Mr. Speaker, before you put the questions, may I address you on a matter of privilege? The matter I want to mention is the very serious insinuation —charge—which was made against my personal honour last night by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). His remarks, taken together, can bear only one construction, and that is that I have been guilty of doing something which was discreditable and which involved my personal honour, and consequently that I was prevented from carrying out my duties as a Minister of this country. I wish to ask the hon. member for Illovo whether he is prepared to formulate and substantiate the charges conveyed in the insinuation which he made. If he is, then I am going to ask that this House sets up a select committee to investigate these charges and to report. I would like to express my personal wish in this regard that I should be pleased if the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) could be chairman of that committee. If the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is not prepared to formulate this charge, then I ask him unequivocally and unreservedly to withdraw the serious insinuations and imputations which he made last night against my personal honour.

In regard to the statement of the Minister of Labour. I have only to say this, that I want to stand or fall by what I said in the House last night. I have before me the unrevised report of “Hansard” on this question. On reading a statement made by Mr. Maxwell, a well-known man throughout South Africa, and well-known throughout the world for his work on big game—

Has the hon. member any definite charges to make against the Minister on account of improper conduct?

I can answer that very clearly. After reading that statement I was asked by the Minister “Are you referring to me’” I said “No.” Could anything be clearer than that—“Are you referring to me?” The Minister got up excitedly and demanded to know that and I said, “No.”

Then you went on.

You carried on.

The Minister said “Is the hon. member insinuating that I had anything to do with that?” I said I mentioned no names at all.

That was your insinuation.

May I ask the hon. member if he has any allegations to make with regard to the Minister, or did he intend to make allegations against the Minister impugning his conduct or charging him with improper conduct?

No, I have made no allegations impugning the Minister’s conduct and I made that perfectly clear last night.

You did not.

Then the Minister said “Hit straight, do not hit below the belt.” I said “The Minister knows I never hit below the belt.” I said from the outset that this matter demanded an inquiry and I said “Will the Minister move for an inquiry; will he face a select committee?” If I had wished to impugn the Minister’s conduct, I am perfectly well aware I could only have done that by a substantive motion accusing the Minister of specific dereliction of duty or dishonourable conduct. I have not done that. I have asked for a select committee and my contention throughout is that the Minister dare not face a select committee because of his mismanagement.

Do I infer from that that so far as my personal honour and conduct are concerned the hon. member is prepared to get up and unreservedly and unequivocally withdraw the insinuations that he made?

I understand the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has definitely stated now that he makes no charges in regard to the Minister’s personal conduct nor in regard to any dishonourable conduct.

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.

Is it permissible to bring up, under this vote, any matters relating to the administration of the department, or must that be reserved for the Part Appropriation measure?

The hon. member must confine himself to reasons for increasing the amount.

I understand that this £5,000 is due to clothing, or a portion of it. What is being done with regard to clothing in the Free State?

This vote is due to increased activity on the diamond diggings.

The Minister promised two years ago to get a different kind of uniform for our police. Is provision made on this vote for the alteration?

The hon. member cannot now discuss a question of policy.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 19, “Defence”, £69,500,

What price is paid for these air force machines?

The Minister of Finance has said that this vote is necessary to obtain new guns because of the guns we now have being obsolete. I am wondering how that squares with the attitude taken up by the Government with regard to status, which it is claimed is equal to that of Britain and other European powers. It seems a strange commentary on that claim that our guns necessary for defence are obsolete. Is the Minister making arrangements to get these new guns from Germany?

Why is there such an enormous increase, £42,000 under G8? Was it not possible for the Minister to have foreseen this last year when framing the estimates?

I should like to know from the Minister whether it is the custom to train certain person’s every year as instructors to attend the training camp?

That does not come under this vote.

Is there any hope of the strength of the artillery being increased? There is a general complaint that promotion in the artillery is very slow and also that an increase in emoluments is desirable.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote.

Will the Minister be so good as to explain the meaning of the item “Contribution to Artillery Replacement Fund, £27,500”? Does the Minister contemplate using tractors in place of animal transport for the field artillery in view of the scarcity of suitable horses and the probability that they will become scarcer still later on?

Our policy is to have our armaments interchangeable with the armaments of the other dominions.

What about buying them from Germany?

The hon. member has Germany on the brain. Our force is in a different position from that of a large army. It is intended to discard the present 18-pounders with which our three permanent batteries of field artillery are equipped and to replace them with the more modern type of 18-pounders, the guns now in use being passed on to the active citizen force, and the 13-pounders we still have being finally discarded. We have been watching affairs very closely, and we have been obtaining very full reports of experiments which have been made in other countries with regard to motor traction, but we do not think the time has arrived for us to mechanize our batteries, although it is becoming more and more clear that there is going to be a great difficulty in maintaining a supply of suitable horses during hostilities. It is just as well, however, to allow the richer countries to experiment. With regard to the item of £42,000, “Contribution to Aircraft Replacement Fund,” it was thought that the position might be met by re-engining some of our old machines. The machines so re-engined were very satisfactory in some respects, but finally it was decided that it would be wise to reconsider the whole position. Our machines are of the 1916 and 1917 type, but since then a very great deal of progress has been made in military aviation, and the Government felt that as we were going to spend this vast sum to re-engine our machines, it would be wiser to spend an additional £25.000 and obtain entirely new machines of the latest type. The Director of Air Services was sent to England early in December to determine which of the various service types of aeroplanes was best adapted to our purposes. The cost will come withon £125,000. We have been using the Avro machine for the initial training of our flying men, but experience has shown that the much lighter Moth machine was far more economical. And so, instead of getting more of that kind, we decided to buy 20 of the Moth type. I am sure the committee will agree it is far better to take it on a broad basis.

In regard to the Artillery Replacement Fund, is this a contribution to a fund the Minister is building up?

It is a contribution to a fund. It takes a long time, and it is far better to get orders filled and completed to have a fund.

I was going to ask in regard to this Artillery Replacement Fund if it includes provisions for replacement of worn-out Union Jacks.

No, it is not worn-out. It will be still serviceable. The two 18-pounder batteries and the howitzer battery are armed with arms which are quite serviceable, but in some of our citizen batteries we have arms which are quite obsolete.

Is this money intended for the replacement of the Union Jack at the Castle? This is a replacement fund for artillery which is also housed at the Castle at Cape Town, and I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Minister—

That has nothing to do with the question.

