I would like to ask a question on that. The Auditor-General stated in his report that members’ accounts have not yet been paid. I would like to ask if steps will be taken to enforce payment of these accounts?

That is a question that will be considered by the Committee.

Do I understand the Committee will have power to consider this question?

Yes, they have the power.

I think this is a gross injustice to members of this House, and I think it ought to be stated what the actual position is. I am one of the defaulters, because they did not send me my account before I had left.

I do not think this is the time to discuss this matter.

In all fairness to this House, and in view of the gross incorrectness of that report, I think the position should be cleared up.

Report adopted.

I move—

Before the business of the House is proceeded with, I wish to avail myself of Rule 33 of the Standing Orders, in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. That matter is the increasing number of able-bodied men in Cape Town and elsewhere in the Union who are daily applying for employment in order to obtain food and shelter and clothing for their women and children dependents, and the necessity for the Government providing work or means of subsistence for these unfortunate people who are unable to create employment for themselves.

I do not think that the proposed grounds for the motion are such as are contemplated by the rule, but, apart from that, the question mentioned by the hon. member can be fully discussed in the debate on the motion of no-confidence before the House at the present time. In these circumstances I cannot accept it.

Like the rest of the House I listened’ very carefully to the indictment against the Government made by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, I had to wait until I saw this morning’s paper to see what the Prime Minister had to say. I gathered something, but I think the best friends of the hon. member will agree that the indictment was not a formidable one. I propose to reinforce to the best of my ability the indictment and the arguments used by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), although, of course, from a very different angle, and I think the Prime Minister will also confess that his reply was not a very devastating statement. From what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, and perhaps in response to him the Prime Minister, both appear as if they are going to make South Africa the cockpit on the native question, during the forthcoming general election. Nobody said in so many words that they are going to do it, but I gathered from the speech of the right hon. member that he was going to do it, and I gather from the Press which purports to support the Prime Minister that he was going to retort. I do hope that all the friends of South Africa will join with me in expressing the utmost regret in regard to a decision such as that, and I hope when the next general election is being fought—talk as you will, be as personal as you like—but for heaven’s sake do not make the native ground for hitting at one another, giving a wrong impression, not only in this country, but in England and elsewhere. Fight on what I consider the right ground—the economic situation of South Africa. At the last general election, when the National party was returned to power in association with the South African Labour party, which was then a united front party, they were returned, because all sections of the population, particularly the working classes of South Africa, expected that they would get considerable redress. That is an acknowledged fact on all sides of this honourable House—right throughout the country—that the determination on the part of the Nationalists cum-Labour party was redress for those who had been under the iron heel of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Has that been carried out? I am afraid not. We had hoped at all events some improvement would lie in the direction of employment for white people and in the payment of those employed, but I regret, and I suppose I have to share the onus for it for at all events a period, that very little has been done in that direction, so much so that we find in some departments of the State white men employed—I am open to contradiction on that point—at the miserable wage of 1s. 9d. a day at Potchefstroom in the Agricultural Department. It is certainly regarded as a good wage to pay 5s. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) say definitely in his speech that 5s. or 6s. a day for civilized labour in South Africa is not a white standard.

They pay 3s. 4d.

I hope the right hon. member is going to stand by what he said.

Do you expect it?

No, I do not expect it, but I surely have the right in an assembly like this to take a man at his word, and to hope that in future he may stand by it, although in future that hope may be blasted. I am afraid it is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and that if the South African party gets into power at the next election there will be no improvement in the lot of the labourer. When I was in a position of some authority—which did not last very long—

Why?

Oh, I did not suit. When I was in that position I endeavoured to do my little bit in the direction of improving the lot of the labourer in South Africa, and I introduced what I must confess to be a miserable wage. I did not make it 5s. or 6s. a day, but 8s.—in the position and circumstances in which I could, off my own, give an increase or insist on it—in the Public Works Department. I want to put this to the Government—that they have had an opportunity of examining the effects of this and of the need of the people of South Africa. I ask members on the Government side of the House to go along the banks of the Vaal River, where there are a series of bridges being built, and there you will find that as the result of the laying down of a minimum wage of 8s. per day for white labourers you have all white men employed, and that policy has earned the approval and approbation of the whole community in the vicinity. Then go to Potchefstroom and ask what has been the result there. The same story will be told to you of the benefit derived from a “miserable” wage of 8s. per day. When I went to Christiana the people there, including the mayor, were very careful to draw my attention to an infringement of that rule, and you may depend upon it that if there had not been an infringement they would not have taken the trouble to come to me. Despite that example, I see no effort in any other direction to adopt that standard of pay. The Labour party and the Creswellian party have both passed definitely at their congresses resolutions supporting a national minimum wage of 10s. per day for white men. What is the Minister of Defence doing in that direction? Has he threatened to come out of the Cabinet if the Government did not adopt it? If the Prime Minister does not agree to a minimum wage of 10s. will the Minister of Defence say to him: “To hades with your Cabinet!”? The Government has not seen fit to adopt any minimum wage as a national minimum wage, and in that respect they have fallen far short. Quite a long time ago the House evaded the situation when there was a loss of no less than £80,000 to the farming industry as a result of the maladministration of cold storage in this country. At the time it was said to be due to the seamen’s strike. The Minister of Agriculture appointed a commission to inquire into the circumstances connected with this loss, and hon. members will remember that the commission was presided over by the director of the Johannesburg abattoirs, and the other members consisted of an expert who had been appointed by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and another gentleman. And what did they report? They reported that, arising out of their investigations, they had come to the conclusion and recommended that in the interests of the country, State cold storages should be instituted so that the business should be taken out of the hands of private enterprise. I did my best to carry that into effect. I am not going to give the conversations which took place in the Cabinet, but I do think that in a democratic age like this the business of the Cabinet should be known to the people as well as the business of the people. However, I have always faithfully adhered to the principle that conversations in the Cabinet should not be repeated elsewhere. Well, the Government refused to act, with the result that to-day the farming industry is in exactly the same position as it was then; they go to these people with their meat and other articles, and before they know where they are, they are in the hands of the combine of middlemen, and have no control over their prices, and the consumer has no alternative but to pay the prices fixed by the cold storage. An unanswerable case was made out by the commission, but it was turned down by the Government. I say that the Government in that respect signally failed in its duty. There is one other matter which affects the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Are the railwaymen satisfied? The Minister dare not stand up and say they are.

They are.

I get my information from the men myself.

Were the post office officials satisfied with you?

Yes, all except those who were place seekers. The post office officials got a square deal from me, and I have correspondence from men in the postal service to show this. However, I do not want to discuss that, though I am not afraid to, but I have not the time at my disposal. The railwaymen are not satisfied. They expected better conditions, and I feel it very deeply indeed that the Ministry with which I was associated deliberately took away from the railwaymen a principle which has been held by trades unions all over the world: each day standing by itself, and all time over the normal time counting as overtime. The Minister will agree to that. The pay has not been improved, and a condition of differentiation has been established under a Nationalist-cum-Labour Government, which I never thought would be possible between the old employee and the new employee as far as the mechanical staff is concerned. I do not intend to go into the railway question. My hon. friend, the member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has a motion on the Order Paper which he will expand, but, touching briefly on it, the fact remains that the men are not paid well enough, and their conditions are bad. Only three weeks ago I was travelling in the train from Benoni to Johannesburg, and a ticket-examiner, who informed me that he did not know me, said that he had worked 17 hours that day. The arrangement to work long hours one day and short hours the next day is a bad one, and not what was expected by the railway workers from the Government.

What about the guarantees?

