I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

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

seconded.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I move as an unopposed motion—

Mr. JAGGER objected.

I move as an unopposed motion—

No. This is not a formal motion; the hon. member should put forward a case.

At the adjournment yesterday I said that the Nationalist party people in the Transvaal did not until 1919 have the opportunity of holding undisturbed meetings in the country to air their views. Especially where the English-speaking element was in the majority was that privilege denied them. When after 1919 the Nationalists got the upper hand, a movement arose that we might call “vengeance.” Whether this is worthy of condemnation or not, it is a fact that we cannot stop the running of public feeling. People must not take it amiss in us therefore that at the Potchefstroom meeting on the 28th January there was such a disturbance. The most dangerous man to society is the jingo. We not only have jingoes amongst our English-speaking friends, but also on our side, people who go to extremes in the matter. But the English-speaking jingo is much more dangerous than the Dutch-speaking one, because the former is imbued with the idea that he is a more worthy person than the Dutch-speaking Afrikander; he suffers from what in scientific language is called a superiority complex. He thinks he has more to say in the country than the Dutch-speaking Afrikander, must expect more than the latter, that his language should have a greater opportunity than the Afrikaans language, his language must in time swallow up and destroy the Afrikaans language. That is his idea. His traditions, his history, his habits, all are better than those of the Dutch-speaking Afrikander. Therefore if we want the desired co-operation in the country the jingoes, as boasters, must leave it. They must not be permitted to have any further say here. When the flocks have once been so purified, and the scrub stock is no longer present, the two parties of goodwill can better live side by side and fight and suffer in the country. There are great problems for us to solve. It is regrettable that the native question cannot be raised above party politics, but why can it not? Because the natives have always been used hitherto as voting stock in the country for political purposes, and of course the native is required to continue that service. Why is the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) such a protagonist of state-aided immigration? To get votes in the country. It is a pity that political zeal has gone so far here that the solution of great questions, such as the native question, that of the poor whites, etc., cannot be kept out of party politics. I again say that the English-speaking jingo is the most undesirable man in society. He does not intend to try and learn the Afrikaans language; there are more Dutch-speaking South Africans who now read English newspapers than English-speaking who read Dutch papers. The result is that the English-speaking people do not know us, do not understand and do not see the other side of things. We are prepared to stand on an equal footing with the English-speaking, but do not wish to be considered inferior. We have an equal status in the political and scientific arenas, in art, and we want an equal status in society and an equal status in economic matters here. We want co-operation on an equal footing. Our language must be valued just as much as the English language, and be learned just as eagerly as English. Now I come to the Potchefstroom meeting of the 29th January, the great Nationalist meeting on the eve of the election. That is the meeting at which according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I said that the S.A. party candidate was not a good South African because he could not speak Afrikaans. What happened was this. The story went the round in the constituency that Mr. Alberts, the Nationalist party candidate, was not so well educated as Mr. Barnard, inter alia because he did not know English. I said at the meeting: “I prefer Mr. Alberts with his sound commonsense and political insight, even if he does not know English, to Mr. Barnard who knows English, but does not possess the sound commonsense and insight of Mr. Alberts.”

Is that all?

That is all that I said about Mr. Barnard’s knowledge of Afrikaans.

Did you not say that you compared him to a dog that had taken castor oil?

I said that it is very strange that a big man like Mr. Barnard should go about with his great knowledge of English arid push his own personality everywhere on the public and praise himself. I said it revolted me as castor oil did a dog. I think that I am in good company because every right-thinking man is revolted by anyone who blows his own trumpet all day.

Beautiful imagery.

Every little bird has his own way of expressing himself, and sings according to his mouth. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other friends would very much like us to run the election on racial lines. I spoke this afternoon about English-speaking jingoes, by that I do not mean the right-thinking Englishman in the country. He is a man who is at home here, and wants to co-operate with us to develop the country. I refer to the zealot, to the English jingo, “God’s own Englishman,” according to his own words. He is just as little “God’s own Englishman” as any other. I speak of the man who comes here and makes mischief, and I also refer to the English newspapers. “Die Weste” has been referred to. “Die Weste” of Potchefstroom is alleged to have been spreading so much race hatred during the election. There are other papers as well in Potchefstroom; there is the South African party paper, “The Potchefstroom Herald,” and the other South African paper, “Die Westelike Stem.” “Die Weste” is not an angel, nor is it a greater devil than the “Potchefstroom Herald” or “Die Westelike Stem,” nor than the “Star,” the-“Daily Mail,” the “Cape Times,” and the other papers. The matter reminds me of a man who gave another a slap, and when he got one back shouted about the great injustice done to him. There are jingoes among the journalists and the English jingoes have taken the lead, and if one of our journals becomes revengeful and goes a little on a certain line it is called the newspaper that spreads race hatred. It reminds one of the Pharisee who beat on his chest and said: “Thank God I am not like other men.” That he calls the ego complex. I do not believe in that kind of man. We do not want them in the country, not the people who put themselves on a pedestal and look down contemptuously on others. That is so often done to the Afrikaans-speaking people, especially to the degraded ones amongst them. Let me tell my hon. friends opposite that when the weaker amongst us is touched we are affected.

What about the 1s. a day?

You have it on the brain? I hope it will be 1d. to-night. We do not want the good people who strike with their hands on their own breasts, we want sinners who admit their sin, sinners who repent of their sin. Believe me that if our party were to speak its heart to-day, and to go into the hoary past things could be mentioned which would make hon. members’ hair stand on end. We do not do it, but the people with the superiority complex should know that in the past wrong was done, and that they were not angels. They were like devils. I will enlighten the hon. gentleman to try and take the 1/- a day off his brain. The statement of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we had promised the road workers 1/- a day rise the night before the election I may not stigmatise as a lie, thus I will only say that it is as far from the truth as the north pole is from the south. The increase was not announced on the eve of the election, but it was a matter which had long been under discussion. Why we announced it that night was because Mr. Barnard, the Mayor of Potchefstroom who stood as an S.A.P. candidate, supported a motion in the Town Council just one week before the election that the municipal workers on the streets should be given a rise. Stories were spread in the town that the Mayor, who was a candidate, was going to give the people 6d. a day more. I arrived that night and thought to improve on it, and said: “We are going to give you 1s. a day more.” Here you have another case of self-justification. In 1921, when ex-Minister Nicolaas de Wet stood for Parliament for the last time, it was suddenly found that there was a number of poor voters outside the constituency, and the leaders of the Saps, said that the people should be brought in so that they could be kept under control. Shortly before the election a sudden start in road construction was made. The only road the Government could do in those days, because roads come under the provincial council, was the old road in the military camp which had long been empty, and yet money was taken from the Treasury to spend on that road. Two days after the election, I went by train to Johannesburg, and one of the South African party leaders was sitting in the compartment adjoining mine. When the train stopped at a station I heard him say: “The blackguards humbugged us nicely. We took all the trouble to get them for the election, and yet they voted against us.” The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will thus see that they are standing behind the door where they are looking for us.

But you stand there.

The hon. member still has the 1s. on the brain, but I want to say once more that it was not promised on the eve of the election. It had long been in contemplation. The Prime Minister promised an increase in Namaqualand, the people get more at Hartebeestpoort, and they also get more on the road construction at Springbokvlakte. The road workers in Potchefstroom came courteously to us and said they were only getting 5s. a day. I said: “Very well, we shall try to make your lot easier also.” I used my influence as far as I could, and thank God I was able to get 1s. increase. During the last election at Potchefstroom the South African party candidate complained bitterly of the Government paying the poor white people so little, and now that the people have got 1s. rise they are complaining again. The Opposition candidate told the people that natives were getting 8s. a day, while they were only getting 5s. That is incorrect. The Government have never yet paid 8s. per day for unskilled native labour. What was done was that the late Minister of Public Works laid down that 8s. per day was to be paid for unskilled labour by contractors, without providing that they should be Europeans. In some places the contractors employed natives, a thing the Government could not prevent.

