as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Imprint Bill.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 23rd May.

brought up the report of the committee appointed yesterday to bring up a Bill or Bills to give effect to the resolution adopted on taxation proposals on customs duties, income tax and licence duties, submitting three Bills.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any information to give the committee regarding the question of the mail contract. We know, of course, that the present mail contract with the Union-Castle Company is running on subject to a year’s notice on either side, and negotiations took place, I understand, about 18 months ago between the Government and the company with regard to a renewal of the contract for a definite time. I think the whole community would be relieved to know that a contract with some company for a period of years had been entered into, because we all like to get our mail letters regularly. It is a great convenience to have letters delivered on a certain day of the week and for the mail to close on a definite day. It is also convenient for passengers, but more particularly for those who ship perishable produce to the other side. I do not know whether it is true, but I have heard that the Union-Castle Company are loth to lay down any new vessels until they enter into some definite contract with the Government. I hope, of course, that the Government will make good terms with the company. I am not standing here on behalf of the Union-Castle Company to advocate that it should get what it wants or even get the present terms, although I think they are quite reasonable, but I would urge the Minister to take the House into his confidence and tell us what he has done, and if nothing definite has been done what he intends to do in the future. I think the best plan would be to call for tenders and let the best tendering company get the contract, but whatever is done I think it would be much more in the public interest to have a definite contract for a definite number of years than to have the present state of uncertainty. It has been said outside—I have seen it stated in the press—that the Government has approached a shipping company in Germany with the object of entering into a contract. I do not know whether that was a contract to carry mails or to carry produce, and indeed I do not know whether the report is true. I am not saying a word against the Government getting the best contract they can from any source, but I do think the time has arrived when there ought to be a definite contract entered into. There is another point I should like to ask the Minister about, and that is I think he ought to explain to the House why he went outside of the service for the purpose of appointing a welfare officer. I happened to be connected with the post office for a long number of years, and I know quite well that there are many zealous, energetic and sympathetic officers in the department with long experience who would have made most excellent welfare officers, and I am sure if the Minister had asked the advice of the post office officials they could easily have submitted to him a number of names of men in the service who are perfectly competent to do this work. There are many that even I could name in the post office who have been taking a keen interest in the welfare of the telegraph boys and telegraph messengers and juniors in the various post offices, but evidently the experience of these men was ignored and the knowledge they have was not taken advantage of. I think the Minister must be able to make out a very strong case indeed for going outside the service in order to give the position to some supporter of his. In fact I do not know whether the officer in question is a supporter. The Minister shakes his head.

Yes, he is.

Well, I will take back that statement. Possibly that officer is not a supporter.

Yes, he is.

I do not want to speak on this matter from a party point of view, but from the point of view of the service. You have, in the post office, as able and zealous a body of men as in any part of the service. If there had been no officer in the department who had taken an interest in the juvenile members of the staff I could have understood it, but there are dozens—men of high qualifications and of long experience whose claims should have been taken into account.

I should like information from the Minister with reference to the building of the bridge at Christiana. Last year provision was made for it on the Estimates. Since then we have seen the Minister at various times and tried to get him to make a start with the building of the bridge, but the excuse was that no provision had been made for funds although the construction was approved on the Estimates. Now I want to know whether during the present session funds will be provided so that the work can be commenced immediately after the end of the session. There is an extensive and very fruitful piece of ground in the Boshof constituency on the other side of the Vaal river. The people there live ten miles and sometimes even three miles from the railway, yet they have not the privilege of taking their produce to the railway because they are cut off by the Vaal river. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) will confirm what I am saying here and will agree that the construction of the bridge ought to be immediately commenced. The ground there is excellent for agricultural purposes and when the bridge is built the people will not only be able to take their produce to the railway, but will make proper exploitation of the farms along the river possible. There are farms that are to-day not being worked at all because there is no means of marketing the produce. If the Minister cannot provide funds during this session I shall be obliged to take steps in the House myself to get the support of hon. members for the immediate construction of the bridge. The Minister must know the absolute necessity of it, and that is why I am making this appeal to him.

I move—

On a matter of policy, viz., his inclusion in Government contracts of a clause to stipulate for the payment of a minimum rate of wage for unskilled labour of 8s. a day for a day of eight hours. There are many things which one does in this life with the best intentions in the world, and I have no doubt that the Minister, in giving this order, had the best of intentions; but I would also remind him that the road to perdition is also paved with the same good intentions. Now it is extremely probable the Minister is the most unconscious person in this House as to the upheaval he has brought about in a large section of the community as the result of that one inconsiderate and hasty action. It is easy indeed to breed discontent among people who are more or less satisfied with their lot, but if you breed that discontent amongst an ignorant and a suspicious people you arouse a feeling which may take many years to allay. This I shall have very little difficulty in proving to the satisfaction of the House—what the Minister has brought about as the result of that one thoughtless, heedless, irresponsible act. I use the word “irresponsible” because anyone who lightly interferes with or arouses a feeling of unrest among a large section of the community over whom he has no future control, is doing something which is the act of an irresponsible man. It is a wrong and irresponsible thing to do to arouse any section of the community in any country to a state of frenzied unrest; but when any act of that nature is carried out in South Africa it is undoubtedly a wrong and criminal thing to do. It is futile for the Minister to argue that he is responsible only for Government contracts, and that the inclusion of a clause like that is confined solely to matters over which he has control, and that it goes no further. There cannot be any differentiation between Government and municipal contracts and between a private contract when once you interfere with the balance of labour and wages. The greater must include the less. It would be just as reasonable for the Minister to argue that having confined himself to Government contracts the rest of the community are at liberty to make any arrangements such as they are willing to do —just as reasonable as to inform me that if I pay my native servants £6 a month I expect my neighbours to get all the labour they require at a lesser sum. It is to be regretted that the Minister should have taken this precipitate action without first consulting others concerned because the people of the country were gradually attuning themselves to the fact that a gradual increase of native wages was merely a matter of time. If they had been allowed to adjust themselves to a progressive increase in wages, so would they have been able to adjust their industries trades and farming operations to that gradual increase as necessity demanded. But this insistence by the Minister of an arbitrary increase of 100 per cent. in wages in connection with Government contracts has thrown everything in the country out of gear. Not content with having done that, the Minister has attempted to justify himself by informing the natives as publicly as possibly he could that they cannot live decently on 8s. a day. Addressing the master builders at their last annual conference, he said he was satisfied that even if there were a little extra cost in carrying out this policy, the country would be prepared to face it. The natives, he said, had been forced into industry, and could not lead a decent life under 8s. a day. He added that they could not keep the native down to 3s. a day and that the natives were organizing. I do not know whether the Minister realizes what he means when he says that the natives are organizing, but I have here the most sane and the most conservative native newspaper published in this country—the “South African Outlook.” I have never read anything in it of an extreme character. Its expression of views is moderate, the interest it takes in the natives is fair, and apparently it is written by natives of the highest possible class. I should like to know whether the Minister himself has ever paid his natives 8s. a day, but I should think it is extremely doubtful. I hope he will enlighten us. The “South African Outlook” says—

It is useless putting our heads in the sand and playing the ostrich any longer. The responsibility for an upheaval of this nature should be brought home to the individual concerned, and in that connection the responsibility of the Minister stands out. Adopting the Minister’s argument that the 8s. a day scale applies only to Government contracts and to such areas as the Minister may declare I would emphasize that the natives draw no such fine distinction. All they know is that a Minister of the Crown has said that they cannot live decently under 8s. a day. So, they say, they will hold up the country and they will not work for less and this is what they are doing in Natal. I have just received from my manager this wire—

I see the Minister is grinning with that expressionless smile of his, and he seems to be delighted with his handiwork, but that smile will not long remain. Let me tell him what he has done. I was previously on the best of terms with these people and have been for nearly a quarter of a century. They have served me well, but owing to the agitators working amongst them, who have informed them that they have the whole-hearted support of the Labour party behind them, and that if they stand fast and refuse to work for a lower wage than the Minister himself has told them is the lowest rate on which they can decently live, I shall be driven from the land and it will revert to those to whom it belonged originally, meaning themselves. They look to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as the man who has informed them officially that their demand is a juss and a right one. This trouble has spread through Natal like a grass fire. I also ask the Minister when he fixed 8s. a day on what basis he arrived at that estimate. What does he know of the conditions of the natives in the country before he informed them that 8s. a day was the lowest wage upon which they could exist. Now that my own people have been swept into this turmoil let me state how they were situated. I set aside for them 2,000 acres of ground fenced in with sufficient grazing for 1.500 head of mixed stock. They own to-day, I should say, 1,000 head of stock of various kinds, and up to now were a prosperous and contented people. Quite frankly, I inform the Minister that he has done something he cannot undo, and what the solution is going to be I do not know, but there is going to be sad trouble for a large number of people. The farmers cannot pay this wage, it is absolutely impossible. I do not know if the farmers on the other side are so prosperous that they can afford to meet this obligation under the mad scheme of the Minister. The Economic Commission has stated that the income of the farmers is £8,000,000 and that only a little over £1,000,000 is taxable income. The average income of the farmer is only £165 per annum and the majority to-day are not making a profit. On top of their other troubles this has suddenly been thrust upon them. If you have no consideration for the farmer, has the Minister no consideration for the consumer? Are we going to continue piling up price on price, expenditure on expenditure, until his back breaks? What did the congress, attended by the Minister, say in regard to these suggestions, and remember these men represented the builders of South Africa, the cream of the industry. After listening to the Minister they went into discussion and they passed this resolution unanimously—

What was the evidence placed before them to justify that resolution? It is set forth in eloquent terms by Mr. F. Dey, of Pretoria, who produced the following comparative statement of work under Government control and under the existing conditions before the Minister intervened. He takes the case of Milner Park swimming bath, Johannesburg, constructed with white labour, at a contract price of £11,140. The labour came to £2,158, or a total of 19 per cent. of the contract, then compares that with Schweppes Mineral water, which contract was for £17,000, on which the unskilled native labour was employed and the labour came to £962. Another contract was in President Street worked under the old conditions of native labour. The contract was £9,000 and the wage bill £720. If you force this on the price of building in South Africa you are going to put on the consumer an increase of 19 per cent. on the value of his house and that means higher rentals or alternatively no building at all. Then the Minister informed the congress that he was not in favour of the colour bar and never had been. What did the Minister do to prevent the passing of the colour bar Act?

He voted for it.

Did he speak against it? Did he work against it? No, as the hon. member remarks, he voted for it. And yet he stands up at a public meeting and says he is against it. We know that it is the Government’s policy to employ the white against the native in this country and we know that that has been carried into effect as far as they possibly can, but, I want to ask what has been the effect of this on the native’s mind? The first impression on the native mind is this, that he sees the same kind of work which he has been accustomed to do being done now by others at a considerably increased rate of pay, and that has convinced him that all the time he has been underpaid and that to him means injustice. The next impression which he has got into his mind is that he is being pushed out of these trades and out of this work because we are afraid of him and in that respect we admit an equality between himself and ourselves as regards the character of the work which he was carrying out. My object in bringing this matter before the House is twofold, first of all, to point out the tremendous danger which awaits any Minister who takes the bit in his teeth and branches off on a line of his own, heedless and ignorant of the consequences, and, secondly, any action by a member of the Government or any speech by anybody in this House which has the effect of stirring up the native as against the European, will be fraught with the gravest danger to the interests and the people of this country.

I want to heartily support what the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) said about the bridge. I do not want to go into details because I have repeatedly spoken to the Minister about the matter and he knows what the position there is. Last year, as well as this year, deputations have repeatedly gone to the Minister to discuss the circumstances and to point out the necessity for the bridge. The Provincial Council decided to have the matter enquired into and the construction of the bridge was recommended. A large part of the Boshof district is greatly concerned in the matter. There are large grain farmers adjoining the railway who cannot make use of it because they are cut off by the Vaal River. They have a terrible struggle to cross the river by pontoon and to get their crops to the nearest station that way. I certainly hope that the Minister will make provision on the Loan Estimates this year for the building of the bridge. It is quite a few years ago since the matter was first urged. The railways have now instituted motor lorry services to meet all requirements, but so long as there is no bridge and the transport over the Vaal river has to be done by pont, the farmers cannot make proper use of those services. I certainly hope that the money will be put on the Loan Estimates this year and a commencement be made with the bridge.

I have noticed one thing about the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and that is the more important the occasion is in this House the more flippant and frivolous does he grow. Hon. members still remember his attitude last Monday, one of the most momentous occasions that ever happened in this House. I noticed when the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) was putting forward a matter of the gravest and deepest import some sneers in this House. The Minister seemed to think the hon. member was reciting a series of elaborate jokes. Surely hon. members on all sides of the House must realize that we in South Africa are living in a position of unstable equilibrium as far as the natives are concerned. I heard the sneers of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), but those sneers remind me of the sneers that came from the French aristocracy before the Revolution. The actions of the Minister may be right or they may be wrong, but criticisms of those actions must be taken seriously. It seems to me an extraordinary state of affairs to inculcate in the minds of the natives of this country that not one of them is worth less than 8s. a day. I want now to criticise the Minister for some of his other alleged misdeeds. Recently I read a very moving account of an interview between the Minister and a deputation from the Postal and Telegraph Association in which at the end of the interview—

May I smile at this? I can be flippant?

Yes.

I may smile when you do?

The Minister may smile as often as he likes as long as he does not indulge in flippant interjections as he did last Monday. I repeat that I read an account of an interview between the representatives of the Postal and Telegraph Association and the Minister, at the end of which, in lachrymose tones, he complained of their refusal to fraternize. He said they had not treated him as man to man in the way that he expected and they somewhat coldly replied that they were prepared to treat him as public servants to a Minister and that what they wanted was not fraternization, but justice. My sympathies are entirely with the Minister in that particular matter, because I realize that the one thing he does not want said of him is that, having been one of the working class himself once, now he is a Minister he has got his nose stuck in the air and does not want to meet his former friends and colleagues. I believe that attitude on his part is sincere. But let me try and tell the Minister some of the reasons why the members of the public service in the Postal Department are not as keen on fraternizing as they might be. One of the reasons is the tendency the Minister has shown on many occasions to overlook the claims, the just claims, of his own department in favour of persons from outside. He began by going outside the service for his own private secretary and appointing one of his own political henchmen at Benoni to that post. There are, of course, precedents for going outside the service for the appointment of a private secretary. Then came the second occasion when he appointed another of his political henchmen from Benoni to the post of welfare officer in the department. The crowning incident, according to my information, which has led to this refusal to fraternize is his recent action in connection with the appointment of a telephone supervisor in Cape Town. I want to put the facts as they have been put to me in order to hear the Minister’s explanation. Apparently a vacancy occurred for the post of telephone supervisor in Cape Town and the Minister appointed—I do not want to mention names—a Mr. T. to that post. Now this Mr. T. came to South Africa in 1910. He became a service inspector in 1912, a traffic inspector in 1920, he was degraded to a first class assistant in 1923, he was senior clerk in 1926, and he was given this appointment in February, 1927, and it is said that he had no technical certificates of any sort. However that may be, I have a list of nine persons in the telephone service, some of whose service goes back to 1890, many of whom have superior technical qualifications, many of whom have technical certificates, whose claims have been entirely ignored in making this appointment. I have the names and qualifications and experience of all these nine men. The first man joined the Cape service in 1897, he was appointed traffic inspector in 1918, traffic superintendent in 1921, he holds technical certificates, and has had a long experience of telephone traffic. The second man joined the Imperial service in 1890, and has had a long experience on the commercial side of telephones. So I could go on with regard to the experience and qualifications of the other men. Yet every one of these men, men of long experience and service, is passed over for the appointment of a man who, according to my information, has twice been degraded in the service.