Guarantees are very fine things; they would rather have the money. Then there is the way in which the Minister of Railways has handled the shipping question. When I was in a position of brief authority I did my very utmost to give effect to the express wish of this House, which was that there should be a State fleet to carry the products and the people to and from South Africa. Yet my hon. friend—I know he has had strong forces against him—has played about with the Union-Castle Company, sending them letters and getting letters back, South Africa still with the control of the Union-Castle Company around its throat. South Africa is more at the mercy of the conference lines of steamers to-day than ever it was before. I do not propose to extend myself on that matter, because the Minister has a little Bill, which he fondly hopes will have some good result, and which will give me an opportunity of dealing more fully with that question; but it is well within the knowledge of the House that immediately the conference lines took complete control of the situation once again they differentiated in the wool freights against those who were non-contractors, and they have increased freights three times in some cases. I will admit that the former rates on some of these articles were really competitive things, and were, therefore, uneconomical, yet I must say that trebling them as they have done in several cases is by no means a fair charge upon the people of South Africa. I have observed that the big importers have expressed themselves as satisfied. I am not speaking for them, but for the people, the producers and the people who use the goods. When the rates are trebled it must redound to the disinterest of the people of South Africa. I was going to deal with the Minister of Finance, but here let me say that it is a most extraordinary attitude that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has adopted. The Minister of Finance has surpluses, and the right hon. member says that that is evidence of maladministration. I do not think so. It is nothing of the sort. Here I must pay a tribute to the Minister of Finance and to the Government generally, but only in this respect, that its general industrial policy has been such as to encourage the institution of industries. More people are employed in South Africa, with the result that without altering the incidence of taxation the amount accruing therefrom is very much larger. It is going up in leaps and bounds, and, as a consequence, you must have surpluses. I do not say you must budget for surpluses, but if, after judging from the experience of the previous year, an improvement in the country brings to you a surplus, why grumble? I grumble at the way in which these surpluses are used. I met an old man a few weeks ago who had drawn his old-age pension for the first time, an old man named Coetzee. All he knew was that he was now entitled to an old-age pension. He is very old, over 80. He has already had one paralytic stroke. [Laughter.] It is nothing to grin at. When he drew his pension he was so astounded, so disappointed and disgusted that he nearly died. This, despite the fact that the Labour party urged upon the Government that it should make this one of its first calls upon the public exchequer.

Four years ago.

Yes, four years ago, and with the result that a miserable pittance is handed out to these poor old people. I wanted to have a tilt at my old friend the Minister of Education and Health, but I will not have time. But I will touch upon one thing. Despite one’s efforts one found that a principle that was even agreed to and carried out by a South African party Government, namely free technical education, simply because it came under the aegis of the Union Government, instead of being levelled up has been levelled down. We find now that whereas the Transvaal should have set the pace and the example, with the result that there should have been free technical education all over the Union, the Transvaal has had to fall into line with the rest of the provinces and pay fees for technical education. It is not right. I must now pay a tribute to my hon. friend, the Minister of Mines. The Minister of Labour need not look up—that tribute is not for him. The Minister of Mines was questioned very closely yesterday with regard to the German treaty, and the insinuation was made that he was doing this thing off his own bat. However, no man consults his colleagues more than does the Minister of Mines and that particular matter especially is a question of Government responsibility, and if anybody wants to find fault with the treaty, do not do so with the Minister of Mines, but with the Government collectively, myself included, because I acquiesced in it.

You acquiesced, but did you agree?

Yes, I agreed. For what has formed the subject of my speech, I attach no blame to the Nationalist side of the House, and I do not blame one single Nationalist Minister. I blame those Labour representatives who, from the beginning, were frankly regarded by the Nationalist members of the Cabinet as guides, philosophers and friends.

They are broken reeds.

Very much broken, and they will be more so after the general election. The Nationalist members of the Cabinet have been particularly badly guided of late by the Minister of Defence and his plasticine party. Those are the people I blame. You, Mr. Speaker, refused to allow the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the question of unemployment, because there was an opportunity of dealing with the matter in this debate and because you felt, as we all feel, that unemployment is always with us. Naturally so under the system which the Minister of Defence defends. The Labour members were sent into the Cabinet above all things with a particular responsibility of doing their best to remove unemployment, but they have done precious little in that direction. I am not going to hurl the reproach of Doornkop at the Minister of Labour. When it has come to the point where firmness was required in order to get his way to improve the conditions of unemployment, he always failed. Then what did the Minister of Defence do with the de Villiers’ award?

The miners’ union stopped the Bill.

I suppose that was the result of the Minister of Defence sending that ill-assorted pair, the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) up the railway to induce the miners to do that—a lovely combination. There are lots of things I could discuss, and lots of grounds for pinning the real responsibility for the failure of the Nationalist Government on the Labour members of the Cabinet. I discovered when I entered the Cabinet that, although these two members had allowed things to drift, there was still a desire on the part of the Nationalist members of the Cabinet to give credence to the views expressed by the Labour Ministers, but these two men were entirely wanting. I am not going to touch on the flag question, and I am not going to succumb to the temptation to make the issue the native question. Lots of things could have been done by the Labour members of the Cabinet. The Minister of Defence was sent into the Cabinet to endeavour to educate his Nationalist colleagues in the direction of the institution of the control of State credit by the formation of a State bank, but he never pressed it. Then, when the opportunity served for bringing home the necessity for the establishment of a State fleet, they never pressed it. I say that the whole responsibility of failure rests upon the shoulders of these two so-called Labour representatives in the Cabinet. The Minister of Defence has interjected. I am going to tell the House this: That Minister deliberately came to me and asked me to waive the 8s. a day rule in the case of the erection of certain barracks for him, because he thought it would be cheaper.

I have quite forgotten.

I have a very keen recollection of the incident, but the hon. Minister has been so engaged in machinations of party control that he has probably forgotten it.

“How hast thou fallen, oh Lucifer, prince of the morning.”

I think the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has worded his motion rather harshly. It is such a blow in the face. I want to smooth off the sharp corners, to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, so to speak. I propose, as an amendment—

I rise to second this amendment on the ground that it represents the position in which the Labour party in this House stands in this particular matter.

The Reyburn party.

Most hon. members realize that a no-confidence debate is an occasion for window-dressing, for putting forward election speeches on the grand scale and for having a grand election meeting which is reported practically to the whole country, and it is very difficult indeed on a simple motion of no-confidence for a member of the cross-benches to vote either way without giving a reason. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) mentioned the undoubted fact that there is grave dissatisfaction among the people we represent with the Government at the present time. I represent a constituency very largely composed of railway men and, although I do not wish at present to go into the question of railway men, I can tell the Minister of Railways that these men are dissatisfied. Railway men are human beings with the feelings of human beings, and when they have restrictions placed upon them and irritating regulations, when they do not get the things they believe they were promised by the Government, then they are dissatisfied. There is undoubtedly a tremendous difference in the attitude of the working classes in 1929 from what it was in 1924. In 1924 the people believed they were going to get a fair deal from this Government. They never had a fair deal from the last Government. I admit that for a year they got it. The first year of the Pact was a year which, I think, was satisfactory to almost every worker in this country. The Labour members in the Cabinet did their best to put forward the Labour point of view.’ But a change occurred. Instead of the Nationalist, party being the ally of the Labour party, it became the master of the Labour party. I do not blame the Nationalist party, I blame the Labour party for it, because the Labour members in the Cabinet, to my mind and to the minds of the workers, laid down and let the others walk over them. We were promised a year ago by the Minister of Labour an amendment to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a thing badly wanted in this country. It was brought in last year and abandoned because of other Bills. There is no attempt to put through legislation of that kind to-day. We were promised an amendment to the Industrial Conciliation Act, another thing badly wanted, but this was abandoned altogether. Only the other day when I asked if it was intended to bring it up this year I was told “no”. There is no desire on the part of the Cabinet to introduce legislation for the benefit of the working classes. There is plenty of time for trade treaties, but no time for working class legislation. Again, the Minister of Defence informed our caucus that it was his intention to bring in the Old Age Pensions Act in 1929, and it was only through representation by members on this side that the Act was put through last year. Then there is the action of the Prime Minister in dismissing the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) from the Cabinet and putting in the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson). I think everyone knows that the action which was taken for the dismissal of the hon. member for Benoni was a pure pretext.

An impure pretext.

Nonsense.

That the real objection which was raised to the hon. member for Benoni was that he was in the Cabinet as a Labour party representative and that he continued to I act in the Cabinet as a Labour party representative and that his principal crime was the introduction amongst the country districts of the Union of a higher rate of wages. That is the reason.

