed when the Minister’s reply was sent to him. He felt that the scheme was confined to a chosen few and was not available for the benefit of the whole community. I am sorry the Minister of Labour saw fit to absent himself at this stage.

He has been here all the time.

I do not propose to take any notice of the babblings of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I want to refer to a most remarkable statement made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs at Greyville. It is a statement which I called upon him to make good in the public Press, but he has doubtless been so busy “delivering the goods that he has not done so. At a meeting of his constituents he “tickled the ears of the groundlings” at Greyville by some remarkable statements. He said at Greyville there were 18 sheep inspectors—

I am sorry, but you are not entitled to discuss sheep inspectors.

I will take another opportunity of extracting an answer from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Now the Minister of Justice said this evening that he had nothing to regret in connection with his release of the prisoners. I think he spoke rather in haste, and perhaps on further consideration he will have occasion to regret his precipitate action. In a recent visit to a corner of my constituency I came across instances which show that the precipitate action of the Minister has had a remarkably bad effect on native discipline in the district. In particular there was a case where a native committed a murderous assault upon a European of 70 years of age. This particular convict fell to be released in connection with what has been called the convicts’ jubilee. That native is spreading it through the district that the magistrate, who took occasion to give him a severe talking to, is of no account in the scheme of justice, that as far as the administration of justice was concerned these things are ordered from Pretoria and the magistrate counts for next to nothing. I do wish seriously to press upon the notice of the Prime Minister the mischievous effect upon the native population of releasing large bodies of lawless natives and turning them loose upon the community with no explanation as to the reason or occasion for their release. The effect is a far-reaching one and not likely to be dismissed in the airy language with which the Minister of Justice would wish to dismiss it.

In common with many members of the Opposition, I cannot always see eye to eye with the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), but I would like in a word or two to emphasize what it has taken him some considerable time to do—that is with regard to what he had to say on the bilingual question so far as it affects Natal.

Come over to us.

And I would like to impress on the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, that he and the Government generally ought to hasten slowly in so far as enforcing the language qualification in Natal. As the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has pointed out, the facilities for requiring a knowledge of the Dutch language in Natal cannot be compared with similar facilities in any of the other Provinces, and although the Dutch-speaking and the English-speaking people of Natal are getting along remarkably well together, and the latter are applauding the good work that is being done by the present Government, I would sound a note of warning in so far as not to antagonize the large body of English-speaking South Africans in Natal by anything in the nature of unduly enforcing the language qualification. I entirely agree with my friend the hon. the member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) when he says that this is a bilingual country, and that each and every one of us should learn Dutch. I quite agree with that, and I may say in passing that when the nationalities represented on this particular bench agree it has been found in the past to be some combination. During last session the Minister of Railways, when introducing the Railway Budget, said it was not his intention to press for the use of the Dutch language in the Province where that language was used least; in other words, he was, not going to insist upon the railway men in Natal acquiring a knowledge of the Dutch language, and I was pleased on returning to Natal to tell a large number of railway men what the Minister had stated. That brings me to a letter which I have to-day received from Natal. It is of sufficient interest, in view of the present debate, to read to the House. It says: “Just a line or two. My son, Cecil, made application for work on the railways here and just when everything appeared settled and he expected to be told he could start work as a labourer, he was asked if he could speak Dutch. His answer being in the negative, he was told he could not be given a start. He was born in Natal. I have been in South Africa for 50 years and there certainly appears to be something rotten in the state of Denmark when a Natalian cannot get employment in the Province that paid the debts and enabled the Union to make a start, if I remember rightly.” I cannot altogether agree with the concluding paragraph but at the same time I entirely agree with the writer that when a young man in Natal desires to obtain work on the South African Railways as a labourer, his lack of a knowledge of the Dutch language should not be a barrier to his securing work in Natal. I would impress upon the present Government not to unduly press for a knowledge of the Dutch language in Natal. In so far as the younger people are concerned, by all means see that they acquire a knowledge of Dutch, but where older people are concerned I understand it becomes increasingly difficult to learn another language as one grows older. My hon. friend the member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has been able to acquire it, although I have not heard him exercise it in the House. But he has frequently told me quietly what another Dutch member was saying.