Who is your informant?

Does the hon. member expect me to give the name of my informant? I will tell him where the information comes from. It comes from the organization of the Postal Service and when the Minister was in Opposition—and I take it he holds the same views now—he was perfectly prepared for such an organization to take up the case of any alleged improper preferment in the service.

I have no objection.

Then perhaps the hon. member for Vredefort will leave me to deal with the Minister. According to my information, Mr. T. was withdrawn from Bloemfontein in 1918 as unfitted to fill the post of inspector in the Telephone Department and, secondly, he was officially informed by the Secretary of Posts and Telegraphs in 1922 that he could not in future be granted any post of responsibility owing to his inability to administer the department’s affairs in a satisfactory manner, or words to that effect, and in 1923 he was degraded as redundant on the scale and yet for some occult reason this man is picked out and promoted over the heads of nine senior officials, most of whom have special technical certificates, and all of whom have long technical experience and technical qualifications. Does the Minister wonder that these men in the postal service refuse to fraternize and that the postal service is, I understand, absolutely seething with dissatisfaction and the feeling is held right through the service that they are not getting a square deal in matters of this sort? I want to say this quite frankly, that my experience of the Minister is that he is a fair-minded man and a fair-minded Minister and I am mentioning this candidly so that he may give a full account. I am mentioning these facts subject, of course, to the Minister’s reply to them, but this is the complaint that has been brought to me. I want to ask the Minister one question to which I would like a categorical answer, did the Postmaster-General recommend this Mr. T. to be appointed in the first instance? I know the Minister said the appointment was made by himself in consultation with the Postmaster-General. Was this Mr. T. the original nominee of the Postmaster-General, or did the Minister bring the claims of Mr. T. to the notice of the Postmaster-General, and urge him to agree to the appointment? Whatever reply the Minister gives me, I will accept. I want to put it to the Minister that he cannot go on doing these things and expect to have a contented service. He must show some consideration to the claims of his own officials. I believe that there is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction against the Minister in his own department. I do not think he wants that. [Time limit.]

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) too far. I just want to take his own figures. Some of us agree with the principle of equal pay for equal work. Even some of the members of the South African party agree with that. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) if he were here, would tell the house that he was in favour of high wages. The hon. member for Weenen is against natives getting 8s. a day, which works out at £2 4s. a week for a five and a half day week. It must not be forgotten that a man who works on a farm in any part of the world gets about one-third of what a man receives in the towns. The hon. member employs about 25 natives and for six months out of the year. He pays them £2 a month, and I want to give him credit for being an up-to date farmer. That works out at £24 a year. Then he gives them 2,000 acres of land on which they can run 1,500 head of stock. Any farm where you can run 1,500 head of cattle on 2,000 acres must be really good land. That land is worth £5 an acre, which means it is worth £10,000 if you capitalize it. If it had irrigation it would be a liability; don’t bring irrigation into it. It is therefore worth, at 6 per cent., £600 a year. That means my hon. friend is paying his boys at the rate of £5 per month only working six months out of the year. They do not work on Sunday. He gives them a home, water and fuel. These men are far better off than the man in the town earning £8 a month, who has to pay for his home, his water and his fuel. They are getting a better real wage; the hon. member for Weenen is paying them a higher real wage than the building contractor who is using them in the towns. You cannot get away from these facts. If they go into Durban they will be getting £8 a month and they will have to pay for their home, for water and for fuel, and probably other taxes too, because every location puts on another tax. So these men are getting a higher i real wage than the men in the towns, and yet my hon. friend says that the Labour party is setting the country alight. He is setting the country alight, if it comes to that. I know of no farmer in the Free State who is paying a better wage than my hon. friend. As far as the Cape is concerned, if what the “Argus” says is correct, white men are only getting £8 a month. Was it true or not true?

It is not true generally, by a very long way.

The hon. member for Weenen is wrong if he thinks we want to set the natives against the white man. He says the native is his friend. I believe him, but it is an extraordinary friend that tries to poison you, because not long ago he told the House that on three occasions a native tried to poison him. I think my hon. friend is not going about it in the right way. He is a well-meaning man, but he cannot expect us to believe that. This is just an attack on the Minister. We congratulate the Minister on what he has done, and South Africa will congratulate him before long. It is one of the most successful things ever done by any Government, this paying 8s. a day for unskilled labour, and the contractors of this country are welcoming it.

I only want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that what I was smiling at was the way in which he was trying to stand up as the champion of the native cause in this country as against the farmers. I do not want to remind him of what he did to the natives in Australia; it is not a question of wages there anymore, because he has blotted the native out entirely. I have a more important question which I want to raise, and that is the question of the bridging of the Vaal from Vereeniging to Barkly West connecting the Free State with the Transvaal. In my constituency for two years we have been clamouring on the doorstep of the Minister to try and get the nearest opening for the farmers’ markets, these markets which have been economically changed by the advent of railways and so on, and changed with regard to storage, water dams, and everything else. The position to-day, in my constituency, is this: as the result of the absence of communication between the Transvaal and the Free State farmers are not able to get their produce to the nearest market, and the question has arisen as to whether it is not feasible for the Government to spend small amounts in bridging rivers like the Vaal River by means of cement causeways instead of going in for extensive bridging schemes. We contend that where you have perennial streams like the Vaal River, it is unnecessary to go into the large expense of bridging, as the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) wants. He wants £150,000 spent on a bridge at Christiana, whereas that amount distributed between Vereeniging and Barkly West would build ten cement causeways, which would enable the farmers to get their produce across from one point to another, and reach the nearest market. We say if it is necessary to build bridges they should be of the barrage type, which have a double purpose. The farmers of this district have set an example to the rest of the farmers. If the Government will build a causeway and put up the money they will transport all the material free of cost to the spot. Here you have a case where the farmers are actually in the district, and where they are actually footing part of the bill for the experiment, which is going to be of benefit not only to the farmers in the Vredefort and Potchefstroom districts, but to the whole of the surrounding districts. For two years we have been clamouring for this. One spot, Scandanavia, is isolated, and if that section were served with a causeway they would be able to augment the delivery of the dairy produce to Potchefstroom, the nearest point on the railway, by a considerable amount. Not for their benefit alone, but for the benefit of the whole country, I want the Minister to consider whether in future in bridging the Vaal it is necessary to go in for these expensive bridges, or whether it would not be better to build these cause ways and put that bridge up as a dam and let it serve the dual purpose.

I notice that the general salaries and allowances of the post office are continually going up. Take the period from 1925 to 1928. In 1925 it was £1,710,000, and the estimate for 1928 is £2,009,000, roughly an increase of £250,000. Then if we take the telegraph and telephone salaries, in 1925 they were £205,000 and in 1928 they are £251,000. That is an increase of £46,000. I also notice that the Minister asked for an additional £18,000 on the Additional Estimates this year. The amount voted for this purpose last year was not sufficient for him. That position would be all right if we were satisfied that it was owing to increased business and business of a profitable nature, but when we turn to the Auditor-General’s report we see that one Department alone—the Agricultural Department I believe it is, spent £35,490 in seven months on telegrams alone. I also understood from a remark made by the Minister of Finance that this expenditure had been going on for another year. The Auditor-General’s report is to the 31st March, 1926, so the expenditure has been going on at the same rate until the 31st March, 1927, which means that in 19 months we have spent between £90,000 and £100,000 on the work called the Bureau of National Information. We have spent nearly £100,000 on telegrams alone on the Bureau, and it will be interesting to know what the total expenditure has been of that one effort of the Minister. What have they spent on the staff, collating and publishing these telegrams and issuing the information these telegrams contain? What is the result the country has got out of an expenditure of between £100,000 and £200,000? When the Minister found that he was exceeding his combined salary vote by £18,000—the additional estimates do not show what portion is for the telegraphic staff—when in that year alone he has been given £100,000 more for general salaries, why could he not look round his department and see where he could cut down his expenses? He was spending £5,000 a month at the behest of the Minister of Agriculture which could be cut out, and he could have saved this money. There would have been no need for additional estimates at all. I believe the only concrete evidence of the work of this particular department has been the paper, “Crops and Markets.” I must say I am no expert farmer, but other farmers will be able to tell us whether the country benefited to the extent of between £100,000 and £200,000 by that publication. I have been informed that in order to use the post office also as a bureau of information, his officials have pasted the celebrated flag in a post office. I think it was an article published in “Die Burger.” It was pasted up in the post office at Moorreesburg over the counter where you get your stamps and other things. Is the Minister going to allow that portion of the post office to be used for political information? Are we going to be allowed to paste up our flag in that portion of the post office? I think it is a most pernicious principle if the Minister uses our buildings—for which we are taxed—to propagate views which we hate. Does the Minister approve of this form of propaganda; and if he does not, will he circulate an order io say that none but official notices shall be placed in post offices?

What flag has been pasted up? I do not know how to describe it.

Hot cross-bun.

I think it was a supplement of “Die Burger.”

I think, in spite of what has been said by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), the representatives of the country districts should be thankful to the Minister for the way he is assisting our farmers, more especially as far as farmers’ telephones are concerned. We are thankful he is following up the course laid down by his predecessor, the present Minister of Labour.

Do you approve of the 1s. an hour?

That is simply a matter of linking up when living in the towns, and it has nothing to do with farmers’ telephones. At the 31st March, 1924, there were 4,520 miles of farm lines in the Union, serving 2,221 farmers. The annual development since that date has been as follows: For the year ended 31st March, 1925, the mileage of farm lines constructed has been 2,250; the number of farmers connected 1,448; and the cost of the lines, £117,606. For the year ended March 31st, 1926, the figures are, respectively, 6,599 miles, 3,197 farmers and £219,196; and for the year ended 31st March, 1927, 5,443 miles, 2,600 farmers, and £175,000, the totals being 14,292 miles, 7,245 farmers connected and £511,802. At the 31st March, 1927, there was a total of approximately 18,612 miles of farm lines in the Union, connecting 9,466 farmers, and during the last three years no less a sum than over half a million has been spent on the development of farm lines alone. In the three years the present Government have been in power, they have established more than three times as many miles of farmers’ telephones as the former Government in the 14 years of their existence, and more than three times the number of farmers have been connected than during the whole of the existence of the former Government. I think that is something upon which we should congratulate the Minister. In my own district there have been two big and valuable extensions, which tend to develop that district and other districts, too, not only as far as farmers are concerned, but as far as the welfare and life of our people are concerned. Hon. members know that people who live scores of miles away from towns have difficulty in getting a doctor, and these telephones make it much easier in time of need to get medical assistance. The great enemy of South Africa is our big distances, and the more our Minister can do away with distance, the better it is for the development of our country. In connection with this, I would like to refer to our wireless. I hope that our Minister, with his usual energy, will direct the development of wireless for farmers, according to the best means and along the proper channels. I think if we could manage to assist our farmers to get this wireless over the country, it would mean that thousands of pounds would be saved. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) spoke just now of the National Bureau of Information—a very valuable thing, but it costs too much. If wireless were developed in the right direction it would mean much easier and rapider communication. Take the division of extension of the Minister of Agriculture; for the practical experts to come into touch with our farmers costs days and days of their time, and they get into contact with comparatively few farmers after all. If they could use wireless it would not cost very much, and the efficiency would be hundreds of times greater. Another thing upon which I congratulate the Minister, as far as the Transvaal is concerned—I can speak for the Transvaal—is the replacement of native labour by white labour for the establishment of these new lines. It gives our farmers a chance of establishing their own telephone lines, and earning a few pounds to increase their scanty incomes. I think the criticism levelled against the Minister is not of much value. The figures I have given are far more valuable than anything given by hon. members opposite, and I want to thank the Minister on behalf of my constituents, and other constituencies, for all the help the Minister has given us, as far as telephones and other things are concerned.

What a blessing it is that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs cannot blush! While the information with regard to the enormous extension of telephones is interesting, it would come better if the information which the hon. member has just given had come from the hon. member who supplied that information. Will the Minister tell us why he hits appointed a new assistant postmaster-general and under-secretary at a salary of £1,170, two telephone managers, whose salaries total £1,379, a postal traffic inspector at £726, and’ two supervisors (second grade) whose salaries total £612. The appointment of a welfare officer has been very much resented, not so far as the individual himself is concerned, but because the appointment was made from outside the staff. How is this officer getting on with his work?

In spite of the protest of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), I wish to add my congratulations for the services rendered by the Minister to the farming population. For years and years the north-western districts of the Cape receive little or no consideration from the Government. What, however, surprises one most of all is that the good work of the present ministry is resented by the Opposition. I have in my hand a very important document—a circular sent out on behalf of the South African party, in which special vengeance is expressed against the Government because they had given certain facilities to the people in regard to post offices.

That is not good enough. Put the circular on the Table so that we can all see it.

I am quite prepared to put the circular on the Table. The circular is signed by an official of the party for electioneering purposes. This shows to what length people will go to try to advance their own cause, and it is suggested that facilities are being given as a special form of corruption. Objection is raised to post offices which were specially opened in certain parts.

May I see the circular?

Not now, but later on.

Read it.

I hope the Minister will not take any offence at this circular. My object in rising was not to draw attention to this negligible and detestable circular, but to one or two points on the vote. Provision is made for 150 apprentices at a cost of something like £14,000. I heartily appreciate the idea underlying the item. We ought to give further facilities to our young men, and here is an honest attempt to afford new opportunities to the rising generation. Can the Minister tell us in what way the apprentices are selected, and what their prospects are? Opportunities should be given them to rise to a position of real utility. The Minister is asking for a subsidy for civil aviation. I know nothing about aviation, but it seems inconsistent that after we have put through a Bill authorizing the Railway Department to erect a mooring mast for airships that the post office should ask for a subsidy for civil aviation. Will there be any clashing? In spite of the fact that we have received attention from the Minister in the north-western districts, we do not receive due consideration for the contributions we make to the treasury. When we see items like this for services which benefit only the cities, we feel that, although we do not begrudge the cities there must be a fair equilibrium between town and country.

At the recent postal conference in Cape Town the Minister referred in very flattering terms to the efficiency of the staff. I do not know whether the Minister was talking with his tongue in his cheek, but there is great dissatisfaction at many appointments that have been made in the public service. Last year the Minister of the Interior stated that certain persons were dismissed because they would not carry out certain instructions. In regard to one of the appointments made by the Minister of Posts, I asked whether the recommendation was confirmed by the Public Service Commission, and the Minister replied in the affirmative, but my information is that the Minister had previously made up his mind that his candidate was to be appointed. The gentleman who has received the appointment joined the service in 1910; in 1920 he was appointed traffic inspector and degraded; evidently he could not carry out his duties. He received his present appointment over the heads of nine senior men. What special qualifications had he over those of the men he superseded? The Minister, in his speech at the postal conference, expressed his personal appreciation of the cordial way in which they had worked together, adding that he was between the Public Service Commission and the Postal and Telegraph Association, and that he got it on both sides. I am inclined to think, however, that the Minister does not take things quite so easily as all that, and that when he makes up his mind to have things done he generally gets them done. With reference to the Minister’s civilized labour policy, when that was discussed on the Part Appropriation Bill the Minister rather led the House to believe that the matter was initiated by the builders.

Oh no. I take all the credit and all the blame for that myself.

You said the contractors were quite satisfied.

Oh yes, certainly.

