I move—

Mr. B. J. PIENAAR seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

An amendment of the Financial Relations Act has become a hardy annual; and it should therefore not come as a surprise that we are once more called upon to discuss the important question of the financial relations between the Union and the provinces. Even before the present Government took office we know that the financial relations between the Union and the provinces had become a matter of grave concern with the previous Government. A special commission had been appointed to go into the question, and a very important report was issued. At the beginning of last year a conference was held in Cape Town between my predecessor and the various provincial administrations, which conference proved abortive, that is, no agreement acceptable to the provinces was arrived at; and, sir, as a result of that action which was taken at the beginning of last year the position has become not only more serious but even altogether intolerable. Everybody admits that the position in which we found ourselves last year as a result of the action which was taken by the previous Government in regard to the report was a most serious one, and something had to be done. No one will question the fact that the provincial system has developed on lines divergent from those contemplated by the National Convention. It is true that politics have entered into the conduct of provincial matters, and I do not see how under the circumstances of this country that could have been avoided, yet that factor alone would not have caused agitation and created a discordant atmosphere in the provinces had the original financial structure been maintained and not tinkered with from time to time; or had the central Government realized fully its responsibilities and obligations in regard to the maintenance of the provincial edifice; or if there had been a disposition to deal equitably with provincial matters. Taxation is never popular, and when the provinces, as a result of this tinkering, were forced from time to time to levy unpopular taxation, when they, as a result of the curtailment of their subsidies, were forced to resort to the same method, it is not to be wondered at that the provincial system became extremely unpopular in some quarters of the country. Let us go back and recount the history of provincial affairs. The South Africa Act provided for the appointment of a commission to enquire into the financial relations which should exist between the Union and the provinces; and for three years pending the receipt of that report the provinces were directly dependent financially upon the Union Government. Well, the commission was appointed and the commission sat, and as a result of the report brought out at the time, on the 1st April, 1913, the first of the Financial Relations Acts, that is Act 10 of 1913 came into operation. This has always been regarded as the principal Act regulating financial relations between the Government and the provinces. The main financial principle of these relations has been that the Union Government should find a proportion of the funds required by the provinces for their expenditure on provincial services. The commission of 1912 proposed the adoption of this principle on the grounds that the obligation of the provinces to find at least a proportion of their expenditure might prove a sufficient incentive to economy. By the Act of 1913 the provinces were given first, with power of legislation, trading and professional licences, education fees, hospital fees, etc., and then, without power of legislation, the proceeds from transfer duty, liquor licences, and in the case of the Transvaal, native pass fees in labour districts. Further, a subsidy of half the ordinary annual expenditure, if such expenditure did not exceed that of the previous year by more than 7½, per cent. These were the main financial provisions of the principal Act of 1913. In the case, however, of the provinces of Natal and the Orange Free State a special subsidy of £100,000 was given, and in the case of Natal a further additional grant of £30,000 per annum in respect of trading and liquor licences in municipal and local areas. In addition to the revenues referred to, the provinces, of course, possessed the general power of direct taxation which was conferred on them by section 85 (1) of the South Africa Act. That hon. members must always remember. In addition to these special revenues they always had under the provisions of section 85 (1) of the South Africa Act, a general power of direct taxation. The present system had, however, scarcely been in operation for two years when trouble started, and a commission was appointed under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and on which I believe there were the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw), to investigate the question further, generally, of the continuance or modification of the present system and also to enquire into the question, generally, of extending the Cape Divisional Council system to the other provinces. As hon. members know, the commission reported, generally, in favour of the latter, that is the extension of the divisional council system to the other provinces, and also, generally, in favour of transfer of education to the Union.

There was a minority report.

Yes, there was a minority report, but I am now dealing with the main report. No action was taken in regard to that report, and in 1917 by Act No. 9 of that year the provisions of the original Act were continued for a further period of three years, that is to the 31st March, 1920, but with a very important amendment, that is, the basis of subsidy was amended, a distinction being drawn between expenditure on education and other expenditure. That was the first important amendment we had of the principal Act, but, in the case of education, the increase of expenditure on the previous year ranking for £ for £ subsidy was permitted to reach 15 per cent., while the £ for £ subsidy in respect of other expenditure was limited to a 5 per cent. increase, a subsidy of one third being paid in respect of any expenditure in excess of those percentages. Then came another amendment in 1920, extending the provisions of the 1917 Act. Then, in 1921, we got a further Act which limited subsidies for 1921-1922 to the amounts paid in the previous year, together with an increase, not exceeding 5 per cent. of the subsidy of each province, paid in educational expenditure. Then, in 1921, another Act was passed. Hon. members will see that by this time we had fallen into the habit of passing annual Acts which brought about further important changes in regard to these financial relations. That Act of 1922 laid down that for the year 1922-’23 each province should receive its ordinary subsidy not on the £ for £ basis, but 90 per cent. only of the amount paid for the previous year. It was further laid down that in respect of subsequent years annual increases not exceeding 3 per cent. might be provided, and for the last two financial years an annual increase of 3 per cent. has been so provided. The Acts of 1921 and 1922 also imposed further very important limitations on the taxing powers of the provinces. Under these Acts the provinces were prohibited from taxing the product or profits derived from mining, and the persons, means, and habitations of natives. At the same time the 1922 Act relieved the provinces of the obligation to spend on native education more than they had been in the habit of spending, and also transferred to the Union Government the obligation or liability for the extension of native education. The 1922 Act also deprived the provinces of the fines imposed for contravention of the liquor-laws, but gave them power to increase liquor licences. Any increase of revenue from this source in Natal accrued to the provincial revenue. Therefore we found that by this time the sources of revenue available to the provinces had been limited to revenues from taxes over which the Union has had no control, revenues which they have future power to incur, and revenues from new taxes which the provinces have had the power to impose under the general right of direct taxation under section 85 of the South Africa Act. What has been the result of the various and constant changes that have been brought about in connection with the limitation of the rights of the provinces to levy taxes? I think in the first place we can see that in certain provinces at least development has been retarded in many directions. Take the Free State. I would refer hon. members to the amounts expended in late years on hospitals and roads. In the Cape we have had certain figures furnished by the provincial education authorities, which show the severe limitation placed on education in those few years. But then the other very important result emerges from this legislation which had for its object the limitation of the powers of the provinces, that these provinces have, in three years’ time, accumulated deficits of nearly £2,000,000, which the Treasury was forced later on to refund. I think that from that emerges this very important fact, that the policy of limiting the powers of taxation of the provinces in this direction, has not been successful, seeing that although they might have spent less, they were forced, notwithstanding all these safeguards, to accumulate during three years deficits on revenue to an amount of nearly £2,000,000. That obviously is a position which is intolerable and could not be allowed to continue.

The Cape School Board’s deficit is included.

Yes, I admit that deficit did not accrue during the last three years, but the main portion did accrue during the three years. Another very important fact emerges. If the provinces should be expected to carry out the functions entrusted to them under the South Africa Act, it is impossible for them to raise the revenue required for their expenditure from local sources. These powers are inadequate to enable them to obtain the necessary revenues required adequately to fulfil the functions entrusted to them. That surely is the history of the provincial relations. After assuming office therefore, as I informed the House during last session, a conference was called in Durban to discuss this position. At that conference was represented both of the larger political parties and we also allowed to take part a representative of the Labour party from the Transvaal, seeing that Labour had no representative.

The municipalities were not represented.

No, that conference sat and, after a good deal of discussion, I am glad to say a satisfactory basis of settlement was arrived at. A settlement which I undertook to recommend for the acceptance of the Government, and which I now propose for acceptance by Parliament. A settlement which the provincial administrations generally accepted as satisfactory and a settlement which would enable them to carry on their functions in future in a much better manner than in the past. I accept, on behalf of the Government generally, the obligation of its fair share of the means of carrying on provincial services, and the Government finds itself in accord with the opinion expressed by the commission over which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) presided, and subsequently endorsed by the Baxter Commission, namely, that services partly of a local and partly of a national interest should be paid for, partly by the local and partly by the central Government. That was the basis laid down by the two previous commissions, and I accepted it as the basis of this settlement. That view has been kept prominently in mind in recasting the financial relations under the present Bill. We recognize that the greater importance of education, from a national point of view, makes that service pre-eminently one for which the Central Government can assume a definite liability. We must remember that if the Central Government did not recognize its obligations the objection could always be aimed at it that it was not fulfilling its national obligations in regard to education. Here we felt that we had a greater responsibility than in regard to other services. We propose, therefore, under the Bill, to change from the pound to pound principle—or the shadow of it, for that is all that is left—and to substitute for it a subsidy based on attendance. Very strong representations were made that we should base the subsidy on the enrolment of the pupils, but this would have increased our liability to an extent that we could not undertake. It may be asked what difference there is between the two. There is a fundamental difference, that whereas under the latter arrangement there was no control by the Central Government over the provinces and their expenditure or over their periodic indulgence in expensive idiosyncrasies of one sort or another, there is under the former arrangement a limit to which they can commit the Treasury. We are able with some degree of accuracy to forecast the probable number of pupils, and therefore it will be possible for the Treasury to make an estimate of its obligations under this changed basis of subsidy. The Bill, therefore, proposes to effect a complete change in the form of subsidy, and a radical alteration in other aspects of the financial relations which have existed since 1913. In addition to the altered basis of subsidy, there are two other very important changes in regard to financial relations which will be brought about. The first is the abandonment of the uncertain and illimitable field of direct taxation by the provinces in favour of a schedule of taxes confined within certain definite limits. Instead of a general right to levy all sorts of direct taxation, which brought many of the provinces into difficulties later on, for they did not know which taxes would be regarded by the courts as ultra vires, they will now have certain definite taxes which they will be able to levy, and no other. A very important change is proposed, and that is the assumption by the Central Government of the responsibility for fixing trading licences, which will be made uniform throughout the Union, and the assignment to the provinces of liquor licences and receipts from transfer duty and, in the Transvaal, the native pass fees.

That is not a change.

There is no change in the pass fees, but I mention it because it goes with the others. Besides these important changes the Bill also provides for the return to the provincial councils of their former powers in regard to the fixing of teachers’ salaries. Secondly, the Bill specially assigns to the Natal Provincial Council certain trading licences the proceeds of which have hitherto accrued to the boroughs and corporations of that province. In this respect Natal is now brought into line with the other provinces of the Union. Further, the Bill provides for the assumption by the provinces of liability for a portion of the pensions of any pre-Union servants retrenched while in the provincial service. Coming to the details of the Bill, Clause 2 deals with the grants to the provinces in respect of European and coloured children. The grants are those which were arrived at, in the first place, by the Baxter Commission, and subsequently endorsed by the Education Administration Commission. These grants were deemed by these two commissions to cover what was considered to be the reasonable cost of education, for the whole of the provinces, and what should be the responsibility of the Union Government. There is a difference of opinion whether this basis of calculation was fair and reasonable. Be that as it may, there are, of course, several directions in which the provinces have moved independently in the matter of education. For instance, in the Transvaal they have free secondary education, generous transport and boarding bursaries. These facilities were not included in the calculations of these two commissions in arriving at what should be the reasonable cost of education. The principle adopted was that if any province would wish to embark on any more expensive or generous scheme of education, it might do so, and the taxpayer will have to pay for it. The Government has fixed the age of seven as the minimum age in respect of which the Union shall assume liability for the cost of education. In order to avoid any hardship, however, we shall pay the subsidy for the next two years for children under seven. Hon. members will know that educationalists in all parts of the country differ as to the necessity or advisability of admitting children under this age to schools. We have adopted the principle that children shall be admitted, but they will not rank for subsidy purposes. If any of the provinces feel that they should continue admitting them they may do so, but they will have to find the money themselves. Hon. members will see that we have not adopted the recommendation of the Provincial Finances Commission in limiting the age at which the subsidy will cease. The reason for this hon. members will appreciate. Our conditions are such that in many cases children attending school are unable to finish their course of education within a certain period. Although we have limited the age of admission at the bottom of the ladder, we have not done so as far as the limit is concerned when they leave school. The point was raised by the Cape Provincial Administration that owing to the sparsely populated condition of the province they should be rated more generously in regard to the capitation grant. The difficulty of getting children to school was pointed out and in the end a settlement was arrived by an increased grant of £16 7s. 5d. to be applied through the whole country so far as the first 30,000 school children are concerned. This concession was given to Natal and the Cape Province. Natal would have been entitled to £14 only, but she now benefits to a greater extent, because she has less than 30,000 school children on the roll. By adopting this flat-rate and putting them on the Transvaal basis, we overcome difficulties that were put before us by the Cape Province and Natal. This is the only essential departure from the Baxter Commission recommendation with regard to the amount of subsidy. With regard to aided school pupils going in for post-matriculation courses and the maintenance of the grant in the cases of continuation schools, we have in these special cases stuck to the figure recommended in the Baxter Commission report. Then there is left in the field of education the question of the grant to be paid for native education. This you will find in another section of the Bill. Under the existing law the provinces are required to spend proportionately not less than in the year 1921-22. failing which a reduction will be effected in the amount of subsidy paid to them. In connection with this, as I have pointed out on a previous occasion, the proposal now is that a grant will be given to the provinces of the same amount that they have been getting in the past, and this will be charged against the consolidated revenue funds. As far as their needs are concerned for further development they will get it from the Native Development Fund which we hope to set up in a Bill I will introduce at a later stage. We hope to have a uniform system of taxation for the natives, and thereby get a sufficient amount to enable the provinces to develop native education. This Bill will emanate from the Committee of Ways and Means, and I will introduce it at a later stage. As far as the future of native education is concerned, the provinces will get its liabilities met and the exchequer will contribute to the extent of £340,000, the amount paid at present under this head.

That is permanent?

Yes, and it will remain permanent. In the case of Natal and the Free State, the present Government had to realize that these two small provinces had no large potential source of taxation and the special exception had to be made to deal with their exceptional needs and, therefore, we have retained the principle of an extra subsidy, but the amount has been reduced from £100,000 to £75,000. In other cases, the budgets of the separate provinces were examined, and it became clear very soon, even if the provinces had tapped all the sources of taxation now left to them, these two small provinces would not have been able to carry out their functions and balance their budgets unless the special subsidy was continued. I tried to get them down as much as possible, but it was not possible to do it more than £25,000. Now I come to the other important aspect of this proposed legislation, and that is the curtailing or limitation of the taxing powers of the provinces. It will be seen that the turnover tax disappears. Unquestionably, this has proved to be an undesirable form of licensing revenue, and that has been abolished in all the provinces, and licences will in future be imposed on a uniform basis throughout the Union. They will not be subject to spasmodic regulations, and only the Union Parliament will be able to alter the amounts. Under these proposals, although the Union Government has undertaken to introduce uniformity as far as the amount of licenses are concerned, we don’t propose to make any alteration so far as the existing machinery for granting of these licenses is concerned. Where the licensing has been done by the local authority or a provincial council it will remain the same.

Who will pay for the administration?

All we propose to do is to leave the power in the hands of the provincial authorities; they can come to any arrangement they like with the municipal authorities, and if they find it necessary they can compensate or remunerate the municipalities for their services.

The same fee will be paid?