The Minister has quite properly told us that he is paying attention to what other countries are doing in connection with artillery. I would suggest he should concentrate on this country too. Our animal transport is rapidly diminishing. Furthermore, there is the unfortunate fact that our young men can no longer ride, for want of the means of practice. Therefore, he is up against this—that we are faced with the prospect of having serious difficulty in getting animal transport for artillery, and even if you had it, it would take a long time to train our young men as drivers. This is eminently a country suitable for motors and motor transport, and if the Minister will reflect, he will see that while the limit our animal-drawn artillery is about 20 miles per day, mechanized artillery will run to as high as 200 miles per day. Surely he could hardly hesitate in deciding what style of artillery to use and the means of moving it. He knows that in time of emergency we would have a number of motor-lorries in this country on which guns could be placed with their equipment, saving all the trouble of horses and harness and the training of men for their use. There will be no difficulty in getting a large reserve of trained motor drivers. The Minister must necessarily, in view of all the circumstances, decide in favour of motor transport.

The policy the Minister has expressed in regard to the replacement of aircraft everyone will agree with. There is one point I would like to raise. The Spartan that is on the way out has not been tested in this country, and I would like to know why a Spartan was definitely decided on before tests were carried out. It is only a small point. The Spartan has equal properties with the other two and may possibly have a better performance, but I am anxious to know why that type was decided on before actually carrying out tests at Pretoria. The other point is that I assume this Aircraft Replacement Fund is really for the replacement of obsolete craft over a period of time. I assume that in the normal operation of the craft, either in training or in flights, the department allows for a certain amount per hour for depreciation. The other day the Minister mentioned the cost was £25 per flying hour. Does that amount also provide for depreciation? If so, that should be credited to the department.

That is a charge which appears under aircraft depot work. It is maintenance. You do not write that off as depreciation. The £25 per hour is calculated on all the overhead charges and the number of flying hours done by the whole force.

It does not allow for depreciation.

That is taken in.

It seems to me this is rather a new departure—to take votes and build up funds which gradually accumulate, and when they have swelled sufficiently the department spends a large amount of money on aircraft, guns and so forth, and it never comes before this House at all. The disposal of the funds is out of our hands altogether. It withdraws from the criticism of this House some important elements of expenditure.

It has been in existence a number of years, and also in your time.

I never found any of these funds. I want to know whether any vote will come before this House.

The Minister has not done me the honour of replying to the question I raised. When the main estimates were before the House last year, did the Minister not anticipate this extraordinary additional expenditure? If I understand the estimates correctly, I take it that, owing to unforeseen circumstances, the Government had to meet certain expenditure during the current year.

I answered the hon. member’s question. Investigations showed us that the department ought to adopt the latest type. If the hon. member were in my place I suppose he would be able to foresee anything. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), the Director of the Air Forces saw the necessity of this, and I have the utmost confidence in his judgment. With regard to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), I wish he were right—to build up funds and have at your disposal everything you require; unfortunately, it is not the case. It is more convenient to do it this way instead of re-voting.

Is it the settled policy of the department or not that every vote must be spent within the year, and, if not, it must be surrendered? It seems to me that this is a departure from our principles of finance, which is not a sound one.

Will the Minister give us some information with regard to the mooring mast which was to be erected in my constituency, or does the matter fall within the department of the Minister of Railways and Harbours?

I would like to ask the Minister whether this is a new departure.

In 1927-’28 we voted £100,000. The fund was started under the old Government. It is very convenient for the department to know that funds are there and to place their orders in advance, as it takes a long time to execute them. If we adopted the other, perhaps the sounder, method, advanced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), it would not be so convenient for the department concerned, and would not enable them to do such good business in the interests of the country as they are able to do now—to make arrangements in advance to purchase their various requirements.

When this fund is to be drawn against, does it require a vote of this House?

This vote is sufficient.

This vote is a credit?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 21, “Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-minded,” £17,250,

Here we have amounts for no fewer than eight institutions—an increase of £33,000. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information.

I am afraid it is due to underestimates on the main estimates last year. Most of the money is for salaries.

It was not anticipated that the institution would be ready as soon as it was, and a large number of patients were transferred to it from other institutions.

Has the number of feeble-minded persons increased; is the increase general; and, if so, will the Minister tell us whether such increase is in regard to the native population, the coloured population, or European population?

There is an increase, but it is not a large increase. It is mainly under the head of people who are insane. I am sorry to say that there has been a gradual increase almost to the extent of 500 per year. I have studied the Act very thoroughly to see whether I can do anything in the direction of preventing the increase being at such a rapid rate, but under the Mental Disorders Act the relatives of any person concerned, if they can get a certificate from two medical practitioners and apply to the magistrate, have the right to request the Government to deal with the matter.

This increase of lunacy has puzzled me a very great deal, and I am wondering whether it can be attributed to the reign of the present Government?

The Minister of the Interior has made a very serious statement to the effect that there has been a large increase in the number of feeble-minded persons. Can he tell ns what is the cause of it?

It was announced that the Minister of the Interior was going to appoint a commission to investigate the position regarding feeble-mindedness on the countryside.

The hon. member cannot now discuss it.

With reference to what the Minister has stated as to there being an increase at the rate of 500 per year, perhaps he can tell us whether this increase is in keeping with the ratio increase of population.

As far as the feeble-minded are concerned, we have the position that in Rhodesia nothing was done by the Government, and the institutions in Cape Town and at Potchefstroom were only started recently, so, naturally, there must be an increase. As far as insanity is concerned, there is nothing abnormal in the increase of insane persons in South Africa. In other civilized countries we find that the rate of increase is about 40 per 10,000, but in South Africa it is only 20 per 10,000. There is nothing abnormal in our rate of increase.

Has the increase occurred amongst Europeans, natives or the coloured population?

I cannot say that there is any great difference in one section compared with another. I think it is more or less the same among all sections.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 23, “Public Health”, £12,800,

I should like to ask the Minister what is the position in regard to rodents. I read the other day that they were very prevalent in the districts of De Aar.

All I can say is that at first the position was thought to be much more serious than it proved to be. The position was investigated, but there was no plague, and in any case the position turned out not to be so serious as it was at first thought to be.

I would like to draw the committee’s attention to F.6, Refunds to local authorities under Section 66 of Act No. 36 of 1919, an increase of £9,500. I note with alarm the increase on this item, which refers to C.D. I am sure the Minister of the Interior can give us some information respecting this increase.