You took the news.

The hon. member has lived so many years in the country, but does not properly understand Afrikaans yet, otherwise he would have heard my explanation. The people already knew about the increase on the night of the meeting, and I only referred to it by way of comparison.

You saved the election.

Well, that may be. If you can save an election by a good action, then it is a virtue. If the hon. member can win an election by a good deed, win it. I now hope that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has got the 1s. off his brain.

From what date did the payment of the extra 1s. per day start?

From the beginning of January. The matter was already disposed of on the eve of the election, and it was not announced then for the first time. I did not intend to speak at such length, but I just felt that accusations like those of the Opposition that we had run the provincial election on racial lines, and that we were going to do the same at the next general election was an unworthy charge. Our Government has already given sufficient proof, with the greatest sacrifices, that we want to co-operate. We feel that we want co-operation in this country. We need more Europeans in the country, but we must first put our own house in order. There is plenty of big work to do to develop our country and to build up the people, to make them one of the greatest nations amongst the nations of the world.

The speech delivered yesterday by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) gave the case for the South African party completely and hopelessly away, although it was listened to with rapt adoration by members of that party. Evidently the only person who counts with them is a millionaire, and I must compliment them on the dutiful way in which they listened to the words of one of their millionaires. The speech of the hon. member was on one note only, and that was that the Pact Government had interfered in some way or another with the operations of the millionaires. If that is the reason the hon. member wishes to turn the Government out, that is the finest reason why the working classes should not change the present Government. I believe that when the world is properly civilized, we shall not have such persons as millionaires in any country. The larger the number of millionaires you have, the larger the number of paupers. Therefore, the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) simply shows that, in his opinion, the Pact Government is interfering with big finance in this country, “and, therefore, the sooner the Pact Government goes out of power, the better for me and the interests I serve.” That is the effect of the speech, and it would be a bad day’s work to put back a Government which is a friend of big finance and, therefore, a danger to the workers of this country. The hon. member did not even give the Government and the Labour party credit for the avoidance of industrial strife during its term of office. That alone should have made the hon. member and people like him thankful to this Government for having avoided what is the curse of any country. No one can say how much industrial strife costs any country, and if this Government had done nothing else, it would deserve for that alone the gratitude of the working classes and decent business men. The speech of the hon. member alone puts up a strong case why the present Government should continue in office for another five years. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) also did not pay a tribute to the Government for the prosperity the country enjoys, yet the income tax returns and other information show that such towns as Port Elizabeth have gone ahead more in the last five years than they did in ten years under the South African party Government, and the hon. member is not even gracious enough to concede credit for that. He asked what reply we got at Three Rivers. He sets the result of that miserable bye-election, where the unintelligent native vote was led by the nose by the South African party, against the prosperity of the whole country.

Say that to your coloured electorate at Salt River and see what they say.

I say the native vote there is unorganized and uneducated and led by the nose by astute politicians. Their regard for the native race and the coloured race simply means: “You are jolly good fellows because you are unorganized and cheap.” As the native and the coloured man become more and more organized, they will gradually drop him. They are not really friends of the coloured and native races at all. They only like them because they are cheap and because they can play them off against the more civilized sections. That is what happened at Three Rivers. I want to remind the hon. member of the speech he made on the civilized labour policy of the railways. I have before me “Hansard” for the week ending 8th April, 1927. These people only want cheap native labour, not because it is black or coloured, but because it is cheaper than white. The hon. member said—

The Minister of Labour interjected “Shame,” and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and other friends of the working classes and of the coloured and native races said: “It is perfectly true.” The hon. member went on to say—

Yes, that is, the native only has the right to all this unskilled work. At what rate of pay? At what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) calls the economic wage, that is, the lowest at which the native is prepared to sell his labour. The Minister asked: “What kind of work?” and the hon. member replied: “The work of ballasting.” He went on—

He draws a comparison between a gang of convicts and a gang of civilized labourers working on the railway, to the disadvantage of the latter. I leave it to the working class to say what they think of that opinion of them. Everyone knows you have failures under the civilized labour policy, but the great bulk of these men were down and out and demonstrated here in thousands, and they are working on the railways to-day. And they do not work like a gang of convicts. Many thousands have done good work and made substantial progress. I do not say I am altogether satisfied; I want to see them get a higher rate of pay, but I know that if a South African party Government was in power, all these men working on the railways to-day would either be walking about the towns and villages unemployed, or be doing relief work. If this Government has done nothing else, it has done a great thing in giving these people, mainly of Dutch-speaking stock, the chance to rehabilitate themselves and to become decent and self-respecting, and not dependent on relief works. I would say that the South African party is the “relief works party,” but this Government, which is going to give the people a chance, is the working man’s friend. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) knows Mr. W. A. Willoughby Fry, a well-known business man in his district. I will read one or two sentences from a letter which appeared in the “Eastern Province Herald” early last year to show what he thinks of the policy of the South African party. He asked—

Then take the comments of hon. members opposite on the Wage Board. I want to remind the House in case hon. members have not read the papers closely enough, of some of the evidence given in the Cape Peninsula during the sitting of the Wage Board. They took the evidence of Mr. T. W. Bailey, a married man, 66 years old, with a family of five daughters. Eight years ago he found employment at Messrs. Jagger’s as a liftman at £1 10s. a week, and after eight years was getting £2 2s. 6d. per week. He and his wife found it very difficult to make both ends meet. No wonder hon. members opposite criticize the Wage Board, and that is why they favour the native, who works at half the price of other workers. Evidence was also led from employees of Messrs. Stuttaford & Co., and it came out that in the dressmaking department many girls were only paid 10s. per week, and that certain shop assistants were paid from £3 per month and upwards—a princely salary for young ladies to attempt to live on. In the hairdressing department, the gentleman in charge said to one of the men who had taken a prominent part, and who was given the “sack” from that department: “You can now go to A. G. Forsyth and see if he will give you a job.” That man, who told the employee this, after the award had been made, is a boss of the worst kind and an enemy of the decent working classes. I understand that during the week he holds a mid-day service for coloured and native employees to teach them the way to paradise, but he does not seem to want to give his own people there a chance to enjoy a paradise on earth. In the same case it came out that young, respectable, well-spoken, well-educated girls were paid £3 per month as lift-girls. Could there be anything more striking in condemnation of what the South African party said than that? I say the Wage Board has done good work, and I hope will continue for many years to do so and give people, especially young women, a living wage. With regard to the leader of the Opposition, we know that to a large extent the working classes, both English- and Dutch-speaking, are in the hands of a press which is not specially favourable to the Government—a press which generally is anti-Labour, certainly anti-Labour party and anti-Government. In the election campaign of 1924 the “Cape Times” came out with big headlines: “Smuts smites the Pact,” but, unfortunately, the weapon used was a boomerang, and it was he and his party who got wiped out —I hope for good.

He is still going strong.

Then it was stated in head lines in the same paper: “Smuts warns the old burghers,” “Strikes and revolutions under the Pact.” The leader of the Opposition said—

But then the right hon. gentleman began to prophesy. I must say he is one of the finest promisers in South Africa. He prophesied what was going to happen—

No; it is quite true he is not a prophet, but if he is one, then he is the worst prophet that has ever made a prophecy, because all the things prophesied by him have proved to be absolutely false. He told us that there would be strikes and revolutions. There have been no strikes or revolutions, but, instead, there has been progress and prosperity of the best possible kind. I want to say a few words on one or two railway matters. I cannot understand why, with all the speeches delivered by members on the Opposition benches, no mention has been made of a certain book published by Hortors, Ltd., and written by Dr. Frankel. I cannot understand why this red-hot criticism of the late Government has not been quoted by hon. members on the other side, but I suppose the real reason is that this book constitutes the biggest indictment of the South African party ever written. This book criticized not only the management of the railways and the construction of political branch lines—

It was written for the Chamber of Mines.

