as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities. [Votes and Proceedings, pages 489-492. ]

House to go into committee on the report to-morrow.

I have shown that in the past the South African party, in spite of their protests to the contrary, have added to the public debt a greater amount per annum than the present Government, and that their statement that there has been a rapid and alarming piling up of the debt under the present Government has not been justified. We had confusion, stagnation, misery, poverty and unemployment in the country under the South African party Government, and the insolvencies under that Government during the last few years of their reign increased from 399 per annum to 2,470 per annum. We had an increase of 2,071 per annum in the number of insolvencies, and of these insolvencies, 2,135 were Europeans. Amongst the farming community the insolvencies increased from 103 to 886 per annum, and the policy of the late Government in reducing wages and salaries and throwing thousand’s of men on the streets, had its effect on the farming community later on, and we saw that in the official returns. I was pointing out when the House adjourned what a prominent supporter of the South African party, I believe this gentleman to be Mr. R. G. McLellan, had stated. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says that had he been aware that the Industrial Conciliation Act would be put into operation in the manner it has been he would never have passed it. If there is one good thing the late Government did, it is the passing of that Act, but where they failed was in the administration of the Act. Now that that Act is being administered in a proper manner and the interests of the great mass of the people of South Africa are the first consideration, we find hon. members on the other side saying the opposite of what they advocated some years ago. Mr. McLellan is reported as saying—

When the Opposition oppose the fixing of wages under the Industrial Conciliation Act, they are taking up the cudgels on behalf of the jerry-builder and the sweater. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) stated that the Nationalists were surrendering to the Labour Party, but we have heard that over and over again. The right hon. gentleman when speaking in industrial areas, is pro-British and pro-worker, but when he speaks in rural areas he adopts an entirely different tone and appeals to the national sentiment of the Nationalists and intimates that he is opposed to the working classes. While the right hon. member was in power there was a decrease in agricultural production. To-day, however, the sugar prospects are bright, wattle bark is in demand, and the price of wool is advancing. Yet in spite of the fact that the farming community are better off to-day than they were during the time the South African party was in power, the right hon. gentleman still says the agricultural community is in a bad way. As a matter of fact they are not half as badly off as they were under the South African party. The day after he made a speech painting a gloomy picture for the agricultural industry, the “Cape Times” of April 4th published an article headed—

showing that things were on the upgrade. Yet the right hon. member cries “stinking fish.” He also stated that owing to the curtailment of the importation of natives from Portuguese East Africa the mines were being crippled. Yet in the “Cape Times” of April 8th we find that the Consolidated Mines Selection Company paid a dividend for last year three times as high as that which it distributed in 1925. Then the Anglo-American group paid a dividend of 12 per cent. as compared with 10 per cent. for the three preceding years. No representative of the Chamber of Mines can deny the statement that as far as tonnage and profit are concerned the gold mining industry was never in a more flourishing condition than it is to-day. I am sorry I cannot say the same for the men who are sacrificing their lives in order to produce that wealth. If we take diamonds, we find the one diamond company has made 400 per cent. profit during the past year. The coal mining industry has nothing to complain about, although if the coal magnates had their way they would have their coal carried over the railways for nothing. The share market is good and the investment market is firm; yet we are told that the Government is ruining the industries of South Africa. In contrast with the reduction of wages and the discharge of men, under the late Government, on the gold mines on the Witwatersrand we find there are 3,000 more white men employed to-day than in 1923. In the manufacturing industries we find the same story of increased employment for Europeans and non-Europeans. From July, 1925, to December, 1926, there was an increase of 6.1 per cent. in European employment and of over 4 per cent in non-European employment in the manufacturing industries. When we come to the question of relief works in 1924, 10,971 men were employed on relief works, and in 1927 they were reduced to 2,154. Altogether 281 firms in industry have benefited by the new protective tariffs and the number of Europeans employed increased by 10.2 per cent. and non-Europeans by 5.7 per cent. In 1923 £448,000 worth of industrial machinery was brought into South Africa, whereas in 1927, this year, it was £636,000. We come to another important aspect of the policy of the Government and this is the question of the employment of juveniles. The number of indentured apprentices in June, 1924, was 537, and the number to-day is 6,000. This contradicts a statement that it was the fault of the trade unions that the juveniles in the country could not find employment. Now we come to another question, the charge made by the Opposition that the present Government is anti-British. We have repeatedly heard that stated. We have had the S.A. party coming forward and complaining because the Government had not gone in to a greater extent for preferential trading with Great Britain. They have accused the Government of going beyond British firms to foreign firms for their requirements. Let us refer to an English public body. The Manchester city council, under the heading “English order for a foreign firm: Manchester’s lesson regarding artificial prices,” has placed a contract for £4,000 with a Belgian firm of machinery manufacturers. The only difference between the three British tenders was 15s. and the highest tender was £6,000. The chairman pointed out that whilst willing to pay a good price they were not going to pay the artificial prices fixed by British firms and they hoped the British firms would take a lesson from the loss of this contract. The hon. members opposite are asking this dominion Government to do something which public bodies in England itself are not prepared to do for British manufacturers. The charge is often made by members on that side of the House that this Government is anti-British and that members on that side of the House are the sole custodians of the British connection in South Africa. Look through the census report. Of the Union mining employees born in the United Kingdom in 1911 there were 18,327, that is, employees in the mines and allied industries who were born in the United Kingdom. Under the S. A. party Government they decreased to 9,361 in 1923, a decrease of over 8,000 men born in the United Kingdom. As far as the Pact Government is concerned, we say freely, frankly and unashamed that we are in favour of South Africa first, of employing the people of South Africa first. In this connection if I call the hon. members on that side of the House hypocrites I should be ruled out of order by the Speaker, so I will not do so. Yet they are always blaming us for not employing overseas men and they are the party which has driven British people out of South Africa. Including all overseas men—born within the Empire—there are 8,858 less compared with 1911. In 1904 the total overseas males numbered 218,811; 1921 reduced to 135,441; a loss of 83,370 under Opposition Governments. The policy of the South African party has always been to side with the big financial interests in this country and every time there has been an attempt by the mining houses to reduce wages they have always had the support of the hon. members opposite. That side of the House brought the Dragoon Guards out in 1907 against the miners and those members were responsible in 1913 for employing British troops here to shoot down the people of Johannesburg and in 1914 they were responsible for breaking Magna Charta. There is no doubt that thousands of men, including South African born citizens, have been driven from South Africa to earn their livelihood. Under ten years of S.A. party Government there were 10,448 people less in this country who were born in the United Kingdom and the figures of people born in other parts of the Empire tell the same tale. All I can say is that if this Government is anti-British and that party is out to protect the British interests, then the Empire might well say—

The policy of the South African party in this country has been on all occasions “profits for pals.”

What about “Jobs for pals”?

No, it has not been jobs for pals. The working classes are only wanted by the S.A.P. at election times. “Profits for pals,” and prison, rifle bullets and unemployment for the great mass of the people of South Africa. If the people are wise they will keep that party where they are to-day— in a position of oblivion. The conditions that prevail in this country to-day are a justification for the change of Government and prove conclusively that, as far as this Government is concerned, although it may not be all that one wants, it has been a vast improvement on the S.A.P. Government. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition comes forward in this House and in an irresponsible and reckless manner makes statements that he cannot substantiate and expects this House to pass a resolution which would receive no support, except from the docile followers who sit behind him. So far as I am concerned, I would like to see a further raising of the income tax exemption, especially in the case of married men, a steeper grading of the higher incomes, the pushing forward of an old age pension scheme, a minimum eight-hour day in industry, provision for annual and statutory holidays, a further readjustment of the tariff with a view to stimulating and promoting industry in South Africa, and, as far as possible, shifting the burden from the lower paid working class, an improvement of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, steps to improve the workers’ conditions underground, and better provision for the victims of miners’ phthisis. The mines to-day are taking the cream of our manhood. Many of these men are sent to work underground under dangerous, horrible and unhealthy conditions. In a few years these men are broken men. It is up to the Government to see that the mining industry pays for the harm that it is inflicting on South Africa. It is an unhealthy industry, and the Government should do everything they possibly can to see that the workers in that industry are protected and that their conditions are improved to every possible extent. While the mines are flourishing, I say that we should tax them to the uttermost limit that they can bear, in order that the money may be utilized for the benefit of the South African people.

You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago the hon. gentlemen who sit temporarily on your right when confronted with awful facts and reprehensible acts used to shriek out the word “racialism” as a complete answer to all the charges against them. They have shifted their tactics a little since then, and now the complete answer to every charge is—

We had a typical example of that from the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Waterston). I do not propose to follow him into his many inaccuracies, his partial quotations and his garbled figures, but hon. members sitting opposite may be interested to know what the Labour wing and their associates and supporters think of the farmers in the platteland. I will begin my quotation where the hon. member left off. I am referring to the congress of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers in South Africa opened in Cape Town yesterday. I will continue the quotation where the hon. member left off, in order that hon. members themselves may judge of the value to be attributed to his statements, quotations and figures. I quote from the report in this morning’s paper of the president’s speech—

That is the impression hon. members sitting there have conveyed to their Labour allies. The president continues—

So those hon. members from the platteland who are contemplating building operations may well be thoughtful. It seems that in this budget debate hon. members on the opposite side can do nothing better than get the speeches of their opponents and make a bonfire of them in an endeavour to roast them. The process, as far as I have been able to follow it, has produced a great deal of smoke, a little heat and absolutely no light whatever. Anything less constructive or informative than the majority of the speeches which we have heard from that side of the House I do not think has ever been listened to in this Assembly. I think I have a just cause of complaint in the delay of the Government in bringing out their annual departmental reports. They get later and later every year. I find that in 1925 the reports were actually placed in the possession of members on the 25th May, and in 1926 on the 8th June. Goodness knows when we will have them this year. I would point out the serious inconvenience, the want of courtesy to the House and to the public in not making these reports available to hon. members at the time when the budget is being discussed. Surely from the 31st March last is ample time for these various departments to prepare their reports for the preceding year. Only this morning have hon. members had placed in their boxes the official Year Book for the Union of South Africa, Basutoland, etc., containing statistics mainly for the period 1910-’25. It is really worse than that, because the statistics only come up to 1924. As showing how differently things are done in other countries, I may mention I have here a report issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department, the date of which is 14th February, 1927. We can get it from the United States in less than two months, but it is over three years since we have had any reliable information in the form of statistics of that sort embodied in our Year Book. I remember a few years ago I was in a railway carriage with some four or five others. We were discussing at that time the new theory, Einstein’s theory of relativity. We did not know much about it, but we were all interested. We were discussing the effect on our conception of many things in the universe. One farmer in the compartment said—

A great many of the speeches in this House are, I think, a little bit away from things that most urgently matter to this country. I, for one, join heartily with those who would have preferred to see a much closer approximation of revenue and expenditure than has been the case here. I even would not mind a small deficit, for this reason, that the psychological effect on the Government and on the country would be far healthier than the possession of a surplus such as the Minister has shown. I am sure the Minister is well aware that this is largely fortuitous, that it does not mean real progress. This surplus is not the glow of health; it is rather the flush of fever due to an unexpected set of circumstances, and it will inevitably be followed by a severe reaction. There are signs that this rate of revenue will not be maintained for very long, and there is very little doubt from the indications we have had that there is no prospect of a diminution of expenditure. It will be very difficult for the Minister to resist the inroads which will be attempted on his funds, and we know if there is one characteristic of this Government more marked than another it is the growth of expenditure indicating an extravagance that does not augur well for the future finances of this country. Coming back to relativity and mealies, I would like the House to try and understand the vast importance of this particular form of our industry. Much remains to be done before it is put on a proper footing, when we remember that not less than 15 per cent. of the farmers of the world are producing at a greater cost than they are realizing for their stuff. I believe the percentage is even greater in South Africa. I wonder if the country yet realizes what they have paid already, and are likely to pay in the future for what I may call the false step that has been taken in developing the export of mealies as a policy. I am afraid the results are even worse than I ever anticipated. I wonder if this country would ever have sanctioned the provision of these coast elevators if they had known in the first instance what they were going to cost in money. When this House was asked in 1921 to vote money, the amount asked was £1,443,000. The latest reliable estimate of the cost of these elevators is no less than £2,970,693—more than double. We find that out of this the elevator at Cape Town has cost £533,354, and the one at Durban £1,331,000; in fact, practically £2,000,000 has been spent on two elevators which I submit should never have been built. At all events, we are committed to this expenditure of nearly £2,000,000 on the export of grain. It seems to me an altogether incorrect and wrong step was taken then. Undoubtedly, the farmers, because of the poor development of the industry, were greatly hampered by the surplus of grain, and the remedy was sought in export. There were other means of getting rid of it at far less expense. I would like the House to consider these figures for a moment.

Garbled figures?

They are not garbled figures; they are official, and I am not afraid to quote my authority. The hon. member will find them in “Hansard” in reply to a question of mine to the Labour Department. The cost of exporting a ton of mealies at the Cape Town elevator is 25.27 pence per ton. This is the interesting part. It was found that by using temporary appliances in Durban, pending the completion of the elevator, the cost was only 8.32 pence per ton, or only one-third of the cost by elevator. It is true they made use of the galleries and a certain small portion of the elevator machinery, but the broad fact remains that machinery, other than elevators, could have been established in Durban that would have got rid of our mealies at about one-third the cost of actual handling, and at a capital cost of not more than 2 per cent. of the cost of the elevator now being erected at Durban. The actual cost of the temporary appliances was only £7,500. I do not want anyone to go away with the idea that I am against elevators. In broad language, I would say you cannot have too many country or rural elevators; they are convenient and economical. We know that they save farmers the cost of bags; they enable grain to be cleaned and graded and safely stored, and we know the business and financial convenience of getting a negotiable receipt for the grain. But what is it going to cost the country in the future? Let me remind hon. members that the United States of America produce 75 per cent. of the world’s output of maize. Let us see, how they dispose of it. Seven hundred and eighty-five million bags is the average production, and if there is one factor more than another that has helped to build up that great country it is summarized in the phrase, well-known in North America—

Let us see what they do with it. Out of these 785,000,000 bags 40 per cent. was fed to pigs on the farm, 20 per cent. fed to horses on the farm, 15 per cent. to cattle on the farm, 1 per cent. to sheep on the farm, and 5.5 per cent. was fed to stock not on the farm. Only 1.5 per cent. was exported. What a contrast to our methods, where our aim and object seems to be to export as much as possible, and we actually point with pride to the number of tons of mealies we export, not realizing that we are exporting our capital in the form of the fertility of the soil. Look at the broad results of this policy. There is no doubt that in South Africa, and for the moment I include Rhodesia, the very best maize in the world is grown. That is very fine, but this country also produces the lowest yield per acre of any country in the world. Let us look at some of the relative figures of our production as compared with other countries. The list is headed by Canada. I give this Canadian figure just as a matter of interest, and not necessarily as guiding us in coming to a conclusion. The yield in Canada is 54.39 bushels per acre; Egypt, 38 bushels; the Argentine. 32; Hungary, 29; Bulgaria, 28; Italy, 27; Spain, 26; United States of America, 26; Australia, 25; and South Africa a bad last with only 14 bushels to the acre, very little more than half of the production of the next lowest.