Yes, the licenses will be the same for the whole Union. If it has been the case in the past that it was left to a local municipality to say to whom the licenses may be granted that power may be retained if the provincial councils deem it advisable. We shall have to adjust the existing state of affairs in Natal where certain of the liquor licenses, and also in regard to trade and occupations, at present go to the local authorities—municipalities or boroughs. Unfortunately this proposal has created quite a stir in Natal, as would naturally be the case. I wish to relate to hon. members the history of this question. As I have already pointed out, we have had three commissions reporting on the question of financial relations. There was first the 1912 commission, then the commission over which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) presided, and finally the provincial finances commission, and all these reported in favour of the present proposals. They have pointed out in each case the anomaly and the injustice which was being done to the other provinces, where this source of revenue did not accrue to your municipalities but to your province. I might read to the House the very definite conclusions of the last commission on the subject. It has now been enacted that for five years from April 1st, 1922, Natal is to receive a sum of £30,000 per annum. The grant will thereafter disappear altogether. The ultimate withdrawal of the grant will be fair to the Union taxpayer, but unfair to the province of Natal as against the Natal municipalities. What this refers to is this, although in 1913, under the first Financial Relations Act, the Government included in its draft Bill the same proposals which I have included in the present Bill, they afterwards dropped it and allowed the municipalities to retain this source of income, but, of course, they had to compensate the Natal Provincial Council at the expense of the Union taxpayer, and they have continued doing so to the tune of £30,000 per annum. But a few years ago my predecessor said it could not continue. He proposed dealing with it in another way. He simply said that within a certain period from now, after five years from 1919, this grant of £30,000 to the province of Natal would disappear, and we leave you to fight it out with the municipalities themselves. That was the course proposed by the previous Government, but the effect would have been exactly the same. Instead of the provincial council introducing legislation to give effect to this, we are doing so in the present Bill. The commission stated—

Hon. members will, therefore, see that according to the finding of this commission they came to very definite conclusions, and as far as the expenditure of these boroughs on police is concerned, I have already intimated to them that the Government, if at any time they want to surrender the police service which they are at present performing, will be prepared to undertake this obligation. There is absolutely no reason why Natal should any longer be treated differently from any other part of South Africa, why her municipalities should have revenues which other municipalities do not have, and why her policing should not be taken over by the Union. I think the reasonableness and the justice of this proposed alteration will be admitted on all sides, and in any case, if the Natal municipalities think they have a grievance, that grievance does not lie at the door of the Union Government, but they will have to look for redress to their own provincial council, in whose hands that revenue will be assigned, and if they propose to allow these municipalities to retain this revenue they will be able to do so, but they will not be able to come to the Union exchequer for a special grant for that service. Then a very important alteration in regard to the limitation of the powers of the provincial councils will be found in the second schedule, and that is in regard to the income-tax. The council will retain the present power which they have to levy a tax on persons by means of a poll tax and income tax, but the income tax must not exceed 25 per cent. of the normal and super tax of the Union. Hon. members will see that whereas under existing legislation they have unlimited powers for levying an income-tax, here they are limited to an amount not exceeding 20 per cent. of the income-tax levied by the Union Government. Then in regard to companies, we have here an important limitation. They will be allowed in future either to tax the income, or profits or dividends. Formerly they could tax all of these at once. Now they will be limited to either the income or the profits or the dividends.

And in the case of the mutual insurance companies?

In the case of the insurance companies my proposal is to limit their powers to what they are at present and not to allow them to have any increased powers. Unfortunately in the Transvaal they have levied what might be called a very objectionable tax, that is on the premium income and not on profits. I hope that the Transvaal Provincial Council will see that it is perhaps desirable in the public interest to modify this form of taxation, hut we have not been able to come to an agreement with them on the point, though we hope to do so later on. We are restricting them to the existing taxation.

How about Act 5 of 1921 and the provision in regard to the power to tax mining companies?

I am coming to the mining companies. Hon. members will see in another part of the Bill, that, although the employers’ tax is retained as a fit form of taxation for the provinces, the provinces shall not have the right to income derived from taxation of mining and, therefore, it is laid down that their subsidy will be diminished by whatever amount they raise from this source. That is an extension of the existing principle that mining taxation shall be reserved to your Union Government. So hon. members will see the net effect of it is this, that, although at present the tax is retained, as far as the provinces are concerned they really lose the right to tax mines, because if they do, so their subsidy is at once reduced to that extent.

Why doesn’t that apply to other employers of labour?

Because at present they also tax other employers, but of course the other employers have always said that tax was imposed mainly for the purpose of getting at the mining companies. As I have already pointed out, it is not practicable to get the provinces to consent to abandon this form of taxation, but in future there will not be much more inducement for them to employ it, because as soon as they do so, their subsidy will be at once reduced by the amount they receive in respect of the tax on mining operations.

Can the provinces impose a tax on natives?

No, I do not propose to make any alteration in regard to that. To enable hon. members to see exactly what resources of revenue will remain to the provinces, sources at present untapped, I will give particulars, then they will see what we have endeavoured to do. On the one hand we laid down what may be regarded as a more scientific and more satisfactory basis of subsidy; and on the other hand we allow the provinces a certain field where they could select the taxation which they want to levy to get the additional revenue to meet their requirements. There is this essential difference between the recommendations of the Baxter report and what we now propose, that whereas under the Baxter report they were forced to exercise certain economies which admittedly were impossible—they were also forced to levy one particular form of taxation—under this system they are limited to a very considerable extent, but there will be still left to them a sufficiently wide field to enable them to make a selection. These are the particulars. Take the Orange Free State Province. Hon. members will at once see that this was one of the difficulties we had to meet. We could not say one province should have this form of taxation and deny it to others. We tried to get a uniform basis. In the case of the Orange Free State the only untapped source of taxation would be a totalisator tax. We know there is practically no racing in the Free State, although this is a source of revenue from which other provinces derive considerable benefit, but it means practically nothing to the Free State. We have also scheduled the importers’ licence because that is a licence which remains in the Cape. For various reasons they have not resorted to it. They also get the employers’ tax, which will also mean very little to them. The only other tax which remains is the fixed property tax. These are the only untapped sources of taxation in the case of the Free State. Then we come to the Cape, and there we find that the only untapped sources are auction dues, the tax on persons and companies, and the employers’ tax. Then in Natal they would have the following—a tax on persons and companies, employers’ tax, immovable property tax and the importers’ tax. So hon. members will see later on when I give the figures that in the case of Natal if they do not want to levy the fixed property tax, they will practically be forced to have this tax on persons and companies, or in other words the double income tax to which my hon. friend objects and to which I would object if I could help it. Here again hon. members will see that although I agree with them that we should as far as possible avoid dual taxation, it would be impossible for them to balance their budgets at all unless they had recourse to this form of taxation.

But how about economizing?

I do not want to say that economy to a certain extent is impossible so far as the councils are concerned. Just as we have learned our lesson, so the provinces have learned theirs, and so far as several provinces are concerned that charge could not be levied against them. So far as the economies foreshadowed in the Baxter Report are concerned the previous Government could not carry them out, and no Government could do so. It would be hopeless. In the case of the Transvaal, which I have not yet mentioned, they would have education fees, motor licences, wheel tax, immovable property tax, and importers’ licences. There are just a few other points that I must refer to in regard to the Bill. I have already dealt with the position in regard to the employers’ tax, and I hope hon. members have followed me and seen that although it is left to the councils there is a very strong inducement to them to abandon this tax, and then they will rank for increased subsidies so far as the Central Government is concerned. I have referred to the question of dual taxation to which my hon. friend referred. In regard to the question of licences I have already indicated that the power to levy licences or to deal with the granting of them will be reserved to the provincial councils, and they may delegate this right to the local authorities if they desire to do so. Then I should like to refer to the question of the taking over of technical education. One of the recommendations of the Provincial Finances Commission’s report was that we should try and go in for a national system of technical education. The Minister of Education has made an attempt to go thoroughly into this branch of education. We have left the provinces certain technical and continuation classes which might be considered on the border line, but I believe negotiations will proceed later on between the Union and the provinces. The provinces will abate now for subsidy purposes a portion of the grant so far as the number of pupils is concerned.

What will that liability be?

£160,000 is taken over at present, but I am afraid we will find that the Central Government, having embarked on that, will have to pay more. This, inspite of the charge that the provincial people are running these things very extravagantly.

You will deal with twice the number of people the provinces will.

Even then my department is very sceptical as to our ability to run this work much cheaper than the provinces.

They have not the money.

Hon. members will notice that we also propose bestowing powers in regard to legislative plans for town planning. The present position is that the control is vested in the town councils, but it is doubtful whether they would have the power which we are assigning to them under this Bill. Let me say a word or two about the present financial position of the provinces. The close of the financial year has found all the provinces in a better position than we anticipated, and the deficits on March 31st last are not expected to exceed, in the aggregate, £330,000. When I gave these figures in my budget I expected the amount would be £514,000. The Cape deficit is £200,000 for this financial year, the Transvaal £120,000, Natal £10,000, while it is gratifying to note that the Orange Free State, by the exercise of the greatest economy, will square its accounts. Provision is made in the Bill for funding this amount of £330,000, and although a substantial annual payment will be required for the provinces, for its redemption over ten years, the amount will not make any serious inroads into their finances under the new scheme. It will be repayable in terms of the Baxter Commission’s report in ten years’ time. The aggregate of the provincial deficits outstanding will amount to some £1,620,000, to which must, of course, be added the £330,000 of the past year, making a total of £1,950,000. That is the total of £2,000,000 which I referred to. I might give this House further information, to give an idea how these financial provisions are likely to pan out. After allowing for the normal increase in expenditure and the savings consequent upon taking over by the Union of certain industrial and technical institutions, the provincial expenditure will be Cape £3,753,000, Natal £1,080,000, Transvaal £3,650,000, Free State £1,065,000, to meet which they will have revenue from the new subsidies, together with the special advance from loan funds in respect of native teachers’ salaries, namely, Cape £2,288,471, Natal £556,894. Transvaal £1,823,041, Orange Free State £774,749. On the other hand, on the assumption that their revenues from sources at present utilized will not be less than the receipts for the year just closed, after allowance is made for giving up the turnover tax and the companies tax, the gross revenue from the provinces should be about: Cape £3,753,000, Natal £1,020,000, Transvaal £3,650,000, Orange Free State £1,150,000. This is, after allowing for normal expansion, the Cape will be square, Natal but £60,000 down, the Transvaal will be square, and the Free State will have a surplus to make up for curtailed development of recent years. An hon. member has asked me the position of the provinces in regard to these deficits. The exact figures are: Cape, outstanding on March 31st. 1925, capital account £2,497,985; deficits, £1,221,410. Natal, capital account March 31st, 1925, £1,230,397; deficits, £31,379. Transvaal, capital account, £2,379,550; deficits, £238,317.

That is the total borrowings?

The total borrowing for capital expenditure, and the others are deficits on revenue account, which we have funded. Orange Free State, capital account £1,249,296; deficits £130,760, making a total of capital outstanding on March 31st, 1925, of £7,357,228, and deficits £1,620,756. To that must be added the estimated deficits to March 31st, 1925, of £330,000, which gives a total figure of £9,090,000.

The revenue deficits are funded over ten years?

Yes, but that does not refer to deficits on capital expenditure, which are extended over a much longer period. I think I have dealt with the principal provisions of the Bill, and I think hon. members will see that the outstanding features of these proposals are on an improved bases of subsidy which are more scientific and satisfactory from several points of view. Then we get a very severe limitation of the taxing powers in regard to the selection of sources of taxation. Then we retain the principle of adequate financial responsibility accompanying the power to incur expenditure. That was the first very important principle laid down in the 1913 report, and we are retaining that as our safeguard and sheet-anchor in regard to economies to be effected, or rather, to be practised by the provincial councils in the future. Hon. members may say that has not proved sufficient in the past, but I ask them to point to anything else which may be devised so long as you retain the provincial council system. That is the crux of the whole matter. This proposed settlement is satisfactory, provided, of course, the House is satisfied that we must retain the provincial system. I do not see any other alternative, except in the existing state of affairs, which hon. members will agree can no longer continue. If the provincial system is no longer to continue. I submit then we should openly say so and abolish the councils, and not to take indirect methods of strangling them and forcing them to commit suicide.

The sooner the better.

What do you think?

I say that the country up to the present has not made up its mind that the provincial council system is impossible, and therefore I have gone on the assumption that we must find some means of continuing it. Otherwise the solution will be simple. I submit this settlement will give the provincial councils a new lease of life, and will enable them in a better manner to work out their own destinies. Their future lies in their own hands, and I hope they will find as a result of this settlement they will be better able to function to a larger extent than in the past, and we shall have achieved something as far as a revision of the system is concerned. I move the second reading of the Bill.

We are exceedingly indebted to the Minister for the painstaking and very full way in which he has dealt with the position. I am afraid, however, we shall find it rather difficult to follow his figures towards the end of his speech, and possibly the House may want more time to consider them. I do not think this Bill is going to be a remedy, for I do not see how we are going to obtain any better check on the expenditure of the provincial councils than we have had in the past. My impression is that the councils have not that due sense of responsibility, especially of financial responsibility, which they ought to have. They go on spending money and piling up deficits which the Union Government has to provide for. I believe that if a poll were taken on the subject in the Cape Province you will get a majority in favour of the abolition of the provincial councils. I agree, however, in giving the councils a further chance, but I sincerely hope this will be the last chance. My hon. friend seemed to imply that the curtailing of the subsidies by the Union Government in recent years was the cause of most of these troubles to the provincial administrations. Does he think that the Union Government, when its revenue was falling off and it was compelled to economize, should not have called upon the provincial councils to do the same?

Not in education.

You can economize and still have an efficient educational system. Do hon. members know that the expenditure of the provincial councils has grown from £3,358,000 in 1914-15 to £9,394,000 in 1924-25? But the pupils have not increased three-fold. The Union Government was more than justified in endeavouring to place some restriction on the expenditure of the provincial councils. That is what makes me say that I share the doubts that even this arrangement will not be effective in placing effective restrictions on the expenditure of the provincial councils. It is very striking in this Bill how wonderfully considerate my hon. friend is to the gold mining people. The Prime Minister thought at one time that they were not sufficiently taxed by the past Government, but the present Minister of Finance shows more consideration to the gold mining companies than to anyone else, including the farmers. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour knew about this change in policy? This Bill really gives effect to, perhaps, the most important recommendation of the Baxter Commission. That is to say, instead of basing the grants on the £ for £ principle, the Union Government will pay so much per head on the average attendance of children in public schools. I cordially agree with the Minister in basing the subsidy on the average attendance, for, had he based it on enrolment, there is no manner of doubt that would have given rise to fraud. I also agree with seven being the minimum age. We have found from actual experience that so far as the provincial councils are concerned the £ for £ principle has proved most unsatisfactory, and has not been a check on expenditure. The £ for £ system was invented to encourage expenditure in the old Cape Colony, it being devised to increase the voluntary contributions to schools. The Government said to the school committees—

I think, now, it has been condemned both by the commission which sat in 1917 and by the Baxter Commission as being extremely unsatisfactory. Now it is changed and not a minute too soon. He proposes to give the provincial councils a certain amount of taxing powers, detailed in Schedule No. 1, and also the proceeds of certain licenses. There can be no objection to the first part of the Bill. We, on this side, are in favour of his proposal making the grants to the provincial councils for education on the per capita basis. Not only is it fairer and juster, but it gives room for expansion. The provincial administrators will soon find out that every new pupil is a revenue producing asset, and that an increasing population means that an increasing number of children will come into the school and the grant will thus be increased by £16 per head in the Transvaal, and by £14 per head in the Cape Province. Not only that, but the Treasury knows how much it has to provide each year. There is only one thing to be said with regard to the grant and that is that I, personally think they are on a liberal basis, but I shall not grumble at that. The Cape and Natal grants have been increased. The commission recommended £14 for Natal and for the Cape. It is proposed under this Bill to give £16 per head for the first 30,000 pupils in the Cape and Natal. Generally, 30,000 children only cover a percentage, perhaps one-fourth of the number of children attending the schools in the Cape, but in Natal it will cover the lot.

That was a concession, Natal being a small province and not having the total number of children.