Rubbish.

The principle of collective bargaining was the pretext on which the hon. member was dismissed from the Cabinet. The hon. member for Jeppe, of all men in this House, takes the place of his colleague who was dismissed because he stood up for that principle. The working classes have a name for the hon. member, a name of disapprobation which is used in every trade union in this country. These are minor matters compared with the actual state of the country. There is no Labour party in the Government to-day. The report of Dr. Mitchell, the medical officer of health, shows that there are 120,000 poor whites in this country living below the standard of the civilized native. In the Government’s own year book the number is estimated to be between 100,000 and 150,000. What are the ex-Labour party representatives in the Cabinet doing in this matter? I find in the same publication that in a country in which everything is well and which has the finest government it is possible to have, according to the Minister of Labour, we are spending no less than £87,000 on pauper relief for white people, and that charitable institutions are called upon to expend no less than £409,000 on charity in this country for Europeans only, and that with a total white adult population of 426,000. There were over 100,000 summonses for debt, and a great many were directed against the countrymen of hon. members of the National party—people who have been brought down and are unable to pay their way. We have the unemployed, who are always with us. In the Labour office at Durban—which the Minister of Labour never visits—every day you see a pitiable procession of young, middle-aged and old men and women coming to draw their loaf of bread and ration of tea. These people see they have no hope of employment from the Labour Bureau. There are hundreds and thousands of men who are unfit and who are out of employment. Unemployment is one of the main causes of crime. Some of these people steal and get into gaol. From the same authority I have quoted I find that the number of criminal convictions is 405,000. That is a reason for one thing why I have no confidence in the Government to solve the economic problem of this country. I do not believe they can do it. The Minister of Defence and the Minister of Labour did not tell them, because the Minister of Defence has forgotten all he knew about labour, and the Minister of Labour dare not enunciate it. We on the cross-benches are in an awkward position, for we have not much confidence in the Government, but we have far less in the Opposition. This country has experienced four years of the rule of the National party and one year of the Pact, but unfortunately before that it experienced 15 years of the rule of the South African I party, and as things are in South Africa today, we have only that one alternative. We on these benches are not strong enough yet to take on the reins of Government, but I hope that within a few years we shall do so. After 15 years of it I do not think the country wants the South African party again. We do not want to be ruled again by the big interests of this country and the big financial groups to do as they used to do under the control of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I listened with interest to the attack the right hon. member made on the Government, and I must say I was amused. I was amused to hear him tell the country that it would suffer from the diamond legislation to which he referred, and I remember rumours going round and statements published how the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) engaged the miners themselves to support that particular Bill. I am amused to hear the attack on the defence force. I know that it had not to be used for four years against the civilian population; and perhaps why it has been lax is because it has not been dragged out against our fellow citizens. We had Government by machine gun, by rifle and by aeroplane under the South African party Government. Was there ever a greater illegality and unconstitutional act than the deportation under the Government of the right hon. member of innocent citizens without trial? We do not want these things back again. I remember what happened in 1913, 1914 and 1922; I remember the Bondelswarts and Bulhoek, and we do not want the country again to be in a bath of blood. That is why we tabled this particular amendment. That is why we on these benches are in an awkward position. My own advice to an elector is that where a South African party candidate and a National party candidate stand, to vote for the National party candidate as the next best thing where there is no Labour party candidate standing. I hope the South African party will not be returned by this vote at the next election.

We have had this afternoon two speeches dealing with the administration of this Government as far as it has affected the employee-class during the last three or four years, put almost entirely from the point of view of that class. I should like to deal more generally with the administration of the Government so far as industry as a whole is concerned. What we have heard this afternoon constitutes a catalogue of sins of omission and commission which seems to me perfectly amazing. My comment on the statements of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken is that, if they felt so deeply on these matters, why did they keep this secret so long to themselves? I have no doubt that the country will mark this extraordinary attitude of the Labour party towards the Government. I have no doubt that hon. members on my left are sincere, but I think they should indicate their sincerity in a different way. There will be an opportunity of their doing so when the voting takes place on this amendment. But coming to the administration of the Labour Department, I find, on referring to the Governor-General’s speech, that apparently one of the chief points upon which the Government intends to claim the support of the country is its industrial policy. In this connection I would like to read the two paragraphs from the Governor-General’s speech and then follow with an actual review of the facts to see whether there is any justification for the claims made. Despite all the claims made for the Wage Act by the Minister of Labour, it is significant that in these two paragraphs there is no single reference made to that Act; these two paragraphs are merely a panegyric on the industrial legislation placed upon the statute book by this side of the House. In the Governor-General’s speech we read—

Let us stop for a moment and examine what has actually taken place in the last four years. Prior to 1925, the former Government had placed upon the statute book a complete scheme of social legislation, which included the Regulation of Wages Act, the Apprenticeship Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act. Although I have heard it said by the Minister of Labour that the Wage Act was necessary tn supplement and replace the powers given under Regulation of Wages Act of 1918, I think it should be mentioned that view was not supported by the Wage and Economic Commission. When the Wage Act came before the House in 1925 it was pointed out that there was no difference at all between this side of the House and the other side as to the need for the regulation of wages in unorganized industries, but the attention of the then Minister of Labour was drawn to the risks that would attend a failure to join representatives of industry itself in constituting the Wage Board, and to the danger that would exist if determinations were carried into effect without considering the unemployment likely to be created by the dismissal of unskilled workmen. The danger of introducing compulsion into our South African scheme of social legislation was also emphasized. What do we find to be the actual experience of the working of the Wage Board? So far as the constitution of wage boards is concerned there has been a total failure, indeed a blank refusal on the part of the Minister to associate employers and employees upon the Wage Board. I believe this is one of the chief causes of the intense dissatisfaction which exists throughout South Africa to-day on the part of both employers and employees. A knowledge of industry cannot be acquired, as many seem to imagine, by reading a work on Pelmanism. It is acquired by a life-long experience of the practical conditions of that industry. One of the essentials for the successful working of the Wage Act was that wage boards should be composed of men of experience. Not only did the Wage and Economic Commission recommended that this be done, but the Minister had before him the example of industrial councils to indicate the plain necessity for acting in consultation with industry. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether it is not the case that he has been besought to join on these boards the representatives of employers and employees, who might bring their united experience to bear. For some reason which it is impossible to discover, he has declined to do this, and as a result we have throughout the whole area of industry this state of insecurity to which I have referred. Let me go a step further and deal with the actual constitution of the board which he himself appointed. I am making no personal reflection upon the members of the board, but I do say that if they had been archangels, and had come down from Heaven specially to the assistance of the Minister of Labour, they could not have discharged the task which he has set them. It was Herculean. Those gentlemen, working under severe pressure, with no practical experience of the actual conditions of industry, have had to endeavour of their own knowledge, and with no more assistance than sittings here and there throughout the country, to adjust wages and conditions of labour. Consequently, there has been enormous dislocation, very grave dissatisfaction, and some extraordinary anomalies. I am told that, under one of the most recent determinations, an application was made to the Department of Labour for an interpretation of a particular definition relating to a certain type of workman, and the department was utterly unable to state what the actual definition meant, and the parties were told to refer to a court of law.

An Act of Parliament should be interpreted in a court of law.

I am quite prepared to believe that it will be very difficult for the Minister of Labour to interpret even the simplest matter, but I do ask that he should seek advice in the proper quarter and make himself acquainted with the elementary meaning of the English language. Let me ask the House to follow the record of the working of the Wage Act and of the Department of Labour. I have it in a very convenient form in this book published from time to time which records the work of the Labour Administration. I find that since 1925 there have been 24 determinations made under the Wage Act, and the Minister of Labour, who spoke just now of his difficulty in interpreting wage definitions, must have experienced equal difficulty in dealing with the meaning of these determinations as a whole, because, out of those 24, no less than eight have been declared invalid.

Mere technical points.

Yes, that is exactly the reply I expected to get from the hon. member.

Trifles.

