I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I listened with much interest to the leader of the Opposition when he introduced this motion, and I was very pleased to hear him once again make a prophecy. The leader of the Opposition states that the people in South Africa have lost confidence in this Government.

He stated a case, not a prophecy.

I want to bring home to hon. members some of the previous utterances and prophecies of the leader of the Opposition which have not come true, and which have shown clearly that he has been, and will again prove to be, a false prophet. For example, he said: “I will never lose Pretoria West.” He did. He also said he was convinced that this unholy alliance would never be returned to power. He was wrong. He went further and said that if we were returned to power we would not last more than six months; and again he was wrong. After eighteen months had passed, when the leader of the Opposition was thinking about a lecture tour in the United States of America, he said, according to his own press: “I cannot leave South Africa because we are on the eve of a general election.”

Never.

He said further that if the Pact came into power trade and industry would be stagnant throughout South Africa. Since we took over the reins of Government there has been a phenomenal increase in both trade and industry. In 1924 he said that if the Pact came into power capital would leave South Africa. But what is the position? There is more capital coming into the country than ever before.

Where did you get that from?

From his speeches as reported in his press, and from which I can quote extracts. He also said that the money markets of the world would be closed to the Pact Government. I only mention these things because I was pleased to hear the leader of the Opposition laying such emphasis upon the fact that this Government had lost the confidence of the country. Why was this motion moved? It was moved—

Window-dressing.

I think it was a bait thrown out in order to catch the members over there on the cross-benches with a view to them and the South African party presenting a united front. But it drew a blank, because, while hon. members on the crossbenches over there were prepared to wound, they were afraid to strike the blow. The amendment was moved to get our friends over there out of the dilemma in which the South African party thought it had placed them. A significant feature of the debate during the last two or three days has been that practically every speech from the minority Labour movement has been applauded, appreciated and beamed upon with satisfaction by every member of the South African party. Why? I will tell you. They are not relying upon the help of hon. members over there in Parliament; there is something far bigger at stake. What they are banking upon is the help they hope to get from that section when they start their vote-splitting campaign. The members of the Weinstock section are going out to split the vote of the Labour party. That is why there is such satisfaction in the ranks of the South African party. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) is, I understand, going on a vote-splitting campaign in Brakpan, and I also understand that the member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is also going on a similar work. Well, they are welcome. The hon. member for Pretoria West, who went in with such a flourish of trumpets, is going down to Greyville to help the South African party. The hon. member is welcome to do the dirty work of the vote-splitters and wreckers in Greyville.

Talk like a Minister.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is getting fidgety. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) made an attack on the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He made an insulting suggestion to one who holds a trade union record second to none in South Africa, a record extending over a quarter of a century. Since the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) occupied a ministerial position the Typographical Union has publicly expressed gratification at his appointment. The insult of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) is, therefore, an insult to the Typographical Union. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley)—I am sorry he is not here—in moving his famous amendment, said that his late colleagues, the other Labour Ministers, had failed the labour movement. He told us that he had succeeded, but that we had failed. But what was his supreme effort? It was that he had raised the wages of the building trade labourers to 8s. per day. In December, 1924, twelve months before the member for Benoni came into the Cabinet, an instruction was given by me, as Minister of Public Works, for 8s. per day to be paid to unskilled labourers on building contracts in the case of tenders accepted on a civilized basis. We called for alternative tenders in order to promote our policy of civilized labour, and when I was asked by the Labour Department to agree to that I did. Originally there was no rate laid down. The master builders came to me and asked what was the use of their being requested to quote unless they were told what the rate was to be on a civilized labour basis. I issued an instruction that 8s. a day should be the rate. That was the policy until August, 1926, when the hon. member for Benoni became Minister of Public Works. The master builders Then came along again. They said: “We don’t like this calling for alternative tenders.” They asked for uniformity, and the hon. member for Benoni took the next step. He did away, at the request of the master builders, with the alternative tenders, and left the wage of 8s. per day as I had fixed it. This was the supreme effort of the hon. member for Benoni, on which he says he was turned out of the Cabinet. Well, the hon. member for Benoni says we have failed. He says that I have failed. Yes, I have failed to join in the miserable, underground, intriguing attack on our leader, made upon him in order to pull him down. I stood by the man they were doing their best to pull down. That is my crime and my failure, in common with the other Labour members who sit on this side of the House. We refused to join in the attack led by Karowsky and others. If the hon. member for Benoni was so keen on raising the wages, why did he not take the opportunity he had in connection with something else he controlled. When I took over as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs there were 500 white men working as civilized labourers on telephone construction. They were getting 5s. per day. I said it was too little, and I increased that rate to 6s. 6d. per day, and I increased the number from 500 up to 1,450. I would have thought that if the hon. member had been so keen on his 8s. a day when he saw the pay of these men was being raised from 5s. to 6s. 6d., he would have said that the increase ought to be 8s. per day. I left the department to the hon. member who now boasts that he was the one who raised the wages, and when I inquired, I found, to my surprise, that the number employed had decreased and the wage was exactly as I left it. I now wish to deal with the two main criticisms which have been levelled at me in connection with the Wage Act and unemployment. I am sorry the leader of the Opposition is not here, for I would like to ask him, if he comes into power, will he repeal the Wage Act, and leave the working man to the mercy of the sweaters? The Transvaal congress of the South African party sent me a letter last October stating that the congress passed a resolution strongly protesting against the Wage Act, under which they alleged that farmers suffered in every respect. I ask any farmer in the House if he has suffered as a result of the Wage Act. As a matter of fact, the Wage Act excludes farming operations, but this is the South African party pretext for doing away with the Wage Act. The leader of the Opposition stated on one occasion that he was going to repeal the Wage Act, and the next day the “Bloemfontein Friend” came out with a slashing attack on him, stating that if he talked like that, what hope had he of returning to power?