I have spoken in Dutch in the House.

Perhaps that was before I became a member. There is a good deal of truth in what Mr. Marwick has said. The facilities for learning Dutch in Natal are by no means similar to those in other Provinces and I would ask the Government to take that into consideration, not only in connection with the police and the railways, but the Public Service generally, and not antagonize a large section of Natal South Africans against the present Government.

I have listened with interest to the debate and especially to the question of bilingualism, because I have always taken particular interest in the question seeing that I have always felt that no policy can succeed in this country if it is based on racial differences, and the only way to attain this is to put the two official languages on entirely equal footing, and so far as possible to bring about a condition in this country where everyone will be able to understand the language of his other language-speaking compatriot, only on the basis of the understanding of both languages in this country can a good understanding between the two races in the country be built up and the future of South Africa secured. I listened with interest this afternoon to what has been said by certain members of the Opposition since the matter came under discussion and I must compliment the members opposite upon the progress that they have made in certain respects. It is not so long since leading members on the other side, namely, the members for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) took up and defended in this House the view that under the constitution and Article 137, every official of the country had the fullest right, even if he knew both the languages of the country, to speak to a member of the public in whichever language he chose, in other words that an official had the free choice even if he knew both languages, for instance, to answer a Dutch-speaking member of the public in English. If we take into consideration that at least 80 per cent. of the public service is English-speaking, I do not say solely English-speaking, then everyone can understand what this would come to in practice and how it would go with the rights of the Dutch-speaking. This is the position taken up by these two members and also by other prominent members of the present Opposition. To-day we have experienced such a change, if we think about speeches that they delivered not long since, that the hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and Rondebosch (Mr. Close) are concerned about the Dutch-speaking unilingualists. I fear that if hon. members continue to make such progress they will eventually come to the point of acknowledging that we should only speak one language here and that should be Dutch. The members on this side of the House do not want unilingualism. This is what is meant by the action of the Minister of Justice and this is the attitude that we take up in this debate to-night. I should also like to mention that where so much objection has been taken to the circular of the Minister of Justice the former Government did precisely the same thing in regard to the other branches of the service and actually went a step further. If there are two branches of the service that correspond more or less with each other it is the defence force and the police force. Both are there for the preservation of law and order. If there is any difference between the two then it is that the police by virtue of their work have a great need of bilingualism. They came into relation with the public, they must trace crime, and they can only do this if they know both official languages. We cannot accept that all the criminals are English-speaking. They belong to both races and therefore the police must also know both languages. If there is an official who should know both languages it is the policeman. With reference to the defence force the late Government issued regulations two years ago in which it is laid down most emphatically that no one shall be promoted in the defence force unless he passes an examination in the English language or that not less than 50 per cent. of the examination must be done in English and a like examination in Dutch. Further it is provided that no one shall be regarded as succeeding in this examination unless he in both examinations has obtained 60 per cent. of the marks. I say that this goes a good bit further and is more onerous than the regulations or rather the circular of the hon. Minister of Justice. Now if hon. members on the opposite side of the House had no objection to those regulations with reference to the defence force—and I have no objection thereto, I don’t want to reject them—I ask the question why hon. members now cast the reproach upon the Minister of Justice when they at that time raised no difficulty. There are two lawyers who have to-day taken part in this debate and have tried to give an explanation of the existing statutes with regard to bilingualism and I am sorry to have to say that I differ from the explanation of both. I refer to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I did not expect from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) the construction that he has