Cheap labour.

The hon. member is quite wrong. It is the result of bad methods and bad policy. It is one of the results of encouraging the export of our mealies instead of feeding it to animals, as is done in the U.S.A. It is a costly and, in the long run, a suicidal policy. In spite of the fact that we have a Department of Agriculture that spends four times per head more than any other agricultural department, yet it is obliged to report that there has been no improvement in the yield of maize in the last 12 years. I think that alone deserves serious consideration. We know, and the Minister of Finance will be the first to agree, that whatever the structure may be in building prosperity, the basis of it must be agriculture every time. There is no doubt that we are not preparing that solid foundation in rural life and agricultural pursuits necessary to build this country up to the great land it ought to be. As it happens, it is interesting and to some extent reassuring to know that many of the causes of the low yield are within our own control, even the first one, insufficient water supply. Hon. members may ask how can we control the elements, how can we control the rainfall, and so on. A great deal more may be done in the future than has been done in the past by conserving water. Some hon. members have been to Australia lately, and there, no doubt, they saw wheat growing on 10 or 12 inches of rainfall, and they will remember that one of the means of getting good results is the practice of resting and fallowing the land. That is, not exhausting the land all at once, but giving it a chance to recover. The hon. member will travel a long way in South Africa before he sees that system extensively followed. We would not grow mealies here under 20 inches of rainfall. The climatic conditions in Australia are not so utterly dissimilar from ours. Another cause is continuous cropping without manuring and fertilizing the soil. No land, however fertile it was to start with, can stand this indefinitely. In a few years it will be unprofitable to use that soil for the purpose of growing mealies. Another thing is that little or no attempt has been made to put phosphates into the soil, which is most efficient. I addressed some questions to the Minister some time ago on that matter, but I cannot say that the answers were very reassuring. The Minister said that the supply of phosphates was receiving the earnest consideration of the Government—which is the sort of reply we have often had before, and does not carry us any further. The Minister, or his department, has never heard of phosphatic deposits in Weenen, but I am credibly informed by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) that there are large deposits there. They are of the utmost value in restoring fertility to the soil, and something more than earnest consideration should be given to this matter. I think there are also phosphatic deposits near Saldanha Bay in the Malmesbury district, but at present they have resisted the efforts of chemists and others. That is no reason why they should be dropped. The Argentine has put in a record acreage, no less than 10,500,000 acres, which are under maize this year, and their production is nearer eight bags per acre than seven, or considerably more than double our South African production. It is expected that there will be a crop of 80 millions in the Argentine, and 60 millions in Brazil, against an optimistic South African crop this year of 19 millions. I prefer to take averages, and the average is only 15 millions during the last four years. We must work with averages rather than with the highest records we have reached. Not for the first and not for the last time must I call attention to the inefficient management by the Government, and I am not putting the fault exclusively on this Government; but their experimental departments, after many years of existence and after the employment of so many experts in research, should demonstrate their practical results. It is time that they came to do so, and showed what the practical results of all their experience has been. Some years ago I drew attention to the fact that when the experts of the poultry division put the results of their operations before us, it transpired that the total amount received from the sale of poultry, eggs and so forth, did not pay for the food of the birds. Since I have called attention to these facts, it is curious that they have ceased to publish these statistics. I think that the object of the poultry division is to teach the public how to produce profitably good poultry, sell good eggs, and so forth. They have done that in every other department, and why they should not do so in the poultry department, I do not know. In New South Wales, I find that in all their educational establishments the working expenses are just balanced by their receipts, which is a very creditable performance. Take the experimental farms, of which there are 12 or 13: they devote themselves to growing wheat, barley, oats, and so forth, and the profit was £9,829 per annum. We find that their poultry farm at Seven Hills made a profit of £2,693, the receipts being £4,076 and the expenses £1,382. Is it any wonder that their publications and their stock are sought after by the farmers of New South Wales? They even run a bee farm, which gave a profit of £216. All this leads to the fact that the time has arrived when the Department of Agriculture should display to the farmers that the cost of the experts, which has been incurred, has not been in vain, and that they are able to produce practical and economically sound results. In a country like this, where there are so many different soils and climates—I know of no other country of its size where there are so many— it is necessary to have a large number of these experimental farms scattered throughout the country and where they are run on sound lines and the research of the department is on sound lines, there is no reason why these departments should cost the country anything, and they should show a small profit, like they do in New South Wales. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, and I hope that some attention will be given to these points. We want to reduce this maize-growing more to a business. The variation of cost of production from 3s. to 20s. per bag is too great. The low yield per acre, no doubt, adds enormously to the cost of growing per acre, and this will be reduced when there is a higher yield per acre, but a great deal might be done towards narrowing these factors and getting a greater certainty of the average crop per annum. If we follow the example of the United States of America, and see that a large proportion of our mealies is fed to animals, the effect would at once have a reaction on the farms, because kraal and stable manure is rich in phosphates. We are told officially by the department that where the soils are deficient in phosphates, it is no use trying to get better results by applying other fertilizers. They further say it would be much better if farmers would apply manure to the land direct, and immediately. It is done very seldom indeed, and no soil can retain its fertility under these conditions. The soil of England—the most fertile country in the world, perhaps—has been built up by long and careful attention to fertilizing, and if one would lease a farm in England, he would be bound to apply so many tons of manure per acre. I was told it was exceedingly bad policy there to sell hay off the farm. These are factors that tend to the success of what should be the greatest agricultural success in this country, mealie growing. It is well known that there is no form of wealth that is more evenly or promptly distributed than the wealth that comes from the soil. Money seems to burn in farmers’ pockets, and they are not dealers in money. Money from good crops is immediately distributed, and the Minister of Finance has evidence that a good deal of his unexpectedly large surplus comes from the good mealie crop we had. I hope the matter will receive attention. It is unfortunate that, owing to matters which are very controversial and upon which I do not want to touch, things that really matter are often side-tracked, and the debates too often take the form of scoring dialectical points that do not carry us much further. It is time we got down to the foundation of our prosperity, and that, I take it, is the land.

Before the last general election one of the members of the late Cabinet stated that if the Nationalists came into power he doubted whether they had men capable of filling the posts of Ministers. When the election was over and the portfolios were distributed the Opposition still stated that the Pact could not carry on. The leader of the Opposition was invited to make a lecturing tour to America, but it was said he could not get away as he expected the Governor-General to call upon him to form a new Ministry. Under these circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the Opposition are despondent at the good work the Government has done, and that during the last few years, not only has the Government paid off the debts their predecessors accumulated, but there are also surpluses. The leader of the Opposition, in his speech the other day, indulged mostly in platitudes, there being no real destructive criticism. He was very disappointed even with the railway mileage profit of 1.1d. per mile, for he would have liked to see a larger deficit on the railways. In short, his attack on the Government ended in smoke. There was one point in the statement of the Minister of Finance which disappointed me, and that was that the exports last year were less by £3,000,000 than the imports. In a country like ours the reverse should be the case. All our exports are minerals and agricultural produce. South Africa is the greatest mineral country in the world, but mining is a vanishing industry, and although you send out £40,000,000 of gold in a year your resources are gradually being diminished. Really we ought to export more of the products of the soil. Agriculture is the backbone of every country and certainly of South Africa. We want more white men to develop South Africa. The 1820 Settlers and the Van Riebeeck associations have endeavoured to influence men to come here from Europe to work the soil. An organisation in Holland has been trying to bring out young Hollanders. Four of the agricultural unions in Holland have sent experts recently to inspect the country, and taken all round they are very favourably impressed with the Union. I have no doubt that these agricultural unions will presently send a representative here with a view to encouraging young Hollanders to settle in South Africa. However rich we may be in other directions South Africa is a poor country agriculturally, as we allow the rain to run into the sea. If we could, by conserving that water and lead it on to the soil, I am sure our products could be increased three or four times. I am told that the Vaal River at Vereeniging is 300 feet higher than Kroonstad, and that the Vaal River at Kromellenboog is 200 feet higher than Kimberley. If the Vaal River were dammed we could have enormous stretches of small irrigated farms, and instead of carrying 20,000 to 30,000 farms the land around these parts would probably carry one million people on closer settlements. The policy of the Government should be to conserve the water in our rivers as much as possible. Recently I had the privilege of visiting the Argentine, and I was very much struck with the country from an agricultural point of view. I visited the agricultural show at Buenos Ayres. It is one of the largest shows in the world and I wish that my farmer friends could have seen what I saw. An arrangement was made with the Rand Agricultural Society to invite some of the Argentine farmers to attend the agricultural show. Unfortunately, they were not able to arrive in time, but I understand it is their intention to invite some South African farmers to visit their show in August. It is quite on the cards that four or five of our most progressive farmers will be invited to the Argentine as guests of the Buenos Ayres Society. On one farm belonging to the Caseres brothers which I visited they milked 25,000 cows a day which is more than all the milk cows the Transvaal possesses. They import all their bulls from North America, but when I told them of the beautiful class of Frieslands we have they said that it would be a great advantage to them to buy Frieslands from us. I had the privilege of meeting the President of the Argentine and some of his Ministers. The people of the Argentine are most hospitable and cultivated, and they take a tremendous interest in our country. I was very sorry to hear the remarks about Argentinos made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and I was very glad that the Minister of Railways reprimanded him. The leader of the Opposition when he criticized the Government referred to the shortage of labour in South Africa, but that seems to be common all the world over at present. While travelling in America I was told that the farmers in North America are also complaining of lack of labour. This is largely due to people trekking into the towns. The Low Grades Mines Commission, which sat I think in 1918 found that out of our 6,000,000 natives only about 900,000 are able-bodied men, which is not a large supply for a country like this. The mines alone employ 200,000 natives and there are probably 400,000 natives working on the Rand, so that after providing labour for the coal and diamond mines there is very little left for the farmer. One remedy is the greater employment of labour-saving appliances on farms. There is one thing I would like to say to the Minister of the Interior, and that is that the Chamber of Mines have a contract to draw a certain number of kafirs from the Portuguese territory. I would like to see this regulation extended to young kafirs of 17 or 18 years. Farmers would train these young fellows and make efficient labourers of them, and would get them at a reduced rate. They will be glad to get hold of such labour, and I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior again to this subject, about which I have already spoken to him privately. A complaint was made about the statistics on branch lines having been abolished. It is an intricate question. We went very thoroughly into the matter, and there is a report before the House which has not been discussed yet. We are saving by abolishing this system of statistics on branch lines at least £12,000 a year. In any case the statistics are not accurate figures, and are founded more or less on guesswork, and the way the expenses are allocated is really fictitious.

I am sorry to stop the hon. member from discussing the statistics, but he will find there is a motion on the Order Paper, No. 13, of yesterday, and the hon. member cannot anticipate that motion.

I thought I might be able to do it, as the leader of the Opposition did, but I will touch on the question of overtime then. There is a system of overtime employed on the railways which cannot be called an economical system. I find, from the Auditor-General’s report that our salary list for the year 1925-’26 amounted to £11,356,000, and that the overtime we paid for that period amounted to £1,254,000, or equal to 12 per cent. of the salary list. Of course, we cannot help ourselves at present. Overtime is being resorted to on account of the workshops having been neglected in the past. They were not properly equipped, as required, in order to do the repairs demanded, and the neglect was on the part of the late Government. If they had not allowed the rolling stock to go to rack and ruin we should not have had this amount of overtime to pay. I find, to equip the workshops to meet the present requirements, according to the Auditor-General’s report, would mean about £2,500,000. Our Government is making an attempt to reduce overtime and lately they have appointed 400 artisans to do the work. That is a move in the right direction to employ men rather than to pay overtime. Payment of overtime is admittedly an uneconomical procedure, but we cannot help ourselves, and the remedy for that, if the shops were properly equipped, would be to work double shifts. It has been tried in the railway workshops but it has been found that it came out too expensive. I would now like to say a few words on the question of civilized labour. I cannot understand the mentality of the Opposition in criticizing the action of the present Government in increasing the use of civilized labour on the railways. One would have thought that when our own people are being helped and found work that the Government would be applauded for the attempt, instead of that you find opposition and hostile criticism. We have a similar class of people here to a class they have in England. They are known as “little Englanders.” Here we have “little South Africans,” and everything we do for our own is decried. The “little South African” sees nothing good in anything we do to help our own kith and kin. During 1924-’25 36,128 white employees were engaged on the railways. In 1926-’27 it was increased to 41,654, an increase of 5,526. The total number of white employees taken on since the Pact came into power is 14,680. I should have thought members of the Opposition would have been glad to find the Government doing so much for their own kith and kin. It has helped a good many people to get on their legs again.

Many of them are incompetent and are doing nothing.

Give them a chance. Among these 14,000 men many of them have already been moved up to the higher grades. They all start on the lower grade at 5s. a day, and some of them are young fellows who are matriculated students, and many of them were not there more than a month. It is a good policy for the Government not to employ young fellows unless they start at the bottom of the ladder. Within a month they are in a higher grade.

Over 5,000 have been promoted.

I am glad to hear that out of 14,600 over 5,000 have already been promoted. Instead of criticizing the Government for its civilized labour policy, the S.A.P. ought really to welcome it. It has cost the State £450,000.

It has cost the railways, and not the State, and that is where we are grousing.