The increase in this vote will, I think, be very welcome, because it shows that the municipalities are doing their duty more than they used to do. Under this Act provision is made for a refund to local authorities. Under the Public Health Act the duty is laid on local authorities to take measures against the spread of this disease, and having done so, they can claim a two-thirds refund of all expenditure from the central authority. This expenditure has been incurred, and under the Act we can do nothing else but make the two-thirds refund.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 24, “Native Affairs”, £23,377,

I note that there is an increase of £1,650 under C.4, Administration of Justice. I would like an explanation of the reason for this increase.

Will the Minister give some details respecting the increase of £12,350 on the item for relief of distress. The original estimate was £1,250. To what type of people is this money paid?

We do not give this relief to able-bodied men who can go to work, but there are large numbers of women and children and old people who are dependent upon their crops, and a certain measure of relief is necessary. Last year this question arose in the Northern Transvaal, and the department took care to see that the money should not be distributed to able-bodied men who could be of service to the mines or to the farmers.

I wish to refer to the item, “Medical services”, and to point out the necessity for an increase in the vote. In Europe they have one doctor to every 1,000 inhabitants, and out here at least one in 5,000 is necessary; but in the native reserves there is only one doctor to 40,000 natives. The result is that many of the natives have not the slightest chance of getting medical attendance. The infantile and maternal mortaility is appalling in the native districts, and the position is one that calls for action on the part of the Government. I am aware that a very able report has been presented by a commission which was appointed to go into this question. Is the Minister going to take any steps under that report? You have two or three native beds at the Umtata Hospital, and two or three at the Kokstad institution, and that has to serve a native population of a million. The native reserves supply the Union with labour, and with natives returning from big centres you are likely to get a most serious outbreak of some epidemic disease owing to the lack of medical supervision. You have no means of finding out the existence of a disease until the outbreak is too serious and widespread to be checked. I hope the Minister is trying to give effect to the report of the commission, and I hope that some proper medical and hospital provision is going to be made for the natives.

The report is under consideration, and I hope that something effective will be done; but this is going to take some time.

In the Transvaal, more especially in the low country areas, there is a serious shortage of native labour on the farms. Will the Prime Minister give us a statement of policy?

I cannot allow the Prime Minister to give a statement of policy.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister in what parts of the country this amount of £12,350 is to be expended on distress, what form of distress is to be relieved, and what form of relief is to be given? I notice that under a footnote under “Grant to Native Development Account B., £827”, it is stated that this sum represents “the value on 1/9/26 of certain agricultural implements transferred to the Native Development Account.” In what part of the Union is this expenditure made?

With regard to the £12,000 for distress, that was almost exclusively in the eastern provinces of the Cape, and the form which it took was that instead of dealing out foodstuffs to the natives, the natives were used for the eradication of weeds. They were paid 1s. or 1s. 6d. per day, out of which they purchased food for themselves and their families. The agricultural implements were presented to the Native Development Fund, this being due to a change in the system carried on in the Transkei, where we have officers teaching agriculture to the natives. We have made the fund a present of these implements. As to the Native Women’s Hostel at Johannesburg, an old building on the Wolhuter Mines, is to be transferred to the Johannesburg Municipality to be used for the training of native women as nurses.

I see in this vote, under item N, “Grant to Carnarvon Municipality for settlement of natives, £200”, I would be glad if the Minister would give us some information on this vote which appears to introduce a new principle.

The Prime Minister has not explained why Johannesburg should be provided with a native women’s hostel at the expense of the Government, while other centres of equal importance have not been similarly favoured? At Durban the municipality provides a native women’s hostel and pays for its maintenance.

My hon. friend is very suspicious. The building on the Wolhuter Mine was an old one belonging to the Government. The material of which it is constructed is worth only £770, and we could sell it or allow it to go to wrack and ruin. I was only too glad to hand it over for the purpose mentioned.

[Inaudible.]

I wish the Government had gone a step further and provided a fund for the upkeep of native women’s hostels which are doing very good work. A lot of your native girls come to the large towns, where they are unprotected and have nowhere to go.

The hon. member is out of order, as he is discussing a matter of policy.

As a result of the Act passed two or three years ago, a large number of squatters are living on the Carnarvon outer commonage. They had to be removed there as no land is available for them in any of the native reserves, but the Carnarvon Municipality has offered to provide for them on the commonage if the Government will make it a grant of £200.

I do not think the explanation is quite correct. So far as my memory goes, we passed a measure in this House a few years ago providing for a large portion of the Carnarvon commonage, which was held communally by a number of natives, being subdivided and individual tenure given to the owners. I must say I cannot quite follow the Minister’s explanation.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 25, “Mines and Industries”, £27,526,

Can the Minister tell us how many men are employed on the State diamond diggings and what is the output? It would be interesting to know the value of these diamonds.

I should like to endorse what the hon. member has said. We are asked to vote £15,000. These diggings may be run at a loss for all the information we have, and this may be waste of money. We hear rumours that they are not run at a loss, but that fabulous sums are extracted from the diggings. Surely we are entitled to be told what the result of the work is. I venture to predict that, if we are not told in this House what these results are, and what is proposed to be done with the money raised by the operations, the country will be told a month or two months from now, and the nest-egg which is being accumulated, assuming there is a nest-egg, will be used by the ministry up and down this country in order to make promises to the electorate. I submit the proper place and time for giving information as to what is being done, is here in this House on this vote. I will ask the Minister to tell us what the results have been, the number of diamonds won, how these diamonds have been sold, to whom, and in what volume. I think I am justified on this vote in raising the general question of the life on these diggings. We were told by the Prime Minister that these diggings were really a den of thieves, that crime, especially in relation to the diamonds themselves, was rampant.

It is quite wrong. I did not speak of a den of thieves, or anything of that kind, so don’t put words in my mouth.

I am not putting these actual words into the Prime Minister’s mouth, but what he did say was that there was a great deal of dishonesty and wrongdoing simply because of the temptations which the diggings held out. We know it was necessary a few months ago to move a very large police force to cope with the situation that arose. I think the occasion has arisen for a full statement by the Government of what it is doing in regard to Namaqualand.

No, I am sorry I cannot satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friends. I think it is a matter for the Minister of Finance to deal with when he makes his Budget statement. I do not want to deprive my colleague of the opportunity of communicating to the House the value of the diamonds sold, and what is proposed to be done. It is a matter which very properly belongs to my colleague, and I would refer my hon. friend to questions put to me in this House on the 29th of January, by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus). The first three questions were of a similar nature to the first part of this question, and I said I did not consider it in the public interest to give the information asked for at present. I was asked if the State was still engaged in the operations—yes. I was asked the number of employees. I gave it—122, and I may say that in consequence of the distress in Namaqualand we hope to employ within the next few weeks a considerably larger number, making about 200. I want to point out that £90,000 has been voted. All that we now ask for is an additional £15,000, and I can give the assurance that this expenditure is a very infinitesimal proportion of the gains on the proposition. I hope my hon. friends will refrain.