Yes, but it attacks the South African party Government. No wonder that they have said nothing about it, for it criticizes their management of the country’s railways and its finances. That is why we have heard nothing about it. As hon. members know, no member of the Labour party is satisfied entirely with everything done or left undone by the Pact Government. Many of us would like to see the 8-hour day extended to all the running staff, also that each day should stand by itself, also the dual rate of pay abolished, and so on. We know that the Minister has done good work in tackling the various pension funds and other important matters. Most of us, however, would like him to go a little faster in remedying grievances. But we also know perfectly well that if the South African party came back, instead of there being a levelling up, it would embark upon a policy of levelling down. Practically every speech delivered by members of the South African party is an indictment of the alleged extravagant policy of the Pact Government, and we know what the policy of the South African party would be, economy, beginning at the bottom and ending at the top, and the result would be that the working classes on the railways would be dragged down. Because of that, although a lot of rubbish and talk is indulged in by the press, I believe that when the time comes the people will say that, whatever the faults of the present Government are, they know that if the other party gets into power, the people will be in for a rough time, and, therefore, they intend to continue to support the Pact. When coming up Adderley Street to-day, I noticed a very significant placard published by a paper which is a supporter of the South African party. It was rather a striking placard, and the words it contained were: “The old gang must go.” I believe these words apply to the old gang of the South African party, and I would ask hon. members on the other side of the House, who worry so much about the Labour party troubles, to study their own party, particularly in view of the fact that a leading journal in Cape Town informs them that: “The old gang must go.” Let them deal with their own party first, and if they do so, they will have a much better chance of coming back into power. I should like to refer to the record of this Government in connection with their handling of unemployment. Although they have not succeeded in abolishing it, they have done a great deal. All Labour members should know that it is quite impossible to entirely abolish unemployment. Under the system of private enterprise, you are bound to have a number of people unemployed at times.

How would you do it under a socialist system?

Under the system of socialism necessary work would be arranged scientifically.

interjected a remark. [Inaudible.]

If members have the time to go into the library they can get all the books they require about Russia; but there is no need for us to worry about Russia and other countries.

But you must benefit by the experience of other countries.

We all should know what their experiences are, but, after all, this Parliament sits in Cape Town, South Africa. The experience of the world is that under the capitalist system you are bound to have unemployment. No capitalist country has succeeded in solving the unemployment problem; it has only been alleviated. You have insurance against unemployment in some countries, and the working class contribute. We have not got it in this country, and it is time we had it. Under the present system labour is put into the street when not required, and the only way to ease that position is for the State to encourage industries and carry on development, and provide for insurance against unemployment. A charge has been made in the press only a day or two ago against the Labour Bureau in Cape Town; by certain Labour members, to the effect that the bureau is nothing but a registry office. Other charges are also brought, and they amount to a general charge of uselessness against the bureau. These charges are not true. The bureau is not able to make work, but it is a place where information is obtainable as to where work is to be secured. It is a clearing house for Labour and nothing more. The number of European adults placed in jobs during 1928 was no less than 2,597, and coloured persons numbering 1,212 were also placed, making a total of 3,809. In January, 1929, 327 Europeans were placed, and 171 coloured persons, and in addition 300 coloured men were recruited by the Government during January, and, therefore, 798 persons in that one month were placed in work. Nearly 2,000 women and juveniles were also placed during 1928 by the Cape Town Labour office. Those are official figures. The problem is that while these people are being placed in jobs other people are paid off. The only thing to be done is to maintain this Labour Bureau, and as openings occur to place the men who are unemployed as far as possible, and there must be unemployment insurance also; but the bureau cannot manufacture work. We would like the Government to go in for some scheme to employ men who are put out of work by private enterprise, but to say that the bureau is only a registry office in face of the official figures, is incorrect. Good work has been done by the bureau. Apart from that, I hold the opinion very strongly that it would be a national calamity if the South African party came back to power. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is not, I understand, coming back to the next Parliament, but I know that when he was in charge of the railways the wastage among the men was not made good, with the result that many thousands of men were not employed by the railway who ought to have been employed in that department. We have paid dearly for that. The party really responsible for the shortage of rolling stock and the insufficient workshop accommodation is the South African party, because of the policy of so-called economy of the hon. member. The continuance of the Pact for another five years is necessary in the interests of the country, and the two parties composing it, the Nationalist party and the Labour party, should remain associated. The vote of no-confidence will not be carried for the reasons I have given.

The hon. member who has just spoken has expressed his satisfaction with the Government. The hon. member who says that unemployment has been solved must just have a look how outside the House meetings of protest are being held by unemployed. The hon. member in his speech referred to a certain member paying £1 10s. a week to his employee. Now I want to ask him if he agrees with his Government only paying 18s. a week to its employees.

Where?

I am glad to hear that question, because that wage of 18s. a week was the reason why the Minister of Railways would not read out the wages here to-day, he was too ashamed to read it out, because he said it was too long, but it is just a short paragraph. He did not read it out but I shall now read it. What is the answer to the question of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick)? It is that people begin with 3s. a day, and if they are 18 years old, they get 3s. 6d. and if 20 years, 4s.

But those are apprentices.

When the hon. member for Illovo recently asked the question, the Minister of Railways emphatically denied that the people began with 3s. a day, therefore he was ashamed to-day, and said that this was too long to read out, these are the people who say that they stand for a white South Africa.

What did you do for the people? You kicked them out.

We got them to build dams. Were not those people employed at Hartebeestpoort? That is the policy of helping the people. To-day they are brought to the towns, where they have to live in an overcrowded condition. I ask hon. members to go to Salt River and that part, to see how their fellow South Africans live. They are to-day living amidst coloured people in the slums. That is the Government which talks of a white South Africa. They ought rather first to help along our fellow South Africans before they come here and talk of a white South Africa. That is the point the Government fail on. I now want to read out those documents about the wages so that the public shall know what is being paid. I am not opposed to the people working on the railway, but I say more should be done for them. The scale of wages is as follows—

Is it not a shame to pay that to people?—

I know of cases where people in Cape Town, getting these wages, have gone to the Board of Aid because they were not able to keep body and soul together.

Do you know of a farmer who pays more; did the previous Government pay more?

That is another thing, a farmer gives food and clothing and lodging to his people.

No, I asked whether the previous Government paid more.

I have already said what the previous Government did. That Government constructed irrigation works like the Hartebeestpoort dam.

We are talking about the railways.

No, listen to what the previous Government did. It got the people to build dams, and subsequently put them on the land.

The dam is not finished yet.

I will quote further—

There are the people who want to help along the white population. No wonder the Minister of Railways felt ashamed to read it out because it is a scandalous state of affairs, might almost say that it is the meanest treatment which could possibly be meted out to an individual. I ask hon. members opposite whether they think it possible to keep body and soul together on such a wage, especially for a family which has come from life on a farm, and sometimes has even owned a farm. To return to the Minister of Agriculture, I am sorry that he is not in his place. We have heard so much of all he has done. I had hoped to hear what he has done for agriculture, but what was his refrain? Just the same as we have heard from everyone on that side, viz.: “The hon. member for Standerton.” I am much disappointed that the Minister mentioned nothing that he has actually done for us. He said that he never was in favour of compulsory co-operation, and even now is not yet in favour of it, but he himself introduced the Credit Act, the documents prove that. In that Act it is provided that the produce of a farmer who borrows money shall be sold through a co-operative society. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) knows himself how he voted against it when in the Drought Emergency Loan Bill it was provided that the farmer who was assisted had also to sell his produce through the co-operative society.