I am not grumbling. I think it is on a liberal basis. The Baxter report went carefully into it and recommended £14; now you get £16 for every child. Compare this amount with what is done in other countries. In the United Kingdom last year, the figures came out last mail, the cost per child in average attendance was £11 8s. 9d. In Canada, £11 6s.: Australia, £8 5s.: New Zealand, £10 5s., so you will see there is a considerable difference between our £16 and the highest amount overseas—£11 8s. 9d. To compare the other dominions, especially Australia, with South Africa, is not unfair. Where I think there is room for criticism, is that the Minister has not still further limited as recommended by the Baxter report, the taxing powers of the provincial councils. The extravagance of the provincial councils in the past and the want of a sense of financial responsibility has been a cause of complaints throughout the whole of the Union and has caused the people to mistrust them to a considerable extent. I can speak for the Cape Province and can say that that is a fact to-day. The extravagance of the Provincial Council in the Capo Province has produced a widespread mistrust. We should be very glad to have the power of taxation curtailed very much. I had my attention called to-day to the increase of taxation in reference to insurance companies. It will interest this House, it interested me very much, when I was given a paper showing that the taxation on the Old Mutual was in 1904 £1,100.

Shame!

I don’t see why “shame.” It is a purely mutual company where the profits go to the poorer people. It has £13,000,000 of assets and its average insurances do not exceed £500. Profits do not go to shareholders. Yet in 1924 its taxation was £44,109. Of course, I don’t want to say that all this has gone to the provincial council but it shows how taxation has grown. £37,000 went to the Union Government and £7,000 to the provincial council. I should like to study the figures given us by the Minister more, but I think he states that during the past year the deficit will amount to £330,000 spread over four provinces. There is a further reduction of £245,000 in provincial taxation in the coming year. Then he proposes to increase the grant by £949,000. That will leave a margin over and above what they spent last year of £374,000 according to my reckoning. It appears to me there is more room for reduction of taxation, so far as regards the provincial administration, than is allowed for. I am glad to see, although he has not gone so far as I would have liked him to go in regard to the elimination of taxing powers, he has put a considerable limitation under Clause 10 sub-section 4 which states that taxes shall not be levied beyond what was allowed under schedule 2. That does limit the power considerably, but in my opinion it has left them a fair margin.

You must leave them some scope for selection.

To some extent, yes, but this is too much scope. Take the first, the tax on individual persons and incomes of individuals subject to the 20 per cent. limit, the tax either on incomes or profits and dividends of companies, or alternatively in case of insurance companies on their premium income. The tax on movable property can also be widely extended. Then there is the tax on employers of labour subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of section 11. If that is going to be introduced down here, it is going to have very oppressive effects. Then there is the tax on the importation of goods for sale beyond the provincial borders. That is a very unjust tax. Importers in this province pay custom dues exactly as every other importer does, and yet the province is to come along and impose a licence of from £10 to £300. I must confess these taxing powers still leave the provinces without that effective control upon their extravagance and upon their spending which there should be.

The taxpayer will look after them.

Unfortunately, the taxpayer has not looked after them so far. That is the strange thing about it. It has got to this point that there is actual mistrust of provincial administration, at any rate, as far as the Cape Province is concerned, and I think also the Transvaal. Hon. members on the other side think that when we protest against extravagance in education we are opposed to education. Nothing of the kind. You can have economy and efficiency at the same time in the conduct of your educational system. There is another point to which I would like to call the Minister’s attention. Teachers’ salaries in South Africa, as stated in this report, are probably the highest in the British empire. One cause of that has been the fact that there has been competition between the educational authorities of the various provinces to get what they consider the best teachers. Under the Bill passed in 1924, the fixing, at any rate of the maximum scales of teachers’ salaries was put in the hands of the public service commission. Now that is taken away. I think it is a mistake, for undoubtedly the Government are in consequence going to open the door to further competition in that direction. I do not think you will find a country in the world, outside perhaps Great Britain—and I doubt there even—where the teachers are on the whole more highly paid than they are here

They are lower paid here than in any other country.

What unmitigated nonsense! I think I am correct in saying that the teachers in South Africa are the highest paid of any country in the world. Seventy per cent. of the expenses of education in South Africa goes in teachers’ salaries. Can you be astonished that probably our system of education costs more per pupil than that of any other country in the world? I do not Know of one where it costs as much, and yet my hon. friend proposes to repeal the relevant section of Act 21 of 1924, and restore the old system at the expense of the taxpayer. The commission in its report states—

And yet the Union Government have unfortunately given the thing away. There is another point to which I must call attention, and it is this, under section 5 of this Bill you propose to advance money to the provinces for the purpose of providing stores and requisites. A good deal has been said, at any rate, about the requisite store of the Cape Province. Let me say that if the requisite store were well managed in a proper business-like way there would be a good deal to be said for it, but so far as the Cape requisite store is concerned, the general opinion is that it is not economically managed, but that, in fact, it is badly managed. It carries a stock of about £100,000. The commission in its report stated that the system which had been adopted in arriving at an estimate of the profit made by the store was “fantastic.” There has been a good deal of discussion in the province in reference to this store, because the general view is that it is badly managed. The Cape Town Chamber of Commerce got a copy of the report of the Cape provincial auditor, which they sent to one of the first firms of auditors in this city for their views. This firm stated, in their report, that they had examined the accounts of the Cape Province requisite store, which were embodied in the provincial auditor’s report for the year 1922-’23, and that the accounts were framed in a most unusual manner. The firm also stated that they did not think it was possible for anyone, no matter how great a knowledge he might possess of general business, finance or accountancy, to ascertain from the information supplied what the true results of running the requisite store really were.

Has not the position improved very much since then?

We have not heard of it. The firm to which I refer remarked that it was difficult to understand why this unintelligible method had been adopted when the ordinary simple method of framing accounts could very well have been applied to the requisite store. To spend £100,000 of the taxpayers’ money and then have the accounts done like that is a grave reflection on provincial administration, a very grave reflection indeed. As regards the mutual insurance companies, I understand my hon. friend is not going to increase taxation any further than it stands at the present moment. I want now to remark generally on the provincial council system. Personally, I do not think the system is sound, and it is bound to be extravagant because you have too much centralization under it. I also say this—and I say it deliberately—that if we do not alter this position eventually it will bring. I will not say ruin, but disaster on the Union. That I have felt for some time. I hope my hon. friend’s proposals will be successful; personally, I do not think they will he, because provincial councils and administrations have lost that sense of financial responsibility. It is a very grave state of affairs, and I think myself, as I have said, that unless there is a change disaster is going to be brought on the Union. My hon. friend is right—I believe you cannot have economy under the present system. It is too centralized. Take the Cape Province. Does my hon. friend know that it is bigger than France, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg all combined, and all administered from one office in Cape Town. The Transvaal is bigger than Britain, Natal is bigger than Scotland, and the Free State is as large as England itself, yet each is managed through one central office, and the consequence is that the administration is extremely centralized. You cannot have economy with high centralization; that has been clearly shown. In none of these provinces have you any local authorities with financial responsibility. As I have pointed out, provincial councils are not local authorities, for the simple reason that the area is too large. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior will remember when we laid down the old School Board Act in 1905. We created local bodies right throughout the Union, one in every divisional council area, and people, had they wished it, could have had one also in each municipal area. They had a certain amount of financial responsibility with taxing powers up to a certain amount in every locality. On the board on which I sat we raised £12,000 a year for local education purposes. The policy of the present administration has been gradually to whittle away the powers of the school boards in Cape Province. To show my hon. friend what the position really is to day let me quote him what was said by the Rev. D. S. Botha of Stellenbosch before the commission. The report states as a preliminary to his evidence that—

This is what the Rev. Botha said—

That is the position; that is what you have reduced local school authorities in Cape Province to. The system is not sound. We are very often accused—I am very often accused—of being opposed to education because I do quite frankly advocate economy and believe that considerable economy could be introduced without damaging efficiency in any way. I would like to quote what Dr. Cillie said before the same commission. Dr. Cillie is, or was, the principal of Stellenbosch university, and everyone will admit that he is a friend of education. He said—

These are the views of a man who is the friend of education. This is practically what the commission, of which I was a member, recommended in 1917. Though it was not carried out, I want to point out that opinion has progressed a good deal since then. Thousands of voters in this province, perhaps in the Transvaal as well, who did not agree with that report then will agree with it now. And I do honestly believe that eventually we will have to drop this tinkering, to abolish the provincial councils altogether, and to institute a system of proper local government throughout the Union.

I have never heard of weaker arguments used than those of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) against the first reading of this Bill. He has quoted from a report and tried to prove that education is more economical in Denmark, but in Denmark during the last ten years the population has only increased 17.5 per cent. The total expenditure in the State has only increased 219 per cent., but in Denmark the educational expenditure has increased 347 per cent. on education. From the statements made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) you might be led to believe that in Denmark, through local taxation and the management of education being vested in local bodies, that they reduced the educational vote. Nothing of the sort. These figures are taken from the Government statistics. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has been trying to prove that it also happens in other countries. Let us deal with Sweden during the same period. The population there only increased 6.1, the total State expenditure had increased 202 per cent. But the educational expenditure had increased 392 per cent. I think that kills for ever the argument used by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). If that is not so, we will take the figures for Great Britain. The population in England and Wales increased in the same period 5 per cent., the total expenditure on education has increased 168 per cent., whereas in the Cape, in the ten years, the population has increased 11.71. But the educational expenditure has only increased 133 per cent. I know that this is the time for the big bugs to go out to tea.

The remarks of the hon. member are unparliamentary.

Well, I shall say, it is the usual time for important members of this House to retire for afternoon tea. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has used figures from Denmark, and while he was speaking I was trying to point out that expenditure in Denmark had increased in the same period 347 per cent., and Sweden 292 per cent., whereas in the Cape it was only 133 per cent., although the population increased more in South Africa, England 5 per cent., Denmark 17 per cent., Sweden 6 per cent., Cape 11 per cent. I think the argument he has used that there has been too great an expenditure on education has been wrong. I think he was one of the greatest supporters of Mr. Merriman’s ministry, when they cut down the expenditure on education prior to Union. I believe that at that time the children were taken out of the schools. We learn from statistics that when the Financial Relations Act was passed in 1916, it took as the basis of the grants from Union funds, the expenditure of the year previous, we were practically £88,000 behind what we should have ultimately got in the Cape from the Union Parliament, owing chiefly to the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), who is so keen an advocate of decreasing educational facilities. I also understand that during the last ten years, whilst the expenditure has increased 133 per cent., not only has there been an increase of scholars, but they have increased standards from the fourth to the sixth standard with the result that expenditure in the higher standards is naturally greater than in the lower standards. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) stated that the teachers in this country are in receipt of a higher standard of salary and increments than in any other country. If we take the trades union figures of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain, we will find the teachers in this country are only in receipt of the average trades union rate of pay for a first-class engineer or first-class carpenter, whereas in other countries they are in receipt of from 73 per cent. to 300 per cent. more than the ordinary trades union mechanic. I think that the standard we should argue from, not from the set sum, but we should argue from the relative value of the different wages or increments in each country. In Denmark the teachers get 200 per cent. more than the ordinary trades union worker. In Sweden the teacher gets 143 per cent. more than the ordinary trades union mechanic. In Australia he gets 211 per cent. more. Therefore the argument that a teacher in this country gets a higher salary than in any other country is wrong. It may be that the teacher gets more money than he does in any other country; but we should take the relative purchasing power of that money, and if we do we find that the teachers in this country are a long way behind any other country. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to another matter, whether he cannot reconsider allowing children to attend school at the age of six years. We find, especially in the big cities, children of six years playing about the streets and not doing themselves or anybody else any good. I would also like to draw attention to the large amount paid on the dual language system. We know full well that that has increased the expenditure on education. Another matter which has been previously mentioned is the large amount of money spent under the educational vote of the provincial authorities, which should, legitimately, be paid out of the poor law vote. I refer to the boarding and clothing of poor children. I believe this amounts in the Cape to £225,000 per year. If that is so, that amount should be deducted or taken into consideration before any charges are made on account of the educational system in this country being too high. In Namaqualand, which has an enormous area—17,556 square miles—there are only 1,095 scholars. Taking into consideration the vastness of this country, the dual language, and the fact that a large amount is spent on other matters than education, although charged to the education vote, I maintain that the cost of education in the Union is lower than that of any other country. The Baxter Commission took figures from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, but omitted to state that in those three countries such things as the feeding and clothing of poor children and technical and secondary education were not included in their primary educational votes. In Canada, for instance, the cost of technical education is defrayed from the vote for industries. I do not say that our teachers should be paid extravagant salaries, but the salaries should be high enough to attract the best men and women, for, after all, teaching is the most important of all the professions. I think the Bill will go through the House easily, and will give satisfaction throughout the country, as justice will be done to each province under the capitation system. I cannot understand any person in the Cape criticizing this measure, as this is the first Bill which has been introduced to do justice to the children of the Cape Province.

I have always in the past, when I rose in this House, gone against the provincial councils. I was always in favour of the abolition of the provincial councils, and I am to-day of the same opinion. I always fought my Government on the subject, but I could achieve nothing, but I thought that this Government would put everything right, would abolish all this kind of unnecessary councils. The reason why I am so opposed to the provincial councils is not so much that I am against the provincial councils of the Free State and of the Cape Colony. I understand that things go quite well in the Free State, but I do not know what goes on in the Cape Province. My strongest opposition is to the provincial council of the Transvaal, because in the Transvaal we are unhappily under a Pact Government. There we have the proof of what the Pact means. We have had the experience for some years, and I want to warn hon. members that the Pact Government, which is in power there, in the course of a few years will make us feel what we are today suffering in the Transvaal. The provincial councils are bodies which can do good work, but, unhappily, party politics have been introduced, especially in the Transvaal. I want it to be clearly understood that my remarks have especially to do with the Transvaal. There party politics have been introduced so much that I think the provincial council will not be able to do its duty, and that it will prevent us from ever having a real union in the country. The Transvaal Provincial Council worked one province up against the other. What have they done? They do not stop with in the Transvaal, but they also tax the other provinces. I will prove this by the tax on auctioneers and sales. Hon. members will agree with me that there are a lot of products which are sent from Cape Town to be sold in Johannesburg, and a tax of 2 per cent, has to be paid on everything sold on the Johannesburg market if the proceeds exceed £5. It is, therefore, not only a tax on the Transvaal. The other provinces such as, e.g., the colony must also pay it, because a great deal is sent there. I would very much like to know what the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has to say about it, because his electors send many sheep, etc., there.

We have been paying it for years in the Free State.

Yes, but the Free State is in the happy position that other provinces do not send produce there. This is, however, not the case with the Transvaal. That is one of the reasons why I think that a proper Union will never come in the country. No, it is time that we should prohibit one province from trying to injure another province, because such a province does not then show a proper spirit with regard to the Union. The reason is that we there have a provincial council which must make the ordinances in collaboration with the Labour party. It is unfortunate, but it is always in their minds that the companies ought to pay all the taxes. It is not right that a portion of the community should have to bear an unequal share of taxation. I want to refer to the employers’ tax. The Government are struggling with people who are without work to give them employment, but in the Transvaal the provincial council goes and lays a tax on employers, namely, that they must pay one sovereign for every worker that they employ more than eight, I ask whether this is reasonable legislation. The hon. member opposite says yes. They are of opinion that our industries should be protected. Is this not a measure which will kill the industries in the country?

Oh no.

Will the hon. member tell me that people in the Transvaal will try to get work and will not try to go to other parts of the Union? Let the hon. member think about it, because I think that he (Mr. Oost) is one of those who voted for it. It is diagonally opposed to the interests of the province and calculated to drive industries out of the land, and it is unfair when we consider all that is done to find work for people. Is it possible for a province to progress when such a legislative body exists? Then there is another tax, namely, double income tax. The Minister says that he has limited ft. I am thankful for that, but I am sorry that he fixed it at 20 per cent., seeing that it is only 15 per cent. now. He ought to have taken it off altogether.

Natal would then not have been in a position to come out.