You may think it is a large sum of extra money to pay, but who is there that will tell me the labour has not been more efficient? So efficient as to warrant far more than the extra cost. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) made some remarks about the report which has been laid on the Table, but no doubt the Minister in replying will deal with the criticism effectively. Erom what I can make out, some say it pays, and others say it does not. But the fact remains, we are getting good, useful work from these unskilled workmen, and it is a credit to the railway administration that they adopted this policy, and I hope they will carry it out to the extreme. Another point I wish to touch upon is the hours of duty the men work. We hear a lot about the eight-hour day. The present administration appointed a commission in January, 1925, which investigated the duty hours of employees on the railway, and I find as a result of that investigation that from the 1st February, 1926, engine drivers and firemen have their hours reduced from 9 to 8; ticket examiners and guards from 10 to 9; permanent way men from 53 hours to 51 hours a week in summer, and in winter from 49½ hours to 48 hours; station foremen and checkers, in some cases, reduced from 60 hours to 48 hours a week. That has added £250,000 a year to the extra cost of the railway administration, but I claim it is well spent. There is no doubt whatever that this reduction of hours makes the men more efficient, and they give better service to the department. Now take the question of surplus. The first year we were in power there was a surplus of £700,000 on the railways. How was that used? We had to use it to pay off debts of the South African party administration. Last year we had £790,000, and how did we use that? £450,000 was used by the administration for the rates equalization fund, £250,000 for the mistakes of the South African party, namely, for the Durban elevator foundation; it went for their misdeeds. £42,000 went for the white elephant from here to Sea Point—the Sea Point railway. It would be a good thing if that railway were scrapped altogether. Although they talk about the reduction of rates, we had to use our surplus to pay off their old debts of the past. There is one question I have given a good deal of thought to lately. We are doing too much railway building in this country. It is quite right to build railways, and expand the development of the country, but there is a limit to getting loan moneys and spending them on railways that may not pay for years to come. This road motor system, although it may be temporarily more expensive, is a system that you ought to cultivate more and use for the purpose of feeding the main lines, instead of building railway lines at a tremendous capital cost, which cannot pay for years to come. I would rather see the money used, instead of on the building of all the lines of railway that are contemplated, on the construction of half the lines and the other half used for the conservation of water. I am keen on seeing big steps taken to increase the products of the soil in South Africa. We have now reached a stage in our history in this country where we are getting to peace with one another. Our political difficulties have been more or less adjusted and I would suggest that for the future our motto should be—

I would like to say a few words about our coal trade. When I was in South America I found that the coal consumption there is about 3,000,000 tons a year. There is no doubt that our market for coal is not the east. In the east you have Australian, Indian and English coal mines competing for the trade. Our market for coal is westward. When I was in South America I was told that we could not get a market for South African coal there, that we could not compete with Welsh coal. They have a formula, which is the Welsh coal formula. I am glad to say that now in the tenders which are called for by the Argentine Government is specially stipulated that South African coal can compete with the coal from Wales. As showing how keen the Argentine people are to do trade with us, I may mention that a few weeks ago when the President Sarmiento was here, that little ship took 170 tons of Natal coal to experiment with for their navy. I hope that in the near future a trade treaty will be concluded between the Government of the Union and the Government of the Argentine. When that treaty is ratified the President is going to send one of the naval ships, about 14,000 tons, over here with Argentine wheat. For the return voyage he is going to load it up with 6,000 or 8,000 tons of coal as an additional test for the navy. One of the first things the Minister of Marine said to me when I spoke to him was “Can’t people in South Africa send us iron?” Another great thing they want is salt. Look at the enormous quantities of salt that we have in South Africa. In the Argentine they kill 5,000,000 bead of cattle per annum and I was told that it takes 5s. worth of salt to salt a hide. I hope that the trade treaty between the Union and the Argentine which is now on the tapis will be concluded and that it will open up trade communications between the two countries. I find that two years ago we imported from Australia £1,500,000 worth of wheat. Australian wheat, I am told by those who are entitled in speak with authority, is not one iota better than Argentine wheat. We also imported £750,000 worth of railway sleepers from Australia. What did Australia take from us? Nothing at all. Not only that, but a little while ago they put an import tax of 2s. 6d. per bag on our mealies. If we can get a neighbour who is 3,000 miles nearer than Australia is to us to take our products, I think it is up to the Government of the country to get into close relations with that Government with a view of opening up trade. I trust that the scheme of getting our farmers to pay a visit to the Argentine later in the year will materialize.

There is no doubt that political adversity has a very good effect indeed. It is said that in prosperity people are most tried; at all events, their real characters come out. In adversity they learn the lessons of life. We saw the leader of the Opposition and the South African party in their hours of prosperity riding us with spurs, proud to a degree, and caring nothing whatever about the people. Just a little adversity, only a couple of years of being in a minority, and they are wonderfully chastened. They are quite different, and I am sure that if the time of political exile is extended, as it probably will be in the cold shades for ten or twelve years, they will emerge different men entirely. We can see them gradually coming towards what one might call a democratic and even socialistic outlook in politics. Why, what they are professing now to be in favour of makes them almost our friends and welcome to come on to these crossbenches. Of course it would be against their pride to associate with those who merely work for a living. Hear them now on white labour— they were always in favour of a white labour policy, and it is only momentary aberration when they return to their demand for cheap native labour and, of course, they desire no colour bar whatever! They will, of course, be strictly conscientious and advocate removal of the colour bar in the foundation of our constitution! I feel sorry for them. Whenever they dig up old cemeteries to try and unearth something unpleasant, it is usually a forgotten corpse of their own burying that they find. I regret indeed one statement made in this debate by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I represent, I suppose, the strongest labour constituency in South Africa, one which has a very great number of railway men, and includes also the right hon. member himself, and he has before now rather flattered railway men there. I trust he will take an early opportunity of trying to explain to them the accusation he made that in the actual working of the railways there was universal slackness.

He never said it.

Of course he said it.

As the right hon. member is not at present in his place, I hope hon. gentlemen on his side will take an early opportunity of asking him to deny it, He was challenged to name one instance; he was re-challenged, and in desperation he retorted there was universal slackness. He must either justify that or withdraw it. I hope he will explain what he meant when he specially exempted higher officials, and turned it into a general indictment in his attack on railway working. When the South African party appealed to the railway men for loyal service, in spite of pay being cut down— and they were promised that when things were better it would be made up to them—they gave good service, but that promise was broken. Since then, still relying on promises made to them, they have given excellent service, and I do not think they can be charged with showing any spirit of revenge in spite of the promises that were broken on the South African party side of the House, and, I admit, on this side also. We still live in hopes of fulfilling every promise we made, however long it may be deferred. But what did the South African party do. They turned round about and said—

That issue can be argued out at the next general election, and I hope the South African party will apologize for the way in which they have traduced the railway service. There was another thing, very amusing indeed. It came from a humble musket-bearer in the far-behind ranks of the South African party, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus). The weapon he discharges is certainly an obsolete one, of the flint lock pattern, warranted to go off once in ten tries. He came forward with an offer, a well-considered offer, that if the Nationalists would consent to kick out their Labour allies then the South African party would support the Native Administration Bill with all its sedition clauses. The offer was definite. I ask the hon. members opposite to take that offer to constituencies where they depend on the native vote to return certain members. The hon. member for Hospital did not fire that offer from his own blunderbuss without orders. He was authorized, I feel sure, to make that bid. As far as the Labour party is concerned, all I can say is if the two great conservative parties ever come together the rank and file of our party will lodge no objection whatever. We have always seen that on great issues between the people and the big interests the conservatives will side against those who are for the people all the time. If, therefore, hereniging is being approached from that direction here in this House, why should we complain? I only want to draw prominent attention to the fact that the South African party are perfectly willing to throw overboard their native support at any moment if they can only get in exchange a political alliance with the Nationalists, and so secure their seats and partial power. So much for their oftprotested love for the native! Coming to the budget, as the Minister of Finance knows quite well, I do not approach the question in the spirit so many do. Budgets seem to me much on the same lines as the snake-charmer one sees operating in the streets. He first of all puts out a fierce tame snake—and we may take the snake to represent the useful taxpayer. Then he sweetly plays on a flute until he gets a crowd assembled, from whom he hopes to get his contributions, and by and by, when everybody is fascinated with his performance, he lays out a very soiled handkerchief; nothing on it whatever—

Presently his empty hand goes under it, but at the approved moment he twitches the snake and tosses it up, and while your attention is distracted he kicks in a little bundle of rags, and out from under wobbles the old white pigeon. In the same way you find high finance is all legerdemain and, if you watch closely, budget finance comes under the same category. I have before remarked, and one cannot remark too often, that a budget is usually prepared with a large excess vote.

Can you do that in share transactions?

They over-estimate and, afterwards, when the great budget speech is delivered, claim economical administration, and departmental saving on votes, and thus you get the wonderful surplus. It starts generally by a preparation for a small deficit, and ends in producing a thrice welcome surplus. Those of us who have got old and accustomed to the trick know that there is nothing very clever in the way budgets are compiled. The real question is one of practical State administration. We have had three years of industrial peace, for which we may take credit, or the South African party may claim credit with its Conciliation Act. Therefore, we have had a sequence of actual surpluses, the first being probably largely due to the fact that the South African party left behind in unappropriated amounts in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property—a rather stupid action on their part. They might have allocated it.

That never came into the revenue.

No, but it squared up all old balances. The surplus this year is due to the policy we have advocated so frequently, and that is protection. There can be no question whatever that the solid value of protection has been shown in this last year in regard to the general prosperity of this country, and the real surplus which has consequently ensued. I am only sorry that the Minister of Finance was so long in being converted to protection, and I am afraid that he is now only half-hearted in it. I trust the surplus he has had to handle will make him whole-hearted, and the country reap the fullest benefit of that admirable system. The present two-line tariff has given a good deal of trouble to the mercantile community, who half the time do not know where they are, as it is not as simple as outright protection, nor is it as complete in its effects. We are proud of what has been done in regard to the white labour policy, and the number of Europeans who have obtained employment in the public service, but we must not forget that there is a possibility of overloading the services with white employees. If we adopt the whole policy of pure protection we will get all who are willing to work engaged in the industries of the country. It is to that we look for the absolute solution of the white labour difficulty, and I am sorry, indeed, that in the proposals this year, instead of going in for a stronger policy of protection, there are even signs of weakening. Last session we had the Minister of Finance weakly giving way to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who persuaded him that, instead of 20 per cent. duty on boys’ clothing, it should be 15 per cent., and the result of that was we had unfortunate women tailors, who depend largely on that industry for their livelihood, were thrown out of work to the extent of hundreds, and what was given with the one hand was on the other hand withdrawn and fatal in its effects. If the hon. gentleman wants to do something more in regard to the development of local industry, I trust he will look at the samples outside in the lobby, showing how mohair can be used in draperies and upholstery. If he arranges the tariff so as to be really scientific, there can be free importation of textile fabrics in which mchair can be used. Protection may establish this country on a permanent basis of prosperity. The very imports and exports themselves show that the productive power, and consequently our purchasing power, becomes greater. Exports going down show there is a local consumption, which has tended towards the greater use of the raw products in the country rather than to their export. That is actually the result of protection both in regard to imports and exports, and we can easily understand that a really prosperous country may use its own raw material instead of exporting it. That is almost the position of the United States. Let me quote from the “Times” annual financial summary on the position in Australia in regard to the customs returns which have so largely increased under the system of protection there. The report reads—

I hope that will put heart of grace in the Minister of Finance. It is illustrative of any fully protected country. It bears out the experience of the Minister himself during the past year, with our customs revenue increasing all the time, while local industries have also improved. The balance of trade was 11, instead of 21. millions of the year before, but that need not worry us. It never comes back, and despite all spurious argument about our having to transmit interest to London and invisible charges, and all that sort of thing, the outstanding fact remains that South Africa has been an exploited country ever yielding more capital to the world. Therefore, the balance of trade is little indication of a country’s actual prosperity. I trust that in the future the great principle will be recognized that there can be a perfectly happy, prosperous and contented country theoretically without exports or imports. We find that so in the case of the United States, whose exports are a mere bagatelle to the total production and internal consumption. Some measure of gratitude ought to be expressed to our “chief robber” for one act of clemency he has performed during the year. I would express appreciation of his returning £90,000 a year to life insurance companies. During the last two or three years I have felt very much in the position of one who, sitting up with a sick friend, avails himself of the opportunity to pick his pockets. When I remember what we took from companies which exist, not for profit, but to take care of the savings of people, I hang my head with shame for the Pact Government. I hope the insurance companies will, however, show more appreciation than the mining companies when the Minister handed them back £180,000 a year, for they, or their press, never even said “thank you.” I feel, however, that the insurance companies will appreciate it as an act of common honesty and fairness, if not of generosity. I am rather a bad worshipper, and fear that kissing the toe of a holy father of finance would not come very happily to me. We, who feel, too, the measure and energy of that big toe, have not the feeling of reverence towards it that other more ready worshippers have. I am not out merely to admire, but also to criticize. Surpluses are always deemed profitable, but the real question is—what is done with them? What did the Minister of Finance do with his surplus of £1,250,000? He will be praised by the big financial interests, and the orthodox bankers, but for a country starving for improvement, and with everybody seeking help, it is disappointing when the Minister appropriates this money to paying off debt; although he has provided £650,000 a year for debt reduction, the public debt to be extinguished in 40 years. What possessed the Minister to do that? New indebtedness carries redemption provision. The heads of every department were told to cut down their estimates, and the reason given for Ministers not being allowed to use their best energies for the development of the country is that there is no money. The Minister of Finance has wonderful colleagues around him. My complaint of them is that they work far too hard at details of administration. The Ministers of Agriculture, of Lands, and of Labour have been willing to do twice as much as they have done, but were told that no money was available for them. I do not congratulate the Minister of Finance on his methods, for he failed to take advantage of a golden opportunity to say to his colleagues—

While others may condemn increasing the debt, the problem for us to solve is one of increasing the capacity of the country to pay the interest on its indebtedness. If we give the country a chance to develop more industries, there will be an astonishing response. I am sorry to see that the Minister of Finance is developing into a Burton, instead of following the example of the hon. H. C. Hull, the best and the strongest finance minister we have had—one with vision and a firm belief in the future of our country. The Minister should open the money box to the fullest extent, in order to get people to develop the country. The London “Times” points out how comparatively little our Union debt is, and, in comparing it says that £222,000,000, the public debt of South Africa, works out to £132 per head of the white population as against £93 per head at the date of Union—

There is no need to fear debt incurred in creating assets in this country. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is always pleading for lower taxation and is very anxious that—

If we pursue the policy of the hon. gentleman, and the South African party, that pocket will remain empty. If we follow a path which enables us to pay higher wages and develop industry so that white labour is absorbed into it, then the taxpayer will be better able to spend 100 per cent. on taxation where before 33 per cent. would have ruined him. Attention was drawn by him to the small amount of savings in this country compared with New Zealand and other countries. How can there be large savings unless we go on the principle of paying wages that enable the people to save? The Minister of Finance is losing opportunity in being persuaded to follow the principle of rigid economy and the building up of surpluses to reduce debts. It is wasting time, and if he continues to its legitimate conclusion, the Pact Government will follow into the realms of deserved obscurity—the South African party. We have now our turn of opportunity, and unless it is embraced, failure will be our end. There are two things amongst many which the Minister might consider worth putting money into and developing. One is the wonderful possibilities of the fishing industry shown by a recent report. £100,000 a year as a start, with a big policy behind it, would bring an asset to the country well worth the risk, and side by side with the development of iron and steel, would do more good than paying off debts with the surplus in hand. Then there is an industry which is gradually going down—the cattle industry. If the Minister had assisted the Minister of Agriculture to get blood stock into the country during the past two years the 9,000,000 head of cattle, mostly scrub, would have been so improved that we could have looked forward to a great meat export. Mr. James White, a breeder of Angus-Aberdeens, who recently visited this country, said it was remarkable that with 10,000,000 cattle, half of it was of no grade whatever, and something must be done if South Africa is to take a permanent part in supplying Europe with meat. If the Minister of Agriculture had had money put in his hands he could have dealt with that, and, in the two years lost, we should have been well on the way to improving the position. But it is now a question whether the deterioration of scrub cattle is not going on at a far greater pace than ever. These two things alone were worth devoting the surplus to, and if any Minister ought to have a courageous policy it is the Minister of Finance. It is said that no man can be greater than his wife allows him to be, and certainly no ministry can be stronger than its Minister of Finance permits. The action of the Minister has been most conservative, sitting on the country’s money bags, cramping the efforts of other Ministers, and then coming out with his surplus like an Indian juggler and asking us to applaud the result. I hope the pessimism of the Minister will give way to an optimism from which this country will derive benefit as one of the coming countries of the world, and become a proud portion of that galaxy of nations we know as the British-commonwealth.