I must say the attitude taken up by the Minister is not a particularly satisfactory one. We are asked here and now to vote this money for carrying on with this particular work; therefore, following the ordinary procedure, this is the time to ask for and to get information as to what is being done. The Minister has that information in his pocket or in his head, because we are told we will get it on another occasion in another manner from another Minister. This question is proper and natural to this occasion, and he says: “Out of a sense of chivalry I do not want to deprive my colleague of the pleasure of giving the figures of what we have been doing.” I take this point, that we are entitled to have this information and that, failing it, we should not vote this money.

I think there is a great deal to be said for the view of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I should like to ask the Minister if he can give us any information as to the appointment which has been conferred upon Mr. G. B. Steer, the former provincial council member for Turffontein. I take it his salary will be paid out of this increased vote. It seems to me only right when we are discussing the complete estimate of expenditure on the alluvial diggings that we should know the result of the operations on these diggings, and I hope the Minister will agree to give us the information.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is quite entitled, and the House is entitled, to have the information asked for, but I want to point out to him that there are large questions bound up with this matter involving the whole of the diamond industry and the stability of the industry. If we are going to give information by bits and pieces, it would have a detrimental effect on the market, which members over there are anxious to keep up. The Minister of Finance has told us that in his Budget speech he will place the picture before us, and we shall then have all the information we require. I think hon. members should be satisfied with that. We certainly are. There are bigger questions at issue than just to satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friend.

I believe that the stability of the diamond market is far more adversely affected by the absence of this information. What is the use of this secrecy? The only people who do not know what is going on are the taxpayers of the Union. The diamond people and world know exactly the value of the diamonds that are got out there.

How?

Oh, they have the information. Apart from the legal aspect, these are moneys which we are voting, and we are entitled to this information. People are sore about this withholding of information. I believe the rumours have been greatly exaggerated. The sooner the public are told what the amount is the sooner the rumours will die down and discontent vanish. Discontent was so great at one time that it almost led to serious disturbances.

I wish to raise the matter of the appointment of Gen. Maritz, about which I still feel considerable curiosity.

The hon. member cannot discuss that here; it comes under the Agricultural Department.

My difficulty is that here is an appointment, made during the year for which no provision could be made in the estimates at the beginning of the year. I presume, therefore, that provision is made in these additional estimates for the salary of Gen. Maritz. Does it come under the vote for Mines and Industries? It will obviously not come under the ensuing vote for the Department of Agriculture.

It is found from savings.

There is a large amount of I.D.B. in Namaqualand, and what is my hon. friend going to do about it? It must be demoralizing people there to an enormous extent. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about it.

In addition to the information about the diamonds, which is asked for, and which is due to the country, will the Minister make a statement about the whole condition of things in Namaqualand. We know that there has been serious dissatisfaction in Namaqualand, and that the police have had to be rushed there in anticipation of trouble. We know nothing officially, but we have heard a great deal through the newspapers from correspondents, who have been writing about it. We would like to have an official account.

I would ask the Minister whether diamond cutters are getting all their requirements met from the State alluvial diggings. We had the assurance that matters would be perfectly right. The matter is of great importance to the country. I hope Government will do all that is possible to secure the fullest satisfaction to the cutters, and their requirements met at reasonable rates. I do not know whether the Minister is going into the question regarding apprenticeship in the cutting industry—

The hon. member cannot put that.

The question I asked the Minister [read] would ordinarily ensue and must necessarily arise from the carrying out of State enterprise. The Minister replied that he thought it was not in the public interest that the information should be given at present. He now says that the information will be vouchsafed by the Minister of Finance. The Minister should have said it was not in his party’s interest to have given the information instead of what he said. He said he did not want to tie the hands of the Minister of Finance. As a matter of common sense we are entitled to know how the enterprise is getting on; what diamonds are recovered, what is the cost and so forth. The Minister knows the facts and has the figures. If the information is given, the House will be given an opportunity of now debating questions which must necessarily arise, and which it may not have later on.

I have already answered this question; the hon. member was unfortunately lout of the House. It seems to me that when my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, deals with money matters, there will be far more scope to deal with this question than now. I am afraid I must abide by my decision. In regard to the question put by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) regarding Mr. Steer, that gentleman has been employed as a superviser at the diggings.

At what salary?

I think he gets £40 per month, and also a certain commission.

Then this £1,500 a year is quite wrong?

Of course it is. I do not agree with the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that this agitation is owing largely to reticence or furtiveness on the part of the Government. It is due to the fact that the Government wanted to prevent a very undesirable state of affairs. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked what measures we are taking in regard to the prevention of I.D.B. He will see from the very material increase in the police that we have taken very material measures, but I want him to bear in mind that if you were to put 100 or 200 picked men to carry on a state alluvial diggings in connection with any other big diamond proposition, some of them are sure to succumb. De Beers, with all its organization and enormous experience, is not yet free from robbery, and other big concerns have had similar experience. We are trying to suppress it as far as we can, and during the last few months we have spent large sums of money in this regard. Of course, the position is always grossly exaggerated. I should like to points out that a large industry like the Witwatersrand gold industry to-day loses something like £200,000 annually from illicit gold dealing. You can never put a stop to this sort of thing entirely. There is a strong tendency among the South African people to flock to the diamond diggings, and some of them become illicit dealers. We could not possibly allow the public to go to Alexandra Bay and take possession of it. The only sound policy is that which has been followed by the Government. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has asked me to explain the whole position in Namaqualand. I do not think the question is an appropriate one, because it is the same as in the case of the ordinary digger who rushes to the Minister of Mines because there is a drought, and the farmer who goes to the Minister of Agriculture because he cannot pay the interest on his bond. I have to supply the remedy, and the remedy, according to some people, is to throw Namaqualand open. But I cannot do that. As regards general poverty on the diggings, that is a matter for the Minister of Labour, and as regards droughts, that is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, while as regards actual suffering, that is a matter for the Provincial Council. I would refer the hon. member to a statement made a few weeks ago regarding our intention. The Government has come to the conclusion that with this extraordinary wealth from the state diggings, it is only right that considerable sums of money should be spent upon well-founded irrigation schemes and other forms of permanent relief, I will, therefore, ask the hon. member to excuse me from going into details. Regarding the question by the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) regarding supplies for the diamond cutters, we have been doing that and have endeavoured to treat them fairly, and I do not think there have been any complaints or grievances on their part. There cannot be any objection to the prices we charge them. What we have done is to refuse to enter into a contract undertaking to supply diamonds at a certain rate for a definite period. We are dealing with the cutters as fairly as we can. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will remember that we amended the Diamond Cutting Act in 1927, but unfortunately there has always been some unpleasantness between the cutter and the ordinary private producer, and for that reason we have started supplying the cutters with these stones.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 26, “Union Education” £19,325.