Yes, but I am speaking about the Transvaal. The Minister will say that we have the power of throwing out the members of the provincial council if they do not do their duty. The position, however, is that people who were in gaol for three months can vote when they come out of it. Then there is another organization about which I want to speak, namely, the poll tax. I am not so very much opposed to it because we were accustomed in the old republican times to all pay 18s. 6d. per annum. But now it is £1 10s., and in order to catch the native they have made it £2. Like other measures, the court declared it ultra vires. What, however, I want to speak about is that poor people are not required to pay the tax. I have no objection to that, but I have been told that there are landowners who do not pay the tax. People who are too poor have to get certificates from the members of Parliament or the minister of religion. I am not opposed to it, but the administration of the ordinance is quite wrong. If the Minister were to examine a list of the persons who are exempted and to lay it before us we should be astounded. That is the sort of legislation we get in the Transvaal. To crown all we find that the provincial council in the Transvaal passed an ordinance in one afternoon. We call this the Hay Ordinance, namely, to give town councils the right to pay their members £200 a year, and I think that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) was at that time still a member of the Johannesburg Town Council. Such an ordinance is just passed in an afternoon and we must be content with it. If such things go on to tax the public then it is better that the Union Government should abolish the whole lot. If other provinces are satisfied they can keep the provincial councils. In the Transvaal there is a strong agitation in favour of their abolition. The agitation will continue, and it will be difficult for the Government to bring in such a Bill every year. Therefore it would have been much better for the Government to bring in a Bill to abolish the provincial councils where the public do not want them. The provincial councils serve no other purpose than to make up the parties against each other.

Who introduced politics there?

Answer that yourself. I don’t want to answer it. Party questions are the cause of it. I say that the provincial council in the Transvaal introduced it. During the last session they passed a resolution which is directly against the constitution, namely, to dismiss an impartial man who is Administrator because he does not belong to the Nationalist party.

Has he been dismissed?

No, he has not been dismissed because the Prime Minister put a stop to it, and I am thankful that he did so, but if it had not been for the Prime Minister they would have dismissed him.

What about Dr. Ramsbottom?

The members over there need not get excited. Another Minister said that the Administrator should be dismissed, and what sort of a Cabinet is that where the Ministers can differ from each other? But is that kind of body an advantage to a province? That is what we have to put up with in the Transvaal. The strong argument against the abolition of provincial councils is: How will it go with education? The money which is given to the provincial council can be used to regulate education better and divisional councils can be created everywhere to look after roads. That is by far the best. But in the Transvaal the position is such that under the Pact we have people on the roads who may not work more than eight hours per day. In some parts the watches are not too good and it is amusing to see what happens there.

Do they work eight hours?

Yes, that is the system of the Pact, and soon it will be introduced everywhere, even on the farms. With reference to education, I still want to ask if we are now going to get uniformity. The one province wants to pay more than the other to the teachers and the teachers of the Cape Province leave, so that members for the Cape Province have already complained to me about it. And then after all the money which has been spent on teachers in the Transvaal things still go wrong in the schools along the country-side. The child of the country-side will consequently hereafter be backward. I want this to come out here in the House. The children are there on the farms and they talk nothing else than Dutch. They only learn English in the books and outside their books they learn no English. I know of a ease of a lad who had passed standard six, and most of them are then removed from school on the country-side. He had to go and work in one of the neighbouring villages to deliver milk. Not two weeks had passed before the people came to complain that the lad understood no English. Is it not something that we should be very careful about in the schools, Dutch or Afrikaans, because it is regarded as the greatest thing in the world if one knows Afrikaans? The teachers should be notified that the children should also know English, most of them go to work in the villages and there they will also come into touch with English. I am not taking the part of English, but it is a matter we should look to. The schoolmaster should make the children talk English in schools. Hon. members can be light-hearted about this matter, but if it is not done the child of the country side will be in a difficult position. They go to the villages, there come into touch with English, and perhaps work under an English-speaking master, with the result that the child is not put into a position to make his living. That is my objection against the educational system in the Transvaal, and I thought it was my duty to speak about it. If the provincial council in the Transvaal goes on in this way then that province has a sad future. The province is taxed in a I sorts of ways, and then the Minister has handed over to the provincial councils the laying-out of villages. I acknowledge that this should be under the provincial councils, but what has now happened in the Transvaal? The town council at Johannesburg has refused to allow a person to lay out a village. This cannot go on any longer, because one will soon no longer be master of your own property. The expropriation of property by the provincial council has gone so far that they have declared invalid old existing contracts. I must talk about this, and I thought that this Government, which was going to put everything right, would make an end to that. I think the provincial councils are merely a waste of money. It will never stop but only get worse. Divisional councils can be put in their place.

Why did not the South African party make an end of them?

Yes, the hon. member was not here I said that I fought with them about it. But I thought that this Government was going to put everything right. I thought that this Government would economize but I see that in the Transvaal alone this year £200,000 more is being given. The Government is spend-thrift—

Well, we never said that we would abolish provincial councils.

I say that the provincial council of the Transvaal, which make such blunders, should be abolished. Do hon. members deny it?

I deny it.

What about Mr. Hofmeyr?

No, that is not a mistake.

Well, I have my opinion and the hon. member has his. We in the Transvaal are tired of the provincial councils. I can well understand that the hon. member does not wish that their little schemes should be made public, but I can assure hon. members that in the Transvaal there is a very strong view that the provincial councils must go.

Yes, with the Chamber of Mines.

Yes, that is always the great thing about which we hear when hon. members opposite are on the country side. The Chamber of Mines is represented as the greatest enemy of the Transvaal, and what has happened? The Chamber of Mines has to give most of the people work. I am not an enemy of the mines.

Nor are we.

Yes, the hon. member is not an enemy, but the hon. member tor Christiana (Mr. Moll) is. We have heard so much of it in the Transvaal that I thought this Government would kill the mines. I, however, knew that it was only chatter on the country side. I am not afraid that the Chamber of Mines will get a harder time under this Government than under the old Government. But the spirit that prevails in the provincial council in the Transvaal is a wrong one, namely, to put a double tax on the mines and on the farmers. Do hon. members know that one of the members of the Transvaal Provincial Council said in connection with the tax on auctions that they had to make the farmers pay because they refused to come and help the strikers at the time of the troubles on the Rand? We will rather leave those things there. But we must look facts in the face and not spoil the prospects of the Transvaal. We must create confidence among people who are desirous of investing money in the Transvaal. If we go on with such legislation the people will become afraid to invest money in companies in the country. We require capital, and here it is being frightened away.

Is that the case?

Yes, it happens in the Transvaal, where an attempt has been made to levy taxes to hurt a portion of the people.

Name it?

I do not want to do any bickering with hon. members; I am tired of it.

The hon. Minister has created a new situation in connection with this matter, and in view of the fact that the whole provincial system is brought under review, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

I second.

Under the circumstances I would not object to an adjournment. I realize that hon. members would perhaps like to digest the figures I have given; but it is just a matter of getting the Minister of Agriculture to take the next order. I just want to ascertain as to that. Yes, I am prepared to accept the adjournment.

Motion agreed to; debate adjourned to Wednesday.

I move—

I was unfortunately not here on Friday night and now I see that the word “cheese” has been added at the back. I wish to say that I am not at all so very fond of this Bill. But I made no objection because the articles included under the Bill are of course mentioned one by one and must be accepted. That is just the objection that I have to this new addition because it is not mentioned in the Bill and now during the discussion this session the other article is proposed. My district produces much cheese but I did not receive a mandate from any of the cheese makers to propose to bring cheese under the Bill. I consider that it is a dangerous thing to include articles during a discussion. If they are not mentioned in the Bill then the people have no opportunity of making their voices heard. But I understand that the hon. Minister has promised to go to work very carefully and as he himself said to me he will not go so far as to make a levy on a particular article unless all members of such co-operation agree with it. But I do not believe that the law says that. The law says that as long as the co-operation represents more than 50 per cent. of the producers an article can be brought under the Act. But then the separate members have not been consulted. It is true that the hon. Minister can say that the co-operations speak on their behalf but I should like to know from the hon. Minister if he thinks that he has had sufficient demand to include cheese in the Bill. I have not been instructed to ask for it and I am fairly dubious about voting in favour of it.

I am sorry that the hon. member was not in the House on Friday night. I then gave the House the assurance that 51 creameries had made application to bring cheese under the law and I stated to the House that I would be very careful about applying a levy to cheese before I was certain that it met with the approval of the majority of the factories and of the producers. After I had made this statement the amendment was unanimously adopted by the House and I hope that the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) will also not vote against it.

The amendments in clause 3, the new clause 4 and the amendment in clause 12 were agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. RAUBENHEIMER seconded.

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The Minister has not given us any reasons.

Unfortunately, the other Ministers are not in attendance to take these other votes. I had hoped to go on with the Provincial Subsidies Bill, but in response to hon. members opposite, I agreed to the adjournment of the debate. The Minister of the Interior is here, but he is not ready to go on with the Vote.

Would this not be a suitable opportunity to ask Mr. Speaker, in connection with the misunderstanding that occurred the other day, whether we would be entitled to refer to Vote 8? I understood it was inconvenient the other evening to do so.

It is not a matter for a ruling, but of getting an order of the House. The hon. member should have done this when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. It is open to the hon. member to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I ask my hon. friend not to press that matter. It was an honourable understanding on the part of the Minister.

I have been asked by hon. members on this side of the House, who said they were unaware, owing to a certain amount of confusion, that when the Minister moved that Vote 8 stand over until Votes 9, 10 and 11 were disposed of, they were under the impression that the question before the committee was that this vote stand over.

As soon as I understood there was a misunderstanding, I intimated that I would not oppose returning to this Vote. The reason I moved that the Vote stand over was because I realized that if we went on with the discussion of the Financial Relations Bill we would have ample opportunity for a full discussion of provincial matters. When the hon. member approached me to agree to the adjournment of the debate. I did so on the distinct understanding that we would not revert to the Vote now, as I am not in a position at the present time to go on with it. I don’t want to prevent hon. members going back to the Vote, but if we did so now it would not be carrying out the understanding on which I agreed to the adjournment of the debate.

I hope that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will not press his proposal, because we can discuss the whole position on the Bill itself.

Are we to understand that we don’t go back to this Vote at all? When the Minister proposes a motion and subsequently withdraws it, should not the Chair man put it to the committee that the motion should be withdrawn?

I was just putting it when the Minister withdrew it.

If a Minister withdraws a motion should not the fact be put to the committee?

I mentioned it to the committee.

A motion having once been made is it not then the property of the committee? Then it can only be withdrawn by leave of the committee.

There is no doubt that there was a misunderstanding. When a Minister makes a proposal it is the property of the House, and he must have the consent of the House before he can withdraw it. It was on that account that hon. members were unaware that that proposal had been put to the House, and it was on that account that the dispute arose.

I am not disputing it.

If the hon. member will refer to page 540 of the Votes and Proceedings he will find a paragraph dealing with the matter under the heading of “Vote 9, Miscellaneous Services.”

That is not my point at all. It is quite correct that if a Vote is passed and it is desired to revert to it the Speaker’s authority must first be obtained. The point raised by me the other day was that owing to the Minister having proposed that this Vote should stand over, that motion became the property of the House, and in the voting we were under the impression that the proposal of the Minister was being voted for, and that the other motion would have to be put from the Chair. Hon. members were under the impression that only one Vote was taken.

What I pointed out was this. The Minister moved that Vote No. 8 stand over until the Votes up to 13 had been disposed of, and then to go back to No. 8. I pointed out that the committee could not go back after Vote 13 had been taken, and that Vote No. 8 would have to stand over until all the Estimates had been passed. Thereupon the Minister said he would not move it.

I proposed the motion which the chairman could not accept. On that being pointed out, I said I would not move it, so really there was no motion, which became the property of the House.

Will the Minister tell us whether it is his intention to allow us to go back to the vote after the other votes have been taken?

That was my intention, but if hon. members are not prepared to abide by the honourable understanding that was arrived at, the committee will go back. After we have had a full discussion of provincial matters on the Bill, I don’t think any hon. member will want to go back to the provincial vote. If, however, in spite of that, there is any desire to revert to the vote, I will not raise any objection.

In this part of the House we hear with very great difficulty, and all we heard the other day was a conversation between Ministers and the front Opposition bench. Generally we don’t know what is going on, especially in committee. With regard to Vote No. 8, I hoped to take part in the debate on it, but the Minister moved that the vote be held over. There was then a conversation which I could see, but not hear, between the chairman and the Minister. And the chairman then said—

I understood he meant it was agreed that the vote stand over. To my utter astonishment I found later he meant that the vote was agreed to. I ask the hon. Minister to assist us in getting back to Vote No. 8.

If there is any strong feeling, I don’t mind reverting back to the vote. It can be moved at the proper time, when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, and I shall have no objection.

It is moved that Votes 14 to 27 stand over.

But just a minute, sir, we must see what votes are standing over.

All the votes until you come to agriculture.

That is most unfair to the members of this committee. Members come to the House with the intention of discussing particular votes in which they take a particular interest and of which they have got particular knowledge. Many hon. members realized that they could not come to their particular vote this afternoon, but, suddenly, you skip over vote after vote, twelve or fifteen of them, and there may be lots of hon. members who take a deep interest in these votes who are not present, not having any idea that they were going to be taken so soon. You have passed public health, the whole of the department of the interior, defence—but I can understand that, because the Minister of Defence is not present under particular circumstances—mines and industries, mental hospitals, native affairs and Union education. I say it is not fair to the House. It is not one Minister’s vote you are passing over who is away. Where are the other Ministers? If they are here, why are they not in this chamber? It is the duty of Ministers who are in charge of these votes to be here. It is not fair to take votes which the hon. members of the committee did not expect would come up for at least a couple of days. I have myself certain papers in connection with agriculture which I should like to have gone through, but did not expect that it was going to come on to-day. Where is the Minister of the Interior? Why is he not ready? He ought to be more ready than the members who take particular interest in the votes but did not expect them for three or four days. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance would always be ready on his own votes because he pays sufficient attention to the business of the House and shows the House courtesy. He knows when his votes are coming forward, and I should like to see the other Ministers brought up to scratch and follow the example of the Minister of Finance. Surely some of the Ministers are to be found. Let us find them.

One profits by experience. The trouble was due to the fact that I wanted to meet hon. members on the other side. We had an order on the paper that would have occupied the House for days. I foresaw this trouble and I understood it was going to be possible to adopt this course. I must point out the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is unreasonable in view of the fact that we had work on the Order paper that would occupy us for days. Next time we must be very careful not to get into this pass.

I am sorry we have got into this position and I agree it is only due to the fact that the hon. Minister of Finance wanted to meet members on this side. To get out of the difficulty I would like to move, as an unopposed motion, that we revert back to the position we were in with regard to the Financial Relations’ Bill. A large number of members are prepared to go on with the discussion and we don’t want to waste time. If it is in order I move—

I will not agree to that. The more we try to meet hon. members the more unreasonable they are. Let us get on with the business and take the votes of the Ministers who are here. We shall get on better that way than by jumping about in meeting the members of the Opposition when they don’t know their own mind. They have landed us into this difficulty and we must get out of it.

Before I can put the motion moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I must put the motion of the hon. Minister first. Then any other motion may be moved—unless, of course, the Minister wishes to withdraw. The motion is that Votes 14 to 27 stand over.

It is all very well for the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to say that all this comes from an attempt to meet hon. members on this side of the House.

That happens to be so.

You happen to be wrong. We feel obliged to the hon. Minister of Finance for meeting members on this side, but if he had known the request could only be met by jumping 14 votes in the Committee of Supply then it would have been better for us if he had saved us from that position and had not been quite so willing to meet hon. members on this side of the House.

But I was not to know.

