I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

I have approached the Prime Minister and he has no objection to the motion.

seconded.

When we adjourned last night, I was replying to Opposition critics of the Government’s economic policy. I was drawing attention to the fact that in the last three years of the South African party’s regime, 1920-1923, there was a decrease of £13,000,000 in the gross value of South African manufactured commodities as compared with 1920. On the other hand, during the first three years of the present Government’s regime, the value increased by twenty-four million to a total of £98,000,000. It has been said by the Opposition that the industrial development of South Africa has been at a standstill since we took over the Government.

We?

Yes, we. I have had a share in guiding the Government and I am proud of it. For instance there has been an increase in the manufacture of boots from 2,900,000 in 1925 to 3,600,000 in 1927. I realize that the Minister of Labour has not gone far enough in the abolishment of unemployment, but he has done something at least to alleviate unemployment. If he had only carried out a proper policy, including a labour colony where the drones could be separated from those willing to work, I believe employment could be found by the Minister for every able-bodied man. Our exports have also increased. We have had a great deal of criticism on the fact that taxation has increased from 1924 to 1928. Of course the taxation has increased although on separate items the duties were reduced, but owing to the fact that importations were larger, the taxation naturally in bulk was greater than before. Great assistance has been given to industries and the working classes in South Africa by the Government’s taxation proposals. Of course the expenditure has increased. We are employing more men. If you expand a private business or establish a branch, more capital and more workers are required. I was very pleased to hear that the profits derived from the State’s share in the diamond industry will be used for irrigation purposes. I would suggest that the Government should not build large irrigation works, but rather assist individual farmers to the extent of 25 per cent, of the cost of dams on their farms. I believe that would lead to greater development in farming and increased value of land. I hope the Government, before they go out of office, will bring to a definite issue and place on a proper working basis, the iron and steel industry. There was a certain amount of jeering when I mentioned “our Government.” Yes, I have had a little share in this Government and that is the reason why I cannot help to destroy, likewise it ill-becomes any person to destroy that which they have built up. I appeal to the Minister of Defence, knowing that he has helped to build up the Labour party, he should not destroy in any shape or form that which he had helped to build up. I also remember, and so will the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) the time in 1918 when certain members of the Labour party in the Cope seceded and formed a democratic party, who have again seceded and are Creswellites in the Cape. We got instructions from the Ministers of Defence and Labour to treat them as traitors, and we also got instructions rather to allow the Unionist candidate, which was Maj. van Zyl, to be elected than a traitor from the Labour party. I would ask the Minister to remember that occasion, whether we are in the right or not we are still the Labour party, and in view of the instructions he gave to us in 1918, I hope he will realize the necessity of reconsidering his position and coming back to the Labour party. If, in 1918, our instructions were to treat those seceded members as traitors, what else can we do to those who have left the Labour party and are fighting its members? I realize there have been methods used which I deprecate in both sections, and there has been a certain resolution moved which should not have been carried. During the last election a manifesto appealing to the coloured people in the Cape was approved by the Minister of Defence, and yet when the hon. member for Salt River and myself decided to put that into practice a vote was carried in the caucus that we should be expelled from the caucus. It happened to be moved by the gentleman who is now interjecting (Mr. Waterston), and although I was not in favour and would not have promised the non-Europeans to the extent which was embodied in the manifesto, still the Minister of Defence approved of that manifesto, and therefore was it not right that we, as representing the electors in the Cape, should stand by the manifesto? We have all suffered for our principles. I know the Minister has also had to suffer a great deal from certain members on these benches for believing in a certain policy. Nevertheless, the South African Labour party should be built on sound lines, and if it is not built on sound lines, it is the fault of the members of the party, and we have no right at the present juncture to split asunder and allow the principles for which thousands have fought for years to be destroyed. We should realize we are not here as individuals, but as representatives of certain principles or lines of thought, whether it is correct policy or not. We are sent here to represent a certain policy and, if we, as individuals, differ on personal matters, we should sink our own individuality for the greater principles, and that is the emancipation and improvement of the people of South Africa. I do appeal not only to the members of the Labour party on these benches, but on all benches, to realize we are only instruments or spokesmen. Not only in South Africa, but throughout every country, the Labour party stands for principles, namely, the improvement of humanity. Everyone should be willing to sink their individual ideas and get together and agree on those things on which we can agree for the betterment of everybody standing together in one united effort, and that is that we should leave South Africa a better country for our having been in it.

In my opinion the motion has not had the results which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) intended. Great cannons and guns have been employed, but the ammunition was lacking. The arguments used by hon. members opposite have had not the least effect on this side of the House. Only vague accusations have been made against the Government. The hon. member for Standerton has stated that the people have no confidence in the Government to-day, but I deny this most strongly. The confidence in the Government is greater than ever before, and even members of the South African party declare at meetings that the Government has done very good work for the country. I am glad that some of my South African party friends are so sensible and so honest. The people outside listen to the arguments used in the House, and I think that the result of the motion will be approved by the people in the forthcoming election. Where my knowledge of the Transvaal farmers is concerned, I can say that they are extremely content with the Government, and I hope that it will remain in office for a long time still. We must admit that mistakes have also been made, because only people who do nothing make no mistakes. In everything that the Government has done, it is very clear that it has the interests of the people at heart. On the agricultural policy I have heard no criticism in the House. In the few years that the Government has held office, agriculture has progressed more than ever before, and this is shown by the production. Stock farming, and also the production of mealies have developed, and at the same time the Government has taken off many of the heavy taxes on the people. The export of agricultural produce has increased from £19,000,000 in 1924 to £25,000,000 in 1928, and by the wise measures of the Minister of Agriculture, scab has decreased from 3.6 per cent, to 1.17 per cent., to the benefit of the sheep farmers. Then I come to the embargo against our wool in England. The ¾d. per lb. which we have lost was taken off because our wool is now clean, and is to-day just as highly spoken of as that from Australia and other countries. Much has also been done regarding cattle, while the importation from Rhodesia in 1924 amounted to £19,000, only £9,000 worth of stock comes in from Rhodesia to-day. That is the reason we are to-day getting proper prices for our stock. In addition, the Government has provided £250,000 for loans, which has greatly benefited the farmers. Then in irrigation and other matters they have done much. Little has yet been said about the mines. I am fairly well acquainted with the position of the gold mines and I can assure hon. members that there has been great progress. Every year there has been a record output. I do not think the mining magnates have cause for dissatisfaction. As for the poor, of whom hon. members have spoken a great deal, I only want to refer to the action of the Government in connection with the railway people. They do not, indeed, earn a large wage there, but in the circumstances it is better for those people to accept work at a small wage than to sit idle. Many of those people had no work, and now have regular work. A large number have gone ahead and are already occupying better paid jobs, but the great thing is that the children of those people, who in the past generally had to grow up without schooling, are to-day able to go to school when the father is a railway man. On application, they can get work in the neighbourhood of the towns where there are schools, and the children can get good education. The Government will increase the people’s salary when circumstances permit. It was done last year and will be done again this year. I am sorry that hon. members opposite object to these people working on the railways. They want them to remain on the farms, but the fact is that there is no ground and no work for them. They are quite dependent on the landowners, and we cannot give them all land. But when they work on the railways they are able to send their children to school, and will so later on be able to occupy a better place in society. A great deal is said about “Back to the land,” and we should all like to see it, but that class of people cannot possibly make a living on the countryside. Another avenue must be sought to give them a living. 80 per cent, of the countryside people are poor, and the farmers in general are poor. Some people think the farmers are rich, but it is not so. The people possibly have a small piece of land, but usually it is mortgaged, and when they have paid interest, etc., at the end of the year, there is not much left over. Farming is not a paying business in South Africa. If one has a large capital one can possibly make 3 or 4 per cent. One possibly gets a better return at the Cape from sheep farming, but the grain farmer gets but little out of his farming, hence farming is to-day mostly in the hands of the moneyed man. Many of the poor people have been assisted by the Government to get ground, and many have been enabled to buy ground under the Land Settlement Act. That is very good, but they are all people who have something to pay for the ground, and to carry on their farming with, but the man who has nothing cannot buy ground, and in that case it is better that he should get work on the railway so that he can live near a town and the children be well educated. As I have said, the mines have been very busy, and there are great expectations in the country to-day. Last year companies with a capital of £11,250,000 were floated, which proves what great trust people have in the country. We understand that there is £20,000,000’ of capital available to-day in Johannesburg at 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, interest. That was quite impossible a few years ago. That is a proof that investors are only too anxious to invest in our country. So there is progress in every respect, and accordingly I regret that this motion has been introduced now. Perhaps the Opposition expected a more favourable result than they have had. They possibly did not think well about the matter,, and carefully work out what they were doing before they took the step, because if we to-day compare the records of the old and the new Governments, then any man with a little commonsense must say that the present Government’s record is far better than that of the last. I am therefore very sorry that hon. members opposite have been so bitter. The only advice I can give my hon. friends opposite is—