The Minister said he had the support of the contractors. They pointed out the difficulty and were anxious that the Minister should go gradually, and that his unskilled labour policy should be applied to European labour only. The Minister pointed out that he could not initiate a scheme of that kind, because of the different conditions in the Cape and Natal. The Minister went further in his speech before the builders’ congress, in which he stated he was in favour of a shilling an hour for natives and whites, and the builders took exception to it, pointing out that the Minister was dealing only with Government work through the Public Works Department, whereas they were carrying on local work as well. They pointed out that it led to all sorts of dissatisfaction, and that it was impracticable and uneconomical. In answer to a question I put to the Minister as to the number of men he had employed since he carried out this departmental work one would have thought he would have applied this policy to his own department, but in carrying out the departmental work he increased the number of native and coloured people by 132.

What about the whites?

I am giving you your own figures with regard to native and coloured. Surely the Minister should have swept his own doorstep first. Then there is the question of whether this work is cheaper or not. Here is a special tender for the polytechnic hostel for women at Bloemfontein. Tenders were called for mixed labour and white labour, and the difference runs, on a job of £23,000, between 10 and 15 per cent. in favour of mixed labour.

For unskilled work?

Yes, for unskilled work. It is no good taking an estimate of the Public Works Department and then saying it is done cheaper. When you get the actual tenders you get the facts, and the accepted tender for the job was £22,947 for mixed labour, and for white labour £24,927. If you take the highest tender it was £28,000 odd for mixed labour, and £31,000 for white labour. There was another tender concerning the construction of a bridge which for mixed labour was £1,900, and for white labour £2,500. How the Minister can say the contractors welcomed this I cannot understand.

When were these tenders, because we have not called for tenders of this kind for two years?

In May, 1927.

Alternative tenders?

Yes.

You are wrong.

I will show them to the Minister afterwards. [Time limit.]

I want again to draw the Minister’s attention to the bridging of the Vaal River. The hon. members for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and Christiana (Mr. Moll) have made eloquent speeches, but inasmuch as one of the bridges falls in my constituency I must stir up the Minister a little about it. [No quorum.] For the whole distance from Parys to Griqualand West there is not a single bridge over the Vaal River. There are only a few pontoons which are in a very bad condition, and generally the drifts over the Vaal River in the western Transvaal are very lamentable. I want to speak more particularly about the necessity for a causeway at Scandanavia between Potchesfstroom and Vredefort. The name Scandanavia indicates what the locality stands for. Scandanavia is the peninsula of Norway and Sweden. In the old days there was an old Swede, Mr. Forsman, at Potchefstroom, who got it into his head to establish a Swedish colony in the Transvaal. In those days there was plenty of ground to choose from, and he chose Scandanavia just on the other side of the place where we want a causeway over the Vaal River. The colony did not succeed, but that was not due to the value of the ground chosen, but to the same cause as still leads to-day to the failure of settlements by uitlanders. The people were brought into the country and not first taught how to farm and to become acquainted with the conditions of the country, and, consequently, the scheme failed. The Swedes came out and their descendants are still living in the country, but nothing remained of the settlement except the pieces of an engine which they brought out to pump water from the river. The normal production of mealies in that part of the Free State is between 50,000 and 60,000 hags a year, The most suitable elevator for the people’s mealies is at Potchefstroom, because the other elevator at Rendezvous can only be reached through thick sand. It is worth while standing at the drift to see the traffic going through, and it is certainly sad to look at it, because the loads pass over with the greatest trouble. Then Potchefstroom is also the natural trading centre and market for other products of those parts. The Minister has already had more petitions about a causeway there than he has ever read. [No quorum.]

Is it not necessary that there should be more than four members of the Opposition in the House?

Scandinavia, where we ask for the bridge, is a point in a straight line between Kroonstad and Potchefstroom, and to the diggings in the western Transvaal and to Johannesburg. I understand that this will be the nearest way for passengers from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg. The people who are applying for a causeway are very modest in their demands, because they are not asking for a large bridge which will cost thousands of pounds. The causeway can be constructed at a cost of about £9,000. We maintain that a causeway will be the most effective thing there. The people only require it at certain times of the year. In the winter when the mealies have to be transported a causeway is sufficient, and in the summer when the rivers come down then the water will only prevent a passage for a few days a month. It is a great saving of money to build causeways instead of large bridges which cost between £30,000 and £40,000. It is better to build three causeways over a distance of 70 miles than one high bridge, even if traffic now and then is prevented by high water. If we had asked for a high bridge originally the Minister would have looked askance at us, but we thought that he would grant the request of a causeway because the State would then have more value for its money. We want to assist the Government in making a good experiment, and to prove the value of causeways. What is more, the Minister knows that the people in those parts are so anxious to have the causeway that they are prepared to transport all the requirements to the site gratis. Is that not generous? Is it not an offer which the Minister should immediately accept so that before his vote is completed this afternoon he will say that the causeway is granted? Have we not deserved it, seeing the people are prepared to transport all the requirements? Where has the Government ever met with such a thing? I reckon that such alacrity deserves encouragement, because people cannot expect the Government to do everything while they themselves do nothing. [Time limit.]

I also want to say a few words with reference to telephones. I have been pleading for a few years for telephonic communication from Riversdale to Vermaaklikheid and to Wyders river. Another grievance which the farmers in the neighbourhood of Riversdale have is that when they want to telephone to Cape Town they must go into the village. The people have the telephones in their houses, but cannot speak to Cape Town. They must come by motor-car, or in some other way, to the village to speak. There are farmers who live 50 miles on this side of Riversdale, and who are not able to speak, while the people in Riversdale can use the telephone to Cape Town. The farmers are very much dissatisfied about it, and wonder why they are prevented from having direct communication from their houses. I have already asked a few times whether complaints had come in to the telegraph office, when the farmers were permitted to telephone from their farms, about the line having become blocked in consequence. The postmaster told me that that was not so. It may be that the townspeople are now objecting that the line is becoming congested, but why should the townspeople have the preference? The telephone facilities are of very great importance to our people, and I think it is unfair that they have to travel 25 miles to be able to telephone, seeing the service is installed in their own houses.

I am not going to pretend to speak on behalf of any other district than my own. In regard to that, I wish to say that we have the strongest objection to the introduction of the new type of telephone machines which have been installed in substitution for the original ones that we had on our rural lines. The department has lately introduced an American type of machine which is fixed against the wall, and one has to speak into a trumpet. You cannot adjust the apparatus conveniently. A tall man has to bend down and stand in that awkward position while he uses the phone, while persons of a short stature, ladies especially, have to get on to a box or pedestal in order to reach the trumpet. If the Postmaster-General or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs needs any demonstration or further evidence as to the inconvenience of the new type, I would suggest to the Minister that he should have that type of machine installed in his office. I do not know whether there is any difference in cost as between the new and the old type.

You have not got this new type in your private house, have you? You are speaking of the public telephones?

I am referring to the rural lines in our districts, the phones we have in our private houses which have recently been introduced in substitution for the original type. This new machine is proving most inconvenient to the users of rural telephones, and farmers have asked me to approach the department in regard to the matter and suggest that if the original type of machine, which, I believe, is of Swedish make, is more expensive than this later one, they would gladly pay the difference in the cost rather than put up with the other. I hope the Minister will be able to meet this very reasonable request on the part of subscribers to the rural telephone service.

I also want to speak about bridges, and assure the Minister that it is a very important matter to us. People in the Free State and Transvaal up there are separated from each other by the Vaal river, and it is really astonishing that in our civilized age such a condition of affairs should still exist. It is wonderful that the bridges were not constructed long ago, because the necessity has existed. Year after year the necessity is pointed out, and we are disappointed every time. I do not know how long this will continue, but the necessity of a bridge is particularly felt at Klerksdorp. A deputation consisting of Freestaters and people from the Transvaal pointed out the necessity of the bridge a few years ago to a commission which was making inquiries. The commission regarded the matter as so urgent that they recommended the building of the bridge. Year after year, however, the recommendation is disregarded, and we farmers are suffering astonishing damage in the meanwhile, especially on the Free State side. I just want to point out to the Minister that Klerksdorp is, with one exception, the best market for stock in the Union. The Freestaters on the opposite side of the river sell their stock to Klerksdorp. Now it often happens in summer that a farmer has booked his cattle for a sale on Thursday, the river comes down, and the stock cannot be brought to Klerksdorp unless they swim across. Then there is no hospital and no doctor on the Free State side, and when the river is in flood great delay is caused, and the doctors have to catch a train when it happens to pass, and then on the other side do the rest of the journey by motor. The inconvenience is very great. Klerksdorp also has the largest maize co-operative society in the Union, and there are many members of the society on the opposite side of the river. If a bridge is built, all this inconvenience will be done away with. I know that the Minister is sympathetically inclined about the bridge, but year after year we have to listen to the statement that it is not possible this year. I hope that a serious attempt will now be made to provide the western Transvaal with the necessary bridges.

I want to ask the Minister for some information with regard to certain points. I see there is an item of £8,000 down, “subsidy for civil aviation.” It is common knowledge that negotiations have been in progress between the Minister and the company which has recently been formed and with which the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) is connected. I do not know whether it is fair to ask the Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a statement. Then I want again to draw the attention of the Minister to the state of the post office at Johannesburg. We saw recently the plans of the new railway station, and I am sure the heart of my hon. friend in front was delighted when he saw the plans. But the position at the post office is a really deplorable one. The building was put up in the republican days, and it looks like it. It is certainly an eyesore. My hon. friend says an extra storey was put up. It was, 20 years ago, but that has nothing to do with the public conveniences on the ground floor. The position of the Johannesburg post office to-day is admitted to be one of the worst in the Union. One of the other points I want to mention is in regard to the long distance telephones. Will the Minister tell us whether the lines between Johannesburg and Cape Town and Durban and Johannesburg are used to a large extent by the public? The charges seem to be almost prohibitive, and I think the Minister should take into consideration a reduction of the charges. The Minister knows that when a company or municipality decides to run a tramway, they have a sort of flat rate, otherwise it does not go. I am wondering whether his telephone charges to-day between Cape Town and Johannesburg are in exact proportion to the length of the telephone line, or whether they have been cut down, and whether he would not improve his business by cutting the telephone charges down to a maximum of 10s. for three minutes instead of the present charge, which I believe is in the region of a pound.

No, 15s. 3d.

Yes, 15s. 3d. The railways in their fares do that. Then I have a suggestion to make in regard to telegrams. Very often it has been my experience that I have wanted to send a man a telegram and have a reply sent to me. I have not known the length of the reply, and I have paid the ordinary 1s. 3d. for 12 words. When the reply has arrived it has probably been a 3s. or 4s. telegram. I do not know whether it has ever been tried in other parts of the world, but I would suggest to the Minister that he should initiate a system of “reply collect” telegrams. That is, a sender who wants a reply can make a deposit and then the recipient of the telegram can be told he can reply to any length he likes, up to 50 or 100 words, say. If there is any balance, that can be returned to the sender of the telegram. I am sure it would make for convenience, and would save unnecessary expense. I want to voice once more the plea that the Minister should consider whether he cannot reduce the rate of telephone charges for call offices. This call charge of 3d. in large municipalities is entirely unwarranted. I do not believe his working costs can possibly justify that figure. Durban has been able to work for years with its own municipal telephones on a 1d. basis. Why cannot we have penny telephones here? It would do an enormous amount to popularize the telephone, and to help the public to fraternize with the Minister, even if his own officials find some difficulty in doing so.

A large section do it now.

Yes, the section that want jobs. I can quite understand that.

I am talking of the general public.

Then a change, long overdue, is to come back to the 1s. telegram. This extra 3d. is a source of irritation and it is absolutely unnecessary. If we would bring it down to 1s. again, the revenue would not suffer, and I believe business would increase. I would like the Minister to find out what they charge for telegrams in England and Australia. I am certain that few countries charge as much as 1s. 3d. for 12 words, and make you pay for the address as well. It would be a most popular innovation if the Minister would go back to the pre-war rate of 1s. And remember, the telegraph traffic must be kept up. We have been spending all this money on lines and so forth, and if you charge too much it may be displaced by telephones. I want to voice the opinion, as I did last year, that the Posts and Telegraphs Department of the Union is one of which we can be proud. The service we get from the telephone and other branches is remarkably efficient. My experience in Johannesburg and Cape Town of postal matters, and so on, is that it is a remarkably efficient department, and one of which we all, as South Africans, can be proud.

I am glad that the Government has done much in the interests of the farmers by the extension of farm telephones, because we see that 2,700 farmers were given telephonic communication last year. We appreciate it very much but I want to point out to the Minister that the charges for long distances are too high. It costs 5s. 6d. for three minutes from Cape Town to Loxton and 11s. for six minutes. It is really too bad to have to pay 11s. for a six minutes’ conversation. I quite agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in asking for a reduction of the long distance tariff. I cannot see why it cannot be reduced by half because if that were done I am sure that it would mean more revenue. When the railway rates were very high people went in more for motor transport, but when those rates came down they used the railway more and it accordingly paid again. I do not ask for a reduction for short distances and I do not agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he says that the 3d. call is too dear. I hope, however, that the Minister will make an experiment of lowering the rates for long distances. From Cape Town to Loxton it could be brought down from 5s. to 2s. 6d. for a conversation of three minutes. If the Minister makes the experiment then he will be convinced that he will get more revenue from the lower rates because there are few people now who use long distance phones owing to the rates being so high. I understand that the revenue of the department is larger than the Estimates, and it is therefore right to ask for this reduction. I want to invite the Minister’s attention to the necessity for better public buildings at Prieska. The Minister has visited the place and knows the necessity. I am glad that his department promised to enquire into the posts and I hope that next year the buildings will be erected because the need is great.

I understand that the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) took the view that this subsidy was not necessary.

I want fair consideration for the country people.

Whatever the hon. member’s view was I feel that that subsidy, which has been on the estimates for two years and has not yet been paid out, will in future be taken up. We should pursue a policy of trying to establish civil aviation and support any company that is prepared to take it up and accept the subsidy. The Air Board has been doing work for some considerable time in collecting information and statistics in regard to aviation in the rest of the world. While we have every opportunity of appreciating the work of the board and of its secretary in this country, in Canada the secretary told me that of all boards which communicated with them in reciprocal work, the man who gave the most information, unique information, and who had the most intimate knowledge of aviation was the secretary of the Air Board of South Africa. It is a tribute one should pay to his work. The Civil Air Board is working hard, and it is not through any fault of the Government or lack of desire on their part to support civil aviation that there is no company here. We hope before long that there will be, and that we shall get a reply. I know that the expenditure has been criticized adversely but it is unjust, and those who know the actual work know that that criticism is unjust. I therefore take the opportunity of paying my tribute to the work of the Air Board and its secretary.