The House has got itself into this position without exactly seeing where it was going. If there is any blame to be attached it is upon everybody and now we have to try to find a way out. Rather than jump 14 votes I would prefer to report progress and go on to the next item on the Order paper. That, I think, will be better than coming to the subject of Agriculture in Committee of Supply when we know that a large number of members are quite unprepared to deal with that subject and had no idea that it would come on.

I do not want to delay Supply in any way, but if we could come to some arrangement whereby this order should stand over until the next order has been disposed of, we could then revert to Supply after dinner and my hon. friend would have an opportunity of communicating with other Ministers whose Votes are standing over, and we could go into Supply at 8 o’clock. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture would be able to go on now with his Stock Bill, which is the next order. Will the Minister of Finance accept the proposal that we should now go to the next order and revert to committee of Supply after dinner?

What order do you want to dispose of?

We will take the Great Stock Brands Bill, House to go into committee. When that has been disposed of we could go on to Committee of Supply.

I hope that the House will not accept the motion to take Order 4 now, because hon. members certainly could not expect that this matter would be reached today. I think it would be unfair to now deal with that order.

Hon. members opposite must remember that if they are in a large majority, on them rests still more responsibility to give fair treatment to every section in this House.

You don’t appreciate it.

I am not going to enter into an argument with my hon. friend opposite. I really do not know what he appreciates. I am appealing to the Minister of Finance that we should take the Bill which the Minister of Agriculture must be entirely prepared for, because it has already passed the second reading.

The Minister of Agriculture is objecting to go on with that other Bill. I can perfectly well see that the only other alternative is—I do not know whether it can be done according to the rules of the House—that we should revert to the original position. If hon. members are not prepared to do what we suggest now, having accepted their proposition, the only thing is to revert to the original position. If that can be done, I will move accordingly.

That can be done by the Minister withdrawing his motion, and the motion for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) coming on, viz., that we should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I desire to withdraw my motion.

With leave of the committee, motion withdrawn.

Motion to report progress agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

I beg to move—

I am afraid the hon. Minister cannot move that. The hon. Minister cannot move to revert back to the other debate.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

Agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance House resumed in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

The Chairman stated the instruction to the committee.

On Vote 8. “Provincial Administrations,” £5.390,713,

according to the figures given in this vote, Natal receives, as a special grant this year, an amount of 546,894 as compared with £603,016 last year. The result is that Natal will be receiving this year an amount of £56,000 less than last year. That is after allowing for the £30,000 which is allowed for licences. Our subsidy in Natal for the current year will be £546,894, and according to last year’s estimates (1924-’25) Natal pays in direct taxes £467,000, or an amount very nearly equal to the amount which we are to receive in subsidy. If we come to compare the position of the Free State with that of Natal, it will be observed that the Free State will be absolutely “in clover.” as she receives this year as an extra subsidy £152,293 more than last year, and she pays in direct taxation £412,000, so that she is going to receive more in subsidy than in direct taxation to the extent of £353,099, or in other words, she receives £219,209 more than Natal.

Why?

I want to know from you why.

Because she has got the children

The position in Natal is that a great many children are attending private schools, institutions which were started many years ago; nearly all of them before Union came about, and the Minister will quite understand that many of these schools are not even State-aided, and they therefore receive no grant whatsoever, and all the children attending these schools are not taken into consideration for subsidy purposes.

Whose fault is that?

The children attending schools which receive a subsidy from the provincial council—that is State-aided schools—number between 8,000 and 9,000, and children attending the Government schools about 22,000, so that it will be observed that practically a quarter of the children in Natal are attending private schools which only rank for subsidy from the provincial council to the extent of £5. There are a number of schools in addition in Natal that receive no aid at all, and they are completely cut out. I put it to this House that the position at present is one that is going to place Natal in a very awkward position indeed. We are going to lose, on the subsidy basis, an amount of approximately £70,000. If those children were attending Government schools such as in the other provinces Natal would gain in subsidy about £70,000.

But if the schools are not there why should we pay?

That is all the more reason you should pay. The people in Natal are carrying on education themselves. They are not prepared to hand over these schools, many of which started long before Union came about. The people of Natal are paying for these schools themselves. The Natal Provincial Council will have to impose further taxation this year to the extent, of £100,000. Where is the money to come from? Natal has suffered very materially owing to this alteration. According to the estimates of last year, Natal is paying £467,000 in direct taxation and the Orange Free State £412,000; while the latter will receive £353,000 and Natal £79,000 over and above what they respectively pay in direct taxation Natal has not piled up deficits to the same extent as the other provinces have We have not gone in for wild expenditure in Natal, who would, I believe, be quite content to continue on the pound for pond basis. The Free State is receiving very much greater benefits than Natal is. Is that fair to Natal? Under the new arrangement we shall receive less than we had last year, while the three other provinces between them will get about £960,000 more. I think we in Natal are entitled to some consideration. The position is that Natal under the present arrangement will be forced to immediate taxation or else will be compelled to retrench, or they will be compelled to do away with free education, and I think that is going to be the result. Natal will have to revert back to the old system, otherwise we shall have to tax ourselves to such an extent that we shall not be able to carry on. We have taxes to the right of us, taxes to the left of us, taxes on the top, taxes on the bottom, and the time has come to call a halt to this taxation. So far as Natal is concerned we are going to find ourselves in the position that we shall not be able to go any further with our normal expansion. The other provinces will have sufficient with their subsidies to go forward with their normal expansion.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

Can the hon. Minister give us any information as to the period which Sir George Plowman has to serve as Administrator in Natal? There is a good deal of anxiety as to when his term of office expires.

I am perfectly well aware under the South Africa Act that we are unable to reduce the amount voted to an administrator. I am not therefore able to move a reduction in the amount of the salary of the Administrator of the Transvaal. If I had that power I would do so.

The hon. member is entitled to do it. The hon. member is entitled to move a reduction on any item of this vote. It is in accordance with the practice.

I thought under the Act administrators’ salaries are protected. As I read the Act, we “shall” vote an amount and are not permitted to reduce it, but as a formality, with the permission of the chairman, I will move—

Is the hon. member in order in moving this? Section 69 of the Act says—

and provided by Parliament, and shall not be reduced during their respective terms of office.

I don’t know whether this vote is reserved. I don’t think there is any reserved schedule at all in the estimates. At least, I cannot find any. So I must allow the amendment.

If I am in order I shall do so, in order to bring up the question of the act of the Administrator of the Transvaal In refusing to resign when called upon to do so by the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. It has been under debate as to what administrators should do in regard to their positions from a political point of view. I am willing to accept it that the South Africa Act intended administrators should not be political. Their position was to be purely official, but like so many other things in connection with the provincial councils, the intention of the Act was departed from almost immediately, and the Government in power at once started making administrators political.

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

When the House adjourned I was drawing attention to the salary of the Administrator of the Transvaal Province, and expressing the opinion that the intention of the South Africa Act was that the administrator should be non-political, and I went on to say that the principle had been departed from in practice by the previous Government. I want to testify to the just and generous treatment by the Prime Minister, not only to the administrator of the Transvaal but to all politicians appointed to posts from the opposite side. Characteristically from the first he took up the position, very generously, that administrators should be outside and apart from political parties, and that we should not look upon them as political in any sense. I shall refer later to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) in reference to this, but I want first of all to say that, as far as the Government was concerned that preceded this one, the administrators were chosen because they were political. Nobody would deny for a moment that Mr. Rissik was political, and that his successor, Mr. Robertson, was political. In fact, in the provincial council when Mr. Robertson took office we asked him to stand aside and be the high official, and we told him that if he came down to the arena of politics he must take the blows of the arena. He chose to be a politician. Mr. Robertson is an exceedingly popular man, I have nothing to say against him, but he was chosen to fight his first electoral fight in the Waterloo that overtook the South African party at Wakkerstroom. That proved conclusively he was political. From the crown of his head to the sole of his feet he was definitely and absolutely an S.A.P. man. It is idle to suppose that when that party chose Mr. Robertson to go out and fight Wakkerstroom they were so careless as to his successor that they chose one who was non-political. Naturally Mr. Hofmeyr was chosen because he could he sure to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Robertson. I have not a word to say against Mr. Hofmeyr personally; he is one of the brilliant sons of South Africa, able and eloquent, and in connection with the University of the W.W. Rand has done excellent work, but I am going presently to point out that Mr. Hofmeyr is undoubtedly political and has a political bias. In the meantime I would explain why we are taking up the attitude of moving for a reduction in the pay of the Administrator of the Transvaal. In the reply the Prime Minister gave to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) in August, 1924, the statement was made that there could be no admission that the position was political, but I think the case was very correctly stated by the Prime Minister when he went on to say that in any case the Administrator should be one who could co-operate in the interests of the province in a spirit compatible with the political feeling of the majority as reflected in his council. That is exactly the point. The Administrator of the Transvaal has not received the confidence of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. They have definitely passed a resolution asking him to resign. The answer of the Administrator of the Transvaal (Mr. Hofmeyr) to that is an object-lesson in dogged obstinacy. Of course, he is one of “the best men.” The S.A.P. can be congratulated on having always chosen their best men for positions. They always found the best men in their own party. I commend their example to the Prime Minister and the present Government, in finding the best men, never to go outside your own party, because, naturally it follows that they must be there. The Administrator of the Transvaal has now definitely refused to resign. Correspondence passed which showed the generous way in which the Prime Minister had left the matter to Mr. Hofmeyr’s feelings, and his true feeling is that he has so thick a hide that he simply refuses to resign; a very bad example for a man in such a high position. We on this side, the Nationalists and the Labour Party, owe it to our friends in the Transvaal to bring things forward in this House which cannot affect the appointment directly, but this is certainly a House of review in which we can say what we think of Mr. Hofmeyr’s action. We think it is an exceedingly bad example to set, and when you come to a question of “jobs for pals,” surely if there is any reflection whatever on an appointment, it is where a man virtually says—

We should be doing less than our duty if we abandoned our friends in the Transvaal after the action they have taken, and we must do all we possibly can to bring home to this House, and the public at large, the fact that we do not endorse the selfish action of Mr. Hofmeyr. Why is Mr. Hofmeyr unpopular in the Transvaal? For several reasons. I will allude to one more particularly. We have heard a great deal about the Baxter report. That report is primarily the report of Mr. Hofmeyr. His was the brain that conceived the report which has met with such approval on the opposite side of this House. I quoted the other night from the Baxter report four specific instances in which the principle had been laid down that we are spending too much money on education for white people and not enough for coloured people. In other words, Mr. Hofmeyr says: “I don’t mind your spending the amount you are spending in the Transvaal, but I take exception to spending it to the extent you do on white people”; and for that we hold him responsible. He went on to point out that we paid white teachers, particularly women, too much, but we did not pay the coloured teachers enough.

Quite true.

Is that quite true?

Yes, we do not pay enough.

Well, I stand by the principle of paying white teachers a living wage, and enabling them to hold their heads up. Our first responsibility is to people of our own colour and our own race.

What about the coloured people?

We have heard a great deal about patriotism, about standing by the empire and Great Britain. We know all the time that these hon. gentlemen were speaking with their tongues in their cheeks, they were quite willing for their orders to go to Germany, Japan or to the United States.

What has that got to do with it?

The report lays it down that you must spend more on education so as to put coloured people in a position to undercut our own race. Again and again it appears in the report that we have not spent enough, or are not spending enough, on coloured education. Mr. Hofmeyr wrongly interprets the views of the Transvaal in that regard. The report is unacceptable in many other ways. We hear from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) a good deal about economy, indeed, nothing but economy. Let me draw his attention to the economy in this Baxter report signed by Mr. Hofmeyr. He was dealing with hospitals and with the question of nurses. The Labour party had struggled in the Transvaal to get the nurses a 48-hour week.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

Perhaps I might reply to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). I must confess that I do not quite see what the hon. member is driving at. Does he oppose the proposed basis of the subsidy? I thought it was generally admitted on both sides of the House—at any rate the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who spoke, I presume, for his party, said he was in favour of this alteration—that it was a very good proposal. Now I understand the hon. member for Newcastle does not think so, he does not share that view. But, assuming that it is so, that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does speak for his party, and his views, I take it, are generally the views of the House—how does the hon. member contend that an injustice is being done to Natal? Although the Provincial Finances Commission recommended that in the case of coastal provinces, the subsidy should be confined to £14 per pupil, we have made a very valuable and very considerable concession to Natal. The hon. member compares what he calls the more favourable treatment of the Free State with that of Natal. It is true that she gets a smaller subsidy than Natal, although on the basis laid down by the commission as an inland province she is entitled to a higher subsidy. Why does Natal apparently come off worse than other provinces? For the simple reason that unfortunately Natal has not got the number of children attending the schools.

Private schools?

Yes, even the state-aided schools get a subsidy of £5. Well, if Natal chooses to cut herself adrift from the system of the rest of the country then she must be prepared to pay for it. If she will conform to the general system, then she will get all the advantages conferred by that system. The hon. member has pointed out that Natal contributes a much bigger amount in respect of direct taxation as compared with her subsidy, than for instance, the Free State. That is not so. If you take a period of eleven years since the Union the figures compare favourably with Natal. But the original Financial Relations Commission laid it down that the provinces were supposed to contribute by general taxation at least half the total expenditure. To meet a total expenditure during eleven years of £7,848,953. Natal received subsidies from the Union of £5,177,168, or two-thirds, and she herself raised less than one-third of the total expenditure by way of taxation.

What about last year?

Last year would not have been different. Until the new basis comes into force the position will remain as it is. Natal has raised a comparatively small amount compared with other provinces. An hon. member has asked why Natal has a deficit. The reason is because, for years the Free State has been levying an education tax, a source at present untapped by Natal. If she would levy it she would have a big surplus. That is the only reason the Free State is apparently better off than Natal. Up to the present Natal has been treated very generously; if now she appears not to be treated so favourably it is only because she has been treated so well in the past. Can the hon. member point to a single proposal here where Natal is at a disadvantage compared with the Free State? I repeat that if Natal will levy the taxation, levied by other provinces, she will be in a very much better position so far as her budget is concerned. Take the proposals themselves, and let the hon. member point to a single case where Natal is not treated as generously as, or better than, other provinces. That is the position; I cannot carry the matter any further. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has asked the question about the tenure of office of the present Administrator of Natal. I take it my colleague the Minister of Education will reply to that. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) expects me to reply to what he said in regard to the Transvaal Administrator. All I can say I must refer the hon. member to the statement made by the Prime Minister in regard to this matter, which discloses the attitude of the Government towards the question. I cannot pursue it any further, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by doing so.

I want to put the position as it was disclosed by the administrator of Natal in his speech. He said—

That is my reply in answer to the Minister. Under this change which is taking place under the Financial Relations Bill you are reducing the subsidy to Natal To the extent of £107,000. So far as Natal is concerned, we are paying heavier per capita taxes on the basis of our population than any other province in the Union. That is what the administrator of Natal says, and I say he is right.

That is not the point which the hon. member originally tried to make. I have said that this new arrangement does mean a limitation of subsidies, or rather benefits, that the provinces are receiving. Of course Natal receives less than before, but what does that prove? It simply proves how generously she was treated before. The hon. member before was trying to show that Natal was being placed in a worse position as against other provinces, notably the Free State. If she chooses to tax her people, I have no quarrel with that. That is a matter for the taxpayers of Natal. She has no greater provincial problems than the other provinces, and if she chooses to perform the functions entrusted to her on a lavish scale, the people will have to pay. I have already stated that the merits of this Bill are that although we are leaving to the provinces certain powers of taxation—what hon. members might call a wide field of taxation—there always remains the penalty which the voter will exact from his representatives if they put on unreasonable taxation, and that is what is happening here now.