Where did he say that?

He said that last August in Cape Town.

Then the women’s conference of the South African party sent me a letter urging that the Wage Act be repealed. Let us see what all the trouble is about. Both the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) are hopelessly at sea in regard to what the Wage Act is doing and the difference between it and the Industrial Conciliation Act. They have both praised the latter, but in the next breath they attacked the wage boards for things with which they have nothing to do, but which have to do with the Industrial Conciliation Act. The hon. member for Gardens asserted that builders have been thrown out of employment as a result of the Wage Act. The Wage Act has never touched the building industry. If I wanted a lawyer, I reckon I should waste my 6s. 8d. if I went to the hon. member for Gardens. He said the Wage Board is laying down rates of wages which cannot be paid by the sweet manufacturers, and he quoted figures to try to prove that the wages determined by the Wage Board would be too high for the manufacturers to pay. Yet the biggest sweet manufacturer in the Transvaal said—

Then one of the largest sweet manufacturers in the Cape Province, who carries on business at East London, says—

What happens is that when there is a slackness of work in the sweet industry and people are thrown out of employment, the country is told that this is due to the Wage Act. We had a case of 60 employees being put out of work by a Cape Town sweet factory. On investigation it was found that in the corresponding month of the previous year, when there was no Wage Board in existence, this factory had to dismiss 90 employees, sweet-making being a seasonal occupation. The hon. member for Gardens shed crocodile tears about what was happening in the clothing industry. I made enquiries into this industry yesterday through our inspectors, and found that there are more workers in the clothing industry to-day than there were twelve months ago, when there was no wage determination. Of course, there had been dismissals on account of the weeding out of the inefficient. You cannot have efficiency if you are overloaded with a lot of people not suited to perform the class of work in question. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) should not be opposed to efficiency in industry, as South Africa is one of the least efficient countries in the world. The Labour Department informs me that it has found employment for dozens of people displaced on account of wage determinations on account of inefficiency. Recently I went through four clothing factories at Germiston. If I had been the villain of the piece, do you think they would have asked me to open a clothing factory there a few months ago? There was an industrial council for that industry before the Wage Board came into force; it was a sweated industry. Let me just read a letter. The clothing industry of the Transvaal has an industrial council governing the wages, and the secretary and agent happens to be in Cape Town for a few days. He saw in the papers the attack by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter), and this is the letter I had from him yesterday—

This is the industry that is being ruined! Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) know that in the next few months will be finished and started in Cape Town the biggest clothing factory in South Africa, accommodating 1,000 workers? The building and land have cost £30,000. The machinery has been ordered, and this factory was decided upon after the Wage Board determinations were known. The owner of the factory told the chief inspector that if he could not get the employees he required, then he was going to offer them 10 per cent, more than the wages laid down by the Wage Board. But we will hear soon about two factories closing down at Woodstock. One is condemned, and the other has been bought by this man, and he is transferring the machinery and employees to the new factory. It is no good hon. members on that side talking about things they do not understand and do not take the trouble to inquire into. The hon. member for Gardens spoke as a lawyer. He took no trouble to get at the facts, and all he tried to do was to hit the Government and particularly the Department of Labour. Would the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) not agree that our factories in South Africa should be on a properly organized and efficient basis? Mr. Simon Collier, a well-known man, has said one thing the Wage Act has done has been to make employers take stock of their position and reorganize and bring their businesses up to date.

He said it was going ahead much too fast.

If there is one town in South Africa where industrial development is expanding phenomenally, it is the hon. member’s town, Port Elizabeth.

Yes, and Three Rivers showed you what they thought of you.