I should like to ask the Minister of Education what is the cause of the increased grant of £2,000 to the Port Elizabeth technical college, and the increased grant of £5,505 for the Witwatersrand technical institute. Are these amounts on account of general purposes or equipment?

The Port Elizabeth grant consists of £1,000 for equipment, and £1,000 for general purposes. The increase to the Witwatersrand technical institute is accounted for by an increase in the number of students, which has been abnormal. The council of that institution spent as much as much as £19,000 during the current financial year on equipment. As the hon. member knows, a grant for equipment is given to new institutions. Provision was made on the last estimates for £3,500, but the council actually spent £19,000, and this largely accounts for the increase.

While appreciating what the Government has done for technical education, I would like the Minister to give the House the percentage of the grants and bursaries which go to technical students. I am afraid that in the past too much has been allotted for scholastic subjects and too little for technical subjects.

I am sorry I have not the figures at my disopsal. I should be glad if the hon. member will raise the question later.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 27, “Child Welfare,” £9,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Agriculture,” £75,650,

I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what the position is with regard to locusts.

You surely had no locusts. We in the low veld get locusts, but they surely do not come to you in the cattle country.

Does the Minister suggest that I have no right to ask the Minister what the position is?

No, not at all.

I represent a large number of farmers and we live on the boundary of the part the locusts frequent. I want to ask the Minister what the present position is, as he did not merely address his appeal to the farmers in the locust district. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister of Finance. I think that it will be very useful if the Minister of Agriculture makes a statement so that we can know the present position.

I would like to know with regard to the item “Guano Islands, General Expenses, £15,000,” whether the money is to improve the miserable living conditions of the men employed there. There are general complaints about the living conditions, and also with regard to the pay.

I would like to know from the Minister, with regard to the additional amount of £60,000 asked for under this vote, whether a better system of controlling expenditure cannot be devised? When this matter was discussed last year I pointed out the waste that was occurring in connection with the motor allowance given to the inspectors. I pointed out to the Minister last year that Inspectors were making net incomes ranging from £1,400 to £1,500 a year due largely to the excessive motor allowance. The allowance of 1s. a mile is extravagant, and apparently there is no system of vouching accounts for motor hire. The Minister is entirely at the mercy of the inspectors, and the claims are paid without being vouched for by any responsible officer. That opens the door to all sorts of abuses, and the consequence is that there has been this enormous expenditure in connection with locust extermination due largely to this extravagant motor allowance.

I can see that our friends are much disappointed, as the Minister of Finance has said that we have succeeded in so destroying locusts that the farmers’ produce is no more eaten up as happens in Kenya and other places. I told the House last year that we could expect a fairly large number of locusts to hatch. This happened, and flying swarms came away in various places. There were many eggs in different places, and a great outbreak was to be expected. The outbreak took place but I am very thankful that, with the assistance of the farmers, we have succeeded in fighting it. The expenditure would have been much higher than £60,000 if it were not that one of our entomologists, Prof. Maliy found a poison in a form of powder which we can use in place of the poison with water and other mixtures which we used formerly. This obviated the transport of water, etc., which previously had cost much money, and brought the costs down considerably. A great difficulty this year was the inclemency of the weather. We had rain, and a few days after excessive heat, and the locusts hatched, only a few days later it suddenly became cold and in this way it happened in consequence of the changes of weather that locusts hatched from the same nest four times successively. While formerly we disposed of such a nest in one go, we had to deal with it four times. That greatly increased the expenditure. We experienced difficulties, but successfully overcame them. It is possible that in distant parts a swarm will still hatch out here and there. No one can say what is going to occur, but we shall get the upper hand of the strayed swarms as well. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) spoke about inspectors again, and asked as a fact there was proper supervision of them. What does the hon. member wish? Am I to put a person behind each inspector to see whether the inspector does actually note up the number of miles he travels in his motor, and behind that person another person and so on? It is impossible. Let me say that the people I have appointed are extremely conscientious and that we very highly appreciate the work they have done. If hon. members knew the places and sand deserts through which they sometimes have to go they would acknowledge that what we are paying for the work is not too much. As for control, I appointed a chief inspector, and I surely cannot do more. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) wants to know where locusts have hatched out. They were in the district of Fauresmith, subsequently in large numbers in Jacobsdal, and to a less extent in Hopetown and Prieska. Still later there were also reports of locusts from De Aar, but I am glad to say that we destroyed the locusts very successfully. I have just received a communication from Fort Beaufort that large swarms are flying high over there, but it sounds almost impossible. Further enquiry is being made, and if we really have to do with a strayed swarm we shall quickly deal with it. I may say that I often get telegrams about locusts, which on investigation turn out to be flights of birds, or else some other mistake has been made. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) asks whether the larger amount put down for the guano islands is intended to improve the conditions of the workers there. I just want to tell the hon. member that those men are paid at a fixed wage, and that the larger amount is required to provide for a larger number of them. It was not at first expected that the quantity of Guano would be so large, but now that it appears that the quantity is greater than expected, more workers are required.

The revenue will then also increase.

Certainly. Our revenue is more than our expenditure, and as there is more guano the revenue will be greater.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 31. “Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones, £45,000.”

Each public department should be compelled to pay its own postage.

I cannot allow that, as it is a matter of policy.

Will the Minister make provision to meet the pressing demands in the outlying districts for the extension of rural telephones.

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that, as it is a matter of policy.