To go home.

No, I do not want to say that. We can still get much help from them, but let them be sufficiently honest to acknowledge the good work done by the Government. We heard that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) held a meeting in the Transvaal, and said that he was not one of those who denied that the Government had done good work.

He does not say that here.

Yes, that shows at once that even if they put it differently here they cannot go to bed any night without saying the verse: “Count your blessings daily, one by one.” I fear that this motion will yet prove fatal to the Opposition. The public are well acquainted with the position, and it is useless hon. members using arguments; they cannot support. I hope to meet hon. members on the countryside shortly, then the questions which have been put here will also be asked and many of the arguments employed in this House will also be discussed.

I want to say that I was extremely surprised to see the signature of the Prime Minister to that manifesto, for in that manifesto he is guilty of what he accused the leader of the Opposition. He takes no interest in the establishment of a white South Africa He is standing in the light of young South Africans who want to make good, and, as a member of the Crown Lands Committee, I want to say this—when the Prime Minister, through the Minister of Lands, submitted to that committee a list of Crown lands which he wished to turn black, lands which are the rightful heritage, of young South Africa, I was horrified, and I moved a resolution opposing it. I do not know how many items that list consisted of, but I do know that the first item was the Pomeroy Crown lands. After the Crown Lands Committee had turned it down I appealed to the Minister of Lands, pointing out to him that there were young fellows waiting to occupy this land, sons of men who were in the district of Dundee, Germans who were sons of settlers who had made good. I pointed out that if these young men were not allotted this land they would leave the country. The Minister of Lands promised to see the Prime Minister, but it was all to no purpose. The land was recommended by the Land Board for settlement, farmers’ associations asked the Government to allot this land, and the settlers in the district also had a meeting urging it. In addition to all this the Crown Lands Committee were in favour of the settlement, but the Prime Minister would not do it. I went to a lot of trouble to try and induce the Government to bring about this settlement, because this land is the rightful heritage of our young South Africans. I went to the Native Affairs Department and asked them why they wished to withhold this land from settlement, and the reply was that the land was full of natives. That was incorrect—not a single native was on this land. I charge the Prime Minister that in May, 1927, he was responsible for holding up the allotment of this land. What does he care about young white South Africa? If he cared, why did he withhold this land. No, he has a greater concern for the natives; he wants to turn the land black.

Tell us something about bananas.