We have listened to quite a number of brilliant speeches, full of figures, this afternoon, hut I imagine that the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) must be light-headed after all the figures he quoted. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Toni Naudé) said that the present Government had paid off £13,500,000 off the public debt, while the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) mentioned a figure of £7,500,000. According to the report of the Auditor-General, the redemption has only been just over £2,000,000, and where do hon. members get their figures from? The Financial Relations Act provides that the Cape should receive an allowance of £16 7s. 6d. per head for the first 30,000 school-going children, but for more than 100,000 children the Cape only receives £14 a head, while the Transvaal gets a grant of £16 7s. 6d. a head for all its schoolgoing children. The grants to the Free State and Natal are also higher than those in the Cape. The fact that the Cape on more than 100,000 children only gets £14 a head means that the province annually loses £250,000, in comparison with the way the Transvaal is treated. The Minister ought to bear in mind that many children are sent to the Cape for their education from the Transvaal and the Free State.

You are glad to have them.

Yes, we are, because we know that our educational system is better than that in the north, because we began sooner. As for coloured children, the Cape also receives a smaller grant than the Transvaal, but in the Cape there are 20 times as many coloured children in school, and the Provincial Administration has to bear the expense. I hope the Minister will not save his entire surplus, but will give up a small portion to the Cape. I am glad about the surplus, but last year we advised the Minister of Railways and Harbours to debit the Minister of Finance with the extra expenditure connected with the policy of civilized labour on the railways. If that had been done, the Minister of Finance, instead of having a surplus of £1,250,000, would have had a surplus of £750,000, but then the Minister of Railways and Harbours would also have had a surplus of £500,000. That can however, not happen so long as the Minister of Railways and Harbours has to do with hon. gentlemen on the cross benches who do not want him to close the money bags. If there is a surplus in the railway budget, they will never permit the working hours to remain what they are to-day, but they will insist on an eight hours’ day. If, subsequently, there is a larger surplus, they will want a seven hours’ day. I am therefore glad that the Minister manipulated the figures. One knows how one can manipulate books. I cordially agree with the Minister in that, because he had to bear in mind hon. members on the cross benches. It was said this afternoon that the railway staff can take all their complaints to the Minister, but if they all did, then I only give him one more year to live, no longer. Much money has been spent in employing white workmen in the railway service. I am in favour of giving work to white men, but they must not all choke up the railway service. Moreover, there is much better work that they can do. Farmers and byowners are driven from their farms by drought, and they go to the towns on account of the wages paid there. They will not, however, get on in the towns, but will remain poor whites until their death. I want the Government to place these people on irrigation works. The one I prefer is the Van der Kloof scheme. It will not be necessary to look for water after the scheme is completed, and at least 180,000 morgen will be able to be irrigated. I understand that the Minister has a survey of the scheme in his possession, and it is thought that a settlement on the ground under irrigation will be able to carry at least 250,000 farmers. The preference ought to be given to the men who were employed on the completion of the scheme. It is sad to see what a beautiful stream of water runs to the sea to-day, because it is nearly worth its weight in gold. Fruitful soil is carried down, and if I could lead the water on to my farm, fertilizer would not be necessary. It does not pay to pump the water, and out of the three pumps that have been erected two are no longer worked. When the Government commences a scheme, then it is a great blunder to complete it before buying the ground. The ground must first be bought, and speculators ought not to have an opportunity of coming in and subsequently selling the land at a high price to the Government. Another solution of unemployment among white people is to employ them more on afforestation. The development of afforestation is not nearly quick enough to-day. From Swellendam almost to Port Elizabeth about 100,000 morgen could be planted with trees. The money spent in that way will come back doubly and trebly if the Government borrows it, because the trees grow night and day when once they are planted. It is not unproductive debt. One of the hon. members spoke about the salt pans in our country. In the north-western part of the Cape and in the Free State there are very fine salt pans, but yet we find that we have to spend thousands of pounds every month in importing salt. The hon. member said that we could export salt to the Argentine, but to-day we are importing thousands of pounds’ worth. I want to suggest to the Minister to meet the poor people who are working on the salt pans and who transport the salt, by placing a higher duty on salt. I should also like to direct the Minister’s attention to the duties of the Board of Trade and Industries. The board has already done good work, but I want the Minister to urge the members to get a better market for our produce. In the Cape the market is in a parlous condition. The farmers get absolutely nothing for their fruit, but the consumers have to pay a big price. Then there is the question of licences which fruit hawkers have to pay. They have to pay £1 to the divisional council, but if they go about, then they have to pay £1 in each village. Such a hawker cannot go every day to the same village, and has to move about, but £1 to each town council and village management board is really too much. The first-class fruit is exported, but the hawkers fetch the second-class fruit from the farms and sell it from door to door in the towns. Is it not possible for the Government to pass legislation against the wasting of money by municipalities? I do not wish to mention names, but I find that in some cases in the towns a beautiful street is first built, usually half a mile long. Thereafter the street is broken up for drainage; subsequently the water commission comes along and again breaks up the street; then the gas committee comes along and breaks it up once more. Subsequently electric cables are laid, which necessitate its being pulled up again; and when everything is done, something has been forgotten, and the street has again to be broken up. In this way thousands of pounds are wasted in one street. A stop should be put to this, and we can prevent it by limiting their loans. Now I am going to do something which will probably hurt my hon. friends opposite and their party a little. Many of our young farmers and settlers have great difficulties in the northern part of the Cape Province. Many have lost nearly all their sheep, and are in a bad way. Horticulture is also in difficulties. The horticulturists in Beaufort have for a long time had no water, and are practically starving. In my district there are horticulturists on settlements who cannot pay their interest, and I want to ask the Minister to give an extension and to assist by advances, not by way of alms, but by way of loans, and I will say how he can get the money. Cut off the extra £200 that members of Parliament now receive, and you have an extra amount of £37,000. Add another £37,000, and you have a sum which will go a long way in relieving the situation. Then I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Lands to the sub-division of ground in South-West. There farms are being sub-divided on which not a single farmer could make a living. I am thinking of what is known by the name of the Union Settlement scheme, or the Hertzog scheme. It is at Gobabis, and various farms have already been surveyed. I gather that the number is 160, and that only 42 of them are good. If settlers are sent to the other farms, they will lose the little money that they have already.

Have you been there?

My source of information is very good. On the other farms nothing but shiny grass grows, on which the cattle can live for three months, but then it is all over. Gobabis is far away, and for every lb. which is transported to Gobabis 6s. has to be paid, and the farms are a further 70 miles away from Gobabis. Then there is something else which I have on hearsay. I cannot say for certain, but I think that it will be a good thing to investigate the matter. I learn that on the penguin islands, penguin eggs are being destroyed to keep up the price. They are not brought to the mainland, but destroyed there. I am glad that the Minister of Finance has removed the income tax to an extent of £90,000 from the life assurance societies, in accordance with my suggestion. But now I want to suggest something to the Minister to obtain more taxation, but inquiry is first needed. In my young days I paid £1 7s. 6d. or 25s. for a tennis racquet, but for my son’s racquet I now have to pay £4 15s. and more. I think that it would be a first-class thing to put a duty on them so that the price should become less. Then they will have to be imported more cheaply, and the ring or combine which exists will not be able to obtain such a tremendous profit. The Minister will confer a great benefit on parents of six or seven children who require racquets.

Even the Opposition will have to admit that we have a splendid budget, although it is difficult to make them do so. For the last three years the Government have had surpluses. The Opposition try all the time to catch the Government, but in vain. This year the criticism is once more hopelessly weak, such, e.g., as that of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He is dissatisfied about the deficit of the Minister of Railways, but on the other hand complains about the surplus of the Minister of Finance. He is clearly not to be satisfied, and reminds one of the father, the son and the donkey. When the father rides the donkey, it is wrong. When the son rides the donkey and the father walks, it is also not right If they both ride the donkey, it is wrong as well. The leader of the Opposition says that he can see no good in the policy of this Government, but he went further, and made an unfair attack on the Minister of Railways, and especially on the railway workers He said that the department was suffering from laxness and want of discipline. Notwithstanding the challenge of the Minister of Railways, repeated three times, for him to mention examples, he remained in default. These are the irresponsible statements of the leader of the Opposition. At Malmesbury he went so far as to say that farming implements are heavily taxed by this Government. The leader surely knows that is not true, and that no customs duties are levied on farming implements, but that they come in free. The hon. member used the expression “notorious.” His statements are “notorious.” He is well known as a prophet, but none of his prophecies come true. Next I come to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). He said that the amended estate duty was unsatisfactory. The Government have exempted the estates of from £1,000 to £7,500, which were formerly taxed. The poor man is exempted, and the rich man heavily taxed. With reference to the income tax also, the poor man has been met. The exemption has been raised from £300 to £400, which means a great deal, especially to the married man. Then the hon. member spoke about railway rates. This Government has reduced the rates by £1,250,000. He states further that if the Government were not to use civilized labour, there would be a large surplus. Does he, then, want the white people to be discharged, and natives to be employed in their place? No, the Minister had to pay off so much of the old debts of the late Government, like the bankrupt pension funds, which cost £250,000 every year, that the surplus was no larger than it is. If he had not had to pay that, nor every year a large sum for amortization of the public debt, the surplus would have been much larger. We have the best Government to-day that this country has ever had or ever will have. The country is going ahead in every direction, and the people are once more full of hope and confidence. This Government does not work on deficits, but on surpluses, notwithstanding the liquidation of the old debts of the late Government. The industries are developed, work is found, and the country is being economically developed. It is praiseworthy. Since 1925 70,000 more people have been employed in factories, and in 1926 alone 102 new factories were established. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) finds fault with that, but he is an incorrigible free trader, and cannot get away from the old school. There is indeed a deficit of £146,000 on the railways, but the far-seeing Minister put away a nest egg last year of £400,000 for an eventual deficit, and he can meet it out of that without imposing a penny taxation on the country. The Minister of Railways is also making provision for tremendous extensions; while at the time he assumed office there were 12 road motor services, there are now 72, and provision is made for 39 more this year, which will bring the number to 111. Then the Minister, during the past year, has carried more than one million sheep to save them from the drought. The Minister did indeed lower the rate in that regard, but still I want to ask whether the railway department cannot go a little further. The farmers’ association of Carnarvon took a resolution to ask, through me, that the department should write off the debts for the rail-age on the sheep; in other words, that the sheep should be carried free. I think that that is not altogether unfair. I understand that in Australia sheep are carried gratis in times of drought.

Which province?

I was told so. Drought is a terrible thing to the farmers, and especially in our districts, where it lasted 16 months. Drought threatens the existence of the farmers, the backbone of the country. If the backbone breaks, if the foundation collapses, what is to become of the country? One cannot eat gold and diamonds.

But one can, anyhow, buy food with them.

I remember when, years ago, the great calamity took place in Japan, how the late Government decided to send 1,000 bags of maize to the stricken areas. If that is done for a foreign country, can the Government then not do something for the welfare of our own people, and carry the sheep gratis in times of drought to save them from death? I think this is fair, and it is not only a kindness towards the sheep farmers, but towards the whole population, because the whole population will be indirectly benefited. Moreover, I think it merely means £50,000, and what is that to the giant industry of our railway? It is only a drop in the bucket, but to the farmers who are in trouble it will mean a great deal if they can be assisted with £200 or £300. It will be said that wool is fetching a fair price, and that the farmers can pay later, but I can assure the Minister that the fairly well-to-do farmer has already spent from £400 to £600 in maize, but yet, in the long run, his sheep have had to trek, and this has cost him hundreds of pounds more. A substantial farmer has practically had an expenditure of £1,000, and they cannot stand it. My sheep have for a year now been in the district of Vryburg, and I am farming there instead of on my own farm. It has been said that the farmer has to hire veld, and has to have farms here and there, but the average man cannot stand it. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the giving of a concession for the carriage of motor-cars. One has to-day to pay £10 both on the forward and return journey, but £20 is altogether too much. The Minister may say that the motors can go by road, but the farmer who wants himself to look after his sheep and to be with them to try and save them must send his motor-car by rail. He requires the car to look for grazing, and to remain with his cattle during the trek. Then I have a further urgent request to make to the Minister. When the farmers return after it has rained, they must be given time to pay if the amount is not written off. There are some farmers who can pay, but others who cannot. If the farmers give a promissory note for the amount due, it ought not to be so high. The interest on the loan fund was four per cent., and I hope the Minister will not make it higher than five per cent. for the farmers Now I want to speak of a few cases of delay on the railways, as a result of which the sheep suffered very much. One case was that of Mr. van Rensburg, who ordered trucks at Carnarvon. He had, however, to wait three days for the trucks, with little food for the animals, and then the sheep were for 13 hours on the train, so that about 100 died. There is also the case of Mr. de Villiers, who loaded sheep at Stone Hill for Emigrant. He had to wait two days at Stone Hill, where there was practically no food for his animals, and when the sheep were trucked the journey took 44 hours, when it might have been done in 21 hours. When the sheep arrived at 10 p.m. at Beaconsfield, they had to wait until 6 a.m. the following morning. Another man, Bronkorst, who loaded his sheep, got them transported in 24 hours, while the journey took 44 hours for Mr. de Villiers’ sheep. It is fatal for poor sheep, and such cases ought not to take place. There is a third case where cattle and horses were trucked on a Saturday at Carnarvon, and on Monday they were still there. I asked the Minister a question about the delay, and he gave four explanations, viz., scarcity of water, bad engines (I can understand this, because we inherited them from the late Government), prevention of the arrival of the sheep at night, and lengthening of the journey to give the sheep water and food. The last reason does not seem a good one to me. I should like to ask the Minister how many sheep were offloaded for watering and feeding. If a few thousand sheep are offloaded, it is difficult to get them on the train again. As to preventing the arrival at night time, there is the case of Mr. de Villiers, whose sheep arrived at 10 p.m. at Beaconsfield, and only left there at 6 a.m. the following morning. The carriage of poor sheep is a very serious matter to our farmers. Sheep are not coal to merely lie in trucks; they have not the strength to hold out for long, and consequently the Railway Administration ought to do everything in its power to transport the sheep without delay. The order ought to be to clear the line when poor sheep are coming along, and even the passenger trains should be delayed for the sake of the sheep. A passenger has every convenience in his compartment, and has food and a bed, but poor sheep on which the farmers are dependent must not be detained. I admit that the Government has done a considerable amount in this respect, because it was a big job to carry 500,000 on the branch line Calvinia-Hutchinson. This does not, however, take away from the fact that there were five or six hard cases, and I hope the Minister in cases of future drought will take more pains to obviate delay.

The hon. member who has just spoken could at the commencement not sufficiently flatter the present Government’s actions, and I thought he would continue in that strain. Subsequently, however, he commenced to complain about the good Government which was responsible for the delaying the poor sheep. One might almost call his speech one of the lamentations of Jeremiah.

He complained about the engines of the late Government.

It is wonderful that hon. members in their speeches on the budget try to make the Opposition out as bad as possible, and they even state that the Opposition could say nothing. What did the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) actually say? He spoke at the commencement about the good Government, but at the end he had a greater complaint against the railway policy than this side of the House.

I only mentioned a few cases.

Hon. members opposite only seek to injure this side of the House. When the Minister of Finance made his budget speech and mentioned the nice surplus of £1,250,000, then we had the chorus on the Government benches.

On your side the tears flowed.