May I tell the hon. the Minister, although he has been told thousands of times, what it means to industry to have awards declared invalid. Under the system that has been employed in his department, this irresponsible system of launching wage determinations without proper regard to the formalities laid down by Parliament, when these determinations have the force of law, the employer who is public spirited increases his wages, and he sees that throughout his works the law is respected. His competitor, who prefers to disregard the determination, does not increase his wages, and carries on to the great disadvantage of the honest employer, with a great difference in working costs, until it is found, on a “mere technical detail”, that the whole thing has been utterly invalid. Can I for a moment picture what it means to a manufacturer, and also to his employees, to find that he is undercut and undersold whilst he is endeavouring by observing determinations to assist the department? That, sir, is the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction, and I am surprised to find that the hon. the Minister can take the matter in this light-hearted way. I would advise him to employ in his department some gentleman who has a knowledge of the law. Let me take another aspect of these wage awards. It is an elementary principle that whatever awards or determinations may be made, they should not exceed the limit of productive capacity of the particular industry concerned, or, in other words, that you cannot increase wages indefinitely beyond the actual wage fund that may be available. This was a principle very clearly laid down in the report of the Economic and Wage Commission. Let me take the case of the sweet industry. The Minister has published quite recently a notice of his intention to proclaim a determination, and I find that, if that proposed determination be applied to a selected body of Western Province sweet manufacturers, they will be required to pay in increased wages the sum of £34,000 per annum, though their profits adjusted and certified by the Board amount to £26,000. They were informed at the same time by this Wage Board, acting on the authority of the hon. the Minister, that they could hope for no tariff protection by an increase of the existing customs tariff, and that he was perfectly aware that there could be no increase in the price of their products, because, if this occurred, they would lose their markets through foreign competition. This is the Minister of Labour, who will not take account of “mere technical details”, and who has shown in his administration of Doornkop that he has no time for the details of business. This little body of manufacturers, nine or ten of them, have to pay £34,000 increase of wages when their certified profits do not exceed £26,000. This is the manner in which the whole structure of industrial organization in the country has been brought into disrepute by the ignorance of the department and its failure to pay regard to normal business principles. Let me take the clothing industry. I quote from figures in the statement issued by the Minister’s own department. In the clothing trade it was proposed that there should be a 20 per cent, increase in wages. This increase would absorb the whole of the net profits.

Why did the Wage Board recommend it?

The employers do not know, the House does not know and I do not think the Minister himself knows.

The board knows a great deal more than you know about it.

Let me give another illustration of a tendency on the part of the Government to run away from economic principles. The civilized labour policy of the Government is reducing by a large amount the expenditure on the department of Labour under its unemployment rate. We do not accurately know the cost of the Government’s civilized labour policy but I believe that it must exceed £600,000.

Are you in favour of it or against it?

If the Prime Minister will listen he will find out. The result of the Government’s civilized labour policy is that the administration of the railways is conducted with an absolute disregard of the economic principle to which I have referred, and in addition throws on the inland users of the railways a burden which should be borne by the country generally. It has also had this effect that those railway servants who otherwise would have their conditions of labour improved are highly suspicious of the adverse effects of this policy, for they know that if this burden which should be borne by the country at large is thrown on the railway administration then it must remove opportunities for the betterment of their working conditions. The Auditor-General, in his report, mentions that when he applied to the General Manager of Railways for particulars regarding the cost of the employment of civilized labour over and above the normal economic cost of the available labour he was informed that those particulars would no longer be available. The result of this attitude of the Government is this that while claiming to be a business-like Government it has adopted the ostrich-like policy of refusing to face facts and is in the same position as a business man would be who was Afraid to examine the cost of running his own business. The Government should be frank with the House and should tell it what the cost of this policy is, and then we should be in a position to discuss it in its true economic aspect. The Minister has just endeavoured to extract some petty party capital out of his question.

Are you against a civilized labour policy?

We have heard this afternoon something about unemployment and I contrast that with the speech made by the Prime Minister the other day when he told South Africa that unemployment was non-existent. As a matter of fact in consequence of wage determinations which have been in force in the last four years, tens of thousands of men have been thrown out of employment.

Absolute rubbish.

I will give some particulars and we shall then see if this is absolute rubbish. Mr. Macleod of Kimberley, one of the Minister’s own supporters, gave evidence before the Wage and Economic Commission and he stated, speaking of the effect of ill-considered awards, that about 70 per cent, of the employees in the building trade at Kimberley had been retrenched.

Is that due to the Wage Act?

It is due to a super-imposed wage decision.

A Wage Board has not been set up there.

In Cape Town, in a speech made by a leader of the coloured community, it was stated, with reference to coloured men engaged in the cabinet-making industry, that, as a result of a determination of the Wage Board, 30 to 40 per cent, of the men employed four years ago are now out of work.

I will deal with that.

I thought just now that my statement was “absolute rubbish”. The Chairman of the Wage Board stated—I read from this newspaper report—these men would only be employed again if they could show “the necessary skill and efficiency” and the speaker went on to point out that the Wage Board has closed “the only place where semi-skilled men could obtain that skill and efficiency”. I find the same tale in the furniture and clothing industry. I will take the figures as to employment issued by the department over which the Minister presides. I find that in 1928, according to a return published in the Social and Industrial Review for January of this year, the total number of applications for employment made at the labour exchanges was 48,000 for the whole year, and the total number of placements was 19,000, which means that 29,000 of these applicants were not found employment.

Many cases are duplications.

The fact is that so far as the official returns of his department are concerned they show that no fewer than 29,000 people in this country sought employment at the labour exchanges and were not provided with employment by that particular department. Therefore, there seems to be a very considerable volume of actual statistics to support the complaints made from my left to-day. A further result of these indiscriminate and ill-considered determinations has been that they have given rise to systematic evasion throughout the whole of the country. I know from what I have been able to glean myself that this evasion goes on in the building industry, and I was given a striking illustration of what occurs in the clothing industry where, because of the inability of the industry to pay the Wages that have been imposed, workers have left their employment and have obtained certificates that they have never been employed before so as to go back and commence work at a lower grade rather than face unemployment. Who is responsible for this degradation which is imposed upon the employers and the workers?

The employers.

What is wrong is this, that the Minister in his extraordinary haste to be able to make statements such as those I have quoted has failed to realize that in the transition period through which industry must go, provision must be made for those persons who are only semi-skilled so as not to drive them into the ranks of unskilled labour. In the printing industry, which regulated its affairs by consent, the Industrial Council was able to deal with it by keeping these semiskilled persons in the employment they actually possessed at the same wage as they had always drawn, But the Minister has no compassion for the semi-skilled person whom, to gratify his desire for uniformity, he has pushed into the streets. That is one of the gravest counts against the administration of the Minister. If I were asked why I have no confidence in his department or in the Government I would point to these reasons which are evidenced day by day by those human beings who are walking about the streets of the cities of the country clamouring for work. There is a remarkable state of affairs in Cape Town at present. We have one of the leaders of the South African Labour party leading deputations through the streets crying aloud the slogan, “Boydell must go”. Is that “mere technical detail”, mere “absolute rubbish”? Let me relate a story which concerns the hon. gentleman. This Labour leader was dealing with the virtues of the Minister in a speech in Cape Town in August last year, and told his audience of the conclusion to which he had come with reference to the Minister which really is worthy of perpetuation; he said that the hon. gentleman had, he had no doubt, Pelmanized his memory, but, he said, it was at the expense of paralyzing every other faculty he possessed. The remark is only too true. It is this creeping paralysis that has affected the Administration, and I hope, when it has been sufficiently discussed by the House and then goes before the country for consideration, the hon. gentleman will be sent into the wilderness to cure himself of that trouble. May I turn to the other side of the picture? I have referred to the glaring record of unrelieved failure and incompetency on the part of the Labour Department. To-day we have in South Africa industries of all kinds which, left to themselves, and free from the intervention and supposed assistance of the hon. gentleman, are able to carry on with success, and the one bright feature of industrial life to-day is that, in spite of the handicaps imposed upon them, it has been possible for industry to succeed so well as it has done. Let me give a few figures relating to the work done by employers and employees without the assistance of the Government in the sphere of juvenile labour and apprenticeship.