What do you want then?

I am surprised to hear that from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet because he said in this House with reference to the clause on compulsory co-operation: “It is wrong, give the people a chance to sell in the best market.”

Yes, in the best market.

Yes, but the Act says that he must sell where the co-operative society directs. Another point is that the Minister said that he assisted the tobacco farmers. What did he do for them? The Minister replied to the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) that if they could not sell their produce they ought not to plant so much. Is it not his duty as Minister of Agriculture to spur the farmers on, and find markets for their produce? The wheat farmers also were not assisted. The Minister says that the wheat farmers are satisfied, but I want to ask the hon. members for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal, and Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) whether they think the Minister has assisted the wheat farmers. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has already said that the tax which the Minister levies on wheat ought to be put on flour. Because what happens? The wheat is ground in Australia to-day and imported here as flour.

The wheat farmers remember what the previous Government did for them.

Yes, they are not so satisfied as the Minister thinks. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has already said that the Minister is in the habit of taking things up. I am sorry that at the start of my speech he was not here, because I pointed out that if the farmers plant much tobacco it is his duty to encourage them to find markets for them. That is quite sufficient reason for the motion of no confidence when the Minister of Agriculture takes up the attitude that, if the people have no market for their produce, they should plant less. Hon. members opposite said that the previous Government did not allow them to export their wheat because our credit was so bad, but do not hon. members remember how the last Government did everything possible to assist the people to transport their produce in the best manner, inter alia by building grain elevators for the maize farmers? Are the Minister and hon. members possibly opposed to that? To-day there is not a single member representing maize farmers who does not want the elevator. I just want to point out what the last Government did for the farmers. It was during the war I think that there was a good mealie crop, and that the speculators came to buy up the maize. The then Minister of Agriculture warned the farmers not to sell under a certain price, under 13s. per bag.

When?

In Gen. Botha’s time.

Where?

There you have a representative of a maize district! The result was that the farmers subsequently got a good price.

What happened to the wool?

I am coming to that. The sale of wool to the British Government was one of the best things ever done in South Africa for agriculture. The wool farmers were organized under the last Government, and they were taught how to treat their wool and the best way of marketing it. Hon. members cannot deny it. Without those sales of wool at that time the farmers would have got no price. I know how many people were disappointed when some months, or a year later, the people who had sold their wool got very nice cheques in return.

It meant a loss of £1.000,000 to South Africa.

Nonsense.

I am prepared to prove it.

In any case the loss would have been £10,000,000 instead of the £1,000,000 you speak of if it were not for the action of the last Government. As to cattle farming the Minister says that such good prices have never been obtained as there are to-day. Good prices are obtained for certain classes of fat cattle, as is always the case, but what is the position in the case of stud stock, thoroughbred cattle born in the country? No price can be got. The Minister boasts of the establishment of a station at Pietersburg to provide farmers in the neighbourhood with bulls. I well remember how the Cattle Breeders’ Association made the suggestion to the Government, and certain farmers even gave bulls to be distributed. I well remember how the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) himself gave animals to assist the people and then the Minister says that he did everything. He further says that he stamped out scab.

In your district also.

It was clean long before the Minister came into office.

What about all the other districts?

The hon. member knows that the last Government reduced scab so much that it was practically eradicated. The Minister can however boast of having abolished the sheep division, and put his own friends in. Who laid the foundation for the fact that our wool is so popular today in other countries? I well remember how under the last Government the Minister introduced the Jackal Proof Fencing Bill. With one exception the other side opposed it, but that is the foundation which was laid by the last Government, which has resulted in the prosperity of wool culture. Another policy which was followed under the last Government under Gen. Botha was to send young South Africans overseas to study agriculture, and then return to enlighten farmers regarding the improvement of agriculture. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said that that was never formerly done, but he said it in ignorance. We know that our agricultural colleges are to-day crowded with young South Africans who are giving instruction, and who were sent away by the previous Government to study. The wool experts have done good work and assisted the farmers, but what is the Minister doing? He is discharging excellent people like Alec Mackilian.

That is not true, he resigned.

The farmers to-day have paid for the services of the experts, and I would support the Minister in that, but I feel that he is not altogether doing the right thing. The farmers must pay or abide by difficult regulations. A very large section of the people still need help, and the experts must assist.

Do they not get help?

The regulations are difficult. An expert comes once, but if he is required again the people have to pay. I want to ask hon. members opposite who established the Land Bank, to which to a great extent the progress of the country must be ascribed? It was the last Government.

When?

In 1912. The hon. member left the party, which was a good one, and he will have to return. The South African party encouraged and assisted the farmers I further want to criticize the way in which the drought-stricken areas have been treated. Is the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) satisfied with the way in which the people there have been assisted? What has been done? The people have been trekking away from the farms, but why were they not kept there in the districts and given work? I have a pamphlet here, and it refers to a great river being in flood after the terrible drought, and all the water running away to the sea. Why are not dams built? The last Government did it.

Political dams. Look at the present position.

It is not so, and if the Minister had built dams I would be thankful to him. He did not help the people in that way, but pushed them into the villages and the large towns, people who have always lived on the countryside. I have the greatest objection to it. We shall get the condition of things which the hon. member for Graff-Reinet saw in Australia. I also have a complaint against the Minister in connection with irrigation matters. A conference of irrigation people was recently held in Port Elizabeth, and an agreement come to between the upper and lower riparian owners about the amendment of two sections in the 1912 Irrigation Act. The Minister of Agriculture was himself present and subsequently also attended the Cape Town congress when the same request was made to him. He was however too obstinate, and would not introduce legislation piecemeal, and the result is that great difficulties have arisen. There was a court case and a great part of the Karroo was affected by it. Because the Minister would not comply with the request of the congress the people to-day have to hand in their title deeds and diagrams to the court so that a note can be made thereon how much water they have. Without taking up the time of the House he could have amended the Act, but the people have to suffer through his obstinacy. My great complaint against the Government is that it is constantly stirring up feelings in the country. The Nationalist party tried to get its strength with the cry of secession, but to-day they are ashamed of it and say that they were never in favour of separation. The greatest victory of the South African party is in having convinced hon. members opposite that its point of view is right, and that we can develop all liberties within the British Empire. Now the Government has taken up the native question, in a way not only to divide the Europeans against the natives, but also to divide the white races from each other. That is not the way to work for a white South Africa, and it is one of the saddest things which could ever occur. Hon. members opposite claim that they represent the Afrikaans-speaking part of our population, but I can assure them that among the South African party supporters there are just as honourable and good Afrikaans-speaking people. The difference however is that on this side it is not a question of Afrikaans-speaking, or English-speaking, but of South Africans. We stand for the interests of South Africa. Now we see that the party which states it represents the Afrikaans-speaking people wants to drive the Europeans and the natives apart. What has our church always done? Was it not helping the native up? Now we see however that an ex-minister of religion has signed the manifesto. I hope the House will pass the motion because I am certain that the country as a whole supports it.