If hon. members will turn to Order Paper No. 97, page 698, they will find that what I state is the case. Here we have a Prime Minister who has told the country that in his pocket he has the solution of the native question, yet he has not taken the first step in regard to it. He has had five years in which to take the step of developing these native areas, and had he spent a small sum of money upon development work he would have enabled the natives to occupy land and grow food instead of buying it. At each session of this House I have pleaded with the Prime Minister to do something in the nature of development work in these native areas. I am told on good authority that, owing to the lateness of the rain, the natives have drawn something like a million bags of maize from the reserve stock. It is not for lack of successful example that the Prime Minister has failed in regard to the development of native areas. The Government draws a million of money annually in taxes from the natives, but what has it done for their development? No great fantastic scheme was required. There is a striking example of what can be done at Tugela River, where a successful native irrigation settlement has been established—Native Trust of Natal. I accuse the Prime Minister of being unjust in regard to his administration of the natives. I ask hon. members opposite whether native agitators preaching sedition would have been tolerated if the South African party were in power. Take my own constituency. Here were these agitators holding weekly meetings, and we know the sad culmination of one of these meetings was the desecration of the voortrekkers’ graves at Greytown. I asked the Minister of Justice why he did not arrest the agitators. He said he was going to introduce a Native Administration Bill, and that then he would have power to deal with these people. What has happened? Meetings of native communists are taking place all over the country. Why is this latitude allowed? One can only conclude from what the Prime Minister said recently that he would rather work with the communists than with the South African party. I suppose he meant the black communists, because they are the trouble to-day. The Prime Minister is fond of running about the country signing manifestoes, but let me remind him that he has failed in his job, which is native administration. He has also signally failed to meet the requirements of young South Africans in the matter of land. He is determined that that land shall be black, and added on to native locations. Now I don’t want to drag the Flag Bill in, but there is one incident I am not going to allow to pass without comment. When we passed the Flag Bill it was agreed that we should all work together so that the children of South Africa should learn to love the new flag. What has the Minister of the Interior recently done? How has he kept faith? He, who was loud in protesting that we should work towards love of the new flag, has been wandering round the Cape Province saying that the Union Jack is a conquered flag. Has he not broken faith with this House and the country in making a statement like that? If that is not racialism, if that is not trying to rekindle the racial fires, then I don’t know what is. I would like to say a few words to my friend, the Minister of Agriculture. I see that when the hon. gentleman came to Cape Town he threw his chest out. He had an interview with the “Cape Argus” in which he said: “There is a growth and development of agriculture in every direction.” A more misleading statement was never made. Then he went on to say that the farmers are now holding their heads up. Yes, he is quite right; they are holding their heads up because they see the shadow of coming events—a new Government that will be sympathetic to them. Then the Minister went into figures over a period of four years, figures respecting exports of agriculture in general. They varied from £19,000,000 in 1924 to £26,000,000 in 1927. Seventy-five per cent, of those figures represents wool—not the skins and the hides, but wool, and the development of that wool industry owes nothing to the present Minister or the present Government. The late South African party Government laid the foundation of this prosperous state of affairs. What they did was to establish sheep divisions, and through the stabilizing of the export. South Africa has gained a name in the world second to none. What was the first act of the Minister, who is grinning like a Cheshire cat? He destroyed that division, but his destructive work was too late. The foundation has been too well laid, and to-day South Africa is reaping the reward. But if we eliminate 75 per cent, for wool and allow for the skins and the hides, what remains’ £5,000.000. Is that anything to write home about from a dominion such as this, £5,000,000 for the export of agriculture from this country? No. There is one industry that the Minister has neglected, and which he has allowed to languish. Although each session he has been advised in a friendly manner, he has regarded that advice with antagonism. In his reply to that advice and criticism, he has abused those who offered him that wholesome advice. I refer to the cattle industry, which has double the amount of capital invested in it as is invested in any other industry. During his term of office he made no provision for the disposal of the surplus stock of that industry. The surplus was 300,000 per annum. The Minister has been four years in office, and the surplus for that time is 1,250,000. I do not think he knows what has become of the surplus. It has remained on the farms overstocking them to such an extent that we are unable to sell our breeding cattle. At the same time the Union cannot supply itself with fat cattle, and in 1927 we imported 25,000 from Rhodesia, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. The Minister has not given the figures for Basutoland and South-West Africa. What a disgraceful state of affairs! The greatest agricultural industry we have is a frozen asset and a liability to the farmer. No Minister of Agriculture has ever had such a magnificent opportunity of making a name for himself as the present occupant of that office. The Ministers who initiated the maize and citrus export, which has proved so valuable, never had such an opportunity, for in those days the Empire Marketing Board with its million sterling fund did not exist. We have a magnificent market for our cattle in Europe, which pay a big toll in death from foot and mouth disease. South Africa is only sixteen days by mail-boat from England, and we have no foot and mouth disease. On the other hand the Argentine, although it has foot and mouth disease, and is double the distance, exports fresh meat to Great Britain to the value of £30,000,000 annually. The Government has neglected this opportunity and the country will not forgive them. The cattle farmers are heartbroken, and they will show the Government what they think of them at the coming elections. The general manager of railways, in his annual report, shows that 1,152,000 hides and skins were exported last year in excess of that of the previous year. That is where our surplus cattle have gone, for, owing to the over stocked conditions of the country, the farmers have lost the cattle, and only get the value of their hides.

What about the drought?

The drought did not affect the cattle districts in the same way as it did the small stock districts. Then the South African tanners tanned 750,000 cattle hides during the past year. What a terrible indictment it is against the Government that the farmer can obtain only the price of his hide for a three years old beast. The Government has been asleep and has been a curse to South Africa. Even the hens beat the cattle in exportable foodstuffs, for the value of eggs exported was £224,000, and fresh meat £176,000. What a disgraceful mess the Minister has made of east coast fever, which is worse now than ever before. If there ever was a case of ineptitude it has been shown by the spread of east coast fever.

Not true.

There were 46 new cases in Natal last year. The Minister is always bragging about the administration of the Scab Act, but we have had 298 cases in Natal.

That does not speak well for Natal. I would not mention it.

I am mentioning it to show how inefficient the Minister is, and that will be the verdict of the farmers when the Government goes to the country. I wonder if the Minister of Labour protested against the shocking conditions of the civilized labourers employed on the borders of his constituency, between Overpoort and Sydenham outside the borough of Durban. There they are, these unfortunate country people, simple people, who very easily fall victims to the vices of the towns. No provision was made for them in regard to housing. They are part of our South African nation, and there they are living with Indians and natives in the same houses. The men on the railway are miles away leaving their women and children there. The prosecutions that have followed against these women for embarking on the illicit liquor trade are too terrible for words. It is a blot upon this Government to allow such conditions to exist. These conditions are within a rifle shot of the Minister’s home. He knows all about it. Did he protest? If he protested in vain, why did he not resign like a man, as Mr. Christie did? Surely if the Government wanted to employ these people, they could have employed them to far better advantage in making our main roads. The main roads should be made by the central Government. That is done by all other civilized countries, why not here? There they would have been under supervision, and they would have been a thousand times better living in tents than they are in their present deplorable conditions. I know the Minister of Finance will say he has set aside £40,000 for housing, but the damage is done. We are a young country, we are in the process of building up a nation, and that nation will be whatever comes out of the crucible of the melting-pot. This condition of affairs in Natal is a blot on this Government. There is another question in regard to which the Government have simply folded their hands and looked on. No one else has referred to it, but it is something which is bleeding the towns and the country white. I blame the Government for not having tackled the question. I refer to that pernicious American system, the instalment purchase system. In regard to motor-cars, its effect is simply terrible. If it affected only the adults it would not be so bad, but it is the children. You find a man drawing 40 a month who is allowed to purchase a motor-car for £25 down and so much a month. His children are at school, well-clothed and happy, but when he finds that he has to meet these instalments out of his salary, the children are taken away from school to start work at a pound a month in a Greek shop. What is happening in the country? What is happening to the young farmer who has a small farm? He is lured also into this instalment purchase, and after a few years the farm has to be sold. The Government have known this. Why have they not taken action? Why have they been content to look on? A matter like this should have been dealt with. They should have brought in a short Act making it a criminal offence to sell a motor-car for less than 50 per cent, cash, and that cash not to be borrowed That is only a crude suggestion, but rather than allow this system to continue, I would do that I say that agriculture, with the exception of wool, has never been in a more deplorable condition in South Africa than it is to-day, to the everlasting disgrace of this Government, and the farmers are fed up. They are broken-hearted with them. Before the Prime Minister goes to sleep again let me give him this parting word. You do not trust one another in your own Cabinet, so how can you expect South Africa to trust you? Well, June 15th, or June 18th, will show you that.