I should like to say a few words in connection with bridges over the Vaal river connecting the Free State and the Transvaal. It is an acknowledged fact that where the Railway Administration is building railways we require bridges over the Vaal river. When one takes the map, you find extended parts of the Free State which are without communication, where the farmers have to battle with very great difficulties, because they not only have to go by bad roads to the nearest railway station, but to the other side of the Vaal river. The lack of bridges, however, makes it practically impossible for them to take their produce to the nearest railway station in the Transvaal, where there are hard roads. One of the bridges over the Vaal which the Government should build first of all is at Bloemhof. We know that it was put on the estimates for 1924, but, unfortunately, a change in the Department of Irrigation took place, and the new Minister of Irrigation put a stop to it, because the irrigation scheme at Kromellenboog, which the department was thinking about, banked up the water for 10 feet above the proposed Bloemhof bridge. It is very clear to me that neither this Government, nor any other Government in the future, will ever dare to undertake that scheme, because, if I am rightly informed, it will cost between £10,000,000 and £15,000,000. What Government will take it upon itself to spend such a large sum of money on an irrigation scheme? I think the Minister himself feels that a bridge over the Vaal river is extremely necessary there. If it is improbable that the irrigation scheme will ever be taken in hand, then this bridge can be built. It was once on the estimates, because the Government was convinced of the necessity of bridging the river there. The public hope that the bridge will be built, because their only railway connection is at Bloemhof. There is a hard road from Hoopstad to Bloemhof, but the river cuts off the traffic. About 50 miles higher up, in another difficult part of the country, a bridge is required at Commando Drift. The people have already sent in petitions asking for it, and the Minister promised to take it into favourable consideration. I hope that an amount will be placed on the estimates for it. Sixty or 70 miles further on there is another centre, just opposite Bothaville, where the people are cut off from railway communication. They live on the banks of the Vaal river, and as soon as they cross it there is a hard road and easy railway communication. I hope that if the Minister goes through all the requests for bridges connecting the various provinces, he will see that the bridges I have mentioned are absolutely necessary.

I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on the necessity for a reduction of the telegraph charges to 1s. for 12 words, and I think the Minister will act wisely in making this reduction. I understand that there is about £26,000 on the estimates for the extension of telephone lines in the Cape Province. That is undoubtedly a very small sum if we think of what a large area has to be provided for. It seems to me the other parts of the Union are better treated than we are, and I think the amount is altogether too small. Although I am grateful to the Minister for the telephone lines my district has got, I want to point out to him that there are still at least 100 people and a large number of miles which could be served by the telephone. I want to ask the Minister to listen to our requests in this connection. The greatest complaint is that the erection of the lines costs £3 10s. per mile as constructed by the postal administration. That amount is too high, and if it can be reduced, then I am certain there will be more demand throughout the whole Union. I was told that £3 10s. was the least it could be done for, but I am not satisfied, and hope that it will be reduced, so that there may be greater extension. Swellendam a few years ago had the honour of being visited by the Minister of Public Works, and we then drew his attention to the deplorable state of the magistrate’s house and of the court building and gaoler’s house. He then promised to give his attention to the matter, but so far nothing has been done. I feel certain that the revenue from my district is such to-day that we could be better treated. The gaoler has to live in three rooms with his wife and five children, and it is surely against the principles of the Labour party for such a thing to take place. It is a scandal, and it is high time for something to be done.

A certain amount of dissatisfaction exists in the Free State, particularly at Geneva and Verkeerdevlei, regarding the erection of farmers’ telephones. The complaint mainly is that the erection of these lines goes by special favour. At the latter place 12 farmers applied last February for telephones, but although their request has not been acceded to, two other places in the neighbourhood, where people asked for telephones long after they did, and one as recently as a month ago, are now having lines constructed. With regard to the Geneva application, the Minister, when previously questioned on the subject in the House, made a reply which seemed very plausible, but the way in which the Kroonstad district has been canvassed for applications for telephones seemed very, very questionable. Some of the most prominent farmers applied for telephones last year, and although they have renewed their request again and again, they have obtained only promises from the department. I wish the Minister to go into the matter again.

I propose deferring my compliments to the Minister until next year, and I hope it will be my privilege then to congratulate him on having his annual report out in time for members to see while they are discussing his vote. Unfortunately, he is one of the numerous band of Ministerial defaulters in this respect. I hope, when the Minister replies, he will not follow the bad example of the Minister of the Interior, who flourished a pamphlet alleged to be a report of his department, which he knew was not in the hands of hon. members, and is not in the hands of hon. members yet. I hope next year to be able to congratulate him, not only on that, but to express my thanks to him for dealing more adequately with the telephone requirements in the Border districts and in my own constituency. I do not go so far as the last hon. member in saying that telephone lines go by favour. I think it is just forgetfulness with regard to my district. Possibly it may be to a large extent my own fault, because I have not been insistent enough. I relied upon the Minister to attend to their wants, but I promise not to refrain in that way again. The annual report is an important matter. Every member is anxious to know how the experiment of the penny postage has panned out. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) voiced a desire to have shilling telegrams, and the only information we get is in the Auditor-General’s report, where we find the cost of dealing with telegrams was no less than 1s. 6d. each. If that represents the facts to-day, there is not much hope of bringing about the desired change. We want this matter investigated, and as the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) suggested, perhaps a greater traffic will result in a less loss on the transaction. I see, also, the cost of dealing with telephone calls is twopence, and the public is charged threepence. It is necessary to have the report before us before we can discuss these questions intelligently. I want to follow up the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller); that is, to have important mails carried by air. We have boasted rightly that the air mail experiment of two years ago was a 100 per cent. success. It did not pay financially, and probably would not do so for a year or two. If the Minister refers to the Australian service, he will find in 1925 the air mail covered 270,000 miles without a single fatality, and with only one minor accident. If I remember correctly, there are four main air lines for the conveyance of mail, and they were a success from every point of view. It is true, as has been said, that transportation is civilization, and the needs of modern times demand it should be as quick and certain as possible. To-day in Australia a person can hire an aeroplane as he would a taxi, to go anywhere, and people avail themselves of that service. There is no country in the world where the climatic conditions are so favourable for aeroplanes, and no country has produced a better type of airman and pilots. I impress upon the Minister to give earnest consideration to this demand for telephones in the Border district.

When my time expired I was dealing with the Minister’s reply to my question of last April, when he said the increased number of white artisans since he increased the department’s work is 186, apprentices 16 and native and coloured 122. If the Minister was keen on this extension of the white labour policy, why did he not set a good example himself and employ white labour where he has absolute control? He is doing the work departmentally and there is no question of cost, and he has an opportunity of showing whether or not he is making a success of the work. The Minister was good enough to give the difference in the cost of two tenders together with the difference in the work actually carried out. As was pointed out at the congress, conditions were modified some what, so that the terms submitted were not an accurate example.

Only in one case; a minor case of scaffolding.

When this question of civilized labour was discussed in the House last, the Minister was understood to say he had the support of the builders. I should" like the Minister, in his reply, to make it perfectly clear that whilst the builders were anxious to support the Minister’s idea of increased employment of white skilled labour, yet at the same time they pointed out the difficulties they were under and only agreed to carry it out until the congress sat last April, when the question would be discussed and concrete cases could be submitted to the Minister. That was done and the Minister spent two hours with them and they pointed out the difficulties. I hope, also, the Minister will make it clear that whilst they were prepared to support him they were anxious this work should not be extended to natives, but should be confined to white labour alone.

I would ask the Minister if he has gone carefully into the action of his department with regard to circulation of lottery advertisements. It is a serious question because the churches have decided we shall have no lotteries, nothing in the shape of gambling outside the stock exchange and race horses—

And farming.

Yes, the farmer, who faces all his chances; to whom I take off my hat. This department is busy circulating by the thousand letters and inducements to the people to send their money out of this country. I would like to say to the department that it would be far better and more in accordance with the views of the churches, to assist them in their great moral crusade to stop people from gambling. But the department distributes these circulars, and carries on the service for the sake of the small revenue which it gets. Is it right that this department should assist people to take money out of the country. Lotteries in our own country I advocate to stop large sums from going out in this way? The most audacious swindles are being carried on, and the Minister sits there and smiles like the villain of the piece. I recently put some questions as to what the responsibility of the department was. I was told that they never opened letters, that indeed they have not the power to do so, and that investigation of lottery literature and letters is in the hands of the C.I.D. I prosecuted further inquiries, and I found that, although thousands and thousands of these lottery appeals are constantly going through the post only 49 such communications had been discovered in 1926. The hon. gentleman is apparently content that the C.I.D. should have only 49 discoveries, out of these thousands of letters and circulars. The C.I.D. would far rather do a lot of trapping for our diamond mining friends, a lot of trapping for our gold mining friends, and a lot of trapping for the big liquor interests, but when it comes to stopping money from going out of the country, where are these smart detectives? Kimberley, the home of the trapping system, is now in such a state of mutual suspicion and distrust that if another name were wanted for hell we might call it “Kimberley.” I ask the Minister to take up this matter and put an end to using the department for a totally wrong purpose, and so make his peace with the churches. We shall want their goodwill badly in two years’ time, and if we can prove to the churches how good this government has been in putting a stop to outside lotteries how much stronger our position will be!

I want to have a heart-to-heart chat with the Minister on a matter, not criticising his department, but giving him a bit of friendly advice, and that is the sooner he can fix up the mail contract the better, but in fixing up the mail contract I want him to have some regard for the people who live in South Africa. You know we have got rather swollen heads in this country, but we are very small potatoes” really, and we have very few rich men living in South Africa. The point of my argument is that we go no quicker to England than we did by mail steamer 20 or 30 years ago, and yet we are paying to-day almost double the passage money for the same journey. It is everybody’s wish to go and visit Europe as often as they possibly can, and I think it should be a point for the Minister to keep in mind that whatever shipping company and I hope it will be British—has the contract for the mail, he should see that some arrangement is made in regard to the passenger fares charged to people in this country. Everything else has come down, except the fares that we have to pay the Union-Castle Company for carrying us to Europe.

And the price of newspapers.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to something in my own constituency. I think he will remember that a deputation went to see him some time ago about a telephone to Mooiplaats. We saw the former Minister of Posts about the question, but we got no further. I would remind him of that half promise about getting a telephone there. The people there are far away from a police station, they cannot get any connection whatever, and I do sincerely trust that the Minister will consider this question and give us a telephone as soon as possible at Mooiplaats. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has spoken about dissatisfaction in the service. One of the staff wrote to me the other day saying that they were very well satisfied, and that they were very grateful for the way that their representations were received by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I think this is rather a different tune from the one that we heard from the hon. member for Pretoria (East). From what I have heard, I think that as a whole, the posts and telegraph service are very well satisfied. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to something that the Auditor-General remarks on at page 270 of his report. Dealing with “extra remuneration” he makes this comment—

I think that £33,500 is a tremendous sum to spend on overtime on Sundays and public holidays. I think there must be a mistake somewhere. It may be that in the big cities they are working a great deal of overtime, but it seems to me that £33,500 is an enormous sum to pay for Sunday and public holiday work. The Auditor-General also calls attention to the following case—

Would it not be to the advantage of the department to have one or two more clerks instead of having all that overtime, because there is a special rate that you must pay for overtime? I think more men should be appointed.

It is not a question of the men; it is more a question of the arrival of the mails on Sundays. You cannot stop Sunday trains altogether, although you have stopped them in the Free State.

I think the Minister should take this matter into consideration and see what could be done to effect a change. The member of Cape Town (Central) may be right with regard to Cape Town but what with regard to Pretoria and Johannesburg where on Sunday there is hardly any mail. The Auditor-General states—

I know what overtime means. It is not good for the men themselves and it is not good for the service. I think the Minister should take this into serious consideration and see that some change is made.

I want to tell the Minister that there is a serious position of affairs in my constituency. The position to-day is, by his 1s. hour policy for natives, that he is paralyzing work on the farms. The natives say—

I have 200,000 natives in my constituency.

How many have a vote?

Not one of them. Every Sunday you find the roads crowded with natives going to these meetings, where agents and secretaries of the I.C.U. harangue them. The natives are required to pay 3s. down for a ticket, and 3s. a month, and women pay 2s. 6d. in each case. They are told that the owners of the farms cannot compel them to work, and in time they will receive all that land for themselves. That is the condition of things, not only in my constituency, but in the bordering one. At a meeting in Greytown last Sunday they collected £74 from the natives in half-crowns. Then you see the leaders of the I.C.U. driving about the country in new motor-cars as the result of these collections. The farmers in my district have only a limited time in which to strip wattle bark. The natives are demanding this 1s. an hour, and the wattle growers cannot pay such an unreasonable demand. I wonder if the Minister has ever employed a native. He cannot have done so. Why on earth did he start this business that is creating all this trouble? If he has ever employed a native, I suppose he did not pay him more than 25s. a month. I appeal to my brother farmers on the other side, and I ask them what are they doing in this matter? I had hoped up to yesterday that things were settling down and going on all right, but I have a letter here. I dare not read it to the House, it is so serious. When I see that silly, inane laugh of the Minister, I feel sorry at his ignorance.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

Yes, I want to speak with moderation, but I feel the gravity of the position. I have gone through this business before, when we had the native rebellion in 1906. It cost the country a million. I hope the Government will take note of what I am saying, because the position is a very serious one indeed. The people in the towns in my constituency have the greatest trouble to get natives to work for them, because all these boys demand the impossible wage started by the Minister. Agents are going round telling them to stick to it, and they are bound to win.

Earlier in the afternoon the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) told us there was great contentment among the natives until the Minister came along with his pernicious doctrine, and the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) now tells us about the native rebellion, which cost us more money than all the mistakes of the Government are likely to do. Every person who is well disposed towards South Africa, and who wants to see the white population advancing, must thank the Minister for the policy he has initiated and for the way he is pursuing it.

You are absolutely mad; you don’t know what you are talking about.

The moment the natives want more wages than they have had in the past, the friendship of the members of the S.A. party for the natives vanishes at once. Their whole complaint is that as the result of the policy of the Minister, the native is asking for more wages. I value this policy for this reason; because, for the first time, it is possible for white people to get employment in avenues which in the past have been closed to them. The principle we should pursue, and the principle which the Minister is pursuing, is to make conditions in South Africa such that it will not be necessary for us to continue with legislation on the lines of the colour bar. We are not keen on the colour bar.

Why did you pass it?

So long as at the behest of hon. members like the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) you pay wages to white men according to a standard on which natives alone can live, so long must you have protection for the white population. The real policy to be pursued, both in the interests of whites and natives, is to pay wages in accordance with standards on which white men can live. I believe that when the results of the Minister’s experiment are known, it will be found that very many white people have had an opportunity in life given to them which was denied to them until this policy was tried. Whenever cheap labour has been tried, whether in South Africa or in America, it has always been shown that cheap labour must lower production; but whenever a man is paid on a reasonable standard, then production has gone up, and not only has the worker benefited, but also the employer has benefited.

What do you pay your natives?

I am not a farmer, like the hon. member.

Answer.

My hon. friend always preaches and never practises, because his only alternative is to exploit the native. By raising the standard of the natives, you will create large and important markets for the farming population. I hope the Minister will not pay any attention to the selfish appeals which have been made to him. We have to look at the question, not from the point of view of those who pretend to be the friend of the native, and who do so so long as it pays to exploit them.

I want to thank and congratulate the Minister on what he has done for the farming population about farm telephones. The farming population is sympathetically treated by this Government. While there were only about 4,000 miles of farm telephones when this Government came into power, that was increased in 1925 to 6,670 miles, and the number of farmers then served was brought up to 3,669; in 1925-’26 the mileage was increased to 13.369, and the number of farmers served to 6,866. In 1926-’27 there was an increase to 18,812 miles and 9,466 farmers served a total increase of 12,042 miles since 1925, with 5,797 farms connected up. This means a great deal to the farmers, because if anything assists a farmer to go ahead it is the telephone. The farmers who live far from the towns get into immediate touch with the town and the outside world, and they can ascertain the market prices of produce and livestock. I myself am possibly also indebted to the Minister for the few lines that I got in my constituency. The Minister possibly thinks that I got too much, but inasmuch as that part of the country had been so terribly neglected, I think that we have not yet got enough. I want especially to urge the building of the line Muiskraal to Welgevonden. It is only a distance of 20 to 25 miles, and the line will serve 800 to 1,000 people. This part belongs to the district of Riversdale, but is ire my constituency. If the people in Riversdale then burn their veld without thinking that the water on the other side will be dried up, and that the people on the other side of the mountains will suffer damage they will at least be able to ring up the police to arrest the offenders. Then I want to urge the Minister to consult more with the Department of Railways to see if he cannot arrange for small central telephones to be erected at the halts. If that is done at the small stations and halts, and the stations can be put into communication with the post office, and then the usual 3d. slots provided in the halts, then the public in the neighbourhood of the halts can make use of the telephones. This will bring whole areas into communication with the towns.