I rise in the first place to support the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), and in the second place to thank the hon. Minister of Finance for the answer which in this connection he gave, namely by referring to the principle which was laid down by the hon. Prime Minister. If I understand that principle well, then it is that an administrator should remain administrator of a province as long as he represents the majority of the population of the province. Now the provincial council of the Transvaal was chosen in the name of the people, and is as such the lawful representation of the province, and that legal representation of the people decided by a majority of votes to ask Mr. Hofmeyr to resign. Mr. Hofmeyr, as far as I Can see from the newspapers, definitely refused to accede to that, so that one could come to no other conclusion except that Mr. Hofmeyr showed a complete lack of respect for the majority of the population of the province that he represents, because, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the people asked him to resign, he remained on. Is this, then, not lack of respect for the people that he represents? The hon. the Prime Minister has laid down the principle that if an administrator no longer represents the majority he should resign. If this is not lack of respect for the people, then I should like to know what disrespect is. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has rightly pointed out that the majority of the provincial council in the Transvaal is opposed to retaining Mr. Hofmeyr as administrator, particularly because he in educational matters takes up a hostile attitude to the principle of the majority of the population of the Transvaal.

No.

Well. I just want to point out to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) that he also differs from the administrator. Not so long ago he said that the only decent tax that the province should retain was the poll tax, and Mr. Hofmeyr, the party colleague of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) says that the provincial councils may not have a poll tax. Thus the Administrator of the Transvaal does not agree with the view of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). The facts are here in his own report. Then I further want to point out that the main principle of the Baxter report, which undoubtedly in the main is the report of the present Administrator of the Transvaal, means that the majority of our schools in the country side would have to be closed, while to my delight hon. members opposite have pleaded for the continuance of the schools in the country side. Then there is another matter that I want to bring to the notice of the House that Mr. Hofmeyr went and appointed Mr. Scott, one of the framers of the Baxter report as director of education in the Transvaal. I leave his politics alone. I do not know whether he is S.A.P. or Labour or Nationalist or non-party, although I have my suspicions, but Mr. Scott, who takes up exactly the same standpoint as Mr. Hofmeyr, because they signed the Baxter report jointly, has been appointed by Mr. Hofmeyer as director of education.

Both are capable men.

I admit that they are capable. We are not now talking about capacity but about principle. Let me say as regards capacity, however capable Mr. Hofmeyr and Mr. Scott may be I can give hon. members the assurance that the Nationalist party people have persons just as capable, and they will carry out the policy of the population. That is the point. What has now happened? Mr. Hofmeyr and Mr. Scott control the most important thing entrusted to the provincial councils, viz., education. I agree that the appointment of Mr. Scott is just what the hon. leader of the Opposition wanted but it is just what we Labour party and Nationalists did not intend and that is why we are protesting against it to-day. We protest because the Administrator of the Transvaal is in opposition to the expressed decision of the majority of the population of the Transvaal, and in opposition to the principle laid down by the head of the state, the Prime Minister. The least one could say in this connection is that one might have expected more political honesty and more self respect from a man of his character, descent and education, than what the Administrator of the Transvaal has exhibited. It seems as if administrators of provinces are in somewhat the same position as Popes. They are actually small Popes with the one difference that they are not chosen for life but for five years. That is the only difference.

I think anybody who has any sense of decency in public life must regret the attack that has been made this evening on the Administrator of the Transvaal. The only compensation for it is that I am quite sure of this: that nothing could do more to strengthen the Administrator of the Transvaal in his position than the fact that he has been attacked by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) and the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). What have they brought up against him? The hon. member for Pretoria (West) brought the terrible accusation that he had ventured to say that not enough money was spent on coloured education in the Transvaal. Does anybody deny that that statement is true? We all admit it is true. The Administrator had the courage to say that too little is spent on the education of the coloured people and that, forsooth, is made a reason why he should he turned out of his position. And what is the great item in the charge of the hon. member for Pretoria (North)? That the Administrator of the Transvaal by his vote, which he was entitled to give and which it was his duty to give, appointed Mr. Scott as director of education, and he says because the Administrator did that—and no doubt he did it in the best interests of his province—he is not fit to hold the position.

To a point of order Mr. Chairman I did not say that Mr. Hofmeyr was unsuitable because he voted for Mr. Scott. I mentioned that as an additional circumstance that he and Mr. Scott, director of education, are not supporters of the education policy of the inhabitants of the Transvaal.

Quite so. What I said was that the hon. member had made his charge against the Administrator the fact that he had given his vote for the appointment of Mr. Scott. He corrects me now by saying that his real charge was that Mr. Hofmeyr was remaining there after he had ceased to possess the confidence of the majority of the elected representatives on the council. That is no reason at all. He is not put there to represent the majority in the council and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has not taken the trouble to find out the constitutional position of the Administrator. He is not appointed by the provincial council; he is not responsible to that body. He is appointed by the Governor-General; he is the representative of the Governor-General in the province.

The representative?

Yes, the representative. What else is he appointed for? But he holds office for five years. He does not go out with the Union Government, and if the Government of the day wants to get rid of an Administrator before the term of his office has expired, it is laid down in the Act of Union what procedure they must take in order to do it—

Here it is clearly laid down what the constitutional position is and what the Government of the day must do if they wish an Administrator to resign or to leave his office before his term has expired. It is unfair and indecent for hon. members to make the charges against the Administrator of any province which they have done, and to call upon him to vacate his office, when there is a constitutional procedure which their Government can follow if they want him to get out. They can discharge him from his office; but they have to lay their reasons before Parliament, and I say that until the Government of the day will take the responsibility of adopting that course, the only proper course, they and their supporters have no right to come here and accuse the Administrator and say he has not the confidence of the provincial council and that he should be removed. The Administrator of the Transvaal has taken up a perfectly correct and constitutional attitude. He says. “I will go out if the Government says I must, but I will not go out if the majority shows it has no confidence in me.” It is for the Government to speak, and so long as they do not want him to go it is unfair and indecent for hon. members opposite to say that a man has shown a want of self-respect in refusing to go.

Why did you say that the Administrator is the representative of the Union Government?

Perhaps that is an expression which is not altogether legally correct, but he is their representative in the respect that he was appointed by them and is regarded as their agent. Section 84 of the South Africa Act says—

So that besides being appointed by the Union Government he also acts on their behalf in other matters.

That is the executive committee.

He acts in other matters independently of the executive, committee; there is certainly not the slightest grounds for saying that he is responsible to the Government, or that it is his duty to resign if the provincial council passes an adverse vote. That is absolutely destructive of the whole foundation of the provincial system. In the case of an administrator who has held a high and responsible office, and who is not here to defend himself, it is unfair for hon. members to attack his personal character because he does something which he is bound to do.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has spoken in that way. Let me tell him that I regret that this attack has been made here this evening. We must now try to understand what the actual position of the administrators is. I am also very sorry that I must say that we are not to blame for the misapprehension that is shown here to-night. It is caused by what I have brought to the notice of my friends opposite for years, by the position which was taken up by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in connection with the administrators. The position in which he placed the administrators is precisely the same that has to-night accidentally been ascribed to them by the hon. member for Yeoville, namely, that they are representatives of the Union Government. It was on account of this view that they were representatives of the Union Government that the disastrous blunder was made when they apropos the appointment of Dr. Ramsbottom stated that they need not take any account of the feeling of the province, inasmuch as the administrator represented the Union Government. This is precisely the cause which led to the attack which has been made here to-night. I understand the position that the administrator is appointed by the Union Government, but when once appointed he is not a representative of the Union Government, but responsible to the people of a province for which he is appointed, and then it is his duty to remain on according to the provisions of the law, and there is no reason why on a change of Government he need resign, unless he feels that he in the altered circumstances can no longer fulfil the duties of an administrator. If we now want to give effect clearly to this position that he is no longer the myrmidon of the Government, then we shall no longer hear this criticism. I want to say these few words because I think that we as a legislative body must contribute our share to make an end of the old things which have been taking place recently against a man like the administrator, who should be in the position of acting in the interests of the province, and who should receive proper respect. I hope that in the future we shall understand that we must not put the people in the wrong light to expose them to attacks such as these.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) wherein this is an indecent attack on the Administrator of the Transvaal. As far as I understand the feeling in the Transvaal, the opinion is that we have to-day an Administrator who is entirely out of touch with the great mass of the electorate in the Transvaal. Labour members of Parliament have been repeatedly asked at public meetings in the Transvaal what their attitude was in regard to the administrator. The hon. member for Yeoville says that the administrator is appointed to represent the Union Government for five years, but if there is a change of Government, I take it, logically, the administrator ceases to represent the new Government, I know the administrator of the Transvaal does not belong to any political party, but if he had belonged to any other than the South African party he would not have been in his present position. Apart from the political aspects of the case, we can congratulate the present leader of the Opposition on making the appointment, for Mr. Hofmeyr is a most capable, able and efficient young man. The fact that he belonged to no party indicates that there was a certain amount of subterfuge when the appointment was made, but I do not accuse the administrator of being any party to it, because he was holding a good position and had the good opinion of the people of the Transvaal until he allowed himself to get into the position in which he is to-day. The great mass of the people—Nationalists and Labour—in the Transvaal, have nothing but sympathy for Professor Hofmeyr, because he has got into a place for which he was never suited at his time of life. He is suffering to-day because his name is on the floor of the House.

Who brought it here?

Who caused his name to be brought into the House? Must we hush up every mistake that has been made by the other side, although I realize the difficulties both of the Government and the Opposition in connection with this matter? Had the Administrator of the Transvaal been a man who had more experience in the public life of this country, who had been a politician, and who knew what things were outside university life, I believe he would have been glad to have resigned and so keep out of the turmoil which exists to-day. I submit the present position is unfair to the Opposition, the Government and to Professor Hofmeyr. However, if the latter examines the position he will do the right thing. If I may refer to the Minister of Finance’s speech on the Financial Relations Bill, I would say that the Labour party Contends that this country with its huge area should have a federal and not a unified system. Federation undoubtedly will come in this country. It may not be in the next five or ten years, but undoubtedly it must come, because of the community of interests that must exist in the various geographical centres of this country. You have only got to look back one hundred years, when a little place like Graaff-Reinet established its own republic, because they realized there was a community of interest which must exist even in so far as your domestic arrangements of life are concerned. It exists in the family circle to some extent, and therefore it is essential in a country with our mileage, that the federal system is the only system that will work to the satisfaction of the various communities of interest in the country. If you think of that you go a step further and see that in South Africa, with the Transvaal, Free State and Natal, you would, if you went to a popular vote, get a vote for federation.

Your time has expired.

I will say at once that I am very glad that the hon. the Prime Minister has got up and said that he abides by the decision that he took after the vote of no confidence passed by the provincial council in the administrator but I am very sorry that the Prime Minister at the same time again referred to past history and referred to the ease of Dr. Ramsbottom, trying to stir up bad blood by quoting the old story and asking why he had not been re-appointed when his period of service was over. Is he prepared to give us the assurance that he will appoint Mr. Hofmeyr again when his time has expired? I am certain that he will not appoint him again. In connection with what the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) has said I wish to point out that the agitation which was started in connection with the Administrator of the Transvaal was the result of the agitation in his newspaper in Pretoria. Then he goes further and says that the majority of the population of the Transvaal do not agree with the point of view of the Transvaal Administrator. What has that got to do with it? Nothing. There are certain regulations which he must follow and carry out. The Administrator is in his position not as a party man, he must not favour one party above another, but only do his duty. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) has said that the majority of the people do not agree with the Administrator. I will only say that the hon. member for Pretoria (North) is not now in Pretoria and does not speak only in accordance with information he has received. But the Transvaal Administrator was recently at Bethal and had a reception from Nationalists and S.A.P. supporters as fine as any man could wish. This proved that he enjoys the confidence of both sections there and they all like him because he is competent and impartial. When he was appointed no one knew to what party he belonged. I heard here for the first time that he was an Imperialist. But why was Administrator Hofmeyr told at that time that he could stop on if he became a Nationalist? It was attempted to make him take sides. I only wish to ask the hon. member why Dr. Adamson was dismissed at that time? And as regards the appointment of Mr. Scott it is an appointment decided upon by the executive committee, and who has the majority there?

The S.A.P.

The Pact. But when the public made its voice heard then they became afraid and cancelled the dismissal.

As a member for the Transvaal I would like to associate myself with what has fallen from these benches in regard to the invidious position of the administrator. I want to say that his position to-day in the Transvaal is not only invidious, but it must be exceptionally unpleasant for the administrator, having regard to the fact that he obviously cannot represent the central authority, because he was especially appointed by the South African party, and he does not represent the Provincial Council because by a majority that body passed a resolution of no confidence in the administrator. He was placed in that position by the South African party, who, in spite of their suggestion that the position was not a political one, utilized it for political purposes.

No.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) may say “no,” but the position arose as the result of the Wakkerstroom bye-election. The South African party realized that it was necessary to have a candidate who would be able to get a following, and they went to Mr. Robertson, the Administrator of the Transvaal, who should not have taken part in politics at all, and they got Mr. Robertson to give up his job as administrator and fight the battle of Wakkerstroom for them. That showed they regarded the position as a political office under the patronage of the Government, and the people in position of administrators looked upon themselves as political officers of the South African party, ready, at the call of party duty, to throw up their jobs and go and fight an electoral battle. We have the greatest regard for Professor Hofmeyr’s ability, and whether he was an active member of the South African party, or not, we know that the South African party Government, at that time, would not have gone to anyone, unless they were satisfied, entirely satisfied, with his outlook with regard to their policy, and appoint him in the position vacated by Mr. Robertson. You need only refer to the report of the Provincial Finances Commission, of which Professor Hofmeyr was a most distinguished member, and you will find there, right through, that the policy agreed to by Professor Hofmeyr was a policy in accord with the views of the South African party. He was in favour of doing away with free secondary education in the Transvaal, for which they had been fighting for many years. He was in favour of restricting expenditure on European education, and expending it on native education—the policy of the South African party—he was in favour of cutting down the expenditure of the hospitals, so far as the poorest paid servants were concerned; in fact, his policy, all through, as reflected in the report, was to look after the well-to-do and neglect those who were unable to look after themselves. He was appointed administrator, and converted the Johannesburg Hospital Board into a South African party organization. Professor Hofmeyr is a particularly clever man. He is able to do a good deal of harm as a result of that ability. He said he would allow public bodies to nominate representatives for the Hospital Board, and he went to the Chamber of Mines and asked if they had not got some representative on the Hospital Board: he went to the Johannesburg Chamber of Industry, to the Transvaal Chamber of Commerce, all people whose view’s are entirely in accord with the South African party, and by a sheer accident (!) the Hospital Board was so constituted that there was an overwhelming majority of the members who are members of the South African party, and by a coincidence. Sir Julius Jeppe, the chairman of the South African party on the Rand, became chairman. When the position arose that he realized, as the result of the election of a new Government, the invidious position he was in, he came along and placed the Prime Minister in the awkward position of receiving an offer of his resignation. The Prime Minister did not accept the resignation, although if he had consulted the wishes of the people in the Transvaal the resignation would have been accepted. The position was laid down that the provincial council should be consulted in the matter, and the moment the opportunity was given to express its opinion, they passed a vote of no confidence in the Administrator. I wonder where the decency comes in on the part of a gentleman who offers his resignation to the Prime Minister before the provincial council had a chance of discussing it, but when the council called upon him to resign, he does not come along and renew his offer, because he knew it would now have been accepted. He knows the people in the Transvaal don’t want him as Administrator. I submit that the Transvaal Administrator at the present time is placing himself and the people of the Transvaal in a very awkward and invidious position, that he does not represent the people of the Transvaal, and, from that point of view, he cannot possibly give effect to the wishes of the provincial council and, to that extent, he is certainly occupying a very wrong and very false position.

Order; the hon. member’s time has expired.