The debate has considerably subsided. Hon. members opposite are feeling bitterly sorry that they introduced the motion. I just want to traverse the arguments they use to support the motion that the Government ought to resign. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and other members, spoke about our co-operation with the Labour party, with the terrible people who decided on Sunday morning to co-operate with us. Certainly we are co-operating with them, but when they regard the co-operation as a reason why the Government should resign we must consider a little who the comrades are with whom we are co-operating and who and what the comrades are who have swallowed up our South African party friends. We co-operate, we have nothing to do with what they have promised or are proposing. We Nationalists work according to our promises and principles, and when possible we co-operate. The old South African party have been swallowed up by the old Unionist party, and only one-fourth of the old South African party is left, for the rest the Unionists govern. Why are not hon. members honest enough to admit that they have been swallowed up by the Unionists, and why do they not admit that the terrible allies of ours, the Labour party, were used in 1910 to prevent the Unionist section from coming into power. The public have not forgotten that co-operation with the Labour party. Nor have the public forgotten that the hon. member for Standerton tried in 1920 to prevail on the same Labour party to assist him to govern the country. Many English-speaking people now want to co-operate with us, and I am glad of it, but what about the allies of our friends opposite? It is a section which has never had a good word for us Afrikaans-speaking people. They always tried by their press to suppress the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. The Afrikaans-speaking people have always hitherto been treated with contempt by that section and their press. What have they done with regard to our language? Did they ever do any good for us? Our language is acknowledged in the constitution, and we had to be satisfied with that acknowledgment on paper; they never did the least to study our language, just look at the appointments in the public service. Did those Unionists ever consider the Afrikaans-speaking people? During the last four years of the South African party Government over 3,000 English-speaking people were appointed, and only 1,700 Afrikaans-speaking. During the four years of our Government more than 3,000 English-speaking have been appointed, and more than 3,000 Afrikaans-speaking. The present Government takes count of both sections of the population. As to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who spoke so strongly yesterday afternoon about race hatred during the Potchefstroom election—

Is it not true?

My hon. friend is so sensitive, and is always so ready to accuse people of race hatred, but what does he say about his Natal comrades? After years of hoping and working, the Afrikaans-speaking people have succeeded in getting an Afrikaans medium school in Pietermaritzburg, and just when they got permission from the Education Department to give it the name of Piet Retief, the hon. member’s friends would not permit it. The executive committee of Natal refused it because it would be race hatred. Is the hon. member prepared to rap his friends over their knuckles about their having so grossly insulted the Afrikaans-speaking people? Piet Retief was one of the heroic voortrekkers who gave his life for the cause, and in his country’s service. To-day the Afrikaans-speaking people may not give his name to the school because the Natal people do not want it. Can you imagine a greater insult to the Afrikaans-speaking people, such a suppression of its holiest and dearest national traditions, the man who shed his blood as the founder of Natal may not have his name connected with a school? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday expressed a hope that the Government would only fight the election on an economic basis. I want to ask him what the previous Government did to make the country economically independent. Take the iron and steel industry. The Government had to fight two years for it, and finally got the Iron and Steel Act passed in a joint sitting. And what is more important to-day in South Africa than such an industry? Why did they oppose it? Had they to protect their overseas friends, and leave them South Africa as a market? Millions of people annually import iron and steel. If we get our own industry, thousands of people will get work, and a market will be created for the farmers. The money will stop in the country and go back to the farmers. The purchasing power will be increased, and so will prosperity, but my friends opposite fought it tooth and nail. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) is not here, because I want to deal with his speech of yesterday. He spoke throughout about the rubbish of the Government, but the greatest rubbish ever uttered in this House came from him yesterday. Inter alia, he said that a Government bore did not leave a place until the bill amounted to £60. Did he for a moment want to state that that was upon instructions from the Minister? If such cases occur, the hon. member ought to bring it to the notice of the Minister concerned. No, his sole object was to camouflage the reduction in the charges from £5 to £3 10s. per day, and the extension of the time for payment. He also said that the reduction of the income tax did not benefit the poor man. Can anyone imagine greater nonsense? The poor man, in any case, does not pay income tax, and how then are we to reduce that tax to benefit him? He also mentioned the customs duty on coffee and tea, but I do not recollect that the present Government has increased the duty on those articles. It was imposed by the South African party, and the Government reduced the duty on tea last year by 2d. a lb. The hon. member dared to state that the Government has done nothing for the farming population. I challenge him to prove it. On the contrary the Minister of Agriculture has made powerful attempts to rid the country of scab. Did the Opposition assist? Did they not use every opportunity of making a fuss about it? In the case of the successful destruction of locusts, was there not constant opposition from their side? Actually the Government has created a great increase in agricultural produce, and the farmers have been considerably assisted by demonstration trains. These facts hon. members opposite do not mention. Then the hon. member for Standerton, and other hon. members opposite, condemned the head of the Government about the flag question. We are very sorry that the Opposition still harps on that. When we, however, regard the flag question nearer we find that we expected the assistance of the hon. member for Standerton from the beginning, seeing that he himself had previously spoken of the desirability of a change of flag. When we, however, raised the matter, he immediately ran away. In the beginning there was satisfaction in the whole country, except for the noise of the extreme jingo section in Natal. Did the hon. member for Standerton use his opportunity then to put an end to the agitation question? No, he and his party used the opportunity to whip up feeling as much as possible. Now they state that ultimately they assisted us to put the Flag Bill through. I do not know whether it is that they were frightened by the incident at Bloemhof, and whether they were afraid about the result of the referendum, nevertheless, they saw that the whipping up would not avail them in the least. First they wanted a quarter of the flag for the Union Jack, and yet they were satisfied to get a one-eighty-first part. Now, however, we are told that they helped us, instead of their saying that they were convinced that the Government would run away from them and that they therefore had to adopt the best means of finding a way out. I also want to saw a few words about things in Namaqualand. If there is one thing for which the South African party longed, it is that civil commotion might occur before the election. We have noticed that South African party members have referred at various places to the sending of police, and I believe that if the South African party had been in power they would just have followed their old policy and allowed things to develop. They would not have sent police, and with only a few constables in evidence, the leaders, who wished for violence, would have had the opportunity of causing violence. When once that happened, the Government would have been obliged to intervene to maintain order by force. The present Government actually took the precaution and sent enough police, and that prevented any violence. This is what has disappointed the South African party so bitterly. I must also mention the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act. The Government thereby rejoiced the hearts of thousands of aged people, because they are enabled to live. Hon. members opposite try to discount all the good acts of the Government and are constantly talking about the increase in expenditure. They do not say a single word about the considerable reduction in taxation. As for expenditure, it is surely clear that prosperity involves greater activity and greater expenditure. If a farmer’s income is £1,200 a year, and his expenditure £1,500, he is going backwards, but with an income of £4,000 and an expenditure of £3,000, he progresses.