I would like to deal with the speech the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) made just now. I do not think there is anybody in this House who does not wish to see the condition of the native improved, not only in the towns but on the farms also. If we pay low wages it is because of the economic conditions prevailing. Everybody would like to see high wages if possible. The attitude of the Labour party on this point is entirely illogical. The Labour party are agitating here for the employers of labour to pay higher wages to the native, but only two years ago the Labour party themselves were responsible for the introduction of the colour bar Bill, which has placed the natives in a position in which they are unable to earn the higher wages which the hon. member is urging they are entitled to. The views expressed are so contradictory that farmers can assume only one thing, and that is that the Labour party are using the natives for their own ends. Anybody who knows the internal conditions of the country knows that farmers cannot pay these higher wages. We take exception to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs suggesting that natives should be paid 8s. a day throughout the country. He may say he is not responsible for this agitation, but those who live in the country know that natives are now asking for 8s. a day. Why do they fix upon that amount and not upon 7s. or 9s. a day? It is because the responsible Minister has stated that they should be earning this 8s. a day. It is because of that that the I.C.U. people are taking the words from the Minister’s mouth and preaching 8s. a day. This insidious gospel is spreading to those districts where there are natives who are satisfied with what they are getting to-day. Everybody who lives on a farm knows that the native who remains on a farm is infinitely better off, happier and more contented than the native who goes into the industrial world and earns a higher wage there. The people who preach this gospel should know the condition of this country. They should cease to preach this gospel here, because every word in this House, although it may not be true, is used by the I.C.U. people; they say: “That is what a member of Parliament says; “and it causes more trouble amongst the natives than anything else. A native picks up a blue book and says: “This is my Bible.” Hon. members on the cross benches ought to be very careful when they deal with native conditions of which they know nothing. If I were on the Labour benches I would rather refrain from inflaming native passions if I did not know what the conditions were in the country. In this matter we and the party on the other side stand in the same position. It is hon. members on the cross benches who differ; they should leave this matter alone; and if they did not preach this gospel we would have more peace in this country. I always have a nasty taste in my mouth when these matters are discussed, and often wild statements made, in this House. I think the members for Natal are wrong in their statement that this Government is responsible for the claims the natives are making for the farms there. The Native Affairs Commission is responsible, perhaps indirectly or innocently. At any rate, after the commission had left my district the natives there made a similar claim, so we cannot blame the Labour members for that. Coming to local topics, I may state that recently the railway was extended from Imvani to St. Marks at a cost of £130,000. The traders in the vicinity have tried to obtain telephonic communication with rail head, and have asked that the same facilities be afforded them as are given to farmers. The cost of telephonic connection for these traders is estimated at £1,000, but I am told that these telephones cannot now be given to the traders. It seems unfair that traders should not have the same facilities as those enjoyed by the farmers. These trading stations are really the centres of farming operations carried on by native peasants. Even although traders may not obtain telephones at the same low rate as that enjoyed by the farmers, whose telephones are said to be installed on a nonpaying basis, surely some solution might be found of the present impasse. Now I wish to say a word to the Free State members. We have heard an agitation for the construction of bridges in the Free State. This reminds me of the days when I was in the Cape Provincial Council ten years ago. In the Cape we have divisional councils which deal with these things I thought bridges came under the provincial councils.

The request is for a bridge over the Vaal River.

Of course, with large bridges of that nature the position is different. Natal, the Free State and Transvaal should have divisional councils which build their own roads and bridges, and the sooner that system is extended the better. In the Transkei causeways are constructed and paid for by the Native General Council, and this should be an example to the other provinces.

I am rather confused as to what exactly the Opposition wants. We hear them preaching at one time that the interests of the town and country are identical, and at another time that things that apply to the country do not apply to the town. The real issue has been evaded this afternoon. Nobody has got down to the problem as to how labour is to be absorbed to the best advantage of the community. The Minister has attempted, in good faith, to find a solution. Surely they cannot attack the Minister for the attempt he has made with the best of intentions. When a member criticises the Minister, and in the following sentence says the Minister is sitting there with an inane grin, that does not impress us with his good faith.

I asked the hon. member who said that to withdraw it, so the hon. member must not repeat it.

I heard that remark used ten minutes ago. I have a deep respect for hon. members, but a deeper respect for honourable gentlemen, but that respect is not often called into use. The issue has been confused. The real problem which confronts all those utilizing labour is how much it is worth and what return can be obtained through using it. The whole intention of the criticism has been to prove that labour can only be paid for at rates which are in advance of any standard of living by those engaged in the work. If present wages are to be trusted, the labouring population has been committed in perpetuity to a wage which represents the native standard of living. The ordinary industries are not going to increase at the same rate as our population, and so we must try to raise the standard of living of those engaged in semi-skilled work. The Minister’s scale of 1s. an hour was for a certain class of labour which does not affect the farming industry. It is the semi-skilled class The first thing that strikes one coming to South Africa from more densely populated countries is the very uneconomical class of unskilled labour used in the building trade here, and that has a great deal to do with the cost of building. There is a danger that the semi-skilled labourer will trench on the field of skilled labourer. His outlook is that of the unskilled labourer as far as remuneration is concerned, and consequently he helps to bring down the wages of the skilled workman. This session the House has endeavoured to secure a legitimate field of activity for people qualified in certain professions. I put it to the House that the country is not going to progress or maintain its level of prosperity or its standard of civilization if you are going to depress the standard of living of the semi-skilled labourers or artisan class. Supply and demand will always determine the price at which labour is obtainable. If the labour is sufficient for requirements then the law of supply and demand will regulate the labour you obtain. If the labourer thinks the amount offered is not sufficient to maintain the standard of living to which he aspires, he will withhold his labour. What are you going to do to maintain that labourer? The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) said that, because things were repeated by members of the I.C.U., the Labour party must be careful what they say.

I didn’t say that. I said they were repeating what the Minister said himself.

Because the Minister of any member of the cross benches, or any member of this House, says anything which can be turned to account by the leaders of native opinion, because we know they are going to quote them to their advantage, or to the disadvantage of the Europeans, must we refrain from saying it?

Yes, certainly. If it is to the country’s disadvantage.

If it does irreparable damage to the country, certainly.

I cannot follow that line of argument, and if we had to refrain from expressing our opinion, I would obliterate myself from any part in public life. It seems to be presumed by members of the Opposition, and perhaps, also, by members of the Government side, that we on the cross benches know nothing about native affairs. Surely we have a right to voice our opinions on these matters, and I ask hon. members to give our opinions as much weight as we give to theirs. We do not view these questions from the same angle.

Do you pay your natives 1s. an hour,

I have never been an employer. I do not belong to that class of European who says we are dependent on the native for our existence. I am a worker. Members of the Opposition are voicing the views of people who are in every way an aristocracy.

Don’t flatter us.

There is not the slightest doubt hon. members are voicing the views of the aristocracy. [Time limit.]

I propose to deal with some of the matters that would have been raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), who is usually known as the champion of the public services. I want to deal with the recent appointment of a telephone manager and the appointment of a welfare officer. About the middle of last year the Minister decided to create a new post, that of welfare officer, and to appoint Mr. Foley. This welfare officer works in the interests of the staff, and it is to be regretted the Minister did not consult the association or, better still, the post office departmental committee. That is a sore point. The committee is supposed to be on friendly terms with the Minister, and they were not consulted in regard to this. A large number in the postal service welcome the appointment, although others are against the principle of the appointment. Personally, I am strongly in favour of such officers, because I feel they can do a great deal to remove friction in all branches of the public service. The service organizations, however, resent the manner in which the appointment was made, without reference to them. Then there is the question of the telephone manager. You have in the post office a Promotion Board.

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

Before dinner I was dealing with one or two points raised by the Postal and Telegraph Association. One of the points of the association was the unsatisfactory way in which the telephone manager was appointed in Cape Town. I have a letter which imputes some reasons why they think the appointment was irregular. This letter states—

Whatever the reasons were for making the appointment, it would have been advisable, for the sake of the good relationships between the Administration and the staff, that this appointment should have been referred to the organization. I know the Minister usually makes it a practice to do that, but in this particular case I think the organization had a right to say that it was not given that consideration which should have been shown towards it in connection with this very important appointment. I have a note on this same question of promotions which further exemplifies the need for the greatest possible care being taken in connection with these appointments. This is a concrete case which has been handed to me. The communication reads—

This is a concrete case which I bring to the notice of the Minister, and I hope the Minister will deal with it in his reply.

There is a bit of human nature even in a Labour Minister.

Yes. I know. That is why we venture on a friendly criticism of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, because we know he is very human. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister if he can give us the reasons why certain communities here are charged lower rates for telephone service than other communities. For instance, I understand that in certain towns here they charge the same rate for extra calls that we have to pay, namely, 1½d. per call, but they are allowed 5 per cent. discount if the number of calls is 200 a month or over up to 400 a month, and they are allowed 10 per cent. off their account if the number of calls is 400 or more a month. I would like the Minister to give us some idea of the reasons why he differentiates between two places. I would ask the Minister—I put my question for this reason—whether he is not prepared to grant the same terms to Cape Town as he grants to certain other towns? The point I want to make is this: I want to ask the Minister to reduce our charges io the same rates as other cities are getting. Two I know of are Port Elizabeth and Pietermaritzburg. I do not know whether there are any others, but I have a comparison between Cape Town and those two towns.

I think those are the only two.

I should like to ask him whether he will reduce our rates to the rates he charges in those two areas, because there does not seem any justification for charging one city a rate 10 per cent. more than another city. I particularly emphasize this, because I feel that when, if ever, we get the annual report for the year ending 31st March, 1926—it is only 14 months in arrear—it will show that there is a profit on the telephone service of about £27,000. I make that statement because I think he made it himself 12 months ago. If he has got £27,000, there is no reason for charging Cape Town 10 per cent. more than other cities in the Union. It seems to me an injustice. I should also like again to refer to the injustice of the zone system where you have coastal towns. The position is this, that in up-country towns the zone system is fair. There is a certain circle from the centre of the town in which the telephone service is either free or a single-call system, but when you come to a coastal town like Port Elizabeth or Cape Town, half your zone is in the middle of the ocean. The Minister has a telephone exchange practically on the beach in Cape Town, and he says—

But half his circle is out in the Atlantic. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the people of Cape Town have only got about half the area under a single system that an inland town has. For instance, a man in Cape Town telephoning across the street to Wynberg is charged two calls simply because of this zone principle that somebody evolved, and they will not see reason and alter it. I suggest to the Minister the way in which it could be altered is this: stick to your zone system, but when you come to the sea, an extension of your circle must be given in order to give these people the same territory as an inland town. As regards the telephone charges, what I particularly want to urge on the Minister is that the same favourable rates which he allows at Port Elizabeth and Pietermaritzburg should also be allowed to Cape Town and other cities which do not get them.

I have no grievance or threat to hold up to the Minister, but I want to raise the question of the relief given to certain pensioners who were retrenched in 1908. The position is that in 1908, when a considerable amount of retrenchment was going on, there were a certain number in the Postal and Telegraph Department who were put on pension if they happened to reach the age of 50 that year. They were put on pension at very short notice and on very short allowances. I understand these people feel the pinch to a very great extent, and they have really been put in a far worse position than anyone else practically who has been put on pension in the service. In every other case where an office has been abolished, the person is put on the basis of a ten years’ allowance, but these people were put on pension and allowance on the basis of one year and six. The result is that people who were officers of the department, but who did not happen to be 50 that year and were able to serve for a little longer, are in an infinitely better position owing to their bit of luck, because they got the full allowance of 10 years added to their service, whereas some of these people are living in some cases on a comparatively small pittance. I hope the Minister will take this into account, because it is the fair thing to do. While I do not advocate unnecessary increases of expenditure, I do think this is one of those cases of hardship and legitimate grievance which the Minister might look into. I have had one or two really pathetic letters about the position, and I do hope the Government may be able to do something for them.

I brought to the notice of the Minister last year the condition of the post office at Oranje in my constituency. I think the Minister and the department are well acquainted with conditions there. It is a small corrugated iron building, very cold in winter and frightfully warm in summer. The official there, a lady, is decidedly suffering in her health. I certainly trust that provision will be made on the Estimates this year for that post office. We notice in connection with the extension of farm telephones that applications are coming in for additional telephones from all sides. This proves that the farmers have already learned what a good thing it is to be in touch with the world. I am thankful for what the Minister has already done and associate myself with all the members who have congratulated the Government on the great advance which has taken place in the short time since its coming into office. There are, however, two lines in my constituency which I still wish to very strongly urge. I went to the department and learned that it was impossible to construct them at present, but I hope it will soon be done. The one is up along the Rhenoster river. There is a cheese factory there and we want to encourage factories, besides the area is thickly populated. Such a factory will of course badly need a telephone. The other is between Edenville and Kopjes, I think the name of the place is Winkelplaas. There is a shop there and it is a centre where the farmers meet. I certainly hope that these two lines will soon be constructed if possible still this year.

There are a few matters I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. The first is the mail contract, which means a great deal to those who export perishable products, and to fruit producers in particular. Fruit production has gone ahead very much in the country, but to-day our fruit is not taken away expeditiously from the docks; it is held up. Fruit growers consider that until you fix up a mail contract we cannot expect an improvement of the position. The Minister may say we have a mail contract. I know we have the contract terminated in 1922 and was extended to 1924 with a certain subsidy. I hope the Minister will banish from his mind all these ideas of State shipping and carrying our own mails in our own vessels and that he will enter into a mail contract which will be of advantage and profit to all the shippers of produce and more particularly perishable produce. It seems to me that to-day the mails are being carried at the expense of shippers of perishable products, because in 1922 the contract was extended, and the only thing altered was the subsidy, which was slightly increased. If the subsidy was adequate in 1922 it certainly cannot be adequate to-day when you have had this enormous increase in mail matters and more particularly in the parcel post. I hope the Minister will pay an adequate subsidy for the carriage of the mails and thus do good business for the exporters of perishable products. I also wish to refer to the agricultural post, which has been a means for fruit growers to send their fruit all over the country. Within the last two years they have been troubled a good deal by the introduction of certain regulations. One is that your packages of fruit must now be packed into air-tight mail bags. It is no use giving the advantage of the agricultural post if you are going to put these packages into air-tight mail bags. The fruit will perish under such conditions. I have the same complaint to make this year. It is damaged when it gets to the other side through being put in airtight bags, and the agricultural post becomes useless. Then I want to refer to the telephone facilities in this House. I refer only to the trunk lines. You cannot make proper use of the trunk line calls here. If you go to some neighbouring office or to some call office and drop threepence in the slot it is ever so much better than the provision made here. Here you are asked for how many minutes it will be. You have to pay, say, for three minutes beforehand if it is for three minutes. We do not mind that, but in a trunk call you do not know when you will get hold of the person on the other side. If you do not get your answer early you have to have a second call and wait perhaps half-an-hour in a draughty corridor. There ought to be a better arrangement made. Give us the ordinary facilities we have in an ordinary call office, as in Adderley Street—not worse facilities than the public have outside. Then there is another matter to which I would like to draw attention, and that is with regard to the public offices at Worcester. The public and the municipality there are very anxious that we should have better public offices there than we have at present. The public of Worcester has given a very valuable site free to the department. So far nothing has been done on it. We want the Minister to proceed with the work, but when the Minister goes on with it what does he intend doing? Does he intend to carry out the work departmentally, or by contract? Is he going to lay down the condition that the unskilled work must be paid at the rate of 1s. an hour? If he does not do so, why does he do so in one part of the country and not in another? That condition is one of those that ought never to have been laid down. You had to-day about 1,000 unemployed coming to knock at the doors of the House. Can you find them employment at 1s. per hour or 8s. per day? Are those who work on Government contracts always to be preferred to those employed by private persons? If the country as a whole cannot pay these wages, do not do it on public works and with the taxpayers’ money. I do hope the Minister will think seriously over this. He is putting in many men’s minds the idea that you can pay these wages when this rate can never be paid by a poor country. [Time limit.]