Everyone who has the interests of the country at heart is glad about the surplus, but on the other hand, hon. members opposite must, and we all should, acknowledge that the surplus has been got out of the pockets of the taxpayers. It is not too great an honour to say that you have taken so much more out of the pockets of the taxpayers. I am glad that the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, made mention of how the country had progressed in consequence of the mining industry. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), who tries on the countryside to injure the mining industry by saying that it does nothing for the country, and that it should be taxed, must now go and tell his constituents what the actual position is. He must now clearly understand that if the mines did not exist, and if there had not been such a splendid discovery of alluvial diggings, then things would not have gone so prosperously with the country during the past year. The hon. member for Riversdale must tell his constituents that in the past he was wrong when he told them that the mines were only ruining the country, because we get our greatest revenue from the mining industry. I do not say that the Minister must concede all the requests of the mines, but I really cannot understand why the wretched prohibition should exist on the importation of natives from Portuguese territory any longer. I know that it was introduced by the late Government, but it was chiefly done at the request of the present Minister of Defence and of the Labour party, who cannot shout enough to do the mines harm. The Government ought not to take any notice of the Labour party. It should remove the prohibition, so that the mines can import as many native labourers as possible. If more native labourers are to be employed, then more white men will also be given work, but if there is a shortage in native labour on the lines, then white men are put out of work. We heard the complaint this afternoon from the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that the workmen are killed on the mines, and that they sacrifice their lives to the mining industry. They go to work there, and it is true that many of them formerly acquired miners’ phthisis, but everyone must admit that the position to-day is much better than formerly. The shouting that the mine management ill-treat the workmen so much is untrue. I have the privilege of representing miners, and I can say that most of them are satisfied, because they get good pay. The reason for the dissatisfaction with which the late Government had to deal is that there were agitators at that time.

Why, then, are they satisfied now?

Because the Opposition are not agitators against the Government. If the Government gets into difficulty, then the Opposition assists in getting it out of it. That the former Opposition did not do, and therefore we unfortunately had all the trouble. There were persons who went on to platforms on the Rand to incite the workmen against the employers, and to encourage them to strike and do wrong. The consequence was that large numbers of poor people lost their employment, and that many of them are to-day under the ground. It was agitators who wanted to make political capital out of the State, but it is not they who are to-day under the ground, but the poor people. The greatest agitators are now sitting on the Government benches and receiving good pay. Now they are satisfied.

The agitators are sitting opposite.

I want to tell the hon. member that I do not like raking up old sores. I can well remember that as a new member he looked at the cross benches and said—

I then, however, thought that he did not yet know them, and it is a fact that things are not always so happy to-day. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) cannot get away from that. He will not say it openly, but in his heart he agrees with me. Why are the people satisfied now? Formerly there were all the complaints and the unfortunate strike in 1921, but now the people are satisfied because the former Government, in the difficult circumstances, have brought the people to their duty. In this connection I recall a story of a mother whose son would not study. He came home at night, but would not learn his lesson. The mother took him to the room and gave him a good thrashing, and then he got through the examination. The late Government had the courage to give the people a good thrashing. The people paid dearly, and learned a hard lesson, but the members opposite should be thankful that the late Government did so.

The Afrikander does not allow himself to be driven.

The hon. member knows nothing of the conditions. He is fortunate in representing a constituency where there are not yet so many people of that class, but I can assure the hon. member that if he continues the alliance with the Labour party, the difficulty will not remain absent from him. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) clearly showed how the wages board was working. The chairman is Mr. Lucas, the man who wanted to expropriate the landed property in the country. I have personally had experience as an inhabitant of Johannesburg. He did not want landowners to live there. It was clearly read out by the hon. member for Standerton who the man is that is now chairman of the wages board, and who now regulates the wages and draws a big salary. The wages board made certain proposals for a small increase for the people, and now they are not yet satisfied. It is not the people who are actually satisfied, but the leaders tell them not to be satisfied.

Where is that?

In Johannesburg.

Give the names and particulars.

I shall give no names. It is my experience that the giving of names should be avoided as much as possible. It is always regrettable when names have to be given in the House. It is not good for the country.

What about Mr. Lucas?

I must say that I am a little disappointed with the result in the railway department. The Minister always said that everything was going so satisfactorily and well, and that the people were satisfied. I recently presented a petition from people in the large Kaserne in Johannesburg, indicating great dissatisfaction at conditions there. The people did not agitate, but went to their representative. I put the matter before the Minister, and I hope he will investigate it and remove the difficulty. The complaints were reasonable. Hon. members say that the workers are so satisfied, but I know there are many of them who feel that under the late Government they had much more opportunity of going ahead than to-day. This applies especially to the people now being engaged as civilized labourers. They can get a rise of 6d. per day per annum. What does this mean? The Minister will yet have trouble with those people. I hope the Minister will remove the complaints at the Kaserne. I think it is always better for people to go to their representative with their complaints. They have, e.g., to pay pension contributions for 30 days, although they only work 26 days.

Are the people opposed to that?

Yes. They know that in the end it is better, but for a family man it is very hard to pay contributions for a full month out of his small wages. Another grievance is that they may no longer do other small jobs for people after their nay’s work is ended. If they could then do something for another person, they run the risk of being dismissed.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

In 1910 only £9 500,0000 of our public debt of £116,000,000 was owing in South Africa, but it is encouraging to see that the proportion at the end of 1926 was £78,000,000 over against a total debt of £221,000,000. While the percentage of money raised in our own country was only 8 per cent. in 1910, at the end of last year it was 35 per cent. When I on a previous occasion spoke about the Wages Bill and the Industrial Conciliation Act, I pointed out how the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) went about the country making speeches about them. I then said that I did not say that he was intentionally misleading the people, but that he had not well studied the Bills when he explained them as he did. In connection with the Wages Act passed in 1925 he went about telling the people that people were prosecuted under the Wages Act though it was not yet in operation. It was under the Industrial Conciliation Act passed by his own Government that the people were punished. Now, however, I want to say to-night that since I spoke last time I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Standerton is actually engaged in wilfully misleading the people, and that he is minimizing and exaggerating things as he pleases. The other night when the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) stated that our unproductive debt had been reduced by about £14,000,000 the hon. member for Standerton denied it. Thereupon the Minister of Finance rose and merely pointed out one source by which the unproductive debt had been reduced by £7,000,000. The hon. member for Standerton said about that that the mountain had produced a mouse, and this shows how he wants to minimize things. If it suits his book he can also exaggerate as he did last year by saying that during the last three years of his administration there had been a reduction of £6,000,000 in the public expenditure, although the reduction was actually only £1,700,000. The hon. member made a speech at Koster and told the people that the average increase in the public debt during his time was only £8,000,000 a year, while the present Government had increased the debt by £13,000,000 each year during the last three years. This is absolutely wrong because the amount was only £13,700,000 in two years. As for the public debt I may further point out that the increase was £12,000,000 in 1915. £12,500,000 in 1916, a little less in 1917 and £6,000,000 in 1918. Now hon. members opposite will immediately say that those were war years, but 1919 was after the war and then there was an increase of £6,000,000. In 1922 the country was rushed into further debt to an amount of £13,000,000. but now the Opposition talk about the increase in the public debt. Their attitude is too petty to go into. I, as a business man think that I may have assets and liabilities, but my assets should always be just so much that I can pay my debts when I realize. That is the way in which a business man extends his business. To increase a business it is necessary to also increase the debt, and care has merely to be taken that there are assets to meet the liabilities. When hon. members on this side of the House were in opposition they did not object to the increase of the public debt. They were merely opposed to the accumulating of the unproductive debt. There are farms to-day registered in the name of the Government which cost thousands of pounds, but for which very little would be got to-day. I may also, e.g., remind the House of the losses on grain elevators, on the import of flour and on other unnecessary expenditure which pushed the country into debt. The annual increase of expenditure is shouted about but hon. members opposite forget why there was an increase. During the two years, 1924 to 1926, there was an increase in expenditure of £2,400,0000 but I will give the various items of increased expenditure so that hon. members opposite and the public outside may understand that the increases were not due to luxury, but that things had to be put right which the late Government had neglected. We know how the provincial councils were treated and there was therefore an increased grant of £949,000. Increase in interest was £365,000. pensions deficits, £180,000; normal increase in pensions, £139,000; taking over of technical and industrial education in accordance with the agreement with the provincial councils, £180,000: increased salaries in public service as a result of the existing Act, £150,000; posts and telegraphs, £300,000; settlements for tenant farmers, £70,000, and universities and technical colleges, £27,000. I challenge the Opposition to look into the items and to tell the country that they have any objection to any of the points of expenditure. They cannot do so because it is in consequence of their neglect that we were obliged to increase the grant to the provincial councils by nearly £1,000,000. Besides this I find that in 1920-’21 an increased expenditure of £5,500,000 took place, and in the following financial year it was practically the same. In the financial year 1922-’23 there was a decrease of £1,000,000, and then it subsequently was increased by the £2,000,000 of which I have just spoken. If we go further back then we find that the increase in 1916-’17 by the previous Government was 12.58 per cent. In 1920 16.90 per cent., 1921 26.20 per cent., while this year there has only been an increase of ¼ per cent. Hon. members opposite can go into it for themselves to see if I am wrong. Then I come to the matter of taxation. The Opposition state that there has not been an adequate reduction of taxation and some of them go so far as to say that the £180,000 sacrificed on the employers tax in the Transvaal cannot be regarded as a reduction in taxation by the Government. Even if this is deducted we do not reach the amount calculated by the hon. member for Standerton that the reduction was only £554,000, but it was £3,000,000. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) went thoroughly into the matter last night so that I need not enlarge on it any more. The amount saved in taxation under the recommendations in the Baxter report such as the sales and poll tax alone come to £450,000. In the £3,000,000 I, of course, include the £1,100,000 in reduced railway rates. What does the hon. member for Standerton tell the people? He has recently told the Malmesbury farmers that they have been taxed by this Government to the extent of £2,000,000, and then he quotes the revenue from customs which, according to him is almost £3,000,000 more. It is not a higher tax on the people, but the result of confidence in South Africa that has improved matters in this respect. Just take one case, viz., the export of diamonds. The year before last it was £2,000,000 and the following year £8 000 000 an increase of £6,000,000; 10 per cent. export duty thereon is £600,000. So there are many more sources. This is surely not direct taxation. The interest on the public debt has considerably increased; in 1910 it was 3.78 per cent. on a debt of £116,000,000. In 1926 it was 4.155 per cent. on a debt of £209,000,000; that is a fairly high rate of interest but the late Government is chiefly responsible for it. In 1922 it borrowed £20,000,000 at 6 per cent and I am glad that this has already been reduced to £15,621,000. Six per cent. on a reduction of £5,000,000 is a large sum. The Minister of finance has further reduced the public debt tins year by the definite amount of £650 000 and further by the surplus of £1,250,000. That makes almost £2,000,000. At 5 per cent. it means that the people are saved an amount of £100,000 in interest which can be used for other purposes. I am also pleased that as a result of the protection policy 112 new factories have been established in one year. Our lads will get work there and the money earned there will remain in the country, and not serve for the maintenance of workmen overseas. I am further pleased that £28,000 more is being given to technical colleges. Our boys must be given a chance in the industries by training. The magnificent progress of the road motor services is also worthy of congratulation. In my constituency at the moment there are two services to Kuruman, one of which goes far into the backveld to the Koranna mountains. According to my information they pay, and the public are supporting them well. I want again to ask the Minister to favourably consider the construction of the railway from Koopmansfontein to Postmasburg. I want to ask him if that is not the proper line to construct. It is only 65 miles long and will benefit Kimberley a great deal. Something must be done for Kimberley.

Has this railway not already been discussed?

Not on its merits.

The hon. member cannot discuss it now.

I shall take an opportunity later. May I just say that I introduced a motion for the extension of the railway from Koopmansfontein to Kuruman. The line is a one. The construction of farm telephones is of very great importance, because it provides communication between the farms and the business world and in times of sickness enables the people to telephone instantly for a doctor. As regards pensions, I hope the Minister and the members of the commission will proceed a little slowly. The burden on our little population for pensions is very great. The estimates provide for £2,319,000 for pensions. This is a large amount. For war pensions alone it is £860,000. With regard to the rate of exchange, I notice that in 1925-’26 £10,000 was paid and this year the amount is £25,000. I should like to know the reason for that. Is it because all accounts have been transferred from the other banks to the reserve bank? As regards boring for water my experience is that the system of demanding a certain amount at the start and later a little less is not satisfactory. It would be best to make the payment per foot. More bores are also required, and it must be seen to that water and wood bores are not sent where there is no water and wood available, but that oil bores should be sent there, while oil bores ought not to be sent where there ought to be water and wood bores. I further wish to remind the Minister of Agriculture again about the irrigation scheme Windsorton-Barkly. In 1920 this was second on the list, and it will be one of the paying schemes. I just wish to return to the hon. member for Standerton. He is a master in the art of making people believe what he wishes. When one hears him talking on the countryside on the text that the people are tired of this Government, one would almost think that there was some truth in it.

“Hear, hear.”