The speech of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) was full of misstatements, which will be fully answered. I want myself to refer to two of his inaccuracies. In the first place he claims that the South African party Government built the Hartebeestpoort dam and settled people below it. No, the dam was completed and the people placed there after the South African party Government had left office, and the Act under which the people were put there we passed in the teeth of bitter opposition from the Opposition. Then he said that the previous Government established the Land Bank. He is quite wrong. The Land Bank was established first in the Transvaal, and then there were no Land Banks in the Cape, Natal and the Free State. Nor was the establishment on the initiative of our Government, but or that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). He was one of the principal members of the Selborne Government and appointed a commission to go into the matter. The report of the commission induced us to proceed with the establishment of the Land Bank after the granting of self-government. The same Act was subsequently extended throughout the Union, and the South African party Government can therefore not claim the credit for it. It is clear from the debate so far that hon. members opposite are much disappointed. It is not a wonder because they are under the impression that although they introduced the no-confidence motion, they had continually to defend themselves. They complain that too much about want of confidence in them comes from our side of the House, but they must remember that a motion of no-confidence, not only has the object of lifting a Government out of the saddle but also to show that the movers are fitted to take over the administration. It is therefore our duty to show that they are less desirable than ourselves. I see that even the Opposition newspapers are dissatisfied with the motion of no-confidence. A Natal paper says, e.g., that the leader of the Opposition, and a General, ought to know that a frontal attack is not always the best. At this stage the debate is no longer calculated to produce anything new against the Government, and I want to confine myself to a few points which ought to be brought to the notice of the country. In connection with my department the argument was repeatedly used that the Government had not done much to improve the position of the poor section of the population, Apart from what the Minister of Labour has already mentioned about it, I want to show that, by means of my department, since we came into office, as many as 4,000 men have been put on the land. If every family is taken as 4, it means 1,600 people, then 260 families were settled under the Probationary Lessees Act which the Opposition fought in the House. These are people who are absolutely poor, and who have had no experience. Two settlements are already full and I am establishing a third. Assistance was also granted to the Church settlement under the Relief Settlement Act. The Dutch Church has made a start in this matter and is deserving of all praise for the way they have offered help. The Church has however had great difficulties financially, with the result that the Act provides that Church bodies and charitable institutions can get help from the Government in the form of land and grants to families for three years. The Church settlements receive assistance. At Delagersdrift £2,000 was first written off and the allowances are granted. At Goedemoed in the Free State writings off were also made, and the people given grants, while grants were regularly given at Olifantshoek. Last year £1,668 was spent, and this year £2,500. All this has resulted in the Government putting hundreds of people on settlements and prevented them sinking to the poor white class. The Government has however done more than put people on settlements, because by its action it has also assured already established farmers remaining on the land. When we came into office it appeared that drastic amendments would have to be made in the Land Settlement Act if we wanted to keep the people on the land. The 1925 Act accordingly was passed, under which the conditions were so lightened that the people got 40 instead of 20 years to pay off their loans. The rate of interest was reduced and so on. We not only gave facilities, but reduced the prices and put them on a proper economic basis. The mistake of the last Government was that they bought farms, cut them up and gave portions to the settlers, but at such high prices that they could not make a living; moreover the plots were too small. We have now made provision to enlarge the plots that were too small, and where necessary we revalued the land. I can tell the House that up to date we have written off an amount of £904,000 as a result of revaluation of land. In that way the settlers have been enabled to make a living which previously was not possible. Hon. members opposite have said nothing about that. I am sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not in the House at the moment because according to the various reports he said at a meeting at Vlakfontein that the difficulties of the settlers he understood were that the present Government purchased land too expensively and gave it to the settlers who then could not make a living on it. I rubbed my eyes and considered it impossible for him to have said such a thing. This Government wrote off about £17,000 on that settlement. The settlers were placed there by the hon. member’s Government, and brought into difficulties. Now he says that this Government is the cause of the difficulties. I think the settlers must have burst with laughter. That is what we have done. There is another point, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) attacked the Minister of Justice. It was a serious affair in connection with certain persons who were not to be prosecuted. I only want to say that the Minister of Justice has adopted it as a fixed policy not to interfere with decisions of the Attorney-General, and not to worry himself about them. So also in this case. The Attorney-General decided. The hon. member however made the further charge that certain persons in the police force were dismissed by the new Commandant, Col. de Villiers. What is the position? The hon. member spoke about the termination of the service of Sergt. Atkinson who was first stationed at Witwatersberg and later at Durban. There was a hearing before a board consisting of the chief magistrate of Pretoria, a public service inspector, and an inspector of police. Certain corpus delicti had disappeared, and the case could accordingly not proceed, and Sergt. Atkinson was dismissed by Col. Truter, the previous head of police. The same applies to the other cases mentioned by the hon. member. They all occurred during the time of the previous Commissioner of Police.

Who is now standing as a South African party candidate?

Yes, I understand he is going to stand for George. Another serious matter which must be answered is in connection with the manifesto published by the Nationalist leaders, with reference to the Ermelo speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Hon. members opposite made a comparison between the policy of the late President Kruger and the proposals with which the hon. member for Standerton, according to his Ermelo speech, hawks about as the cardinal point in the South African party policy, and the misrepresentation is made as if the policy of the late President Kruger were the same as that now proposed by the hon. member himself What are the facts? When the Transvaal in the old days had British possessions on its western border, and Portuguese on the east, the road to the north was open, that is, no organized states existed; the territories were governed by natives in a barbarous state, it was no man’s land. If President Kruger’s Government had succeeded, or could have been extended to the north, would a state of affairs have arisen whereby the natives were put on equal footing with the Europeans? I want to ask the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) whether he thinks the late President Kruger would have agreed to that? There was no idea of it. The republic would have extended its territory, and the laws of the South African Republic would have prevailed there, one of the chief of these being no equality between white and black. The hon. member knows that well enough. Nor did President Kruger have any land hunger, but wanted to restore what had once existed. It is possibly somewhat unknown that the territory of the South African Republic once extended deep into Rhodesia, according to a proclamation issued on the 20th April, 1868. It went to Lake Ngami. It is true that the Republic was not able to make its authority effective there, but that was also the case in certain districts of the present Transvaal. There were parts which were thinly populated, but, in any case, the territories belonged to the Republic. The boundaries as now existing were only fixed after the annexation. It was, therefore, merely the intention to restore rights. But is that the case here? We have to do here with organized states. Let us see what the position is in Tanganyika, the mandate territory of England. We know that the League of Nations is very strict—we have a mandate territory ourselves— that no injustice shall be done the natives. In Tanganyika the natives have their own farms, coffee plantations, and are practically independent economically. Does the hon. member for Bethal think that the League of Nations will allow a Union of the territory if the political and social rights of the natives are not maintained?

The natives have no franchise there.

Does the hon. member think that the League of Nations will allow that to happen. We know the position in Kenya. We have here the Hilton-Young report which says that the land is not so much regarded as a home for Europeans, but that it may become of importance in view of the raw material for manufacturing purposes there. The report says that a colour bar would be impossible there. The natives are trained as engine-drivers, mechanics, stationmasters, telegraphists, etc. The Europeans only come in for the higher appointments or for farming. In 1923 the English Government again confirmed an old principle by a White Paper, namely, that in Kenya the native interests should have precedence and, if there were a conflict of interests, those of the natives should prevail. Will the British Government then allow a federation in Kenya if the natives’ interests are not first seen to, if no guarantee is given for the maintenance of the political and social rights that they had previously. And not only will equal rights have to be maintained, but in a conflict with immigrants and other Europeans the rights of the natives must be preferred in those territories. Is that the policy that President Kruger followed? We are to federate with a territory of 2,000,000 Europeans and 20,000,000 natives, if the policy of the hon. member for Standerton is followed. We know that he is in favour of equal rights. We know that at the A.P.O. conference he said that the only good thing was to hold fast to principle, and that the great thing was to follow the right principles. And then he added that he thought more and more on the lines of the late Cecil Rhodes that the principle of equal rights for all civilized people must be adopted, and that, in connection with the franchise, the principle should be equal rights for all civilized people. If then with those principles we unite to the great native territories, then what the hon. member said in London in 1921 will be realized. He spoke there as a historian on the African civilization that had disappeared, and issued a warning that if we did not provide for the proper solution of the white civilization question, South Africa would some day be swamped by the natives. If the policy laid down by the leader of the Opposition, and now explained away by hon. members opposite, is followed, although their leader avowed it, then the prophecy of the hon. member has a great chance of being realized. Now the Prime Minister is blamed for pointing out the danger. We consider that it is the most dangerous political proposition which has ever been preached in the country, and that it will darken the future of our posterity. As we are convinced of that being a dangerous proposition we cannot be blamed for putting the matter before the people for their decision. It is said that we are little South Africans who do not wish to extend. If we can do it in the way in which President Kruger wanted to do it, namely, by our remaining masters, then there is no danger, and I welcome it, but now it is said that the natives have certain rights, and that they will retain them. Where shall we land then? The unholy alliance between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence is also always referred to. I cannot understand this expression, because coalitions are surely every-day things in the world. I want, however, to make a comparison between the present Pact, and that made between the South African party and the Unionists. Our agreement was concluded after negotiations, and the result was immediately published months before the election so that everyone could know what the agreement provided. What, however, happened in the case of hon. members opposite? The Unionists did not really hold a congress to decide on amalgamation with the South African party. No, there was first a conference at Pretoria, where, amongst others, the hon. members for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) were present. In the newspapers at the time we merely saw that they had met the Prime Minister in his ante-room and lunched with him at the club, and up to to-day there has not been a single word said of what took place there behind closed doors. All we heard was what took place later at the congress, when the Unionists decided to adopt the name of the South African party. The South African party members went to tell the public that the Unionists had become such good people that they had suddenly accepted the South African party principles, and joined the party. This conversion was so sudden and unprecedented that it can only be compared with the conversion of Paul on the way to Damascus. What Sir Percy Fitzpatrick and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said at the Bloemfontein congress has already been quoted, and I want to refer to the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville. A delegate from the Eastern Province did not want to agree to the name South African party, and the hon. member then asked him why he was making a fuss about a name. He added: “We are going to carry out and maintain our principles in the South African party.” He doubtless quoted the words of Shakespeare—