I wish to call attention to the continued increases in salaries, wages and allowances. Last year there was an increase of £50,900, the year before there was an addition of £61,850, and now we are being asked to vote £37,300, so that in two years £150,000 more are to be spent on salaries, wages and allowances for one Government department alone. It has been said that the post office is a business department, but the man in the street would say that the post office tries to be a business department, but the Government prevents it carrying out its good intentions. I think the Minister of Finance is one of the persons to be blamed, for if he followed the advice given two years running by the select committee on public accounts, and curtailed the enormous quantity of work which the public departments imposed on the post office, there would be no necessity to ask for increased salaries. In 1902, Australia changed from the franking system and made the public departments pay their own postage, the result being that in one state alone the Government postage bill in two adjoining towns was reduced from £19,600 to £3,600. Simply by saving an enormous amount of labour in handling unnecessary mail and by a new method of handling correspondence they cut down the postal charge by 75 per cent. The Minister of Posts has shown he is prepared to examine all these matters dispassionately, and we want to know whether he is prepared to urge on the Treasury that in order to keep expenses down he should be allowed to follow the Australian system and charge departments for the use they make of the post office. Why is such an enormous amount of unnecessary postal matter sent through the post office by departments? It is causing an enormous increase in the staff. It is not only the Union Government, but also the provincial governments.

The hon. member is out of order. The hon. member is dealing with policy.

I am pointing out that there is a continuous increase in personnel. In two years it has caused an increase of £150,000 in salaries, and in numbers there has been an increase in the last three years of 1,500, and I take it this £37,000 we are now considering means a further addition to the staff, and I am showing that that can be eliminated if the Treasury will adopt the Australian method of handling postal matters. I think if the Minister will consider this matter it will lead to his making a saving.

It is obvious that if the hon. member was out of order in addressing the House I shall be equally out of order in replying to his questions. In the course of an inspection I have made of one or two of the larger post offices, I specially examined the detailed accounts and the volume of business and its increase, and I must say that if every business in this country is increasing as the post office business is, then the country must be in a very prosperous state indeed. If the hon. member could show say five per cent, increase in volume of trade he would not object to an increase of say three-and-a-half per cent, in expenditure to earn that five per cent. That is the position so far as the post office is concerned. In regard to increase of staff, it was found in the Johannesburg Telephone Exchange that the girls in the telephone exchange were working too long hours owing to the altitude, and it was undermining their health, and the hours were reduced to 39 a week. It was later found that similar conditions of continuous work prevailed in the Cape Town Exchange, and the reduction in hours was made applicable here. That necessitated an increase in the staff of telephone operators. Another reason for it is this increase is that it was found inadvisable to employ girls after six at night. Formerly they worked up to 9 p.m. and as a general policy throughout the department, that was reduced to 6 p.m. which entailed the employment of males at a higher scale. There has also been a considerable cut in the original estimates of this department, and that cut has had to be made good in the additional estimates.

On this item A, I want to refer to the position of the unestablished postmasters.

The Minister has told the Committee what this is for. The hon. member is out of order.

I think the Committee would like to know whether the Minister is going to establish the 39 hour week right throughout the service. If so, it will require a very heavy staff to do the work.

I think the reduction in hours which was made in the two largest telephone exchanges in the country mainly on medical advice, is perfectly justified. I did not bring this about, but I am sure hon. members will agree that to have ear phones over your ears for 39 hours in the week is just about as much as you can expect the girls to bear. On this ground the reduction was perfectly justified.

On Item E, I would like to ask if it is proposed to reduce the charges on telephones and telegrams.

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

On E. In the smaller country districts a certain amount of telephone maintenance is done by the postmaster himself. These men are very often unestablished postmasters, and therefore I do hope that a certain amount of the £8,000 will be applied to increasing the salaries of these unestablished postmasters. I want to put it what a very unfair position these men find themselves in.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 32, “Public Works,” £20,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote A, “Railways and Harbours,” £560,000.

Is this taken out of revenue and not out of loan?

The loan fund is also part of the consolidated revenue fund.

For what is this required?

This is the method we adopt to make available moneys for the Railways and Harbours Administration. The Minister of Railways and Harbours will supply the details of the expenditure. This is in accordance with the usual practice. If we have not the money in our exchequer we have to borrow it. Last year we provided £5,550,000 out of loan, and that is now increased.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B, “Public Works,” £12,825, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote E, “Irrigation,” £11,000.

Perhaps the Minister will give us some information on this.

The work has progressed at a faster rate than was anticipated. We are coming forward for an additional £11,000, and the total required next year will be reduced by the same amount.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote F, “Local Works and Loans,” £150,000.

This is a vote which does not come back to us in any shape or form, I understand. We are getting it on to our unproductive debt. The Minister should as far as possible borrow money only on reproductive work. I understand that this is a grant for settling people in South-West African territory outside the Union. The Minister said the money would be repaid, but it would not come back as Union money. Surely that is a sum that should come out of revenue, and not out of loan funds.

Hon. members will remember that last year it was explained to the House what our plans were with regard to the settlement of the Angola farmers in South-West Africa. In previous years, we have made available to the South-West Africa Administration for land settlement purposes in South-West Africa, a sum of £200,000. That was to make ready for settlement a block of land, but a few farms only had been allotted, and the rest were still available for settlement. Then this plan came forward for the settlement of the Angola farmers, and it was agreed that the South-West Africa Administration should make this £200,000 available and also that we would provide a further £150,000. We actually voted that money to the South West Africa territories. It was subsequently pointed out that the administration there would have no direct liability for the repayment of the money. To regularize the matter, I now ask Parliament to vote this money, which will be expended in the way I have explained to the House. There will be no direct liability to the Union Government, as far as the South West Africa Administration is concerned, but the advances will be repaid by the settlers to a fund and these repayments will again be made available for settlement in that territory. The hon. member, is perhaps right when he says it will not come back to the Union again, but the money is spent on a re productive service. It is true that it is outside the Union, but the objects are of a permanent nature and in the interests of the Union. It was pointed out to us by the South West Africa Administration that we could not then be made liable for the settlement of those people, former inhabitants of the Union, who had gone to Angola. We felt we had a certain moral obligation to these people. From time to time, too, large numbers of people are going over from the Union and settling in that territory, consequently the grant, although the money is expended outside the Union, is justified. I admit there is some substance in what the hon. member submitted: that the money should be found from revenue. I may inform him that under proposals which we will lay before the House during this year a fairly large amount will be transferred from revenue to loan for capital purposes. It will make no difference, and will not prejudice our unproductive debt position at all. I agree with the hon. member that we should be careful not to expend moneys on loans which are unproductive. During the four years I have been responsible for expenditure, transfers have been made from loan account to revenue account. I think it might reasonably be argued that it is expenditure of a capital nature, although not actually expenditure in the Union.

In the Auditor-General’s report on page 76 this question is raised.

That is why I put this right.