I don’t know what it is, but I feel that I approach this matter with a certain amount of fear and trembling; but certainly it is not because of the attitude of Mr. Speaker, for since I have been here, I have come to the conclusion that you, sir, have been very patient. Now I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). The hon. member referred to the technical schools and the Juvenile Advisory Board, but he did not mention the trades schools on the Witwatersrand. In connection with the technical institutions on the Witwatersrand, may I say that they were established long before this Government came into power, and why the hon. member for Liesbeek wanted to give kudos to the present Government I do not understand. These technical schools are looked upon in much the same manner as secondary education in the Transvaal, and the children attending them are the children of parents who can well afford to pay the fees. But the trades schools come under quite another category. Some years ago, when these trades schools on the Witwatersrand came under the provincial council, I had the honour to be a member of the governing body, and the boys who attended those trade schools paid no fees. Not only so, but they were also given boarding and travelling bursaries. Since the Government has taken over the administration, however, they have made the parents, working men, pay from £9 to £12 per year. These fees are paid not only by the children of working men, but also by the children of struggling widows, and I have known cases in which boys have been taken away from the school because the parents could not pay the fees. Surely that does not redound to the credit of the present Government. There is another matter which comes under the head of education. Some time ago, I had an opportunity of attending the annual meeting of the Deaf and Dumb Association of the Witwatersrand. I am sorry that the Minister of the Interior did not attend that meeting, because, had he done so, he would not have heard much to his credit. At that meeting parents told stories which could not fail to move a heart of stone. The Minister of the Interior has been appealed to to establish an institution on the Witwatersrand for deaf and dumb children, but up to the present he has done nothing in that regard. However, I do not think that that position will remain much longer, because it is going to be altered by the South African party. The parents of these children have realized the position, and they are now hoping for some relief in the near future. Some of the cases were those of children who were used to home training, and when they had to be sent away as far as Worcester—I think that is where the school is established—that was considered a great hardship by the children and the parents. I went back to the city council of Johannesburg, of which I am a member, and I got a grant in aid to assist a school which is being established by private enterprise in Johannesburg. We are going to carry on on those lines until we can get a Minister of the Interior who will do the right thing in regard to the poor unfortunate deaf and dumb children of the Witwatersrand. I want to refer to the question of the old age pensions. Considerable credit has been given to the Government for granting these pensions, but I have received a letter in connection with the enquiries which are made, according to which these enquiries border on inquisition. Not only is the applicant subject to gross and abusive enquiries, but the children and the grandchildren as well. Is that anything to thank the Government for? And all for the miserable pittance of £2 10s. per month. What a beneficial Government! I was rather interested in the statement made by the Minister of Labour that the town councils and the provincial councils have not come to his assistance in connection with white labour. About two years ago the Minister of Labour submitted an offer to the Johannesburg City Council in connection with those he termed “ semi-fit.” The city council immediately took steps to carry out the scheme proposed. They appointed a representative to go to Pretoria to meet the Executive Committee of the provincial council. To our surprise the executive committee of the Transvaal turned the scheme down, and the committee consisted of two Nationalist members, one Labour member and one South African party member. They were three to one, and they turned down the Minister’s white labour scheme. Well, it stood down for a time. During the past year when the estimates were going through, I waited to see whether any member of the Labour party or of the Nationalist party would take up the cudgels on behalf of these poor white labourers. They did not do so, but I took up the cause of these labourers, and I rubbed it into the Administrator and the provincial council to such an extent that now they are employing some of these unfortunate men. That was brought about by the South African party in the provincial council. The City Council of Johannesburg takes second place to no municipality in the Union in regard to the employment of white labour. We are employing no less than 3,600 white people. I want those members who are doing so much shouting to put that in their pipes and smoke it. Now we have heard a lot about the 1922 strike in Johannesburg. I could give this House some harrowing scenes with regard to what took place in that strike, but I don’t want to refer to them. I want to refer to the denseness of the Pact, and particularly of the Labour members, in mentioning the strike. In 1922 the Johannesburg City Council, which is composed of 36 members, had 19 ratepayers’ men and 17 Labour and Nationalist members. After fighting election after election, and telling the same old story about the strike, their number has diminished to three. When I fought the last municipal election they made the strike their trump card, as usual, and I romped home with a 500 majority in a Labour constituency. I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham), who spoke for organized labour. Surely he does not understand the meaning of the word “organized.” If he did he would not have referred to the Labour party in the terms he used. The deeds of the South African party were mentioned by him, but when he fights again for his seat what he will have to face will not be the deeds of the South African party, but the misdeeds of the Labour party, who came to this House and sold their British heritage and the principles of the Labour party. These are the deeds the Labour members have got to answer for, and not the deeds of the South African party. I want to come to Langlaagte. During the election we had a certain amount of abuse launched at the South African party and at Gen. Smuts. Langlaagte and the South African party were bombarded with Cabinet Ministers, ministers of the Gospel and members of Parliament. What happened? On the 8th January the little David of the South African party slew the Pact Goliath and scattered the Pact armies so that they will never be assembled any more. I want to thank the Prime Minister for helping the South African party over the election, for the Prime Minister has been reported as saying that rather than see the South African party returned to power, he was prepared to associate with Bolshevists, communists and every other “ist”, and even, possibly, with red-head anarchists. The Government has flooded the country with defective Belgian rails and German engines. It desires to keep out of Parliament the men who have maintained the Vereeniging pact, the Act of Union and the British connection, men who have served their country well, of world-wide honour. But the Government’s day has gone; the people are not going to be humbugged any more. From the South African party point of view the result of the Langlaagte election is going to be a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, leading on to victory.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) made his maiden speech this afternoon and it reminded me very much of an election speech at Langlaagte. I want to tell him that it was partly incorrect. He said that the Prime Minister has said that he would rather co-operate with Bolsheviks than with the South African party. That is not true. The Prime Minister never said such a thing. He said that a few of that class of people could do no harm. Now the hon. member again repeats this untruth, but it will not be for long, because I want to tell him that he had better make enthusiastic speeches here, but after three months we shall not see him again. He had good luck, in that the Labour party was divided, and that a part did not vote, but I can assure him that we shall never see him here again. A motion of no-confidence has been tabled by the leader of the Opposition. The country is astonished at such a thing. When one lives in a glass house one must be careful not to throw stones. Let us look at the past of the hon. member, because if we want to see the future we must look at the past. The hon. member had the shamelessness, with the black past behind him, to come to the House, and introduce a motion of no-confidence in the Government. What was the position in 1919? The late Gen. Botha died then. We all had respect for him, up to the date of his death and to-day. What was to happen then? In 1919 the mantle of Gen. Botha fell on the hon. member for Standerton. We do not know if he himself assumed it, but in 1919 an election was held and the hon. member for Standerton came to the House with a hopeless minority, and joined up with the Unionists. The result is that the people who used to sit with Gen. Botha are to-day sitting on these benches. The hon. member for Standerton made common cause with the Unionists who all those years had opposed them. Gen. Botha warned the people against them. He said that if his party cooperated with the Unionists it would be all up with them, and he said that if the Unionists ever came into power, God save South Africa. What else happened? In 1921 the hon. member returned here with an overwhelming majority and he could then govern as he wished. He did so, with the result that in three years he threw up the sponge. Why did he? Because he misgoverned the country until he stood with his head against the wall. The country was absolutely bankrupt. I challenge any hon. member to contradict it. They borrowed money, it is all recorded, and no one can deny it, to pay their current expenditure. They only put their hands too deep into the borrowed money and so got into trouble. If we look at the occurrences we find that during the South African party Government we had bankruptcy, murder and homicide. Do hon. members now really think that the public of South Africa is wilfully blind? What will be the result if the South African party again comes into power? They can expect nothing else than a repetition of the same thing. The man who wants to govern a country must have respect. In some ways I have respect for the hon. member for Standerton. He is a professional man, and a learned man, but he cannot govern. He has proved it, because to govern, a man must show consideration and not use violence as he did. That violence is the reason why he ran his head against the wall. But why does he table his motion? Anyone who goes into matters and who is not wilfully blind can see that the country has progressed under the present Government. Just look at the finances. The previous Government could not pay their ordinary expenditure out of revenue, but had to use borrowed money to cover running expenses, while under this Government there is a surplus every year. Then the other side says that this Government taxed the people too heavily, and that that is how the surpluses arise. But it is untrue, the Government has reduced taxation, but the country has progressed so far, and is so prosperous, that the revenue is larger than anticipated every time. Furthermore, this Government spends the money much more carefully than the last one. The reckless administration of the last Government is not yet forgotten. Just think of the speculation in the importation of wheat and flour which caused the country a loss of £800,000, and of the Durban elevator, which also caused a great loss. The loss on these two transactions alone was over £1,000,000. Is it then to be wondered that development was hindered? Now factories are extending, and there is general prosperity. Does the hon. member for Standerton now think that he can make the public believe anything different, or can mislead them by his motion? Under the regime of force and misgovernment women and children in South Africa died. When the Germans dropped bombs during the war which killed women and children, shouts went up throughout the whole world, but here in our country, we had the experience of the Government dropping bombs in peace time on a section of the population. I saw the aeroplanes coming over Fordsburg to drop bombs, and women and children suffering who were hit by the bombs. Can a people forget these things, and ever again allow such misgovernment? In 1924 there were thousands and thousands of unemployed, and the position is much improved. The Government has taken steps, and although I think that the wage paid to the civilized labourers is too low, it was a step to save them from entire destruction. During the previous Government many people were put on temporary relief works, and instead of this improving their position, the result was that it became worse than before. We shall shortly have to deal with the great native question. No one can get away from the fact that the Opposition as now constituted do not represent the people. There are some people representing the nation amongst the Opposition, but the great majority consists of people who represent overseas capital in 3outh Africa, who are out to make as large profits as possible for overseas capital. That is why the interests of the country were neglected by the last Government. Take the great business houses here. There are millions of pounds of overseas capital in them. Take the gold and diamond industries; hon. members opposite represent overseas capital, and not the South African people. They want to have cheap labour for the industries, without first attending to the interests of the Europeans in South Africa. That is the cause of all the trouble. They now want to raise the native to a place where he does not belong. Native civilization is 500 years behind white civilization, and the native to-day cannot be put next to the white man. Hon. members opposite are advocating a dangerous native policy. But we must always remember the fact that the native vote is solid behind them, at least 15 members opposite come here with the assistance of the vote. Hon. members now say that the native must be put on an equal footing, that the bar must be removed. I shall be sorry for South Africa if that happens. The native is just as uncivilized as he was 50 years ago, notwithstanding all the money and work which has been spent on and done for him. 40 years ago I visited the Transkei and went there again recently. The native is just as uncivilized as he was then. The hon. leader of the Opposition now wants a big empire from here to the Nile with 20,000,000 natives. Who will be in power after 15 or 20 years? The natives. There will then be an end to the white civilization in South Africa. I do not favour unjust treatment of the native, but I want to keep him in his place. The people have developed, and will see through the skirmishing of the hon. member for Standerton. He will not succeed in hiding the many good deeds of this Government and in concealing his own misdeeds. The people will soon give judgment and say who deserves the motion of no-confidence.