I will deal with Three Rivers later. South Africa is one of the least efficient countries in the world. Let me give some figures from the year book. The value of production per employee in factories is as follows: Australia, £866 a year; New Zealand, £1,047 a year; Canada, £1,070 a year and South Africa £439 a year. When we come to wages, what do we find? In Australia the average wage of the employee in the manufacturing industry is £193 a year, New Zealand £195, Canada £221, and South Africa £116. Half the wages! That is the reason for our inefficiency—low wages and cheap, inefficient workers. What some of the members over there want is protection for industry but no protection or assistance for workers engaged in industry. I come to another industry mentioned by the hon. member for Gardens, and again he is hopelessly at sea. He talks about the furniture industry, and he says the Wage Board has thrown tens of thousands on to the street. The wage determination, as far as furniture is concerned, does not apply to the Cape. It is governed by the Industrial Conciliation Act. My difficulty is not to defend the work of the Wage Board on its merits, but to get members over there to understand what they are talking about. There is not a single member on that side who takes the trouble to understand how the Wage Act is applied and how the Industrial Conciliation Act is applied. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the Industrial Conciliation Act should be applied to organized workers and the Wage Act to sweated workers. I say the Wage Act has been applied in 90 per cent, of cases investigated solely for the sweated workers, and when it has been applied for more skilled and semiskilled trades, it has only been applied at the request of an industry in order to cover up the defect in the Industrial Conciliation Act. It is defective in one important respect, and I would welcome it if members over there would put through an amending Bill which would make it unnecessary for me to supplement the industrial conciliation agreements. The Industrial Conciliation Act does not apply to pass carrying natives, and the good employers come to me and beg me to protect them against the bad employers. Am I to allow the Industrial Conciliation Act to become a dead letter? I say no. I supplement what the wage agreement lays down by saying any person not covered by the industrial agreement shall be covered by the wage determination. We have had twenty-four wage determinations. I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) would read some of the technical objections that some of these industries have been putting up in order to try to beat the Wage Act—most trifling things. Under that Act the Minister can ask the board to investigate and report, under one clause. Under another clause the Wage Board has to be asked by employers or employees to make an investigation and a recommendation to the Minister. Along comes a brainy magistrate and says that the board can make a report, but if it includes a recommendation the Minister cannot give effect to it when the board has not been instructed to make a recommendation under that particular clause of the Act. What is the good of a report without a recommendation—one implies the other. One magistrate has upset it on a technicality like that. Another determination was upset because no objection date was mentioned. Good employers do not object to the Wage Board at all—they welcome it. The bad employers get an army of lawyers to find little technical flaws, in order to upset the decisions. [Time limit extended.] I think I have said enough to show that the Wage Board is doing good. I now want to come to the question of unemployment, and here we are faced with one of the most difficult things any Minister or Government could meet. Never in my life have I said that I could find a cure for or completely eliminate unemployment under the present economic system, which is production for profit and not for use. That cannot be done under the present economic system.

Why not change the system?

If I can convince my colleagues here to change over from capitalism to socialism it would give me a good deal of pleasure. But even under communism in Russia, I see they have one and a half million of unemployed. We have a little unemployment in Cape Town, which I regret, and I am trying to do what I can every day to meet the position. The local offices put into employment over 6,000 last year, over 500 last month. But some of the men unemployed would not take the work, and said that the wages were too low. I agree; in many cases I would like to see them higher, and I would like to make them higher. Others have been placed in work, but will not stick to it. Others object. As fas as it is possible, we are trying to place the genuine one in employment. What has the Government done? I need not refer to the railways. There would be 15,000 more out of work if the South African party was in power.

made an interjection.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) does not mean to say that they would retain all the civilized railway workers, although I hope they would and increase the wage. I think the wages are small, and as a Labour Minister I hope they will be increased. The policy of hon. members opposite, however, was not to put them in but to push them out and to put the kaffir in. Their policy was to transfer men from branch lines to main lines, and put the kaffir in their place on the branch lines.

You do not understand it; talk about what you understand.

Other departments have absorbed about 1,500, and when we look at industries generally, in the last three years there has been an increase in employment in primary industries of 14,500 Europeans under our industrial development, and of nearly 6,000 non-Europeans. The Government does its best to provide work for civilized workers, but does not get the co-operation of the provincial or the town councils.

What about Bloemfontein?

Bloemfontein is one of the exceptions.

It has a good member.

On roadwork three of the provincial councils last year spent £1,000,000, and there were 40,000 non-Europeans and 62 Europeans. Road-work lends itself to the type of man, especially piece work. I have to start in the Transvaal and advance to the Transvaal Provincial Council £30,000 in order to provide employment for 500 men on road-work, and that did not absorb them. In addition, in my own department I am spending £33,000 to provide employment for another 300 men. I am negotiating now to build a road from Muizenberg to the Strand, which is all Government land, and that will cost the department £15,000.

What do you pay them?

They are on piece-work, earning about 8s. a day. The minimum is 6s. and the average is about 7s. a day. Take the Groot Schuur site; one of the best jobs ever done by civilized labour. Two hundred men were employed upon that job, 100 white and 100 coloured, and the average earnings of the white was 10s. 6d. per day, while that of the coloured was 8s. 6d. per day. Then take the rural side. I have a return here showing what has been done in this connection, and anyone who says we are not doing anything to meet the unemployment position has only to read this document. We have something like 3,000 men who would not otherwise be employed now working in all parts of the country through subsidies or under the auspices of the Labour Department. Some 20 or 30 jobs have been put in hand this year already, in order to find employment for these men. I say that a good deal of the prosperity which we now have can be traced to the fact that we have such a large number of these people employed, as a result of which the spending power of the community is greater now than ever before. As a matter of fact, the increase in wages paid amounts to no less than 3½ millions sterling. Compared with the position in our manufacturing industries at the time when we came into power, wages are 3½ million pounds per year more. Again referring to the rural side, we have training farms and extension schemes on which we have 1,000 families which are being helped. After the training farm comes the extension scheme. I asked the Department of Finance to appoint a commission to go into the economic side of the administration of our scheme. This was done, and I have here the commission’s report. Not satisfied with that, I asked the Agriculture Department to go into the working of our extension scheme. I have its report before me, written by one of the chief officials, who says that the scheme was absolutely successful. Let me quote his own words. He said—

Hon. members who state that we are not doing anything to put them back on the land are simply stating what is not true. No Government has ever done more in this direction than we have.