given to-day because I regard him as one of the chief lawyers in this House and there are many of them! If I understood him correctly he said that the Public Service Act of 1923 contains an article which gives to officials appointed since 1912 up to 1923 when the new law came into operation, the right to remain unilingual and to get promotion, and I suppose increase of salary, up to the year 1928. This is not the case and I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) who was chairman of the Select Committee in 1923 that sat in connection with the law will agree when I say that the demands which are there made, language demands in the new section 15 of the law of 1923 were made of retrospective effect and to apply to officials appointed since 1912 who have continued to remain unilingual, i.e., when for the future demands are made that the official who do not learn the second language shall get no further increase of salary at the end of five years and if there are such officials who since 1912 have been appointed, and five years has elapsed since their appointment and they are not qualified, then the law will immediately be applicable to them. Now this provision with reference to officials came into operation and to-day there are quite a number of officials who have been appointed since 1912 but before the coming into force of the law of 1923, who are not qualified in the second language and they remain in the stage that they reached, i.e., their salaries will not be further increased. The construction which the hon. member gave to the law was thus incorrect on this point but now I come to the construction of the Act of Union and the Act 1912 which has been given by both lawyers to whom I have referred. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) tells us that the Act of Union unfortunately protects officials appointed before the commencement of the Union who are unilingual only in so far as that they cannot be dismissed on account of their only speaking one language. So far he was right. The law goes no further than that. But then he says something which unfortunately is not sound, namely, that the promotion of such officials has been properly protected by the Act of 1912. I believe the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) supported this construction. He wanted to go further and to make the Act of 1812 of retroactive force to the Act of Union. The requirement of the Act of Union is in principle in article 137 where the basic principle is laid down for all further legislation and the principle is that the Dutch language and the English language are both official languages of the Union and that they must be treated by the administration of the country on a footing of equality that is to say that the fullest right and an equal right must be given to both sections of the population, Dutch-speaking and English-speaking by the Government of the country and its administration to be attended to in the language which they speak. That is the meaning of article 137 of the South Africa Act. That is the basis. Article 135 of the Act of Union proceeds on the understanding that this is the interpretation that has to be given to article 137 of the law and in as much as the two languages have been placed on an equal footing and in as much as it is understood that the Government of the country and its administration must be bilingual, the unilingual officials who have not been appointed before the commencement of the Union must be dismissed. Thus the fact that this article is so worded shows clearly that the basic principle of the Act of Union is equality of language, and this demands that all officials must know both the languages of the country. Now we come to the Act of 1912. The Act of 1912 is clearly nothing but a concession. There was a conflict at that time. It was said that the claim for language equality was too hard upon a section of the population which for the most part was unilingual and so time was pleaded for, to have a period of transition. For that reason the concession was made in 1912 that officials who were still unilingual, English unilingual or Dutch unilingual —and in practice this worked out at English unilingual only—could remain for five years and have their salary increased. But when the five years is over and they are not qualified then they can expect no promotion. It follows from this that it was nothing but a compromise and that those who drafted the Act of Union intended that both languages should be known by all officials. The Select Committee which sat in connection with the Public Service Act in 1923 acknowledged this. Therefore it has been made clear in the new law, that although the compromise made in the law of 1912 has lapsed, a further compromise shall be made for a period of five years, but when this has expired, namely in 1928, it shall be required that every official on his appointment shall be bilingual. This was the decision of the Select Committee and this was approved by Parliament, and thus after five years an end will come to the compromise. In any case I am glad that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) agrees that the principle of equality of language is the right one for the country.