I wish to make some remarks upon a few only of the reasons why I think that this Government has forfeited the confidence of the country. I will take the minor points first. The right hon. gentleman who moved this motion said that there were constant complaints from the mercantile and commercial people that the Government had started a system of interference and state bureaucracy which made it almost impossible for them to run their businesses. The Minister of Labour tried to confute that. I would like to say, as a member of the mercantile community, and representing a mercantile constituency, that the right hon. gentleman was absolutely justified in what he said. It is galling enough for the mercantile community to have this put upon them, and still more galling when they feel that this has been imposed upon them by an absolute minority in the House and in the country, by which these “great democrats,” who believe in rule by majority, knowing they sit in a minority, force this sort of legislation and administration upon the country. One can see how it happened. When the Minister of Defence and the Labour party went to the country to solicit votes, they spoke of a State bank, an 8-hour day, and the socialization of industries. When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence came together, they had to find some sort of working agreement, and one can visualize what happened. The Prime Minister probably said—

The Minister of Defence, I see, lately has called it by another word; he calls it window-dressing, of which I understand the equivalent in Dutch is “verneukery.” So these pledges were put away on the shelf with republicanism. Some working ground had to be found, and no doubt the Prime Minister said: “One thing must be quite clear; hands off the farmers; none of your socialistic ventures for the farmers.” Then I imagine the Prime Minister must have said: “Now there is the commercial community. They have not a very big voting strength, and in any case, where they do vote they do not vote for us; you can try your socialistic ventures upon them.” So we have these socialistic ventures and administration tried upon the commercial community. The Minister of Labour in his speech seemed unable to distinguish between criticism of his administration of an Act and criticism of the Act. The Minister is not the Act. It is not the Act of which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) complained but of the Minister’s administration of it. The idea of the South African party is that by legislation all the machinery should be provided for the people concerned to come together and settle these matters themselves, Government intervention coming in only at the last possible minute. The idea of the Minister of Labour is to have Government interference in every way. The Minister has no knowledge of business and no conception of what it means. We had experience of that during the war when he was on a commission which had to deal with profiteering, and it became clear that his idea of business is that you put something in, like you do in a sausage machine, turn a handle, and out come, the profits at the other end. He has the sausage machine mind. That is why it is impossible for the Minister to administer this Act or industrial legislation satisfactorily to the people concerned. His intentions are good, and I am not querying them in the least, but I am querying his capacity, owing to his ignorance of what business means. There has been one election since the Minister came into power in an industrial area —in Three Rivers.

A three thousand kaffir vote.

Are you opposing kaffir votes, too?

The Minister is talking about the new register, not the register on which the last election was fought.

Two thousand.