What the mutual promises previously in Pretoria were was never told the country.

That is the difference between us, there were no promises in Pretoria.

Merely good faith?

Yes.

How then did you manage to say at the congress that the name was not important, and that Unionist principles would be carried out in the South African party? No, more did take place in Pretoria. What happened afterwards we all know. Hon. members on this side have already proved that it is the policy of the Unionists which is to-day supported by the South African party.

We deny it.

The criticism on the appointment of officials is the same to-day as that of the Unionists against the South African party. The South African party attitude on language and the natives agrees with that of the Unionists. In connection with the native question the Unionists opposed Gen. Botha in his Native Act of 1913. In 1917, although the Unionists loyally supported the South African party during the war, they again opposed the Native Bill of the late Gen. Botha.

And we had to help Gen. Botha through.

I want to ask the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) whether it is thinkable that the old South African party under Gen. Botha would have adopted the same attitude on the flag as the recent South African party attitude.

Absolutely.

Never in eternity. It does no good to camouflage that kind of thing. The fact is that the prophecy of the hon. member for Yeoville has been realized, and that Unionist principles are being carried out in the South African party. I am not an extraordinarily optimistic man, but, after our administration of four-and-a-half years, and on the eve of the election, I can say that I trust the sound common sense of the public. I shall be satisfied with their decision. The hon. member for Standerton says on the countryside that this Government has had nothing but luck, and that he was so unfortunate. I think the people of South Africa will prefer to have a lucky rather than an unlucky Government on these benches.

I am very sorry the Minister of Agriculture has already replied, because there are points in the speech of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) to which the country would like an answer. I would also like to refer to matters agricultural, but, before doing so, I want to touch briefly on the wages legislation. We have heard from the other side what wonders it has done, we have heard from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that it has caused no unemployment, but I maintain there are two sections which have been completely overlooked in the drafting of this legislation. One is the consumer. What does the consumer get out of this? You have a Wage Act, so drastic and far-reaching as no other country has ever known, passed in this House, you have the administration placed in the hands of a Labour Minister who has appointed a Wage Board under a man who is notoriously sympathetic to labour and its ideals. It is coming back on the consumer, and especially the farmer, every time. The industrialist, when he has to pay these wages, goes to the Government, which puts on a little extra duty, and up goes the price of commodities, and the consumer suffers every time. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said it had caused no unemployment. I challenge that statement. There is a section of labour which has received no consideration whatever, and that is the semi-skilled man. Our country is full of semi-skilled labour. This is natural, as we have the Apprenticeship Act operating properly only since 1922. I will give an illustration which is only too common. A case came under my notice recently where an employer of Durban was charged with not paying the standard wage. The man had come from Port Shepstone, and he was getting £5 a week. He told the magistrate: “I am satisfied with that wage. I know I am not worth any more. If my employer is forced to pay the full wage I shall lose my job.” The employer was fined £10 for contravening the Wage Act and that man was chucked out and left to find his living as best he could. There are hundreds of cases where semi-skilled workers have been forced either to join the unemployed or to work at an unskilled rate of wage. That is what the Wage Board is doing for the semi-skilled; it is making an aristocracy of labour and hundreds of semiskilled men, formerly earning good wages, are being thrown on to the streets. I say deliberately, the Government have fixed a wage standard which they know to be unsound, which, by their own actions, is admittedly unsound. Let me give an illustration which I have given before. The same standard of wages applies in practically all trades, and we have the determination in the baking and confectionery trade. Skilled men get £6 13s. a week, and there is a class in which the wages are £3 a week. It is interesting to see what the duties of these men in the £3 a week class are. They have to clean fruit, they have to crack eggs, they have to shell nuts, they have to jamtarts, and they have to empty trays. What does our Government pay? Take dipping inspectors, who have to be educated men, and for whom there is no 8-hour day; who have to work wet or fine, sun or shadow, find their own horses and means of transport—and the Minister of Agriculture pays them only 10s. a day. There is a far more damning indictment. There is the document from which the Minister ran away this afternoon—I am very pleased he was ashamed to read it to the House. There are men of his own race and flesh and blood working at 3s. to 5s. a day, and yet a man who has to crack nuts gets £3 a week. Why do you not pay your own employees the wage which you want others to pay? It is a wicked condition under which these men are living. The medical officer of health of my town came to me just before I left and asked whether I could not do anything in the matter. He said he had confined women who were lying on bare boards with only sacking to cover them. You are boasting that you are taking 12,000 to 18,000 men on the railway on these conditions. Why do you not pay them the wage you compel private employers to pay? You have your road motor services run by the railways, and there you are paying your assistant drivers over 21 5s. 6d. a day, and under 21 4s. a day—men who have the lives of the public in their charge and valuable property under their control. I say that by the department’s own action they stand condemned. If employers can afford to pay these wages the Government can pay the same. If a man is given a job in a Government workshop, is he not as good as the man outside? There is no logic and reason in the way in which the Act is administered, and it stands condemned on the face of it. I hope you are not going to create an aristocracy of labour outside and a festering sore on the railways, where your women and children are living under worse conditions than those of coloured people and natives. The Prime Minister speaks of protecting the men and women of South Africa in the future—protect them in the present, and let the future take care of itself. I want to deal with agriculture, and I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture walked out of the House. It is nothing new, but we cannot keep him here. We had a song from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)—I think it is going to be his swan song—a song of praise of the Minister of Agriculture for the wonderful things he has done. The first thing of which he spoke was how the Minister has dealt with locusts. The fourteenth report of the Land and Agricultural Bank shows that under the last year of the South African party regime £324,000 was spent on killing 961,000 swarms, but this St. George, the slayer of dragons—the Minister of Agriculture—spent £377,000 in killing 953,000 swarms the next year. It actually cost the Minister more to kill fewer swarms. Then the hon. member talked about scab, and that that was the gold medal, the blue ribbon—the Minister had cleared the country of scab. He said that one thing that you had to be grateful for was what the Minister had done as far as scab tvas concerned. He quoted the O.F.S. to illustrate his case, and I am content to take up the challenge. What is the truth? In 1910, at Union, there were 20.46 per cent, of the flocks of the Orange Free State infected. The Minister has the figures. I obtained them from his own office. During our term of office that figure was reduced to 1.16 per cent. We had already swept and garnished the place when the Minister came into office when there was a little dust in the corner. He swept it and said: “See what I did.”