We have been listening the whole afternoon to complaints and the lamentations of Jeremiah, and Kroonstad also is not without complaints. It is known that the constituency for the largest part of last year’s concession was not represented in the House and it is consequently to be understood that the interests of the farmers and the public suffered in consequence. The farmers and the public insist on more telephone extension. It must be remembered that Kroonstad is a very important district, as shown by the fact that during the financial year 1924-’25 it paid £3,000 more income tax than any country district in the Union. The Minister of Railways and Harbours also knows that more than 1½ million of mealie bags are already on the way there. The farmers there are anxious to know how the market stands, and therefore they want to have the telephone installed. 18 months or two years ago applications were made to the department for more telephonic extension to the farms, and I myself saw the Postmaster-General about the matter. He admitted receiving the applications, but none of them have been complied with yet. I ask the Minister to give his serious attention to the matter. In the circumstances in which business is being done to-day the telephone plays a very important part in a farmer’s affairs. If the Minister cannot this year grant the wishes of Kroonstad in this connection then I want to ask him to come and visit Kroonstad and meet the public personally there so that he will become acquainted with their wishes and with the necessity of complying with them.

There are two items of expenditure about which I would like to ask the Minister. On page 161, under incidental expenses, you find Compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, £1,000, whereas the vote last year was only £200. Then, the Minister as asking £2,000. losses by fire, accidents, default, etc., whereas last year it was £1,000. I hope this does not mean any reflection by the Minister on his department. With regard to the provision for workmen’s compensation, does it mean that he is anticipating carelessness? These two items do not look at all well. Then I would like to ask the Minister what is he going to do with the public offices at Port Elizabeth? They are all jumbled up together. Every magistrate and judge who comes on circuit complain bitterly. I think the Minister went over the whole thing himself when he was there, and it would be some satisfaction to us if we could hear what he has decided to do. We know we have his sympathy. We will be glad if something is done.

I wish to raise a matter in connection with certain officers and certain very hard cases. I take one typical example, of a man who was retrenched by the previous Government in 1920 at the age of 36. He had nothing against him and he has been in the service for about 20 years, and had always given satisfaction. On the plea of “retrenchment” he was retrenched. He was taken on again, after two months, as an unestablished postmaster. All these four or five years he has been this in a small town in my district. To give one instance, for leave purposes he gets as much as his messengers. His whole position is insecure. Some time ago he took his case before the divisional controller at Bloemfontein, who recommended that he should be put on the established staff again, but it was turned down by the Postmaster-General, who informed him that as soon as this post office was worked up to a certain standard it would be necessary to appoint a permanent postmaster, and this man’s services would be no longer required. There was some talk of dispensing with his services, and a petition was at once signed by a few hundred farmers and inhabitants that his services should be retained, which were considered most satisfactory. There are more cases like this. This case has come under my particular notice, and I hope the Minister will see his way clear to do justice to these men, because they were retrenched through no fault of their own. Their services are necessary to the department, as they were taken on again.

Is he getting a pension?

Yes, a small pension. Then I wish to raise another point which has been raised by some other hon. members—in connection with farm telephones. I understand the department made a canvass of certain districts and granted certain farm telephones. Now, further facilities are stopped. I do not think that is the right way of going about the matter. In Clocolan farmers are going in for more intensive farming. The department has given them a fair amount of farm telephones, but they are told that no more are to be given for at least one year or eighteen months.

I have no reason for bespattering the Minister with complaints, or praising him for what he has done, but I have two requests to make. The first is with reference to the new post office at East London, now nearing completion. Is it intended to instal an automatic telephone exchange there? I have had a good deal of experience of the automatic telephone exchange at Port Elizabeth. Sometimes there are grotesque experiences. An inoffensive person like myself is occasionally called upon to supply wines and spirits, and I have often had orders for building material. That, however, is not the fault of the system, but of the amateur operator. I have reason to believe that the automatic system gives very general satisfaction. Surely it is not too late to make provision for the installation of such a system at the East London post office. I am glad to follow the lead set by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), regarding certain postmasters of long standing, who were required 19 years ago to go on pension. I know of one who, because he was a few days short of attaining 50 years, suffered a great deal by loss of pension. I hope this matter will receive the sympathetic regard of the authorities.

I do not agree that the Minister’s salary should be reduced by even the single sovereign proposed by the member for Weenen, but I will take advantage of the motion in order to ascertain what the Minister intends to do about the representations made to him regarding the removal of a clause in the conditions of contract under the Public Works Department in Natal. Clause 14 reads—

This is a relic of the old days of the Natal Government, of which the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) was a member. In the carrying out of a recent contract at Pietermaritzburg—the building of large additions to Grey’s Hospital—a skilled coloured plumber, who is a member of his trade union and receives the standard rate of pay, was ordered off the job under this regulation. The members of the Labour party do not stand for a colour bar of that description. When a man is getting the standard rate of wages it matters not to us what the colour of his skin may be. All we insist on is that he should be a competent workman, able to earn the standard rate of wages.

What about the colour bar Act?

Representations have been made on several occasions by the union to which the main belongs, both to the present Minister and his predecessor, but nothing whatsoever was done in the matter. It is surely not desirable to perpetuate conditions laid down by members of the old Natal Government, who set up a colour bar against the skilled coloured man.

There were no skilled coloured men in those day.

I also wish to say a word or two in connection with the shilling-an-hour payment for unskilled workmen on public works contracts. When one has a good case, it is a pity it should be spoiled by exaggeration —that is exactly what the South African party members from Natal are doing.

If the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) interrupts again I shall have to deal with him.

On a point of order, am I not entitled to interject?

Not to continue to interject.

Reasonably so?

No.

Not reasonably?

The hon. member will resume his seat.

On a point of order, sir, I understand that your ruling is that no member has a right to interject? I would respectfully call your attention to the fact that the rules of this House are founded on those of the House of Commons, and I think you will find that there reasonable interjections are allowed.

It is for me to say whether an interjection is reasonable or not.

I bow to your ruling, sir. It is my privilege to ask you whether you mean to stand by your ruling that a member cannot interject, and that it is within your province to call any member to order if you think he has interjected too often, and whether the ordinary reasonable interjections which have taken place during the life of this Parliament and in the old Cape Parliament are not to be allowed under your ruling.

As I have said, it is for me to judge whether an interjection is reasonable or unreasonable. May I draw hon. members’ attention to Standing Rules and Orders No. 63. [S.O. read.]

I understand you to say, sir, that no member shall interrupt. The point I wanted to raise, and I do so in the general interest, is that if it is your ruling that no member may interject, it will be utterly impossible to carry on business as it has been carried on in the past. Will it be possible, without transgressing the rules, to interject in the ordinary course of debate, because an interjection, particularly when we are in Committee of Supply, often brings out statements which hon. members are very anxious to hear and which the speaker himself is anxious to make.

I have allowed pretty frequent interruptions, although I could have stopped them all. I feel that a pertinent interjection now and then can do no harm, but continuous interruption I must stop.

That I acknowledge.

On a point of order, sir, I do not for a moment question your ruling, for no-one is more anxious to support your authority than I am. The point is this, the hon. member for Maritzburg North (Mr. Strachan) is bringing charges against the hon. member for Umvoti and myself which are unfounded, and my hon. friend repudiated them. I maintain he had a right to repudiate them promptly.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to have his say later on.

If it is your privilege, sir, to rule whether interjections are unreasonable or not, you cannot go very far wrong when dealing with the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). It is quite unnecessary for the Natal S.A.P. members to exaggerate the case in connection with the regulations issued by the Minister with respect to paying 1s. an hour for unskilled work on building contracts under the Public Works. Conditions in Natal are very different from what they are in other parts of South Africa. The bulk of the unskilled work on building operations in Natal is done entirely by natives. The Federation of Master Builders put the position clearly in a memorandum. It was pointed out that in Natal there was no indigent white class of unskilled labourers to draw upon, and the only alternative was to employ kaffirs at 1s. an hour, which would mean the disorganization of the remaining sections of the building trade and would also affect other industries. Representations along these lines were made to the Minister in Pietermaritzburg and the Minister modified his regulations. For hon. members to associate native unrest in Natal with this public work regulation is sheer nonsense, and when the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) drags in the native rebellion in Natal in 1906 in connection with the present-day payment of a reasonable wage to unskilled labour, words fail me to express what I think. The native rebellion in Natal in 1906 was caused by the old Natal Government’s poll tax of £1 per head. For goodness sake let us state facts.

If there is one member in this House more than another always quoting “Fair play is bonny play” it is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Strachan) (North) and what he is saying this evening with his tongue in his cheek is pure unadulterated insincerity and imagination.

The hon. member should not use such an expression “with his tongue in his cheek.”

Well, I withdraw his tongue from his cheek. I cannot understand him making such a statement because he knows it is incorrect. His own Minister has brought this clause into operation and then he tries to put the blame on the late S.A. party Government. We never had a colour bar in the S.A. party Government to this extent and when he said it was our policy not to employ coloured men the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) knows that half the coloured men who usually vote for him were employed by the late Natal Government and are pensioners to day. The hon. member says I attributed the Natal rebellion in 1906 as due to the conditions to-day which exist with regard to wages. I did nothing of the sort. The native in Natal is living in locations, in grass huts, running as much stock as he likes and he pays no rent and he only pays £1 personal tax and 10s. hut tax. When they come out to work as unskilled labourers and they leave their families in the locations and they are only useful in the crudest work on the farm, and for the Minister to say these natives cannot live on less than 8s. a day is causing this disruption in the country. The wage the farmer can afford to pay is being paid now and the wages amongst the natives have risen 100 per cent. in the last five years. Every farmer I know of is anxious to get some European labour on the farm. All my mealie land is ploughed by European labour using tractors only and that is the condition of other farmers as well, and for the Minister to say the natives cannot live decently under 8s. a day shows how ignorant the Minister is and also the members of the cross-benches who support him.

Hon. members have had a good opportunity of presenting their point of view.

We have not finished yet.

Hon. members are like the Tennysonian brook, ready to go on for ever. Since two o’clock this afternoon they have been firing questions at me on every topic under the sun appertaining to postal matters and they have been well and truly threshed out by the hon. member.

How many parish pump telephones have been asked for by your side?

Not many. I do express my appreciation for the way hon. members have addressed their questions to me. If they find it necessary to return to the attack later I hope it will be in the same friendly spirit I shall deal very gently with my hon. friends and as far as I can I will deal with them in chronological order. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) brought to my notice the question of the mail contract and wanted to know when the Government was going to fix up the mail contract. He was supported by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) in saying it was of great importance for the country for various reasons. The Government has been considering this question of the mail contract. Some time ago my hon. friend here was in office and together with the Minister of Railways and Harbours was in negotiation with the Union-Castle Company but they could not come to an agreement. It was not because the Union Government representatives were not long-suffering and kind but because the conditions laid down by the company were much too onerous.

That was only your opinion.

I said in the opinion of the representatives of the Government, and it is an opinion which I hold and I am prepared to re-endorse. I would never subscribe to the conditions the Union-Castle company laid down. Since then another conflicting matter has entered into the question. We are in the midst of a freight war, and I put it to the hon. member for Dundee that he would not be ready to prejudice the position if we entered into a contract on the side of the Union Castle company in this fight which is taking place. I would like to say to the hon. member for Worcester, and for the edification of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I have not abandoned my love for a State fleet. The very point brought in the original argument by the hon. member for Dundee points the moral. He said—

He explained that to-day we are paying twice as much for our passenger fares to and from England as we were paying before, and I am satisfied we shall always be at the mercy of a shipping company whilst they control the entire shipping of the southern hemisphere. I am astonished at the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), because he generally inquires into the implications of every fact he mentions, yet he shuts his eyes to these stupendous facts that the Union-Castle company controls the entire southern hemisphere shipping. It is a fact. Every reasonable being in South Africa knows it to be a fact, and will subscribe to its being a fact.

Do you know how big the southern hemisphere is? That means Australia as well.

Yes, exactly. And it is proved by the decision of the Australian Government to sell their State fleet to the combine.

What has that got to do with the Union-Castle Company?

It is a fact, and there is no doubt the whole of the country will come to the view sooner or later that we shall have no control over our trans-ocean transport until we ourselves take a hand in the actual transport.

The Lord forbid.

Now is not the time for us to conclude arrangements with (either the Union-Castle Company or any other company to carry our mails. In the meantime the arrangements are satisfactory. The hon. member for Worcester sees danger to the perishable products of South Africa. Let me tell him there is no such danger. He must conceive that the Government are as anxious to see the perishable goods of South Africa have as good a chance as any other person. We are watching that. Any arrangements we are entering into will certainly have this object, amongst other things, the safe transport of our perishable products to European and other markets where required. Then the hon. member raised the point—the hon. member for Dundee supported by other hon. members of the appointment of the welfare officer, it’s method and my autocracy in deciding off my own bat who it should be, and where he should come from. It has all been dealt with before, and it seems extraordinary that it should be thought fit to bring it up again. I thought it had been disposed of. Is it required I should retrace my footsteps and immediately discharge the welfare officer because the method of engagement of appointment does not suit every other person? Is that the desire? Surely that is not desired.

It is the appointment itself they don’t like.

That may be. What is the purpose otherwise, except it may be that they have so little adverse criticism that they can bring to bear that they have to trot out the same old thing? Even assuming that I am wrong, the fact remains that I know of no one in the service at the present day who is dissatisfied with the individual who has been appointed. The man has fulfilled all the requirements and he has earned not only the respect but the affection almost of every individual with whom he has come in contact. A feeling of confidence has been engendered and is growing very rapidly in the whole service in the individual who is welfare officer, despite the method of my appointment.

I would like to have Mr. Whitaker’s opinion on that point.

Yes, and he is honest enough and honourable enough to say the same thing. Their objection is to me, not to the welfare officer. I have had a terrific onslaught made on me by various of our country representatives here in regard to bridges. It started with my hon. friend the member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) in an eloquent speech, and, if possible more eloquently supported by members on these benches. It is perfectly true that every one of these members has on many occasions pressed me to bring before the Government the necessity for bridge communications, inter-provincial, over the Vaal. The Government has given its most serious consideration to the question and, realising the parlous position of the people in those districts, and the impossibility of practically getting their products to the market, the Government has decided to recommend to the favourable consideration of the House a certain bridge programme. May I give the programme in anticipation so as to save any further interpellations on the question? The bridges they have decided to erect over the Vaal are: one at Christiana, one at Commando drift, one at Klerksdorp, one at Robert’s Drift, one at Scandinavia Drift and one at Villiers. I now come to the piece de resistance of the debate. May I make this suggestion that, in view of one’s domestic appointments, it should in future be the rule of the House that any reductions should be made in the Minister’s salary at least twelve months before the actual time, though I must say that the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has tempered the wind to the shorn lamb. He has been content to ask me to disgorge £1. The objection of this reduction was to call attention to the heinous offence that I have committed in asking that the State shall recognize that no man of a civilized standard in its employ or engaged on work for the State shall work for less than a miserable wage of eight shillings a day. I say that advisedly. My hon. friends over there and especially the hon. member for Weenen, surely were not serious when they were arguing that this was having a most pernicious effect on the natives of the country. The hon. member has had a wire.