I have not the figures before me, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Minister is wrong. The Minister thought they had a very good chance there, and they brought one of their stalwarts along, Mr. Stewart. One of the industrialists was put up as a South African party candidate. The late Mr. D. M. Brown got a majority of 800 in this industrial area, and now in this same area this other gentleman gets a majority of 1,800. The Minister quoted Mr. Simon Collier, of Port Elizabeth, but he only quoted part of what that gentleman said. He left out the other part where he stated that the Minister was going ahead all too fast with this Wage Act. If the Minister has any doubt as to what that gentleman said about interference, well, Mr. Collier has a partner in this House, and he can go to him and get his opinion regarding this constant interference with the business community. Our experience is that the Minister possesses neither the confidence of employer or employee. I recently received from England a report of a commission which was asked to report upon economic affairs in Australia, There are several items in this report which will interest the Minister of Finance, but I want to quote those dealing with the question of industrial administration. This commission went to Australia at the invitation of the Commonwealth Government and they said about this question of Government interference—[quotation read.] That is what the South African party have been asking for, and what the commission refers to is what the commercial and industrial community of this country so much complain about. The Minister of Defence seemingly regards himself as a great democrat, but, as I understand democracy, it means rule by the majority, and the Minister is the absolute negation of that. His progress has been extraordinary. One thing that interests me most is his powers of swallowing. In the first place, with his traditions and upbringing it must have been something for him to swallow the declaration of the Minister of the Interior regarding the civil service. Then came the question of the whittling away of the British preference by the Minister of Finance. That he also swallowed. The gullet of the Minister of Defence must have become gradually larger, for he went on to swallow, in 1927, the question of the purchase of German engines in opposition to the advice of the whole of his technical advisers. Then came the biggest swallow of all—the Flag Bill. He gave a speech in this House in favour of that Bill just before he was called away to Australia on the business of this country. Then there was the attack on the Auditor-General by his colleague, the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), and, finally, there is this German treaty. These are all things that the hon. gentleman has gradually swallowed, and now we see him there; he has shed his political clothes, he has been stripped of his leadership of the united Labour party, and now he sits there naked and unashamed, basking in the sun of the sweets of office. My mind goes back to the time, some fifteen years ago, when I remember Mr. Merriman saying: “The thing that beats me is what the sailor said about the fly in the amber—how the devil did it get there.” I wonder what Mr. Merriman would say to-day when the Minister has been shedding his principles one after another. He is not a democrat; if he were, he would not be sitting there. He is not a real Labour man; he is neither flesh, fish, fowl or good red herring. It is galling to the mercantile community that because of the presence of the Minister of Defence and his people opposite, we have to put up with legislation and administration that would never have been tolerated by hon. members who are sitting behind the Minister if they were not associated with him. I want to refer to one or two matters connected with the Prime Minister. As South Africans there is one thing we can claim in common, and that is that whatever views we may hold we must believe that each of us in holding our views and in expressing them is endeavouring to work for the good of our country. I set very great store in the value of our membership of the British Empire, believing that our national life is enriched by that membership and not impoverished. South Africa stands high in the councils of the empire, not because of our big population, not because of our great wealth, but because of the stand that has been taken, the wide views that have been held and the quality of the men who have gone oversea from time to time to the councils of the empire. I refer to men who are dead—Hofmeyr, Sprigg, Escombe, Jameson, Botha—all men who have shed lustre upon South Africa in the councils of the empire. I am very jealous of our country’s honour in this matter. The Prime Minister went over, as we know. Before he went he had an obsession. He feared dominance. When he went over he found that that was an obsession. He came back and expressed himself satisfied, and said that it was to the interests of South Africa to be a member of the British empire. That being so, we have to remember the things that are done, and the things that are not done. A man is known as much by the things that he does not do as by the things that he does. There are some things that are done that should not be done. I consider this German treaty is one of those things. Allowing the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries credit for thinking that he was doing something for the good of the country, I think we shall have to charge him with incompetence because we can show that there are implications in that treaty which make it one of the things that should not be done in the interests of our country. Now I want to refer to the purchase of German engines. The economic commission in 1923 passed certain resolutions, and this country was represented on that commission by Mr. Burton and Mr. de Wet. I will read the resolutions. [Resolutions read.] Of course, that does not mean that all our buying must be within the British Empire, but in this case to which I am referring, the buying of German engines, the whole of the papers were before the House, and the general manager of railways recommended the acceptance of a British contract. The chief civil engineer, the chief mechanical engineer, the chief railway storekeeper and the whole of the technical officers recommended that the British tender be accepted. The hon. the Minister, with the advice of his Railway Board, who are not technical men, decided to over-ride the whole of his technical advisers, and to buy the German engines. To my mind, the over-riding of technical advice to place an order of that sort away from Britain is not keeping faith with the resolutions passed at the conference, and it is not one of the things that enhance the reputation of the Union.

The same thing is done by the British post office. They placed an order outside Britain.

The Minister over-rode the whole of his technical advisers.

That is not so. Were not the orders placed in the cheapest market?

No.

Then I think the Prime Minister has failed this country in leadership. We need in a leader a man who can think more clearly and see further than the ordinary man. We want the man who can think clearest and see furthest. I will apply that test to the Prime Minister in connection with three matters. The first is with regard to the question of our status. The hon. gentleman went to the Imperial Conference, and found that our status was exactly what the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had told him ten years before. The Prime Minister himself has said there was no change, there was nothing new; the position was reduced to writing. There I say that the Prime Minister as a leader was ten years behind the times. The Prime Minister also informed us that it was to the interests of South Africa that it should be within the British empire. If he had only said that in 1914 what sorrow and what destruction might have been saved this country. Again he was at least ten years behind the times.

No, I do not want your empire.

In the Free State he spoke strongly of Dutch and English working together. If he had only said that in 1912 instead of dividing the Botha Government on his two stream policy, what a difference there might have been. I am delighted, however, that at last we are able to see together on these points.

I am not quite sure that you and I do. We have different conceptions of the empire.

Possibly, but we are both on the right lines, and I rejoice that the Prime Minister is able to make that declaration. For a leader, however, I prefer a man who can lead, even if his pace is such as at times to make you breathless to follow; anyhow, I prefer him to a man who is ten years too late. When the Prime Minister introduced his native Bills, I accepted them as an honest attempt to deal with a very difficult question, although I might have thought that, to use a vulgarism, he might have bitten off a bigger chunk than he could chew. I was told that I was entirely wrong, and that the whole thing was political, but I refused to believe it. I still believe it was an honest attempt on the part of the Prime Minister, but it was evident that some of his lieutenants were working to manoeuvre the leader of the Opposition—

All the manoeuvring was on your side.