I have not quarrelled with that principle. I spoke about pre-Union officers, that is all. I never made any attack of that kind. I fully recognize we are bound by it and we intend to carry it out fully. What I objected to was the treatment of pre-Union officials.

Say a word or two about pre-Union officials.

Pre-Union officials are protected, and will be protected in the future.

I think it will have become clear to hon. members during the course of this debate that according to the rules of procedure of the House it is very difficult to expect a general discussion of the financial position of the country, and it must necessarily be so. At the commencement I could only indicate a few particulars which might be of importance to hon. members. I did not at all try to set out clearly the financial position of the Government. The Opposition has, however, made use of the opportunity to criticize the policy of the Government, and this they have done very strongly. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asked theatrically “Where is the economy of which you heard so much when the Nationalist party was in Opposition?” Well, it is true that we often strongly criticized the previous Government on its faulty financial policy and the absence of financial control in the country, but we always gave instances of this. We did not just make loose statements. We showed from time to time how the Government had taken a wrong line and had introduced unsound elements into the finances of the country, but what have we had here this afternoon? I come here with supplementary estimates. There is no question about the general policy of the Government, but, the two hon. members make use of the opportunity to make an attack on the financial policy of the Government. They base an attack on the supplementary estimates. If members complain that we waste money, then it is a reasonable request that I make that they will show where money is unnecessarily spent. Is this Government responsible for the pensions, and is the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) prepared to say that less should be spent on pensions? The money that is spent on pensions is certainly not a consequence of want of a desire to economize. Is the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) further prepared to say that a penny less should have been spent on fighting the locusts?

Yes, because money has been wasted.

Yes, my hon. friend is prepared to say so, but what do the members say that sit behind him? If there are any of them who agree with him then I must say that the country will not agree with it. I mentioned this afternoon that particularly large expenditure has taken place under the third vote, namely, that of Labour. Is the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)prepared to say that that amount should not have been made available?

I thought you were going to do away with unemployment. That is a very simple remedy—for everybody to be taken into the Government service.

That expenditure also is justified by the electors. It we take away the additional expenditure coming under these three votes then very little remains. The Opposition have not criticized the Estimates seriously, and it would be out of place at this stage to come with the criticism of faulty financial control. They have, however boasted that the times have become better and that my predecessor handed over the financial condition of the country to me in a good state. The hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) said that but (Central)(Mr. Jagger) said that but said in the same breath that we should always keep before us the accumulated deficit. It was one of the grievances against me that I had not made provision for the wiping out of the accumulated deficit. When the good position in which the financial position of the country as handed over to us is referred to I need only state what took place in three financial years in connection with the finances of the country. During the financial year 1921-’22 £1,394,000 was taken out of loan funds and the balance which was voted for a reduction of the national debt was used to make the Estimates balance. During 1922-’23 £826,000 was used from loan funds, and during the following year £525,000, so that altogether £2,745,000 was used in this way and in addition we still have the usual accumulated deficit of £2,000,000. Members have said this afternoon that we shall know the position when the main Estimates are reached. If I were to use these means of making my Estimates balance I should have no difficulty. I do not wish, however, to go further into this matter. I have already said that it is difficult to discuss the matter, under the rules of the House. There will be another opportunity, but I do want to answer a few points of criticism that have been made. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) criticized my action because I came to the House and asked that Parliament should approve of the payment of £4,000 as premiums on South African superphosphates. He says that it is not constitutional to pay out premiums which are not authorized by law and mentions that provision is made by statutes for premiums on the export of meat and iron, in that instance it was necessary to introduce legislation because other matters of importance were mixed with the payment of the premiums. But there are also cases of the payment of premiums which are not covered by a statute of this Parliament. The payment of a premium to the copper mine at Messina which delivers copper to the railways was not covered by a law, and inasmuch as this was only a small amount that is being paid as premium on superphosphates, I followed that example.

We have not even seen the report of the Board of Trade and Industries.

Yes, because the Government have made that a matter of policy and taken full responsibility for it. All that I did is that I promised that I would propose to Parliament that this premium should be paid, and I now formally ask the House to ratify it. If the House does not approve it then it cannot be paid. The hon. member, and also the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), have criticized the fact that in the Pensions Bill a certain amount for payment of allowances to certain ex-burghers has been brought under the law on pensions. I have already said in passing that this was recommended by the committee on pensions but it was not done only on the recommendation of the committee. Long before the committee made its report the Government had already decided to pay the amount because the previous Government paid the same allowances but cancelled pensions to which claim could be made before a certain date. We have decided also to pay pensions to persons who have become entitled thereto before that date, thus although the commission supported the decision of the Government this decision was taken independently of the committee. I am sorry that it has not been possible to lay the report on the Table, but it must first be translated and is now in the hands of the printers. I hope it will be possible to lay it on the Table of the House within a few days. We could not help it, but inasmuch as certain payments in accordance with the decision of the Government and the recommendations of the committee become payable before the end of the financial year, I had to bring up this vote on the supplementary Estimates. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) further asks when the main Estimates will be laid on the Table. I should like the House to know that it never was the custom to lay the main Estimates on the Table so very early in the session. We have only been sitting eleven days and it is still a full month before the end of the financial year, but I can give hon. members the assurance that the Estimates are in the hands of the printers and I hope to lay them on the Table next Friday. Some further questions were asked, but I think that further information that hon. members want can be best given by me in committee, and I therefore propose to go into the matter further in committee.