What are the costs?

You can get those in the report. I would like to say, however, that in regard to the training farms, we are getting a revenue of from £25,000 to £30,000.

Why don’t you extend the farm labourers’ schools?

I am trying to do so all the time. I would like to have one in the Cape. Of course, if hon. members on the opposite side of the House persist in introducing a party spirit into the matter, you will spoil the whole scheme. The leader of the Opposition, in the course of his remarks, stated that the Government came in on the turn of the tide, that it got nothing but large surpluses, and that everything went along all right. Let me read what the president of the Chamber of Industries said in a speech which he made to the Association of chambers of commerce of South Africa in 1928. [Quotation read.]

And you take the credit for all this!

Yes. Just listen to what he had to say further. [Quotation read.] That is the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Gibaud). The country has not gone ahead through good luck, but through good management. We have had a period of peace in industry, progress, and unprecedented prosperity.

The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has been the recognized champion of the public services in this House, and it is difficult to understand the remarks he made in the course of his speech yesterday. I think, however, that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has a better appreciation of the position in the public service than the hon. member, and two or three weeks ago at a meeting of the Labour party at Bloemfontein, the Minister stated that there was grave discontent in the public service. The hon. member for Hanover Street said there was no promise on the part of the Government with regard to the 10 per cent, cut, and the local allowances, and that there was more prospect of restoration from the Pact Government than from the South African party. When the hon. member brought forward a motion for the restoration of the scales, he dealt with the reasons why this 10 per cent, was deducted from the official salaries. He said it was deducted in a time of depression, and then he went on to say—

In the course of the same speech he said that the request of the public service to be given back their 10 per cent, was a perfectly legitimate one.

I have still the same views.

The hon. member said there was no promise made.

You read Hansard, and you will see what I said.

I am quoting from your speech in Hansard. You said that the public servants were given every reason to believe, having regard to the speeches made all over the country, that one of the first things the Pact would do would be to restore the salaries. You said that in a former speech, not the speech of last night. The Labour conference that year adopted a motion urging the restoration of the fifth report scales. Members of the Labour party cannot ignore their promises in regard to the pre-war salaries and allowances. That is what the hon. member said, and I think that is sufficient. I do not think it is a change of outlook at all, but I think it is a change of seat. He has his eye on the Gardens now instead of on Woodstock. The hon. member took a great interest in the public service, and I remember the time when he attended conferences and spoke in favour of resolutions adopted at them. At a conference in Pretoria last May a resolution was passed recognizing the widespread discontent in the service due to the Government’s failure to restore the 10 per cent, cut in salaries, and the differentiation in the local allowances. There was also another resolution at this conference in Pretoria, deploring the failure of the Government in this respect, and in view of these resolutions, it is quite evident that public servants were buoyed up with the promise that the scales would be restored. There was a further resolution passed in which the public servants of South Africa, sitting in annual conference, recorded their strongest protest against the practice of filling the higher appointments by importations from outside. I understand that something like 180 of these appointments were made from outside the service. I am sure that those resolutions state the views of the public service. I am in daily contact with these men, and I know what their feelings are. They are opposed to the disastrous policy of the spoils to the victors., or jobs for pals.

Forget it.

I cannot.

I would like to forget it.

The Minister of Agriculture says that he prefers a Nationalist every time to a member of any other party, and his department is concrete evidence of what happens. The Minister of the Interior stated in the House that, all things being equal, he was prepared to give a job to a Nationalist. The Minister of the Interior, with his well-known sympathies, a judge of when things are equal, it is not difficult to determine how the decision will go. The Minister of the Interior was a member of the select committee which considered the duties of the Public Service Commission, and the select committee was very anxious that the commission should be free from political influence and independant of the Government of the day. Notwithstanding that, one of the first acts he performed on assuming office was to dismiss the Public Service Commission. I asked him the reason and he replied because the commission would not carry out the policy of the Government.

They did not want to carry out the Act of Union.

There are very few plums in the public service, and when men have been in the service for years and when they are near the top of the tree, it is not very pleasant for them to find that the highest appointments are given to the political pals of the Government. When the post of Secretary for the Interior became vacant, the appointment was given to a man from outside the service (the Provincial Administration), although the assistant secretary had been acting as secretary to the department for years whilst his chief was overseas. Then, when Col. Truter retired, no suitable man was found in his department, a man from outside the service was appointed Commissioner of Police. Again, when Mr. Warington Smyth retired from the position of Secretary for Mines, his successor was appointed from outside the service.