I have never yet trimmed my sail to the wind, but the hon. member did so in 1915. I must say that I have gone about a great deal amongst English-speaking South Africans, and have consequently tried to find out what they think of the Government. The constant reply is—

It is only the hon. member for Standerton who comes with complaints, and the little dogs bark the same thing at his heels. In my constituency he asked what became of our promise in connection with an embargo on Rhodesian cattle. Did the hon. member forget what happened? By giving and taking the Government kept the friendship of Rhodesia, and yet the import only amounted to 10,000 oxen last year, while, under the late Government, 36,000 oxen came in during their last year of office. If we include the British Protectorate, 40,000 cattle less came in than at that time. The Government has the courage to attack great problems The Mines and Machinery Act of 1911 was amended by this Government after the regulations made by the late Government had been declared ultra vires. With regard to the Asiatic question, they have also given and taken, and we trust that the result of the agreement with India will bear very good fruit. The Segregation Act, which was practically adopted in principle in 1913, would never have been applied by the late Government. This Government dared to tackle it and deserves admiration for it. I am also thankful for what the Government has done for the coloured people, especially the Cape coloured people of South Africa. They have no other home, but the natives who are brought here, and who squeeze the coloured people out, have Kaffraria, Pondoland and Zululand as their homes, and can work there. If, however, we give the preference to coloured people then the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) shouts out about the civilized labour policy of the Government. Then I further notice that the hon. member for Standerton said the other night that the Labour party had disappeared. He judges other people by himself because the old South African party had dwindled down to 15 members. Of the old Afrikander Bond in the Cape of the Oranje Unie in the O.F.S., Het Volk in the Transvaal, and the Afrikander party in Natal, there now only remains 15 members. Let me tell hon. members opposite that we are not going to split with the Labour party, because if we did so the Opposition would come into power. We know that under the late Government there were 175 strikes, that blood and tears flowed and that the people were shot down in the country, and we are not going to allow it to happen again. Then there is a thing which the hon. member for Standerton has well learned from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), viz., how to follow the policy of “divide and rule.” That was the policy of the old progressive party, and later of the Unionist party. If they cannot do it themselves then they use their newspapers to create race hatred in the country, and facts even are distorted Therefore, I am not surprised that the late Gen. Botha said at Rustenburg in 1914—

This is the first time, as far as I can remember, since the present Government came into power, that the Opposition has chosen to put an amendment in connection with the budget on the paper which amounts to a vote of no confidence, and, in my opinion, they have chosen their battle ground very badly, because when one reads the amendment one finds that the Opposition asks the Government to go in for wholesale retrenchment—a reduction in public expenditure, which cannot be achieved but by wholesale retrenchment in the railway and public services. The other part of the amendment asks for a reduction of railway rates, and that wage determinations under the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wages Act be confined to industrial centres, which would mean a reduction of wages, as an hon. member reminds me. If one examines the indictment, it will not bring home any conviction to the Government. There are matters on which I differ from the Government, but on the matters which the Opposition has chosen to put on the paper, I am wholeheartedly with the Government. The general trend of speeches from this side of the House has been a double chorus. One says that the Minister of Finance has done wrong in having a big surplus, but when it comes to dealing with the railway budget, another says the Minister of Railways and Harbours is wrong, because he has a deficit, and has refused to reduce railway rates. How he can reduce railway rates with a deficit I cannot see. There is not a word in the amendment about the civilized labour policy—although many of the criticisms have dealt with that point. I think I was one of those who urged the Government from the very first to go in for a protectionist policy, and one of the matters on which I differed with the late Government was that they had not such a policy at all—it was half free trade and half protectionist. In spite of the drought, the prosperity of the country has been very largely due to a beginning having been made with this protectionist policy. I am very pleased that the Minister in 1925 put on that distinction in the customs under which he encouraged the making of motor-car bodies in the Union, but I think that 10 per cent. difference is not enough, and if the Minister would make the difference greater I feel certain that all the motor-car bodies would be made in the Union, and all the manufacturers would have the chassis sent here and the bodies made in the Union as they do in Australia. I recently paid a visit to Port Elizabeth, and I must say I was surprised at the transformation. It was a tremendous hive of industry. When you have been away for a few years you find a whole transformation has taken place there. Large industries have been established, and many of these are entirely due to the protectionist policy of the Government, and these industries would never have been established there had the late Government remained in office. Not a single hon. member of Port Elizabeth is represented on the Government side, but the policy of the Government takes no account of that, and possibly the town that has benefited most is where there is no representative of the Pact at the present time. I cannot understand the criticism that has been levelled at the Minister of Finance in connection with the utilization of the surplus. Some criticise him because he has not used the surplus to reduce taxation, and others because he has not used it to remedy certain ills. There is not praise or blame to be given to the Minister, for he has simply carried out the law, and is compelled to do what he did under the law passed in 1911.

That has been altered.

That is where the hon. member has fallen into the pit. The past year is under the old law.

I could have done the other thing if I had raided it.

If the Minister had used the surplus to reduce taxation he would have had the constable on his track. Section 5 of the Act of 1911 states that all surplus revenue is to be available for loan redemption, and by the statute of 1919, it states—

Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1911 are repealed by the Act of 1926 as from April 1st, 1927. Section 3 (a) of the Act of 1926 provides that for forty years the sum of £650,000 has to be paid off annually and put into the General Sinking Fund, and it commences in the financial year 1927-’28. I am very glad to see that the Minister respects the law. The amendment of the leader of the Opposition goes on to deal with the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wages Act, When the South African party was in power it never passed legislation on the lines of the amendment stating that these Acts should apply to the industrial centres only. What they now complain of would have happened under their own legislation. Under the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act matters were not dealt with as one of area but of employment. The Industrial Conciliation Act must not apply to any employment in agriculture or in any farming industry; the Wage Act shall not apply to persons employed in agricultural pursuits, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not include persons employed in agriculture or in domestic service, unless such employment is in connection with an engine driver or machine worked by mechanical power. Thus a man working on an engine on a farm was included within the operation of the Act. The Unionistparty, when it was in opposition, stood for treating all workmen alike, and in 1914 Mr. Baxter moved an amendment which would have done away with the proviso to make the Workmen’s Compensation Act non-applicable to domestic servants and agricultural labourers. The Unionist party, as a whole, voted in favour of that amendment, yet now the same members are denouncing the present Government which has not gone nearly as far as they wanted to go in 1914. If this is political consistency then it has assumed a strange name which makes it quite unrecognizable. The Factory Act of 1918 also makes certain exceptions in regard to farmers making, packing or preparing food or drink for sale from produce grown or animals kept by him. The amendment, as a whole, reminds me of a little girl who said to her mother—

The mother replied—

I am entirely in favour of a true civilized labour policy, but if that means the exclusion of all but white men then it is not a civilized labour policy, but a white labour policy. On the railways there is a white labour policy which does not give a fair opportunity to the non-Europeans to rise in the scale of civilization. I now wish to refer to the educational grants to the Cape Province. As a result of the Durban agreement the Cape Province is very much better off in this respect than it was before in regard to subsidy, but even yet it is not fairly treated in comparison with what is done for the other provinces. This is pointed out in the annual report of the Cape Superintendent-General of Education for 1925, the Cape with 10,000 more European children attending school receiving a subsidy of nearly £50,000 less than that paid to the Transvaal—

Moreover more teachers have to be employed for the same number of pupils. Owing to the differentiation the Cape Province, in 1926-’27, lost over £212,000 because it did not receive its proper share of the educational subsidy. I hope this will be put right some day. I would like to say a word with regard to the industrial bank, for I am not entirely satisfied with the reply I received to my question on this subject. The Minister in the debate last year, indicated that other people might be asked to deal with the matter in addition to the members of the Board of Trade, but as far as I have been able to ascertain the Board of Trade alone is investigating the subject. It is a long time since the matter was raised, viz., in March, 1926, and we ought now to have something before us. With the great revival of trade nothing is more necessary than an industrial bank, to do for the manufacturers what the Land bank has done for the farmers. Until we have an industrial bank we shall not have that extension of trade we can fairly look forward to. I also put a question with reference to report No. 73 of the Board of Trade on the question of restraint of trade and other cognate subjects. The Government should give speedier consideration to the matter than they have indicated they are going to give. Lastly there is one matter to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention. It is a question about which I have no doubt certain members of the House will hold up their hands in horror. I cannot help that. It is a subject I have taken an interest in, and that is whether he will in future take into consideration, in the raising of loans, whether it could be done by means of premium bonds. I would like to point out this is no longer a matter of theory. I believe the Natal provincial council more than once asked the Government to introduce premium bonds, and when the Free State voted on the subject they had a tie. In the Transvaal there was a majority in favour and in the Cape it was lost. There is evidently a very considerable feeling amongst the provincial councils that this is a fair and legitimate method of raising loan money and although I am not against State lotteries I want to point out that these premium bonds are not in the nature of a lottery because nobody loses his money. The interest paid on the loan is 4 per cent. and the interest to those who don’t win prizes is 2½ per cent. and the difference between the two rates of interest gives a large sum of money to devote to prizes. It has become not only a common form of investment in Europe but a successful form and it appeals to the small wage earner for whom the ordinary rates of interest amount to so little that it is better for him to have a 2½ per cent. with the chance of a big prize. There is a large number of prizes distributed every year and many people, by means of the capital sum won, manage to lift themselves from the rut which they could not do otherwise. Thousands of people drudge along on a wage and no matter how hard they work nothing lifts them from the rut except the opportunity given by means of these prizes. If members look askance at the mention of premium bonds I urge them to read the evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1918 and they will find there among others prominent clergymen appearing before the committee and they said there was nothing wrong in the scheme of premium bonds and they certainly thought it wrong to call it a lottery. There were bankers and commercial men also before the Select Committee who advocated the principle of premium bonds. It would take too long to deal fully with the evidence given, but I would like to mention one point mentioned in the report and that was with regard to arriving at the definition of premium bonds in which they stated they accepted the definition that the term investment and premium bond meant bonds repayable after a fixed term of years at par plus a rate of interest at not less than 2½ per cent. The report also goes on to show how’ important these things are and how they were used by the workers on the continent. Premium bonds do not attract the rich man very much, but the small man with a small wage. There were 35 witnesses called and 18 were in favour, 12 against and 5 neutral. It also deals with bonds in other countries and mentions that in France alone there are £400,000,000 invested in premium bonds and the Select Committee report gives, in the appendix, a list of the various countries in the world where premium bonds exist. Municipalities and banks make use of them and men like Sir John Bradbury, one of the permanent secretaries of the Treasury, giving evidence before the Select Committee, said he had no objection to the Government working this and further said he had no ethical objection to a moderate amount of gambling if it did not go beyond the people’s means. I do think the Minister in connection with the loan policy of the Government might seriously consider the question of raising some of the loans by means of premium bonds and I commend to his attention the report of this committee. The committee found itself divided and confirmed the difficulties of the former committee, but the report contains valuable evidence and the appendix, showing what was being done in other countries, leads to the conclusion that it would be a blessing to the poorer people of the country.

I am sure it must be a great comfort and relief to the Minister to have had such whole-hearted support from the leader of the Independent party in the corner. He sees nothing to criticize in the financial position apparently, except that he wants us to adopt an easier method of borrowing money. State expenditure is going up, no reduction on taxation, money borrowed in greater and greater amounts, mean nothing to him except that it is all to the good. We take just the opposite view and that is why the hon. member failed to understand the amendment moved from this side. You cannot measure the prosperity of the country by the amount of money the Government is spending. It is not a sign of prosperity to say the Government is employing 10,000 more men this year than before, but it may mean that it is a retrograde step, that we are going back and not forward. If the Government, by running up these expenses, cannot give cheaper transport and that hampers employment in the country it is no compensation to take a few thousand men into its own service. We take a different view. Another point the hon. member made, which I hope the Minister will consider seriously before agreeing to, was that the Minister had no alternative in regard to the disposal of the surplus; that he was bound by law to apply it to the redemption of debt. As the Minister agreed with his advisers I hope he will look into it again.

There is no doubt about it; the Auditor-General will see to it.

If the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), the Minister himself and the Auditor-General all agree I must think twice before putting my views against theirs. The Act of 1926 says that from the 1st of April, 1927, Section 5 shall be repealed. Now Section 5 of the Public Debts Commissioners Act of 1911 is the section which requires the payment of a surplus to the Public Debt Commissioner, in these words—

Before the surplus can be ascertained for this year the Act is repealed and is no longer in force.

It deals with the surplus of the previous year before the Act was repealed.

Read Section 3 of the Act of 1926.

That says there shall be paid to the commissioners from the revenue account in each financial year for a period of 40 years a sum of £650,000. That does not say anything about a surplus and it does not exist before it is determined by the Controller and Auditor-General and it cannot be determined this year until the Act is repealed.

It is paid over as soon as it is determined.

I am not criticizing the Minister for using this surplus for the redemption of debt. I think that is, under the circumstances, a sound thing to do because I think our debt is already too large, but I shall have occasion to criticize him for having had a surplus for three years and we have had no reduction in taxation. As was said by my light hon. friend we are the only dominion which has not reduced taxation appreciably since the war. We have heard from the other side about £3,000,000 of taxation having been remitted and that is a figure which has been spread about on the platforms of the country but it has no foundation in fact. You add up the amount of taxation remitted, which has been a certain amount, you make no deduction for increases in taxation and on top of that you put on remissions in railway rates and you get £3,000,000, and then the people are told this Government has remitted taxes to the amount of £3,000,000. The amount they have actually remitted in the last three years is half a million and that is all.

Do you agree with that figure?

Yes. We have heard all sorts of other figures. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) read out a large number of figures to show what tremendous retrogression there had been under the S.A.P. Government, and, in order to make the picture as black as possible against the S.A.P. Government, he even went back to 1907 in his account of their sins and transgressions. When a country has gone through the vicissitudes that this country has gone through, only going back to Union, it is really childish for an hon. member to get up and compare one year with another and say that there has been a falling off here and a falling off there, and that it is all due to this terrible S.A.P. Government, who were in power at that time. The hon. member might even have given a few other figures, while he was about it, from the Year Book. If he had looked up the number of factory employees he might have found that we had 35,000 in 1915-’16 and 66,000 in 1923-’24 under this terrible S.A.P. Government. He might have talked about the value of machinery and plant in factories and he would have found that in 1915-’16 the value was £15,750,000 and in 1923-’24, £30,000,000. I looked a little further into the Year Book while I was about it and I saw that the European birth rate during 1923-’24 was 26.59, and in 1924-’25, with the Pact Government in power, it was 26.15. Is that not a terrible indictment against the hon. members that sit over there? The European death rate went up from 9.45 in 1923-’24 to 9.58 in 1924-’25 with this Government in power. The infantile mortality—this is the saddest part of all-in 1923-’24 was 73.02, and in 1924-’25 it was 74.57. All these little children died with that Government in power! This is exactly the same principle as has been applied in connection with the figures which were said to tell against us while we were in office. No, we are not responsible for all these calamities. I do not say we were a perfect Government, but we were not responsible for all the troubles that occurred during our period of office, nor do I want to charge the Government with being responsible for these calamities which I have recited just now. We have heard from the other side a chorus of satisfaction with the present position of the country. To hear the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) one would think that the millennium had dawned since this Government came into power. He is quite satisfied, no doubt, but I do not know whether the electors who sent him here will be so satisfied as to send him back again. We have been told that the seal, so to speak, of approval has been put on the years of office of the Pact Government by the fact that they have enjoyed large surpluses, culminating this year in a surplus of £1,250,000. It seems to me that this is very unkind to the Minister of Rail ways, because in this time of abounding prosperity, with everything going as well as it could do under this best of all possible governments, with revenue going up, and traffic going up, he comes along with a deficit. It is very unkind of hon. members to build so much on the virtues of a surplus, and forget the colleague of the Minister of Finance, who is rather left in the cold with a little deficit.

That is on account of the drought.

You do not mean to say that under the Pact Government there is a drought in South Africa! What the effect of that is going to be I am afraid we shall see next year when we come to our budget, because in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance the one cheering feature, as far as I could make out, was the fact that there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure of, he expected, £1,250,000, but the other features of the picture seem to me to be distinctly gloomy. There was a drop in the export of farming produce, maize, skins, mohair, wattle, fruit, were all down, and the income tax is down, except so far as the collections have been speeded up.

Is the Government to blame for that?

I thought the S.A.P. Government were to blame for all the deficits. Apparently this Government is not to take the responsibility for any deficit. I am not saying at present whether they are to blame or not to blame. I only say that we cannot look upon the fact of there being a surplus as establishing that the country is in a prosperous position. I think the facts point rather the other way, that we are going rather backward, in regard to prosperity. We had a bumper mealie crop in 1925 and we have also had the enormous activity on the alluvial diggings. Now we are going to get the effects, not of the bumper crop of 1925, but the effects of the short crop since then, and as regards the alluvial diggings it seems to me that one of two things will happen—either some sort of control will have to be established over the output of diamonds, as the Minister indicated in his speech, or we shall have such a slump in the diamond market, as will make these alluvial diggings have not such a taking outlook as they have at present. These facts seem to me to point to the profitability of our having come to the end of our surpluses. We have lived to the top of our income during our years of prosperity, we have set aside nothing, we have reduced no taxation, and when we do come to the bad times, what have we got to fall back upon? Then the amendment moved by my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts), which we on this side support, points to the fact that expenditure has not been kept in hand, that expenditure is going up, and taxation has not been reduced. I see that in the estimates for this year the Minister budgets for a net increase of 1,141 officials in the public service. That does not show much sign of the expenditure being controlled, or of our getting it down. Or the railways, of course, the increase is still larger. There is a growing expenditure and additional numbers of public and railway servants.