I have had 20.

The hon. member has had a wire and another man had a letter. The wire and the letter seemed to have arrived simultaneously. I wish to investigate this matter. I shall want to know from the Postmaster-General how it is that a wire and a letter from the same locality arrived here on the same day and about the same hour. I am going to find out why it is that a wire takes so long to come from Weenen to Cape Town on this all-important subject. This subject has been before the country for many months, so much so that we have large jobs in progress in the big centres of population under the shilling an hour agreement. Yet nobody knew anything at all about it. I want to know whether my hon. friends here on the farms have seen these signs of unrest, whether they have had refusals on the part of their natives working on their farms to turn out unless they receive eight shillings a day.

Have you read this morning’s “Burger.”

It is part of the imagination of the highly imaginative member for Weenen, backed up the rather imaginative and exuberant member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). They know quite well that this is not going to apply to the country at all and that it will have no effect on the country. My hon. friend the member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) instanced to this House that representations were made to me with regard to even a large centre, namely Pietermaritzburg. Because of the peculiar circumstances, when representations were made to me, I realized their difficulties and at once modified the position. Everywhere in the country it has been modified in order to fit the peculiar circumstances that we find. I take every case on its merits. Hon. members opposite, several of them, particularly the hon. member for Umvoti, said that the people of South Africa will have to pay. Will have to pay what? Presumably pay more than they are paying to-day. Is that what the hon. member means? Underlying that is the suggest that it is going to cost the country more to pay a shilling an hour for unskilled labour on our public buildings. Do the hon. members subscribe to that

Have the tenders shown it?

My hon. friend knows more about tenders than I do. That was on an occasion when under the South African Party Government they were feeling their way—and I want to give them every credit for it—in the direction of trying to make more openings for the employment of whites in this country. They instituted the system of calling for alternative tenders, namely, tenders for all native unskilled labour, and tenders for all white unskilled labour. The case the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) quoted was that of two of these tenders under that system, and has nothing whatever to do with the system I have introduced. But it is very significant—and it was my discovery of this sort of thing that encouraged me to proceed in the direction of this policy—that we had such wide variations between the tenders as to show that the payment made for un skilled labour had not that much to do with the ultimate cost of the work. These very tenders that the hon. member quoted from reflect that very state of affairs, that some of the tenders with native labour were higher than some of the tenders with white labour for the same job.

That proves nothing. You always find that.

Of course it proves nothing, except this, that it does not necessarily follow that native labour is cheaper than white. That is the point. Arising out of that and also from my experience elsewhere, I came to the conclusion that if we had civilized labour altogether for our public buildings, it would not make an iota of difference to the price of the job.

Ordinary common sense will tell you different.

Why did Pietermaritzburg ask you not to apply that principle in Pietermaritzburg?

Because it is precisely what the South African party are asking me for tonight, that you shall not pay the pure raw native 8s. a day.

Then why pay that?

Because I have laid down the policy that the payment shall be for work and shall not be for colour.

What about the colour bar now?

Whatever gibes the hon. members may throw up about colour bars or anything else, the fact remains that that is the policy laid down, and if the hon. member for Pretoria (East) were here he would be honest enough to bear me out that when the representatives of the master builders came to see me—and I pay my need of appreciation to those gentlemen; they did their best to meet me—but they did ask me to seriously consider confining this price to white men only. I said “No, it would not be fair; it is not right for a Government which is controlling a population so mixed as ours, to discriminate as between one and the other.” They put this point, that there might be numbers of employers who had natives working for then who had become so skilled in their unskilled work that they would prefer to keep them on and pay them 8s. rather than take on whites. I said: “In that case you are paying for the work done; what have you to worry about?”

Why did not that apply to Pietermaritzburg?

Because it is the raw native you are complaining of in Pietermaritzburg.

You don’t realise that building is a sheltered trade?

I don’t understand the hon. member’s interjection. Always at the back of hon. members’ minds and the minds of all who look at the matter superficially, is the thought that you have to employ precisely as many civilized men, men trained to the work, as you would have to employ raw kaffirs. It is not so. That is a fallacy.

We know that perfectly well.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it has been demonstrated most conclusively that in the short six or eight months we have had it in operation, that it is working out completely as I anticipated.

Why can’t it work out in Pietermaritzburg?

Because they cannot get the civilized labour there. I would like to say this to my hon. friend: we have to credit the statements of people sometimes, and these are the representations made to me by the master builders of Pietermaritzburg. If it is not true then we shall revert to the original position. What I am trying to establish is that payment has got to be for work and not for colour.

That is what we have been telling you for years.

I think it is no more than fair or just that hon. members should allow the Minister to proceed.

They dare not.

Now, as for the interjections and statements made by hon. members on that side, that the consumer or rather the public, will have to pay, meaning I presume, that they will have to pay the added cost, I have just had two tenders in on this year’s programme. The estimates have not been based upon the shilling an hour labour; the estimates upon which tenders have been called for these buildings are based upon native labour. It is a provision for the Valkenburg Mental Hospital, alterations to wards. The estimates are based on the native labour basis. I won’t mention names. One tenderer is £3,861, the second is £4,012. They are two separate persons.

They are not parallel.

Then I will read the names. The estimate was £4,400 for native labour, and the tenderers are upon 1s. an hour. The third is £4,420. [Interruption], Our tendering is so close that on four tenders of £11,000 we were £100 out on the accumulated tenders. Our estimate is very good indeed. The second one is £2,025. The first tender was for £1,600, the second for £1,705, the third for £1,884, the fourth for £1,898, and the fifth for £1,918. Take the historic case I have already quoted in the House. We asked Messrs. Church and Maclachlan, of Kimberley, who had a £38,000 job, and Mr. Church has told me himself that he is doing his work cheaper than he ever did with natives, and he has many years’ experience. He is one of the best builders in the country. Take Mr. James Thompson, who is building the post office at East London, and making a splendid job of it. The estimate on native labour was £97,000, and the tender by Mr. Thompson at 1s. an hour for unskilled labour was £97,000. But you have to show a much wider discrepancy than that before you can substantiate the charge that this policy is costing more. Our experience is invariably this—that the estimates are lived right up to when the tenders come along, and my colleague, the Minister of Finance will bear me out.

Does Mr. Thompson give alternative tenders?

No, the estimate was based on native labour. My hon. friend is getting away from it. All the experience as entertained and expressed by Mr. Church is that so far the work done with his civilized labour would have cost three times as much if he had it done with native labour. That is his own statement—not mine. It has been volunteered. The point is this, do you want to give the white man—

Or the civilized man—

Or the civilized man a chance. My hon. friend is welcome to what he can get out of that. Hitherto, as the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) has rightly put it, unskilled labour in this country has been based on the lowest wage we can pay—that of the native— and therefore it was impossible for whites to get a living out of that. It is well known, as the Minister of Labour has said, that 8 per cent. of the population of the countries of the world is in that condition that under present circumstances it can never rise above pick and shovel labour. They never had the chance. We also have our 8 per cent. here, and we have made inquiries on the subject. We have the human product of the soil drifting off the soil, and in this their own country they cry for a living, and I am giving them an opportunity to get a living. Why was this cry never raised about paying the native 8s. a day when the dock labourers had been earning 8s. a day for several years past? Why was this cry not raised by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson)? Did that not cause a revolution in Natal on my hon. friend’s (Maj. Richards) farm? Why did that not raise an agitation? For years—it has been increased during my regime—the construction of telephone lines has been carried out by white labour on the countryside.

That costs more.

Now I am going to pin my hon. friend. I have in my possession, but I have not got it here, a report by the chief engineer of the post office and all the divisional engineers, to the effect that they are doing this work cheaper, and it is of better quality than when it was done by natives. All this is done by men of the soil, and we are giving them the opportunity of doing something towards their upkeep. I am not going to depart from the policy of the sons of South Africa doing something towards building up their country. It is always well for hon. members to be sure of their facts. I do not know what effect this may have had on the hon. member’s “revolution at Weenen.” I am informed that the Premier Mine pays from 8s. to 18s. a day for its lashing boys, and on the gold mines numerous natives are earning up to £25 a month.

Skilled work.

Not skilled work, but done in the mine. What effect did this have on the “revolution at Weenen”? Weenen and Umvoti are the only localities that apparently knows anything about that demand about the 8s. a day. It certainly has not percolated to our part of the country. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) raised the same point as the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) with regard to the welfare officer, so I will not touch on that, but he and several other members raised the point of the appointment of a telephone manager. I appeal to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). There were circumstances under which even he put his foot down, and if he had a man who merited the post and he thought he was the best man, he would appoint him.

I never claimed to be such a democrat as you are.

We find ourselves on common ground. He has gone east and I west and we have met on the other side. I am responsible in the ultimate resort for the efficient running of the postal and telegraph service. I admit that the officials under me know more about it than I do but I am certainly not going to be a cypher or a rubber stamp, and there are occasions when all Ministers decide that they will will go against this or that body.

Like the electrification of the railways.

Which cost the country millions of pounds.

Absolute nonsense.

The hon. member was the deciding factor against the opinions and reports from all and sundry.

Absolutely untrue.

Then I beg your pardon. The hon. member ultimately decided and in this instance I decided. I make no apologies for I am satisfied that I have appointed the best man for the post, but that does not say that the others are not good. After all he is only carrying out the same sort of work that he has been doing for the last three years—the control of the traffic in the Western Province—but he had not the responsibility then and he has it now. As the result of his two years’ work he has obtained the unqualified praise of the present acting postmaster-general. Surely hon. members would not accuse me of appointing a man just for the sake of doing it. Things are much different since the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) went out of office.

I don’t doubt that.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) raised one or two important points. The most important being that of the bureau of national information which he says cost us £100,000 during the two years it was in operation. After all that is only a book entry. Certainly it has cost something.

What does it cost to send £100,0000 worth of telegrams?

It does not cost £100,000, for the staff is not engaged exclusively on that work. It is just like running a train. It costs as much to run it with 50 passengers as with 150.

The hon. member for Newlands must not interrupt so frequently.

We found out that unfortunately the bureau of national information was not doing what it ought to have done. Worse than that, it was really doing positive harm. The telegraph service was instituted to give market information to the farmers, but most of our country postmasters were storekeepers, so they received the information in advance and were able to use it deleteriously to the detriment of the producer. The country storekeepers dealt with the farmers, buying his produce and selling him goods, and it was only human nature when the storekeeper had advance information for him to use if. At all events, I came to that conclusion, and we have closed the whole thing down, and I hope the hon. member will not pursue the matter any further. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) raised the point of the selection of 150 apprentices. They will be able, of course, to work themselves up to the top of the tree. We are so arranging their educational and mechanical training that they will obtain all the knowledge they require in order to qualify them to fill the position of chief engineer of the post office, our chief engineer himself is enthusiastic over the matter. Hon. members need not fear that there will be any clashing in regard to civil aviation and the mooring mast for airships. The post office took up civil aviation because we may be carrying mails by aeroplanes, but it has nothing to do with the mooring masts, which are being erected at the instance of the British Government and whole-heartedly set up by this Government. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) notified the House that negotiations were proceeding with regard to civil aviation in the Union. That is true. We have reached the stage where we cannot make an announcement to the House, but I think negotiations are going on favourably, and I hope, before the year is out, my hon. friend will have instituted a civil aviation scheme in South Africa. I am hoping we shall be able to utilize this scheme so that we shall be able to do away with the slow, costly transport of mails which we have to-day and we may use aeroplanes to drop the mail bags on to my hon. friend’s farm. Of course that is all in the air at present. I think I have dealt with the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) in conjuction with other members. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) wants a telephone line, and that also applies to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) and others, too. We have a bird’s eye view of the country.

No doubt.

And a very observing one, too.

No doubt.

Yes, times have changed since the hon. member was in power. We are doing the best we can, but hon. members must always remember that every mile of telephone and telegraph line is built out of borrowed money and carries its interest. I assure hon. members that in course of time everyone will get their telephones. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) objects to the form of telephone we have got. I don’t like them myself, and if it is demonstrated these phones are not generally approved by the public we shall have to alter them, but I think it is better from the health point of view because, instead of talking into them you talk at them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) brought up the question of long-distance telephones. He wants to know if the public are using them, and to what extent I assure the House it is doing so. We are getting a regular revenue of between £50 and £60 a week. We cannot reduce the charges. Apropos of this reduction of charges, let me say that with the exception of Norway we are the cheapest telephone country in the world for short distances. For long distances we approximate other countries. I think that is a boast we can well be proud of in view of the long distances we have to cover.

We only pay a penny per call in Durban, not threepence.

That is purely a municipal concern, confined to the boundaries of the city.

But it is cheaper.

But they have not to take into consideration the long telephone lines.

They have not to take into consideration so many farm lines.

Does the hon. member object to that?

It must be done with discretion.

I want to tell the member, for fear his economical soul is afraid, that every farm line goes in on a ten per cent. basis so that in ten years the capital is returned. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) complained that as we had £27,000 profit on the telephones we should give him most-favoured-nation treatment with Port Elizabeth and Pietermaritzburg. That was the beginning of a new system of charges known as the measure rate. You pay so much down for your installation, then you pay 1½ a call afterwards and to be quite frank, in order to popularize that which was viewed with suspicion, we gave the five per cent. discount referred to. I am hoping to extend that system of payment throughout the country as we get the measure rate fixed up. The hon. member for East London (City) (Rev. Mr. Rider) can expect it next but there are certain anomalies while we are in the transitory stage.

What about the automatic?

I am not going to put in the automatics. It must double the capital expenditure on our telephones right through the country if we start it. If we only put automatics in in Cape Town it will cost us more than we are going to spend on the whole programme of farmers’ lines for this year.

But you will save in the working.

You don’t.

They did in Australia.

Australia shows an improvement on its old conditions, but their old conditions were very parlous indeed. In this time when we find it so difficult to get money, when hon. members opposite are crying out to us to curtail capital expenditure, when there is a cry for economy, how can you ask in the same breath, practically, that we should double our capital expenditure on the installation of automatic exchanges? Incidentally again, you will be throwing hundreds of girls out of employment.

Oh no.

Oh yes. It is admitted by the experts who have reported on automatic exchanges that it is not economic in any circumstances, unless you do away with 60 per cent. of the operators.

They get other jobs. They get married and so forth.

Where are they going to? They are knocking at the door to-day, and I want to say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the business men generally—

Several hon. members want us to reduce the charge for telegrams to 1s. The hon. member who introduced this said that the increased custom would more than repay. That is not so. If we take threepence off it would only mean a surrender of revenue, about £16,000, without any added custom coming to us. If you want to make telegrams attractive, you have got to reduce them to sixpence, not to one shilling, or to increase the number of words allowed for the 1s. 3d. The officials have that question of increasing the allowance of words under consideration. That, I think, is the direction in which we should act. I want business men to thoroughly understand that on the surrender of revenue which we made when we reduced the postage from twopence to one penny, the major portion, perhaps nine-tenths of it, has gone to the business men.