I can give you a reply to that, and more than you bargain for. When you speak in the House, talk about what you understand.

What experience had Dr. Pirow of the administration and the working of the mines department? He was appointed simply because he was a political friend of the Minister.

That is an absolute distortion.

A man with an English name is generally superseded. One disquieting phrase concerning many of the appointments from within the service is the almost established practice—whenever a vacancy occurs in a high position—to appoint anyone rather than the next in rank of seniority, especially if he has the misfortune to be an English-speaking civil servant.

That is an absolute distortion.

It is not, it is an absolute fact. How often has the excuse of abolition of office and reorganization been used to get rid of a man. The Government retired a man, an inspector in the public service, on a pension of £640 a year, although he was 10 years under pensionable age, and appointed four others with Dutch names. What is the name of that man retrenched?

Col. Clayton.

A year ago, the Minister of the Interior promised to extend the functions of the Public Service Advisory Council. It was hoped that the council would be able to assist the Public Service Commission in regard to salaries and appointments, but out of the 34 recommendations the council made, only ten, and those of a very minor character, were accepted by the commission. The Advisory Council is so dissatisfied and disappointed with the result of its work that it will probably be dropped. I would like to say a few words to the Minister of Railways. He had the experience of his predecessor in office to guide him, and he also served for years on the Select Committee on Railways, where the many problems with which he has been confronted were continually under discussion, but he has failed to take advantage of the experience he gained there. To-day the traffic to the interior has been entirely revolutionized, but, instead of altering his tactics to meet the changed conditions, the Minister carries on in the same old way. He has forgotten clause 127 of the South Africa Act.

Our old friend again.

The three men he has appointed as members of the Railway Board are estimable gentlemen, but what about their business experience? This section was specially included in the Act as a safeguard for the Minister, has been deliberately set aside for political reasons. There is an entire change in the traffic conditions of the railways. Instead of getting the keenest business men and railway experts he could find, the Minister filled these offices with political appointments, and these men are simply the instruments of the Minister in carrying out his policy. If the Minister had been strong enough to say to the Government: “This thing has got to stop; I am going to run the railways as a business concern,” possibly the railways would not be in their present parlous condition. In the early days it may have been quite good policy for the Railway Department to shoulder many of the burdens which should have been borne by the Central Government, but in spite of the falling revenue and changed conditions, the Minister has continued his policy with the result that £2,000,000 worth of services are still being rendered by the railways for the Central Government which the Minister should insist upon their paying. The users of the railways in the North are paying for all this expenditure. According to the Auditor-General’s report the rates to-day are in some cases 125 per cent, over the pre-war rates, an average of approximately 40 per cent.

Have wages not increased?

You should have taken this into account and insisted that the services rendered to the central Government by the railways should be paid for. Take the payment of interest on capital, the failure to earn interest on the branch lines, the contributions to the Renewals Fund and the cost of uneconomic white labour. Then there is the annual payment of half a million pounds from the capital from which the railways are constructed. When the Minister was in opposition he opposed this policy. There has been a loss on the grain elevators this year of £41,000, a total of £208,000. This does not include the special trucks made and then used uneconomically on other services. Then there is the loss on the Durban graving dock of £232,000. This does not even pay working expenses, let alone interest. Take the loss on the Sea Point line, about £38,000. That has to be made up out of extra fares and rates that up-country people have to pay. Then take the question of drought relief. This is really a national matter, but the Minister of Railways, in reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), said he thought it good policy to assist the farmers. Why should he go out of his way to assist the general public at the expense of up-country people only, who have to pay for this in increased fares and rates. The general manager in 1927 reported he had transported 1¼ million animals, using 18,064 trucks at a total direct and indirect loss of £150,000 for removal of stock. This is clearly a matter which the central Government should pay. Take the Renewals Fund. We have contributed since Union about 14½, million pounds to the Renewals Fund. This fund was built up for the purpose of replacing wasted assets. Of this £14,000,000 less than £2,000,000 has been withdrawn for assets which have actually disappeared. It follows that the railways have built up a fund of 12½ million pounds too much. It is good policy to build up a Renewals Fund, but there is no necessity to take out of revenue a million pounds a year for this purpose, a much lesser sum should suffice for this fund. In regard to the cost of raising loans the balance in favour of the railways to-day is £480,000. Why does not the Minister take up these matters with the Minister of Finance? Something-like £1,000,000 was taken out of the Renewals Fund for new electric engines, which should have been purchased out of capital. The Minister has never been able to defend that. Then there is the question of civilized labour. Every time a question is asked from this side about; the civilized labour policy, the cry goes up that we are against the employment of white labour. We are not but we say you are using this labour in the wrong direction. The Minister entices the men from the land—

That is not so. They are engaged by the Labour Department after the fullest investigation.