The motion was agreed to.

House in Committee:

It may be convenient, as there are many new members present, if I draw attention to a rule which governed discussion on Additional and Supplementary Estimates, namely, that if the estimate was not for a new service, but for an increase in a service which had already been approved in the same financial year by the House, the discussion must be limited to the reason for the increase, and discussion on the original policy will not be in order.

Expenditure from Revenue Funds.

Vote I, “H.E. the Governor-General,” £203, put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Pensions,” £164,000.

Is not the hon. Minister going to report progress and ask leave to sit again? There are some of these votes on which hon. members will want to ask questions. I think the Minister should be content to report progress now and ask leave to sit again.

I thought hon. members agreed that we should proceed now. If there is a strong feeling that we should report progress I would agree to do so.

The understanding on this side of the House was that we should do what we generally do on these occasions. That is go into committee and report progress.

If the right hon. gentleman will move that, I will accept it.

On the motion of Gen. Smuts it was agreed to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee on 4th March.

When this matter was discussed in the committee last the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) had insisted on somewhat widening the scope of the Bill so as to include a certain class of dwelling which he had in mind. He not only wanted to include in the Bill hostels, which the Bill was originally meant to include, but also institutions under proper control and management and approved by the Administrator intended to house people not in employment and he mentioned at the time the particular case of teachers who had retired on a small pension and would find it more economical to live in common, and also older people who had been in employment, but whose means were too limited to have houses of their own. I undertook, when progress was reported last, to consider this matter and to see whether it was possible to widen the scope of the Bill so as to include that class of dwelling. I think I have been able to meet the wishes of the hon. gentlemen, and so I wish to propose a proviso to the amendment I moved the other day, I think this proviso was really included in my amendment, because where in that amendment the phrase “without profit” was used it was intended to mean without profit to the promoter, and it was meant to include the payment of interest on loans, but for the sake of making it quite clear I want to move the proviso in addition to my amendment of the other day. It is to add the following at the end of section 1—

1. (а) for the repayment of any loan granted under section 6, or of any other sums expended upon the construction of the dwelling;
2. (b) for the payment of interest on any such loan; and
3. (c) for the payment of interest on any such other sum at a rate to be prescribed by the Administrator not exceeding that payable on such loan.

Owing to the absence of the Labour members, with one exception, and as this is a measure of the utmost importance to them, I move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I object.

I withdraw the motion.

I must point out that members must not be frivolous.

The other day when this question was being discussed, I asked the hon. the Minister whether, in this measure, provision was made for the housing of the blind, and he was good enough to say that he was of opinion that it was. A large number of men were injured in the war and are totally unable to provide for themselves. I should like to ask: Will this measure also provide for these people in some way so that there will be some accommodation where they can live?

I think that class of dwelling will be included, it will all depend upon the approval of the municipality and the administrator. The administrator must satisfy himself that such an institution is under proper control and management.

Then it is not necessary for me to move an amendment.

No.

I must thank the hon. the Minister for having met me in this matter, and I think the addendum to his amendment has made the original amendment very much clearer. It has met my case to a very large extent. I should have liked him to have added the words “and dividends” after “interest” in the last part of his amendment, but he has gone very far, and I do not like to press him to the final extent. I also understand that it would be out of order for me to move that as an amendment as it would be held that it would give scope for further expenditure. Therefore, I accept the amendment in the spirit it has been offered.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

objected.