What about press telegrams?

We are carrying press telegrams at a tremendous loss.

Why do you do it? It is S.A. party propaganda.

I am glad my hon. friend raised that point, because when we consider the question of cheapening telegrams we have also to consider the question of adjusting them. It may be that we shall have to seriously consider increasing the rate for press telegrams.

How about the postage on papers? You have reduced that low enough.

That is also an uneconomic rate. That also we have had a very long and earnest discussion about, as to whether we should not raise the rate on newspapers. We are carrying newspapers at a loss, and we are sending telegrams for the press at a loss. I look in vain for any reduction in the price of the papers, not perhaps that it is desirable. They are too cheap now; there are so many people reading the rubbish. I would inform the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. Van der Merwe) that we are not unmindful of the claims of his district, and I am very sorry if any circumstance has arisen that makes him feel that they are in a sort of backwash. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) raised a very important point, and he was supported in a sneering fashion by one or two hon. members. I agree that a report of a department that is a year or two years late is of no use at all. The Postmaster-General and myself have been discussing that point some time ago, and I can promise the committee this, that although we cannot issue the abridged reports, which have to be volume like, yet we are going to issue the meat, and by August or September you will have last year’s financial and statistical statement. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. Van Broekhuizen) has raised the point, a serious one, of Sunday overtime, and public holidays. He can rely upon my not desiring overtime of any sort more than I can possibly help, but the overtime he refers to has got to be done. There is the question raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) with reference to the zone system. He says we have our post office near the sea at Cape Town, and as a consequence, when we strike off a circle it embraces practically the Atlantic Ocean. That is true, but it does not cut anymore people out.

But you have only half a circle instead of a full circle.

I know, but each individual has just the same service. Take the zones on the Beef. There you have a circle which embraces thousands of acres of bare veld, which is the same as taking in the Atlantic. It is just the same. You are not differentiated against, but I will confess this, that the zone system wants inquiring into, and we are doing so. Hon. members can rely upon it that when I am going into this zone system, I am going into it in order to give the public every opportunity of communicating with one another as easily as possible. With regard to retrenched officials, there are the 1908 men that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) brought up. I am informed there was a special Act passed by the Cape Parliament to deal with that, but I will go into it. As far as we can, we will remove anomalies, but it is very difficult to deal with these pre-Union cases. My hon. friend over there wants to know about the white labour clause in Government contracts. As soon as that was brought to my notice, it seemed to me to be something absolutely unjust, and repugnant to the policy I personally believe in, namely, that you should not pay for colour, but for work. I found the clause was there. I consulted the trade unions, and we came to an agreement to abolish that clause, and it is now out. The public offices at Worcester are agreed upon, but as we are rather short of quantity surveyors we have had a difficulty in catching up with the programme. These public offices are not forgotten, and the hon. member will have them in a short time. I will go into the matter of the agricultural post. I did not know that was the way fruit in these parcels was treated. I shall see whether I can do anything to meet the hon. member’s wishes.

With reference to the mail contract, there are one or two statements made by the Minister which we do not consider strictly accurate. He says the Union-Castle Company controls the whole shipping trade— fares and anything else, but there are four or five lines which charge the fares they like.

I did not mean the Union-Castle Company but the man who presides over the Union-Castle Company, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company—

There is the Blue Funnel Liner, the Aberdeen Line, the White Star Line.

All in the swim.

Not at all. They all charge their own rates. It is very important that the mail contract should be fixed up at the earliest possible moment. I am speaking from the point of view of and in the name of the fruit shippers, and am urging in their interests that this should be done. The best means of getting deciduous fruit to the markets on the other side is by the mail steamers, which are regular and quick and make shortest passages, and we know exactly what time they will get to the other side. Our experience last season while the shipping was done by the control board has not been altogether satisfactory. The deciduous fruit shippers would much prefer a system under which the shipping of the fruit was put in the hands of the Union Castle Company, provided that arrangements are made by the company for adequate cold storage, like on their mail steamers. I admit that at present there is not sufficient accommodation. If they provided a reasonable amount of cold storage on the mail steamers and take in hand the shipping of the deciduous fruit it would be a much better arrangement than the present one and far cheaper. The control board is an expensive business. I think I can fairly say that the deciduous fruit shippers would welcome this very much indeed. That was the reason we urged that a new arrangement should be made with the Union-Castle Company.

You don’t insist on the Union Castle Company, if we can get it in any other way?

You will be a long, long time before you can get such a service as they can give. All we want is more adequate provision for cold storage. Where are you going to get it except through the mail company? We had better stick to the people we know and we do know the Union-Castle Company, which has materially assisted in the growth of the fruit export trade. The report of the post office for 1925/26 was in the hands of the Census Department in August last, but it has not yet been published. The whole business of the publication of departmental reports should be overhauled. As to broadcasting I understand that when it came to an end as far as Johannesburg was concerned it was stated that a certain big financier was going to take it over. The Minister put his foot down, but did not keep it down. He had an opportunity of starting a State broadcasting business.

Would you be in favour of that?

No. Instead of keeping his foot where he had put it the Minister lifted it up and gave a broadcasting monopoly to Mr. Schlesinger, who has extended his tentacles to this part of the world, and it appears we shall have a monopoly in private hands. It seems a little bit strange for the Minister to put broadcasting in the hands of financiers who I thought were perfect anathema to him.

So they are.

It does not look so in this case. As to the appointment of a welfare officer. I have never stood up to be a democratic individual. I have had control of men since I was 17, and I may have got a little dictatorial. I do not object to the appointment of a welfare officer, but when the postal staff asked that they should be consulted in the appointment the Minister said he was going to appoint whom he liked. I should not have thought he would have said that, as it was not in accordance with the principles he used to preach here. He took up the most dictatorial attitude, worse than an ordinary individual like myself would have taken up, but we did not expect that from the Minister. I am afraid that since he has come into power he has degenerated … [Time limit.]

I want to renew the point I put to the Minister. I think there was a misunderstanding of the position. I was speaking of a certain class of individuals who, in 1908, were retrenched on a particular line—that is, all those who in that year became fifty—and they were retrenched on the basis of giving one year in six instead of ten years. I think the Minister will find he is mistaken in saying there was an Act passed to deal with these men. The letters I have received are dated this year and last year, and they definitely tell me that is the position to-day as it was when they were retrenched.

I will make inquiries.

This is a group of people well worthy of consideration and investigation.

The Minister issued a challenge to the hon. members for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and Weenen (Maj. Richards) to prove that there was any agitation amongst the natives in the urban areas and the country districts. He asserted that no agitation existed, and that these members were allowing their imagination to run away with them. I want to prove conclusively that it is not the result of imagination, but an absolute fact. These claims for 8s. a day is the direct outcome of a statement made by the Minister a little time ago, where he said to the builders’ association that a native could not live a decent life under 8s. a day. That is the statement which was reported in the papers. Is it correct?

In the town. I have the verbatim report here.

As a result of that foolish statement the natives not only in the towns, but throughout the farms in the countryside, are claiming 8s. a day. Last week there was a report in “Die Burger” of a meeting on the Zululand border where a native got up and said the time had arrived when the natives should organize to such an extent that they would bring the white man down to his knees, and they would then get their 8s. a day. That 8s. a day emanates from the Minister, and it is now being claimed by the natives owing to the statement of the Minister. Do the hon. members sitting at the back of the Minister agree with the Minister’s statement that the natives cannot live a decent life under 8s. a day? Not one member from the Platteland dare get up and agree with it. I ask the Minister of Lands, sitting over there, does he agree with it? I am waiting for an answer. I take it that if the Minister is silent, he does agree with it. As a result of that statement, not only in Natal is this claim being made, but I see in “Die Burger” to-day a statement made by a man called Mote, at Parys, claiming that natives should receive 8s. a day. He says—

That is the result of this foolish, unconsidered statement made by the Minister. This I know, that not a Nationalist member there who represents the Platteland, who represents a farming constituency, will agree with that statement. The result of this is going to be that we are going to face a very serious position very shortly in the farming areas. I have only myself had to-day a letter from my home that two of my natives who should be in employ have refused to go into employment, because they consider that they are not receiving a sufficient wage. Where is it going to end? To my mind, this agitation is the most serious matter that we have to face to-day. Take Johannesburg, where there are 200,000 natives employed on the mines. If these natives are to receive 8s. a day, it would make a difference to the mines of £15,000,000 a year. The additional cost to the mines is more than the profit that they are making. The result will be that the wages of every European working on those mines will have to come down. Moti went further and said that not only should they claim 8s. a day, but they must go to the Wage Board and see that the Wage Board gave them 8s. a day. At that meeting Moti made an attack on the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) and the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), and asked them what business they had got to say that the natives have to be stopped from asking 8s. a day. I think that the time has come when we should bring this Minister to book. I have before me the “South African Builder,” and it is significant that the Minister apparently has completely changed his attitude. I see here, on the 4th December, 1926, a letter was written from his Department, apparently on his instructions, headed “Civilized Labour,” in which it is stated that the Government would certainly be prepared to do in its own sphere what it asked in others. It would be appreciated that the whole question of employing whites at 1s. per hour had not reached universal application. The letter adds—

According to that letter, the Minister clearly had in his mind that this 8s. a day was to be paid to whites.

No, that letter was not written by me, nor on my instruction. I at once queried it when I saw it. It is not a correct interpretation of my wishes.

This letter is written on the 4th December, 1926. I take it that the Minister repudiates that letter.

I do.

Was it written by your Department?

Yes, I objected to that letter.

He can quite understand that the natives are taking this up, when you have the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) getting up in this House and saying that he champions the actions of Kadalie. I see now that Mote has given him a new title, and he is now called C.O.L.—the Champion of Liberty. The Minister must bear the full responsibility for the agitation that is going on right throughout the country in connection with the 8s. a day. The natives go further. They say this, that so far as they are concerned there is only one flag for them, and that is the red flag. Does the Minister agree with that? The time has come when a stop must be put to these irresponsible statements. [Time limit.]

I am glad the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) is here. I should like to make a few remarks to him before he takes shelter in the Chair. We all congratulate the hon. member, who has not been in his place since he was notified that we intended to refer to him, upon the new title which has been conferred upon him. I am aware that he received a telegram from Mr. Mote, the provincial secretary of the I.C.U., in which that individual in a burst of gratitude said—“Please accept the title of Champion of Liberty.” This Mr. Mote is apparently a man who occupies a very high position in the minds of his people. In a report in the “Burger” of a native mass meeting at Parys he is referred to by a native speaker, one Simon, who says—

What has that got to do with the post office?

This man Mote declares there is only one flag for him and that is the red flag, and there he is entirely at one with the Minister of Labour, who on the most momentous occasion in the memory of any one of us, Armistice Day, 1918, declared his adherence to that emblem.

What is yours? The Jolly Roger?

No. Mine is the flag the Minister chooses to jeer at whenever it is mentioned in this House.

That will do. There are some things, Marwick, that even you are not entitled to say.

Is the hon. the Minister entitled to address me by name in this House?

The hon. member must not refer to an hon. member by name.

He goes on to say—

We have further insolent talk from the same man. Mote goes on to attack Mr. de Villiers, M.P.C. for Parys—

That is out of “Die Burger,” that palladium of truth, and hon. members opposite cannot disbelieve a word that appears in that organ, I am sure. The Minister has shown again what his attitude is towards members of the service associations who have remonstrated against the unfairness of some of his appointments. His reply this evening was in no sense a justification of the appointment, but simply an assertion—

This is not the first time. On a former occasion, when he had appointed a welfare officer from Benoni—that home of the intelligentsia—

Any more letters?

Mr. Whittaker, general secretary of the Post Office Association, remonstrated with what was done and got very short shrift from the Minister, who said that he alone was entitled to deal with the question and appoint the man he considered best. He also refused to refer the question to a standing committee which deals with such matters, stating—

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) spoke about this matter, saying that he did not agree with this appointment being made from outside the service. A telegram was sent to the Minister at the time, and he treated it in a very cavalier manner. Right up to the end of September last Mr. Whittaker had received no reply whatever to what he had written on the 4th of August. The service associations are really entitled to know how they stand with the Minister. Is he the apostle of fair treatment? He was always posturing in that role in the past, when he made the rafters ring in the corner on my left. Is he to-day an autocratic gentleman, who says—

No justification whatever has been advanced for the appointment of the telephone manager, and the appointment lends colour to the very strong rumour that it was made because the person selected was a personal friend of the Minister’s secretary, who himself was brought in from outside the service—from Benoni.

My secretary did not meet him until after the welfare officer was appointed.

The Minister constantly appeals to the service to render him loyalty. How can he expect that when he is so entirely disloyal to the staff?

I have never appealed for loyalty.

Oh! Is that so? Certainly, if the Minister made such an appeal, he would deserve no response, because of his disloyalty to the service, [Time limit.]

When the Minister stated that there were natives on the gold mines receiving 16s. or 17s. a day for lashing he did not state the whole facts. These men, who are semi-skilled, are paid at piece work rates. Why are hon. members who represent the platteland so silent on this matter of 1s. per hour? How will the Free State crops be reaped if natives demand 8s. a day? In my constituency the crops are ready to be reaped, but the natives refuse to do so unless they receive 8s. a day. I am surprised that the farmers opposite remain silent. Has the Minister frightened them into submission? What will their constituents think about them not raising their voices in protest?

The Minister’s statement regarding the payment of mine natives was quite accurate, but rather understated. I was employed on the Premier Mine, and the natives working there doing lashing are looked upon as unskilled labourers. They are paid on a piece work basis. Surely there can be no more just way of determining the wage of a man than by paying him pro rata for what he does?

Where does the minimum wage come in, then?

Natives are employed in the mines and are paid at so much a ton, and I know of one native who every monday used to make 25s. for the day.

Good luck to him!

Any native making less than 8s. a day was “chivvied” about it by his fellows: The Queensland sugar growers pay this amount, and it pays them.

For weeding.

Every unskilled task can become a skilled job, even if it is ballasting on the railways, if the man specializes at it. There is really no such thing in the gamut of industrialism as unskilled work. It is just that the scale of wages should rise, irrespective of his colour, if a man becomes an expert at the job. Employers of native labour in the country, whether in the farming industry or any other line of industry, will find as the country develops there will always be a progressive scarcity of labour. There is a scarcity of labour to-day. To avoid and forestall the difficulties which are undoubtedly coming with regard to the adjustment and remuneration of native labour, why don’t the farmers meet together and appoint representatives and recognize that they will have to draw their labour in the future from a force which will be an organized force? As the natives progress, they will look for leadership, and it is desirable they should get the best and most level-headed men as leaders, who could meet the farmers and discuss the system of remuneration. I think, then, you will be going some way towards the adjustment of this question, with better results than if you leave it to haphazard methods. As it is, one farmer to-day may be competing with his next-door neighbour for labour. I have seen amongst the diggers in the Free State where one digger, by offering a tot of brandy, drew labour away from the Transvaal digger. Where you find a leader rising amongst the natives, bring him under the wing of the Government. The Government admits there is necessity for organization in the ranks of native labour. Then enlist the service of the native leader under the Government.

They will not trust the native as soon as he goes under the wing of the Government.

I think if the Government made overtures the natives would see the Government had recognised that organization is inevitable, and the Government, being responsible for the relationship between employer and employee, is then facing the responsibility and is prepared to guide it along correct lines that will not lead to disturbances. I have never heard such an idea put up before by those who admittedly know something about the native question. I commend that to the Government.