But is it not better to employ these men in their natural surroundings? These men can never rise to more than 7s., 8s. or 9s. a day. We have this anomaly. The Minister of Agriculture at a farmers’ conference in Pretoria chastised the farmers for their low production and efficiency. The Minister of Lands spends huge sums on land settlement, and here we have the Minister of Railways enticing these men from the land out of their natural environment. Then take free passes. Why should the Railway Department pay for members’ passes and those of provincial councillors? When the Prince of Wales came it cost something like £31,000, which the railways paid. This visit was an invitation from the central Government, so why should they not put up the money? Then there is this other matter of the branch lines; if the Minister had put a strong Railway Board there they would at least have gone carefully into the actual cost of construction and the probable revenue before recommending any lines. We all realize that we must have branch lines to open up the country, but they are not for the benefit of the railways only, but for that of the whole country, and if there is a loss the whole country should pay. In 1926, the date of the latest statistics, out of seventy branch lines, ten showed a net profit, thirty-two paid working expenses, and twenty-eight did not cover working expenses; the total loss for the year was £572,000, which did not include the indirect loss of rolling stock which could have been used on traffic that did pay. There is an obligation on the Railway Board to go carefully into proposed lines and to see that the revenue was likely to be sufficient to cover at least working expenses. There is a branch line of thirty-four miles from Ladismith to Calitzdorp which was recommended by the Railway Board for construction and the report gave the estimated revenue for the first year as £16,633; there were no round figures about it. There was to be an estimated profit of £279—no round figure of £280. It looked as if there was very careful and accurate estimating, but after three years of working it was found that the revenue was £4,339, or only about a quarter of the estimated revenue, and the loss was £8,809. On the Matatuba line the estimated cost was £419,760 and the actual cost £631,358, an excess of £211,598. How can this House come to a definite conclusion as to the payability of any line when you have such estimates? These are clearly cases where Section 130 should have been put into operation.

Do you believe Mr. Orr to be a business man, Mr. Rissik and Sir Andries Stockenstrom?

They had nothing to do with the Matatuba railway.

The present board are not responsible for any programme.

My point is that if they were a board of directors they would have seen that we got value for our money; if they were in my employ, men who made such an estimates, would make no other. The Minister of Railways and Harbours set aside the board, which was one of his first acts, and authorized the railway to Klaver. He then got the hoard to confirm his action.

That is not so.

I sat on the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours and know the history of this thing. The board said they were faced with an accomplished fact and confirmed the action of the Minister.

I hope all lines give us such good results.

I am not saying that; but the Minister can do away with the Railway Board altogether, if that is the argument. With regard to the establishment of industries in the interior, just outside of Pretoria we have one of the finest quarries in the country for the production of black granite. Would the House believe that it is cheaper for that company to rail one ton of rough granite to Cape Town, ship it to Scotland, get it polished there and reship to Cape Town, than to rail the polished granite from Pretoria to Cape Town. This is not assisting the establishment of industries in the interior. With regard to citrus growers in the Transvaal, a 40-ton truck of citrus was hauled from Nelspruit to Cape Town, 1,196 miles, with a paying load of only 15 tons for £13 10s. if for export, and £37 10s. for local consumption, whilst the cost of railage of 40 tons of the products of a factory producing lemon and orange squash from the same place was £260, whilst the same goods were carried from Durban to Cape Town, 1,250 miles, or 54 miles further, for one-third of the amount. It is clear from this that the Minister is not carrying out his clause in the Act to regulate the rates for the establishment of industries in the interior.

I have listened so far with attention to the debate, and must state that as long as I have been in the House I have never heard such a flood of trivialities as the Opposition has taken the opportunity of this debate to deliver. Not one of the arguments which have so far been put forward has benefitted the motion. As we, therefore, on this side of the House, and the people outside, come to the conclusion that the Opposition have failed miserably as opposition, and now, at the end of the Government’s term of office, have to come forward with a motion of no-confidence to make the people believe that they have done something in Parliament, then it is quite justified. I shall repeat a few points which have also been repeated in the countryside by the Opposition, and of which we are very tired. The first is that hon. members on the other side maintain that this side committed a great sin by not terminating the Pact on the evening of the 17th June, 1924. I shall say to the hon. members—and I hope they will not forget it again —that the Pact ended on that day at 8 o’clock.

And began again the following morning.

The ending of the Pact did not prevent the two parties the following day, or eight days later, from meeting together again, and deciding to work together. The decision taken by the leaders of both parties was duly confirmed by the congresses concerned. Why is the Opposition so concerned about this thing? The Nationalist party was content with the Pact Government, and the congress of the Labour party also gave its consent to it. I see that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is again going round the country saying that we have fulfilled none of the promises made at the last election. I have here the programme. Three years ago, when the accusation was made, I also produced it here. I read it out article by article, and the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw), who, if I am not mistaken, also spoke like that, has never again mentioned it. In this motion of no-confidence, however, the argument must again be used that the Government has not fulfilled its promises. I am not surprised that the people outside have left the once great South African party. This will continue still more in the future till nothing remains of the party. We, as the Nationalist party, come before the people with concrete facts.