Amendments to be considered on Wednesday.

I would suggest to the Prime Minister that we do not go on with this Order at this late hour.

No, let us go on with it.

I move—

Such crass ignorance about this measure has been imputed to the Government and there are so few, it is alleged, who have any intimate knowledge of this subject that I do not see of what advantage it can be to have an adjournment of this Order. So we had better proceed with the business in our ignorance, as far as we can, to-night. The principles underlying this Bill so far as the Government are concerned are very simple, but I should like, for the information of hon. members, to go back somewhat to the earlier history of the diamond trade in South Africa. After the consolidation of the various diamond mines at Kimberley, effected largely through the instrumentality of the late Cecil Rhodes, a so-called buying syndicate came into existence known as the London Diamond Syndicate. That syndicate has practically had the monopoly of diamond buying in South Africa for the last thirty years. That syndicate has to a large extent controlled the destinies of large diamond producers in South Africa. Undoubtedly, also, the interests of that syndicate have not been wholly divorced from the interests of the producers themselves. There has been an overlapping of interests which has not benefitted South Africa. The syndicate has had a monopoly practically for the last thirty years or the major portion of that time. There has been no competitor whatsoever, and the syndicate has acquired a reputation which, if I may be so bold as to say so, is substantially unmerited. It is a reputation for a wonderful status, an unlimited influence and marvellous skill in the diamond trade, and the diamond world. But when the true test came in 1921, after the world war, when an enormous slump set in in the diamond market, the syndicate was found to be as helpless as ordinary mortals. Well, it was never a sound position and is not a sound position to-day, that certain large shareholders in the syndicate should, at the same time, by a minority of shares, control the destinies of certain producers. I will give one instance—the De Beers Consolidated Mines. That company, I will make bold to say, is controlled by a minority of shares and the holder or holders of that minority of shares have a larger interest in the Diamond Buying Syndicate than in De Beers. It is impossible for them to do justice to De Beers and at the same time derive the large profits they do from, the syndicate. We should have said nothing if they had been content with reasonable profits, but the fact is established that the syndicate has systematically for years and years pocketed not a matter of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, but a matter of millions of profits and that at the expense of the producers. That is the evil from which diamond production in South Africa has been suffering. That is the position the new Government found the country in when it acceded to power on the 30th June last. We found that in 1919, shortly after the Armistice, an inter-producers’ agreement had been entered into by the so-called Big Four. The Big Four were De Beers, the, Premier, in which the State, by the way, has a 60 per cent. interest, but its power to veto or say anything is nil, the Jagersfontein Mine and then we have the South-West. Those were called the Big Four. They entered into an inter-producers’ agreement and fixed the quotas that they had to contribute to the volume of business. Say it was five millions, then they would each have their quotas under the agreement. The quotas were fixed at 51 per cent. for De Beers, 21 per cent. for Consolidated Diamonds South-West, Ltd., 18 per cent. for the Premier and 10 per cent. for the Jagersfontein. Well, between these Big Four on the one hand and the London Diamond Buying Syndicate on the other hand an agreement was entered into in 1919 which was intended to endure for five years, and the terms were fairly favourable— were favourable in fact. But that agreement was not carried out. In 1921 a tremendous slump set in, the producers had to make concessions and the syndicate who, if the agreement had been enforced by the producers, would have been very heavy losers, were as a matter of fact allowed to come out about square on their general balance. The generosity of the producers was repaid in no generous spirit by the syndicate. The syndicate took the concessions of the producers apparently as signs of weakness, and in later negotiations attempted to dictate to the producers, and did in fact dictate to them as was their wont in years gone past. Well, in January, 1924, my predecessor endeavoured to get fair terms for the producers. The syndicate practically dictated the terms and my predecessor in office had to submit. Of course, in the first place, the agreement between the inter-producers and the syndicate was their own business, but one of the inter-producers or one of the parties to the inter-producers’ agreement was the South-West Administration, for luckily for the Union—I will not say luckily at that time because perhaps the position was not utilized to the full—but luckily for the Union we took over the