There are 689 in the post office. The post office is a business department bringing in increased returns.

Yes, increased returns but decreased profits; I understood the Minister to say in his budget speech that the profits this year will be small, and I understood they were less than the previous year.

There was a time when the post office showed a big loss.

The fact remains that 689 officials have been added to the post office. It is quite possible for members to justify, and a great many do justify, any increase in officials. We do not take that view.

When telephone lines are built and they bring in revenue there must be people to work them.

Of course there must, but my contention is that the increase in public officials is not justified by the revenue brought in.

What justification have you for making that statement?

That the number of officials and the expenditure involved in their employment is not being diminished as it ought to be in proportion to the financial situation.

To the volume of work done?

I am not prepared to say that the post office is understaffed or overstaffed. It is for the Minister to show that he requires these people. I am drawing attention to the fact that 1,141 officials have been added this year. I am calling attention to the increased expenditure going on and the increased number of officials. We all understood from all we heard when hon. members over there were in opposition and from what we heard during the election about economy, that we were to expect a reduction. Take the public debt. A good deal has been said about that and I would like to quote the figures given by the Minister, that during the years they have been in office they have added £21,600,000 to the public debt. That is in spite of all they have been able to do in the way of reducing the debt; in spite of the Custodian of Enemy Property’s surplus which they appropriated; in spite of the contributions they have had to the loan fund from mining leases and other sources and in spite of the reductions owing to sinking fund operations. Our net borrowings have been £25,791,000 and our total expenditure from loan funds during these three years has been £37,656,000. We hold on this side that we are going ahead faster than our resources justify. That is the point simply. Hon. members say that if we ask for economy we mean that wages have got to be reduced, that we have to work much cheaper, that expenditure has to be cut down and all the rest of it, but it seems to me that is not a true statement of our criticism of the public finance. Finance after all is only an instrument of national policy. In criticising the finance of the country you have to ask what is the national policy or what ought it to be. It seems to me to be clear, and I think it is admitted by everybody although perhaps rather academically, that the national policy for South Africa is to improve the development of the land, to improve the hold of the people on the land, to get more of our people on the land and make it more productive.

That is what we are doing.

It seems to me we are doing the opposite. We are drawing people off the land. We are putting up factories all over the country to pull people off the land. We are offering people work on the railways to tempt them off the land. My point is that we should make work for them on the land. We should spend our money, when we have it to spend, in developing the land and in encouraging and enabling people to come into this country from overseas, because if we cannot do that, if we cannot develop our land and reinforce European people from overseas, it does not matter what policy we follow because in a few years we shall disappear as a nation. Everybody knows that although they do not all like to admit it. They must know it; the facts cry it aloud. They make it perfectly clear to everybody. We may have an independent national status and we may buy millionaire motor cars for our representatives in London, and we may do all sorts of things, but unless we can strengthen the hold of our people on the land and reinforce them by immigration from overseas then as a nation we shall go out.

Where are you going to place these people?

I want to make the country fit to receive them.

Where are you going to get them from?

From wherever we can get suitable people who are going to make their homes in South Africa.

In the worst paid industry in the country.

I am suggesting we should make it such that it is fit to receive these people. If hon. members say we cannot do it, that it is a policy of despair, very well let us throw up the sponge, eat and drink and to-morrow we die, spend our money as fast as we can and go over the edge when our time comes. But that is not the policy I suggest should be our true national policy. There are all sorts of things that can be done. It is quite true that we suffer from great disabilities here, but they are not beyond the capacity of mankind to solve, and I would like to know what is being done, for example, in regard to the report of the Drought Commission which sat some time ago. The commission pointed out in stronger language than I use what is going to be the fate of South Africa unless something is done.

What did they recommend?

Surely the Minister does not expect me now to go through their recommendations. What I suggest is that the result of the course we are following at the present time is not to strengthen the hold of the people on the land. People are leaving the land. We are putting up high protective duties to establish factories to draw people off the land and we are drawing them off by giving them employment on the railways, not because they are wanted on the railways, not because in many cases they are fit for railway work, but for purposes of political window dressing, in order that members may go round the country and say—

Do you seriously suggest that?

Yes, and I have been prompted to suggest it by the report of the commission.

Are you not thinking of the 12,000 you took into the railway service in 1919?

No, I am dealing with the report of what is called the civilized labour policy, and this is what they say, in paragraph 145—

That is exactly what we say. The report was written on the 3rd November, 1926—not published. That is what we suggest has been done.

Did you not try that policy during your time?

Not that I am aware of.

Why not?

Because we did not believe in overloading the railways—

Did you try that policy in your time—stimulating agricultural production?

Yes, to the extent of our capacity.

With the result that more Europeans left the country than came in.

To that extent we failed, and the Minister who succeeded us is living in more prosperous times. Another point is that we have in this country certainly one predominating source of wealth that we enjoy beyond any country in the world, and that is its mineral wealth. Surely we ought to be able to use the proceeds of that industry in order to carry out the settlement and development of more permanent assets. Our policy ought to be, one would think, to encourage and help it along and not put undue burdens upon it. Do we do that? On the contrary, it seems to be the policy of the Government to lay on the mines any possible burden, and adopt the line that the mines can pay.

What burdens have we placed on them?

I am not referring to the taxation of profits, which I am not against; but do not tax production. Don’t burden mining production by, for example, customs duties and high railway rates.

Have we increased the railway rates?

You have not reduced them.

I do not say you have increased them. I blame the Government for not reducing them. Take customs duties.

We reduced the rate on machinery.

I am glad of it. Where the railway rates hit the mines more than anything else is in the coal rates.

Why did not my predecessor reduce them?

Because he did not have the money—like you.

After all we have heard about our wonderful Government, I did not expect them to reply like that—

I did not expect such a reply from the Minister. I expected something better. I take one instance, from the evidence given by the Chamber of Mines, with regard to the duties on rock drill spares and metal liners. The duty has been put up to 17 to 20 per cent. in order to encourage some little manufacturing industry. The value of these things for 1925 was £547,694, so you can see what a little item alone means in regard to the burdens placed on the mines.

That is not much.

At any rate, it is an example.

Do they state these things cost them 17 to 20 per cent. more?

They give the value of the stock purchased and the duty paid on it. It is only one item.

Is there any other item where the duties have been put up?

Oh, yes.

Let us have it. I challenge you to give another item where the mines have been penalized.

Keep your soul in peace.

Aly point is that even a slight reduction in mining costs means an enormous addition to the amount of ore that can be worked. Even the Minister of Defence will agree with that.

I have heard that “slight addition” so often.

The Minister does not seem to have heard it often enough. The point is, is it worth while increasing the costs, or refusing to help to reduce them, so as to start a number of small manufacturing industries in the country at the expense of a great manufacturing industry which we have practised for years, at which we are experts, and of which the material lies ready to our hands—and killing that industry to that extent?

It would be worth while to close the mining industry and start other industries.

Is the hon. member prepared to see the mines closed down on a largescale?

They are producing a record amount.

That only means that they will be exhausted a little sooner than they otherwise might be. If you look a little bit ahead, you will see that the mines are being exhausted faster than they otherwise would be.

The mines have no cause to complain at the Government.

I am not speaking for the mines, but for the country. Are you going to have millions of tons of ore unworked when they could be worked? Who is going to benefit by that?

They don’t understand it.

I would remind hon. members that a reduction of 1s. per ton in working costs would mean the mining of 36,000,000 tons of payable ore. Of the value of gold that is won 33½ per cent. is spent in wages in South Africa and 21 per cent. on South African stores. Is it the wisest policy to refrain from doing everything we can to reduce working costs for the mining industry in order to encourage the establishment of a few manufacturing industries such as the making of rock drills?

What are the mines paying more for rock drills now?

The point is whether the mines are paying more than they would have done if the duty had not been put on. I quite agree with the Minister’s policy of sane protection, but the question of its sanity or insanity depends whether it is to help us to establish ourselves more firmly on the land and maintain those industries which will enable us to establish our people more firmly on the land, or is it to help the establishment of a few factories which will draw people from the land to the towns. The Minister told us that this protective policy had led to the employment of very many more men, but is that in addition to the white industrial force, or is it a transfer of people previously on the land?

It means that the mob of out-of-works that used to come to Parliament House have now got jobs.

I think the Minister is under a delusion on that point. I now want to say a few words about the railways. The Minister of Railways has come out on the wrong side of the book on this particular occasion. He made a great effort to prove that his administration was more economical than the administration of 1923’24. I admire his courage; we are told that boldness is everything. Unfortunately, he bases his whole argument on a calculation of cost per train mile for last year which left out about £500,000 for increased depreciation payments and increased contributions to pensions fund. Why did he leave that out of account?

They are extra payments.

No, they are part of the ordinary working costs and are not payment of pension arrears. If he left them out, however, the figures would not come out as he wanted them to. I do not know how the figure of 8s. 1d. per train mile is arrived at, for, according to the general manager, the working expenditure per train mile in 1923-’24 was 8s. 4d. and in 1925-’26 8s. 5d. These figures do not agree with the Minister’s, and do not show that the expenditure is more economical than it used to be. If it were, it would be contrary to all the other indications of railway expenditure which all point to increases. Take the percentage of working expenses to earnings —1923-’24 they were 74 per cent., and in 1925-’26 77.58 per cent. That does not show an economy.

Didn’t I face a responsibility which my predecessors shirked?

But this is working expenditure which does not include arrears of pension fund payments. The following figures show the increases in railway revenue and expenditure for the past four years—

The estimates for 1927 ’28 show an increase in railway expenditure of £1,371,058 after deducting arbitrarily £450,000 for unspecified economies. The Minister gets the estimates which his department sends to him, about £1,800,000, and reduces them arbitrarily by £450,000 for unspecified economies, saying he thinks he will save that. I mentioned that to show the expenditure on the railways has been going up hand over fist. The hon. Minister has lost control of it, it has got out of hand, because he has been treating the railways, not as a matter of administration, but as a matter of politics.

Was that not what Mr. Burton did in his time?

No, no. I will tell the Minister why I accuse him of that, because at the provincial council election he sat in a room at De Aar on the day of the polling and invited the railwaymen to come and see him. When he was challenged in the House he said—

I never said I invited the railwaymen to come and see me.

The Minister did not deny it. All he said was—

The deficiency in the superannuation fund as at the 31st March, 1925, of £1,970,000 was increased by £2,453,000, consequent upon the operation of Act 24 of 1925.

He is making increased provision for it, but by the Act he introduces he has added that amount to the deficiency of the superannuation fund.

You supported that.

I will make a bargain with the Minister. He says—

Will he tell the railway voters at the next railway centre he goes to that what he has done was not only due to him, but to the Opposition who warmly supported him? “I am a politician,” is the answer to that.

Am I not making sufficient provision for the additional contributions?

But I am pointing out the need for the contribution is adding to the deficiency of the pension fund.

But you made no provision to meet it.

We are being accused of having deficits, and they now want to know why we did not have bigger deficits.

It is hard on your successor to have to make up what you failed to do.

Another thing which we hear a great deal about, particularly from the members in the south-western part of the country, is the acquisition of the New Cape Central. I think it was an excellent thing to do, but I think the Government paid an excessive price for it. They paid £1,100,000 odd, and they wrote off subsidies which they could have claimed amounting to £385,000. and they have had to spend to bring the line into proper working condition from the renewal fund £425,000. and they have spent £200,000 above that to bring it to proper working condition. I want to bring it home that the acquisition of this railway did not cost the Government £1,000,000 odd, but something over £2,000,000. I think it is all the more incumbent on us to press for the branch line statistics. It is a valuable thing to have proper statistics of the branch lines, and I would like to go further, and have ton mile statistics. I do hope the Minister will give his attention to that. He would probably say—

Have you any idea what it would cost?

If the Minister is correct in saying that the branch line statistics compilation in the accountants’ office is going to cost £12,000, then I expect he would say the compilation of ton mile statistics would cost about a million. These figures are part of the working of any properly administered railways, and we ought to have them. I want to say something about this so-called civilized labour policy. I have said before, and I say again, that I believe the Administration is right in paying a civilized wage to a man who is required to live in civilized conditions, and it is a wrong policy to introduce uncivilized labourers in order to compete against the civilized man at a wage on which he cannot live under civilized conditions. That is not what is being done here. What is being done here? First of all, it is called a civilized labour policy. It is a white labour policy.

Hear, hear; absolutely.

The railway employees are classified as Europeans on the one hand, and all others on the other hand.

That is not correct. We classify them as Europeans, coloured people and natives.

All the returns which I have seen as to employees, as to staff, are (1) Europeans, (2) non-Europeans.

Not since this Government took over.

Will the Minister deny that this class of so-called civilized labourers is composed entirely of whites?

I certainly do.

That the men who are employed under the designation of civilized labourers who get a certain wage, a very low wage, but get certain medical benefits, leave privileges, etc., consist entirely of Europeans, and that no coloured man gets these privileges?

That is not correct.

Will the Minister tell me that coloured employees of this grade get medical benefits the same as the European?

When they occupy a graded position, certainly.

I am talking about this particular grade of civilized labourers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies how many of them there are.

I am prepared to give you the figures. If they occupy a graded position, they get all the benefits.

That is the first objection I have to the present policy, and the second is that the railways are being used to a large extent as relief works. Men have been put there in numbers which are not warranted, and men who very often by temperament and training are not suitable for the work have been put there. They have been put on for political purposes in order to enable supporters of the Government to go round the country and say—

What this country wants is cheap transport.

And let the people starve.

It will make the people prosperous if you give them cheap transport.

What about the increased efficiency of those men?

What about it? I would very much like to see some statistics about it. I am very much in the dark about the increased efficiency of those people, and it seems to me, from the figures that we have been able to examine, that men have been taken on regardless of whether the needs of the railways justified their employment or not. Otherwise, I am fully in accord with the civilized man, who has got to live under civilized conditions, being paid a civilized wage. But this policy, I say, goes far beyond that, and imposes an expenditure on the railways which is opposed to the best interests of this country.

made an interjection.

I think, if the Minister acts on the lines that he has indicated, he may make a success of this policy, but in the past it has been carried to excess. The other item in the amendment deals with the extension of wage determinations outside industrial centres. What we complain about is not the working of the Conciliation Act of 1924. That Act was passed, as hon. members have told us, by the S.A.P. Government, and I trust it will not be repealed. That Act we are in full accord with. It is the administration of the Act that we complain of. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) said that what we were contending for was that agreements made by a national industrial council under this Conciliation Act should not be carried out. That is quite a misrepresentation of the position. What we complain about is that the Minister, by his own administrative act, is extending the terms of this agreement far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. The Act does not say that the Minister can extend the agreement, as an agreement, or not, as he likes; it gives him power to extend parts of it. I will just read what the Act says—

What we complain of is that the Minister, by a stroke of the pen, is extending—

Which terms would you have left out, then?