I am very sorry that this matter has been brought up and especially about some of the speeches, it has been represented here that the Transvaal Provincial Council is opposed to higher salaries being paid to the native teachers. The same person who proposed the motion of no confidence in the Administrator proposed that the salaries of native teachers should be raised. The South African party opposed this but it was passed by the Pact. I cannot understand how members can get up here and go against the policy of the Prime Minister. The Transvaal Administrator has already done much, and will do greater things in the future if the Government does not dismiss him. It is, of course, the duty of the Government to discharge him if he does not do his duty and when his time is up, it is also within the powers of Government to appoint someone else. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) is always fishing in troubled water. Just read his newspaper. It is a pity, because he will have to acknowledge with me that the Transvaal people are behind the Administrator. He has shown in the past that he has only one object, and that is to work the people up more. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) says that the Nationalist and the Labour party are against him. The reason for that is that they cannot play fast and loose with him. It is no longer the case that Mr. Stofberg actually governs the province. We can be thankful that we have the present Administrator.

I have not yet said a word about this matter, but during the discussion it occurred to me what happened when our Prime Minister was put out of the Cabinet. Then we had the “Cream” Congress, and at that Sir Cornelius Wessels was the only person in the Free State who voted on the side of the previous Government. It only lasted a few years and a vacancy occurred in the Free State. Dr. Ramsbottom had to give way in the Free State to Sir Cornelius Wessels as Administrator. That is the offence that the South African party committed. It was a political appointment from beginning to end, and they followed that policy continuously with all other administrators. These are the people who now talk about jobs for pals. They followed the principle that only the people who danced to their tune and would change their views according to the wind that blew should be appointed. I remember a case, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) is not present. After the “Cream Congress” he travelled with me to Bloemfontein and helped to draft the constitution of the Nationalist party. He then however returned to the Paarl and found out that he had a poor chance at the election. Then he turned his sail to the wind. These are the people who now talk about jobs for pals. Mr. Hofmeyr is a capable student, but he has not had the necessary experience. The former Government knew, however, that he was one of the exceptional young Afrikanders who had bent the knee to Baal. If my people have not confidence in me, then I will immediately resign. He is not an incompetent man, but he has no experience, and just as an honest politician must resign when his people have no confidence in him so he should also resign if they have no confidence in him. I should not have spoken about the matter, but if there ever was a Government who not only gave jobs to pals, but boycotted the Opposition with regard to appointments, then it was the South African party.

The Prime Minister regrets the attack on the administrator. It is not actually an attack on the administrator, but on the system under which he was appointed. The South African party laid it down that the administrator is the representative of the Government, and he was appointed on that supposition and it is on that assumption that the Transvaal administrator entered upon his office. We expected him to resign on the change of Government, but he remained on. Now the new Government came into power, and I accept the view of the Prime Minister that the administrator should represent the majority of the province. This had to be tested accordingly in one way or another. A resolution was accepted by the provincial council and it appears that he does not represent a majority in the provinces Nor does he represent the Government, and accordingly we have the peculiar position on the executive council where he has the casting vote. The position is that he actually makes all the appointments. The Transvaal regret this more than the Prime Minister, and that is why the Transvaal insists upon it that there should be a change. I know that this cannot be done now unless he will be so obliging as to resign, but after the statement of the Prime Minister it is his duty to resign, that is the reason why the old difficulty still continues.

I make no apology for bringing this question of the Administrator of the Transvaal before the House. If there is a place where it should be constitutionally brought up it is here. It is when administrators’ salaries are voted that we can have our say in regard to them. The last election showed, and the next will show even more fully that the Transvaal is National and Labour. There you have the Provincial Council asking the Administrator to resign, not for any disgraceful action, but because he is out of sympathy with the people. On education he is undoubtedly out of sympathy. The wider spread we give to education the better chance for men of genius to rise to such a position as that of administrator. We criticize him in regard to several other features of this famous Baxter report; for instance, in regard to the nurses and the hospitals of the Transvaal. What do we get from Professor Hofmeyr? He states that the reduction of hours for nurses does not tend to economy. Well, we found nurses working from 70 to 80 hours a week; working seven days a week and only one day off in thirty. At last we got it recognized that they should have a 48-hour week; a six-day week, and one day a week off. It is essential that nurses should be as capable as possible in their work, that they should be fresh and able to give their best to the patients; and here is Professor Hofmeyr coming along and saying that it does not tend to economy to reduce the hours of nurses! Could we have anything more shocking from a gentleman occupying that position? It is perfectly certain that he does not represent the views of South Africa. His report goes on to say that not only should the nurses work longer hours, but to one’s astonishment he expresses the opinion that the diet of our nurses is far too generous. That is the economy which pleases the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and members in other parts of the Opposition benches, that the diet of nurses in hospitals is far too “generous.” What makes this generous diet? He says they are allowed fruit every day. A terribly extravagant thing He says also that they would not have this in the homes they come from. Was ever a bigger slur cast on our nurses in this country? Why, some of them come from the best homes in South Africa.

Which are the best homes?

This is from Professor Hofmeyr, a man for whom otherwise I have a great respect.

You are not showing

This country is going to be one of the greatest fruit-producing countries in the world, and yet it is a shocking thing to give fruit daily to nurses. The more fruit they eat the less meat and other things they will require, so that the professor is scarcely a good economist. Another thing is that they have wine—actually the nurses have wine.

Oh, cut it out.

It works out at a halfpenny a day but it is too generous a diet. Is it to be wondered at that we are not fascinated with this Baxter Report, that we are not very agreeable towards the men who signed it, among others Mr. Scott whose name has been brought in. These nurses are fed at a cost of 1s. 8d. per day for this “far too generous diet.” The nurses are underworked and overfed, and apparently also they are overpaid! I think we shall make a very big struggle for the nurses before we will accept the Baxter Report. It went far beyond that in other ways. We are told we should have more natives in hospital employ and fewer Europeans. In the Johannesburg hospital the laundry is worked by Europeans. These unfortunate European girls, who can scarcely fit any other occupation, get a mere pittance so far as decent pay is concerned, hardly enough to keep body and soul together, and yet Professor Hofmeyr, one of the cultured men of South Africa, the pride of our educational institutions, says you should not have Europeans so employed in hospitals, they are more expensive than coloured persons.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I am glad the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has brought up the question of the attitude of the Administrator toward the hospitals. It only brings us to the farther peculiar position of the Administrator of the Transvaal and to those members who come from the other provinces, I think this position ought to be put to them that, whilst they, on the S.A.P. benches, claim that this is a non-political position, the actual fact is that the Administrator sits as chairman of an executive of two Nationalists and two S.A.P. members.

What are you going to do in the Cape Province in six months’ time?

We will leave that to the Cape Province in six months time; but I am speaking for the Transvaal, and I say the Transvaal will not, and cannot, tolerate the position there, where you have a provincial council, where the great mass of the people are not represented, and where the controlling power, the casting vote, is given by a man nominated by a previous Government in this country. That is our complaint to our own Government. We have certainly heard the explanation given by the Prime Minister, and I think our friends on the Opposition benches have every feeling of sympathy towards the Prime Minister’s position. He put it very clearly, what the position was according to the South Africa Act, and said “I leave it to you.” If this young man were well enough versed in the public affairs of this country he would not be in the position he is to-day, and would not put his nominator, the leader of the Opposition, in the awkward position he is in, and the present Prime Minister in the position he is in.

Why didn’t the Prime Minister ask him to resign? He said he would if the Prime Minister asked him.

The administrator showed a considerable amount of agility. He rushed and saw the Prime Minister and immediately gave the result to Reuter, and it was some time after before the Provincial Council of the Transvaal was called together, and the first opportunity the elected body of the Transvaal in provincial matters were able to give an expression of opinion in regard to this matter was some time after all this agility of the administrator had taken place,

What is his offence?

His offence is inexperience in meddling with public affairs. Can I put it more plainly than this? It is his inexperience in meddling with public affairs that has compelled his name and his position, with all the ability that the young man has got, to be laughed over. My friends won’t deny that. I say it is wrong that he was placed in that position. I see the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) shaking his head, but it does not do him any credit to take up that attitude.

The hon. member must address the chair.

I beg pardon, but when you hear the sneers and sniggers on the opposite benches, you will quite appreciate how one is apt to misdirect attention from yourself to those gentlemen. I can Say this, that I believe the time will come when Mr. Hofmeyr, the present Administrator of the Transvaal, will not thank the people who have advised him and who are behind him to-day.

I think it is a most serious indictment against a public man in this country that has come from the hon. member who has just spoken. He condemned a man for inexperience in meddling with public affairs, and to say that because a young man has no experience in meddling with public affairs that therefore he is not competent to hold a public position in this country, seemed to be an indictment of the first water. Perhaps if an indictment of that character had been laid against the present Administrator of the Cape Province there might have been some justification for it—a man so experienced that he is a past-master in the art? I think the Provincial Council has felt, and the public generally has felt, that the members of that council are so inexperienced that they are completely in the hands of a first-class politician, and there you have the two extremes, a young man who is trying to do his duty to his country, and an old, experienced man trying to do the same, both condemned by the public. It shows the difficulty a public man has to face in this country. I think the debate that has taken place this evening might have been left over until the Financial Relations Bill is under discussion. The attack has been made largely against the system. I wish to address to the Minister of Finance a question that has nothing to do with the issue at present before the House. The Minister has told us that the old basis of the financial relations between the provinces of the Union was laid in the 1913 Act. Under that Act—I am speaking parochially, perhaps, but it applies to the Transkei, and we look to the provincial council to maintain our public roads. Under the 1913 Act, under the Union Act, it was understood that the provincial council of the Cape would be responsible for the main roads through the Transkeian territories, and they have maintained the roads in a manner in the past; but now I am rather afraid of the present position arising, that the provincial council will say this grant the Union Government is making to the provinces is to be utilized for education, and they may try to evade that responsibility they have towards the roads in the Transkei. Last session the South African party in the provincial council brought forward many measures, with a view to effecting economy, but the National party brought forward only one, and that was to reduce the grant for the maintenance of Transkei roads by 50 per cent. A few years ago the administrator, without the knowledge of the Provincial Council, caused to be issued a proclamation in which the Provincial Council were absolved from any responsibility in regard to accidents which might happen on these roads. Only in the Transkei is no one responsible for accidents that may arise through failure to maintain public roads. I would ask if the Minister, in framing the new Financial Relations Bill, has made any provisions in regard to the maintenance and control of roads in the Transkei. The people of the Transkei, in conjunction with the Native Council, and the Europeans, are willing to assume responsibility for their roads. We are prepared to pay the bill, but at present we are between the Union Government and the administrator. I want the assurance of the Minister that he is protecting the Transkei in this matter. What will be the position if the Cape Provincial Council cuts off all expenditure on these roads?

I quite agree with the last speaker on certain aspects of the administrator-ship of the Transvaal, but we have two alternatives—either the Administrator represents the feelings of the body over which he presides, or he is frankly the nominee of the Government in power, and has to give effect in that capacity to the wishes of that Government. There is no occasion for laughing and jeering on the part of hon. members, so let us examine the thing calmly. The present Administrator of the Transvaal does not represent the council over which he presides, and does not reflect their political opinions nor the opinions of the Government in power. We have this very anomalous position, that he represents the feelings of the party in opposition. That is an impossible position, and is further complicated by the fact that not only do we know in an empirical way that he does not represent the political views of the Government, but that a vote of no confidence in him was passed by the body over which he presides. How can a man rightly preside over a body which he knows has no confidence in him? At any time in this House an Opposition which thought they were strong enough, would not hesitate to move a vote of no confidence in the Government. I am talking of a normal Opposition—an Opposition with some go in it. When a vote of no confidence is carried, the Government resigns. If my hon. friends thought they could carry a vote of no confidence, they would not try to do it, for they know that the Government, if defeated, would come back infinitely stronger than it is to-day.

What item is the hon. member talking about?

I am talking about the Administrator of the Transvaal and his peculiar relation to the Opposition. There is no question of offence in an Opposition moving a vote of no confidence in a Government. The Administrator of the Transvaal has a breezy, ignorant way of dealing with education—he is certainly ignorant of the way to attain education, and as to the nurses who work 70 hours a week, he has said that they are overfed and underworked. All these things caused the provincial council of the Transvaal to express themselves as having no further confidence in the Administrator. Now you have no grounds for his maintenance there. He neither represents the political opinion or feelings of the body itself nor does he represent the political opinion and outlook of the party in power in the country. There is no excuse for his continuance in office. I have the greatest regard for him, he is a remarkably agile gentleman mentally, a charming personality, a splendid fellow, but no good as an Administrator of the Transvaal, with a Pact party in power.

No, exactly.

Supposing in the provinces there was a majority in every case of the South African party and this party dared to appoint holus bolus Administrators who were not of South African party complexion. A howl would go up from these benches. As you would like to be treated try to treat us. If these are political appointments by the Government in power, then I say openly and frankly they ought to reflect the political opinion of the party in power.

I don’t know whether we should treat these attacks on the Administrator seriously, because if they be so, they might have a painful effect upon the country. What is the head and front of Professor Hofmeyr’s offending? It is because he has, according to the member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), “no experience in meddling with public affairs”; quite so, he is neither a meddler or a muddler, and I think the attack made upon him is the best evidence of his pre-eminent capacity for the position he occupies. He is not a political partisan. What is wanted by his traducers is that he should be a tool of the political party at present in power in the Transvaal. This arises from the mischievous lead given by the Minister of Justice. The bad taste he displayed in stating that members of the Civil Service Commission and the administrators, if they had any self-respect should resign. That is where it emanates from. The Minister was perfectly frank. He indicated that he wanted partisans in that office, and that is the trouble in regard to this very capable, able and conscientious official. He is not, and will not be, a partisan. One is very pleased to see the attitude of the hon. Prime Minister on this matter. His attitude is perfectly correct, and he gave the House a full and frank explanation. But the personal nature of the attack is evidenced by the persistence with which it is carried on. When once the Prime Minister has made clear his views on the matter, these attacks by his back benchers should have ceased.

I want to refer to the prodigious waste of time involved. Although this House has sat on 60 days, only two Bills have passed their third reading.

What item is the hon. member discussing now?

I am coming to it. What troubles me more is the intense personality displayed in the debate this afternoon. It gives point to what I have sometimes heard said that “politics is a dirty game.”

I want to refer to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) with regard to the present proposals as to subsidies. They do not affect the question raised by him. The obligation is on the provincial councils to maintain roads under the South Africa Act, and we don’t interfere with that. Whatever the position was before, it remains the same now. The obligation is there generally to maintain roads in the province, and although we only give them a subsidy in respect of education, we give them taxing powers and they are not absolved from the necessity of maintaining roads.

The hon. Minister of the Interior promised to give some information as to date upon which Sir George Plowman’s tenure of office expires.

I have not got the information, but off-hand, I think my impression is correct, that the appointment has still three years to run. I think that is correct.

I would like to suggest to the Minister of Finance whether something could not be done to distinguish amounts appearing in the votes which are fixed by Parliament or by our constitution from those which can be altered by a vote in committee of supply. The salary of administrators is by the constitution fixed, and it is expressly laid down that it cannot be altered during the tenure of office of the particular administrator, yet it appears here in the Estimates, like an ordinary expenditure, and the Chairman ruled, and ruled correctly, that it was open to any member to move a reduction in the amount. Exactly the same thing would occur in the cast of the Governor-General which is fixed by the Act of Union, yet it is in the Estimates, and it is open to a member to move a reduction, and if it was carried it would have to take effect.

The Minister would have to resign.

I am not talking about the Minister but about the most distinguished official in the Union, whose salary is fixed by the constitution, and the administrators of the provinces, whose salaries are also expressly provided under the constitution and shall not be reduced. These amounts I suggest shall be put in a reserve schedule, so that it will not be open to any member to get a snatch vote and reduce the amount.

The treasury has had the matter under consideration, but we think it might be better gone into in the Public Accounts Committee. We have not thought that it would serve the public interest up to the present by departing from the established form. If it is wished by Parliament that we should put these amounts in a special schedule, as is done in England, we shall do it, although they cannot legally reduce the salary actually.