You forget to say that there were a number of infected flocks not reported.

That is cheap, and that is what you must expect from the hon. member. It is exactly the same with regard to east coast fever, the infection was overwhelming while the South African party was in power and the Minister has simply carried on the good work which we started. Now I want to say a few words about the cattle position. We are faced with an ever-increasing number of scrub stock which is practically valueless and unsuitable for export. So far from being of any value this stock is an actual liability in many cases. This is something which is eating the life of the country, and what has been done? Absolutely nothing. The Minister talks about the cattle position being splendid, and he emphasized the fact that fat cattle were being sold at good prices. The real position is that the country is so overstocked with scrub stuff, the veld is so fed down that cattle are not fattening, and, as a result, there is a certain scarcity of stock for slaughter purposes at times. Then the Minister said that we have a market in Italy. Well, let me give you some of the figures for 1926 and 1927. In 1926 we sent out of this country 31,000,000 lbs. weight, and in 1927 we exported about 12,000,000 lbs. weight. Of that 31,000,000 lbs. no less than 25,900,000 lbs. came from Rhodesia, so that the Union’s contribution was only some 5,500,000 lbs. Of the 12,000,000 lbs. exported in 1927 over 10,000,000 lbs. came from Rhodesia. Does not that show that there is something wrong in the cattle position? After all, we have to build up an export trade in cattle and cattle products if we ever hope to replace the declining gold-mining industry. I would like to make a comparison with other farming countries. Union exports in 1926 were 5,500,000 lbs. Take New Zealand, which has only 3,250,000 cattle, of which 1,250,000 are dairy cows, and yet, in that same year—1927— she sent overseas 82,000,000 lbs. of beef, compared with our 5,500,000 lbs. Australia has 15,000,000 head of cattle, and sent 879,000,000 lbs. of beef overseas. These figures must make all thinking men realize that there is something wrong with our cattle industry, and that something must be done to build up an industry comparable to that of other dominions. The Minister must realize that the quality of our cattle is not fit for an export trade. There are only one or two possible solutions; one is the conversion of our scrub cattle into beef extract, and the other is a canning industry. Fortunately, they are suitable for both purposes, and I say it is the job of the Minister to investigate this matter and, if necessary, even to subsidize factories for the manufacture of beef extract or for canning. Some members might say that the farmers are being spoon-fed, but I do not think that is right. If it is going to I cost £250,000, or even £500,000 to provide subsidies to deal with the cattle surplus, it will be well worth doing. We could well spare 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 head of our cattle, and at even £3 per head, it would mean that £12,000,000 of at present useless capital would be released. Something must be done on these lines. You cannot go along with this policy of drift; we shall have to tackle it. Let us look at the dairy position. Our export is practically nil. The average in value over a period of ten years is about £24,000 annually. New Zealand, with only a third of our cattle, sends out £14,000,000 worth of dairy produce every year, while Australia, with 13,000,000 cattle, sends out produce to the value of £9,000,000. What is the Minister doing? Absolutely nothing. He asked the Board of Trade and Industries to report on the position. Well, I think it is a very good report, but I do think that one or two representative farmers should have been on that board. I was half expecting that a solution of the cattle problem might have been suggested much on the same lines as that suggested for the diamond problem, and that every person who bought a pound of butter should have a cow given him. The report presented in 1927 only dealt with marketing; it did not deal with production. True, it suggested machinery whereby the marketing side could be controlled. Every farmers’ association in the country has asked the Minister to bring in a Bill to give effect to many of the recommendations of that report, but all we can get are promises. I say again that this policy of drift in regard to the cattle and dairy industry is one of the most damning indictments we have against the Minister. Talk about St. George and his shining armour, the Minister reminds me more of the pinckbeck Napoleon, or perhaps I should say a Nero, who was fiddling while Rome was burning. I was very struck with what the Minister of Finance said yesterday. He said: “The question of protection and of the building up of industries must not be left to the future; it must be tackled immediately. Surely the Minister of Agriculture must realize that the success or failure of our secondary industries depends on the wealth created by the primary producers. No stone should be left unturned to build up those primary industries of which the production of beef and dairy products are of paramount importance. What is the use of building an edifice turning out £9,000,000 of wealth if it is built on sand, or if it is built on a vanishing mineral production and stagnant agriculture? Unless this problem is tackled by a Minister and a Cabinet who are capable of handling the job, it will be a sorry day for South Africa. Take the sheep position. The Minister cannot read the future; he cannot read the writing on the wall. Does he not realize that we are approaching the period of saturation, when the Union will not be able to so consume its surplus sheep, and that there is no outlet? Does he not realize that we are going to have millions of slaughter sheep for which there will be no market? If he knew his job he would be looking for a market now. He would be advising sheep farmers, and arranging for trial shipments of mutton to this market and to that market, in order to find out where the country will stand in this respect when saturation point is reached, but again he is doing nothing. I now come to the question of labour, and I am glad the Minister of Defence is in his place The Minister is a member of a Government who are supposed to represent the farmers in this country. They go to the backveld and say they look after the farmers, yet they have entered into the Mozambique treaty, and accepted a cut of 40,000 in the supply of Mozambique labour. What is going to happen to the farmers? The mines will get their requirements and labour is going to be drawn off the farms as a result of this treaty. It is the farmers who should be protected, but they are the men who are going to suffer. What does the Minister of Defence say? The hon. gentleman has stated on a public platform that he will continue to denounce the introduction of this cheap labour He has said that the Union has got to learn to depend more upon itself, and that if it could not obtain supplies in the country it should get them direct from civilized lands. He also said that that will be all to the benefit of the country. Are we farmers going to be told to draw our labour from civilized lands? Can we possibly pay the wages that would have to be paid? About two years ago the chairman of the Agricultural Union went to the Minister of Labour and said: “We want representation at Geneva. We are the biggest employers of labour in South Africa.” The Minister said: “Until you are registered as a trade union I cannot possibly grant that. Further, I cannot agree to representation till your employees are organized.” “Well,” said the chairman of the Agricultural Union, “it is going to be years, 25 years, before we get representation.” Then the Minister told the chairman of the Agricultural Union: “You have got Kadalie and his organization, the I.C.U., and the farmers should tell their servants to join it.” The chairman informed me that thereupon he and those with him drew up a resume of the discussion and took it to Mr. Cousins who said it was correct, and it stands on record that the Minister told the Farmers’ Union to join the I.C.U. I have a far more serious indictment against the Minister of Agriculture. I say that the Minister is turning his department in many cases into a hot-bed of racialism and politics. That is a serious charge. The Minister stated in this House on one occasion: “I will have no politics in my department.” Let me read this House something. I am almost ashamed to read it, and to think that such men should be in the department and permitted to remain there. There is a man called Mr. Nic. Kruger, a Government sheep inspector at Potchefstroom. During the last election at Potchefstroom he wrote a letter to “Die Weste,” the Potchefstroom paper, in which he said—

That was a stock inspector—a Government servant in the employ of the Minister of Agriculture. I make bold to say that that man has not been sacked. I am going to hand this document to the Minister, and I make bold to say that this man will not be sacked, and if he is he will get a job in another department at an increased wage. If men who should be devoting their time to the affairs of the country are allowed to make statements of that sort and publish such letters to the press, we are coming to a pretty pass. It shows that the department requires overhauling very thoroughly. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture that the employees of farmers were excluded from the operations of the Wage Act, the farmers may have to pay fixed minimum wages, unless the wage boards grant exemption. The farmers cannot escape from it. The farmers in England were told that they would be excluded from the British Wage Act, but, notwithstanding they have come under its operation. The same thing occurred in Queensland. The handwriting is on the wall, and the Wage Act will apply to the farmers in this country just as similar Acts have been made to apply to agriculturists in other countries. The position has become so serious in New Zealand that a conference is to be held to consider the complaints of farmers that industrial arbitration acts unfairly against the primary producers. Dr. Haden Guest, a member of the English Labour party, recently went to Australia and reported on labour conditions there.