Oh, indeed.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) climbed onto a buck waggon in Marico, and put a great big hat on his head to look like a backveld Boer, but the people only laughed at him. The people in Marico do not let themselves be misled by such things. For the instruction of the hon. members on the other side, I should like briefly to go through the promises again here. I have read them over carefully, and see that all, except one, which is still only partly unfulfilled, that is the Indian question, have been fufilled. I see that hon. members of the Opposition go round the country and make, grave accusations in connection with the affair. The hon. member for Standerton is one of them, and, if I remember rightly, he is one of the members who, when the Indian question was before this House, agreed to it, and welcomed it, and congratulated this side that such an agreement had been reached. The people outside cannot understand what the conditions are. They ask me how it is that the leader of the Opposition is not in favour of it, while I tell them that the Opposition voted for it. I wish that members on the other side would get up, and here in the House state clearly what they also state outside, where the newspapers have not such a wide circulation as in the big towns. I cannot understand how the Opposition, which has so much on its conscience, dares propose a motion of on-confidence in this House. I applaud the motion. The people have the opportunity of seeing whether, if the leader of the Opposition and his supporters were put on the scales, they would carry weight, and I do not doubt that this House, just as the public did four years ago, will give the result: “Weighed in the balance and found wanting.” We are glad also because we get the opportunity, not only of proclaiming the good deeds of the present Government here, but also of summing up the misdeeds of the former Government. The hon. member for Standerton, six months ago, honoured my district of Marico with a visit, and at a meeting spoke the first truth in his whole round of visits.

In his whole life.

I will just keep to his journey. He said that he has been in public life for 30 years, and has never yet seen the country so flourishing as during the last four years. The meeting rejoiced over this, but then he continued with a “but.” He said: “If we now had only had the opportunity of governing the country, then …” Unfortunately, the hon. member is not in his place, but some of his former Ministers were there, and I would ask them whether more or less rain has fallen under the present Government than fell under the last one.

Less.

I should like them to ask them whether under the last Government there was more drought than under this one. Almost everyone here will say that there has been more drought now. Did it hail more during the South African party Government? I think the House will answer: “No.” As for myself, I must acknowledge that I have had much more hail during the last two years than in the five years under the previous Government, but I must, nevertheless, say that, during the two years I did better than in the five years with less drought and less hail. It is no use saying that this Government is just lucky. It is no use saying that the country has suddenly changed. No, there has been a change in policy, a change in the psychology of the South African people. The people here and also abroad have acquired confidence in the country which they did not have before 1924. The confidence has arisen because of the capable policy of the Government, and the prosperity of the country in consequence thereof. Why did not the previous Government have the confidence? Because they opposed everything that was for the benefit of South Africa, to favour foreign interests. The interests of the empire were put before the interests of South Africa. Not even the interests of the empire in general, but just of the islands 6,000 miles from here. To-day they do not very greatly watch imperial interests, but just on those of England. They never speak of the other dominions. When they are considering treaties they think of England alone. We look at the empire as a whole. Why did things go so badly during the last years of the South African party Government? I only want to mention a few small points, but they are far-reaching. In the first place, there is the financial policy. We and the people have not forgotten that under the previous Government the inflation by paper money was permitted. Thereafter the Government suddenly came and said that there should now be deflation. The bank had to collect all the paper money that was issued and the bills, and when the time came for settlement thousands of farmers right up to the Limpopo went insolvent. When that happened they and the whole country suffered. The people have not forgotten it, and when they have to vote again they will vote the same as in 1924.

What did the Government have to do with that?

The Government permitted the inflation, and then forced through the Act of 1923 which I have here. The people have also not forgotten that in 1921 an embargo was placed on the export of mealies from the country. The price of mealies was 28s. to 30s. a bag, but when we could get it, it was said that we could not export, and the price fell to 8s. and 10s. a bag. When all was bought up by the buyers the Government, at my instance, finally removed the embargo. Can members of the old South Africau party Government propose a motion of no-confidence? This Government sees that our mealies are exported every year by November, and, therefore, the market price remains steady. The public have not forgotten this either. They drank the bitter cup when the embargo was put on them, and this generation, in any case, will pass before Nationalists who voted for us in 1924 will again vote South African party. The hon. member for Standerton mentioned, and I think it is the only argument he used to justify his motion of no-confidence, that the Labour party were divided, the basis of the Pact had dropped away, and that if we wanted to go on with it, it was immoral. I am surprised that the hon. member has taken that bold line, because if there is anything immoral in the policy, then he is the greatest sinner in that respect. I shall mention a few facts to prove it. I have a book here written by Sir Lionel Phillips, giving his reminiscences of the period after the second war of independence. In it he says on pages 196 and 197—

Hon. members opposite laugh, but they were members of “our side” that helped Sir Lionel Phillips to act as Prime Minister of the Transvaal.

Have not you a Schlesinger?