I would like to know where it is going to end. First of all, it was £200,000. and now another £150,000.

The hon. member is wrong. I must inform the House that an additional amount will be required as a result of the increased expenditure in connection with boring and preparing these farms.

How much?

I am sorry I cannot inform the hon. member what is the actual amount. This £150,000 is the same amount as was voted last year.

I understand that all these Angola Boers have not come over the border. I should also like to know what the position: is in regard to their cattle.

I cannot give the actual number of families, but I understood from the Administrator that there would be more families than was originally thought. As far as the cattle are concerned, they were not allowed to bring their cattle, and the mosey was paid out to them in South-West Africa because we did not want to take the risk of infection.

. The Minister has just told us that this is by no means the end. When we originally undertook to relieve these people, we thought there would be some limitation of the expense to which the Union was to be put. This matter was recently brought up in the South-West Parliament, when certain German members of that parliament objected very strongly to the policy of the Administrator, who, they stated, had gone behind their backs to this Government. Whether that is right or wrong I am not prepared to discuss at the moment. We are advancing these large sums to individuals who are residing in what is practically foreign territory. Suspicions have been aroused that we are not always going to have these mandatory powers, therefore I ask, is it in the interests of the Union to advance this money? We have no security, and I do not know how the Government is going to enforce repayment.

I understand that the bulk of this money has been expended, not for land settlement, but for the transporting of these people, and I hope the Minister will give us some details as to how this money has actually been spent. I understand that the question was put to the Administrator, who avoided the issue by saying that they could get all the money they needed from the Union Government. I hear that there has been scandalous waste in regard to this money, and reports have reached me not only of waste and extravagance, but even peculation. I am given to understand that no less than 57 lorries were purchased for this trek, and that the road is now littered with derelict lorries. I believe this entire sum has been spent on transport alone. I am told that the whole of the transport could have been done for a matter of £20.000, and that that would have left a considerable margin of profit. Instead of that it has cost £150,000, and not a single family has been settled on the land. The money has gone into this disastrous experiment of motor lorries, and I hear that the Administrator is now down here for the purpose of appealing for another £150,000. I do not say that is true, but I ask the Minister to inform us how this money has been spent. I think we are entitled to have a detailed account of the cost of transporting these people; how many lorries were purchased, the number of officials, and what it cost per family in transportation?I believe that not one single family has yet received a grant of land, and that up to now none of these people have been settled on the land. I understand that a still further amount of money has to be spent on transport. If these stories that are current are incorrect, I think they ought to be squashed by the Minister.

This is the first time I have heard of a scandalous state of affairs, and of waste and peculation. I hope the hon. member will formulate his charges more specifically. I regret that I am not in a position to refute what he has said. People on the spot dealt with the matter of transport arrangements. At first it was thought that it would be possible to transport these people by wagons and donkeys, but the plan of motor transport was arranged because of local conditions. I do not think the hon. member is entitled to say that his plan would have proved more economical. My information is that some of the farms have been prepared for the reception of these people, that a number of the farms are ready, and that some of these people have actually gone on to the farms. According to my information, all the money has not been spent on transport. The rest of these people can only go to the farms as the farms are made ready for them. It is altogether unavoidable that a further amount will be required, but the hon. member has no right to imply that if his method had been adopted, the transport could have been done cheaper. Owing to the nature of the country and the large distances between waterholes, I understand it would have been impossible to have transported these people by donkey wagons. If the hon. member had given me notice that he was going to raise the question, I would have endeavoured to obtain the information for him. We are not primarily interested in the details of the expenditure. As far as the Treasury is concerned, we have dealt with the amount in a globular sum, and we expect the South West Africa Administration to account to us for the expenditure.

I understand that the miniature Parliament at Windhoek has failed to extract any information as to this expenditure.

I have no information about this.

I think that when the Minister has an item of additional expenditure, he should be prepared with more information than he has given us. Am I correct in saying that the £150,000 is exhausted?

It is not exhausted.

What is the additional sum asked for?

I do not know.

Have we no control over the expenditure?

No.

Then I can only say it is all wrong. I am merely informing the Minister that there are a great many tales and rumours in circulation to the effect that there has been most scandalous extravagance and even worse in regard to the expenditure of this money in transport. It is not enough to say that we have handed the money offer to the South-West administration, and have finished with it. I have been up there myself, and, while I do not profess to know all about it, from what I know of it, the transport of 250 families by motor-lorries is bound to prove very expensive. In the first place, the motor lorries were sent without guides. I understand they lost their way, and some were ruined. The lorries went sent over country without roads, and there has been tremendous waste. I am told that with regard to the way in which these people are put into camp, and with regard to the so-called stores, there are also things going on which should be investigated. When the Minister tells us that he is likely to be called upon for further funds, I am somewhat frightened. The entire amount spent on transport alone is said to be £150,000, and, I believe the additional amount will also be spent on transport. There must be something wrong when it will cost something like £250,000 to transport 250 families. The bulk of these people are still congregated in a camp, and there are all sorts of difficulties with regard to supply. I believe that one Government shop has been erected, and that there is discontent at the way they are getting supplies. They are subsisting at their own expense. They have to buy at the Government store. We are going to spend in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million wholly on transport, and, after that, we have to put these people on the land. We are entitled to some more definite information from the Minister. What should have been done was to take these people to Mossamedes, put them on a ship and convey them to Walvis Bay and then to send them up-country by train. The thing has been badly bungled from start to finish, and the taxpayers are entitled to considerably more information.

I would like to have given the information, but I do not intend to take any responsibility for details. The policy of the Government has been to make an advance to the South-West Africa Administration—the Administration to spend the money as our agents.

Can you not call on the South-West Africa Administration to account for what it has done?

Through your officials.

The money was not spent through our officials. They can be called to account in the Protectorate Parliament. We are not expending the money.

They will ask for more money.

It will be for the Government to consider whether he shall give them more.

You are merely giving them the money.

The hon. member talks airily about putting these people on to a ship. They were consulted as to the best means of reaching South-West Africa. We are now asking the House to approve of the grant for the purpose of settling these people in the mandated territory. Although I would have liked to have given the information, I am not prepared to answer in detail for the expenditure of this money.

The Minister was unprepared to give the information; we are certainly unprepared to receive the information he has given us. It is a new departure altogether that money should be granted in a globular sum by the taxpayers for a purpose— perhaps we may be sympathetic—

Vote against it—test the feeling of the House.

Surely we have the right to grumble at the great expense which has been incurred.