very unlimited and extensive powers of the German Government in South-West Africa, and under those powers had the right to say to any producer, you shall not produce more than a certain quota and to further say to every producer we shall dispose of your diamonds as we think fit; so that to-day in South-West you have a big company, the Consoldia, which became entitled to that 21 per cent. quota under the inter-producers’ agreement, and that is by far the greatest producer, nominally controlling the position, but really in law the whole power is vested in the administration of South-West and therefore in the Union Government to-day. Well, the attempts to negotiate a satisfactory agreement in January 1924 failed, and when we entered upon office we were faced with a very unsatisfactory situation. We had nolens volens to allow this unsatisfactory agreement to be renewed for another six months, that is up to the 31st December 1924. Now commonsense dictates that with regard to such an important industry as the Diamond Mining Industry, in which the State has a very substantial interest, and has moreover the special interest of 60 per cent. in the Premier Mine, it is very undesirable that there should be these short agreements; that every six months you should have these difficult negotiations with the syndicate, and that you are faced constantly with these difficulties cropping up at short periods of time. Then the agreement threatened not to be renewed on a satisfactory basis at the end of last year, so that a conference of the producers was called by me in Pretoria in November, when the London Syndicate made an offer which was considered unsatisfactory. Another attempt was made at a conference held in my office in Pretoria in December. Then finally negotiations were broken off and the Government felt itself, after mature consideration of this difficult position, bound to intimate to the parties that unless by a certain date satisfactory agreements were concluded, it would consider itself free to act in such a way as it thought fit. Well, I think that had a salutary effect. The intention to introduce this Bill was kept very secret. Whether the syndicate and producers got an inkling of such an intention I do not know. If they got an inkling then I think we are entitled to say it produced a still more salutary effect, because in January a conference was held in Cape Town and an inter-producers’ agreement was arranged. That agreement differed from previous agreements in this satisfactory and important feature—that no producer was any longer required to sell its diamonds through the one hitherto recognized channel—the London Syndicate. The producers under the inter-producers’ agreement of January of this year are entitled to dispose of their quotas, their percentages in whatever manner the producers respectively think fit. I think the House will agree with me that was a step in the right direction. Now as a further result of what happened very satisfactory contracts were concluded. As regards South-West a contract was concluded with the Anglo-American Corporation. That corporation takes the 21 per cent. allocated to the Consoldia under the inter-producers’ agreement of January, 1925, and there is a very substantial advance in the terms compared with what Consoldia would have got from the London Syndicate. There is a section of producers in South-West called the Outside Producers. Their production is to the extent in value of about £200,000. They concluded a contract whereby far more favourable terms were obtained than their last contract with the London Syndicate. I am glad to be able to tell the House that a wedge has been driven into the syndicate, and that no less a person than an hon. member sitting on the opposite side of the House who is connected with the Anglo-American Corporation—in which, I understand, American capital is interested to a material extent—was materially a participant in driving this wedge into the Syndicate. Now the whole object of this Bill is not to carry out everything that is stated in it, but to have a sword of Damocles hanging over combinations and combines like the syndicate. It is not intended to attack producers in South Africa; the main object of the Bill is to protect producers, and for the very reasons that I have stated—that men in the syndicate have interests which overlap. They are also interested in the producing companies and they utilize that position—they exploit it—in order to benefit themselves as members of the syndicate. As I say, these contracts show materially better terms for the various producers. Now the object of the Bill is further to stimulate competition. I cannot conceive of any hon. member contending that it is good or sound for our country to have a syndicate possessing a monopoly of the purchase of our diamonds. I cannot conceive of any hon. member contending that the syndicate alone in this world possesses the skill and the expert knowledge for purchasing and disposing of diamonds. I cannot conceive of any hon. member, except in crass ignorance, claiming that the syndicate up to now has been entirely satisfactory and that it has been a guarantee to the diamond producers in South Africa and a source of security. I