I say that to extend to the Karoo and even the Kalahari the trade union hourly rate and the 44-hour week is freak administration, not sane administration. He should have confined it to the areas where these wages and hours are suitable.

The master builders don’t agree with you.

Quite likely, because they know it makes it impossible for the farmer to employ men in building on his farm. He becomes a contractor at once if the materials are more than £400 in value, and naturally he will have to call in a contractor.

Can you produce any farmer who has been affected yet?

No, but I watched the expressions of the farmers on the other side and I heard what they said when the matter was last discussed. I gathered that some of them, if not affected, at any rate do not want to be affected. Can the Minister justify it? Is it reasonable? With every desire in the world to promote industrial councils and conciliation boards, which I think is the right way of going about wage fixation, and with every sympathy with making wages in industrial centres as high as the industry can carry, I think you have to consider that you cannot, just by a stroke of the pen, shove up arbitrarily wages beyond what the industry can reasonably meet. You cannot apply this to the country and by a stroke of the pen put in force a wage that is far higher than is accustomed to be paid, or than is expected to be received, or that is out of proportion to the economic conditions.

Is it all due rate all through?

Even the lowest rate is far in excess of what custom or the economic conditions in outlying districts require. In a matter of this kind these things must grow. You cannot justify dislocating the industrial conditions of a district or a place or a centre by imposing arbitrary wages far in excess of the conditions of work and different from what is required. I put it to the House that we are justified in calling attention to there having been a misuse of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and one that is likely to make it so unpopular as to endanger its existence. We attack the policy of the Government because we think the expenditure from revenue and public debt is in excess of the means of the country, and is not devoted to the furtherance of that policy on which our existence as a people depends. On that ground I shall support the amendment.

We have all listened with great interest to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), as we always do, but we could not help feeling that the candour of his character made his job a little difficult this evening. He had, as a loyal lieutenant, to back up his leader, and he was continually feeling, I am sure, that the attack was in the nature of a very mildly pushed assault. I have been trying to decipher from their speeches what the Opposition would do if they sat on these benches. They say you must not increase expenditure. Does the hon. member not know he and I have heard a good many budget debates—he has not heard a single budget debate when the same process was not gone through—of the Opposition accusing the Government of spending too much money, and for the rest of the session, when the estimates were under discussion, complaints being made by them because the Government did not do something which would in fact involve more expenditure. We have not apparently arrived at the position where our expenditure is going to be the same one year as another. I do not know one country where it is so. In Great Britain, leaving alone the war debt, the present expenditure is enormously greater than it was years ago, and in a growing, developing country we have to meet its requirements. The hon. member quoted, as if it is a sin on the part of the Government, that some 1,200 posts have been added to the public service. The Minister of Finance called his attention to the fact that more than half of these were additions to the post office and telegraph services. In previous budget statements the increase of post office business was adduced as striking evidence of the greater prosperity of the country. We have to record an increasing volume of business, which makes that addition necessary, as an indication, amongst other indications, that the country is far more prosperous than it was when hon. members over there handed over the seals of office. The problem of loan expenditure arising is, I agree, one affecting every one of us. But do they want us to pay for these increases out of current revenue, or, on the other hand, do they want us to give up building post offices and telephones where they are required, and not doing the thousand and one other things which the country demands in order that it shall be served with the ordinary services which a growing country requires. Whatever Government is in power, you will have to meet the demands of the public; the growing activities of the public. Look at the post office within a few hundred yards of this building—very large additions are being made there. Ought we to have said that we were not going to increase the accommodation for the general post office? Is that not proof that the business of the country is expanding; the activities of the Government must keep pace with the expansion of the country.

What about the barracks in Caledon Square?

I suppose if you have your ordnance stored at Fort Knokke and the railways require the accommodation, we must throw those stores into the sea?

You don’t put ordnance stores in dwelling houses.

Men must Jive in houses, even members of the Defence Force must live in houses.

Has the Defence Force been expanded?

These houses are taking the place of other houses we have given up. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the fact of there being a surplus was no index as to the prosperity of the country. I am not such an expert in finance as he is, but one would imagine that if a lower basis of taxation yielded a very much larger amount than it did before, that is an indication that the wealth-producing activities of the country are on the increase. He told us, however, that the real index of the condition of the country is not the Minister of Finance’s surplus, but the deficit of the Minister of Railways. He also said, “Look at the grant old times, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) produced a railway surplus in the midst of a terrible depression!” But I rather fancy that the average men would prefer times of prosperity with a small railway deficit, to times of terrible depression with the railway surplus produced by the hon. member for (Cape Town (Central). The right hon. the member for Standerton made the astonishing statement that it was notorious that slackness and inefficiency were widespread through the railway service. He was challenged to give any instance, but he did not respond to that challenge. He went on to make the most astonishing statement, namely, that he did not blame the higher officials in the least.

I blame the Minister.

The principal duty of the higher staff is to see that there is no slackness and inefficiency right through the service.

The Minister’s also.

Oh, no, the right hon. gentleman cannot get over it. He said that slackness and inefficiency were widespread through the service, and the higher ranks of officials whose business it is to see that there shall not be slackness he held to be entirely blameless. Well, the right hon. gentleman might be able to square those two statements but I am unable to do so. His outlook is exactly the same, the same old vices he has always had. If there is anything wrong, blame the lower man, blame the worker.

I blame the Minister.

He cannot do that. We are talking about an organized industrial concern, and if there is anyone on whom it depends that the work is carried out smartly and efficiently it is the higher officials of the department. The Minister may direct policy, but that does not affect the smartness and efficiency of the concern. I want to challenge hon. members there, and ask what they would do if they came into office. They have been jeering and accusing the Minister of sacrificing the interests of the country to the Government’s civilized labour policy. Must the country understand, if they come back to office, they would dismiss all those Europeans employed in these grades on the railway and do what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) did, replace them with low-wage native labour. Is that their policy? That is the only thing we can deduce from their statements, and it was a policy which resulted in the railway service seething with discontent.

It is like that now.

No, it is not, they are more contented. They feel they have in the Minister of Railways one who pays more personal attention to the requirements of the men than they had when the hon. members opposite sat in these seats. If the railwaymen or the workers of the country get tired of the Government and say they will take back the alternative Government sitting over there, let them be clear that what they are asking for is a reversion to the conditions of 1921-’24 when the ideal was deepest depression but a railway surplus, railwaymen dismissed wherever they can and their places taken by natives and, as the Minister of Finance interjected, crowds coming to the doors of Parliament asking what we are going to do for them. I know the state of affairs when we took office. Relief works all over the country.

Certainly not, times have improved.

Of course, they have improved since hon. members over there left office. Very distinctly they have improved. The measures we have taken in this country have improved the confidence with which people go about their work and embark on their enterprises and the sum total of these effects have produced the picture we have before us where you don’t see in every town of the Union relief works and nothing else. I want to allude to a few more of the matters dealt with by the hon. gentleman and his hon. colleagues, namely, the attack on the administration of the Conciliation Act. On this particular point I want to say I was the. Minister which first sanctioned the existing agreement over a large area. That is two years ago and I have not heard of a single case of any farmer being affected one iota by the existence of that agreement. I do not think any other hon. member has. It is simply a case of “bang maak." The Minister of Labour had his attention called to it, and my attention was called to it by some speeches made, I think, by hon. members opposite in the Free State on this dreadful effect of the Wage Act. I think it was the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He had got a bit mixed in the information given to him, and instead of attributing it to the right cause, he said that it was the effect of the Wage Act.

I did not.

Oh yes, you did. The right hon. gentleman’s memory is failing him a little bit. My recollection is perfectly clear. It was one of those tours that he made in order to denounce the wickedness of the Pact Government in passing this Wage Act, and he pointed to the Wage Act and how it was going to cause the ruin of the farmers. But in order to safeguard the position, as soon as our attention was called to it, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour got the Industrial Council together and insisted upon the insertion of this saving clause and these exemption clauses to meet precisely the points of apprehension of hon. members there. I do not think they really did apprehend any trouble from it, out they desired and they hoped that it would have the effect upon my hon. friends on this side of making them feel alarmed. My hon. friend made it perfectly certain that he is just as solicitous as anyone, and is going to be just as solicitous as anyone, on two things. One that the farmer is not going to be impeded, and the other that these things must be introduced and administered in such a way as not to inflict unnecessary inconvenience and trouble, inconvenience beyond what the necessities of the case require. This question of areas is not so simple as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) seems to think. There are bigger buildings than farm houses to be put in these places. Will he tell me any reason why a contractor in Cape Town, Johannesburg or Pretoria, tendering, let us say, for a big contract, a large school in one of these places, should not be equally bound to pay the ordinary regulation wages as between master builder and master builder? There is another point in connection with the hon. member’s remarks which I must say surprised me in him, because I know his views, he has very often uttered them in this House, and he is not generally given to that bandying about of schlenter coin in these matters. He talked about these men on the railways and said that they ought to be on the land, and he quoted the Railway Administration Committee’s views on that, though I do not quite know where my hon. friend in his terms of reference suggested to the departmental committee that they should suggest policy to the Government, I do not think he did. Have we not heard this for the last twenty years, when there is a man unemployed the best place for him is in the towns, then you take him to the towns and it is then said—

What this Government has done has been to tackle the problem, tackle it in the only way in which it can be tackled by saying that the European should enter into every field of employment. In the post office, in the telephones, in the public works in certain grades, and in the railways, we have set an example to the country which many employers in this country we are glad to say are following. That is the way we are going to get this settled. And we have also got them back to the land; we have done a great deal in that way, but as for the idea that you are going to have in these days, in the twentieth century, the population all on the land, and that industries must be looked upon as bad because they take people away from the land, is an idea too archaic to do justice to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I want to revert to certain remarks about the mines made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Yeoville. The whole tenor of their remarks is that the mines are suffering under our administration. The mines are doing better than ever before as far as the gold mines are concerned.

I don’t deny it.

The right hon. member for Standerton hits upon the fact that a duty was placed upon rock drill spares last year, and that that was a hardship to the mines. The Minister of Finance challenged him to mention any other item. I am not going to say anything against the controllers of the mines, but they are not usually very reticent in raising a large and healthy protest and including in it every subject of which they can complain. So I think his own shrewd native sense would show him that if he only found rock drills there was no other item which the customs had hit. Now I come do the right hon. member’s remarks about Mozambique labour. I am glad to see the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) takes the sound and national view he does on this matter. I think the right hon. member attributed to me—I am not the Prime Minister; I am only a humble Minister—the malign influence which resisted the desire to continually increase the importation of natives. There was something of the influence of the hon. member for Yeoville which was behind this letter written to them in response to a similar request in 1923. They asked you in 1922 to increase the quota, and you said—

But in July, 1923, that was not the case. This is what you wrote—

We take precisely the same view. We take the view that it is in the national interest that we shall not make the Union of South Africa a sponge sucking in the whole of the native population of Africa into this country. I know it will meet with the entire agreement of the hon. member for Yeoville that many of us, for years, have looked forward to the time as something which must inevitably come when the wealth-producing activities of this country would so expand that they would require more human hands to do the work of the country than the present native and European population of this country can supply. We have always looked upon the time, when it came, as the great turning-point in the history of South Africa, and when any other human hands were required, they should come from civilized countries, and they should not augment our already great native problem by further importation of natives. That was the feeling behind the letter of 1923. The same motives prompt us to-day to take the same attitude and to say “No.” Use your undoubted powers of brains and organization, and solve your problem within the limits of the policy we have laid down, and under that, last year was the best year the mining industry had. Was that not a vindication of our policy? This Government has a full view of the future of the industry, and have, in its administration of the Census Act, let it continue by a gradual substitution of one new area for older worked out ones. We have leased quite a number of new areas, to continue their life. I want the people of this country to realize what the policy advocated opposite is. I do not believe they would do so if they were in power, but one must interpret what they would do by what they say. They would like to import any quantity of the cheapest labour that could be obtained, in order to work out our mines as rapidly as possible. That is the logical result and conclusion of their argument. We say—

You have 130,000 alien natives on the mines to-day.

I do not think it is 130,000. There are 75,600 Portuguese natives on the gold mines.

In the Union.

In the coal mines, for some unexplained reason, I am told, the South African native will not work. I did not mean to keep the House so long, but I felt I wanted to be clear as to what the Opposition meant by their criticism. By their “little criticism” they mean the wholesale sacking of white men, and the reversal of the civilized labour policy. I am sorry that the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) is not here. I would like to apologize to him for having my hand in my pocket, and as his remarks will be in Hansard—

You might take out your hand now.

The hon. member is the only person offended. I must content myself by saying that I expressed myself in my letter as being exceedingly sorry that the officer in question had taken that course, and preferred to consult his representative to me. I must say I am entirely impenitent, and I am afraid that, under the same circumstances, I would probably do the same thing again.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) made certain statements in his speech with reference to the bringing back of people to the farms. The Minister of Defence has already dealt with that, but I have here a number of figures which so clearly contradict the statements, that I should very much like to bring them to the notice of the House. I, however, move—

I hope the motion will be withdrawn, as we cannot sacrifice a quarter-of-an-hour’s time. Other hon. members have to get in their speeches before the debate closes.

With the leave of the House I withdraw the motion. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the present Government does not take the people back to the farms, but does just the reverse, and draws them away from the farms. To that he connected the statement that the late Government did, indeed, adopt the policy of bringing people back to the farms. I want to point out that just the opposite is the case, and that this Government does, in fact, bring people back to the farms, while the former Government did not do so. I have here in the first place the figures of the Lands Department. As the House and the public know, a great improvement has taken place under the Minister of Lands with regard to Section 11—dealing with settlement on Crown and other ground. By virtue of Section 11 of the Act the former Government gave the people 20 years to repay their amounts while the present Government allows 40 years. While the late Government demanded 5 per cent. interest, the present Government only demands 4 per dent. Above everything, however, the late Government demanded one-fifth of the purchase price, while under the present Government only one-tenth of the price of the ground need be paid. What is the result? Under Section 11 only 82 people were provided with farms in 1922-’23. In 1923-’24 168, in 1924’25, but before the new budget took effect, still 168, but when the present policy was fully applied, in 1925-’26 the number of people who were taken back to the farms increased to 471, and in 1926-’27 to 532. Under the present Government, therefore, more than six times as many people are, therefore, annually taken back to the farms under Section 11 than under the South African party Government. This surely smashes the statement of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) to bits. Let us then further notice the money spent on these people. In 1923-’24 the amount spent under Section 11 was £70,575, while in 1926-’27 it was nearly £500,000. We, therefore, see that the conditions under the new Government with respect to the people returning to the farms have become seven times as favourable. Then we have the tenant farmers’ system, an institution by this Government. The effect of it is particularly favourable. There happens to be such an institution in my constituency, and I am, therefore, particularly well-informed about it. The experimental settlement at Mamagalieskraal is a decided success. People are converted into farmers with a feeling of self-reliance there, and of having got a new status, and a position of which any white person might be proud. How many people have been assisted in this way? In 1924-’25, shortly after the Act came into force, the number was already 63. In 1925-’26 the number was increased by 80, and in 1926-’27 it was again increased by 70. 213 people have been assisted in this way, people who have actually been taken out of the mud of social misery and put once more on solid ground.