It is all under my department.

The hon. gentleman would I know like to steal our clothes, but when we call to find that this legislation was passed by this side of the House, we can congratulate ourselves that industry has been successful, depite these Government handicaps. Since the date of the passing of the Juvenile Affairs Act, year by year, through the efforts of the employers and the Committees, no fewer than 10,000 juveniles year by year have been able to secure employment before and after registration.

Yes, through the Labour Department.

When we deal with apprenticeship we find the same continued increase in the number of current contracts. [Time limit.]

When the motion was introduced I had no doubt that the Opposition were desperate to win back authority and to draw together their lost followers, and I think that there are few hon. members and few people outside the House who do not share that opinion, especially after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the supporting speeches of the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). There was naturally a certain amount of excitement when notice was given of the motion, but more disappointing arguments than those adduced can hardly be imagined. I want particularly to deal with the support that the mover got from the hon. member for Caledon. Instead of giving facts in support of the motion to convince the public that there were actual grounds for it, he seldom or never came to the motion itself. The hon. member began his long speech with an apology for the attitude his party took up in 1914, and he mentioned how much they had reduced the national debt. He referred to the independence ideal of the Afrikanders as a whole, to the independence deputation of 1919, and to the hereeniging movement, and further entertained us with a statement of his views on the constitutional position. I think this House will be wasting time in immortalising the constitutional views of the hon. member. The hon. member never got to the sins of the Government, which the motion was intended to deal with. On the contrary he said he was satisfied about certain reforms which the Nationalist party, according to him, had effected, and in this respect a motion of thanks for the alteration of view would have been appropriate. The speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) can only be intended for electioneering purposes, to catch Labour votes, but it is inexplicable how any member of the House with the data at his disposal can still think that the experience of the working men can be so nullified. The object of the motion is to stop the course of history. The history of nearly twenty years is against the South African party, and history will not take a turn so that the Saps, can regain prestige and resume the government of the country. The record of the South African party is deplorable. From 1910 to 1912 it was strong It was a solid party with a large majority in the House, and with the firm support of the people, a party which had the chance of working for the progress of the country. Notwithstanding the duty which rested on them to advance the welfare of the country, we find that in consorting with its political opponents it not only lost its power and influence, but also the flower of its supporters. Resignations from the party naturally commenced and the shock which the people got from the lack of statesmanship in 1912 led to the loss of so much support and prestige that the South African party were forced to rely on their political opponents. That is very humiliating for any self-respecting party, which claims the support of the public. These defections increased from 1912 to 1921, with the final result that the independent South African party was swallowed in 1921 into the belly of the Unionist whale, and still struggles there to-day without any possibility of ever emerging. Yesterday the hon. member for Standerton, in reply to an interjection, said that in spite of the breach the South African party retained the confidence of the people for eleven years after 1913. It only did so by falling into the power of its political opponents. If the leakage had only stopped in 1921, then its old opponents would have had the satisfaction of having stopped the decline in power and influence, but it did not stop there, and led to the defeat of the South African party at the 1924 election. But still, the leakage continued, and now that we are at the end of the five year period of the present Government, the leader of the Opposition introduces this motion of no-confidence. We regard it as his cry for help. Is it necessary to make any further reference to the decline of the South African party? Readers of the “Cape Times” can to-day still see evidence of it. I need not refer to the murmuring in Natal and to the establishment of a new party in Johannesburg out of former supporters of the South African party.

How many of them are there?

That is not the question, the point is that the party is still losing support, that they know it, and that is why the small group that remain are sending out this cry for help. I think it must be a painful position for the leader of the Opposition to have to realize that the only section of the population that is still loyal to him is the native. Not only is the party losing supporters, but the old bogeys and the frightening will no longer work. The majority of the people are satisfied with the policy of the Government. I could also quote something from the journal just mentioned, namely, the opinion of the Chairman of the Federated Chambers of Industries, who says that in the last few years industries and factories have progressed very much, and, indeed, many great industrialists have said the same. The people are satisfied with the Government’s legislation, and realize that the Government is supporting the industries of the country. That there are little points of difference of opinion is obvious. The bogey of socialism is no longer effective. It is encouraging to see that at least one of the members of the Opposition has made the discovery, viz., the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I have a letter here in which he says—

It is the best proof that the Government is looking after the public interests when such an acknowledgment comes from that side. The bogey of State Socialism is no longer effective. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout acknowledges this, but what of the attitude of the party in this House? What about that attitude in connection with the Diamond Control Act, the Diamond Cutting Agreement, the Diamond Act, the Wage Act and the Iron and Steel Act? Were those all smoke screens, pretending anger or annoyance for which there was no ground? That is precisely my idea of the South African party. They have no ground for getting up and out of annoyance seek for an expression for their feigned indignation which ends in such contradictions. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) has just taken up the time of the House with the Wage Act. To a great extent it was approved of at the congress of the South African party. A member of the industry at Port Elizabeth also stated that the Act was a good one, but here and there they want it applied differently. Is the attitude of the South African party honest? Is it all merely hypocrisy and vote catching? Are they only following the “Cape Times” in practically approving of the Wage Act in the towns, and disapproving of it on the countryside?

What does the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) say?

He opposes all wage acts.

I pay wages without wage acts.