cannot conceive of any hon. member saying that the producers in South Africa are in every respect capable of minding their own business and looking after their own interests, because if that statement is made I challenge it at once. I have already given reasons for it. I ask the hon. member on the other side of the House whether his corporation or he himself or any company with which he is connected has a chance of ever concluding a contract with De Beers or the Premier Company of Jagersfontein. The existing contracts with the syndicate, except the contract of 1919, which was for five years, but which was terminated by mutual consent on the 31st December, 1923, were unsatisfactory and short-time contracts. We have secured for South-West recently, from the Anglo-American Corporation, a contract for five years, not six months, with an increase on the initial price of 2½ per cent. and with a substantial increase on the share of the producers in the profits of the purchasers, substantial compared with the old rates. We further ensured the adjustment of prices for this long period contract of five years, because it is obvious in the nature of the case, that you cannot determine the price of diamonds for five years ahead. All these satisfactory features are embodied in this contract of five years, and what has been the effect on the syndicate as regards the sale of the diamonds of De Beers and the Premier Company? The effect has been that the Anglo-American Corporation has become the pace-maker, and the syndicate had to raise their prices perforce because South-West and the Anglo-American would have bid a higher price for diamonds, but, as far as I can gauge the position, the remaining members in that syndicate are going to take very good care that the Anglo-American Corporation, or any other corporation, outside the syndicate, does not conclude any contract with de Beers or with the Premier Company or Jagersfontein. We have given practical proof of how we have dealt with South-West, even this ignorant Government. I appeal to the hon. gentleman opposite. In law we were not forced to recognize Consoldia in any shape or form; we need not have admitted them to our conferences. It was the Administrator who had the locus standi. But we have allowed these gentlemen representing the Consoldia to be present at the conferences, to have their say, and to make representations. In further conferences down here in Cape Town in December and January, they have had the same free access to the meetings, and they have had their say in every respect. The benefits to various producers, so far as I can calculate them in money, apart from the fact that we have secured for South-West Africa a contract for five years, work out at about £224,000 per year. I can give the details to any hon. member who may be desirous of getting them. It is stated that we have got the whole outside world to deal with, and we must go slowly and carefully. South Africa is to-day the possessor of the big diamonds of the world; no diamond field in Angola, or in the Belgian Congo, or in British Guiana, can compete with South Africa and with South-West Africa as regards the size of stones, and, therefore, it is no use trying to frighten the Government with the rest of the world. We do not want to take up an unfriendly attitude, but the fact is there that we possess the stones that are worth having, and, so far as this Government are concerned, we are determined to see that South Africa, and producers in South Africa, should get the best possible terms for their goods. It has also been represented that this is an attack on capital. How, and in what respect? How can it be an attack on capital to increase competition in South Africa? It has been represented that this is a case of the Pact versus De Beers. No, we are out to protect the producers, but in so far as De Beers allows itself to be used for the purposes of the syndicate, it may be regarded as an attack upon De Beers or any other similar producer. It has also been represented that we should hold an international conference to control the diamond output of the world. The Government have considered that position. It is a question which they will consider in the future, but they have come to the conclusion that no satisfactory evidence has been laid before them of the necessity of, at any rate for the present, holding an international conference. I notice in two leading daily papers what may be called apologias for the syndicate and for some of the big producers, but especially for the syndicate. Now, we have got to look at the merits of the case, and we have endeavoured to inform ourselves as correctly and as closely as possible of the true situation as to the diamond question in South Africa, and we are of opinion that the steps indicated by this Bill should be taken. I am well aware that they are steps which the previous Government would have found it awkward to have taken; could not in fact have taken. I will not say why.

Tell us why.

Because you were too dependent upon the support of big money.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., whilst the Minister of Mines and Industries was addressing the House; debate adjourned; to be resumed on Wednesday.