It is wrong to hand over a globular sum without that money being properly accounted for. The Minister has told us that he is not interested in the details. There are rumours as to the money being improperly expended and getting into pockets for which it was never intended. Surely there are elementary precautions and there should be an audit.

That will be done in South-West Africa. We do not do it here.

The accounting officer will account to himself.

Oh no.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what are these people? Are they South African nationals, or whose nationals are they?

The majority are not. They originally came from the Union.

We are spending a very large sum of unaudited money on people who are not our own people.

They are our own people.

Yes, but they are not our nationals at all events. It is not absolutely certain we will retain this mandate for all time. We are expending large sums of money in various forms on the South West territory. I ask if any account has been kept, because later on we may not want to keep the mandate, and we shall want to know if there is any means of recovering the monies advanced. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The taxpayer will certainly have the idea that the money he has contributed for this purpose is not being expended properly unless it is subject to audit. I would like the Minister to allow this vote to stand over until he is in a position to give this information to the House. I move—

We ask that this vote stands over, not because we are hostile to the vote or because we have any objection whatever to the principle of making a grant for this purpose. There is something that appeals to the imagination of every South African in the idea of bringing these people back from Angola and putting them in a territory closely allied to the Union.

It would seem so.

I would ask the hon. member to be fair. It was an unfair remark of the Minister to suggest that we are against the principle because we want financial information that this money is being expended to the best advantage. We are not hostile. We English-speaking members on this side have always welcomed the idea. The German citizens in South-West Africa have stubbornly refused to have anything to do with the scheme. Their attitude has been one of undisguised hostility. The hon. member over there cannot point to the speech of a single member on this side which has ever done anything but welcome this scheme. I think it is a noble idea and one we should follow. But we want to know, and we are entitled to know, the details of how this money has been spent or is likely to be spent. Our votes are full of grants for various purposes, and in regard to any other purposes for which money is spent we get a full reply. In regard to this sum the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) who is an authority on that particular territory has already told the Minister what is going on. We are now told by the Minister that these moneys will not come before the Auditor-General, apart from coming before this House. Every other penny in these estimates will come before the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, and if there has been waste, extravagance or inefficiency that committee will investigate the matter and report upon it; but with regard to this amount we are asked to vote blindly and not knowing whether this is wise expenditure or not. I do suggest that the Minister should have had the information in his portfolio and come prepared to justify these estimates and the expenditure asked for. It is a perfectly reasonable request that this should stand over until he has given us the information. We must not take it from “people on the spot” that the money has been proporly expended. That is not the spirit in which Parliamentary Government is carried on. If this money has been spent in transport alone, it is a scandal which effects every hon. member, if what the hon. member (Col. Reitz) has just said is true. It is not to the advantage of the Angola boers or anyone else.

I have no objection to the vote standing over. The information I can get; but I must definitely repeat what I said, that this is a grant to South-West African territory to be administered not by any officials under this Government, and I am not prepared to vouch for the details. Parliament must accept or reject this grant for the broad purpose for which it is intended, and under those circumstances Parliament must be prepared to accept that the South-West African administration will be called to account in its own Parliament for any maladministration of this money. How can I take responsibility for this expenditure? The hon. member knows that the South-West African administration is not a government department controlled by this Government. We are making this out-and-out grant for a special purpose for these people in whom we have an interest. The hon. member said that no one was hostile to this. I differ from him. An hon. member said these people are not our nationals, and had to be corrected by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water), who said they were our nationals. That is not the spirit which should be displayed.

My object in mentioning that was to show how nobly we were acting in helping people who were not actually our nationals. The Minister is not justified in picking out a few words of a sentence and saying that this is a “spirit”of hostility towards these people. We desire to help them.

I am glad to hear that there is no uncertainty in the minds of members opposite, and I therefore ask them to assist me in voting this money. It is practically impossible for any Government department here to control such expenditure.

Will you make enquiries as to whether this money has been judiciously spent?

I am quite prepared to let the vote stand over. I have heard so much about waste, extravagance and peculation that had I known what was coming I would have made inquiries into the matter. But I was not prepared for this kind of discussion. I was only prepared to justify this grant on broad lines of policy. It has been suggested that a better method of transport might have been employed, and for this and other reasons I am prepared to allow the vote to stand over.

We very much appreciate the attitude of the Minister, but there is one point regarding which I shall be glad if he will go into, and that is the position of the South-West Administration in regard to this grant. The Minister has told us that Administration is responsible for the expenditure of this money, but I am told that when questions are raised there as to how this money has been spent, the reply of the Administrator is, “It is none of your business, it is Union money, and I am not responsible for the way in which it is spent.”

It is included in their Budget.

I shall be glad if the Minister will go into the matter and see who really is responsible.

I think the Minister has taken this in the wrong spirit. Every year when these grants are made members request and are given details of expenditure.

If a grant is made to an outside body, no Government department is called to account for any extravagance or waste in connection with the spending of the money. In the very nature of things, it is impossible in the case of an out-and-out grant to call the Government to account for any details of expenditure.

Information is asked for as to how the money is being spent. It is a reasonable request to make.

I think we all appreciate the Minister’s willingness to get the information which is desired. I think the House will bear in mind that we are to be met with a request for further funds, and surely if there are allegations of the previous grant having been squandered, it is only fair that we should have a statement from the Administrator, who is here, and who is a very able and efficient man. Among the statements that have reached me is one that the purchase of cattle to be supplied to the Angola settlers was intended to be made from the farmers only in South-West Africa, instead of which the officials in the Lands Department have been purchasing monthly from speculators, and in that way squandering the money. Another point is that extravagant transport has been used. In one trip alone a lorry is said to have used up tyres to the value of £120. That is a very expensive kind of transport, and it seems to me that the Minister should give us some information on the points I have mentioned. It seems that a very extravagant way has been adopted of conveying these people into the country.

How long is this vote to stand over? I would point out that the position of the South-West African Protectorate is very-precarious. Germany is demanding almost an immediate return of the mandate, and doing it in such forcible terms that it is difficult to resist the demand. Are the Ministers perhaps supporting that view as another gesture of friendship towards that favoured country. If they are quite satisfied that the South-West Protectorate will decline to join the Union, then the question arises as to whether we should give the money as a free grant. The protectorate may presently be in a position of very great wealth. We have had a welcome surprise in Namaqualand, and the South-West may become enormously wealthy, and this country is not so rich that it can afford to distribute its money to others outside without expecting repayment.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote G, “Land and Agricultural Bank,” £100,000,

On the motion of Col. Reitz it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.