… into being the champion of the black man. We have had the same manoeuvring before about the Union Jack. I regret that the Prime Minister succumbed to this temptation, and has made a party matter of it and has issued this manifesto. What is his complaint against the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)? That he is a man of vision, but he is not the first man to have these visions with regard to the future of the north. In the Gardens across the way there is a statue to another great South African, whose hand points to the north, and on the base of the statue are inscribed the words: “Your hinterland is there.” Was it ever suggested when Rhodes took up that attitude that he was aiming at a black domination over Africa? His dream came true—is there a black domination in Rhodesia. Why is that attributed to the right hon. member for Standerton, except for the sole purpose of making political capital out of it? Mr. Rhodes also made the declaration: “Equal rights for every civilized man south of the Zambezi.” This thing is going to fail. It was born in evil and in deception, and so it is bound to fail, and will fail. Once again, the Prime Minister has condescended to forsake principles for party tactics, because he believes he will get votes, and that condemns him as a leader of this country. He has failed as a leader, and I hope the country will gain a real leader in the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) has spoken about columns of cloud and fire. In modern warfare smoke screens are used to cover the movements of an attack, and the chief reason for this motion is that the Opposition are making smoke screens and kicking up clouds of dust in view of the approaching election. On almost every point which is brought up against the Government the smoke screen is made for the attacker to take cover behind. If the attacker in a war is strong enough to make an attack it is necessary for him to use a smoke screen. It is only when he is so weak that he does not want the enemy to see his weakness that he hides his movements. The question is whether this smoke screen is not also a sign of weakness, because every attacker just mentions a point and then leaves it alone. This procedure is an attempt to mislead the public, and to create the impression that there is something wrong. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), for instance, commenced with an attack on the Minister of Finance, and before he said something on that subject he passed over to something else. Yet he hopes that he has made the impression on the public that there is something wrong with the finances of the country. Otherwise why did he mention the matter? The leader of the Opposition said that it would have been better if the Minister of Finance had no surpluses. What, then, ought he to have had? Does the hon. leader of the Opposition suggest that the Minister would have done better if, like his predecessor (Mr. Burton), he always had deficits? The hon. member knows that the public will not believe that it is wrong, but he hopes they will think that he knows something that he has not said, and that there is something wrong with our finances. Then they produce the argument, as did the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), that the mistake to-day is that the Government is collecting £4,000,000 more in taxation than the previous Government. The hon. member might just as well argue that if America raises £100,000,000 in taxation, and Spain £10,000,000 that the American people are taxed 10 times more heavily than the Spanish, or they might argue that if we to-day get in 10 times as much revenue in taxes as we did ten years ago, then the individual taxpayer bears a 10 times heavier burden. That kind of argument proves nothing. If it is the financial policy of the South African party, then we can only say: “May South Africa be spared from their ever coming into power again.” The same argument is used in connection with the increased expenditure. It is taken as a sign that the present Government has wasted more than the previous Government. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) carries on a business with a capital of £100,000, and decides to increase it by £150,000, will he then, after the increase of capital and the extension of his business, say that his expenditure will not be higher? Increased expenditure in this case is not a sign of retrogression. It is a sign of progress, if a business grows and the expenditure increases in consequence. It is to be expected that the prosperity of the country, and greater activities, will cause greater expenditure on certain heads. This South African party attitude is not financial criticism, but lack of arguments. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) told us in connection with the index figure that the £ sterling in 1923 had a purchasing power of 15s. 3d., and that in 1927 it was only 14s, 10d. He could, however, only mention 1924 when the South African party was still in office. Then the purchasing power of the £ sterling was 14s. 11d., and in comparison with 1924 there was only a difference of 1d. in 1927. This kind of argument is only kicking up dust, and in reality amounts to nothing in connection with our financial affairs. We cannot from them decide what the actual value of our position is. We must look at other results, namely, what we get in connection with our country’s produce. The index figure depends merely on a few items, which from time to time are taken in certain large cities, and it is not at all a proof that it is an accurate statement of the cost of living in South Africa. It is a method based on a figure taken in 1910, and it is wrong because we shall not again attain the conditions of 1910. If a later date and a normal year were taken, then there would be something in it, but the present index figure is of little practical use in daily life. Take for instance the item “butter”, Say that the price of butter owing to the drought goes up, as often happens. To say then that if butter increases in price the value of the £ has dropped is in any case a great distortion. The hon. member’s point was once more nothing but a dust cloud, to shelter behind in connection with the approaching election. Take the Wage Act; it is really pitiful to see how members opposite shift about in connection with it. Sometimes it is their favourite point of attack, at others they say that the South African party will administer the Wage act. At the Bloemfontein congress the hon. member for Standerton said there were two points about the Wage Act. It is good for unorganized industries and occupations where starvation wages are paid. He represented that the Government had also said that it would be used for that, and then said that the South African party would administer the Wage Act to that extent. But then you have the smoke screen, and he says that the Pact Government has applied the Wage Act to other industries. To which? The public are told that there are two ways in which the Act can be applied, one of which is wrong.

Read the Government Gazette containing all the proclamations.

The public must think that there is more behind the thing than what there actually is. Let hon. members name industries?

Coffee houses.

There it is not applied. The hon. member reads his Gazette wrongly. I am thinking of the white labourers on the railways. They are much discussed, but I should like to see an honest and frank statement that they are going to abolish the white labour policy. We are told that the South African party never had the policy of allowing natives to take the place of white men. On the branch line, Bethlehem-Frankfort, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) became Minister of Railways, there was quite a lot of little houses in which white railway men lived; when he left, the houses were empty or occupied by natives. If that happens there, then I wonder what occurred at other places. I know that the hon. member did not directly discharge the people, but that does not in the least detract from the argument that, where formerly there were white labourers in the railway service, natives were subsequently employed. The natives were drawn away from the farms, where they were badly needed for farm work, and white persons were walking the streets unemployed or working on relief works. We must expect that policy again if the Opposition comes into power. Take the native policy. My hon. friends say that it is not their job, but that of the Government. We have here to do with the greatest problem in South Africa, and we have done our best to come to an agreement on policy. We know that the late Gen. Botha took the matter up earnestly and advocated attempts which are to-day being made. Even before, as in 1913, tentative attempts were made. Meanwhile the census has given us more data, and we can see how the white population stood in proportion to the natives, and how it stands to-day, how the proportion has become less favourable. Now the country wants to know what the S.A.P. policy is and what they, as responsible statesmen offer as a solution to prevent conditions going from bad to worse. We know the position in the Cape Province. A native can vote in Aliwal North, but not his own brother over the river. This caused agitations like those of the I.C.U. We want to remove the inconsistencies; the South African party is opposing the attempt but is not sufficiently honest to state its policy. The South African party, who have been in the Government before, have the do-nothing policy. They disapprove of the Government’s policy, but suggest nothing in its stead. The public will have to choose between the policy of having no policy and the policy the Nationalist party is advocating.