Thereafter the writer proceeds—

Who then was ruling. It is immorality in politics if you allow an Opposition to play the master, and say what legislation shall be introduced. We are told every day from the benches opposite, and on platforms outside that the South African party have swallowed up the Unionists. The latter have given up all their principles and adopted those of the South African party. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) will, however, not admit that, because he is too honest to do so. He will do what Sir Abe Bailey did five years ago, and say that it is a lie that the old Unionists have discarded their principles. He will say that they are still maintaining their principles. He will do so because he is too high-principled to run away merely for a seat in Parliament. We can, therefore, proceed from the standpoint that the Unionists have actually swallowed and digested the South African party. At the last congress of the Unionist party in Bloemfontein Sir Percy Fitzpatrick said that his party’s principles would not cease to exist, but that they would persist into distant generations. They j also prevail to-day, but from the leader of the Opposition to the most humble member, the old Unionist language is used, and the old Unionist ideals are honoured. I, therefore, say that there is no longer actually a South African party, but only one in name.

What do you say about a; republic?

Here are my party principles, and if the hon. member can find the word “republic” in them, I will give him £1,000 each time.

What about your speeches?

I was born a republican, and I am sympathetic towards a republic, but I have learned to be content when I see that my country is in prosperous condition. Whether, however, it is in the interests of South Africa or not, hon. members opposite want to make empire interests prevail. We, however, say: “Charity begins at home”, and therefore we honour the slogan: “South Africa first”, I want to mention another thing to prove the immorality of the South African party. Six months’ ago the hon. member for Standerton opened the congress of the B.E.S.L. at Pretoria. He there said that he was one of the founders of the body, and that he wanted to warn them that there was moderate influence which they wanted to undermine and that they should therefore have a care. Did the hon. member possibly mean the Sons of South Africa? Is he a member of that body? No. He is a member of everything foreign. I do not blame him for being a member of the B.E.S.L., because we do not want his influence in the Sons of South Africa.

Is the Prime Minister a member of the Sons of South Africa? •

Yes, he is a founder.

Is the Minister of Defence a member?

I do not blame a man for being a member of the B.E.S.L., but because the leader of the Opposition has such great influence in it I can understand why that body took such an active part when the flag question was on in the House. He co-operated with that body in fighting the Sons of South Africa, and that the Minister of Defence has never yet done. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) mentioned a point in his speech on which I feel very strongly, and that is the co-operation between us who feel and think alike. I know he did not mean it seriously, but the public outside might think that he actually meant it, and therefore I want to mention a few things. On Tuesday a motion of no-confidence was tabled, and if he feels with South Africa, then he should not have supported that motion with such poor arguments.

He is a Unionist.

Oh, is that the reason? Then he is the girl who first rode on the tiger and was later swallowed up. Recently there was a movement for an orientation of parties, and after the statement of the intention of the movement in Johannesburg by the leader of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal, the leader of the Opposition Said at Wellington that he could not think of cooperation because he could not desert his Unionist friends for the sake of co-operation with his fellow countrymen who thought alike with him. Is the hon. member for Caledon honest, then, in speaking about co-operation, while following a man who wants none of it?

Are you prepared to desert the Labour members?

The Labour members are just as much citizens of the country as he is, and much better.

So are the Unionists.

The Unionists are citizens of the country, and that is all. Their ideals are broad. Then I also want to tell the hon. member that we have not swallowed up each other, but that the two parties met properly and decided what they were going to do. The people of the country are satisfied that the work of the last four and a half years has been well done. Now I want to put a few questions to the Opposition. Do we agree about the native question when they stand for equality and we do not? Do we agree when imperial and South African interests are in question? I have never once seen that we think alike on these matters. Do we agree about industries, and our workers? No. That side of the House is for the lowest cost of production; this side is against that and stands for a reasonable production cost so that the national wealth can be distributed among the people, in order that the power to purchase can be regained, and whether the farmer, the secondary producer and the trader can flourish. It is because that side do not support this few overseas industries can exist.” I think it principle that we cannot co-operate with them. Do we agree about protection? We introduced it so that more industries could arise, and not only that more work could be given to workers, but also better markets could be created for the producers. The Opposition think differently because they are free traders. Their view is: “Let what will happen to the country, and let the industries disappear as long as a was very daring of the Opposition to introduce this motion in view of what the Government has done during the past four and a half years. Let us go back to 1924. Before the election the country was in such a deplorable state that the hon. member for Standerton himself had to run away from his own position. He then abandoned statesmanship and suddenly became a prophet. His first prophecy to the people was that if the Nationalists came into power money would go out of the country. Just the opposite happened. The fact that the Pact Government assumed office caused money to flow into the country. Business went ahead, and everyone could make money. His second prophecy was that the Pact Government would only last for three months. The people had only given him a little leave of absence, and then he would come back, take over the reins and govern the country again. The period soon became six months, but it passed, and here the Government still are to-day. If we are to judge by what we see outside then the South African party will still remain in opposition for a very long time. The people can consider the few facts I have mentioned, and I think they will come to the same conclusion as the House, namely, that the motion of no-confidence is merely an attempt to show that the Opposition have, anyhow, done something, as an Opposition, during the life of the present Parliament. It is their last convulsion, and as the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) said the other day, there are many of them to whom we can bid adieu. Here I want to end, and to express the hope that the hon. member for Standerton, in view of the debate, will withdraw his motion so that we can get on with our work.