I now come to the attitude of the South African party in connection with the distressed diggers in the country. I know a little about the position and have a great deal of sympathy for the people who have been so badly hit by the economic position. When I come, however, to the attitude of the South African party I cannot find words to express my indignation sufficiently. What was the attitude of the party with respect to the Hay motion in this House? A great deal was said, but the Opposition did not assume the least responsibility, did not promise the least thing. What was the answer of the Leader of the Opposition to Mr. Brink of Lichtenburg, who offered to stand as a South African party candidate if Namaqualand were thrown open to the diggers by the South African party? The reply was that the Leader of the Opposition would himself go to Lichtenburg to consider the matter. Has he expressed his views? Are they still secret? What was the attitude with regard to the deputation that recently waited on the hon. member for Standerton? He said that when once he was elected he would have enquiry made. Is that the honest attitude of a responsible person, and a responsible party, a party that claims to rule the country? Why did not the Leader of the Opposition have the courage to explain the position to the unfortunate people? Why did he not point out to them the increasing production from year to year, and the sagging market price? Why did he not tell them that in 1923-’24 the production of alluvial diamonds was 209,000 carats, while in 1926-’27 it was 1,387,000, and in 1927-’28 2,318,000 carats? Why did he not communicate the data, and say that, while in 1923-’24 the price per carat was 130s. 11d., in 1924-’25 it was 151s., and in 1925-’26 166s. per carat, but in 1926-’27 (when the yield had become so great) it was only 72s. 7d., and in 1927-’28 only 53s. per carat? Why, being a responsible person, did he not tell the distressed parts of the population the naked truth? He made no reply to their questions, and undoubtedly the people will settle accounts with him when the day comes. Further, the South African party have never said clearly whether, if they get into power again, they will throw Namaqualand open to diggers. Or are they going to hand it over to the capitalists? Or is it their intention to carry out the policy of the Nationalist party, and to retain it as a State digging in the interests of the people? The hon. member for Standerton should kindly explain this in the presence of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris). That the attitude of the Government was a source of dissatisfaction I know from experience, but when the day of reckoning comes I shall at least be able to tell the people that the Government has treated them honestly, with the best intentions, but that the Opposition has completely left them in the lurch. This Government at least gives the people the hope of being taken back on to the countryside by the funds of the State digging being possibly used for large irrigation works. That is a good thing. I hope the Government will leave no stone unturned to treat the people honestly and to maintain their interests. I hope the Government will not follow the footsteps of the Leader of the Opposition. When I see the disappointment in the supporters of the South African party I think of the lines: “The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.” The South African party have no policy. For months their supporters have been waiting for it, and in Natal they have commenced to grumble. I have here an extract from a report of a meeting of the South African party branch at Pietermaritzburg (North). The meeting was well attended, but complaints were made about the absence of a programme, and a unanimous resolution was passed urging the outlining of the policy of the South African party because otherwise no election propaganda was possible. The hon. member for Standerton made it known that the time was not favourable. When at a meeting of the provincial executive committee of Natal the matter was again raised, the hon. member for Standerton said that a too early publication of policy would mean a loss of “thunder” at the critical moment. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. For four years the party was without any line of conduct, or any policy. What we had to look at yesterday was the thunder. It burst out, but no one was frightened, no one felt the storm. What was the thunder to which the hon. member for Standerton referred? The whipping up of racial feelings assisted him. Along with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) we hoped that the thing would not occur again in South Africa. He will agree that it is impossible in Canada and in other parts of the British Empire, but in South Africa it is, unfortunately, still a political weapon. The hon. member for Standerton spoke further yesterday with righteous indignation about the fact that the Prime Minister had accused him of dragging the native question into party politics. I say emphatically that there is no ground for the indignation. I say that because for two years I have had the privilege of being a member of the Select Committee that has been dealing with the matter, and because I have made a close study of the subject, and of the attitude of individuals. For myself I want to state file position as it actually is, and I know that I can leave my opinion to the judgment of the people of South Africa, and I appeal to the conscience of the Leader of the Opposition. For two years I have, with many a member in this House, and the public as a whole, hoped that the weighty native question would not be made a ball of party politics, although I always feared the possibility of it. My friends will recollect that I repeatedly warned them that we should not rely on that expectation too much. After two years of negotiation, when we thought that it was not to be made a political matter, we met on the 3rd December, 1928, for the last time. After the Native Land Bill and the Coloured Persons Rights Bill were disposed of, and after it was agreed that we should no longer negotiate about the Native Councils Bill, and when the native franchise question came up the Leader of the Opposition for the first time touched upon the question of the continuance of the present franchise rights of the Cape Province natives. When it was generally explained that there could be no question of the taking away of the existing franchise from those who were already registered, and when it was generally acknowledged that separate representation with their own quota and voters’ list was intended the hon. member for Standerton spoke, that he felt that we ought not to touch the existing Cape native franchise. There was no question of the rights of existing voters as such, nor of the rights of coloured persons because these had already been dealt with. After the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) spoke, and took up an attitude diametrically opposed to that of their leader. I spoke against the hon. member for Standerton, and I appeal to the honour of all the members of the Select Committee. I referred to the data that we have to-day, that there had been abuse of the native vote in the past for party political ends. I referred to the recommendations of the Native Commission of 1903 to 1905, and further to those of the present Native Affairs Commission and to the recommendations contained in the evidence of Professor J. du Plessis of the Stellenbosch Theological College. In all this evidence separate representation for the natives is recommended. There cannot be the least doubt about the intention of all who were present on the 3rd December, 1928. The hon. member for Standerton took no further part in the discussion, but later in Bloemfontein we noticed in the Press that he said that the rights of the natives in the Cape could not be meddled with. It is not that he was only referring to the existing franchise of registered native voters. His words can only have one meaning, that he had entirely refused to consider the reviewing of the franchise of the Cape natives. That is the only possible inference. When the hon. member for Standerton then comes and represents here that he has not dragged the matter into party politics it is a representation that is not based on facts. Now I come to the second part of yesterday’s “thunder,” namely the fury at the protest of the three Ministers. When a party that claims the vote of the people of South Africa come forward with that creed then it is understandable that they are furious when their intentions are exposed. I should like to go into details of the work of the Government especially on behalf of the weakened section of the people-and of the youth. On this very point it may be the duty of the Opposition to move a motion of no-confidence, arid if they do it on this cardinal point of policy, then I say that I regard nothing of greater importance than public education, and I can prove what the Government has done regarding education and the advancement of technical and industrial schools. I want to state that no one can to-day with any measure of honesty repeat the complaint of the pensioned Secretary of Industries, Mr. Warrington-Smythe, that for thousands of children leaving school annually no appointments could be found.

That was never the case.

That was the statement of the Secretary of Industries, and I know that there was much more unemployment than was necessary. Nor am I going into details about the assistance to the aged by means of the old-age pensions, and into the assistance given to landless farmers. I trust the Minister of Lands will do that. In view of the statement made here about appointments to the railway service, I think it is necessary to just briefly look at the official data for the past seven or eight years. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) often comes in for a great deal of the blame over the appointment of natives instead of Europeans. I am not referring to the discharge of Europeans to make way for natives, but when Europeans have left the service natives have beer» appointed in their stead. [Time limit.]

The mover of the motion of no confidence in the Government has tried, and tried ably, with the assistance of his new found friends on the opposite benches, to put up a case against the Pact Government. I say advisedly that he has tried very hard to put up a case, knowing full well that his attempt has been a miserable failure. As yet there has been no case put up against the administration of the Pact Government.

What about unemployment?

The attempt has been made by the mover to have the country believe that under the Pact Government administration the country has gone to the dogs, when he himself, above all others, knows full well that after something like five years of Pact administration the country to-day is in a far more prosperous condition than ever before. When the Pact Government took over, we all knew what the state of the country was then. After something like fourteen years of maladministration by the South African party, business, industries, the country in general and the people were on the verge of starvation in every direction. Industries were stagnating and strife was rampant throughout their term of office. The right hon. members seemed very uncomfortable when 1913 was mentioned. I find it necessary to mention 1913 and to refer to the maladministration that brought about bloodshed in 1913, and to the handling of a situation which could not have been created had there been someone in control who understood, or would have tried to understand, the needs of the workers. We had the little affair, quite a mild affair, of Kleinfontein, when the unfortunate workers simply put forward a moderate request to their employers, but were rejected in the usual way because the mine owners, at that time, knew very well that any action they were prepared to take would be upheld by the South African party Government. After the bloodshed, after the thousands of pounds spent by the Government in the protection of scabs, when the settlement came about, what was the result? Although the Government had thrown in their weight with the mine magnates, it was found that the request of the workers, in the first place, was a moderate request. After the bloodshed had taken place, their request was granted. I happened to be closely connected with the industrial movement at that time. The settlement was looked upon by organized workers and by workers in general, as a victory against the employing class and against the Government. But that victory was short-lived. The South African party were not prepared to let it go forth that they had suffered defeat at the hands of organized labour —organized labour must be smashed at all costs. To-day we have hon. members speaking of the assistance they are prepared to render to the unskilled worker. The poor unskilled section was used as a stalking horse in 1914 by the South African party Government to again sow trouble in the country. Easily done. They knew if any attempt was made to deal harshly with these unfortunate workers, organized labour would attempt to come to their rescue. The result was the order went forth that 12,000 of these unskilled workers were to be discharged from the services of the country. That was the assistance that was forthcoming from the South African party. We know that when that order went forth the machinery of organized labour was immediately put in motion, and we know the machinery of the South African party was already in motion, with the result that when they themselves were responsible for forcing on the country the 1914 upheaval, they came along, and to break up as quickly as possible organized labour, they deported without trial the leaders of the different movements. Yet British justice is spoken of so often by the right hon. the member for Standerton. Possibly the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) will remember the little trip given to him by the South African party Government in 1914. Some of us will never forget the handling we had at the hands of the forces controlled by that party. Let us come to 1922. Again it was necessary for the Government to have another dig at organized labour—the same people who are to-day preaching their sympathy with the unskilled section of our community. We had our trials and tribulations through the war period, and then men came back from war service to find their places taken by kafirs and coloured men. Again the Government forces were brought in as usual to smash up those who were trying to assist others in retaining or securing employment. I have, in my constituency, a monument to the bloodthirsty and callous methods of the South African party administration, a monument that will never be forgotten, and there are the names on that stone of five unfortunate individuals whose only crime was that they were unskilled workers, and that they came out on strike in sympathy with a number of their more unfortunate brothers. The crime was very great in the eyes of the South African party, to the extent that these five individuals were taken out without trial, chased along the streets at the point of the bayonet, and eventually turned against the stone and shot—by the people who are to-day trying to tell the country that they are the saviours of this country. If ever it is possible for the South African party to take up the reins of Government again, God help South Africa, and God help the workers of this country.

And God help you.