He stayed there only a week.

Dr. Guest reported: “While the position of the industrial workers has improved, the position of the man on the land has been going down. There is a distinct tendency for men engaged in dairying, fruit-farming, etc., to dispense with their labourers, and to substitute the labour of their wives and children, and the life of the farmer is hard indeed. To show the length that labour will go, when I left Australia sheep-shearers were demanding a weekly time rate of £15 a week.” That is the state of affairs with which we shall be faced in this country. Yet the representatives of farmers on the Government benches sit there meekly, swallowing it all, simply to secure the support of a few hon. members on the crossbenches so as to retain the Government in power. Those hon. members opposite will pay a high price for a few fleeting years of political power. The farmers have no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, or in the department itself. The same confidence they have lost in the Minister of Agriculture they have lost in the Government of this country. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) commenced and ended with an attack on the Wage Act, but let me remind him that in 1921 the South African party also introduced a Wage Act which was read a second time on the 4th April, 1921. The object of it was the fixing of minimum wages which employers had to pay, with a penalty in case of default. Let me remind hon. members that of all the South African party members at that time only 7 voted against it, namely van der Merwe, van Eeden, Geldenhuys, Jordaan, Merriman, Sephton, Nixon, and Cilliers. All the other members of the South African party were therefore in favour of wages legislation. But let me ask hon. members what was the position before the Bill was introduced. It is very well given in an article in the “Cape Times” of the 4th July, 1925 which reads—

In the interests of the farmer who never pays his people too little it was laid down in our Wage Act that its provision should not apply to the farming industry. But what did my friends opposite do? On the introduction of the Bill the then member for Three Rivers, the late Mr. D. M. Brown, moved an amendment to delete the following words—

That was moved by a member of the South African party to make the Wage Bill apply to the farmer, and it was seconded by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who is still in the House. The hon. member for Three Rivers said—

I want at once to tell hon. members that the experience of the country is that the farmers do not exploit their workmen. They pay them a proper wage, they give them housing while the workers in the town have always to pay a lot for housing. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout who supported the motion to bring the farmer under the Wage Act is one of the prominent members on that side of the House. He is one of the members who according to the South African paper will be a Minister if that side again comes into power. I want to warn farmers what will happen if that party again comes into office, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout may be a Minister. In speaking in support of Mr. Brown’s motion, he said—

I want therefore to point out that it is in the interests of the farmers to see that the party who in respect of three-quarters of its members represents farming constituencies remains in office. The voice of the hon. member for Griqualand will be a: “Vox clamantis in deserto” —a voice calling in the wilderness—if the South African party comes into office, because how many of them are farmers or represent farming constituencies. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that if the Minister of Labour were logical he would accept Mr. Brown’s amendment. To-day the hon. member for Griqualand said that if you start with wage legislation you continue until the farmer is included. In our country there is no danger so long as the Nationalist party, with, or without the support of the Labour party, remains in office, because the representatives on our side understand the difficulties of the farmers, and at the same time know how well the farmers treat their work people compared with the treatment in the towns. The hon. member for Griqualand also said how unpopular the Minister of Agriculture was, but I also go among the people, and not only among one section. I was recently at Queenstown where the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) now wants to fly, and there I found that English-speaking farmers greatly admired the Minister, more than one of them told me that the Minister was the right man in the right place.

Tell us what he has done.

I shall come to that. Those English-speaking farmers who talked to me have no political axe to grind, and they can judge impartially of the Minister’ work. The “hon. member for Griqualand talked about the bad stock there was. That is so, but it must not be forgotten that we have a large native population, and that their stock is to a large extent inferior. I ask hon. members opposite whether they would approve of a Bill which makes it obligatory to keep better stock. How can you expect the Minister to compel any section to keep different cattle than they do? Then the hon. member said that the agricultural Department was full of race hatred. That is a reflection on Col. Williams, the Secretary for Agriculture. Although he is an English-speaking man I do not believe he would permit race hatred in his Department.

What about Nicholaas Kruger’s letter?

We do not yet know whether he is an official. Nicolaas Kruger is a well-known name in the country and the letter may be from quite a different Nicolaas Kruger than the official. I know of a place where the Government in the last few years has appointed 14 officials, among whom there are 12 Saps. My experience of the Government and of the Agricultural Department is that it does not matter whether a man is a Nationalist or a Sap. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked why we had not abolished the estate duty and income tax. He knows as well as I that when once a tax is imposed which brings in large revenue it is not easy to get rid of such source of revenue. But what have we done about income tax? We have so reduced it that the man who under the last Government had to pay £5 10s. now pays nothing, and that is just the man who with £400 to £500 finds it difficult to come out with a family A person with an income of £460 a year had to pay £5 10s. under the previous Government, and pays nothing to-day, and a man who paid 10 guineas to-day pays £3 5s.

That is another matter.

But it is a reduction. And what happened with the estate duty which was imposed by the South African party Government although we strongly protested from this side? Estates of £2,500 were taxed £15 by the South African party. That is a tax which hits the less well off man, especially the farming population. A plan dies and the estate possibly has a value of £2,500 but it does not consist of money, but of fixed property so that the heirs of, wife and children then have to pay £15. An estate of £5,000 formerly taxed £60, no longer pays anything. On an estate of £7,500, formerly taxed £135. there is no longer any payment. It is possibly true that the still larger estates must pay more, and if the hon. member for Rondebosch some day comes unexpectedly to die (we all have to die) his heirs will probably have to pay more than they would have to under the old South African party Government. But the fact that this Government has exempted estates up to £7,500 and only made people pay who are rich, and can pay estate duty proves that the Government is thinking of the small man, and not only of the large capitalist. I further point out as regards income tax that the Government has exempted the farmers in connection with boreholes and pumping machinery constructed and erected since 1st July, 1924 for watering stock. If there is one thing of which hon. members opposite never tire then it is stirring 4 up the English-speaking South Africans against us. Our chief offence in their eyes is that we put South Africa first. Let us see what an Australian journalist said about our Prime Minister as long ago as 1910. It was the time of the forming of the Union, and the journalist who had come here and sent reports to Australian papers said: “Gen. Hertzog is as honest as the sun.” It was an nice compliment, but it does not say too much. And what did Mr. L. E. Neame, formerly editor of the “Rand Daily Mail” and the “Daily Mail of London write? He wrote just after the election in 1924—

Then he continues that the Prime Minister was one of the friendliest and most courteous statesman one could meet. Now after 4½ years of Government people can no longer be frightened and notwithstanding the fact that hon. members opposite and the press are trying to us-all kinds of bogeys they will no longer go down with the public. We are accused here of not wanting to live on friendly terms with England. Nearly all the Saps, are imperialists; the word imperialism is constantly coning up, it radiates from everything they say. I want however to point out to hon. members that a Minister resigned in England in 1914 because he did not want to take part in the war which he regarded as wrong. He was not an imperialist, and there are many people like him. I notice from the “Observer” that Lord Oliver said—

He also said at the Labour conference in Manchester: “Several dominions have said will have nothing to do with imperial preference as they are becoming individual states.” This brings me to the constant complaint in connection with the market we have in England and because we do not buy everything in England. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) ordered engines outside of England hon. members opposite remained quiet. He is a business man and made a success of business, and when he buys in another country we assume that he has bought more profitably elsewhere.