That is a questionable matter and we must be careful before we accede to the request of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I remember an historic occasion when a reduction in salary of the then Governor-General was moved, and the Chairman ruled it was competent for us to do so, and that it was quite right for us to do so. Are these salaries actually fixed for each individual Administrator? It is a question of interpretation. I take it that it means that the salary for the office is fixed, but it does not necessarily follow that we cannot reduce the salary for a particular occasion.

I think my object has been attained in having this matter ventilated and I have no feeling of animosity against the Administrator of the Transvaal.

You have.

I have already said that I have not; but this is the proper place where an administrator’s action should come under review. I think in regard to this appointment it has worked out very unfortunately. The South Africa Act lays down that as far as possible administrators should be resident in the district for which they are appointed. Professor Hofmeyr came from the Witwatersrand University to be appointed as administrator, but he was in no other sense a resident of the Transvaal. So far as the Transvaal is concerned he does not carry its confidence; so far as the provincial council is concerned he does not carry its confidence; and there are a large number of people in the Transvaal who are hostile to his views in regard to the application of money to education. Before withdrawing my motion for the reduction of his salary, I would like to observe one or two things. I am sorry that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) was not here when I was making an appeal in regard to the nurses. I hope his speech was not through any lack of sympathy for that body on the part of the hon. member, because the Johannesburg hospital is in the constituency which he represents. I trust he is not out of sympathy with nurses because a lady employed in that institution complained to a Royal Commission that the hon. member had not given her the six pairs of silk stockings he had promised her for canvassing for him. I want to congratulate the Minister on having made some move towards proper provision for provincial councils. They have been buffeted about, and treated not merely as children but as illegitimate children, and have never been given a proper chance of showing what they can do. In the Transvaal Provincial Council we have a number of men who do the whole of the work of the Transvaal for less than £10,000, which is cutting it pretty fine. These provincial councils have the right to exist; they are doing work which could not be better done by members of this House. Somebody has to do it. I should like to draw attention to the differentiation between the Transvaal, and, say, the Cape. The Cape has a larger subsidy and is better treated, yet I am perfectly certain that the Transvaal is the province that contributes most to the revenue of this country. Rhodesia was offered terms far more liberal than these. It was only because of the scurvy way our provincial councils have been treated that Rhodesia stood out of the Union. Had provincial councils been properly treated Rhodesia would have been in the Union to-day. Later on there may be an opportunity for dealing with the capital account, which shows even more fully that the intentions of the South Africa Act have not been carried out. I withdraw the motion for reduction.

I have not yet heard the brains of the House with regard to this matter. I cannot hear very well the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay).He talks of a “tremendous loss,” and then I hear nothing more. It will be a slap in the face if one of the cleverest young Afrikanders who has ever yet trod the earth in South Africa were to resign. He is a person who is so full of brains that there are few members in the House who can Criticize him. I am sorry that he is dragged across the floor of the House in this way after the statement made by the Prime Minister. It is such a scandal that it would be appropriate if the amendment were withdrawn.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Vote 20,“Interior,” £178,569,

I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior what he is paying now, per head, for Asiatics leaving Natal, and how many have left during the past year?

During the period 1914 to 1920, between eighteen and nineteen thousand Asiatics have been repatriated, and that has been done at a cost of about £8 per head. As the hon. gentleman will know, we came to an arrangement last year to increase the bonus, because the number of Asiatics who were repatriated voluntarily fell off, and we have increased it to £10 for every adult Asiatic leaving, with a maximum of £50 a family, and that has had a very good effect.

Can the Minister give us figures showing how many more Asiatics are leaving now from Natal since the increased bonus has been paid?

I am sorry, I have not the latest figures here, but the fact was very noticeable immediately the new arrangement was made. Previously, hardly any Asiatics from the Transvaal accepted repatriation, but after the new arrangement was introduced, a fairly large number from the Transvaal and even from the Cape also applied.

I wish to refer to a reply given to me by the Minister some time ago. I asked a question in regard to the registration of voters, and his reply was, “The procedure, so far as the canvassing for persons whose names appear on the existing voters’ list is concerned, is the same for Europeans as for non-Europeans.” The Minister in his reply did not refer to form R.V. 50, which is supposed to apply to all persons on the roll. In section 4 of the instructions to canvassers by the Minister, it is stated the canvasser will receive from the registering officer a form containing the name and other particulars of every person whose name appears on the voters’ list. Section 12 states that the form should, as far as possible, be completed by the person to whom it relates, although it may be completed on his behalf by a responsible person who is able accurately to supply the information required. That means that the form may be completed by any responsible person, and not by the person on the register. In sections 20 and 21 it is laid down that after the form is completed the canvasser must scrutinize it before he leaves the residence of the person concerned, and if the form is not properly or completely filled in, he must make such enquiries as may enable him to amend or complete the form. These regulations refer to Europeans only, but section 24, under the heading “Additional instructions in regard to canvassing of non-European persons in the Cape and Natal provinces,” lays it down that the canvasser must require every non European person respecting whom he has received a form, to complete that form if such person is still residing at the address mentioned But the canvasser must not leave any form for completion. Thus, so far as Europeans are concerned, the canvasser may leave or fill in the form himself, but when it comes to non-Europeans, the forms must be filled in by the voters themselves. I ask the Minister under what law he issues these instructions? There is no right under any law in this province to make any difference between Europeans or non-Europeans in this matter. There is no law that requires any person, European or non-European, to fill in the whole of the form; all that the law requires is that a person must fill in his address and sign his name. I want it to be made clear that the non-European must fill in the whole form, that no form may be left at his residence, and I wish to know why any difference is made between the European and the non-European. The Minister further says that Europeans must complete form R.V.51 and non-Europeans must complete R.V.9. Why this difference? But while R.V.51 is completed by the signature of the claimant and by his filling in his name and address yet R.V.9 must be completed by all non-Europeans and by those whites about whom the canvasser is in doubt. That is his answer but nowhere in the instructions laid by the Minister on the Table is form R.V.9 referred to in case of Europeans. Then we have also the case of whites who have left their address. They must be enquired for. I refer to section 13. If a canvasser finds a person in respect of whom he has received a form resides no longer at the address he must endorse on the form “left” and must try and trace the address to which he has gone. If a European is not on the roll according to section 5 he must be traced and according to sections 7 to 10 the canvasser has the further duty of trying to get this person registered. In every section it says “white male person.” Turn to section 11 and you find that canvassers must not require any person not a white male person of 21 years of age to fill form R.V.51. In every case there is a differentiation between the two peoples. I am giving the sections so that the hon. Minister can look them up and appreciate my points. But take section 25, a canvasser must at every building visited by him ascertain whether there are any non-European persons there entitled to be registered and provide each non-European person with a form R.V.9. This form must be completed in the presence of the canvasser. That is the only case where the form has to be filled in in the presence of the canvasser. The canvasser as a matter of fact, is not permitting even that. He requires non-Europeans to go to the police station and fill the form in there. Again in regard to assistance given, we find, in sections 20 and 21, the canvasser, if he finds that the form is not properly filled in by Europeans applying, may himself properly and completely fill in the form.

Order; the hon. member’s time has expired.

I see that on page 73 under the vote “Incidental Expenses”, there is an item “Historical Research, £500 a new item. I would be glad if the Minister would tell us what that is for. I hope it is not the same sort of “historical research” as the Board of Trade has been carrying on with regard to Imperial preference. On page 74, I see that in the department of census and statistics, there is an increase of clerical assistants from 26 to 34, and the amount has gone up from £8,200 to £9,167, compared with last year, and, in addition, there is an amount of £3,000 extra for temporary assistants, making a total increase of about £4,000. Perhaps the Minister would explain what the special reason is for this increased cost.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to take any steps to prohibit the importation of contract labour into South Africa. I refer particularly to the episode at the Mount Nelson Hotel, where we had people importing waiters into this country under contract. There is another instance which I could put before the Minister, that is the importation of seamen in connection with the whaling industry in Natal. Seamen are imported for that industry to work at lower wages than are paid to the seamen of this country.

With regard to page 74, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can take steps to speed up the issue of the monthly trade statistics. The position to-day is that the monthly statistics are issued about three months after the month to which they refer.

Four.

I am rather understating the case. In fact, I think up to the present the annual statistics for 1924 have not yet been issued, although we are halfway through the year 1925. Except from the point of view of “historical research” to which my hon. friend (Sir William Macintosh) has referred, they are of very little use. From a trade point of view, before you actually get them, the time has passed when they can be usefully utilized. I notice there is a very big increase in the clerical staff that is being employed on this matter now, and I hope the result will be that the statistics will be very much speeded up.

Just to complete what I was saying, I would like to point out in reference to 20 and 21, the European gets every possible help to complete his form, whereas under section 24 the non-European has difficulties placed in his way. He must, under this regulation, do far more than is required of him under the Act. If anyone has seen these forms, he will agree with me that they are most complicated, and it is very difficult, even for an educated European, properly to fill them in. I think the Minister ought to explain to us why this difference is made. I understood from him in reply to my question that there was no difference, but according to his own instructions there are two sections, one for Europeans and one for non-Europeans. This seems to me to be a position which is very unjust as far as a large body of uneducated persons is concerned. I know as a matter of fact that as a result of these instructions a very large percentage of non-Europeans are left off the roll. We know that. It is going to be very difficult to get them on now. I would like the Minister to give us clear information because it is causing vast dissatisfaction among a large section of the community and they feel they are being badly treated.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has done anything with regard to the communication from the National Zoo at Pretoria in reference to wiping off the deficit of £2,000. They approached the Minister on this matter last March. In looking over the items of revenue and expenditure it is quite evident that the Zoo is having great difficulty in making ends meet. The municipality has been very generous with its annual grant, but in spite of that and owing to the high cost of supplies it has got into difficulties; so I hope the Minister will go into the matter and see if he can help.

I should like to know from the hon. Minister in what circumstances the climatic—or as we call it the malaria—allowances are paid to officials. We now have the position that amongst officials doing the same work some draw the allowances and others do not. A postmaster, e.g., at Potgietersrust gets no allowances although he gets the fever. The magistrate, on the other hand—he does the same class of work—gets the allowances. Teachers get the climatic allowances. This naturally breeds dissatisfaction. Enquiry was made at the time and the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs could state that the answer was then given that the Public Service Commission acted on the advice of the Department of Public Health, and it appeared that there had not yet been a proper survey of the Union and it was not yet properly fixed what areas should be considered for allowances and what should not be. But even if they had been fixed in the past I think they could be revised because there are areas which formerly were malarious but are now no longer infected and vice versa. Further, I should like to know why, as I understand, temporary officials are never granted the allowances. They are frequently transferred from a healthy climate to an unhealthy one, and it is no more than right that they should also draw the allowances. Then I should like further to bring to the hon. Minister’s notice that at the Cape Town Museum that all notices and names of objects are only in the English language. Some time ago there was a party of Dutch-speaking people in the museum and some of them could not understand English. I hope that he will bring the matter to the notice of the authorities and that an alteration in this connection will be made.

Some time ago I put a question to the Minister, asking whether he was going to introduce legislation this year dealing with the Asiatic question, and his answer was that legislation was in course of preparation and would be introduced. I shall be glad to know when the Bill will be put before us, because many of us are anxious to see its contents.

The position in regard to immigration is one to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention. In a publication with which I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has had some connection, the “People’s Weekly,” a considerable amount of notice is drawn to the fact that people from Eastern Europe are arriving here in large numbers and people from Western Europe are deserting us. A long table is given showing that the Czecho-Slavs are arriving in considerable numbers, also the Greeks and Yugoslavs, the Letts, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Roumanians, the Greeks and the Turks. All these nationalities are coming in to the exclusion of, or in any case, they preponderate in numbers as compared with the nations of north-western Europe. Those who have made a study of this question will find that the experience of America, which is very ably summarized in a paper by Doctor Davie, Professor of the Science of Society of Yale University, shows that the most suitable emigrant to that country is the one who is most easily assimilated, and Dr. Davie points out that this is preferably the man from north-western Europe. We in this country happen to be fortunate enough to have a preponderating number of the permanent population who come from northwestern Europe, and I think it is not to be denied that the most satisfactory pioneer and settler in South Africa has been the man from Holland, Great Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, or any of the countries coming under the description of north-western Europe. The experience of America has been that it has become desirable, as the years have gone by, to admit only those people who are easily assimilated, and it has been the experience of America that the people from eastern and southern Europe are not easily assimilated and do not provide the best source of immigration to that great country. I think many of us who reflect at all upon these questions realize that the course immigration is taking in South Africa, if left to chance as it is, is a wrong one, and that we are getting a class of immigrant who is least useful to us. Amongst those Turks, Roumanians. Hungarians, Letts, Greeks, and Lithuanians, we are getting a large number of people who have no skilled trades at their finger-ends; people who are rather parasitical than otherwise. They come here and act as hawkers and eating-house keepers, and they i bring down the prestige of the whites owing to their ignorance of the proper relations which should subsist between the Europeans and the natives or coloured people. The immigration bureau in America records that American legislation has been characterized by two principles. The first is the essential of literacy on the part of immigrants, who are required to read and write, the aim being to eliminate men from i southern and eastern Europe. At a later stage it was found that these limitations were insufficient, and a quota from each country was laid down. From the census of 1910 it was decided that a quota of only 3 per cent. of the races already represented in America should be admitted. The effect, again, was largely to eliminate persons from southern and eastern Europe, and to that end the operation of the Act was all to the good, though Mr. Davie himself does not agree with this method. The U.S.A. Immigration Bureau considers this legislation not altogether satisfactory, and a further Bill has now been proposed aiming at a constructive immigration policy. That should be the ideal of South Africa, which is a new country and can do only with the very best immigrants, and, considering our racial and coloured difficulties, the second best and undesirable immigrants should be eliminated. The new United States Bill proposes to remedy the entire situation and to enforce the keeping of a system of registers of all alien immigrants, and also to provide for their provisional admission. Under this Bill aliens fall into three classes. First, those who satisfactorily show their admissibility. This is a much sounder principle to go on than we do, as our law is purely negative. We refuse to admit the unfit and undesirable, the diseased and the criminal, but we have no means of putting them to the proof. The result is, the mesh being so wide, a tremendous number of people enter through our immigration restrictions without let or hindrance. That would be remedied if we reversed the process and put on them, as the U.S.A. Bill proposes to do, the obligation of proof, affirmatively and satisfactorily as to admissibility. In other words, the criminal, the anarchist and undesirable would have to satisfy us of his admissibility, and in view of the countries that a large proportion of these aliens come from, we should be consulting wisdom if we did apply restrictions of this sort to people from those countries. We run a great risk of admitting anarchists, and others, who find among the natives a most plastic and ready material for their mischievous ends. It seems to me most desirable that we should immediately set about a reform of our immigration laws on the lines the sound experience of America has indicated to be necessary.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time is up.

I notice passports were issued in the year 1923-24 to the number of 5,717, and for each of these passports the Minister charged £1. I ask him, does he not think the time has arrived to do away with passports? It is seven years since the war came to an end, and we are still keeping up restrictions which arose out of the war. Surely the time has arrived to do away with them, and above all with this charge for passports. It acts as a restriction to the free movement of individuals, and I think it should be done away with.

I just wish to bring to the notice of the Minister that the names under the exhibits in the South African museum are in English only and not in Afrikaans. I know of children who went there, knowing as yet no English, and they could make nothing of it.

I would like to ask the Minister how it comes about there has been a reduction on the vote for museums, libraries, and art galleries and kindred institutions. I would like to have seen an increase in this vote, because everything possible should be done to encourage these institutions.

I want to draw attention to the vote for Kirstenbosch. I want to point out that very much greater use could be made of Kirstenbosch than is being done. At present it is only experimental, and they have proved that they can grow very many more plants.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.