I do not need any assistance from my friends on the opposition benches. I have been hammered about often enough by them, and if it comes to another hammering, I shall be there to take the gruelling, but I shall be there to do my best along with the others of the working class movement. Time and time again during the last five years we have been on the verge of small industrial upheavals, but the position has been so different from what it was before. We have men in the Government to-day, ably assisted by their heads, who thoroughly understand the needs of the workers and how to handle them, and these small disputes, instead of being allowed to develop, as usually they were allowed before, have been nipped in the bud. The workers to-day are far more contented than ever they have been during the last twenty years in this country. The industrialists and manufacturers are also far more contented than ever they were. Industrialists and manufacturers will tell you that they did not think it possible for a change of Government to bring such prosperity to the country; they in the past have voted Sap, but never again. Take your statistics, your imports and exports, travel through your towns and see the numbers of magnificant buildings that are going up, due to the prosperity brought to the country during the last five years.

They are put up by Saps.

I do not know about that. I well remember the “make snug” section were so anxious to see the country “go ahead” under their regime, that we had to suffer the consequences; of commodities that could be produced in the country, being always imported from oversea. If their magnificent premises to-day are from those profits, I do not know that the Pact is to blame for that. I want to take the strongest exception to some remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), and especially the remark of his about the £ s. d. group. If there is an inference of dishonesty in that remark, I throw that back into the teeth of the hon. member. I want to say that this group is not composed of political opportunists, but of those members who, for a number of years, have always been doing their duty representing politically the industrial section of the workers. The new Minister carries the fullest approval of the industrial and political sections of the Union to-day. I would ask if the “£ s. d. section” is not more applicable to the wobbling section you have over there. When we discussed whether we should allow our members to go into the Cabinet, one of the strongest opponents to entering into the Cabinet was the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I do not know whether it was a matter of £ s. d. that weighs with him, but, immediately the offer of a position in the Cabinet was made to him, he did not go to his Weinstock friends for any advice.

You do.

I never did. The hon. member went into the Cabinet; he was imbued with the idea of £ s. d. But when the time came for him to go out, then he must consult his Weinstock friends. I do claim that we, on this side of the House, truly represent the South African Labour party. The little group on the cross benches on the other side have not a sufficient following to fill the dining room of their quarters in the Grand Hotel. Irrespective of the scares that have been put up by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), when the general election does come along, he and we shall find that the country has the fullest confidence in and will return the Pact once more to power.

I do not rise because I like to quarrel, I am sorry that this motion had to be introduced, but sometimes a man is obliged to do a thing he does not care about. The people of South Africa are very tired of all the bickering in the country. I can assure the House that people in my constituency have said to me: “Man, you really ought to stop quarrelling now”. In my humble way I have always warned hon. members opposite that they ought to give up co-operating with the Labour party. And what has happened now? There you have to-day the party which is divided and which is still more dividing the people of South Africa. I just want to say a few words on behalf of my electors in connection with the motion. All the promises made by the Nationalist party—

Have been carried out.

Very little has been carried out.

Mention those which have not been?

The people will soon give an answer to that. It grieves me, promises have been made and it has been shouted out that the South African party is an entirely unchristian party because the name of Providence was not mentioned in the Constitution. That is true, the other side rectified it, but with our co-operation. But what followed? The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said yesterday that the Government are united to people who pass resolutions on Sunday.

What did you do on Sunday?

Can such a Government get a blessing? It is a matter the people are noting. On the 17th June, 1924, the Pact was to be broken. I want to remind hon. members that that promise was not fulfilled. Unfortunately for that party the people will not again believe their promises after having once been deceived, and they will not again be satisfied with them. A further promise was made by the Minister of Justice, who, unfortunately, is not now in his place. He said that when his party came into power they would fix prices for agricultural produce by which better prices would be obtained.

When did he say that?

It is not necessary for me to say, hon. members know it just as well as I do. They are trying to confuse me, but I shall not be sidetracked.

He never said it.

He did it of course to get votes for his party, although hon. members and the Minister know very well that it is quite impossible. What is the condition of agriculture to-day?

Much better.

The hon. member is indeed a farmer, but I cannot see that the markets are so much better. I do not want to throw all the blame for it on the Government, but want to point out that the Government cannot always be making impossible promises to the people, for they will not believe them. The Prime Minister has referred to the industrial peace existing to-day. I agree, but the question is if too much has not been paid for it. In the first place we got the eleventh Minister whose salary had to be paid by the taxpayers, then hon. members, including myself, had the good fortune to get an increase of £200 a year.

What about this 1922 strike? What did that cost?

The hon. member asks what the strike in 1922 cost, but I want to enquire who was behind it. I am very sorry to say that at that time our opponents encouraged the strikers so as to make use of it subsequently. Can hon. members deny that such things were done while we were trying to make the people quiet? The industrial peace of to-day is due to the action of the former Government. When a child gets a beating it is quiet for a long time, and that is the case here too, and we can say that the beating did a lot of good. Hon. members must be honest and say whether it is not right to act in that way and bring people to a sense of their duty if they will not listen to reason. The present Government now enjoys the fruits of that unpopular step that we had to take. Other promises were made which have not been kept.

Name them.

All unemployment was going to be abolished shortly. I do not agree with people who say that such a terrible state of affairs is prevalent. I admit that a port of the population will never be satisfied, but to say that the unemployment question has been solved is wrong. I am one of the members who come much into contact with the unemployed, and I must say that since the time I have represented my constituency in the House, so many people have never come to me because they had no work as during the last few years. When I realise that, I do not know whether unemployment has actually lessened. Perhaps it has increased.

No, you are wrong.

That hon. member comes from the countryside, but he forgets that the unemployment would be much worse on the countryside if large municipalities like Johannesburg did not assist the Government by finding work for people from the country. The Government would otherwise have much more trouble. It is not fair to the municipalities to have to take all the burden of unemployment from the country on their shoulders. It is not fair to the ratepayers there. The Government must bear its share. I come to the promise that the native question would be solved. This Government has been in office for 4½years, and has the question been solved? Why must it to-day be a matter to go to the country on? It is playing with fire, and if once the country is set on fire we cannot see where it will end. When I read the manifesto of the three Ministers, as a simple man I could not find a name for it.

That is a good shot.

A good shot which will hurt us all very much. The people of South Africa will not believe that the South African party want to put the natives over them. We have proved that we are not such great friends of the natives. We want to treat the natives honourably, but the document signed by such great men is childish. All speakers tried at first to keep the question out of politics, but the party opposite appeared so bankrupt that they have to lay such a matter before the country.

Your congress.

Order. I want to call the attention of hon. members to Section 63 of our Rules of Order, the second part—

I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the speaker so much. It not only hinders him, but also disturbs the order in the House.

Very many thanks, Mr. Speaker. I know it is very hard for hon. members to be quiet when the truth is being spoken, but hon. members will surely admit that my few words are well meant. My constituents and I wish that the political struggle should not be waged so strongly, and that no premises should be made which cannot be carried out. By now we have already learnt that it is wrong to hurt each other unnecessarily and to carry political partisanship too far.

What about the motion?

The hon. member is very sorry about it, but sometimes one must speak the truth. The motion will let the people outside see that there are men in this House who publish the truth. We must not however quarrel unnecessarily and hurt each other. The people expect a better example from us as leaders. I know that the Prime Minister has also been making a fuss and I am sorry he is so personal. He must try and avoid that a little. He can possibly learn a little even from a simple man like me. He said that he would go with a trumpet clarion through the country, and I hope the sound of the trumpet will not be out of tune. This party will do its best to avoid it. We have also had enough dust. I do not want to represent the Government as entirely bad. It also has good points, and I must honestly say that I heartily approve of much that the Government has done, but the principle, the party they are co-operating with put them in an impossible position. The Pact must go. Let the people who have no disputes work together for the good of the country. The members of the Cape Province have always called up the Unionist ghost so much, and characterised it as a frightfully great offence for the South African party to co-operate with the Unionists. It may be that in the past the Unionists did a little harm in the Cane, but in the Transvaal it was different. I have lived all my life amongst them and can give the assurance that before the parties fused I got a lot of votes from Unionists. The people came to the country and brought capital, they have not stolen, and they have accepted the South African party constitution, and fortunately our party has never yet been so divided as the Government party, because we are independent people who are trying to work in the interests of the country. I get many votes form Unionists, English people, some of whom do not even speak my language. Often I am asked how it is possible for me to be a Johannesburg member. I reply that I live amongst them in peace and that they have confidence in me. Why should we not all live at peace with each other? There is room enough in the country. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) made a few remarks about the diamond diggings. I think the Minister has got into such difficulties that he has not known at times how to get out of them. Formerly the shouting on the other side always was that we had worked on behalf of the capitalists, but where are the capitalists more protected than in the Diamond Act of this Government? The Government has protected capitalists as no other Government has ever done.

You must be very glad.

Glad? I shall be glad if a man who spends his money in the country is protected, but it must not be at the expense of the poor digger who wants to make an honest living. Why I am so opposed to the Minister of Mines on the Diamond Act is because he has encroached so on the owners’ rights. There are owners who want to prospect their farms, but that has been prevented by the law. Now, however, I see that the Minister realises that there are not so many diamonds in the world, and that he is beginning to yield in this respect. How many poor people however have been ruined? Why should the owners be prohibited? Did Providence put the treasures into the earth for nothing? The Labour party’s cry always was to extract the mineral wealth, but in this case they agreed to its being covered up. I hope their constituents will remember that. I always warned people against the terribly high wages the Labour party wanted, but when I think that my fellow Afrikanders in Namaqualand, married men, have to work for 7s. 6d. a day then it really is a shame, and they are people who have to work at such responsible places as on the digings. I know that the Government has trouble to-day to stop stealing on the diggings, but if the people were paid a proper wage it would not be so bad.

Is it possible to stop thieving?

Yes, with a proper wage you would be able to trust the people more, because then they would not so readily fall. Then there was a shout that Namaqualand should be retained only for Namaqualanders. I do not see the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) in his place, and he has perhaps gone to his constituency to see if he can fix up his nomination. He was one of the people. The Minister of Mines hesitates to come to Lichtenburg and he does not go to Namaqualand at all. Why did the Minister of Justice leave Lichtenburg for Bethal? Why do the people on the diggings feel that they can no longer trust their representative? I certainly sit on this side with large capitalists, but I do not want the Government to give everything to them. The diamond trade must be controlled, but it can be done in another way than by driving the people who are looking for diamonds away from the diggings. In the Transvaal attempts are being made to reduce more and more the number of diggers, owing to all the restrictions placed on them. Then the hon. member for Hopetown asked why the South African party did not make promises to the people. Let me say that we are not a party which makes promises that cannot be fulfilled. The promises the Government made and did not fulfill will be the chief cause of its defeat at the general election.

When the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) unfolded his first accusation I thought that the splinters would fly on this side of the House, but he had barely started when he discovered that he was on the eve of a general election and must return to his constituency where the ground under his feet was disappearing. He immediately adopted a minor key, and here and there praised the Government. That made me think of a certain Elder who was conducting a funeral. At the graveside he announced Hymn No. 2, and, because there was no one to lead, he did so himself. When he had sung a few notes his wife reminded him that the key was too high, because the “Hef aan” was still in front. The impression I gained from my hon. friend when he rose to blame the Government was that he had no facts to adduce. He tried I to read this side of the House a lesson, and even went so far as to say that he wanted to sharpen I our memories. All the time his own memory failed however. Together with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) he accused us that: when the Government had to be formed our Labour friends met on a Sunday morning to consider their participation in the Pact. It was not the Nationalist party. He had forgotten that his Government and his Leader had had Japie Fourie shot on a Sunday morning. Now my hon. friends are presumably indignant because I am giving them hard facts, but they must remember that there is an old proverb that people in glass houses must not throw stones. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is an elder, and I want to remind him that it comes very badly from him to approve what his Leader did as Minister of Defence in the case of Japie Fourie. My hon. friend further accused the Nationalist party of not fulfilling its promises, a more ridiculous accusation I have never heard. Just like his Leader yesterday he also deals in generalities and vaguenesses and he has been beating the air all the time.

What did you do to carry out your promises?

What did we not do? The Prime Minister drew up a programme for the general election in 1924 with seven points. Six of them have already been carried out, or partially so, and he is engaged on the seventh. Now I challenge my hon. friend to prove which of the promises that the Prime Minister submitted to the people have not yet been wholly or partially fulfilled. It is very clear that the hon. member for Standerton with his whole following are terribly upset and indignant that this Government has not been guilty of the blood and tears of which they themselves were guilty. The only hope they have for the future is to go to the people and say: “Those people are just as bad as ourselves.” The Opposition are dissatisfied on account of the industrial peace and quiet, and they want to accuse the Government of imaginary things. Now I can leave the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) because his constituency will shortly settle with him. It is only a pity that I cannot say au revoir to him when he goes home. Let me now come to the motion before the House. I expected a statesman, a man of world fame, like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) would at least mention hard facts in support of his motion, but what did he do? He accused the Government with loose general arguments. It is also clear that he is suffering from a bad memory. It is, therefore, a good thing that he has by his motion given us the opportunity to refresh his memory a little before the election. We shall mention the fact to the people who will then pass judgment, they will decide between the hon. member for Standerton and the Prime Minister. To do so it is necessary for us to clear up the past of the hon. member and of his party, and on the other side place what this Government has done in the short time it has been in power. Hon. members will remember that the hon. member for Standerton came into power as the most prominent member after the Prime Minister, of the Botha Cabinet in 1910. The people then gave the South African party the largest majority which has ever vet occurred in the history of the country. They had confidence in the old South African party. Hon. members will admit that there was unprecedented prosperity in 1910. There was no, or hardly any, taxation, which the people felt. There was rest and peace. Hardly were the South African party in power, then we found that, through the tactless actions of certain party leaders, a split occurred in the party, with the result that the South African party became smaller and smaller. We were all Saps., and why do we now sit on this side? Not because we preferred to sit in opposition, but because principles were being trampled underfoot by the South African party which thereafter became smaller and smaller. In proportion as they became weaker they sought for help from the Unionists. What did Gen. Botha say about that party? I will quote the words which he used shortly before his death. He said: “God save South Africa from the day that the Unionists come into power in South Africa.” Gen. Botha refused the co-operation of the Unionists with the South African party. The hon. member for Standerton so courted the Unionists that in the end they had to become one party. What then became of the old South African party? I ask the hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) and for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) as old members of the South African party, how many of the members of the old party are still there to-day? Of the fifty-three South African party members in the House there now remain thirteen. The South African party united with the Unionists, who in the nature of things were the political enemies of the South African party, and against whom the late Gen. Botha warned them. Can the old South African party members still say that they are building on the old traditions of the late Gen. Botha? Do they deny that they are allowing the Unionists to govern?

On our principles, yes.

That is the kind of played-out chaff of the hon. member which he indulges in on the countryside. Unfortunately, the countryside no longer believes it. They no longer form a small minority in the Opposition. The thinking section of the people have become Nationalists. As for the financial policy, the hon. member for Standerton, at the end of the previous Government, acknowledged in this Chamber that the people were overtaxed. I have much respect for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger); he is honest and straightforward, and if I here give correct facts he will admit them. Our people were overtaxed so that there was no further source of revenue which had not been heavily called upon, when we came into power. Of the united front of the general peace which prevailed in South Africa there was nothing left in 1924. Where was the unanimity? For fourteen years the former Government had the people under its fist and course of action. Even the natives of whom they now want to be the champions had to suffer severely. Has the hon. member for Standerton forgotten how the workers had to suffer in 1913, 1914 and 1922, etc., and his campaigns against his own people? This is the first occasion that I can look him straight in the face and accuse him of the 1914 disaster. He had to come to the House repeatedly to ask for indemnity for his evil deeds outside. Eventually the people found the hon. member for Standerton out, and dealt with him to such an extent that even in 1924 he could not win his own favourite seat and without the grace of the Prime Minister would probably not even have got a seat in this House.